## Meeting Overview On October 9, 2025, the Bellingham Planning Commission convened at 6:00 PM in City Council Chambers for a public hearing on updates to the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance. This was no routine meeting—the commission was deliberating on sweeping changes required by state law that would fundamentally alter how ADUs can be built in Bellingham. Five commissioners were present: Chair Mike Estes, Dan Bloemker, Jed Ballew, Lisa Marx, and Rose Lathrop. Jerry Richmond and Russ Whidbee were absent. The meeting centered on a critical deadline: Washington State's House Bill 1337, along with companion bills HB 1110 and HB 1293, must be fully implemented by December 31, 2025, or the state will preempt local regulations entirely. This was Bellingham's final opportunity to craft its own approach to ADU reform while meeting state mandates for dramatically expanding housing options. What made this meeting particularly significant was its coordination with the city's broader housing transformation. The ADU changes weren't happening in isolation—they were being harmonized with interim middle housing regulations that allow up to four units per lot (or six with affordability components), creating what staff described as nearly infinite development options that have shifted the conversation from "what can you build?" to "what can't you build?" ## The State Housing Mandate Context Blake Wagner, representing Planning and Community Development, opened the substantive discussion by placing the ADU updates within Washington's historic housing push. "In the 2023 state legislative session, there were several housing bills that came through that session that had particular timelines associated with them," he explained. House Bill 1337 was just one piece of a comprehensive state strategy to address Washington's housing crisis by forcing local governments to remove barriers to alternative housing forms. The urgency was palpable. Originally, cities had six months after comprehensive plan adoption to complete these regulations. "Then in this year's legislative session, they took that six months away," Wagner noted. "So that's why we're moving it forward to be in front of you this evening." The state had effectively accelerated the timeline, leaving cities scrambling to meet year-end deadlines. Chris Koch, the city planner presenting the ordinance, emphasized the coordination challenge: "All three of these need to be implemented by the end of the year. And so trying to coordinate all of this." The city was simultaneously working on ADU updates (HB 1337), middle housing rules (HB 1110), and streamlined design review (HB 1293)—three interconnected but complex regulatory frameworks that had to align perfectly. ## The ADU Success Story Before diving into the proposed changes, Koch presented a remarkable graph showing ADU permit activity over time that told the story of Bellingham's housing evolution. "This is a really great graph put together by Kate Newell," Koch said, displaying data that showed dramatic spikes correlating with each regulatory change. The numbers were striking. After Bellingham first allowed ADUs in 1995, there was virtually no uptake. In 2009, the city allowed detached ADUs, "but that was at the time of the dot-com crash," Koch noted. Real movement didn't begin until 2018 when detached ADUs were permitted in single-family zones for the first time. "That resulted in a definitely a very strong uptake," Koch said. But the most dramatic change came in 2023 when the city proactively implemented many HB 1337 requirements. "You can see the result of that where it went from averaging in the 40s, mid-40s for ADU permits to well over 100," Koch explained. The city had more than doubled its ADU production by getting ahead of state mandates. This success story provided crucial context for the evening's deliberations. The commissioners weren't debating theoretical policy—they were fine-tuning regulations that had already proven effective at spurring housing production. ## The Complexity Challenge As the presentation progressed, it became clear that the commissioners were grappling with something much more complex than simple code updates. The proposed changes touched virtually every aspect of ADU development: ownership requirements, size limits, setbacks, design standards, utility connections, parking requirements, and permitting processes. Commissioner Rose Lathrop quickly identified a central tension: "FAR is like a mystery to most people, right? And it has to be explained every time. And so it feels like we're adding this wonky element when we can achieve the same thing using terminology that I think more people understand." Floor Area Ratio (FAR) had emerged as a key tool for managing development intensity, but Lathrop's concern reflected a broader challenge. How could the city create regulations that were both technically sound and accessible to ordinary property owners who might want to build an ADU? Kurt Nabbefeld from staff attempted to explain: "FAR really ensures that you've got scalable type of development for different lots." The tool allowed building size to scale proportionally with lot