Save a Forest in Southworth, WA

Southworth Forest Update:

Kitsap County Waives Fees, Bends Rules for Code Violators

Posted February 25, 2024 by Southworth Forest

The forest destruction in Southworth that caused this 2019 stop-work order continues to harm the community. Kitsap County has shown preferential treatment to the clear-cutters over impacted neighbors, including the Southworth Forest restoration project.

Directors at Kitsap County's Department of Community Development (DCD) exercise wide discretion to waive fees for code violators, re-open decades-old permits for revised purposes, change conditions on permits after their closure, and disregard penalties for those who break the law in building or land use cases. Recent interactions with the DCD leadership and permit staff have revealed how the agency has bent over backwards to accommodate and therefore encourage code violations.

Statements from DCD directors Jeff Rimack and David Kinley in 2024 expose a focus on departmental efficiency over deterrence of violations, reducing the costs for both the County and code violators but also indirectly encouraging violations and potential safety hazards. As Kinley remarked, "Code enforcement is not for punishing or penalizing people, it is to gain code compliance." This policy is why Kitsap residents and businesses are comfortable violating their neighbors, the community, and County code without fear of significant penalty.

Rimack and Kinley were responding to the case of 11090 SE Southworth Dr. in Port Orchard, on which owners Meghan and Clint Edwards had two active code compliance cases: an illegal deforestation impacting the environment and an unpermitted garage and accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The DCD has waived thousands of dollars in fees over four years for the corrective deforestation permit, including all extension fees for Edwards' slow responses. For its own convenience, the County also minimized the fees required for the ADU by re-purposing a disapproved permit closed in 2012 despite Edwards knowing for years that the ADU was illegal but not correcting it.

"I set policy related to reactivations and extensions of permits and am able to approve exceptions as well," Kinley explained after unilaterally changing the conditions of the ADU structure's 2003 permit for unheated storage space to allow a guest house where one was not originally permitted. "It was far more expeditious to do the review and inspection of the modifications under the initial permit rather than requiring another permit. Requiring an additional permit would have added workload and expense to the department while not changing the outcome."

Such DCD leniency for violators was not extended to Edwards' direct neighbors, who had not violated County code. These neighbors, the Southworth Forest restoration project at 11004 SE Southworth Dr., obtained an over-height fence permit in 2021 for about $100 to help protect their restoration efforts from Edwards' environmental impacts. Construction on the fence halted because Edwards waffled about possibly developing the same property line differently in their corrective permit. Edwards also sued to retain the option to "maximize" their rights over the neighbors in that permit.

With the violators' deforestation permit review dragging on for many years due to DCD errors and Edwards' lack of clarity about their intentions, the neighbors' fence permit eventually racked up more extension fees than the permit originally cost. A DCD permit technician concurred that the best solution was to fail to pay the last extension fee, allow the permit to expire, and then re-apply for the exact same permit thereafter. The cost to the neighbor would be a little more than one six-month extension fee, but it would buy them much more time to complete the fence. The DCD would re-approve and re-inspect the fence from scratch, increasing its own workload.

The DCD has shown disturbingly broad discretion in favor of the violators in this scenario. Neighbors and the community have suffered the impacts of Edwards' deforestation for years, and even Rimack has admitted that "errors were made by the department that we needed to take responsibility for." And yet, the DCD has continuously failed to address community concerns about the deforestation and has defied Kinley's own stated discretionary practice in permit handling. Charging fees to neighbors delayed by the violators and compelling those neighbors to re-apply for a redundant permit is punitive towards non-violators.

In sum, these statements and actions by the Kitsap County Department of Community Development support the following observations about how they exercise their authority:

• The conditions seen on a closed DCD permit are not necessarily binding.
• A closed permit can be reopened decades later for repurposing to a different use.
• Violators can benefit from the DCD's desire for procedural expediency.
• Those aware of their violations but take no action for years are not penalized.
• Non-violators may not receive the same preferential treatment as violators.
• Director discretion allows for DCD fees to be waived arbitrarily and unequally.

The willful Edwards code violations in Southworth therefore offer a blueprint for those seeking to minimize their Kitsap County permitting costs:

• Complete your project without obtaining the proper permit.
• Have good relations with your neighbors so nobody reports you.
• Play dumb if you are caught and blame someone else.
• Reduce costs by complaining about any fees required.
• Delay your responses to receive free permit extensions.
• Receive your slap on the wrist in the form of minimal compliance.

Meanwhile, members of the community hurt by violations are left to defend themselves without reliable County protection. The frustration with the DCD in Southworth is palpable, but we remain hopeful that our permitting department can change for the better. Only through equal treatment and more stringent enforcement and penalties can prolific violations be discouraged.