Save a Forest in Southworth, WA

Southworth Forest Update:

Appeal of Southworth Clear-Cutting Updated, Revealing New Details

Posted May 27, 2025 by Southworth Forest

The revised appeal statement by neighbors of the Southworth deforestation is extensive and outlines repeated violations of Kitsap County Code, unaddressed environmental impacts, and continuing entitled behavior by clear-cutters Clint and Meghan Edwards seeking to legalize their 2019 actions.

Neighbors of the illegal 2019 Southworth deforestation at 11090 SE Southworth Dr. in Port Orchard have revised their appeal statement to the Kitsap County Hearing Examiner. The appeal process holds both the clear-cutters and the County accountable in the after-the-fact permit, and the updated appeal responds to the County's further reduction of requirements levied against violators Meghan and Clint Edwards in the most recent permit decision.

The 66-page appeal statement dated April 30, 2025 is an initial letter detailing by rule all the issues of contention that neighbors have with the deforestation permit. Since this permit has been badly bungled by the County, this letter is the third to exist in this appeal, following ones for the environmental (SEPA) decision and previous administrative decision in 2024. The revised letter consolidates both prior responses and focuses on the action's environmental impacts, conflicting plans, and many violations of Kitsap County Code by both the County reviewers and Edwards.

From here, the Hearing Examiner process begins, leading to a hearing scheduled in August to determine the fate of the permit. The letter indicates that the appellants will introduce hundreds of exhibits in support of their argument. That process informally follows the rules of legal proceedings, and if the Hearing Examiner, who is compensated by the County, sides with the violators and County, the neighbors can appeal to Superior Court. The violators do not have the right to appeal the Examiner decision in this case.

There are several fascinating revelations in the updated appeal statement. Neighbors uncovered additional issues with the violators' permit submissions and the County's mishandling of them, and the appeal details how Edwards has manipulated the review process. Below are some of the most interesting new allegations against the County and Edwards.

• The alleged violations of Chapter 21.04 (PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURES) of Kitsap County Code are even more serious than before in the revised appeal. Both Edwards and the County failed to follow proper procedures, according to extensive citations.
• Edwards is said to have violated most of the points of conduct under the section of code detailing that "Permit applicants are responsible for cooperating in the review process." Their lack of true cooperation is described in detail, going all the way back to their original willful violation of the law when first removing the forest and their refusal to understand relevant code and fully cooperate since.
• The County in turn violated code to ensure that "The department is responsible for processing applications in a manner that is timely and adequate." There has always been significant evidence of the County's disorganization and careless, negligent behavior in their handling of the Edwards situation. The appeal extends these allegations to County actions in 2025.


• After Edwards refused to revise their site plans despite being asked several times by the County to do so in 2023 and 2024, the County revised the plans themselves free of charge to Edwards. Not satisfied, Edwards impatiently demanded that the County make the site plan revisions quickly.


• Kitsap County environmental reviewer Steve Heacock had previously required a landscaping plan from Edwards to define and protect the solid screening buffers of trees that are required to protect neighbors. After Edwards preemptively planted trees of their own choosing in some minimal portions of their boundary, Heacock removed the landscaping plan requirement, meaning that those buffers are no longer defined by any plan for the future.
• Heacock allegedly promised neighbors in December 2024 that they could be present at a site visit to determine the needs for that landscape plan. He instead conducted the visit with only Edwards and then removed the plan requirement entirely.
• The trees Edwards preemptively planted in the minimal buffer areas are much smaller than normal for the County's rules for solid screening, and yet Heacock stated that these replacements for typical buffering are "adequate." This is a case in which the tail wags the dog, Edwards manipulating the County to achieve an outcome to their liking.


• Edwards refused to plant buffer trees to within 4 feet of their entry road, causing a large break in their buffer at the most impacted portion of their property. The violators claim that such trees, which existed for years near the road without issue before the clear-cut, would be an obstruction to them. Edwards also filed a legal claim against neighbors for planting shrubs 4 or more feet away from that road within a connecting easement. All of this is despite Edwards showing trees positioned 4 feet off that exact access road within their property on their site plans, suggesting that Edwards doesn't even know their own approved plans or is disavowing them.
• The main alleged reason why Edwards refuses to extend tree buffers in impacted areas to 4 feet from their road is because they want to be able to pass oncoming traffic on their one-lane road by pulling to the side. They failed to design passing pull-outs into their site plan, which means that they pass through their drainage facilities on the road. The appeal claims to have evidence showing that Edwards already does so routinely, contributing to the destruction of the road and swales.


