LEGACY FARMS — IS THIS THE LEGACY WE WANT?

NOTICE OF IMPORTANT HEARING BEFORE THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF WASHOE COUNTY

On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at the Washoe County Commission Chambers at 1001 East Ninth Street (at Wells Ave.) Reno, Nevada. Please come to the meeting of the Washoe County Planning Commission at 8:00 p.m. Your attendance and voice, or at least your physical presence, is critical. If you can't attend, please let the planning commissioners know your view. For Washoe County Planning Commissioner contact information, click here.

   Legacy Farms has proposed a 13-home development on the Elcano property (consisting of 33.37 acres) on the corner of Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Lane. (Map available at the POW website.) It proposes a development with similar or uniform type architecture and exterior appearance (white exterior buildings, all white vinyl fences, and "Kentucky Horse Farm" or "Colonial") restricted rural use (so far only two household pets -- no horses or other animals are permitted), and unclear protection for water (no established protection for wetlands, appearance of excessive groundwater use -- they suggest all 2.5 acres be on an irrigation system fed from the 11 wells to be drilled on the property).

   Uniform appearance, the urban use restrictions, the negative impact on water, the fact that it is out of character with the area, has raised serious concerns by those residing in the Southwest Truckee Meadows. It is truly a venture of into an urban look-alike subdivision into what has been a quiet, comfortable, quite rural - very informal, residential area, without the constraints of uniformity or uniformity or significant restricted use in the area. As mentioned below, the application for development has been denied three separate times, unanimously, by the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board (the Advisory Board).

   On November 21, 2002,an application for approval of a tentative subdivision map for Legacy Farms came before the Citizen Advisory Board for consideration. After an extended hearing, the board voted against it.

   On January 16, 2003,representatives of the Developers returned to the Citizen Advisory Board asking for approval for a Special Use Permit for a sewer lift station. Again, adequate information was not made available to the Advisory Board.

   On January 30, 2003, a town hall meeting was held by POW. The meeting was well attended and representatives of Legacy Farms were present. It was clear that nearly all of the attendees other than Legacy Farms representatives had deep and strong reservations with respect to a number of aspects of the development. A transcript of the Protect Our Washoe town hall meeting is also available on the POW website.

   On February 1, the Legacy Farms developers held their own meeting. Many people present also expressed serious concerns. Although the developers contended some changes would be made, as indicated below, most of those changes have still not been filed with Washoe County.

   Legacy Farms developers said (a) the architecture would not require a white exterior (but the documents filed with the County still make that requirement); (b) that the declarations, covenants, conditions and restrictions that they filed with the County were only a "draft" and not the ones they fully intended to use (but the ones they intend to use have still not been filed with the Washoe County Planning Department); (c) that the Dry Creek areas would be protected (but no CC&R's are proposed at this time which would provide a mechanism to protect the Dry Creek areas to assure that their pristine character will be protected and wetlands restrictions will be enforced); and (d) that there would be horses permitted on some parcels (but there are no provisions in the CC&R's providing for such protection at this time).

    Accordingly, POW is concerned that these promises made at the hearing may not become a reality, because nothing has been filed yet with the County consistent with those remarks.

    On February 20, 2003, Legacy Farms again appeared before the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board. After a very extended hearing, the Advisory Board unanimously denied the application. Undeterred, Legacy Farms plans to go before the Washoe County Planning Commission. The Citizens Advisory Board turned down the request, requesting they come back again. A copy of the minutes of the November 21, 2002, Advisory Board Meeting and transcripts of the January 16, 2003, and February 20, 2003, Advisory Board meetings are on the website of Protect Our Washoe (POW).

   The Washoe County Health Department recently recommended denial of the application; nevertheless, Legacy Farms intends to continue to proceed. The only way to assure that the Planning Commission hears our views is to be personally present, speak if possible, and raise your hands in opposition when asked.

Click here to go to a map of the Legacy Farms site plan.

Concerns are numerous. Some of the major ones are as follows:

     1. Nature of the Subdivision. This development is a look-alike subdivision which is substantially constricted in its appearance and use. Although the architecture is attractive (the developers show a "Kentucky Horse Farm" appearance), this will be first time there has been an attempt to impose a developer's view of uniformity of architecture and exterior appearance on this area. This is something entirely new. It is now time to express your views as to whether or not this concept violates the *community character* including the rural character of the area.

