CASE NO. TM02-005 (TOIYABE RANCH ESTATES)
WASHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
RENO, NEVADA
JUNE 29, 2004

CHAIRMAN DOXEY: The next item on the agenda is Item 4, Tentative Subdivision Map Case No. TM02-005 (Toiyabe Ranch Estates) - To develop a 40-lot single-family subdivision.
I want to open the public hearing with Mr. Paul Kelly.
MR. PAUL KELLY: Good evening. Paul Kelly with the Department of Community Development.
The applicant proposes to develop the southern 600 acres of the 1,019-acre Ballardini Ranch, to create 40 residential lots, ranging in size from
6.45 acres to 32.668 acres, with an average lot size of 14.64, and a density of 0.07 units per acre.
The development laid out, in general, is sensitive to the site. The parcel contains springs, possible wetlands, and stream channels that will be required to be protected by no development strips and by designation of building involved for each lot.
Slopes in excess of 30 percent are scattered throughout the development, but more particularly on the perimeter lots. The majority of the interior lots have slopes 15 percent or less. While the interior lots contain areas of marginally developable land, the applicant has shown that sufficient building space exists on each lot on slopes that are less than 30 percent and outside of the environmentally sensitive areas.
There are a number of significant issues regarding water and sewer for this development. Originally the District Health Department required that the development hook up to community water and sewer system, as the property is within 200 feet of existing systems, which requires mandatory hookup with Health Department regulations.
However, under Truckee Meadows' Regional Plan, owning land within the Truckee Meadows service area may be served with community systems.
As the land under this proposal is not included in the TMSA, the Regional Plan would have to be amended to include this area before service is extended.
The applicant has proposed obtaining a variance to the Health Department's regulations to serve the lots by individual wells and septic systems, but the required data has not been submitted to the department for a determination.
An additional concern is the lack of water rights for ground water. The applicant has service water rights, but does not have the necessary ground water rights to dedicate to the County as required by the Department of Water Resources.
Another issue is access to the public U.S. Forest Service lands that are adjacent to the parcel on the west side.
A number of elements of the comprehensive plan address this issue by requiring the developer to provide access to these lands.
The County will require a public access easement for forest service property, as stipulated by the comprehensive plan, the development code, and as shown on the Parks & Recreation Department's master plan.
The easement location and dedication will be agreed to by the Parks and the Developer as to the location.
As the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizens Advisory Board pointed out, there are a number of outstanding issues, some of which such as the lack of Health Department approval of water supply and sanitary waste disposal are significant.
Staff shares these particular concerns with CAB. Many of the other concerns of both CAB and staff, such as stream buffers, wetland protection, and the Loan Tree Lane alignment, can be handled as conditions of approval as is normally done with tentative map approvals.
It does appear to staff that the approval of the tentative map is premature, and we recommend denial of the subdivision at this time.
Staff has provided motions, findings and conditions to the Planning Commission; one for denial and one for approval, should the Planning Commission feel that these issues can be addressed as conditions of final approval.
Should the Planning Commission feel compelled to deny the tentative map, staff would recommend that when the issues of water supply, sanitary waste disposal and water rights are resolved to the satisfaction of the Health Department and the Department of Water Resources, the applicant be allowed to come before the Planning Commission again under this application.
Staff has therefore suggested a motion, which is found at the end of the staff report on page 9, that denies the proposal without prejudice.
Staff has received by now six letters, which you have copies of, and e-mails, and two phone calls, all in opposition to the proposed project.
I am here to answer any questions you have.
Bryan Tyre, with the Environmental Health Section is here, and is on time constraints. If you would have questions concerning water and sewer, I would like to invite him up here at your discretion to answer these questions.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Mr. Salerno?
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: Mr. Kelly, could you tell us just what is involved with a submittal and tentative approval towards the TMSA, approval that's required in order to connect to the water and sewer system?
MR. PAUL KELLY: The service boundary -- the Regional Plan would have to be amended to extend the Truckee Meadows service area boundary to include this parcel.
