Planning and Development Committee

The Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee met for a packed 55-minute session to review two significant ordinances heading to full Council for introduction. The primary focus was on 11 proposed code amendments characterized as "code scrub" changes, though several committee members pushed back on that characterization, calling some amendments "pretty substantive." A spirited debate emerged over well placement in cluster subdivisions, with Committee Chair Ben Elenbaas proposing three alternative language options to better preserve agricultural land. The second major item addressed state-mandated changes to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and co-living housing standards, with a December 31, 2025 deadline looming for compliance. The session revealed tensions between practical implementation and policy goals, particularly around agricultural preservation and housing flexibility. Council Member Elenbaas drew on personal experience with cluster subdivisions to challenge staff assumptions about well placement, while Council Member Donovan questioned whether the proposed changes truly qualified as routine "code scrub" items. Staff acknowledged needing additional consultation with Environmental Health on several amendments before final Council consideration. The meeting demonstrated the committee's growing assertiveness in scrutinizing staff recommendations, with multiple members requesting additional analysis and expressing willingness to propose alternative language. Both ordinances are scheduled for introduction at the evening Council meeting, though staff indicated they may need to prepare substitute versions to incorporate committee feedback.

Both agenda items were discussed only, with no formal votes taken. AB 2025-809 (code amendments) and AB 2025-811 (ADU/co-living standards) are scheduled for introduction at the evening Council meeting. **AB 2025-809 - Code Amendments Package:** - Staff recommendation: Approve all 11 amendments as proposed - Committee action: Extended discussion, potential substitute ordinance - Key concerns: Amendment #3 (well placement), Amendment #6 (resort commercial density) - Outcome: Chair Elenbaas to provide three alternative language options for Amendment #3 **AB 2025-811 - State-Mandated ADU/Co-living Standards:** - Staff recommendation: Implement minimum state requirements for UGAs only - Committee discussion: Some interest in Planning Commission's broader recommendations - Deadline pressure: Must comply by December 31, 2025, or state standards automatically apply - Outcome: Introduction as proposed, with potential amendments during regular process

**Council Member Donovan, on code categorization:** "I think we're getting kind of liberal with what we're calling code scrub as time has gone. There's some pretty substantive changes in here." **Council Member Elenbaas, on agricultural preservation:** "It seems like you would preserve ag ground better by allowing the wells to be on the largest track possible. So, the setbacks on the septic systems don't interfere." **Council Member Stremler, on regulatory fairness:** "Well, I just think just replying to a homeowner by saying, well, this is just what the code is, like that doesn't answer their question or what they want to accomplish on their property." **Maddie Schacht (PDS), on state mandate urgency:** "We are required to address by December 31st of this year, or else the state requirements will go into effect and supersede our current standards." **Council Member Galloway, on co-living restrictions:** "At least here in Bellingham, these co-living laws have really been kind of a predatory discriminatory policy that's really prevented young people." **Mark Personius (PDS Director), on co-living housing:** "Council, think of these as dormitories, think of these as SROs, single room occupancies. You know, these are high density things, they need to be in urban growth areas."

# Planning and Development Committee Grapples with Code Changes — Full Meeting Narrative **November 18, 2025 | Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee** --- ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee convened at 11:06 a.m. on November 18, 2025, in a hybrid meeting that would stretch until noon with substantive debate over two major code amendment packages. Committee Chair Ben Elenbaas presided over the meeting with council members Todd Donovan and Jon Scanlon present in chambers, while Tyler Byrd, Kaylee Galloway, and Mark Stremler participated remotely. What began as routine discussion of code amendments evolved into pointed questions about the scope of "code scrub" changes, environmental health implications, and agricultural preservation. The session highlighted ongoing tensions between streamlining regulations and ensuring proper oversight, particularly around water wells, childcare facilities, and housing density requirements. Both agenda items were scheduled for introduction at the evening council meeting, creating urgency around resolving technical concerns and potential amendments before the formal legislative process began. ## The Annual Code Amendments Package Lucas Clark from Planning and Development Services (PDS) presented AB 2025-809, describing eleven amendments that staff characterized as routine code maintenance. However, Council Member Donovan immediately challenged this framing: "I think we're getting kind of liberal with what we're calling code scrub as time has gone. There's some pretty substantive changes in here." The amendments ranged from technical corrections to policy changes that would affect water resource protections, childcare facilities, and agricultural preservation. Clark acknowledged the mix, explaining that some items were staff-initiated corrections while others emerged from applicant requests or interdepartmental communications. ### The Wade King Elementary School Exception Amendment number one drew particular scrutiny for exempting public schools from impervious surface limits within the Water Resource Overlay District. Currently, only Wade King Elementary School sits within this district, but the amendment would apply to any public school in the future. "I want to help the school district out, but I was kind of like, would another property owner be able to come along and say, oh, the school district got this exemption. I want to get a similar exemption?" Donovan asked, voicing concerns about potential equal protection issues. Amy Keenan from PDS explained that the school district would still be required to meet all stormwater requirements, just like private landowners. The exemption only removed the blanket impervious surface percentage limit, not the obligation to manage stormwater runoff through proper infrastructure. Council Member Stremler pressed further on the equity implications: "There's a neighbor right next door who wants to extend his parking lot a bit and he's told no... how are you gonna justify to that homeowner telling that person you can't do it, but the school can?" Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci responded that different land uses have different regulatory frameworks throughout the code: "Sometimes as policy makers, you're asked to make different allowances for different types of uses. In this case, it is a school, they have different operational needs, they're serving a different purpose than a homeowner." ### Childcare Facility Expansion Amendment number two updated childcare facility standards to comply with new state regulations allowing up to 16 children in home-based facilities, up from the current 12. This change originated from an email exchange involving Opportunity Council staff and had been under consideration for eight months. Council Member Scanlon saw broader potential: "I also recall earlier this year, the Child and Family Wellbeing Task Force sent in recommendations regarding the comp plan. So I'm wondering if there's anything in there that we might be able to just build in now." Clark indicated that Sarah Simpson at the health department hadn't yet had a chance to review those recommendations, but Scanlon pressed for coordination: "If we are opening this up here, we have county goals to expand childcare access to our county, is there anything else we could potentially bring in at this time if we're opening up this section of code?" ### The Agricultural Wells Controversy Amendment number three became the most contentious item, ostensibly clarifying code language around wells serving cluster subdivisions within the Agricultural Protection Overlay (APO). The existing code requires infrastructure for cluster lots to be located on the cluster lots themselves, not on the agricultural reserve tract. But Committee Chair Elenbaas, who owns property affected by this type of subdivision, challenged the staff interpretation based on his direct experience: "Well, that's not true because I am proof that you've done it the way I'm speaking of and not on a small scale... there's three wells that serve six houses on the reserve tract that I own and then my well that serves my house." Elenbaas described his 43-acre reserve tract with four wells total—one serving his house and barn, and three others serving six cluster houses through easements. This configuration, he argued, allowed the reserve tract to remain larger and more functional for farming compared to requiring each cluster lot to accommodate its own well and septic setbacks. "It seems like you would preserve ag ground better by allowing the wells to be on the largest track possible. So the setbacks on the septic systems don't interfere," Elenbaas explained. "It seems like this is less helpful to preserving the reserve track, like its ability to be farmed because now you can make the lot smaller that the houses are gonna be on." Keenan insisted that the amendment merely clarified existing practice without changing implementation, but Elenbaas's firsthand knowledge contradicted this assertion. The exchange highlighted a fundamental disconnect between staff's understanding of current regulations and actual approved subdivisions on the ground. ### Resort Commercial Density Requirements Amendment number six updated resort commercial density requirements, replacing references to nonexistent health department standards with floor area ratios used elsewhere in the code. Keenan explained that current code referenced health department dwelling unit equivalents for hotels and motels, "but that health department does not have a dwelling unit equivalent." Council Member Scanlon had raised concerns the night before the meeting about coordination between PDS and environmental health staff on this change. "There were some questions that came up there. So I'd like to see that conversation happen before this comes back to council for approval," Scanlon said. This pattern of incomplete interdepartmental coordination emerged as a theme throughout the discussion, with amendments affecting multiple departments but limited evidence of comprehensive review. ## State-Mandated Housing Changes AB 2025-811 addressed state preemptive laws requiring local governments to update their accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and co-living housing standards by December 31, 2025, or face automatic implementation of state regulations. Maddie Schacht, a new senior planner stepping into Cliff Strong's former position, presented the relatively straightforward compliance package. "Really it only affects urban growth areas. So we're not looking at rural areas whatsoever. We're just focussing on ADUs and co-living housing and urban growth areas." The state requirements mandate allowing up to two ADUs per residential lot in urban growth areas under certain circumstances, and permitting co-living housing (essentially dormitories or single-room occupancies with shared kitchens) on lots that allow six or more multifamily units. ### Planning Commission Pushback The Planning Commission had recommended broader application of these standards, but staff opposed those suggestions. For co-living housing, the commission wanted to extend permissions to rural commercial zones and other areas beyond urban growth boundaries. "Commerce's recommendation was just allowing it in urban growth areas with a URM six or more rather than everywhere," Clark explained. Staff stuck with the state guidance limiting these high-density housing types to urban areas. On ADUs, the commission wanted to eliminate the requirement that second ADUs connect to public sewer systems, allowing them to rely on septic systems instead. Staff opposed this change based on long-term infrastructure planning. "In urban growth areas, as you know, they are going to be eventually incorporated into cities and you want to retain as much area as possible so that when they are incorporated and the zoning changes, you're able to get more density in there," Schacht explained. "By having the requirement to be hooked up to public sewer service, we're going to prevent a whole bunch of septic systems from being installed that take up quite a bit of room and could potentially prevent more dense development in the future." ### Council Member Concerns Council Member Galloway indicated support for the Planning Commission's more expansive approach, particularly on co-living housing: "At least here in Bellingham, these co-living laws have really been kind of a predatory discriminatory policy that's really prevented young people... three, four young people