Laserfiche WebLink
01 Re: Comments on the Kittitas County 2026 Comprehensive Plan up�daafement #001 <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 /> uetaiied 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 Commentb 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.?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 /> lit CPs:(.Jelulto2a22.tiiy.sii4_ oin/ciseiiianilp-grZs./eluho <br /> documentZaoT82QQQQ0Q1 2sri EACZ 900t❑ a 5-final- i sign-and-or <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: c e t - <br /> da uinen T 2 0o I2SAE 21 -order-oti- 0 1' e. See also RCW 36.7oA.177. <br /> 7 RCW 36.7oA.170; RCW 36.7oA.o6o; RCW 36.7oA.070(5). <br /> L <br />