• One of the reasons the County revised its approval of this permit is because Edwards finally dropped plans to remove up to 70 trees in an easement on a neighbor's property for an unnecessary second entrance to a new parking lot that was also dropped. The appeal describes how the County failed to recognize that the extension of that previously approved road may not have been even feasible. While the County placed a condition requiring a permit if that extension is ever attempted someday, it restricts that condition to only Edwards and not others who may own the property in the future; the appellants are contesting that such careless County language be changed as well.


• The appeal mentions six times that one of Edwards' main goals with this permit is to protect their property value by minimizing documentation and conditions placed against them. Given that Clint Edwards is a mortgage lender and from a family of realtors, this emphasis is perhaps no surprise, but it comes at the expense of neighbors dealing with the impacts of their development. As the appeal states, "the County must independently investigate the proposal of applicants guided by entitlement and property value, lacking remorse and empathy for their community."


• Shockingly, clear-cutter Meghan Edwards is alleged to have recently yelled "You guys are so ridiculous!" out her vehicle window at two of the appellants as they replaced damaged signage protesting the impacts of the deforestation. This behavior only reinforces the extraordinary entitlement by Edwards and refusal to accept that their actions have harmed others and the environment, necessitating community protest.

The environmental (SEPA) impacts of the deforestation are described in consolidated detail in this version of the appeal, too. The SEPA situation is very different in this case because the clear-cutting happened 6 years ago and the impacts are therefore already known. No speculation of potential future impacts, which is typical to SEPA decisions, is necessary. The County appears to have done no analysis of these existing impacts. A few notable new SEPA-related items in the appeal:

• The County and Edwards argue that tree buffers around the full exterior of their clearing are not necessary because of the existence of remaining forestlands on neighboring properties, including the Southworth Forest restoration project. Because there is no guarantee that those forests will always exist, and because they have already been damaged by the adjacent clear-cut, Edwards cannot be credited by the County for what exists on others' parcels.


• Four neighbors planted buffer trees of their own to protect themselves from the Edwards, who have claimed no responsibility for their impacts on others. Two of those neighbors are erecting solid fences to block those impacts, and the appeal proposes that Edwards complete more such fencing.


• Additional trees are indicated to be dying around the perimeter of the Edwards' clearing, suggesting that impacts from the clear-cutting will be long-lasting.


• Edwards claims in their submittals that their clear-cutting caused no adverse aesthetic impacts for the community, but County permit reviewers disagreed, requiring some (but not enough) buffers for privacy and view protection. Hence, the County already admits that some impacts exist whereas Edwards does not.


• The appeal reminds that the vinyl sign near Edwards' entrance protesting the deforestation was damaged by the new prevailing winds focused at that location by their tree removal. A large U-post was bent at its base by the force of the wind. The neighbors hosting the sign realigned its replacement (which protests some of the deforestation's impacts) to be parallel with the wind direction.

The appeal requests corrected plans from Edwards and more clearly defined conditions that should be recorded against the violated parcel to permanently protect the community. It also asks the Hearing Examiner to instruct the County and Edwards to follow proper procedures for permit handling. It offers an intriguing variety of reasonable solutions for the environmental (SEPA) mitigations as well, including graphics of buffer, road, and fence alignment that could help alleviate the impacts of the deforestation.

When the exhibits associated with this appeal are fully shared with the public, additional context will be revealed. There is no indication yet about how many exhibits will be entered by Edwards in defense. The appeal's opening statement and exhibits will allow the County to evaluate the evidence prior to producing their "staff report," which has been assigned to reviewers Steve Heacock and Jeff Smith. These two reviewers have a history of making careless misstatements about this deforestation permit.

More information about the appeal of the Southworth clear-cutting permit will be posted when it becomes available. In the meantime, you can read the full, revised administrative appeal filing.