Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skagit County commissioners modify enforcement order for Eager Beaver Tree Service in split decision
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners granted in part an appeal by Eager Beaver Tree Service owners, modifying a hearing examiner’s decision and imposing limits on business use of a residential property; the board’s resolution passed 2–0 with one absence.
The Skagit County Board of County Commissioners on March 11 granted in part a closed-record appeal of an administrative order to abate related to property use by Eager Beaver Tree Service, imposing conditions that limit business activity at the applicants’ residential property.
The appeal, filed by Chris Longnecker and Ashlyn Dennis, challenged an Administrative Code Enforcement decision (CE 20–2175) and a Skagit County Hearing Examiner decision. Commissioner Browning read the proposed resolution aloud during the board’s hearing; the board approved the resolution and the motion carried “2 to 0 with 1 absence,” the meeting record shows.
The resolution, as read into the record, found that while Planning and Development Services and the hearing examiner correctly applied county code, the board identified equitable concerns in the case’s factual record and modified the hearing examiner’s decision. Key provisions of the board’s order include:
- A prohibition on intensifying use of the property for business purposes; - A ban on long-term storage of nonfunctioning vehicles, logs or other materials at the property; - A requirement that employees’ business vehicles park at least 20 feet from the public street easement when parked at the property; - A statement that the decision is fact-specific, has no present precedential value and does not alter the interpretation of existing county code beyond this case.
The record reflected that the appellants have operated Eager Beaver Tree Service from the property since 1991, that the homeowners association’s covenants support the appellants’ use, and that no neighbor complaint appeared in the record. The resolution noted the sporadic and variable nature of business activity at the property and the long-standing community knowledge of the operation when reaching its conclusion.
The board did not identify the vote of individual commissioners on the public record beyond the announced tally. The decision is limited to the specific facts of this case and modifies the hearing examiner’s prior order rather than overturning county code or establishing a new county-wide precedent.
