Laserfiche WebLink
From:Marc Kirkpatrick <br />To:Jeremy Johnston <br />Subject:Comments to Kittitas County SEPA DNS issued for Proposed Amendments to Title 16, 15A and 12 <br />Date:Monday, March 14, 2022 2:49:28 PM <br />Attachments:image001.png <br />CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Kittitas County network. Do not click <br />links, open attachments, fulfill requests, or follow guidance unless you recognize the sender <br />and have verified the content is safe. <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Johnston, <br /> <br />Public Comments related to proposed Code Updates: <br /> <br />Title 12 Proposed Update: <br />I’ve personally been on the variance committee since its inception in 2005. It was created to <br />insure transparency, intent, and to consider situations that are not specifically addressed in <br />the road standards. I personally provide a history to the committee that would ultimately be <br />lost. <br />Am I being fired from my 17 year volunteer position? <br />Based on the recent study session, the proposed changes to the road variance are based upon <br />the difficulty of getting a quorum for these meetings. I will say that this was not an issue over <br />the past 16 years and only recently when the committee no longer had a set date per month <br />to attend. Scheduling the meetings one to 2 weeks ahead made it difficult for many to attend <br />regularly. <br />If the road variance committee is reduced to only the County Engineer, then I recommend the <br />application fee to be reduced since 2 out of the 3 County staff are no longer needed at the <br />meeting. <br />The current road variance committee allows/requires 3 citizens of the public to attend on a <br />regular basis. The public participation will no longer be occurring under these proposed <br />changes. <br />As an engineering, surveying, and land planning consultant in Kittitas County’s development <br />industry, consistency of code interpretation from County staff is critical to my office’s ability <br />to provide quality services to our clients. I’m concerned that this may be lost without some <br />ability for the public to be heard beyond the Public Work’s engineer. <br /> <br />Title 15A Proposed Updates: <br />What is the fee if there is an appeal, of the administrative decision, to the Hearings Examiner? <br />These costs should be shared and known before making a decision on this matter. <br /> <br />Title 16 Proposed Updates: <br />This will have a significant and unnecessary impact on existing lots that are currently <br />buildable. As we all know, the road standards have evolved a lot over the past 17 years.