That is done -- Adrian, you can correct me -- at the initiation of one of these governmental entities, to do this amendment.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: And it would have to be approved by the Regional Planning Commission?
MR. PAUL KELLY: Right.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Could we have Bryan -- is it Byer?
MR. PAUL KELLY: Bryan Tyre, with the Environmental Health.
MR. BRYAN TYRE: My name's Bryan Tyre, and I'm here with the Health Department.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Would you like to go into a little more detail about the part on here that you sent a letter in that you don't think --
MR. BRYAN TYRE: I've sent three letters over the last year and a half or so. With regard to sewage, first of all, we have a regulation that requires that if a property -- any part of the property is within 200 feet of a sewer, they need to go community sewer. That applies to this property.
We also have a variance procedure where you can vary certain regulations in the sewage proposal regulations. We haven't had a variance applied for or even discussed by anybody since I wrote that letter.
As opposed to the community sewer, you can also do septic systems on a property like this. I have been up and looked at several test holes on the property. They have 40 or so lots proposed. I've seen acceptable test holes on approximately 20 of those. I saw another five test holes last Friday. I haven't gotten any results of the percolation tests on those. One was good, the other ones looked kind of marginal to me.
We also have a regulation that requires that you can't have anymore than 10 percent of the parcels in a subdivision on engineered systems.
Well, boy, the vast majority of the ones that I've seen that I've even determined acceptable are engineered systems, so that also would have to be varied.
Again, I haven't had any variance proposal or application from the applicants on that.
I don't know anything about this Truckee Meadows service area thing. That's a planning deal; the Health Department wasn't involved in that, as far
as I know, so we just go by our regulations and they are readily available at the Health Department for anybody that wants to go review those.
With regard to water, originally I kind of jumped to the conclusion that they would have to go to community water, because again it's right in the street there available. That's not really the Health Department's call. The State Engineer's Office handles water quantity issues; we handle water quality issues. But about 20 so years ago we took on the task of issuing well permits.
We won't issue a well permit if there is community water somewhere in the area, not until we get a letter from the State Engineer's Office saying that it's okay to issue a well permit and dig a well.
So they make the definition of available public water system, but that's not as well defined as our 200 feet, for example. They kind of make that a judgment call in each case, so they haven't made a judgment call in this case, so I can't say that they have to go to public water.
However, our regulations, again the state regulations that we follow at the Health Department, require that you submit samples from different wells, is how it puts it, and not just one, but samples from different wells, addressing the water quality with regard to the Federal water quality standards, to make sure that the eventual buyers of the lots will be drinking water that meets the Federal standards.
We've gotten a partial submittal on that yesterday on the well there at the farm house, the ranch house, and we haven't had any -- it's not complete, but I understand they're coming, results that are coming. And I don't think there has been any attempt to sample more than one well. So that's the situation, that's where we stand now. So if you have some questions, I have to go at 7:30, as I have a prior commitment.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Prior or Mr. Kelly?
MR. TYRE: Just for the record, it's Tyre, T-y-r-e.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Okay, thank you very much. I think that's all.
MR. TYRE: I'll be here until 7:30 to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Do we have the applicant's representative?
MR. PAUL KELLY: The applicant is here.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: What's his name? Sir, do you want to tell us your name, who you represent, and also would you fill out a sheet with our lady over here?
MR. TOM ERWIN: My name's Tom Erwin, I'm with the law firm of Erwin & Thompson, LLP, in Reno. I'm here accompanied by Tim Nelson, property owner of Evans Creek, LLC; and Tammy Zimmerman, who is employed by Pezonella & Associates, the water quality and sewer system consultant for the applicant. Preliminarily I'd just like to request the opportunity, after we complete our brief presentation now, to respond and rebut any comments or other statements made by the County staff.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: We usually limit the representative to about 15 minutes. Is that okay?
MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson will answer specific questions about the application plan, as shown on the map. Miss Zimmerman will answer questions about the water quality testing and the septic system.
Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission, concerning the primary issues of water and sewer, the Company has undertaken the testing for the sewer systems, and there were some scheduling delays. They have additional testing plans and another inspection, I believe, planned for tomorrow at 1:00. This is stated in more detail in the letter. I gave Mr. Kelly copies to be distributed to all of you.
It's the company's intension to continue the testing and inspections until they do meet the requirements, as well as the other requirements of the code.
Concerning the water quality, they have conducted the one test. The turnaround time for the well sampling on all the compound takes a matter of
weeks, and they are awaiting the initial test result. They will complete the additional well testing in accordance with the code, and Pezonella & Associates
has been retained and is intending to do that.
She can answer more questions about the testing itself of both the water quality and the septic systems.
In the letter that was submitted, the accompanying details in response to some of the concerns Mr. Kelly raised, and were also raised by the Committee Advisory Board during that meeting in May, and I think the letter speaks for itself, but there are a couple of items I'd like to address specifically. First of all, this project is approximately 600 acres, 40 lots, it's very low density, and it does conform to the surrounding areas. In fact, some of the properties nearby are actually much higher density subdivisions on the north and to the east and to the southeast, some distance away. It does reduce the impact on the environment there and the way the homes will be sited on these lots and the way the lots are laid out with the topography and the roads, the visual impact for property of this size and location in southwest Reno, compared to some of the other subdivisions out there. The overall visual impact would be much less than your clients; for example, Arrow Creek and some of the other subdivisions out there.
The Company will comply with all of the requirements of the code, and the conditions that are recited in the report, in the portion of the report relative to the motion for approval with conditions, including the sensitivity to the stream buffer zones, which will comply with Article 418; the wetlands issue will be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The Company is committed to do that, and will do that.
Concerning the -- there are a couple other items which were raised, and they are addressed in the conditions.
One is: There is a legal action pending concerning the existence or nonexistence of a public road through the property. It's our position that the pendency of that litigation is not barred to consideration for the application for the tentative map, and is certainly not grounds for denial. There is a condition in the report, Condition Number 6, which addresses that issue pending resolution of that legal action.
Another issue that was raised by the CAB was a proposal for a traffic study. The standards applied to developments in Washoe County, they take an estimate of the number of daily trips generated by a development. And our number of daily trips is well below the threshold for a traffic study, and we don't believe that should be a requirement under the conditions of a tentative map approval.
One issue that Mr. Kelly noted is the Lone Tree right-of-way dedication. That is an issue related to the public road issue. And it's our position that the dedication in that parcel map is referred to in that report. If you read the parcel map, it refers to two other parcels of land, Parcels A and B, and a 5-foot dedication along the Lone Tree Lane extension. It's not a continuation through the property itself, and we don't believe that should be a ground for denial, or a condition of the approval of the application.
At this time I would close our request by simply stating that if the Commission believes that the application should be denied pending completion of
the additional inspections, it should be per the suggested form of motions without prejudice, because it is the Company's intention to complete the testing
that has been undertaken, and inspections are scheduled, and they will do that until they bring the property in conformity with the requirements.
If you have any questions of me or Mr. Nelson, Miss Zimmerman, we'd be willing to answer those.
As I said, we would like the opportunity to respond to any other comments from staff.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Any questions from the Commissioners? I don't think we have any. Thank you very much.
The first speaker I have on my list is a Steven Walther. Three minutes, Mr. Walther.
MR. WALTHER: I'm not familiar with the Commission. My name is Steve Walther, I live at 8895 Lakeside Drive. I'm here on behalf of a group that identifies itself as Protect Our Washoe, as well as myself.
We recommend denial based upon the grounds that were stated by the Advisory Board, as well as by staff, on the basis that the application is premature for consideration at this time.
Without reiterating a number of those, I would ask -- I think each of you received a letter of mine yesterday, together with a copy of the transcript of the Advisory Board, and I would ask that it be made a part of the record. Is that satisfactory?
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Yes.
MR. WALTHER: Thank you very much.
