SOUTHWEST TRUCKEE
MEADOWS CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD

In re: SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP
LEGACY FARMS
Case No.: SW02-021 & TM02-007

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Reno, Nevada

A P P E A R A N C E S

BOARD MEMBERS:
Elaine Steiner - Chair
Ellen Steiner
Robbin Palmer
Joe Bachman
Ray Martin
George Queyrel
Faith Fessenden
Mary Dugan
Matt Taormina

SPEAKERS
PHIL THOMAS - SUMMIT ENGINEERING
ROGER PELHAM
Lyn Mundt
Herb Rubenstein
Earnest Walker
Gary Elrod
Terri Shannon
Wayne Hogue
Lilli Trinchero
Bob March
Leigh Ann Scott
Karen Colombini
Beth Rubenstein
Dan Arnold
Herb Rubenstein
James Sanford
Larry Anderson
Steve Walther

RENO, NEVADA, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2003
7:00 o'clock p.m.

MS. ELAINE STEINER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call the meeting to order. We are getting started late. I see there are a lot of people here, and could go well into the night. Okay. This is 9-A: Special Use Permit SWO2-021 and Tentative Map TM02-007 (Legacy Farms)-Review of new updated information on an application to develop a public sanitary sewer lift station in conjunction with the proposed Legacy Farms Subdivision.
Well, what we will do -- so everybody understands the procedure -- is that Applicant will make his presentation. Then the public can make some comments. If there are any questions to go to the applicant, they may be asked, but feel free -- and then it will come back to the Board [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board]. Each Board member will have a turn to say what they want and go from there. Okay. Everybody understands the ground rules. Okay. Would Bill Thomas ñ While Bill is getting ready, Roger Pelham is a staff [Washoe County] representative on this particular item. And if he wishes to make comments, he may do that.
If you would -- would you like to go before or after?
MR. ROGER PELHAM: I can make my comments right now. I am Roger Pelham. I'm here to answer any code or policy questions that you might have.
I'm neither for or against the project. The applicant is here to present that and if there are any questions, like I said, in terms of how this relates to the Development Code, I will attempt to answer those to the best of my knowledge.
MR. BILL THOMAS: My name is Bill Thomas. I'm with Summit Engineering Corporation. Also with me on this project is Steve Mollath, the legal counsel for the property owners.
For the Board members, I know probably all or most of you who have seen this project twice in December. We came forward with the original subdivision map that was completed and last month we brought forward the Special Use Permit.
A couple changes occurred on the map [Special Use Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map] and should be reflected in the changes that were presented to you.
One of the issues was having adequate information, and each of you should have received a full packet. Hopefully there isn't an issue in terms of you not getting all the information.
The main thing, I guess, to start with is the Special Use Permit for the sewer lift station -- which is no longer being requested on the project. Originally there was going to be a centralized lift station to lift the sewer off the property and run it down to the north to connect into the Lakeside Ranch Estates project and eventually take it off into the sewer plant. That lift station is gone.
The property will still be connected to the community sewer, but there is a different system -- which the county now recognizes -- which is called an E-1 system, where each house has its own pump. So that particular solution provides for the elimination of septic tanks, but there is no longer a centralized sewer lift station.
So we have requested from the county that that application be withdrawn. So there is really no reason to have any action on it tonight nor for me to get into any details since it's no longer part of the application.
The second thing that is different is -- the first time we were here -- the property, which I will describe to the people who do not know where it is, is located on the corner of Lakeside Drive where the turns into the Holcomb. Let's see if I can do this.
The south end of the property is Holcomb Lane, and that's the corner of the southwest corner of the property is where Lakeside turns into Holcomb. It's a 33 acre piece of property that is allowed by the zoning or the land-use designation to have 13 lots.
The first time we submitted the map we had lots that ranged from two acres to a little more than three. I think about 3.4 was the biggest lot. But what we heard at that meeting was that there was a desire to have all the lots meet two and a half acres, even though the joining or the land-use designation allows a minimum use of two acres. We went back and changed the subdivision and now the lots are two and a half, up to a little more than three, with an average lot size of 2.7 acres.
As I said, the lots themselves will still be at two and a half acres or larger. The property can be accessed by two locations. One would be off Lakeside Drive where the current driveway is into the property. That's in this location here. And the second access point that comes off of Holcomb on the south end of the property.
A couple things that have changed -- based on some community meetings and information we have received -- is that that road will no longer -- from our standpoint we are not going to request that it be private or that it be gated. So it will be assigned as private. It will be maintained by the property owners. But it's not our intent to gate off the road.
Another issue that came up when we presented it originally through the hearing process was that we did not allow horses or did not allow agricultural animals and the like. It actually says in our CC&Rs that that is a permissible use [Protect Our Washoe Note: Mr. Thomas is incorrect. CC&Rís specifically prohibit the use of animals according to the ìdraftî CC&Rís provided the County, the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board, and the individuals at the hearing. Part III(I) of the CC&Rís (pages 14 and 15) specifically provide: ìI. Animals. No animals shall be kept or maintained on any lot except the usual household pets not kept for commercial purposes, which shall be kept reasonably confined so as not to become a nuisance. Household pets shall not unreasonably interfere with the comfort, privacy or safety of other owners within the development. No lot shall have more than two (2) such household pets. The Declarant may file a supplemental declaration allowing horses and or 4-H animals limited to cattle and sheep on specific lots, providing those lots are a minimum of one (1) acre in size and are in an area where such use would be in keeping with the physical constraints of the land and in character with the uses of the surrounding properties.î] There will be additional restrictions placed in terms of how people can have those and manage them, but they will be allowed within the project. We also have made a change -- There was originally a pond which was going to be put along Dry Creek which runs through the property. And I'm sure, as most of you who live up in this area are aware, there are a lot of ponds. We got a lot of concern about this pond and particularly in relationship to the stream. So that pond has been eliminated. The last point that I guess I wanted to make in terms of the project and some information that we have seen is that there are no variance requests. This is simply a tentative subdivision map.
That's all we are requesting. We meet or exceed the rules for the subdivision. And that is, in a nutshell, what the project is.
I certainly will try to answer any questions but I appreciate the opportunity to come back to the Board and present the revised application.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Thank you. Is that your presentation?
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Now, we'll start with --
MS. LYN MUNDT: My name is Lyn Mundt. Don't you still have a Special Use Permit in accordance of Article 418?
MR. THOMAS: The question was ìDo we have to have a Special Use Permit because of the stream ordinance, the new ordinance, that the County adopted pertaining to the streams -- Dry Creek being one of those?î The answer is ìYes.î And the only reason we do is because we have a road that crosses the stream. That is the reason for the Special Use Permit. The actual ordinance said that single family homes are allowed within 150 feet of the creek, which is probably a good thing because there are a lot of homes in this neighborhood which I would imagine are within 150 feet [zone ñ thatís the area where it basically says you have a special responsibility in terms of what you can do, but it does allow use of family homes] of the creek.
So the only reason we are asking for the Special Use Permit is for the grading associated with the road crossing and no longer the pond. The pond was part of original request.
MS. MUNDT: Does that mean that all the buildings out past here are all outside the sensitive stream zone except for the 150 feet?
MR. THOMAS: No.
MS. MUNDT: That's not correct.
MR. THOMAS: What the ordinance says is if you are in the critical -- maybe I heard it wrong. The critical, which is the thirty foot, you can't do anything except for vegetation and weed removal and things like that which we have preserved that thirty feet on each side the creek.
We have also in the 150 feet that's the area where it basically says you have a special (unintelligible) in terms of what you can do. But it does say allowed use of family homes --
MS. MUNDT: However, that is what triggers the stream ordinance.
MR. THOMAS: Right.
MS. MUNDT: Once the building is built, then it's already there. Then you don't need a Special Use Permit in the sensitive stream zone. But in the tentative map stage you very definitely need the Special Use Permit for your building.
MR. THOMAS: Okay. I guess, you know, it's not to waste your time on what the rules are. We are here. We have a Special Use Permit. This is what we are going to do. So we are not trying to hide or change anything.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I'm sorry. The people who have their hands raised, have they turned in sheets in which to speak? Okay. If you can -- for the record -- please state your name and say it loud enough so we can hear it up here. And make your questions.
EARNEST WALKER: Earnest Walker.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Earnest Walker. Okay. Mr. Walker, you want to give us your address.
MR. WALKER: 3855 Fairview. Can I talk to him? You [referring to Bill Thomas from Summit Engineering] were here last time, and they said something about each one of those sites would use 86,000 gallons of water a day I think. That was the max. And there is no way of checking on that or governing that in any way. Is there any water rights that actually have ditches to this place?
MR. THOMAS: The property owners own both ground water rights in this basin as well as surface water rights.
MR. WALKER: Will they have any surface water rights?
MR. THOMAS: The intent is to provide these lots a portion of surface water rights --
MR. WALKER: How is that enforced?
MR. THOMAS: How is it enforced? We will have to with our final subdivision map put in place a system to deliver the water to the lots. And then each of the property owners will be allotted a certain quantity based on the water rights that are owned by the property owners.
MR. WALKER: They will have water off that ditch to irrigate their property with?
MR. THOMAS: That would be the intent --
MR. WALKER: It has to be there for sure. Intent means it never happens. It has to be there, you know --
MR. THOMAS: I guess I don't understand the question.
MR. WALKER: You can ìintendî everything but how are you going to enforce it? How are you going to know it's going to be there? Is this good faith or is there some document?
MR. THOMAS: What will happen is water rights that are owned and allocated to the property will be sold as part of each lot.
MR. WALKER: So these guys will all have water rights?
MR. THOMAS: That's right.
MR. WALKER: Will they have a ditch or gates and so on and so forth?
MR. THOMAS: There will have to be a delivery system designed. Whether it's a ditch or whether it's a pipe system -- that's part of what we haven't worked out and come up with yet.
MR. WALKER: Will that be in your grand -- when this is all done is that going to be in there, a for sure, for sure thing?
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
MR. WALKER: And it will be there or it won't be there?
MR. THOMAS: The reason I say intent is because that's part of our plan. If you tell somebody they own a water right to serve as irrigation and they choose not to, I don't know how you force them to use a water right.
MR. WALKER: They have to get it there on the property. There is no reason to use it if it's not there.
MR. THOMAS: What my clients want to do is design a system so each property owner can have water on their property. If the property owners choose not to use it --
MR. WALKER: I understand that. But I just want to make sure they do have water to their property. It will be there?
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
MR. WALKER: Okay, sir.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Okay. Is there a Gary Elrod?
MR. GARY ELROD: Yes. I live on Holcomb Lane. Just from the information I read I'm concerned that although the architecture looks nice, there is no assurances it will be built like that.
My primary concern if you are going to do that-- Well, all these homes are going to be the same color. They are going to be white? Is that the requirement of your development here?
MR. THOMAS: There is nothing that requires all the homes to be of a certain color [Protect Our Washoe Note: Mr. Thomas is incorrect. The application originally filed, and which still remains filed unamended, with the Washoe County Community Development Department, specifically provides: ìFencing for the project will be for rail vinyl fencing (white) and will define the perimeter of the property as well as all property boundaries. The painting scheme will be all white homes with either brick or stone elements on every home.î]. What happens is like many subdivisions like this that have custom home sites that is there is an Architectural Control Committee that says whenever you come in for a permit for your house, the plans for your house, that committee, which is made up of at least one professional designer, looks at it and sees how it fits into the (unintelligible) of the subdivision.
Clearly, there is an interest both in anybody who is going into a project like this to have a variety as well as quality to the structure and the design.
And the intent with the information that was provided is to give a sense of what the owners think about perhaps a house or two. In no way would every one of the houses look like that. That would be -- just wouldn't make sense in a subdivision like this or a property like this.
The lots will be for sale. It's quite possible that, you know, different owners will bring in different architects. There is no requirements that the owners of the property -- who also happen to be homebuilders -- have to build the homes.
So somebody has a choice when they buy a lot to find whoever they want as the architect and the builder. And all they have to do is go through the Architectural Committee to make sure that it doesn't turn out to be something that is inconsistent which is not dissimilar to any project like this.
MR. ELROD: Would you say then that the architectural styles could be somewhat dissimilar to the Kentucky horse property concept -- that some can be ultra modern and some can be way out of whack for the real estate?
MR. THOMAS: That's what -- the intent was from the pictures that were presented was to provide a kind of ranch-style look as opposed to something that is ultra modern.
