News - Local News

POSTED: Saturday, Mar. 21, 2009

Data shows some Whatcom County cities' housing growth denser than planned

Housing lots in Sumas have been much larger than the city planned for them to be, and those in Bellingham have been smaller than planned, county data shows.

State law generally considers four homes per acre to be an urban density. But over the past five years, Sumas has seen density as low as one-plus house per acre and as high as nearly three per acre.

At the other end of the spectrum, Bellingham has seen denser housing development than it planned for over the last five years. In one zone, it's seen as low as four houses per acre, but in another it's been as high as 11.

The data comes out as planning experts argue the best way to measure how much developable land there is left in each of the county's urban areas.

It's part of Whatcom County's effort to comply with an order from a state growth board to review and revise all of its urban growth areas by the end of June. The county, faced with concerns from cities about the rushed time frame, asked the board for a time extension of six months, but the request is opposed be landowners challenging the county.

Some city planners say that when measuring how many homes could still be built in each urban area, the county should look at the density of homes that have been built. County planners prefer looking at how much density the zoning allows.

The debate matters because a surplus of available land to accommodate growth over the next 20 years could lead the county to shrink urban growth areas, and a deficit could mean expanding them outward.

"I think we're overestimating the land supply within our current urban growth areas," said Amy Harksell, planning director for Lynden. "I don't think that the planned densities have as much relationship to reality as they could."

The concern in Lynden is particularly with agricultural-based businesses, which need more space than commercial zoning might show on paper, she said.

County Planning Director David Stalheim said the methodology has already been worked out between the cities and county, and cities can still recommend using achieved densities when they make recommendations to the county. He defended counting on what's planned because "otherwise what we'd be doing is institutionalizing, particularly in some jurisdictions, low-density sprawl patterns."

Officials at some cities are unhappy because they feel they don't have time to properly plan their urban growth areas this year.

Terry Galvin, planning director for Blaine, is one of them. He proposes having the county refrain from changes to Blaine's urban area this year and let the city take the lead in planning its future over the next two years, giving officials time to create more accurate data and involve the public.

"There's no hidden agenda here that I can see in the six months that I've been working on the county with this," he said. "There simply is a good-faith and coordinated effort that doesn't have enough time."

Whether the county gets more time is up to the Growth Management Hearings Board. The county has requested six more months, but petitioners Caitac USA, Bob Wiesen and Jack Petree argued against it, saying the county is already almost two years late in resizing urban growth areas. Bellingham's urban growth area is already too small, which is fueling sprawl into rural lands, and another six months will result in more rural growth and greenhouse gases, they said, among other arguments.

They said any extension should be limited to three months, and other requirements should be added, including that the county takes into account how much can't be built on Bellingham's waterfront redevelopment site because of rising sea levels.