Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner tells Snohomish County Council a 2023 code change closed his business without meaningful notice
Summary
At the April 29 Snohomish County Council meeting, a property owner identified as Patrick said a 2023 zoning/code change eliminated a lawful use at one of his properties and that the county failed to provide timely notice, citing local code and state public-participation rules and alleging substantial economic harm.
Patrick, who identified himself as the owner of Ashway Properties, told the Snohomish County Council during public comment that a 2023 code change eliminated a previously lawful use at one of his locations and that the county failed to notify affected property owners. He said he received no mailed notice, email, phone call, or voicemail and only learned after a five-year lease was signed and he had invested in rehabilitating the property.
Patrick told the council the legal standard requires notice reasonably calculated to inform affected property owners and cited what he described as a county code reference and Washington administrative-code public-participation standards. He said the change had concrete fiscal effects: about 14 months of closed business, an estimated $200,000 per month in lost state tax revenue, roughly 20 jobs not created at about $25 per hour, and more than $1,000,000 in lost revenue to local Snohomish County producers and processors. He described the result as “one-sided” and argued the process failed on transparency and public engagement.
The chair interrupted to ask the speaker (identified in the record as Patrick) to conclude his remarks after about three minutes; the record contains no substantive staff or council response addressing Patrick’s specific allegations during the meeting. Patrick also referenced a past comment attributed in his remarks to "Council member Nate Nearing," saying the council’s responsibility includes ensuring timely, accessible information for people affected by proposals.
The county did not present a response on the record at this meeting and no motion, direction to staff, or formal follow-up action appears in the record related to Patrick’s allegations. The council proceeded to the scheduled agenda items.
What’s next: Patrick urged the council to “fix this” and to address the notice and process failures he described; the council did not vote or issue a formal direction about the matter at this session. Any official follow-up or investigation is not recorded in this meeting transcript and would need to be confirmed with county staff or in subsequent meetings.