They have not laid down, the owners, exactly the details. And I don't think they would want to. Because one of the things you risk is -- if you get too fine in the details -- everything does look the same.
If you require a porch on every house, you require a certain pitch on every house, then just by the nature of the rules you force people to create things that are very similar.
The intent of what was presented was to say that's what the flavor of what they are trying to do with the design is. Obviously when you do the first few buildings, you kind of set the stage. And if somebody comes in with the third or fourth building and it is totally contrary to the first building, it's going to be difficult to get that through the Architectural Committee.
MR. ELROD: Can I ask another question? How about your egress on to Lakeside? You get a lot of high-speed traffic, unfortunately, coming on that street before it hits the curve here. How do you deal with the setback issues, you know, as potential and other developments happen? Some folks want to widen Lakeside and this and that. Who knows what happens in 10 years. What are you going to do about your setbacks there so we don't have more accidents happening around that curve?
MR. THOMAS: Well, perhaps probably one of the biggest concerns is the building ongoing down on this location down here.
What we'll need to do is that the final placement and design of this particular lot will have to address sight, visibility, and sight distance around that curve. Even if we didn't agree to that, I think, and that would be part of the stipulation we would have to get from NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] in terms of getting ultimately our curve cuts and our approaches.
The sight distance -- as you are probably familiar with -- is pretty good right now from across this site. And there is nothing there. You can see from one side to the other. But we will have to be sensitive to that, you know, when placing a house on that site and yet still making sure there is adequate sight distance.
MR. ELROD: I'm also concerned about the discussion that there will be some animals. This is right in the -- absolutely -- Well, look at what is there now. There is cattle roaming out amongst the rocks and weed.
It kind of sounds like there will be control on certain animals maybe? I would be very concerned that homeowners would get in there and find out that, you know, you are allowed one sheep or one something. It almost sounds like a 4-H person couldn't move in there if they wanted to have animals unless, you know, certain folks -- unknown folks at some point in time -- agree to that. That would be a concern in sort of changing the very, very rural nature of what we have got right there.
MR. THOMAS: Well, I think the balance we are trying to achieve is not say you can do whatever you want but to recognize that that kind of use is consistent with the character to the area.
The owners don't want to go to the extreme to allowing someone to purchase a lot and maybe bringing in a bunch of chickens or something. I don't know what the answer is. But some animals are offensive to agricultural and that basically destroys the value of the other parcel.
The intent is to have them be consistent and allow for agricultural type of animals. But they want to preserve the rights to put a limit on the number. If you were saying that in the CC&Rs originally drafted you could have two household pets, we added something that allowed for additional animals to be provided based on our supplemental restrictions [Protect Our Washoe Note: As stated above, the CC&Rís which have been filed with the County and remain unamended, simply provide that the Declarant ìmayî (but need not) allow animals other than two (2) household pets. As stated above, Paragraph III(I) provides the Declarant ìmay file a supplemental declaration allowing horses and or 4-H animals limited to cattle and sheep on specific lots, providing those lots are a minimum of one (1) acre in size or in an area where such use would be in keeping with the physical constraints of the land and in character with the uses of surrounding propertiesî. The Declarant states the CC&Rís are actually accompanied by supplemental declarations, but they are not. No supplemental declarations have yet been provided the County, the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board, or the public. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact the Declarant has stated the supplemental declarations are attached to the CC&Rís, none have been provided. Accordingly, the CC&Rís simply now prohibit anything other than two (2) ìusual household pets.î]
MR. ELROD: Have those -- are those specific in the writing at this point?
MR. THOMAS: No, they are not. Okay. Okay.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: You want us to have your time tacked off? You have a question, and I have to go to somebody else.
MR. HERB RUBENSTEIN: This is just my question: You have made changes in your CC&Rs. I want to ask if you have submitted anything in writing in the last seven calendar days to the Board [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board] or to the County [Washoe County Community Development Department] -- any changes in your plans and any changes in the CC&Rís? What am I missing? Is there something else? Well, we'll start with that.
MR. THOMAS: We submitted a letter withdrawing the Special Use Permit Application in the last seven days, I believe. I don't know the date. We have not changed anything in the CC&Rs other than what is put into the books that the Board has.
The additional things we may stipulate or agree to, such as the elimination of the pond, is handled simply by acknowledging that that is an issue that comes from this Board. Something we express gets translated in the conditions for Roger [Pelham ñ of Washoe County Community Development Department] so there is a way to secure that it happens even though in writing we may not have changed it.
The other thing is that hopefully one would understand that in a process like this, if anything is locked in and there is no way to change it and nothing is going to vary, then there is really no sense in having a meeting other than to presenting information. We are here saying if we hear concerns that we feel we can deal with, we are willing to adjust them. It may not be in writing today, but it's certainly something that can be reflected in their minutes and agreed to as a condition to the staff to make sure it's enforceable.
The only thing I know of in the last seven days is the two things, I guess, elimination of the pond and the letter withdrawing the Special Use Permit.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. So basically every meeting we have had, this is number three, we have come to these meetings and the information was never on time. The Board has never been able to review it. And it's never been available. Your people always come and say, Oh, now we have made some changes.
But we still don't see the CC&Rs. The issue with the animals is going to be a problem.
Just because you can stand here and say that it will be, doesn't mean anything to us.
The purpose of this meeting is for us to review the facts presented by you in an orderly manner prior to the meeting. And I find this very unfair. That's an editorial really.
I have another question. I would like Roger [Pelham] -- Roger is here from the County and maybe he can settle this little dispute between yourself and Lyn about the details of the way, you know, the tentative map and the Special Use Permit with building wells and where the house has to be in relation to the sensitive stream zone. You don't feel that's very important, but a lot of people here do --
MR. THOMAS: That's not what I said.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I would like to see that discrepancy settled.
MR. THOMAS: That's not what I said.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I want an answer.
MR. THOMAS: Roger [Pelham], you want to --
MR. PELHAM: Bill [Thomas] does have a copy of 418 -- Article 418 of the Washoe County Development Code. And I'm sure he will be happy to read the applicable sections.
In short, single-family residences are allowed within the ìsensitive stream zone.î Of course, the question is -- Are they going to put it there or not?
Bill, if you would. And is that sufficient or would someone else --
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I want to know what triggers the Special Use Permit.
MR. THOMAS: Okay. I have the ordinance here. And what it says is sensitive stream zone buffer area which was defined earlier in the ordinances is the area within 150 feet of each side of the centerline of the channel.
"All development in the sensitive stream zone buffer area shall be subject to the following standards:
(a) Allowed Uses. All allowed uses within the critical stream zone buffer area are also allowed in the sensitive stream zone buffer area. Additional allowed uses in the sensitive stream zone buffer area include:
(1) Single family, detached residential uses and all related accessory associated with the structure.
(b) Permitted uses requiring a Special Use Permit" and there is a long list of them.
And what applies to us is it says, "The Special Use Permit requirement is also applicable to construction or enlargement of any public or private roads, driveway, structure or facility including drainage."
So this very clearly says a single family house within the critical -- make sure I get the word right ñ ìsensitive streamî environment -- is allowed.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Is that an existing house or new house?
MR. THOMAS: It doesn't distinguish. It says a single family house. I'm just reading what the ordinance says. Anybody else can do the same thing. I'm not trying to negate anything about the stream zone. I'm just telling you the rules as we understand them and as they were written in black and white. If the rules are wrong and they weren't written properly, that's something that needs to be dealt with. Anybody can read them. I'm not making this up.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Our comments will need to be a little shorter.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I agree that the rules are written in black and white, but the interpretation seems very complicated. And it's important that it be interpreted correctly. I have another question. Very straight forward. Do you intend to have model homes?
MR. THOMAS: It's not model homes in the sense of model homes, no.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: What sense would it be?
MR. THOMAS: Model home is a tract subdivision where you sell three or four homes, and that's what you put on.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Well, would you have choices? If I want to buy a home in this subdivision, do I have to pick from how many choices?
MR. THOMAS: Well, the choices are based on what you want to do. These lots will be for sale. It will not be required that BrunsonBuilt -- who's part of the owners -- to build the homes. If they choose to use them, then the model that the person wants on the home is their choice.
Now, just like any custom subdivision if they decide, the property owners, to build a house, then that house could be sold on the lot based on what they build. It's no different than any other subdivision where somebody buys a lot and does a spec home. That happens all over the county.
That person who builds a home chooses to pre-build what somebody might buy. There is no distinction or difference other than the fact that the property owners, in fact, build homes.
It's not like a custom home or a subdivision where you have 400 lots and you have three models to choose from. That's not what this is.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: A long time ago we were told that there would be three model homes. Are you saying that's not true anymore?
MR. THOMAS: The owners of the property have presented some plans that they are looking at to build on the property.
If they build those three homes, somebody buys a lot and says I like that kind of home, certainly they would be able to build a home like that. That's not intended to say that's the only thing that can be built on the property.
I mean, if that was the case, you would end up with basically, you know, nine homes that look the same.
That's not what the intent was. The intent was to build those particular homes -- see what the interest is.
It's no different if a person buys -- a builder buys three or four lots in any custom subdivision. They have the right -- if they can get it through the Architectural Review Committee -- to build whatever home that fits and wait until somebody buys those homes. So there really is no distinction.
I know what is being represented in terms of this being like a Bailey & Dutton or something like that. That's not the case. It's no different from a spec homebuilder building a custom home assuming someone is going to purchase it based on the design that they choose to build on the property.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Do you intend to market the lots or market homes?
MR. THOMAS: My understanding is from the owners they will do both. They will build homes and try to sell those. And they will also have the lots for sale. And if somebody wants to buy more than one lot, they can buy more than one lot.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: It seems to me that since half the owners of the property is the home builder, that I would guess that that interest would want to market homes more than just market lots. Otherwise he won't make any money. So now the fact of the matter is the homes are marketed in such a way, that it's not cost effective to buy a lot, then no one is going to buy a lot. They are going to want to buy a home from the builder.
MR. THOMAS: I don't know how to answer that.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: That's why I'm asking -- do you intend to market the lots?
MR. THOMAS: The marketing and the sales ñ
MR. RUBENSTEIN: That's why I'm asking do you intend to market the lots? You make statements about anybody can buy a lot. Sure, if they are willing to pay a fortune. But they can buy a home for a much more reasonable price.
MR. THOMAS: I don't know how I can answer that.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Okay. Terri Shannon, you wish to speak? Terri, let's try to keep it to three minutes if we can.
MS. TERRY SHANNON: I just have a couple questions, actually, on the presentation.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Okay. Fine.
MS. SHANNON: My question first off -- and I'm new to your development so I would like a little understanding -- and maybe there are some other new people here, and I hope they will bear with me.
Can you explain -- and I'm sure there is a dollar and cents explanation -- why we are not bringing piped water to these lots?
MR. THOMAS: It's outside of the service territory of Truckee Meadows Water Authority which is the closest water system. It is also a significant way away of connection. And unlike sewer, to bring water to this property would include not only the lines to get it here but water tanks, water pump station. Water systems are much more complex than sewer systems. And a subdivision of thirteen lots -- it just doesn't make sense to build a whole water infrastructure that would have to be designed for a much larger area.
MS. SHANNON: Thank you. When you decided that it would be appropriate then to sell thirteen lots and have private domestic wells -- and I'm a little concerned because we are shipping the water that those wells are supplying off of the lots and into the sewer. Did they do an impact study or was an impact study of any sort done to see what the affect of those wells would be on the surrounding wells in the area?
MR. THOMAS: You are talking about the individual wells or the septics or the sewer?
MS. SHANNON: The wells. I'm sorry. I'm the domestic well person.
MR. THOMAS: All right. The water rights that are purchased for this property are within this Basin which means the owner of those rights has the right to drill a well on their property. So their legal permitted rights that are --
MS. SHANNON: Only if they do not impact -- It's my understanding if they do not impact other existing wells. And so my question was -- Has there been an impact study?
MR. THOMAS: If you are saying ìHave there been test wells drilled on the property to see what is going to happen?î -- no.
MS. SHANNON: Or using the monitoring that our Water Resources Department has to do some -- I can't come up with the word -- ground water modeling -- to determine whether if you added those wells they would impact the sustainability of the existing wells in the area.
I just wondered if an impact study of that sort has been done.
My next question is, would by any chance the owners of this property, based on -- I assume that the owners already expect that by placing -- by selling lots that are going to have thirteen domestic wells and they have the water rights attached -- I assume that they believe that they will not impact the neighbors.