Briefly, some fundamental things: This application was filed, it shows on the record, approximately two years ago. They then put it on hold for over a year. It may have been filed more than two years ago, and I'm not exactly sure of the exact filing date.
The problems that we're talking about today are the same problems that we were talking about two years ago, and they're still not solved. There is no guarantee that there can be any water to this development, unless there is a law change, whereby the Truckee Meadows Services Area will begin to encompass this property. Other than that, it's still pure speculation, and what we've seen to date doesn't do it.
With respect to sewer -- and they did, as I understand it, run some test holes, according to the staff report, but they didn't have any inspection, as required by law. With respect to the sewer, the staff report shows there were 40 test holes, and 20 of which were unacceptable. And still, as was reported by Mr. Tyre, there is no basis for determining whether or not sewer will ever be made available to this development without a law change.
So to approve the development, two fundamental things on the basis of water and sewer, assuming that the only way they can really ever be sure they're going to have it is to change the law, it seems very premature, especially when you consider the fact that this application has been pending for 24 months and they still are now, as of today and tomorrow and the next day, going to start doing some fundamental things to determine whether or not it's ripe for consideration.
With respect to wildlife, the Ballardini Ranch is at the heart of the wildlife population in difficult times. The report by Dr. Paul Tueller, from the University of Nevada, makes it clear that this is a very sensitive and critical area for the deer herd, but yet there's nothing really provided upon how they are going to help preserve the deer herd.
The only thing that I've seen is to say that because the lots are large, that helps mitigate.
But help mitigate from what percent to what percent? And they say the fences will have to be mitigated too. So as a practical matter, there should be some concrete information upon how to protect this regional treasure and this deer herd, and there's nothing to that effect at this point.
With respect to the fire trail, they say they are going to go through the northern 400 acres to get to McCarran, but there's really no detail on how to hook into McCarran. It's a very costly road that they're going to build. And when asked if the Advisory Board -- (The bell rang for the time limit.)
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you. Do you have a fast conclusion?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I would like to hear the rest of his presentation, if I might.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: I'll give you one more minute, Mr. Walther.
MR. WALTHER: I can do that. When asked at the Advisory Board if they
could give any indication as to what they intended to do with the 400 acres, they refused to answer.
The one thing they did answer, though, is they may be suing appropriate entities, over water and sewer, and they're in current litigation with the
County over access.
To seal off this property, would be a travesty. And our planning regulations require that this can be conditioned for public access, and they still are challenging that on a legal basis. And to not provide public access through this, would be a travesty for everyone who has enjoyed this for years.
I should mention the fact that they want to have a sealed, gated community. They want to seal it off from the rest of the population, as well as for, in my opinion, probably to a large degree, wildlife as well.
They were asked at the Advisory Board if they would reconsider not having a gated community up there, and Mr. Nelson said “no”, and then towards the end he said “Okay, I will reconsider going back to the owners and asking them if they will consider not having it gated.”
And as I understand it, he subsequently advised the Advisory Board that they must be sealed. Thank you. (The bell rang for time limit.)
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: The next speaker is Herbert Rubenstein?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Three minutes, Mr. Rubenstein, please.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Herbert Rubenstein, 4005 Odile Court, and I'll try to be less than two minutes.
Here are some of the problems I have with this project: Traffic requirements could lead to a widening of Lone Tree. That's because there are other pending developments. There's the Landmark/Cosmos, Legacy Farms, which also could affect Lakeside.
The sensitive stream zone of Evans Creek also may be affected. Their information is not clear on this issue.
They have several outstanding or unsettled legal issues.
Water and sewer arrangements are incomplete. Even if drinking water was obtained by drilling 40 wells, irrigation water could still be a problem.
I can't imagine what 40 of these large sites would look like without water for landscape.
A gated community would limit public access to the adjacent foothills. This would forever close one of the last public access points. One by one we have seen this happen all over town.
Last month I attended the CAB hearing, and it seems as though some of the most basic questions were just not answered.
Over and over legitimate questions were passed off in a very bureaucratic fashion with phrases like the following, and I will just read a few:
“Yet took determined.”
