# Hearing Examiner Proposes Code Clarifications to County Planning Committee The Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee convened for a brief but substantive session on July 22, 2025, to review three proposed changes to county code related to the Hearing Examiner's role and authority. What was scheduled as a 20-minute meeting stretched to 26 minutes as committee members engaged in thoughtful discussion about the proposals and whether they should be subject to public hearings. ## Meeting Overview Committee Chair Ben Elenbaas called the hybrid meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. in Council Chambers, with committee members Todd Donovan and Jon Scanlon present. Also attending were council members Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Kaylee Galloway, and Mark Stremler. The agenda focused entirely on three related agenda bills concerning the Hearing Examiner's operations, all presented by Hearing Examiner Rajeev Majumdar himself—a rare opportunity for direct dialogue between the examiner and his "bosses," as he noted with humor. ## Title 22 Hearing Examiner Process Clarifications The first item, AB 2025-535, proposed amendments to Whatcom County Code Title 22 to clarify roles and duties in the hearing examiner process. Majumdar explained that since taking office, he has been "very proactive in talking to the department and this body about rules that don't make sense" and laws that are hard to interpret. The proposed changes address three main issues that have never been implemented despite being codified. First, the code currently mandates the hearing examiner to give notices to neighboring cities and other agencies—something that "just not something that's inside the expertise of the office of the hearing examiner," Majumdar explained. "If someone were required to do that by law, it would best be the planning department itself, which is the part of the interacts interagency with all those bodies." A second problematic provision concerns cost allocation. Under current code interpretation, if a third party appeals a departmental decision, "the cost burden, if you interpret the code, as it is this way, directly would fall on the applicant rather than the party challenging the department's decision. And that just doesn't seem correct to me," Majumdar said. The third change adds language addressing emergency situations that might delay hearing examiner decisions, providing documentation requirements for time adjustments due to illness or other emergencies—solving problems "before they happen," as Majumdar put it. Committee member Jon Scanlon asked whether these changes align with other counties where Majumdar serves. The hearing examiner, who also works for Island County, Skagit County, and the cities of Lynden and Ferndale, explained that while each jurisdiction has different substantive policies, "the most important thing to me is not that the laws are the same, but that they are clearly interpretable." ## Authority and Powers Clarification The second proposal, AB 2025-536, addresses an oddity in the county code: an empty section titled "Hearing examiner - Duties and powers" that was reserved but never filled in. "I saw a hole, and I said we need to fill the hole," Majumdar explained. The most significant addition clarifies that the hearing examiner has authority to "impose, modify or remove conditions" when granting, denying, or remanding decisions. This language addresses case law suggesting that unless councils explicitly grant such authority, hearing examiner decisions could be vulnerable on appeal. The specific suggestion arose from a Whatcom County case that Majumdar ruled on as pro tem hearing examiner. While the decision was upheld through Superior Court and Division I appellate court, "as I read the appellate opinion, I saw a potential weakness," leading to this clarification. Council member Todd Donovan noted the interesting situation where duties and responsibilities weren't specifically addressed in code, contrasting with Title 20's principle that "if it's not specifically addressed in code, it's not allowed." Majumdar agreed that getting "away from vagueness whenever possible" is one of his guiding principles. ## Business Rules Update and Public Hearing Debate The final item, AB 2025-539, would approve updated business rules for the Hearing Examiner that Majumdar has promulgated but which require council approval to take effect. "They're very common sense. I don't think there's anything controversial in here," he said, noting that similar rules have already been implemented in Island County. However, the committee's most significant discussion centered not on the substance of the proposals but on process. Scanlon expressed desire for public hearings on all three items: "It's not because I don't trust you. It's because I've never been in front of you. I'm not an expert. I would like to give other folks an opportunity who have been in front of you to be able to give us input on this." Kimberly Thulin from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office clarified that the planning department had determined these were technical, procedural amendments not requiring public hearings. The changes also don't have Growth Management Act implications and wouldn't need Planning Commission review. Despite the technical nature, Elenbaas supported public hearings, thanking Majumdar for bringing forward needed fixes: "this is exactly what we asked you to do when we appointed you. And so I appreciate the fact that you've followed through when you see something that's not right that we need to fix, you bring it to us." ## Committee Recommendations The committee ultimately recommended holding substitute resolution AB 2025-539 until September 9th for a public hearing, after Majumdar noted his availability on that date versus his absence on the originally scheduled August 6th council meeting. While the first two items were only discussed (as they were scheduled for introduction at the evening council meeting), the committee's clear intent was to request public hearings for all three proposals, giving practitioners, attorneys, and interested members of the public an opportunity to weigh in on changes that, while technical, affect how land use decisions are made and appealed in Whatcom County. ## Closing & What's Ahead The meeting concluded at 1:28 p.m. with no additional business. The committee's recommendation for September 9th public hearings reflects a balance between recognizing the reasonable, technical nature of the proposed changes and ensuring adequate public input on modifications to the hearing examiner process. Majumdar expressed appreciation for the opportunity to present directly to council members, and all parties seemed satisfied with the plan to provide public review of the proposals despite their procedural nature. The hearing examiner's proactive approach to identifying and fixing code inconsistencies appears to align well with the council's expectations for the position.