And so I just sort of wonder -- would there be a chance if they would be willing as a condition to put a bond forth and have it held for, say, five years in the event that there was litigation necessary, that perhaps there was impact to the domestic wells within the area?
My other questions -- And that's something I know you can't answer right this second. I thought it might be one of those public considerations you might take into consideration and our Board might take into consideration. The other question I have is about the surface water rights. I'm a little concerned because I do know that you have a right to have -- You are saying that the CC&Rs are going to allow animals. And I do believe that Washoe County does have ordinances in two and a half acres.
In our neighborhood we have been informed that you are really only allowed -- and the State Water Engineer has brought up you are only allowed on a domestic well -- and I guess that's why you are bringing these water surface rights -- to have a certain amount of domestic animals. It's only for domestic and beneficial use.
Now, when you bring in the surface water rights to each property, is there going to be some kind of a monitoring system to be sure how much water these people actually use? Is that going to be perhaps accounted for within your CC&Rs and the Homeowners Association?
And will there be a monitoring system to make sure that the nitrates from the animals do not -- and the animals themselves do not --get into that creek bed and contaminate the water for downstream users?
That's another concern that I kind of had. And those are the thoughts that I had in regards --
The other thing is -- will you be letting the people know if they have surface rights and [what happens if] they don't use them for their beneficial use? And I guess your lawyer would be best at addressing this one. Aren't they revocable then if we go a certain amount of time and we have surface rights or any water right in our state? Isn't it true if you don't use that water, you lose it? You have the ability to lose the water, I think the saying is.
So I would hope that people that maybe own a house and don't have any large animals would be made aware that -- if they sell their house and somebody then wants to have large animals -- those surface water rights might be a question. And I'll sit and let you -- I don't know what you might want to respond to any of those.
MR. THOMAS: Well, certainly we will comply and follow any rules that are pertaining to the property consistent with the way other properties are treated.
Are we going to do something exceptional and out of the ordinary to address, for example, the migration of nitrates? You are talking about a very complex process that you would also have to isolate the fact that there are other agricultural animals around. Whose nitrate is it? If we find nitrate on our property, is it really ours or is it coming from the cattle next door? It's very complex in what you are talking about in some of those issues.
If that is the long-term solution to deal with ground water and the rules are in place, then we have to follow them. That will be something like that then obviously we will follow them. I don't think there is anything that is particularly unique or different about this project that would warrant a substantial variation from the way other properties are treated.
Certainly, you know, there is a concern in all areas that have wells particularly in this area of town about depleting ground water supplies. You also have to recognize the ground water is, in fact, a right. So the person who owns those, has a right to take them out and until a person purchases them or retire them or they go away because you don't use them, it's a right just like anybody else here has.
So we will follow the rules. We will do what is required. We have not discussed and talked about any of the specific things that you have mentioned.
They sound like things that ought to be looked at in a bigger picture. Even if these thirteen lots had a system like that, there is no guarantee that whatever nitrates might come off of this property those being eliminated takes care of the bigger picture in the whole neighborhood.
It's a piece in a pebble in the pond as far as the size. We are talking about 33 acres.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Okay. I have Wayne Hogue.
MR. WAYNE HOGUE: I have a concern. I live on Faretto Lane.
My concern is very much parallel to the lady who was just speaking. Not so much about the nitrates or what ever her issues may be.
Mine is the water level and whether or not, I think it's a well found question, whether or not any intellectual information has come as to what the water -- what will happen to the water, whether or not it will deplete the source. I don't know how that happens. All I know is I am concerned because we are on a well. And that's my primary concern. Otherwise I think it sounds like a good project. That's all.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Do you have any comment back?
MR. THOMAS: Well, I guess the only thing I can say, again, is it's very complex in terms of well draw down.
If we drill a well on this property and the well next door doesn't go down, does that necessarily mean we are not drawing out of the same water area? Probably not.
It all depends on the depth of the well and the inter-relationship of those wells. It's not as simple as saying, ìYeah, we will guarantee nothing happens to anybody else.î It's hard to know and be able to prove it.
The only thing that can really be said is that there is a right to pull this water out of this Basin. Is it at this location? I believe those water rights have been moved to the site. Will there be an impact on the adjacent well owners? It probably depends on the depth and location of the wells.
We have to do the test wells on each of the lots to prove that they work before the building permits are issued. I know there are legal recourse in terms of drawing down wells. And, certainly, it's not the intent of the property owner to do damage to anybody else's well. But I don't know of a good safe provable system to address the concern short of everybody being on a community water system where you know where the water is coming from, and it's metered. It may not be a good enough answer. That's just where we are at in terms of the rules.
MR. HOGUE: I actually have one more. Does each property get one well?
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
MR. HOGUE: Just one well?
MR. THOMAS: Just one well.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I have a letter here going to be read for Odile Frost Brady read by Lilli Trinchero. Is she here?
MS. LILLI TRINCHERO: Yes.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: You wanted to read the letter [from Mrs. Brady]?
MS. TRINCHERO: It says:
Dear Members of the Advisory Board:
I have lived in the Southwest Truckee Meadows ever since I was a young girl. My parents, Harry and Ethel Frost, had a ranch, a portion of which is now known as the Frost Ranch on Lakeside Drive, where I grew up. My family has been in this area for over 50 years.
My sister and I lived on horses. We roamed the hills from Lakeside Drive to Thomas Creek. We knew the members of the Ballardini family, and the home in which they now reside is on a portion of the old Ballardini Ranch. Katy Ballardini Lombardi, a member of the Ballardini family, ranched and farmed on our place for nearly all of her later years. The property on which we now reside is only a couple of hundred yards from the Legacy Farms property, previously owned by Paul and Alice Elcano.
I am particularly concerned with the development in a number of respects. I believe it should be denied for the following reasons:
First, I believe that the effort on the part of the developers to construct a number of homes clustered on that parcel which are to have similar architecture and exterior appearance will dramatically change the ìlookî of our area. It will also encourage other developers to come into the area to do the same. While I am aware that the architecture will be ìcountryî in style, the similarity in appearance, the similarity of exterior, on the Elcano property, will permanently change what over the decades has been considered an informal country atmosphere with no architectural restrictions. A very important and strong attribute of this whole area for many years has been the informality and country nature of the lifestyle we have. To inject into the center of this area a subdivision on 2.5 acre lots, all with similar architecture and appearance, will completely change the quiet, informal nature of the area, and run totally contrary to the character and culture which has been respected by those of us who have lived here for several decades, and those of us who are new in the area but who still respect and desire this lifestyle.
Second, I am aware that the developers of this subdivision propose to prohibit or limit ownership of horses and other farm animals, except with the possible consent of the developers. While this may be acceptable in the ìfringeî areas leading from urban to suburban lifestyle, to attempt this restriction in the center of this truly rural area will encourage a transition to urban use and will, I believe, add to the downfall of this informality and truly rural lifestyle that exists here.
Third, there has been no plan which has surfaced to date which proposes to assure the protection of Dry Creek (a portion of which runs through my property), and that a number of lots infringe on or traverse Dry Creek. If this kind of development were to occur up and down Dry Creek on lots that small (as mentioned, one of the tributaries of Dry Creek runs through my property and then travels down through the Elcano property), it would lose its purity and character. I believe that protections should exist that there are no uses that would detract from the purity of this spring-fed creek and that those protections should be enforceable by all parcels on the subdivision and should be embedded in the CC&Rís.
I should mention that we are presently selling three lots of our ranch, one lot approximately six acres in size, another approximately seven acres in size, another approximately 25 acres in size. We would never attempt to restrict the architecture, appearance or use on these lots, since it would be determined to be inconsistent with the area. Moreover, to attempt to do so would cause us, I believe, to lose money. In fact, I believe the value of all parcels will be reduced if this development should occur. People move to this area because it is uniquely informal and rural in lifestyle. The culture would be seriously eroded if there began to be look-alike subdivisions in this area. In this entire area, restrictions have not been needed and the people in this area have not tried to impose those restrictions on others. I believe that the owners and developers of Legacy Farms should respect this informality, as we have over the years, and as we are presently doing with our own parcels that are available for sale.
I should note that Warren and Pat Nelson, who own a large parcel of property next to the Legacy Farms (and which also has a tributary of Dry Creek running through it, the same one that runs through my property and then down to the Elcano property), once considered using a portion of their property for a tennis club. It was their intent to convert an old guest ranch that had been on their property to a tennis environment when the guest ranch went out of business. When it became apparent to the Nelsons that this would interfere with the atmosphere that has been enjoyed over the years, they quickly retracted those plans to do so and sent letters to all around them that they also believed this culture should be respected now and in the future. This is the kind of informal understanding that exists out here.
For these reasons I believe the Legacy Farms application for development should be denied.
While we all recognize that an owner of property in this area should have the general right to sell lots 2.5 acres in size. However, the configuration of these lots, the lack of protection of the wetlands and Dry Creek, the uncertainties regarding the use of underground water and wells, the effort to constrict what has been typical rural activity and uses, and the desire to restrict the appearance and architecture of the buildings, makes the proposed development, considered in total, quite unacceptable. Accordingly, please deny the Legacy Farms application.î[Sincerely Odile Frost Brady, 8990 Lomardi Road, Reno, Nevada]
MS. ELAINE STEINER: There is another letter not to be read aloud, but they would like to have it submitted for the record.
I have one here -- Is Jack Quade here? I don't think I saw him. I have a letter that he wrote to me that says:
"Dear Ms. Steiner,
Subject Legacy Farms: Irrigation and Water Rights Issues.
Those people representing the owners, at the Barkley Ranch meeting, on February 1, made it clear that their present plan is to irrigate thirteen, 2.5 acre parcels by using domestic wells connected to a fully automated irrigation system. Such a use of a domestic water right would be in clear violation of the 1800 gallon\day allotment, but without a weir on the wells or a viable enforcement policy there would be no way to monitor the almost certain violations that would follow.
The allocation of 4 acre feet of Truckee River Water rights to each parcel which has been made, but would only provide (according to the Water Masters Office) enough water to irrigate one acre of land but not enough to water 2.5 acres. Eight acre feet\parcel would appear to be what's needed.
Further, there needs to be some way of distributing the water from the west side of the property to the individual parcels, or more importantly to integrate the distribution with the proposed irrigation system. There is presently nothing in the Legacy Farms Application to do this.
The ditches between Lakeside and Steamboat Canal are presently in need of repair and upgrade before the volume of new service is to go on line. This will be the responsibility of all those using the water from the canal.
The use of ground water for irrigation as proposed by the Legacy Farms Application has more than negative implications for the immediate area and would be a bad precedent to establish for the southwest.
Sincerely, Jack Quade."
Would you like to comment on that?
MR. THOMAS: I guess I don't understand the precedent for having wells. It's not a precedent. That's what everything is that is around it.
As far as the irrigation system, as I said, we will design one at the time of final map. And taking water out of the Last Chance Ditch requires that property owners pay for the property maintenance because they will become the cost or the people who bear the cost of the use of the ditch to provide water to their property.
So I don't think there is anything that is precedence in terms of what we are doing. The lot sizes were defined by the county in terms of the zoning and land use on the property.
Certainly there are lots in this neighborhood and you all know and we can point to them that they are this size or smaller. And they do exist. And we are not asking for anything that is outside of the rules.
There is no variances. As I said before, you are allowed to have two acre lots here. You have to keep in mind they are a minimum of two and a half. We increased it, which qualifies.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: One question.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Is the time over?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: No. I have a lot of people who want to speak.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Is his presentation done with?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: It is open to the letter.
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: He shouldnít have to respond to the letter you read.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Is Bob March here?
MR. BOB MARCH: It's easy to forget the uniqueness of this area in the southwest in which Legacy Farms is located. We began developing about the time of the Civil War.
The area has evolved and has continued to evolve. Some of the significant events that have caused this character were the Comstock provision, the Chinese construction of ditches, the University Farms and Steve Walther's vision and dedication to the preservation of the area without which I don't believe any of us would be here now.
The opportunities we have is to create, actively and preserve and enhance part of our legacy. I'm opposed to the CC&Rs which would create a tract-like development in an area unburdened by this type of construction.
I have lived downstream from Legacy Farms property on the Dry Creek since 1985. My family and I have enjoyed the uniqueness and tranquility and beauty of the forest.
The wildlife regularly travel this area. We regularly have visits from coyotes, raccoons and blue herons. Even daylight visits from bear and mountain lion are not unheard of.
