Chair Janicki presided over a closed-record appeal hearing Jan. 28 in which the owners of Eager Beaver Tree Service asked the Skagit County Board of Commissioners to reverse a hearing examiner's decision upholding an administrative order to abate an alleged unpermitted business at a residence. The appeal concerns administrative order CE22-0175 and hearing examiner decision dated Sept. 14, 2024; the board said it will render a public decision on March 11, 2025, at 11 a.m.

The appellants, represented by an attorney identified in the record as Mister Miller, said Eager Beaver was founded in 1991 and has operated as a family home-based arborist business for about 34 years. "This is big brother beating up on a small business in Skagit County," Miller told the commissioners, urging them to apply the Jefferson County v. Lakeside Industries case and reverse the hearing examiner.

Jason De Avion, civil deputy prosecutor representing the planning department, said the county does not dispute the business's long history but contends it was not lawfully established because, under the applicable code in 1991, a special use permit would have been required for this type of home-based business. "What is clear from the record is, this was not a lawfully established business," De Avion said. He pointed the board to a September 30, 2022, letter and permit-tracking notes that refer to a received request for investigation, or RFI, which triggered county compliance action.

Co-owner Ashlyn Dennis and owner family member Paula Longnecker addressed the board during the parties-of-record portion. Dennis said neighbors did not complain to the owners and alleged the RFI may have been initiated by a county employee. Paula Longnecker said she did not know a special use permit was required when the business began and expressed surprise at the enforcement action.

De Avion noted the department attempted to work with the Longneckers for over a year to find a zoning solution or permit path and that the hearing examiner concluded the administrative order to abate was appropriate. The county cited the code provision for home-based businesses and said the property's shop, equipment storage and other observable features in the record did not meet the home's residential-character requirement exempting small home occupations.

No final decision was issued at the hearing. Chair Janicki told participants the board would consider the record and render its decision in public session on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 11 a.m. The board instructed parties not to contact individual commissioners before that time and directed questions to the senior civil deputy prosecutor representing the board.

Background and context: the appeal was filed under case PL24-0362. The administrative order to abate is numbered CE22-0175. Appellants requested reversal of the hearing examiner's Sept. 14, 2024 decision. County counsel referenced the earlier case Jefferson County v. Lakeside Industries to explain the court-created grandfathering principle in that distinct factual context and said it does not apply here because Skagit County's zoning was not invalidated at the relevant time.

The record included written exhibits and testimony; county staff said a permit-tracking note and a Sept. 30, 2022 letter documented an RFI and inspection. Appellants said they submitted a public-records request and found no neighbor complaint in the materials provided to them. Appellants also said they had experienced insurance cancellations they attributed to public notices about the complaint.

The board did not take further testimony and limited remarks to the administrative record, consistent with closed-record hearing rules under Skagit County code.

Commissioners' next steps: the board will deliberate and issue a written decision at the announced March 11, 2025 public session. The hearing record, as presented, will form the basis of that decision.