KINGSTON — The Kingston Urban Growth Area plan is going back to the drawing board, at least until a few issues that caused the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board to reject the proposal July 26 can be resolved. Even so, residents are not discouraged with the need for retooling, knowing that county officials are working diligently to sort out the problems so the project can be resubmitted for approval.

At an Aug. 2 Kingston Citizen Advisory Committee meeting, Kitsap County Department of Community Development planner Philip Fletcher laid out the issues at hand for Kingston residents, many of whom were concerned the plan had been spurned as a whole.

“It didn’t meet standards for the Growth Management Act,” he said. “The plan is not invalid. It needed work. The county has until the end of the year to correct the problems raised by the hearings board.”

Fletcher added that while the core of the plan is sound, a few portions of it have not been outlined in enough detail to uphold GMA mandates. Among those issues are the use of sewers, updated land analyses, further examination of how proposed expansions will fit into the plan and estimates of needs and costs in terms of utilities.

“We treated these items too lightly,” Fletcher said.

“I’m pretty certain,” said Kitsap County Commissioner Chris Endresen of the plan being rewritten by the end of the year deadline. “It definitely will be ready.”

The county had been planning ahead in case the proposal was rejected by the hearings board, said DCD Land Use Manager Eric Baker. When Kitsap Citizens for Responsible Planning filed a petition for review of the UGA Feb. 17, 2006, county officials began working to improve the plan in case it went through.

“We’re taking a look at the sewer reduction and land utilized in the plan,” Baker said, adding that the problems are on their way to being fixed.

The Kingston UGA has been in the works for nearly two years. In October 2005, it was submitted to the Kitsap Planning Commission, which both reviewed and approved the plan. Nearly a dozen Kingston residents participated in the UGA design process, and they along with the rest of the community were initially disappointed when their hard work appeared to be for naught.

“We don’t plan for (the UGA) to change,” Endresen said. “The community worked so long and so hard on it. It’s too bad.”

Baker and Fletcher stressed, however, that the UGA is fundamentally sound, and the county is working to have the rewrite completed by the end of the year. Both of the DCD officials said it should be no problem to have the UGA ready for a resubmission by December.

“The community worked very hard over many years,” Baker said. “The decision from the board is unfortunate.”