Laserfiche WebLink
Re: Comments on the Kittitas County 2026 Comprehensive Plan update <br />March 2, 2026 <br />Page 4 <br />Growth Management Hearings Board held that residential clusters in agricultural <br />lands of long-term commercial significance violated the Growth Management Act <br />where the density was greater than one dwelling unit per ten acres5 or where the <br />land in the cluster was prime farmland soils or where land where agriculture <br />could otherwise take place.6 <br />Detailed Comments and Recommendations on Chapter 2 Land <br />Use <br />Futurewise supports policies calling for predevelopment review of sites with <br />the potential for cultural resources and consultations with Indian tribes and <br />nations and the State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic <br />Preservation on their protection. See pages 31 and 32. <br />Cultural resources are important to maintain existing cultural traditions and our <br />appreciation of the past. We strongly support the policies calling for <br />predevelopment review of sites with the potential for cultural resources and <br />consultations with Indian tribes and nations and the State of Washington <br />Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation over their protection. <br />Detailed Comments and Regulations on Chapter 3 Rural and <br />Resource Lands <br />Clarify the differences between Natural Resource Lands and Rural Areas. See <br />pp. 47 - 51. <br />The Growth Management Act requires the designation and protection of natural <br />resource lands and a rural element.7 We recommend that the Rural and Resources <br />Lands element better distinguish between these two different geographies. <br />5 Vince Panesko, et al., v. Lewis County, et al., WWGMHB Case No. 00-2-0031c, Eugene Butler, et al. <br />v. Lewis County, WWGMHB Case No. 99-2-0027c, & Daniel Smith, et al. v. Lewis County, Western <br />Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) No. 98-2-0011c, Final Decision and <br />Order (March 5, 2001), at p. *16, 2001 WL 246707 p.*10 last accessed on March 2, 2026, at: <br />https://eluh02O22.my. site.com/casemanag_er/s /eluho- <br />document/aOT82000000I2sSEAC/20010-�0 S-final-decision-and-order. <br />6 Vince Panesko, et al. v. Lewis County, WWGMHB Case No. 00-2-0031c & Eugene Butler, et al. v. <br />Lewis County, WWGMHB Case No. 99-2-0027c Order Finding Noncompliance and Imposing <br />Invalidity (Feb. 13, 2004), at pp. 21 - 27 of 49, 2004 WL 586071, P. *13 - 15 last accessed on March <br />2, 2026, at: https://eluhO2O22.my.site.com/casemanager/s/eluho- <br />document/aoT8200000oI2sAEAS/2004021-�-order-on-compliance. See also RCW 36.7oA.177. <br />7 RCW 36.7oA.170; RCW 36.7oA.o6o; RCW 36.7oA.070(5). <br />L <br />