“To be worked out with County staff.”
“Whatever the County standards require.”
“Not pertinent to this application.”
“Has not been determined yet.”
“Whatever needs to be done for the final mapping.”
“Not pertinent to what you should be reviewing.”
“Not germane to review of the tentative map application.”
“Not pertinent to this application.”
“Not required as part of the tentative map process.”
In summary, if this developer wants project approval, they need to dot the I's and cross the T's like everybody else does.
They need to answer questions and settle issues first, and then come back to the CAB and the Planning Commission with complete information in hand.
In my opinion the County staff made the correct recommendation to deny this application. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, Mr. Rubenstein. Next speaker is Mr. Romero. Three minutes, please.
MR. ROMERO: My name is Mark Romero. I am actually speaking for my father, Bruno Romero, who has somewhat become a celebrity in the last few months in TV and in the papers regarding the Ballardini Ranch.
This is all about access to a property that's been special to him for over 40 years, walking up the trails of Ballardini Ranch without interference, and someone who actually loves the beauty of that land, who actually wishes to be buried there, his ashes laid there when he dies.
My father has been very prominent in this community. He was a contractor. He has a street named after him, it's called Romero Drive. He owned Vaughn Materials, he owned Builders Mart in Elko.
And all he asks these days is he be able to walk his trails, walk his mountains on that ranch, as he has for the last 40 years. That is not too much to ask. We are losing a lot of precious property in this area, and this is not too much to ask for our community, to have some open space and open property.
So I am personally requesting a rejection of this proposal, and think about the people whose lives are affected by the loss of this property. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: I would appreciate it greatly if we would sustain from clapping, because we have a long, long agenda, and we want to make sure everybody gets a chance to speak.
The next speaker would be Mr. Dick Benoit. Am I pronouncing that right? I notice you're a representative from Truckee Meadows Trails. Would five minutes be adequate for you instead of three?
MR. BENOIT: About one and a half will work.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: One and a half? Okay, you've got it.
MR. BENOIT: My name is Dick Benoit. I live at 629 Jones Street, Reno, Nevada, and I'm the President of the Truckee Meadows Trails Association. And on behalf of the Board of Directors and the members of the Truckee Meadows Trails Association, we're asking you to consider this a strong opposition to the approval of the application of Toiyabe Ranch Estates.
We note that the Southwest Meadows, Truckee Meadows CAB, and Washoe County Planning Staff have also both recommended denial of this application.
The Truckee Meadows Trails Association exists to advocate and build trails within the local Reno area, and we're very concerned that the Evans Creek, Limited, gives every appearance of going out of their way to deny all but 40 households access to the forest service land to the west of their project.
They have proposed a gated community with no public access at all, and they really go out of their way to stick it in our eye about this.
Now if you look behind you, it says: We value community. First thing, right up there.
What they're proposing is not community. I would urge you to deny this application, and any future ones that come back without adequate public access, to also deny those. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Mary Winston, three minutes.
MS. WINSTON: My name is Mary Winston, and I reside at 629 Jones Street, Reno, and I am also representing the Friends of Mt. Rose, and we -- it seems to me that the staff has some very legitimate concerns about this project, and it indicates to me, at least, that the fact that these concerns have not been addressed by the LLC, indicates scant respect for the processes of the County, and by implication the community and our standards. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
Faith Fessenden.
MS. FESSENDEN: Faith Fessenden. I live at 5975 Sierra Vista Way in the neighborhood of Viewcrest and Lakeside.
I am on the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board, but tonight I'm speaking as a homeowner and a private citizen.
1998, the year the initial application was filed by Evans Creek, LLC. Six years. How many meetings and presentations have we listened to in either this room or the Reno City Council Chambers? How much of your time, and our time, has been spent here in this room? I feel like our names are all on the chairs and we have pajamas hanging on the back wall.
