Laserfiche WebLink
12/17/2024 MINUTES 3 <br />Public Land which shares a corner with the right-of-way. After <br />reviewing the information, the Public Works Department recommended <br />approval of the proposed vacation of Markovich Road. <br /> <br />THOSE PRESENT & TESTIFYING: PAT KELLEHER expressed concerns <br />including how there were no signatures on the application from the <br />petitioners. He said the property should be purchased, even for one <br />dollar, otherwise it should be voided. THERE BEING NO OTHERS <br />REQUESTING TO TESTIFY, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION 2024-211 MARKOVICH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PUBLIC WORKS <br /> <br />VICE-CHAIRMAN OSIADACZ moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-211, <br />Vacating Markovich Public Right-of-Way from the End of the County <br />Road to the End of Public Right-of-Way (Mile Post 0.580 to Mile Post <br />1.000) and Providing an Access and Utility Easement to the Affected <br />Landowners. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT seconded. Motion carried 3-0. <br /> <br />APPEAL SEPA APPEAL – GIBSON CDS <br /> <br />At approximately 2:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN WACHSMITH opened a Public <br />Hearing continued from December 9, 2024, to consider a SEPA Appeal <br />of the 2024 Kittitas County Annual Docket of Comprehensive Plan <br />Docket Item #2024-13. <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN WACHSMITH announced he had no personal interest in any of <br />the proposals. <br /> <br />JAMEY AYLING, PLANNING OFFICIAL, reviewed the proposed Gibson Non- <br />Project rezone which had been appealed. He said the appellant <br />claimed the County had not followed procedures but said since it’s a <br />non-project rezone, it was processed through the annual docket <br />process, and therefore exempt from the procedures in KCC 15A. He <br />explained how the SEPA appeal needed to be determined by the Board <br />of County Commissioners, prior to considering the Docket Item. <br /> <br />JOSEPH REHBERGER, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ELLENSBURG CEMENT PRODUCTS, <br />reviewed issues relating to scheduling and processing administrative <br />appeals which are governed set in consultation with Board. He said <br />the record was to be compiled by parties and they haven’t received <br />the record. A briefing schedule was to be set which hadn’t been done <br />either. He asked the Board to set it over to make sure all parties <br />have received the information, and a briefing schedule has been <br />issued. <br /> <br />He reviewed the merits of the appeal and differences between a <br />project versus non-project action and how SEPA applies to both. He <br />explained reasons why the Board should remand it back to Staff. <br /> <br />