Committee hears split views on bill to streamline lot splits for middle housing

Supporters and opponents of House Bill 1096 told the House Appropriations Committee that the proposal to add lot splits to short‑plat regulations could either expand affordable, entry‑level homeownership or risk undermining local environmental protections.

The bill would allow property owners in jurisdictions subject to the state's middle housing laws to split residential lots more easily, proponents said, creating additional for‑sale opportunities in places where land costs limit homeownership.

"Splitting lots will help reduce the cost of land acquisition, and that's one of our most significant barriers to affordable housing construction," Blake Baldwin, vice president of Hayden Homes, said in testimony. Baldwin said lot splits can turn projects that otherwise would be rentals into units that can be sold to first‑time buyers.

The bill drew support from several development and industry groups. Bill Clark of Washington Realtors said the measure is narrower than last year's version and urged the Legislature to provide implementation funding so cities can adopt required code changes. Alex Harrington of NAHOP Washington State said expedited reviews could reduce holding costs and thereby lower rents or sales prices. Justin Wood, a home builder who served on Oregon's housing policy advisory committee, pointed to Oregon's middle‑housing lot division policies as a precedent for up to four units per lot.

Local officials and municipal associations urged caution. "Adding lot splits to the short‑plat regulations is a major administrative challenge that varies from city to city," Selena Lyons, community development director for the city of Covington, told the committee. Lyons requested an implementation timeline tied to Department of Commerce guidance and available funding so cities are not left to implement the change without staff or budget resources.

Carl Schrader of the Association of Washington Cities said his organization is "generally on the bill with the committee proposed amendment" but warned that the bill imposes new state responsibilities and costs on local governments. Mercer Island Mayor Salim Nees testified in opposition, saying the draft still allows the creation of buildable lots in critical areas and urging an amendment to let planning directors determine that steep, geologically vulnerable areas are not eligible for lot splits.

Committee staff did not take final action during the hearing; the session included public testimony from industry representatives, municipal officials, and housing advocates. No vote was recorded. The committee proceeded to request staff briefings on other bills after public testimony concluded.

The bill's proponents said implementation funding and technical changes could resolve many remaining concerns. Opponents emphasized the need for stronger protections for critical areas and for phased implementation tied to state guidance and funding.

Ending: Committee materials and staff briefings were requested after public testimony concluded. Committee members signaled interest in further technical edits and funding discussions before any final committee vote.