size, preventing oversized development on small lots while not unnecessarily constraining development on larger properties. But Commissioner Dan Bloemker pushed back more forcefully: "FAR in general is just a bad metric. Like I would very much like to see it removed from all of city code because we have setbacks, we have open space requirements, we've got height limits. That should be your building window within that three-dimensional space." He argued that FAR was "originally developed just to prevent building that could possibly be lower income accessible." This exchange revealed a philosophical divide about how to regulate development. Should the city rely on complex technical tools like FAR that required expertise to understand, or simpler standards that ordinary citizens could navigate? The question had profound implications for housing accessibility and development costs. ## The Owner Occupancy Debate One of the most significant proposed changes was eliminating owner occupancy requirements. Under existing rules, property owners in single-family zones had to live on site if they had an ADU. HB 1337 prohibited such requirements, forcing the city to abandon what had been seen as a tool for maintaining neighborhood character. Surprisingly, this major change generated little discussion. The commissioners seemed to accept that state preemption left no choice in the matter. As Koch explained, "This change is consistent with HB 1337 to eliminate owner occupancy requirements as summarized in the WHEREAS statements at the beginning of this ordinance." The quiet acceptance reflected the broader reality facing local governments: state housing mandates were non-negotiable. Cities could shape implementation details, but the fundamental requirements were set in Olympia. ## The Setback Dilemma The most contentious technical discussion centered on setback requirements for detached ADUs. Current rules required five-foot side and rear yard setbacks, but allowed reduction to zero with neighboring property owner consent. The question was whether to eliminate that consent requirement entirely. Koch framed the issue: "Currently for just detached accessory buildings, not ADUs, but just an accessory building such as a garage shop, garden shed, such, you can build one up to the property line in the rear 32 feet of the property. And you do not need permission from the neighbor." The question was whether ADUs should have the same flexibility. Blake Wagner acknowledged staff division: "We were divided, staff was divided when it came to this... There were some that were adamant efficiency of land. Like if you know that wasted five feet is wasted space. Others were like well how do you maintain your property? Like all of a sudden your wall is falling down if you can't access it and you can't get to it." The debate revealed practical construction realities. As Commissioner Jed Ballew observed, "I think though with some of that it's going to be like you're maybe going to have to talk to the neighbor anyway if you're building right up against the property line because you're going to have to have access to that unless you're doing some kind of exotic method of construction." But Lathrop worried about giving neighbors veto power: "Giving that property owner veto rights is essentially the way I interpret this." She preferred clear, objective standards rather than subjective approval processes that could become barriers to housing. After extensive discussion, the commissioners voted 5-0 to eliminate the five-foot setback requirement in the rear 32 feet of properties, allowing zero lot line development consistent with accessory building rules. ## The Utilities Controversy Perhaps the most heated debate centered on removing the utilities section from the ADU code. Staff proposed eliminating specific utility-sharing provisions, arguing they were redundant with other code sections and couldn't address the complexity of new housing configurations. But Lathrop pushed back forcefully: "Having those shared resources is one of those big sort of bonuses of doing an ADU versus middle housing." She had direct experience: "I have got very current real life examples of how we're sharing utilities and it's reducing our costs for construction for affordable housing." Lathrop described a recent project where shared utilities were initially rejected: "The inspector came out and was like, 'No, we need two sewer connections. They can't be shared.' And you know, and then we come back and we said, 'Well, no, we've talked to public works because of this code. We're allowed to do this thing.'" The exchange highlighted broader tensions between regulatory simplification and cost reduction. Staff wanted cleaner code that eliminated redundancy and addressed new complexities. But commissioners worried about losing specific provisions that had proven valuable for affordable housing development. Koch acknowledged the challenge: "With all this work being coordinated at the end of the year, the intent with the middle housing is, you know, you're allowed up to four units on a lot or six if at least two are affordable. That's including duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhouse... So