During flood times I have seen this docile waterway become a raging pond trapping horses in their paths with water up to their chests. Flooding is able to move boulders and debris that can clog the waterways changing the direction of the flow down stream bridges and up stream crossing to Lakeside. I have seen the water backed up and spilling over the roadway.
Any unlikely vehicle traveling the roadways under these conditions would easily hydroplane off the pavement and find themselves off the bottom of the newly created lake.
My experience tells me nothing can safely be built in the flood zone that won't be inundated to some degree or block the natural flow.
It appears that a fencing scheme that allows or requires fencing in the flood zone should be eliminated.
I have no doubt that the owner-developers have researched this to make this project a Legacy. I hope it is a legacy that we can all be proud of and connects the existing wildlife and expands and protects our natural resources.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: You want to make your comments?
MS. LYN MUNDT: My name is Lyn Mundt, and I was involved with the stream ordinance.
And what I would like to talk about is the purpose of the ordinance and the intention and then trying to figure out what we can do to get that purpose and intention on this property.
I have listened to all the comments that people have made, and a lot of the things that you are concerned about, your wells, whether they are going to be recharged so that your wells won't be drawn down by these new wells, corridors for wildlife to be able to travel downstream, worrying about -- people downstream worrying about floods coming down their way that have been made worse because of building that has gone up stream. All of these things relate to how stream corridors are handled.
And the intention of the stream ordinance was to provide regulations to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by providing buffers for streams and by making new subdivisions abide by certain goals that we were trying to reach, such as, preserving protecting and restoring the natural functions of existing perennial streams.
In order to do this, you have to give streams room. If streams are left alone with room on each side, the natural functions that they provide are protection from floods, storage for storm water. It slows the run off down from urban areas and roads, slows it down, spreads it out. It filters out pollutants that come off the road. If it's flooding, it allows the flood waters to spread out so that they don't get deep. They slow down. The energy dissipates. And the water is able to filter back into the ground and recharge wells.
There is water quality. While they are doing this, the storm water is getting improved, taking the oils from cars and roadways and dirt and sand and putting it back into the soil so that when it gets down to the ground water, which is where your wells are from, it's pure again.
And then, of course, the wildlife corridors. And we all know that the deer in the winter need to come down to the valley.
I know you like to a look out and hear the coyotes and see the deer. And they need corridors to be able to do this.
Fish spawn. Some spawn in the spring. Some spawn in the fall. They need to have uninterrupted access to be able to go up stream when they spawn to have a corridor where there is no barriers that they can't get through.
And vegetation that these animals live off of is a native vegetation, survives well under these circumstances. Every time that the native vegetation is removed it's replaced usually with [Paul Whitetop?], which I think all of you are probably now aware of.
You can plant exotics, but they don't compete against the noxious weeds as well as the native vegetation that is there.
So I would like to discuss this stream corridor. We have got Dry Creek coming through here. And I don't know if you can see the colors, but we have a potential [federal] jurisdictional wetland that runs -- if you follow my two fingers here -- along the stream corridor all the way through the property. It's varies in width. Some places it's fairly close to the stream, some places it goes beyond or almost to the 150 foot mark of the sensitive stream zone.
You have also got in here, besides the wetlands, you have got the 100-year flood. And this is the yellow line that we drew on here. That is generally about 30 to 50 feet through the property. It gets wider here and the widest point is right here on the property, and then it narrows down a little bit.
In these areas, the green down here being the potential [federal] jurisdictional wetland and the flood, most of these are outside of the critical stream zone which is thirty feet. And we are talking about an area of not quite 300 feet. The pink here to the pink here is 300 feet. But this is the corridor that we need to protect. And whether it's 300 feet or 250 feet, this should be protected.
The problem is that there is no plan to protect it. The way that the Legacy Farms has been set up, these are individual lots. This is lot number two that will have this much potential wetlands. It has this much of 100-year flood zone. And that lot is constrained by nature. But the people who buy that lot and build on it, have no constraints on what they can do there.
There are some laws about doing things in jurisdictional wetlands.
An actual fact, we have a one-person office for the Army Corps of Engineers which deals with this. And nobody is going to come out and police this.
If this particular owner decides to build a large patio that provides impervious surface, then when you have a big rainstorm, that water is going to sheet flow very quickly into the creek and increase the flow and the duration of water and the energy going downstream.
If you have this owner and this owner and this owner taking out vegetation on the creek and putting in patios and gazebos and a roadway, driveway, that goes down to a barn, then you are going to have a lot more energy coming into this creek, a lot more silt, a lot more water run off when it rains. And it all comes down to the downstream users.
I think that what I'm really after here, Bill [Thomas] -- and I would like to appeal to you -- is I would like to see a buffer established in this project that is not in individual ownership. It can be in private ownership. It can be common open space, but I'm asking for a commitment from the developers to protect the downstream corridor. That's this area.
And, in particular, I would like to concentrate on the outside of the jurisdictional wetlands to the outside of the 100-year flood. So that you have included all of the critical stream zones, all of the jurisdictional wetlands, and all of the 100-year flood zone in a swath across here.
And somehow put that in -- and I will mention some mechanisms that seem appropriate. There may be others. Common open space with ownership retained by homeowner's association, a conservation easement put in such as the Nevada Land Conservancy or a dedication to a public entity such as Washoe County Parks [Department].
And in this mechanism, I would like you to address the management of the stream corridor including, but not limited to, whether and what kind of fencing would be allowed. Hopefully none.
Livestock in this area. Grazing of livestock in this area.
Whether and how much native vegetation can be removed in this area.
The amount of impervious surface that can be allowed in this area.
The compaction of soil which is usually done by grading and large loaders.
Whether motorized vehicles would be allowed in this area, whether planting of exotic species would be allowed, whether control of noxious weeds, whether there would be some maintenance plan, use of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides in this area.
Grading in this area. And I just would like to mention that right here there is a tremendous amount of grading planned for the bridge right in the critical stream zone. Roads or utility crossing. How the storm water run off will be put into the area. And also whether retaining walls would be allowed.
I feel that leaving it in individual ownership there is no way to protect the functions that Dry Creek provides to both the people who live here now or will be living here soon and the people that are down stream who have been living there for quite some time.
I feel that the only way to really protect that is to put it into some other vehicle or mechanism where it's out of individual ownership and it can be private ownership by the homeowner's association, a common open space.
One other concern is the bridge. It's two, I believe, four by ten or four by twelve culverts; is that what you are proposing?
MR. THOMAS: Keep going. I will look at it.
MS. MUNDT: Anyway, they will be dropped in right in the critical stream zone across the creek.
Just recently we looked at an application by a single homeowner who proposed to span a creek, a creek of the same size, so that he could keep culverts out of White Creek.
And I think a developer of this size could certainly do something similar where they span from maybe the high water mark on each side of the creek and then use just footings maybe through the critical stream zone.
I'm not an engineer. I don't pretend to know the difference in the cost. But I was impressed that an individual homeowner who had costed it out was willing to do that.
And I certainly would like the developers to, at least, look at putting in something to span the creek and maybe use footings. Thank you.
I would be happy to meet with you to talk about the water.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Leigh Ann Scott. Okay.
MS. LEIGH ANN SCOTT: Hi. I'm Leigh Ann Scott. And I live on Lamay Circle and would be directly looking down on this development. I think one of the issues was brought up -- I believe when you were first talking about this development that initially, you said you had three homes that people could choose from when building on this site. And when Herb [Rubenstein] asked you a little bit ago, you kind of danced around the issue that the builder is going to build three homes there -- is that right?
MR. THOMAS: That was the -- yes -- representation of what they are going to do. There was never a representation that that's what they had to choose from, those three homes --
MS. SCOTT: I don't know. Are you guys -- that's what we have all thought. That's why we thought this was going to be more of a tract-like development.
MR. THOMAS: Right. I understand that, and I have seen some of the information that has gone out. And that's not what is going to be done here.
MS. SCOTT: Well, this information that we have gotten has come from you. So that's just a concern because you have been dancing around a lot of these answers with we have the intent of doing this and that. But we haven't seen anything in writing and it certainly hasn't been submitted to this Board here.
The other issue, and you brought it up, in fact, is the sight going from Holcomb around Lakeside. The only way to clearly see around that curve is if nothing is there. So if you are proposing to put a development there, you know, this is going to be a real problem for all of us that live in the area. We have children. We have animals. It's a big concern.
And I think one of these developments would, I think, compromise the integrity of our community.
All of us live in the area because it is a rural area. We didn't want to live in Caughlin Ranch or in Juniper Hill or where some of these developments are. This is why we are here -- because we love the way it is. I think your development is not complying with the way we want to live.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Karen Colombini had commented to me she would not like to speak.
I will go ahead with three quick points of concern with respect to water rights and irrigation of two and a half acre parcel and sprinkler irrigation systems. Concern with respect to the parcels ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen.
MS. KAREN COLOMBINI: I know I marked that box, but I would like to speak.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. KAREN COLOMBINI: I know that you all talked about the water rights and you are allowed to drill the well and you have that right.
I think the concern is more of what you intend to do with your well. Everybody that lives within two and a half acre parcels they all irrigate their property except existing lawns and landscape around the house.
In your CC&Rs you state that you want them to fully maintain and landscape their property with irrigation and drip systems. So you are going to take that well water and pull it out so that they can maintain their two and a half acre landscaped property. That's more of the water, I think, that you are entitled to [from] the well.
I wanted to make that note to you -- if you were wondering why everybody was on you about it.
The other thing I have concerns about building envelopes on lots ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen. They are the whole entire property.
I border three of those. You are going to barricade my home, take out all our views. I think the least you could do is bring those building envelopes more to the south to alleviate barricading our little community out of your community. And that's all I have to say. I would appreciate, though, if you could really consider that. That's a huge area. And maybe you can think about the homeowners over there. There are four of them.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Beth Rubenstein.
MRS. BETH RUBENSTEIN: I live on Odile Court. And maybe it's fate because Odile Brady submitted a letter that she was opposed to the development and so am I.
I am opposed to the thirteen homes that they want to build on the pasture on Lakeside and Holcomb.
Where I grew up there were no cowgirls and wide-open spaces.
Fortunately, I now live in Reno, Nevada where I have been lucky enough to have my home in a place where I have always dreamed of living.
I love wide-open spaces. I love the green pasture. I love the blue skies. The love the cows and the horses, the emus and the whatever else. I don't know. What ever is in the -- Let's see. The cattle and llama.
Everyday I think I am a cowgirl when I drive down Lakeside Drive so please don't take away my dream.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Dan Arnold. Excuse me. Did you want to speak again, Herb?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I want to read the letter.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: You want to read that now?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Sure. I would like to read a letter from Warren Nelson who lives at 3535 Fairview. And he addresses the Planning Commission or the Commissioners and the Southwest Truckee Advisory Board.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I wish to express my concern regarding the Legacy Farms proposal to develop the old Elcano Ranch located at the corner of Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Lane. I have lived in the Southwest Truckee Meadows for over 30 years, and I own over 30 acres adjacent to Legacy Farms, bisected only by a portion of Holcomb Lane.
As I understand it, Legacy Farms proposes a development, on 2.5 acre parcels, on the Elcano Ranch that would significantly restrict the exterior appearance of structures, making the same a pre-approved color, and requiring pre-approved architecture, all of which is alien to the longstanding culture of the center of the country atmosphere that has existed in this part of the Truckee Meadows. As I understand it, the there will also be limits on rural uses that have been otherwise generally a part of this rural community.
ìImmediately upon learning of this development, I called the developers and was told that there were no changes that would be made. I am deeply concerned about this because it will disrupt the character of the area and attract future developers to build similar types of subdivisions in this area. When this begins, the uniqueness of this area will be lost, and the property values diminished.
ìIt is this kind of development that should not be permitted. All of the parcels in this area are basically free from restrictions for rural use. There have been no restrictions on appearance of subdivisions requiring similar construction or exterior appearing buildings in the heart of this rural residential area. In the early 1980ís the County adopted a plan, with the help of this Advisory Board, to permanently protect the rural residential spirit of this informal community. To date this has been respected. I hope you will continue to respect the same.
There was a time that the parcel that I now own housed a guest ranch. When the guest ranch went out of business, it was my thought to propose a tennis club in the area. I was relatively new to the area at that time. I then learned of the strong desire on the part of the residents to retain the rural culture that has been in existence for such a long. I immediately rejected the plan, sending a letter to the neighbors in the area, expressing my regrets for having made the proposal, unaware of the longstanding character of the area, with which I now completely agree.
