Comments_Combined_KimleyHorn - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From: Scott Davidson To: Jeremy Johnston Cc: Laura Osiadaa Subject: Strong Opposition to the Proposed Easton Subarea Plan—Request for Reconsideration Date: Wednesday,April 15,2026 7:25:26 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside the Kittitas County network.Do not click links,open attachments,fulfill requests,or follow guidance unless you recognize the sender and have verified the content is safe. Dear Kittitas County Board of Commissioners and Planning Department, I am writing as a property owner in the Easton area to formally oppose adoption of the draft Easton Subarea Plan(V3.0). After 26 years of service in the U.S.Air Force,I chose to settle in Easton specifically for its rural character,independence,and minimal regulatory environment.I am concerned that this plan,as currently written,introduces policies and long-term actions that risk fundamentally altering those qualities. While the document emphasizes preserving Easton's"quiet,rural,and outdoor-oriented identity,"several proposed policies appear to conflict with that objective.Provisions that support expanded mixed-use development,increased housing flexibility within LAMIRDs,and additional public infrastructure introduce a level of growth and oversight that may be inconsistent with maintaining the character residents value. I also have concerns regarding the level and representativeness of community input.The plan references multiple engagement opportunities;however, documented participation appears limited.For example,one open house included approximately 15 attendees out of a population of just over 400 residents. That level of participation raises legitimate questions about whether the plan reflects the broader community's priorities or those of a small subset of participants. Additionally,the plan identifies real infrastructure constraints—including septic limitations,emergency access challenges,and gaps in services—yet simultaneously proposes expanded housing options,reduced barriers to accessory dwelling units,and new public amenities.Without clearly defined, sustainable funding mechanisms or infrastructure solutions,these proposals risk creating long-term financial and operational burdens for existing residents. The inclusion of potential public facilities such as restrooms,expanded trail systems,and additional community infrastructure also raises concerns about ongoing maintenance costs and the likelihood of increased tax obligations.Many residents moved to Easton to avoid precisely this type of expansion and associated financial impact. I am also concerned about the broader direction of"managed growth"outlined in the plan.Easton's identity has historically been defined by low-density living,personal responsibility for land stewardship,and limited government intrusion.Policies that encourage increased density or expanded regulatory frameworks—even within designated areas—risk setting precedents that extend beyond their initial scope. For these reasons,I respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners not adopt the Easton Subarea Plan in its current form. At a minimum,I ask that the County pause this process and conduct a more robust,transparent,and well-publicized community engagement effort to ensure meaningful participation from a substantially larger portion of Easton residents and property owners. Easton's strength lies in its rural character,independence,and small-community values.Any long-term planning effort should reflect those priorities clearly and consistently. Thank you for your time and consideration.I am available to discuss these concerns further and can be reached at[your email address]or[your phone number]. Respectfully, Scott Davidson Parcel#858834