### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee met on July 22, 2025, with Chair Ben Elenbaas presiding over a focused 26-minute discussion. The meeting centered on three code amendments proposed by Hearing Examiner Rajeev Majumdar to clarify roles, duties, and authority in the hearing examiner process. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** A quasi-judicial official who conducts public hearings on land use applications and appeals, making decisions based on evidence and legal standards rather than policy preferences. **Title 22:** The section of Whatcom County Code that governs land use and development regulations, including procedures for hearings and appeals. **Growth Management Act (GMA):** State law requiring comprehensive planning and development regulations, with specific procedures for code amendments that may affect land use policy. **Subpoena Power:** Legal authority to compel witnesses to appear or produce documents, which the hearing examiner has but lacks enforcement mechanisms if ignored. **Intervenors:** Third parties who join hearing examiner proceedings, often neighbors or community members affected by a proposed development. **Remand:** The power to send a decision back to the original decision-maker (typically the planning department) with specific instructions for reconsideration. **Public Hearing Requirement:** Formal process allowing public comment on proposed ordinances, with specific legal requirements depending on the type of code amendment. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Ben Elenbaas | Planning and Development Committee Chair | | Todd Donovan | Committee Member | | Jon Scanlon | Committee Member | | Rajeev Majumdar | Whatcom County Hearing Examiner | | Kimberly Thulin | Prosecuting Attorney's Office | | Cathy Halka | Clerk of the Council | ### Background Context These proposed code changes emerged from Hearing Examiner Majumdar's systematic review of county regulations since taking office. His goal is to eliminate vague language and clarify procedures that have evolved through practice but lack explicit legal foundation. The changes address practical problems: mandates that have never been carried out, unclear cost responsibilities in appeals, and missing enforcement mechanisms. Majumdar serves multiple jurisdictions and has successfully implemented similar rules elsewhere, providing a tested framework for Whatcom County. The timing reflects his proactive approach to solving problems before they create legal complications or unfair outcomes for applicants and appellants. ### What Happened — The Short Version Hearing Examiner Majumdar presented three technical code amendments to clarify his office's roles and procedures. The first (AB2025-535) removes outdated mandates and clarifies that appellants, not applicants, should bear costs for third-party appeals. The second (AB2025-536) fills an empty "duties and powers" section in the code and explicitly grants authority to impose, modify, or remove conditions on decisions. The third (AB2025-539) updates hearing examiner business rules with clarifying changes. While attorneys determined no public hearing was required, Committee Member Scanlon advocated for public input on all three items. The committee agreed to recommend holding the resolution until September 9th for a public hearing, when Majumdar will be available to answer questions. ### What to Watch Next • Council introduction of the two ordinances (AB2025-535 and AB2025-536) at the evening meeting • Motion to schedule public hearings for all three items • Public hearing scheduled for September 9th to allow community input on the hearing examiner business rules • Future code amendments regarding enforcement of subpoena power, expected by early 2026 ---

**Q:** Who serves as Whatcom County's Hearing Examiner? **A:** Rajeev Majumdar, who also serves Island County, Skagit County, and the cities of Lynden and Ferndale. **Q:** What are the three agenda bill numbers discussed at this meeting? **A:** AB2025-535 (Title 22 amendments), AB2025-536 (Section 2.11 amendments), and AB2025-539 (business rules resolution). **Q:** Why does AB2025-535 change who pays costs in third-party appeals? **A:** Current code interpretation makes applicants pay for appeals brought by neighbors or other third parties, which seems unfair when the applicant isn't the one challenging the department's decision. **Q:** What was unusual about the "Hearing Examiner - Duties and Powers" section in county code? **A:** It existed as a reserved title but was completely empty, with no actual content defining the hearing examiner's authority. **Q:** Which jurisdictions has Hearing Examiner Majumdar implemented similar rules in? **A:** Island County and all six other jurisdictions he serves have adopted 99.9% similar rules, with only slight variations based on local laws. **Q:** What case law issue prompted the explicit authority language in AB2025-536? **A:** Appellate court decisions suggest hearing examiners need explicit authority from councils to modify conditions or grant partial approvals, not just say yes or no. **Q:** Who determined these code changes don't require public hearings? **A:** Attorney Kooistra from the Planning Department, because they are technical and procedural amendments rather than substantive policy changes. **Q:** Why doesn't the hearing examiner give notices to neighboring cities? **A:** That's outside the hearing examiner's expertise - the planning department handles interagency coordination and has the relationships with other jurisdictions. **Q:** What happens if someone ignores a hearing examiner subpoena under current code? **A:** Nothing is specified, which creates a potential problem when government has power but no enforcement mechanism. **Q:** When was the last major update to hearing examiner rules before 2024? **A:** 1986, when then-Hearing Examiner Charles Snyder put the original rules in place. **Q:** What vote did the committee take on AB2025-539? **A:** Unanimous 3-0 vote to recommend holding the substitute resolution until September 9th for a public hearing. **Q:** Why did Council Member Scanlon want public hearings? **A:** To allow input from people who have appeared before the hearing examiner, in case there are unintended consequences the committee missed. **Q:** How long did this committee meeting last? **A:** 26 minutes and 42 seconds, running about one minute over the scheduled time. **Q:** What's the difference between the original and substitute resolution for AB2025-539? **A:** No substantive changes to the materials, just corrections to syntax and semicolon protocol in the resolution language. **Q:** When will Hearing Examiner Majumdar be available for the public hearing? **A:** September 9th - he won't be available August 6th but confirmed availability for the later date. **Q:** What did Chair Elenbaas thank the hearing examiner for? **A:** Following through on what the council asked when they appointed him - identifying problems in the code and bringing solutions forward. **Q:** How many other council members were present besides the three committee members? **A:** Four: Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Kaylee Galloway, and Mark Stremler attended as observers. **Q:** What did the hearing examiner say about the substance of the business rules? **A:** They're "very common sense" with nothing controversial that would confuse or surprise attorneys or department participants. **Q:** Does the hearing examiner have a position on whether public hearings should be held? **A:** No position - he's happy to come talk to the public and doesn't see anything as time-sensitive. **Q:** What's the scheduled adjournment time for this committee? **A:** 1:20 p.m., though they ran slightly over, adjourning at 1:28 p.m. ---