Should Legacy Farms refuse to do so, I hope you will respect the efforts and the culture of the individuals who have built up this wonderful unique country environment. Please, therefore, deny the Legacy Farms application should it come before you prior to any such voluntary withdrawal on their part.î [Sincerely, Warren Nelson, 3535 Fairview Road, Reno, NV 89511]
MS. ELAINE STEINER: James Sanford?
MR. JAMES SANFORD: Thank you. My name is James Sanford and just for location purposes I live right here. It's probably about 100 feet from there and where the road they want to be able to put there.
I know that at one of the presentations that we listened to the other day that they indicated an estimated ten trips per household, which would be 130 trips, probably, at a minimum, to be able to have service and go right by my house everyday.
I understand that by removing the gates here, even though this is a private road, there is no way to be able to limit access to anybody else. So if you anticipate somebody building up at Ballardini Ranch or people driving down Lakeside, this could very easily turn into three or four hundred trips by my house every day. That's not what I envisioned when I bought my property there.
One of my biggest concerns is -- I live here with my two sons. This is their school bus stop right here. And I have a lot of concerns with increased development out here because what happens to these efforts to be able to counteract future development out here? The concern is that Lakeside, one of these days very soon, is going to be a four-lane road.
Like I said, I live here. And I watch people go 70, 80 miles an hour every day. That's when it is a two-lane road. I don't know what it's going to be if it ever gets to be a four-lane road. I can't see, even though there is a lot of distance between here and here. A lot of times what happens is people usually don't go that fast. They start slowing down right around here. People coming this way, they get to right here and they go as fast as they can. It's a mile up that road. I have a real problem with that.
I want to be able to have a nice yard for my kids to be able to live in. I didn't want to have to worry about having to look out for them.
The traffic is a big problem for me.
One of the other things -- I don't know if there was any consideration with regard to the sewer versus septic system aspects of lots, but Summit designed a very nice engineered septic system for my house. I was just wondering if something could be given consideration here of saving all the money to be able to pipe a sewer all the way up here and very easily do [a sewer system].
The third thing -- I have a big concern about and that's about the modification of the lot configuration. It's really bothersome to me that the bowling alley configuration of these potentially puts a house right next to my property line. So if I look out this way, I see one. If I look out this way, I see one.
And then I just see the stream of cars going by. One of the things that my kids enjoy a lot about the area, as I mentioned, there are absolutely a ton of ducks. There is a family of blue herons that live down in this area. It's so nice to be out there and share the environment with them.
So I share your thoughts with regard to potentially dedicating this to an association to be able to take care of. There is no way in the world that this is ever going to be maintained and not damaged if it remains part of the property.
One of the things I thought were interesting is that the boundary lines of the lots that you can see on here, they cross the creek. So basically you are inviting somebody to be able to buy property that is on this side of the creek and telling them that because of the stream ordinance you can't go there. Because of the stream ordinance you can't build bridges there. You can't do anything. It seems like that's going to be very hard to be able to monitor and protect.
I would be very much in favor of seeing fewer lots here because I think that with the fewer lots that this can be protected a lot more and the configuration could be improved.
I understand from a planning standpoint that not everything can be set in stone. But I'm also worried about property values, to tell you the truth.
What you are telling me is that it's our intention to sell lots. But, realistically, the home builder is the Architectural Committee. It would be very easy to say we would much rather build houses than sell lots.
So it would be a real shame, from my standpoint, if even though you get approval and say you are going to do that, if I do end up with 13 look alike white houses. That's my concern.
I guess lastly there is a lot of uncertainty and unaddressed issues. And from the Advisory Board standpoint, it seems it's hard for you [the Advisory Board] to make a decision in regard to approving a decision like this and passing it on thinking it will be addressed later on. And I don't think that's appropriate here. Thank you.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I have a business card here for a Larry Anderson.
MR. LARRY ANDERSON: Can I come up front? I can talk loud. I'm just going to wing it. I didn't prepare anything.
I live at 3805 Frost Lane. And what I would like to do is just give you a little story about my experience in the morning and how it relates to what is happening here.
I get up usually 4:30, 5:00, and I make the coffee. And then I go out in the garage and turn all the lights on and walk outside and look at the stars.
And then I get my walking stick, and I go for a walk. I go for a walk down the -- well, first of all, I have to go for a walk around the house. And I look at my garden. I stand back by my garden. I look at Mt. Rose and all the beautiful snow on it and trees.
I often wonder where Lone Tree got it's name. I look at that thing. And a big row of trees in the back of me, they are beautiful.
Then I grab my walking stick, and I walk down the street. I'm down the driveway, bang my walking stick on the road. Wake up everybody. It's 5 o'clock in the morning.
I look at all the beautiful, large-size lots around there. They are big. And the homes are big. And they are well taken care of.
And alongside the street there is weeds growing and dandelions growing and there is rose bushes growing and they are all budding at this time of year.
And now I am up there by Lone Tree and Frost. And I turn around and I look again. And there is our house and Luther's [Luther Mack] house right next to me.
I'm looking at the llamas over there. Looking at all the beautiful sights and the sounds. I hear geese. I hear ducks and coyotes. I even talk to the geese.
I have a bag of carrots -- I'm going down the road now, and I'm heading east on Lone Tree [Lane] with my walking stick. And this morning I had a bag of carrots, and I fed some carrots to the horses. And I put my stick down so the horses would come over to me and fed them some carrots.
And I look around again. Big huge lots. People that have lived there forever. Well maintained. Nice roads with creeks running alongside of them, ditches right there. And right now this morning there was no water running in it, but it's really neat when it is.
I'm still going down Lone Tree [Lane] towards Lakeside, and there is more big houses down there. Big expensive lots and people who have lived there forever -- invested their whole lives there.
And I get down to the corner of Lone Tree and Lakeside, and I head north on Lakeside. And I'm looking at the beautiful, undisturbed, natural growth along the highway -- on Lakeside. And I think that's really important to save all of that natural growth.
And trees are budding. And I turn around and look again, and there are more big houses and people have lived there all their lives. And I'm heading down Lakeside towards Windy Hill and come to Frost Lane and there is a big willow tree there and other trees there.
And, in fact, one of those trees during the storm a branch fell on the road, and somebody threw it across the street. And I cut that branch off about six years ago and dried it out and pealed the bark off of it, and that's what I use for my walking stick.
And all of these things I enjoy every day in that area. And I really would like to see it stay that way. And I think it's very important that it does stay that way.
Another thing I did one morning is I got up and I just listened to the sights and sounds. I got up at 4:00, made the coffee, went out to the garage and turned all the lights on, pull up the doors and sat and listened. I heard birds, coyotes or whatever the hell you call them. I'm a Minnesota boy. And then you hear the quail. And you hear the bobcat. I have a bobcat that walks right up my driveway.
The first time he did that I pounded on the window. It was in the winter time. He looked at me, and I pounded on the window again and he was gone over the hill like a rocket.
The next time I saw him, he walked up the driveway like he owned the place. He lives there. That's his place. That's not our place. That's his place.
I have a deer that eats all my tomatoes in my garden. And all kinds of wildlife out there.
And then right next to me an architect lives there. And that's where Dry Creek comes through there. And I walk down, and I listen to that and look at it.
Let me tell you a little bit just one morning I got up and listened to all these sights. I wrote them all down. It was from about 5:00 o'clock in the morning to 7:00. I heard everything you could think of as far as sounds go, and I wrote down everything I saw ñ as far as what I saw. And I gave that to my girlfriend, Naomi Summers.
And she said, What are you going to do with that letter. I said, Let's make a poem out of it. And what are you going to name the poem? So she thought about it for a while. I thought about it for a while. And we came up with the name of a poem, ìThe Silent Rising Sun Has Movement.î You know, that's basically what I saw in all these sites and sounds, the silent rising sun has movement. The movement with respect to the title of this poem is music.
I'm going to wind it up. I do think here that the density is too high for the area they are building in. I'm going to do it real quick.
First of all, I think it ought to be dedicated to a park because we don't have a park out there, a big old park. It should be a park forever.
But if houses are built here, maybe a maximum of four. That's all I have to say.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: We have one last speaker. Steven Walther.
MR. STEVE WALTHER: I'd like to address a couple of concerns that I feel exist regardless of the statements that have been made.
When we were first asked to look at this, we were presented with the CC&Rs, some documents, that restrict the use of the property and that tell us what is going to happen.
And those CC&Rs were signed, the ones we have, back in December. But there had already been a hearing in November [November 21, 2002]. So when we got those CC&Rs, we got them a couple days before the hearing in January [January 16 or 30, 2003]. Nevertheless, they had been written back in December [December 12, 2002].
And I feel -- when you look at the CC&Rs and since that time, regardless of all the statements that have been made -- they [the developers] are still stuck with the CC&Rs.
The developers did have a meeting for the public -- notice was given to some, but not to all -- on the 1st of February. At that time we were told these CC&Rs are only a ìdraft.î
Now, if they are only a draft, why were they made a part of the application? Why were they given to us to rely on? And where the heck are the real documents?
And when you look at the real documents, they better say what they [the developers] say they say. And, yet, at this point there are still no such documents.
So this body is being asked to decide the merits of this case, to decide what is going to happen with it, decide what the restrictions really are, and decide whether it is really rural or not. Does it fit with the character? Can it be enforced? These are our concerns and the remedies that say they are there in the CC&Rs. And we still do not have them.
I can tell you what the CC&Rs and application say. The application there -- we can argue all night long whether we like it or not -- but let's get down to what it says it will do. And we can argue from that.
The application itself clearly says it's all white exterior. That's what it says. There is no if, ands, or buts about it.
So if it isn't going to be that, we really need to see what it is going to be.
It says ìFencing for the project will be four rail vinyl fencing (white) and will define the perimeter of the property as well as all property boundaries.î I don't mind that. It's around my place. I need to tell you that at the outset. Let's find out what is really is going to be here, for how many, and what's it going to look like for thirteen homes and the property: ìThe painting scheme will be all white homes with either brick or stone elements on every home.î
Now the Architectural Committee under the CC&Rs consist of two gentleman -- and one other person I don't know -- who are a part of the development and are the home builders. So they have, under the CC&Rs, the right to be the exclusive members of the Architectural Committee until they either die or until the last home is sold. But at that point they resign.
In other words, at that point what is done is done. So we need to be aware of how it is being structured and see what conversations will be taking place after that. That is a concern to me.
I feel we should have documents that are current -- based on what is currently being said.
There is also a statement that has been made, and we can argue about this. Can you have animals or can you not. And the statement was made today, and I think Mr. Thomas said once, "you can do it and the documents provide for it."
And I'm going to read this to you -- and you can see what plain English says. I'm not trying to say you can't change it, but they have not changed this document yet. This is what the County has. There has been no amendment.
It says, "No lot shall have more than two such household pets." Three cats are out. They can apparently file a Supplemental Declaration. The Declarant ñ and the Declarant is the owner here -- that's the Declarant.
"The Declarant may file a supplemental declaration allowing horses and or 4-H animals limited to cattle or sheep on specific lots, providing those lots are a minimum of one acre in size and are in an area where such use would be in of keeping with the physical constraints of the land and in character with the uses of the surrounding properties."
The point is here that the only the Declarant may do this. But there is no right on the part of anybody buying any lot to have more than two household pets. That's the way it is right now. It can be changed, but it hasn't been changed. We are stuck with this, even though we are told this is a draft. This is the problem I have. These are the concerns that I have with these things and as the process goes along. sooner or later we can say ìI remember that conversation at the timeî ñ- but it doesn't become enforceable.
I'm concerned, for example, that the application, the CC&Rs -- in the Tree Preservation Plan -- the CC&Rs will limit the removal of trees to those that are ìdiseased or deemed a nuisance.î There is no reference in the CC&Rs to present that to us with respect to that provision and it's promised elsewhere in the application.
Another point or two just with respect to the CC&Rs there is reference in the CC&Rs to not having piers on the lake. Okay. Well, I really doubt they are planning a lake, but it's in here. So why? It needs to be out or cleared up -- that's all. It's not hard to do that. These are things that concern many of us.
They say there will be a Supplemental Declaration attached as an exhibit and yet they are not attached. They say here -- and also in the bylaws -- you can have ìmulti-family residences.î Now, if you look in the application here, it clearly says ìsingle familyî as everybody here believes it should be. Thirteen lots, single family home subdivision. This is in the application.
