Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permit Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skagit County hearing examines whether golf course maintenance building should have faced higher review
Summary
In a closed‑record appeal May 11, 2026, an appellant argued Skagit Golf and Country Club’s proposed 10,500 sq ft turfgrass center should have required a Type 3 hearing and special use review because it stores fuel and hazardous materials and sits within 500 feet of residences; the county and applicant argued it is an accessory maintenance building and the hearing examiner acted properly. Commissioners will issue a public decision May 18, 2026.
The Skagit County Board of Commissioners heard a closed‑record appeal May 11 over the county’s decision to permit a new turfgrass maintenance building at Skagit Golf and Country Club that apppellant counsel says effectively converts a small unpermitted maintenance structure into a 10,500‑square‑foot industrial storage and maintenance facility.
Appellant Dean Shaughnessy, represented by counsel Julie Herber, argued the director applied the wrong level of review. Herber told commissioners the project replaces an existing ~3,900 sq ft unpermitted maintenance building with a 10,500 sq ft pre‑engineered metal building proposed to store hazardous materials and fuel; she said that makes the project subject to a Type 3 hearing examiner review and a special use permit under cited Skagit County code sections. Counsel highlighted record gaps, asserted the hearing examiner’s procedural dismissal prevented substantive review, and asked the board to remand or expand the record because nearby residences are within roughly 260–290 feet of the site — under the 500‑foot setback counsel says applies to on‑site hazardous storage.
Deputy county prosecutor Jason DeAvion objected to new evidence in the closed‑record proceeding and framed the project as a building permit for an accessory use to an existing golf course. DeAvion said the permit was correctly processed as a Type 1 building permit that escalated to Type 2 only because SEPA review was required, and that the hearing examiner properly resolved dispositive motions and dismissed the appeal on the existing record.
Counsel for Skagit Golf and Country Club, Carolyn Gilbert, argued the structure is a lawful accessory maintenance building on the same tax parcel as the golf course and therefore does not require special‑use review; she disputed that incidental fuel or maintenance chemicals convert the building into a regulated hazardous‑waste treatment or storage facility under the code. Gilbert also objected to expanding the record and urged the board to affirm the hearing examiner.
Resident parties of record, including long‑time neighbor Dave Andrews, told commissioners they were not given direct notice of the scope change and said they were surprised to learn the building footprint would grow as reported. Andrews pressed for more notice and said the enlargement and possible fuel storage raised safety concerns for homes abutting fairways.
Counsel for the appellant emphasized statutory tables and argued that any ambiguity about review level must favor the higher numbered type (Type 3). County counsel and the respondent disputed that reading, arguing code language and the administrative record supported the director’s determination and the examiner’s summary judgment. The parties also disagreed over factual record items (exhibits noted in the hearing examiner file, whether proposed fuel storage is in separate containers, and whether the uses alleged were timely raised below).
The board closed oral argument and scheduled a public session to issue its decision on Monday, May 18, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The chair reminded parties this is a quasi‑judicial matter and requested no ex parte contact. The commissioners did not issue a ruling at the May 11 session.