have to go in to buy a house together because they can't afford to buy a home on their own." She questioned whether infrastructure requirements for ADUs might create barriers to affordable housing: "Are we just putting up a barrier to build more housing units, intergenerational housing, low-income housing by doing this?" Mark Personius, PDS director, explained the cautious approach: "This is strictly enabling legislation that applies only to urban growth areas. The law on ADUs in rural areas is a little more unsettled. And we are working through WSAC and through the County and Regional Planning Directors Association to lobby the legislature for clarifying language on allowance of ADUs in rural areas." ## The Elenbaas Amendment Battle As discussion wound down, Committee Chair Elenbaas temporarily handed the gavel to Scanlon to focus on drafting language for amendment number three. This procedural move reflected the urgency he felt about correcting what he saw as a problematic interpretation of cluster subdivision rules. When he resumed the chair, Elenbaas presented three options for amending the wells provision. All three versions shared the same goal: allowing wells on reserve tracts when doing so would increase the size or agricultural functionality of those tracts. His preferred option was the most concise: "Wells serving clustered residential lots shall not be located on the reserve tract unless the placement of such wells increases the total acreage of the reserve tract or improves the configuration of the reserve tract for agricultural use." Donovan asked for clarification on the mechanics: "How would putting a well on it increase the total acreage?" Elenbaas explained the subdivision math: "If you could shrink the size of the clustered lots because you don't need the room to place the well on it... instead of having like two acre parcels, you could shrink them down to like an acre. And then that would gain like four more acres for the reserve track." ### Staff Resistance and Process Questions Staff expressed caution about the proposed changes, with Keenan noting the need for health department consultation: "I want to make sure they understand that we would be putting wells for cluster lots on agricultural lots and just the implications of that for easements and then for ownership and spraying impacts to that protective easement." Mark Personius suggested a procedural approach: "I'm wondering if procedurally your Council staff could prepare a substitute with that language in it and we can introduce both tonight?" But the exchange revealed fundamental disagreements about current practice. Staff characterized Elenbaas's proposal as a significant policy change, while he insisted it would merely codify existing, approved practices: "I could show you more than 1 location where this has been done." Elenbaas grew visibly frustrated with staff's characterization of his proposal as novel: "Anyway, yeah, I could show you more than 1 location where this has been done... I'm telling you, this is how you've done it in the past. So, it's not new." Council Member Scanlon, while supportive of examining the issue, requested a more thorough analysis: "I would like to see analysis on this to know the impact. Like, who's going to benefit from this? Who's going to lose from this?" This prompted a brief but telling exchange about potential conflicts of interest, with Scanlon noting diplomatically: "It could be perceived you were trying to improve something on your land, right?" Elenbaas responded directly: "My land's already done," indicating that any changes wouldn't affect his existing subdivision. ## Interdepartmental Coordination Gaps Throughout both presentations, the discussion revealed ongoing challenges with interdepartmental coordination. Scanlon had raised concerns about communication between PDS and environmental health on resort commercial amendments. The childcare facility changes had languished for eight months partly due to incomplete consultation with health department staff. And the wells amendment exposed fundamental misunderstandings between what staff believed the code required and how subdivisions had actually been approved and built. These coordination gaps reflected broader challenges in county operations, where multiple departments regulate different aspects of development projects but don't always maintain consistent interpretation of overlapping requirements. ## Process and Timing Pressures The meeting's urgency stemmed from both items being scheduled for introduction at the evening council meeting. For the state-mandated ADU and co-living changes, the December 31 deadline created additional pressure to move forward despite some council members' interest in expanding the scope. The timing also meant that Elenbaas's proposed amendment to the wells provision would need rapid staff review and legal formatting to be ready for potential introduction alongside the original version. ## Closing and Next Steps As the meeting adjourned at noon, several issues remained unresolved. Staff committed to additional consultation with environmental health on the resort commercial amendment, while the committee had requested analysis of Elenbaas's proposed wells language. The evening would bring formal introduction of both ordinances, with the possibility of substitute versions incorporating committee feedback. The tight timeline reflected broader challenges in county governance—balancing thorough review with legislative deadlines, managing interdepartmental coordination, and reconciling staff interpretations with actual field conditions. The session highlighted ongoing tensions between different perspectives on land use regulation. Staff emphasized consistency, legal compliance, and comprehensive planning principles. Council members balanced these concerns against practical experience, constituent needs, and policy goals around housing affordability and agricultural preservation. These competing priorities would continue to play out through the full legislative process, with public hearings and final action still ahead. But the committee discussion had already revealed the complexity underlying seemingly routine code maintenance, and the challenges of ensuring that regulatory language matches real-world implementation. The meeting demonstrated how local government operates at the intersection of technical expertise, political judgment, and community impact—with outcomes that affect everything from school trail construction to agricultural preservation to housing affordability. In Whatcom County's growth-pressured environment, getting these details right carries significant consequences for residents, businesses, and the natural environment that defines the region's character.