     2. The Rural Issue. Developers contend that the development will provide for a "rural" environment. However, the declarations the developers have filed with the County (now they contend they are only a "draft") still restrict the use of the property and provide that any person or entity owning a home on the lot is restricted to two household pets, architectural restrictions, exterior appearance restrictions, and restrictions of other rural uses. One may not have a horse or non-household pet without the approval of the developer, and only if the owner retains a full acre for the use of the animal. Provisions do not exist for automatically providing outbuildings (i.e., a barn) if a person chooses to own a horse. The rules are a change in the rural use of the property (defined, as we know it) in the area. Many are concerned that this will be the beginning of a trend toward an urban use of the property in the area.

     3. Endangerment of Dry Creek Tributary. As mentioned below, the Dry Creek tributary is in a critical stream zone, a sensitive stream zone, and constitutes part of the wetlands. They must comply with Article 418 of the Development Code if they are in either the critical stream zone or the sensitive stream zone. Yet, details have not been filed to show how compliance will occur and the CC&R's do not make an attempt to protect the portion of the property falling within the critical stream zone or the sensitive stream zone.

     4. Wetlands/Flood Plain. There are some areas on some of the lots that are designated as federal wetlands. Two or three of lots may also be in a flood plain. The Developers propose that the wetlands be included in the parcels and the Declarations that they have distributed to date (and are already signed) show no restrictions as to use. Therefore, it is most likely, as indicated at the hearing of the Citizen Advisory Board on January 7th, that all wetland protections for this area will likely not be followed, and the wetlands will ultimately be destroyed. Therefore, many citizens believe that there will be no mechanism to assure that wetlands requirements and restrictions will be enforced, notwithstanding the promises of the developers.

     5. Possible variances. Because of lack of information at this point, there is a concern that a number of variances will be requested by the Developers when the project is underway, both with respect to lot configuration, possible drainage, possible use of wetlands, limitation of uses, etc. The Developers have not yet discussed a policy with respect to drainage, and information is not yet specifically detailed at this time to determine what variances the Developers, or persons purchasing those lots, might seek.

      6. Excessive well use. The developer proposes to drill 11 wells on the property -- and so far has indicated that they all must be attached to irrigation for the entire 2.5-acre lots. The use of domestic wells for non-domestic purposes is new to the area. If this were to be the case with all properties in the area, there would be no need for the Steamboat Ditch or Last Chance Water -- all would come from underground water sources -- and deplete the water in that area. This is a serious concern that has been raised by many of the residents. There is no detailed written plan which has been prepared to date (or at least filed with the County) spelling out the usage of the water in the area from those three sources and how they will be integrated with the complex lot development proposed. At their own meeting on February 1, the developers acknowledged they have not prepared such a plan. None has been filed to date with the County, and substantial questions have been raised by a number of the persons residing close to the area who are familiar with the particular water issues on that parcel.

     7. Rural or Urban. The question is largely one of future lifestyle. The question is whether this will be the beginning of future developments of this kind (tract-like, however attractive) in the remaining few large parcels in the southwest, thus causing the beginning of a true urban trend, as opposed to rural appearance and environment, thus encouraging future developments of that kind.

     8. Traffic — particularly Dead Man's Curve. At all of the hearings, objections have been raised with respect to the dangerous aspect of the curve at Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Lane, which is a dogleg curve at which many accidents occur. It is critical to keep the line of sight unobstructed for several yards before this turn. Yet, the CC&R's do not require any protection or assurance that the line of sight will be retained, especially in view of the fact that the building pads are also suggested into the curve itself. The CC&R's do not attempt the parcels in such a way to assure visual obstruction will not occur. Typically on those roads, visual barriers are constructed of shrubbery and trees. The landscape plan proposed on February 1, at a meeting held by the developer, showed those kinds of obstructions to exist.

Please go to our website, but more important, please come to the meeting. The commission goes into session at 6:30 p.m. with the Legacy appeal scheduled after 8:00 p.m. Sierra Nevada Community Access Television (SNCAT) will carry the event live on Charter Cable Channel 17. The program will be rebroadcast Saturday night beginning at 10:00 p.m.

Also, Protect Our Washoe is a purely voluntary effort, and any contributions would be most welcome. Please send any checks to "Protect Our Washoe" at the address indicated, below. Your support in this regard would be most appreciated.

Back to Protect Our Washoe Home Page

Back to Legacy Farms Index Page

E-mail info@protectourwashoe.org

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