But if you look here in the CC&Rs it says, first of all, it says, "No dock, pier or other similar structure shall be erected on or into any lake within the development, except such structures as may be constructed by the Association with the written permission of the Committee."
The next line says, "Resubdivision or Joinder of Lots. No lot or parcel shall be further subdivided except those designated multi-family residential."
There has never been any reference here or on any applications as to multi-family residences or duplex. What is it? If it's not to be a duplex, then it should never be in here.
Where are the documents that this Board and all of us are to rely upon in trying to decide how we feel about this?
There is no question that this is a new way of life that's being proposed in this area. Now, change can be okay. We do need to know what kind of change it is and discuss it intelligently, and that's been a problem here.
Then you go to the by-laws. It's not like it's a typographical error. You go to the by-laws and they refer once again to membership. ìMembership in the Association is limited to owners of single family lots and multiple family dwelling units Öî -- Why is that here?
Is it a mistake? Can you have two mistakes from people who are truly professional? If they are truly professional and this is what they do, it's concerning to have provisions given to us and not being discussed. If it is a mistake, they need to be changed. And if we are going to go forward we need to understand what is going on here.
Page 27, I'm concerned about a few other things that have come up in a conversation. When we attended the hearing of the developers on February 1st a lot was heard. I'm glad it was. It was good for all of us. Problems do arise from that conversation in view of the things we have been hearing. This has been a concern to a lot of people. I heard one person call it the Dead Man's Curve. So it is a hazard.
I have lived here since '77, but I moved out here in this area in '48, 55 years ago. And it's very frequent that our mailboxes are gone about every few months or destroyed. And this is part of the lifestyle.
One person who lived on Timothy Lane went straight one night on a motorcycle and went about thirty feet -- forgot to make the turn or something -- hit the fence and was killed immediately. That was a few years ago.
My brother who lived out here since '48 was driving along here. [Pointing to a portion of Holcomb Lane where one would travel in a westerly direction from the proposed intersection into the Legacy Farms Subdivision toward Dead Manís Curve.] If you drive here at 5:15 at any given night you can't see anything but the sun. He ran into a bicyclist and pulverized his legs. And that's my brother who has been living out here since '48. So it's not like there is no danger here. This deserves special attention. There has been no attention given in the CC&Rs to this. If you look in the CC&Rs, you see nothing about protecting this.
We were told in the meeting there would be some protective measures taken. But, yet, there is nothing to say what those are.
And I do think unless you can see from a reasonable angle the risk of danger is much greater. There has been concern about this road being too close to the curve. For example, should it be reconsidered in terms of true safety issues out there?
With respect to Dry Creek, I have Dry Creek coming next to my place where I live now. And then when I grew up, the Dry Creek came through my property here. Nevada Bell wanted to put an easement in front of the fence line -- excuse me -- underground wire along their line. And so I kind of argued back and forth with them how that would be. Underground, above ground, and said if you are going to do that, then why don't you put in some culverts that would allow the fence to go over and the line to go under and allow the Dry Creek to go through.
They reluctantly agreed to do that because it was expensive. So they put in these huge culverts, three of them, embedded in the cement and within two years they were gone because of a flood.
I simply say that because there needs to be some realism here for the potential of floods.
We remember in '86 when the water was almost coming over the top here. One time in the last 50 years the water did come over the road in this road here, but it was a long time ago. I do remember that. Nevertheless, it is a potential risk.
The person who came to show us the proposed plan from Marin County for the developers [at the meeting the developers held on February 1, 2003] showed a plan that was truly very nice and showed this as open space and showed trees along here. There is only two things I think that need to be mentioned here. There is no way that that plan that he showed could ever become effective unless this really became open space. If it was diverted by this many lots and people had their own little fences across here, their own little playgrounds, and things for kids and whatever, there is no way you can get that open space. You would have potential barriers coming along this creek that could pose significant issues with respect to drainage and the purity of water.
So there is nothing in the CC&Rs that require these people who have these lots to make sure that they adhere to the requirements of the critical stream zone, sensitive stream zone and the wetlands. How would it be enforced?
As Lyn Mundt pointed out -- you have one person [from the Army Corps of Engineers], in reality, that is running around part of the time and looking for these. Bottom line is -- this is very likely not going to be protected with this many lots. And the encroachment is likely unless the CC&Rs really make it clear that it can't happen or becomes enforceable as open space. Those are the concerns that I think are legitimate ones for you [the Board] to take into consideration.
Given the fact that the CC&Rs don't cover all of this and it was done about 60 days ago, it seems to me it is premature to approve this application.
I think that this body and the people who have come to the third meeting are entitled to enough detail to know for sure what is being planned.
There has been no traffic plan. And there is no water plan. Water out here is very important. You get water from wells. You get water from Dry Creek and you get water from Steamboat and, yet, there is no coordinated plan on how it's going to work. And Mr. Sanford -- who lives here [indicating] and others I think should be able to see how the water is going to be used in this particular area.
And I think most of the water comes through these lots up here. But it's not clear exactly how each lot is going to be dealt with in connection with that.
The issue of whether or not to go along with this change in lifestyle that is being proposed -- that where one person buys a piece of property and everybody has to like what is being on there, that's the people who live there and everybody around it. This is new. It does change things. This is a lifestyle change for anyone who likes it out here. So I think that needs to be kept in mind as we make comments and move through the process here.
And, hopefully, I would like to see the developer rethink this because I think there could be some things worked out here. But at this point it's pretty clear where the intent is -- and that's to keep that particular kind of architecture and the exterior look essentially the same and impose the kind of restrictions that prevent you from living in a truly rural community.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to say anything?
If no one else for the public wishes to speak, I'm going to bring it back to the Board at this time.
Faith, would you like to start?
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: With everyone's permission I will in a couple places be reading some things. This is the book that we have all received to go through this.
I'd like to try to find something good in this and as they say seek for good and praise. And I want to complement the sewage treatment issue because it is that much less sewage that is going into the ground water.
I think all of us at some point would like to work into something, if we could -- if we had that option. So I think that however each house is going to have its own lift thing and it goes to the pipe.
Also, when I looked at the big map that we received, the pipe that goes down Lakeside does not go all the way to Huffaker. It actually hangs a right at one of the first driveways into Lakeside Ranch Estates. So it is not as far as we thought. And, I assume, that the developers had to pay Lakeside Ranch Estates for permission to hook into their infrastructure there on out to the county facilities.
So that to me is an issue. And the fact that they have removed the lift station, which was a really big concern within the sensitive area, as I say, ìcompliments to them for moving forward.î The elimination to the gates into an inclusive feel rather than an exclusive feel I applaud as well.
Now, into some specifics. Are the wells on the houses going to be metered?
MR. THOMAS: I don't have an answer for that. I don't know. Whatever the rule is. Whatever the rules are for individual wells. If everybody has to have a meter on their well --
MS. FESSENDEN: Is Nevada requiring meters on the wells?
MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: It is not required. It can be a condition.
MR. ROGER PELHAM: Not to the best of my knowledge. That would be something you have to take up with Water Resource. I'm sorry. I'm not qualified to comment on that.
MS. FESSENDEN: Not to do it back to me but we had to do a Special Use Permit on our property and we had to meter our well. And they said it was a standard that was being set throughout the State coming up from Clark County. So that to me is something for the people who have well issues that each well would need be to be metered.
Also, as Steve mentioned, I found a lot of conflicts within the documents provided. On the application itself and, of course, there is the application for the lift station. But that is being withdrawn.
However, within part of that application there are things that apply to the plan or the project where under acreage of common open space it says "none" was typed in. And, yet, reference to open space have been made throughout the CC&Rs.
Regarding, let's see, and Steve we found the things on the white fence where it very specifically states that not only the fences but all the exterior of the buildings are going to be white with either wood or stone trim.
The thing I found that had to do with fences back in the CC&Rs [Paragraph III(F), page 13] that was also very peculiar that said ìUnless specifically restated in a supplemental declaration, the following general fencing guidelines shall apply. All property lines from single family dwelling houses to the street shall be kept free and open.î So does that mean there is no fencing to the street? That it's free and open? Therefore fencing for livestock and/or around the balance of that property is only from the house to the rear of the property line?
MR. THOMAS: That's what that means.
MS. FESSENDEN: That's what that means. Therefore, the houses of certain sizes depending on where the building pad is if the fence is for household pets slash animals slash livestock can only be behind there, it would seem to me that there is only a few lots that would really be appropriate to have animals at all, depending on where the house was positioned.
Let's say the three long lots behind Jim Sanford's and Mr. Quade's. If you are looking to alternate the position of the house pad so that no one is looking right into their neighbor's window like zero lot line people do and to give the people back some relief on their view -- so let's say on the first one you put it back then those two that are set to the back really have no room for animals. Therefore, there is like less than 50 percent that are really appropriate for animals.
Just a thought. Okay.
The big thing in my mind gets to be the water, as I am sure everyone's is. I underscored 100 percent. I support Lyn Mundt's suggestion about the construction of a span where you are not disrupting any sort of culverts. Lyn went into great detail about the culverts, and the making of them is very disruptive to a critical stream zone. I would want to see that pursued or that would be my suggestion and my concern.
Let's see. In this packet there is a letter from JBR Environmental Consultants, ìFormal Delineation of Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands Legacy Farms, LLC.î It is saying that they are currently preparing a formal delineation of waters on behalf of Legacy Farms.
Down in the next paragraph, subsection B states, ìThe owner or developer shall obtain a permit from the State of Nevada division of state lands, Nevada division of Environmental Protection and any other applicable agency before altering or relocating any waterway under the jurisdiction of such an agency. JBR has completed the field work portion of the formal delineation of waters including the waters for the project site. The report will be completed within the next 30 days and may be submitted to the court for verification.î
Let's see. This was dated October 14th. Did they have something to you within 30 days?
MR. THOMAS: The [Army] Corps of Engineers has agreed with their conclusion of what are wetlands. So that's been done. There is no permit issued yet because you don't do that until you actually have construction plans when you show them what you are doing. So that's later down the road.
MR. FESSENDEN: I want to make note on that. Okay. Having lived in this area and having irrigated every week of my life during the summer, ditches and the big feeder ditches are critical.
There is back under the hydrology report it says the Legacy Farm encompasses 33.7 acres. The topography is moderately steep with slopes of five parcels average. It's talking about the drainage of water on said site. A drainage within the individual lots will be addressed at building permit time and performed to code. It is saying they used the conservative estimate for some rational analysis which I'm assuming is some formula. So increases to future development are conservatively estimated, not worst case?
MR. THOMAS: Conservative is worst case.
MS. FESSENDEN: Okay. Existing hydrology, the existing hydrology was divided into two areas, E-1 and E-2. E-1 is 27 acres, and E-2 is six. So approximately 86 percent. I sat and did a little bit of math here. It says both the five and hundred peak flows flow to the Last Chance Ditch.
So 86 percent of the drainage of that project flows to Last Chance. Okay. So hold that thought.
Irrigation. This is back under I think -- maybe it's still hydrology. Additional reirrigational water from -- Let's see. Is that it? -- an upgrade parcel is dependent on the site via a catch basin located along Longleaf Drive.
Overall, the site is fairly damp -- and they reference Dry Creek -- which is currently flowing at a good rate. Overall the site is fairly damp. Water is provided to the residents via an on-site water well. Septic is treated on site by septic and associated leach field. So we know that is a non-issue.
MR. THOMAS: That's the existing. They are describing the existing situation.
MS. FESSENDEN: Existing. Okay. Then when we get to -- It has to do with when -- Hang on here. When the grading takes place. It says it's going to require extensive grading. And as much as two feet of surface may be removed in order to accommodate the project. Okay.
So with that in mind, with that much grading being done with the drainage of 86 percent of the site into Last Chance Ditch, I mean -- there are people watering off of Last Chance. What is happening to anything that is running into Last Chance? Is it going to be clogging downstream ditches and feeder ditches and problems like that not to mention what's going to go on with this critical stream area.
The water thing to me is a big deal. Everybody is entitled to build their house. Everybody came out to have their house -- Whoever was the first guy out here was the first guy who complained about the next to guy. And we complained about the next guy. And that's going to be a given. And it's unreasonable to ask people not to build a house on the land if they own it.
But within that I think there is real big concerns here that go beyond just being able to build your home on your piece of property.
