Search toggle
Real Briefings

City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

BEL-HEX-2024-08-09 August 09, 2024 Public Hearing City of Bellingham 60 min
← Back to All Briefings
Aug
Month
09
Day
60
Min
Published
Status

On August 9, 2024, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a pre-hearing conference for an appeal filed by A.C. Griffith and North Coast Credit Union (collectively, the appellant) challenging a June 8, 2024 administrative decision by the City of Bellingham. The appeal, assigned file number USC-2024-0016, was received by the city on July 12, 2024, and concerns a permit issued for a tiny home village project on a property in which North Coast Credit Union holds an interest — specifically, a surface parking lot on which the permitted development would eliminate 75 of 81 existing marked parking spaces. The conference was procedural in nature, focused entirely on establishing a discovery and motions briefing schedule and setting an appeal hearing date. No testimony on the merits was taken. The primary substantive tension during the conference was scheduling: the City of Bellingham indicated urgency in resolving the appeal quickly, as the tiny home village project is intended to relocate residents from existing tiny home villages before the end of 2024. The appellant, meanwhile, sought adequate time to conduct limited discovery before responding to an anticipated city dispositive motion. After extended negotiation, the parties reached agreement on a compressed but workable schedule. The appeal hearing was set for October 18, 2024. Key scheduling milestones include a discovery request deadline of August 21, a city discovery response and motions deadline of September 4 and 11 respectively, and a ruling on motions by October 2. Hearing Examiner Rice noted she has a related prior pre-hearing conference in her file involving overlapping parties and a related appeal of a related administrative decision, though she did not closely review that prior matter for purposes of this conference. She indicated she would be appearing remotely for the hearing, consistent with her practice since March 2020. The appeal involves contested issues of legal and factual error in the city's admi

This was a procedural pre-hearing conference. No votes were taken and no formal land use decisions were made. The following procedural agreements and scheduling determinations were reached: **1. Timeliness of Appeal** - Appeal (USC-2024-0016) confirmed timely filed. - Filed: July 12, 2024 (last day of appeal period). - No party challenged timeliness. **2. Hearing Format** - All parties agreed the appeal hearing will be conducted virtually or in hybrid format, with Hearing Examiner Rice appearing remotely. - All document exchange will occur electronically (no hard copy exchange). **3. Discovery Process** - Appellant (Carmichael/Pfeiffer) requested limited discovery related to injury to the property, easement impacts, and parking. - City (Erb) acknowledged prior informal discussions with appellant's counsel regarding discrete information requests. - Hearing Examiner Rice noted the city's hearing examiner rules do not contain formal discovery provisions but agreed to incorpor…

About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
**The Underlying Appeal — Tiny Home Village Permit** The appeal challenges a June 8, 2024 administrative decision by the City of Bellingham authorizing a tiny home village development on a surface parking lot. The appellant — A.C. Griffith and North Coast Credit Union — holds an interest in the property and alleges that the permitted development causes legal and/or factual error, including injury to the property. City attorney James Erb disclosed during the conference — offered for context regarding the appellant's discovery request, not as merits argument — that the development site currently has 81 marked parking spaces, and 75 of those spaces will be covered by the permitted tiny home village. Erb suggested that removing 75 of 81 parking spaces would logically result in reduced vehicular traffic rather than increased impact, though he acknowledged uncertainty about the full parking and traffic impact. Counsel Bob Carmichael objected to Erb's characterization of the parking situation as going to the merits and asked the Hearing Examiner to disregard it as factual argument. Hearing Examiner Rice clarified she understood Erb's statement as context for the discovery discussion, not as evidence on the merits. Carmichael indicated the appellant's concerns go beyond parking to include "more complicated issues" related to an easement on the property. The nature of those easement issues was not detailed in the conference. **City's Position on the Appeal** The city anticipates filing a dispositive motion, asserting that "most of the …
About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
**Sharon Rice, Hearing Examiner** Presided over the conference. Expressed preference for a fully virtual or hybrid hearing format. Emphasized need to complete the hearing in October given her vacation schedule (October 22 – November 3) and a November 6 SEPA appeal already on calendar. Noted she will be presenting to Bellingham City Council on October 21. Advocated for a compressed but fair schedule balancing project urgency against appellant due process. **Bob Carmichael, Counsel for Appellant (A.C. Griffith / North Coast Credit Union)** Sought adequate time for discovery, including both document production and interrogatory-style question responses, before the motions deadline. Expressed concern that the schedule disproportionately favored the city, which could begin drafting its motion immediately while the appellant needed time to formulate discovery requests. Requested equal time for motion preparation. Ultimately accepted the final schedule while noting reservations about compressed response timeframes. **Luke Pfeiffer, Co-Counsel for Appellant** Flagged availability constraints for himself and the appellant's team during the period in question. Initially proposed August 30 as the discovery request deadline; ultimately agreed to August 21. Noted unavailability on October 14 and 16, making October 18 the only workable hearing date from the appellant's perspective. **A.C. Griffith…
About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
**Sharon Rice, on the urgency and scheduling pressure:** "I feel like we should target that week in October, because pushing it to November just feels too far to me. Just. And I'm just. And I'm basing that on my 20 years of holding hearings. And the way that things are typically scheduled. So that's all that that's based on." **Sharon Rice, on virtual hearings in appeal proceedings:** "In an appeal context where there's no public comment period, there's typically less of a need for everyone t…
About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

| Date | Deadline / Event | |---|---| | August 21, 2024 | Appellant submits discovery request (document production requests and written questions) to city | | September 4, 2024 | City responds to appellant's discovery request; city's dispositive motion due; appellant's dispositive motion due (same date) | | September 11, 2024 | All parties' dispositive motions due | | September 18, 2024 | All parties' responses to motions due | | September 25, 2024 | All parties' replies to responses due | | October 2, 2024 | Hearing Examiner Rice issues ruling on all dispositive motions | | October 2–4, 2024 | Hearing Examiner Rice out of office (Hearing Examiner Association Conference) | | October 11, 2024 | Exhibit lists, exhibits, and witness lists exchanged by all parties | | October 16, 2024 | City of Bellingham evening permit hearing (Rice already …

About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
Before this conference, the appeal (USC-2024-0016) had been filed but no procedural framework existed for its resolution. After this conference: 1. **Appeal hearing date is set:** October 18, 2024, 9:00 AM, all-day. Prior to this conference, no date existed. 2. **Full motions briefing schedule is established:** Discovery request (Aug. 21) → city response + motions (Sept. 4/11) → responses (Sept. 18) → replies (Sept. 25) → ruling (Oct. 2) → exhibit exchange (Oct. 11) → hearing (Oct. 18). None of these dates existed before the conference. 3. **Discovery framework agreed upon:** The appellant's right to seek limited document production and interrogatory-style responses from the city prior to the motions deadline was acknowledged and will be reflected in the pre-hear…
About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
null…
About 100% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →
null…
About 100% shown — premium members only Upgrade to premium →

Share This Briefing