it's introducing all these additional scenarios again that... cannot fit into the ADU ordinance just for ADUs because there are so many housing types now that ADUs can be combined with." After considerable back-and-forth, the commissioners voted 5-0 to direct staff to ensure the code allows shared utility services for ADUs, preserving this cost-reduction tool. ## The Parking Predicament The final major debate addressed parking requirements. The proposed ordinance retained some parking requirements for ADUs in areas without street parking or transit access. But Bloemker argued this conflicted with the city's interim parking reforms that had eliminated minimum parking citywide. "The intent by that interim ordinance to remove parking requirements citywide still applies here very directly," Bloemker said. "Let the market decide instead of letting the code dictate." His argument reflected a broader philosophy about housing regulation: trust property owners to make appropriate decisions rather than mandating specific outcomes. "If somebody in that neighborhood is building an ADU and there's no parking anywhere, they're gonna build it," he reasoned. The commissioners voted 5-0 to eliminate minimum parking requirements for ADUs while retaining standards for parking that is voluntarily provided. ## The Bigger Picture Throughout the evening, commissioners grappled with the reality that they were working within increasingly constrained parameters. State mandates had eliminated much local discretion, forcing cities to choose between accepting state-defined standards or risking complete preemption. As Blake Wagner noted, the situation had fundamentally changed how staff interacted with developers: "It's almost the question that consultants and people are asking, even us at the counter, when they come in and say, you know, when a person says, 'What can I do with my lot?' It's more like, 'What can't you do with your lot now?'" This transformation was both exhilarating and overwhelming. Wagner described it as "disheartening" that individual property owners might be intimidated by the vast range of options now available. "Unless they know exactly what they want to do, their options are so wide and so varied now, which is a great thing from a supply perspective and from our community perspective, but it is very overwhelming." ## Final Approval and Looking Forward After nearly two and a half hours of detailed technical discussion, the commissioners voted unanimously to recommend the amended ordinance to the City Council. But the meeting concluded with acknowledgment that this was just one step in an ongoing transformation. Koch confirmed that the ordinance would likely need further revision as the city works through middle housing and design review standards in 2026. "It really gets back to why we're holding... we want to make sure that we do third and final reading on all of the three ordinances that are coming up so that we know that everything lines up," he explained. The evening had revealed the complex reality of implementing state housing mandates. While the commissioners successfully navigated technical details and preserved key local priorities, they were clearly operating within a new framework where local control had been significantly constrained by state policy. As Chair Estes adjourned the meeting just after 8 PM, Bellingham had taken another significant step toward meeting its year-end deadline for housing reform. But the larger questions—about development complexity, regulatory accessibility, and the balance between local control and state mandates—remained very much unresolved. The city's housing transformation was accelerating, with all the opportunities and challenges that transformation entailed.

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 9, 2025, to review proposed updates to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance. The amendments are required to bring Bellingham into full compliance with Washington State House Bill 1337, which mandates changes to ADU regulations by December 31, 2025. The commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval with several amendments. ### Key Terms and Concepts **ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit):** A second residential unit on the same property as a primary home, either attached to or separate from the main house. **House Bill 1337:** 2023 Washington State legislation requiring cities to ease barriers to ADU construction by eliminating certain restrictions like owner occupancy requirements and overly restrictive design standards. **Floor Area Ratio (FAR):** A zoning tool that limits building size based on lot size, ensuring development scales appropriately with the property rather than using fixed square footage limits. **Middle Housing (HB 1110):** State legislation allowing up to 4-6 housing units per lot, which ADUs now count toward under the updated regulations. **Type I Review Process:** An administrative approval process that doesn't require public notice, making ADU permits faster and less expensive to obtain. **Principal Unit:** The main dwelling on a property (single-family home, duplex, triplex, etc.) that an ADU is associated with. **Detached ADU (D-ADU):** An ADU in a separate building from the primary residence, such as a converted garage or purpose-built structure. **Minor Modifications:** Small adjustments to development standards that can be approved administratively without requiring a full variance process. