Skagit County arborist fights to keep Eager Beaver Tree Service amid zoning dispute

The Skagit County Board of Commissioners convened on January 28, 2025, to discuss a contentious case involving Eager Beaver Tree Service, a family-owned business operating in a residential area since 1991. The meeting centered around the business's compliance with local zoning laws and a complaint that led to an investigation by the county's planning department.

The Longnecker family, who founded Eager Beaver Tree Service, argued that their business has been a responsible and beneficial part of the community for over three decades. They emphasized their commitment to the neighborhood, citing support for local charities and no history of complaints from neighbors. The family contended that they were unaware of the need for a special use permit when they established the business, which has been operating without incident since its inception.

In contrast, the county's planning department, represented by civil deputy prosecutor Jason De Avion, maintained that the business was not lawfully established under the zoning regulations in place at the time of its founding. De Avion pointed out that a neighbor had filed a request for investigation (RFI) regarding the business's operations, which prompted the county's actions. He argued that the absence of a special use permit meant that the business could not be classified as a pre-existing non-conforming use, as established by local law.

The discussion included references to a precedent case, Jefferson County versus Lakeside Industries, which the Longneckers' attorney cited to support their claim for grandfathered status. However, De Avion clarified that the circumstances of that case were different, as the zoning code in question had been invalidated at the time, unlike the situation in Skagit County.

The commissioners listened to both sides and will render a decision on March 11, 2025. The outcome could significantly impact the future of Eager Beaver Tree Service and its ability to continue operating in its current location. The case highlights the ongoing tension between local businesses and zoning regulations, as well as the complexities involved in balancing community needs with legal compliance.