Those three lots -- Back to that fencing, if you think about where those building pads are, the fences would be set so there would be post hole diggers going down all through that area on those three lots. So I think --
MR. THOMAS: You mean across the green? Is that what you are talking about? They won't.
MS. FESSENDEN: So then are there fences for those lots?
MR. THOMAS: There will not be fences across that green part.
MS. MARY DUGAN: Where does it say that?
MR. THOMAS: That will come out of the 404 permit that will redirect what can be done in the green areas. Unlike people on both sides of this creek, this property will have restrictions on either side.
People have fences that cross that. People let animals go into that creek right now. The things that are going on for the character of the area that we might want to match with people, we can no longer do.
So these restrictions that you are talking about are going to be imposed on us, or going to be part of the permit that we get from the Corps of Engineers that will limit us in terms of the green area including the fences.
MS. FESSENDEN: I have two other things. When you have don't a large portion of fence, the animals will wander on and on. And in this case they will be confined in areas. So it's like saying there are cows all over the place. And there are definitely very wet areas that are not palatable to livestock.
So you will be confining livestock unless you are going to eliminate having animals on those few lots.
I found the last thing I want to say. This is under the section on the geotechnical report. It talks about surface clays can be expected up to two feet of stripping. And grading may be required to remove sites with accumulation of organic matter and surface clays. Site soils once down should provide excellent development. Relatively high ground water may require some sub-grade levels to be --
Well, for septics it is a non-issue. Due to the existing slopes on the site cuts and fills up to 10 feet can be expected. Erosion control will be required on the slopes. Riparian areas will require preservation.
That's the first specific sentencing that address that area.
Ground water and surface water conditions at the site will influence the way the site is developed.
MS. MARY DUGAN: I don't have any rhetorical questions. I want answers to my questions. And they are going to be real direct and theoretically straight forward. Are the CC&Rs that were included in this book of materials, are they draft CC&Rs or are they the CC&Rs?
MR. THOMAS: The county requires as part of an application of a subdivision map that you include draft CC&Rs.
MS. DUGAN: Why doesn't it say draft on these?
MR. THOMAS: Because they are known in the process in doing these that they are draft. They are not executed -- [Protect Our Washoe Note: Mr. Thomas is incorrect. The ìDeclaration of Protective Covenantsî referred to as CC&Rís in this transcript, were executed before a notary public on December 12, 2002 by Edward B. McCaffery, III as ìManaging Memberî and Douglas Brunson as ìManaging Memberî of Legacy Farms, LLC.]
MS. DUGAN: They are signed. They are signed.
MR. THOMAS: They are draft because there is no --. Until we record a subdivision map, they don't apply to the property. So I don't know what happened with the signature, but those are draft. They are intended to be in the book because the county requires us to put them in with the application.
MS. DUGAN: Do you know if any more permanent-type CC&Rs are currently in the works?
MR. THOMAS: No. We won't do the final CC&Rs until we have a map to be recorded. So when a subdivision map is recorded for the first lots, then we will do the final book and that's what will be recorded with the property.
MR. STEVE MOLLATH: With the conditions --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Name please.
MR. MOLLATH: Steve Mollath, attorney for the developer. Until the conditions of the 404 permit are delineated and the conditions contained with the tentative map or delineated, and until such time as we move from tentative map to final map and all the engineering detail is done, you cannot finalize a set of CC&Rs because those CC&Rs have to encompass all those conditions that are contemplated in the ordinary course of the preparation of the final map subsequent to the approval of the tentative map.
Obviously there is going to be many changes in the CC&Rs to make them all consistent with the conditions that are required by all the governmental agencies both federal and state.
MS. DUGAN: What is the 404 plan? I mean, general terms, what is the 404 plan?
MR. THOMAS: What happens is -- basically any place anymore that has a bed and a bank, regardless of whether there is water in it, those are called waters of the United States. So the Corps of Engineers has claimed jurisdiction over those.
We have to go to the Corps and say, What part our property is a wetland -- which we did. And they said, ìWe agree with your consultant on what is a wetland.î
If you do anything in those wetland areas -- in this case we have one crossing -- you have to get a 404 permit, which is a permit granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In granting that permit they put restrictions on it and say, ìIn exchange for this permit, here is what you have to do.î That's where the things come in terms of fencing, treatment in the CC&Rs of the those properties next to it, all the restrictions that all the people have been talking about.
MS. DUGAN: The 404 plan not only addresses the crossing,but the entire wetland -- but the concern is the enforcement issue.
MR. THOMAS: If we never touch those green areas, there is no vehicle to restrict them. In other words, we could come in and develop that property. As long as we stayed out of those areas, there is no right for the Corps of Engineers -- or the public for that matter -- to do anything to restrict the property. So we are actually going through a process because of that crossing which allows them to put restrictions on the property.
That's part of the reason why there is properties on both sides of that thing that aren't doing the things that the Corps of Engineers want them to do. And they probably didn't ask the Corps of Engineers to do what they did.
MS. DUGAN: The Corps of Engineers would be involved even if you are planning the type of bridge Like the bridge that Lyn suggested, right?
MR. THOMAS: Not necessarily.
MS. DUGAN: Why not?
MR. THOMAS: If you stay out of those areas that are green, they have no authority to regulate what you do.
If you come back later and somebody lets animals go into the wetlands, and they can come and say, ìGet the animals out or revegetate itî -- or whatever.
That's not dissimilar -- Our project is not dissimilar to anything that has a creek or stream. That applies to everybody who has water.
MS. DUGAN: In the materials that you all provided it says the fencing for the project will be four rail vinyl fencing. Is that not true?
MR. THOMAS: That's what was contemplated when they were putting it together.
MS. DUGAN: Still contemplated?
MR. THOMAS: Yeah.
MS. DUGAN: So any fencing for all of these lots that is required is at this point is contemplated to be all white?
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
MS. DUGAN: Four rail. And the painting scheme will be all white homes with either brick or stone elements on every home. So right now what is contemplated is that all thirteen homes will be white, correct?
MR. THOMAS: What is written in there says that -- the architectural finding they put together does not. So obviously that will change. That's what was put in the draft of the CC&Rs. That's not going to be in the final one as far as my understanding goes.
To put this in prospective, there is no regulation or rule in the county that requires us to say anything about architecture.
MS. DUGAN: I understand that. But what we are all concerned about is preserving the quality of the neighborhood. You put thirteen look alike homes in there, it looks crummy.
No water impact study was done, right? Ms. Shannon asked but didn't really get a good answer. She didn't give you time.
MR. THOMAS: I'm not sure what that means.
MS. DUGAN: She was asking whether an impact study was done to determine whether thirteen wells placed on this property would have an impact -- detrimental impact -- on other wells in the area. And, I assume, no water impact study was done. But I just want an answer to the question.
MR. THOMAS: We didn't do a study specifically to the -- I don't know what she is -- We didn't do a study -- whatever you call it.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Okay. Now, you said that the Special Use Permit for the lift station is not being sought any longer. Do you have a copy of that letter withdrawing that request with you? Somebody has a copy of that so we can see. Great.
I'm coming back to the CC&Rs for a second because, Bill [Thomas], I thought you said that the CC&Rs allowed for animals beyond household pets. And I as read these CC&Rs, they don't. They say there may be a Supplemental Declaration. But right now, the CC&Rs that we have, draft or not, don't allow for livestock; is that correct?
MR. THOMAS: I was referencing the section that says the supplemental --
MS. DUGAN: We don't know whether or not that will be added or not, right?
MR. THOMAS: This whole process -- as we put out what we want to do, people comment and bring up issues and we respond to it.
Clearly, when we wrote those, that was the intent, which is, we may want to have them but we also may want to restrict them.
People have said that for the character of this area they want us to have livestock. So we have said we will permit livestock.
Now, that's our commitment, and that can be covered in a condition or a change or something written to the staff saying they are willing to do that. As those were written they did allow it.
MS. DUGAN: I'm almost done. I have a question going back to something that somebody else brought up. The trees. It says here, you know, the Tree Preservation Plan, no trees except ìthose that are diseased or becoming a nuisanceî will be removed. And in the CC&Rs it mentioned trees, but it says you pretty much can take out whatever you want.
This seems to me like a glaring mistake and that you are creating problems for yourselves. If you are going to give us these documents and say the CC&Rs are going to say something and they don't say it, it makes us highly suspicious.
Is that one of the things that will be changed in the final CC&Rs that there will be no trees removed except for those that are diseased or a nuisance?
MR. THOMAS: Yes. And we have a commitment when we put something in the application, that's part of our project. So if there is an inconsistency the more restrictive will apply.
When we come in for a subdivision map, Roger [Pelham] is going to look to see what are the issues that were being represented. If we say in the tree preservation that's what we are going to do, he is going to look in the CC&Rs or the plan or something to see that that happens.
MR. PELHAM: I can respond to that as well.
MS. DUGAN: Okay.
MR. PELHAM: That would follow under our first standard condition which is that the final map meet substantial conformities to what is presented. So certainly that would fall under that.
MS. DUGAN: Last two questions have to do with why the CC&Rs don't contain any protections for Dry Creek or the wetlands. And what your answer is, I guess, is the 404 plan will contain those protections.
MR. THOMAS: We are not speculating. We could. We could speculate on what it is going to say. We know we are going through this process. They are going to tell us, and that is going to be reflected in the CC&Rs.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. The last comments are not in the form of questions.
MR. THOMAS: I don't have to respond to this.
MS. DUGAN: Yeah. So you're off the hook for now. But this is where I'm going to call you guys on the red carpet.
We are so frustrated because this is the third time we have heard this project. And along the way we have been told things that seem inconsistent with the materials that you provided. For example, that these are draft CC&Rs, and you know because you are in the business that draft CC&Rs are always provided. But nowhere on there does it say draft. Not only that -- they are signed so they don't look like drafts.
So I'm just trying to warn you, that in the future, we are going to act this same way, and we are going to have these questions and we are going to be frustrated, but part of it is because of the way the materials are provided.
I agree with Faith. People have a right to develop their property. But our job is to look out for each other and look out for the community and preserve the wonderful nature of that community. And that's what we are trying to do. That's all I have.
MS. ROBIN PALMER: I agree with Mary [Dugan] pretty much. I didn't understand that the CC&Rs are a draft and I guess that's acceptable.
And there has been a lot of concerns about the CC&Rs that are in this Special Use Permit which is dated October of last year.
Additionally, I just have concerns about the corner [the corner of Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Lane]. At the meeting on February 1st [the meeting held by Legacy Farms for invitees], one gentleman said that the Nevada Department of Transportation has approved this project. But I'm concerned about the speeders on that curve and what speed was submitted to the [Nevada] Department of Transportation, because the speed on that curve is not the usual. It's ten miles per hour less than most of the other Lakeside and Holcomb area.
I will leave it at that.
MR. GEORGE QUEYREL: What I'm go to say is just basically my personal opinion. I believe that particular neighborhood and that intersection is one of the jewels of Reno. And I really hate to see the change.
The concept of thirteen lots with vinyl fences -- and I'm sorry, Steve. I'm not -- I don't like vinyl fences. It really looks out of character with the rest of neighborhood.
The proposed all white structures, I think, is also out of character. Obviously the majority of neighbors in the neighborhood is against the project. And I don't know what we can legally do about that.
Again, I don't want to beat the CC&Rs to death, but it seems like there are some critical issues that ultimately need to be addressed such as the multi-family residence and so forth.
I don't know. The whole thing really kind of smacks us all around. I moved from Caughlin Ranch for numerous reasons to the southwest to the country lifestyle. I hate to see the change. That's all I have to say.
MR. RAY MARTIN: My name is Ray. It said that you pulled the Special Use Permit for the lift station, then what are we talking about? What do you want? What do you want us to vote on?
MR. THOMAS: Well, I'd like you not to vote on anything and tell us your comments, but you are going to vote anyway.
There is a tentative map which is what we are required to do for more than four parcels. So there is a public hearing about this tentative map.
We also need a Special Use Permit to cross the significant stream border. Those are the two things.
MR. MARTIN: This Board can't vote on that unless it's on the agenda.
We can't vote on anything that is not on this agenda. And the only thing on this agenda is this lift station.
MS. FESSENDEN: No.
MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry. I'm confused. I'm confused.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: We cannot vote on the bridge because we did not know about the bridge.
MS. FESSENDEN: Because what?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Correct?
MR. MARTIN: I'm sure that you guys are trustworthy, but I personally vote on specifics. And if it's not in front of me in black and white to vote on, I'm sorry. I can't vote for it just because you say that it's going to be there. I'm just not that way.
