The Planner Who Got It Right

This article is part of our continuing investigative series, “When Whatcom County Protected a Corrupt Natural Resources Planner — and Then Became Corrupt Itself.”

Our reporting documents how Planning Departments wield near-absolute control over property rights — control that is subjective, opaque, and difficult to challenge. It also shows how, when that power is abused, subsequent investigations can be designed less to determine what happened than to manage liability, protect the institution, and sidestep accountability to the people whose lives and property were affected.

The planner who got it right, and was thrown under the bus by everyone, including his supervisor and the Director of Whatcom County Planning, Mark Peronius.

In any regulatory system, mistakes happen.What matters is whether the record is corrected when the truth becomes clear.

In the case of The Greens at Loomis Trail, one planner got it right — and the institution chose not to say so.

This post explains why that matters.

A Straightforward Determination

In 2023, Whatcom County planner Nathan Goldschmidt reviewed the property at 4470 Castlerock Drive and reached a simple conclusion:

The wetlands affecting the property had already been mitigated as part of the original subdivision approval, and no reasonable use exception was required.

This was not a creative interpretation. It was a document-based determination grounded in:

• The original subdivision permit

• The 2002 wetlands mitigation permit

• The recorded plat

• And the regulatory framework governing vested mitigation

Goldschmidt’s conclusion reflected what the record actually showed.

Not a New Idea — Just the Correct One

Goldschmidt was not the first planner to reach this conclusion.

In 2018, another County planner reviewed a neighboring lot in the same subdivision and determined that development would not impact regulated wetlands or buffers.

Years apart.Different planners.Same conclusion.

That matters, because it shows Goldschmidt’s determination was not an anomaly — it was consistent.

Confirmed at the Director Level

On April 22, 2022, Whatcom County issued a memorandum on the Planning Director’s letterhead stating that wetlands for The Greens at Loomis Trail subdivision had been mitigated as part of the original plat and that no further critical areas review was required for any lot in the subdivision.

That memo aligned with Goldschmidt’s later determination.

It also aligned with the earlier 2018 review.

By the time Goldschmidt issued his determination, the County’s own records already supported it.

How the Record Was Handled

When an investigation later examined the actions of a different planner, Goldschmidt’s determination was treated not as confirmation — but as a problem.

Rather than reconcile why multiple planners had reached the same conclusion, the investigation allowed a narrative to develop suggesting that Goldschmidt’s determination was the product of inexperience or error.

The investigation did not explain:

• Why his conclusion aligned with the recorded plat

• Why it matched an earlier planner’s determination

• Or why it was consistent with the Director’s 2022 memorandum

Those questions were left unanswered.

Silence Is a Decision

By the time the investigation occurred, County leadership knew — or should have known — that:

• The subdivision’s wetlands mitigation history was documented

• Multiple planners had reached the same conclusion

• The County itself had confirmed that conclusion in writing

Yet no clarification was offered.No correction was made.No reconciliation appeared in the final record.

When leadership allows an incomplete or misleading portrayal of an employee’s work to stand uncorrected, that silence becomes institutional.

This was not a finding that Goldschmidt was wrong.It was a choice not to say he was right.

Why This Matters

Acknowledging that Goldschmidt got it right would have required confronting uncomfortable implications:

• That earlier regulatory obstruction was unjustified

• That property owners were misled

• And that later financial outcomes were not accidental

Those implications were never addressed.

Instead, the record was allowed to suggest that the problem lay with the planner who told the truth — rather than with the determination that conflicted with it.

The Takeaway

Nathan Goldschmidt did not invent a loophole.He did not cut corners.He did not misapply the code.

He read the file and followed it.

The documents supported his conclusion.The County’s own memo supported his conclusion.Another planner’s work supported his conclusion.

The only thing that did not support it was the narrative the County later needed to preserve.

Sometimes accountability doesn’t fail because no one knew the truth.It fails because the truth was known — and quietly set aside.