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Mike Estes | Planning Commission Chair | | Dan Bloemker | Planning Commissioner | | Rose Lathrop | Planning Commissioner | | Jed Ballew | Planning Commissioner | | Lisa Marx | Planning Commissioner | | Chris Koch | City Planner II, Staff Presenter | | Blake Baldwin | Planning and Community Development Staff | | Kurt Nabbefeld | Development Services Manager | ### Background Context Washington State passed House Bill 1337 in 2023 to address the housing affordability crisis by removing barriers to ADU construction. Bellingham had previously adopted many of these changes in 2023 but retained some restrictions like owner occupancy requirements. The state now requires full compliance by year-end 2025, or state law will supersede local regulations. ADU permits in Bellingham have dramatically increased from the mid-40s annually to over 100 following previous code changes, demonstrating significant pent-up demand. The city is coordinating these ADU updates with other state-mandated housing reforms, including middle housing allowances and design review streamlining. ### What Happened — The Short Version Staff presented proposed ADU code updates to comply with state law, including eliminating owner occupancy requirements and allowing ADUs to count toward density limits. The commission discussed three main issues: whether to eliminate setback requirements for ADUs built close to property lines, whether to retain provisions for shared utilities, and whether to remove parking requirements entirely. They voted to eliminate the 5-foot setback requirement in rear yards, ensure shared utilities remain allowed, and remove minimum parking requirements for ADUs while keeping design standards for optional parking. ### What to Watch Next • City Council public hearing scheduled for October 20, 2025 • Final adoption expected before December 31, 2025 state deadline • Middle housing and design review ordinances coming to Planning Commission in 2026 • Potential residential zoning updates following comprehensive plan adoption ---

**Q:** What is the state deadline for Bellingham to update its ADU regulations? **A:** December 31, 2025. After this date, state law will supersede any conflicting local regulations. **Q:** How many ADU permits does Bellingham currently issue annually? **A:** Over 100 per year, up from the mid-40s before recent code changes, showing dramatic growth in demand. **Q:** What happens if ADUs are built less than 5 feet from a property line under current code? **A:** Currently requires a joint agreement with the neighboring property owner, but the commission voted to eliminate this requirement in rear yards. **Q:** What is the maximum size allowed for an ADU under state law? **A:** 1,000 square feet minimum must be allowed; cities cannot set lower size limits than this. **Q:** How many ADUs are allowed per lot under the new regulations? **A:** Up to two ADUs per lot, which can be any combination of attached or detached units. **Q:** What is Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and why is it used instead of square footage limits? **A:** FAR scales building size to lot size, ensuring appropriate development regardless of property size, unlike fixed square footage limits. **Q:** What review process will ADUs use under the updated code? **A:** Type I administrative process, the same streamlined approach used for 1-4 unit infill housing projects. **Q:** Can ADUs share utilities with the primary residence? **A:** Yes, the commission voted to ensure shared utility services remain explicitly allowed in the code. **Q:** Are parking spaces required for new ADUs? **A:** No, the commission voted to eliminate minimum parking requirements, though optional parking standards remain. **Q:** What is the difference between attached and detached ADUs? **A:** Attached ADUs share a roof and wall with the main house; detached ADUs are in separate buildings. **Q:** Can ADUs be sold separately from the main house? **A:** Yes, through condominium conversion or, in some cases, lot subdivision with affordability restrictions. **Q:** What other state housing laws is Bellingham implementing alongside ADU updates? **A:** House Bill 1110 (middle housing) and House Bill 1293 (design review streamlining), all due by year-end 2025. **Q:** Who has the authority to approve ADU applications? **A:** The Planning Director through administrative review, not requiring Planning Commission or City Council approval. **Q:** What happens to existing illegal ADUs under the updated code? **A:** Property owners can apply to legalize units built before 1995, but must meet current safety and building standards. **Q:** When is the next step for these ADU updates? **A:** City Council public hearing on October 20, 2025, with adoption expected before the state deadline. ---