And will all these people be warned that every 100 years their houses are going to be flooded? I mean, is there going to be somebody that says, ìYeah, every 100 years we have a big flood and your front room is going to be this deep in mud?î I don't know. It's just a question I just thought of.
MR. THOMAS: None of the homes will be in the 100-year floodplain. So that will be disclosed to people, yes?
MR. MARTIN: I don't think anybody can guarantee above ground water for anybody. Because if it doesn't snow in the mountains you are not going to get any water running down those creeks.
And didn't you say you guarantee above so much ground water or that they are alloted or something -- or was I confused again?
MR. THOMAS: They will be given a certain amount of water rights per lot to irrigate from surface water and water rights to drill a well.
MR. MARTIN: If it --
MR. THOMAS: If there is no water in the creek, that's true for everybody.
MR. MARTIN: Yeah, they don't get it. Okay. That's all I got.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Matt?
MR. MATT TAORMINA: I don't have anything else.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: I'm concerned about the issues that Lyn has raised. And I would request that you dedicate that area as open space prior to approval of any tentative map -- or the parcel map, excuse me.
And I would put that on as a condition and or concern to the planning commission.
But this water issue is really interesting to me. If indeed, you can't build in the wetlands and the critical area -- and you dedicate that area as open space -- then in point of fact those lots are not two and a half acres.
Actually, they haven't been two and a half acres all along. What you did was, you moved the lot lines up to include the roads, and then you said the lots are now two and a half acres.
But if you take out that space on some of those lots, those lots are not going to be two and a half acres. And that's okay if you would go along with what I think you really need to do and, that is, I think the way it's placed right now, the way you have it right now, the lot lines are tortured. There is no doubt about it to me.
You have tortured those lot lines to get in as many lots as you could. And sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. And I think that is one of those times when it doesn't work. And if I were you, I would rethink it -- given that you can't build or you can't or you shouldn't go into the wetlands or the critical areas. I would rethink the way in which you lay it out, the lots in the subdivision.
If you were to decrease the number of lots, you could have a much better lot-line design without all these problems of lots crossing over the critical area, et cetera, et cetera.
Also, along with that, the issues have been raised about safety and having the access onto one access onto Lakeside and one access -- actually, two accesses -- on Holcomb Lane in order to get that other little lot in on Holcomb -- rather get that other little lot in on the right side there.
I think you should also rethink your internal situation. And I'm not an engineer so I can't do it, but I can certainly see where it's possible to do that.
I am also concerned that you don't have an irrigation plan available right now for us to look at because I am concerned that that's not going to happen in a way that would be productive either to the development or to the area around it.
And I also think that your suggestions here tonight about test wells wouldn't be a bad idea -- excepting if you were to reduce the number of lots, then a lot of these problems go away. I don't think you have the problem with not having enough water because you have fewer lots therefore the water would go around more, et cetera. So those are my comments.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Matt?
MR. MATT TAORMINA: I have concerns that the Lakeside and Holcomb Lane access or egress and visibility and the safety. I think that's a legitimate concern.
Also building a bridge to span the creek to further protect the critical stream area. I think that's very important.
And the suggestions that Lyn had about maybe a
community buffer zone or open space dedicated to protect that area I think that's an important -- very important. That's all I have.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I just have a few comments. I agree with just about everything that has been said. I will just make one comment concerning the CC&Rs. While they are only a draft -- it's an indication of the thinking of how the development will go. I can't see them doing the 180 degree turn on this. I asked Lyn [Mundt] to show me some of the Legacy Farms because I'm very concerned about the water. I think every point that she brought up would be considered if I were to make a motion.
The building envelopes, the driveways, the lots. I agree with Ellen in regards to the interior circulation.
The first came to us 1st in November. My first reaction was that there were too many lots to begin with. I don't know how many times I have to say there are too many lots. I understand that change is a little part of us.
I'm not able to find some of the findings on this pertaining to your area into suburban. I don't think that type of development it says it is needed for the area in which you wish to place it. I don't see design improvement of the proposal of the subdivision consistent with what you want to have out there.
And, in fact, I have so many things I don't know where to stop. You know, drafts indicate what you are thinking. The multi-familyî -- that really blew my mind. I read the thing from beginning to end, and I missed that.
That's a type of thinking whether it's draft or not. I think that's a complete no-no. I'm concerned about that corner lot.
I'm concerned about some of the building availability where you buy a lot but you canít use it. I just can't find any findings in this whatsoever.
Now we have some work to do here at the Board. And I think we are going to probably have a couple of staff perhaps measure -- well, if we want to recommend denial, we must be very specific. I talked with the county about this and they said that they were going to listen very closely to reasons of why we didn't approve or why we denied.
So we must be very, very, very specific and that's why I'm saying I think that we make changes to a motion and therefore we make the motion and second the motion and would agree ahead of time to let us discuss this. So we are not voting and voting and revoting until we get it down to where we think we want it to be.
With that in approval of the Board, okay, to do it that way?
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Madam Chairman, can we make a motion to recommend denial based upon the following concerns and then send those concerns forward to the [Washoe County] Planning Commission?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Right.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: At that point the applicant has an opportunity then to address those concerns.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I want to make sure we have all the concerns listed.
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: I have a page and a half of them.
MS. ELAIN STEINER: I want to be very specific.
MR. QUEYREL: Maybe we can have a motion to deny?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Recommend denial. Okay.
MR. TAORMINA: That's a motion I will second.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: This is what I'm getting at. I want to make sure --
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: The letters that will be part of this -- I can read through what I have.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I want to make sure they are all part of the motion. I want all the concerns listed as part of the motion. That's my suggestion.
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: Based on the concerns stated during this presentation as follows?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Right. I mean, I want to make sure -- I got in trouble once before because we said something and we didn't say -- that's why I wanted it in black and white and also because I want to give the applicant the opportunity to address those concerns and to --
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: Why don't I go through them?
Construction within the sensitive stream zone will trigger review of section and that's just listed on Article 418 significant hydrologic concern.
Article 418 significant hydrologic concern stated that Protective Covenants would require exterior color of dwelling to be white.
Mr. Thomas stated that the intent is to have a rural-ranch-style look and the Architectural Committee would determine the appropriateness of the proposed style and color of the dwellings and attached structures.
Questions raised regarding the type and number of animals that would be allowed on the property.
Opposition was stated to the presentations to the CAB [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board] always being incomplete.
Questions were raised regarding about water is not being -- water is not being piped to the development and whether impact study has been conducted to determine impact adjacent domestic wells.
It was asked if the developer would submit a bond for five years to mitigate any negative impact the adjacent domestic wells.
It was asked if systems would be put in place to monitor water consumption and nitrate contamination.
Mr. Thomas stated that the developer would comply with the ordinances and requirements of Washoe County.
Concerns were raised regarding Dry Creek as a result of construction and grading adjacent to the sensitive and critical stream zones.
It was asked that the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory recommend denial of TM02-007 because it was not compatible with the rural character of existing adjacent residential developments.
Lyn Mundt discussed the purpose and intention of article 418, stream ordinance, and what measures need to be taken to comply with the ordinance and when development ordinance -- when development occurs.
Ms. Mundt asked applicants of the development to area within the critical stream zone, sensitive stream zones by one of the following or other acceptable mechanisms: Common open space retained by the home owner's association, conservation easement to an entity such as the Nevada Land Conservancy or dedication to a public entity such as Washoe County Parks and by specifying the management of the stream corridor including but not limited to fencing, livestock, grazing, native vegetation, removal impervious surface, motorized vehicle, oil, planting of exotic species, use of herbicides, pesticides, grading roads or utility crossing, storm water run off and retaining walls.
Several residents stated opposition to the proposed development and to the loss of personal enjoyment of the existing rural character of the area.
It was recommended that the development site be dedicated to the community as a public park.
Concerns were stated that the Protective Covenants are in draft form. They are included as part of the application and citizens are expected to make recommendations without having complete disclosures.
Concerns were also stated to materials that have been provided that seem to be inconsistent with representations made by the applicant.
Opposition was stated to the dwellings being all white with brick or stone complements.
Mr. Thomas stated that this would be changed based on standards drafted by the architectural committee.
Concerns were raised that the protective covenant referred to multi-family dwelling as referenced in paragraph C on page 27 of the Declaration of Protective Covenants for Legacy Farms.
Concern was stated regarding protections against flooding, protection of stream zones, and to potential traffic impacts with the addition of new development.
Support was stated for the developer to address the questions that have been brought before this Board.
Opposition was stated to the white vinyl fencing and proposed white exterior to the dwellings.
It was recommended that the site plan be redesigned to decrease the number of home sites which would decrease the water availability issue and to provide better internal irrigation.
Concern was raised that the irrigation plan is not available for review.
It was stated that traffic concerns and protection of the stream are very important consideration.
Opposition was stated to the urban development brought into rural community.
Letters from Odile Brady, Jack Quade, Warren Nelson were read recommending denial of TM02-007, Legacy Farms were submitted for the record. All written correspondence will be attached to the approved minutes and at the Department of Community Development.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I have two questions. The letters, they will go along with the report to not just to the --
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: The ones I have go in with your approval. If you need to have copies of those same letters to go to Roger --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: That's correct. That's what I want to make sure.
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: He needs to have a separate copy which should be available to him tonight.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I gave you copies.
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: I have copies that need to go into --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Those go to Roger?
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: No. We provide them with copies.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I have to have them back to make copies then.
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: Okay. I want to make sure they go into the report. Does that make sense?
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Anyway --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I have one other point here. Can I ask one more question? When you were reading that there was something that appear to you that I notice -- about the driveway must be out of the CSZ?
MS. MUNDT: Critical stream zone.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: And with the additional wetlands.
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: I copied what Lyn handed me. What do I need to add to that?
MS. MUNDT: When I read that I was thinking of Ballardini and so Evans Creek should be Dry Creek when I handed you the written thing.
MR. QUEYREL: So we have a motion?
MR. TAORMINA: It's very comprehensive.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: We have a first.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: We have a feeling over here that it's too comprehensive now. Do all these concerns reflect every single concern the Board feels including that it should be a park?
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: That was just stated?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: We are saying we reviewed all these concerns.
That's why I wanted everybody to listen.
MS. ELLEN STEINER; I'm not sure that I think that it should be a park.
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: That's you might want to then consider that it's just based on public comment.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: What's the feeling of the Board?
What we are saying is there has been a motion to deny because of a, b, c, d, e, f, g. When she was reading a, b, c, d, e, f, g she included the fact that a person in the audience said that it should be a park.
Do we want that included as part of the motion?
MR. QUEYREL: Just that one item.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: That would be one of the items that is involved.
You want to take that out?
MR. TAORMINA: If that was in the motion.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Then amend the motion if you want to but before this is -- What I wanted to get added --
MR. QUEYREL: What Elaine is saying is based on the general nature of the public comments can we say that.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I want the public comments to go forward in the memo. If we say --
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: That way you are not saying you are taking public comments. You are not censoring it and your comments and submitting it.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Rather than get too involved --
MR. QUEYREL: It will take forever.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: What I'm trying to do --
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Elaine will make a memo in 48 hours to forward to Roger.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I want to make sure all those concerns are stated -- not just some. That's what I'm trying to say.
WASHOE COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE: Some of them are put in together.
MS. ELAINE STEINER:
MS. DUGAN: In connection with the discussion on this motion, I have a list here that I can read to see if you would think this would be sufficient as opposed to including all of those comments some of which, I think, are unnecessary and are too much to include. Do you want to hear that or would you rather not?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: How does the Board feel about it?
MR. QUEYREL: I feel we go forward with the general feelings. It's up to the person that made the motion.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: That's fine with me.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Okay. I think to avoid over complicating things and to get things done, let's go with the motion as it is and the Planning Commission can pick out and choose what they want to seriously consider, et cetera, et cetera. So let's go with that.
This will go forth probably on March 4th.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: I would not want to amend my motion.
MR. QUEYREL: So the motion is not going to be amended?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: It's a second?
MR. QUEYREL: I second it.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Call for a question. Are we ready? All of those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Board members said aye.)
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Opposed? (None opposed.)

(Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 10:15 p.m.)

Back to Legacy Farms Index Page

---

Back to Protect Our Washoe Home Page

E-mail info@protectourwashoe.org

Site designed and maintained by Deciding Factors
Please direct comments and suggestions to webmaster