ADUs changes in Bellingham? Looks like Additional Disaster Units!

Why a Good Idea Is Being Ruined by Bad Planning

The City of Bellingham’s new Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance sounds promising — on paper: More housing options, more flexibility, and a way for homeowners to build small backyard cottages or garage apartments.

And to be clear — we’re pro-ADU.When done right, ADUs are one of the best ways for existing homeowners to stay afloat amid rising property taxes, insurance premiums, and living costs. They provide supplemental income, add local rental supply, and help families stay in the community.

But the city’s version of this policy — and the way they’re selling it — is a mess.

1. The ADU Ownership Mirage

City staff keep saying ADUs will create “ownership opportunities.”But under the proposed rules, detached ADUs can’t be sold separately.

They’re part of the same parcel, same mortgage, same utilities. So unless the homeowner sells the entire property, there’s no new “owner” created.That means these units will almost always be rentals — and that’s fine — but let’s stop pretending they’re a ticket to new ownership.

Asking people to buy an ADU with no land, no parking, and shared utilities isn’t affordable housing. It’s delusional planning at best or flat-out deception at worst.

2. The Utility Confusion

At the recent City Council meeting, planners couldn’t explain how ADUs would be connected to water, sewer, and power. They said the ADU could be connected to the home's main line, but DUCKED the question if a CONNECTION FEE would still be charged. Connecting to the SAME line doesn't mean (and I have experience in this exact situation with a client trying to do what they said 6 months ago) that there isn't a FEE charged.

Taken from COB Council Meeting 10/20/2025

The question from Council Member Lilliquist was how to deal with utilities. Some projects will share utilities. Others may require new hookups. But both the Planning Department and the council had no idea what really was going to happen. Case-by-case? Do these people really think an owner is going to short plat their 800 sq ft detached ADU? Without parking? No way.

Key takeaway: When the people writing the rules don’t understand how utilities will work, it’s not “streamlining.” It’s chaos waiting to happen.

3. The Setback Rule Nobody Asked For

When a homeowner wants to put in a detached ADU and there is less than a 32-foot separation between the ADU and the property line. In order for the project to go through the neighbor has to AGREE. Now this might work on a half-acre lot — but not in the city.

Taken from COB Council Meeting 10/20/2025

Now planners are calling that neighbor consent “veto power” — and removing it completely.

So you can build right up to the property line, and your neighbor doesn’t even have to be told. But they are also NOT LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW AHEAD OF THIS CHANGE!

That’s not simplification — that’s arrogance, and ironically, COB Planners don't see a neighbor building right up to the property line as VETO POWER for the homeowner who is building the ADU against the neighbors quality of life and value of their property.

4. The Missed Opportunity

Instead of focusing on how ADUs can genuinely help current homeowners — through clear utility standards, small-lot flexibility, and realistic design rules — the city is chasing a headline:“Expanding Ownership.” But ownership requires land, title, financing, and infrastructure.

In fact, who is really going to "buy" an 800 sq ft ADU with NO PARKING, and no real yard? Our guess is NO ONE. Without those, all we’re really doing is multiplying rentals — while pretending it’s progress.

5. Who WOULD buy these?

Early in the meeting, Councilmember Lilliquist expressed his concern about the "ownership" possibilities with ADUs and the "corporate owners" who might also buy them. The planning department had an example situation where a TRIPLEX owner could place TWO ADUs in on their 1/3 and split off the ADU.

The math worked out to a possible 9 units total on a single-family zoned lot!

I had a chance to speak during the public comment period after Councilmember's comments, and I pointed out to Mr Lilliquist, "Who would even want to buy any of these units to live in as an owner? Ironically, the very CORPORATE buyers you are concerned about."

Bottom Line

ADUs can be part of the affordability solution — but not like this.

We’re for ADUs that help real homeowners stay solvent, not for fantasy policies that no one can actually build or buy into.

Until the city gets serious about how these rules work on the ground, Bellingham’s housing strategy will remain what it’s become best known for — a great idea ruined by bad planning.

Call to Action

If you want a transparent, data-based housing policy in Bellingham, share this post, tag @RealIssuesPodcast, and subscribe at www.realissuespodcast.org. The only way to stop the illusion is to embrace transparency and common-sense solutions without an agenda.