1998. Six years. The applicant, Evans Creek, LLC, has in six years gone through four sets of legal counsel, is on their third planner, they are currently in litigation against one of the planners, are threatening litigation over sewer, are threatening litigation over water, since 1998, six years. You have before you six major findings by which staff recommends denial. These requirements have not been esoteric procedures known and privy to only a few. Evans Creek, LLC, now under the non-de-plume Toiyabe Ranch Estates, had four lawyers who knew the requirement; two sets of planners who knew the requirements. We can only assume their current third planner knows the requirements.
As stated, six of those entities have been fired. Who are these people? This is the most bogus business plan and methodology I have ever experienced.
And here we are again. Everything is incomplete.
Does Evans Creek, LLC, think we the citizens of Washoe County and Reno City are morons that will throw our hands up and give in? That if they just keep changing the project name and keep coming back, we will just give into them? Six years. Come on.
I urge you to deny this application.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Mr. Chair? Excuse me, but due to the fact that Mr. Tyre has to leave at 7:30, I do have one question that I would like to ask him before he leaves. May I do that now?
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Yes. Mr. Tyre?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Thank you. Given the late submitted material by the developer, and the fact that in this material it says that somebody from the Health Department has inspected some holes, and you said that as well, at this juncture, considering that all of this has happened at the 11th hour, would you still recommend denial of the subdivision based on what you know to this point in time?
MR. TYRE: Yes, two reasons: State law says that their water quality reports have to be together from at least two different wells before the tentative map, or as a condition of the tentative map application. That hasn't been done.
And the other part is that the sewage disposal, we have to sign off on the general method of sewage disposal before the tentative map gets approved again, and that hasn't been done either.
So, you know, both of those things are required at the tentative map stage, and neither has been done.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Thank you. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Next speaker I have is Mary Dugan.
MS. DUGAN: My name is Mary Dugan, and I live at 5935 Sierra Vista Way in Reno at the Lakeside View Crest area near this property.
I am a member of the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board, but I'm here today as a homeowner and a concerned citizen.
I was at that May meeting of the CAB when Mr. Nelson presented this project on behalf of Evans Creek, and he neglected to mention at the beginning that he was Secretary of Evans Creek, but we eventually learned that from him. At that time the CAB expressed its desire that this development, if it were built, not be a gate community, which seems to foster an attitude of exclusiveness, as opposed to an attitude of inclusiveness.
The other problem with gated communities is that it seems like people who live in them don't want people speeding through their communities and their neighborhoods, but they are perfectly happy to speed through other people's neighborhoods outside the gate as soon as the gate closes behind them.
The other problem with a gated community is that it would cut off public access to the federal land to the west. And I understand that having this access is a requirement of the County regulations.
The reason Mr. Nelson gave at the CAB for wanting a gated community was that Evans Creek, LLC didn't think their high-end buyers would want people walking past their houses. Well in my neighborhood, people walk past my house all the time. Some of them are neighbors, some are strangers, but they are just walking down the street. They don't have cooties or anything.
Are these high-end buyers going to prevent each other from walking past each other's homes?
It appears that Mr. Nelson and Evans Creek want people seeking access to federal lands to walk through everybody else's neighborhoods to get to them, and they certainly want to be able to walk through those neighborhoods to get to federal lands, but they don't want us, the riffraff, in their neighborhood. Just a couple more points. The staff report states that if this project were to be approved, a condition would be that all slopes would be required to be covered with topsoil, reseeded and irrigated to establish growth. These are large lots, and it's not legal to irrigate them from what are supposed to be domestic water sources.
Mr. Nelson has said that Evans Creek doesn't have ground water rights yet, and that's in the staff report as well. So they don't even have the water rights to enable them to do what would be required to be done to be in compliance with the County regulations.
It's interesting to me that staff listed 46 conditions, if this application were to be approved, before they even get to the standard conditions.
So if you look at the staff report, there are 73 conditions on this project. That tells you, alone, that something is wrong with this project, if you have to fix 46 things before you get to the plain old ordinary normal conditions.
This is a classic case of Evans Creek, LLC, of putting the cart before the horse. (The bell rang for time limit.)
MS. DUGAN: I can wrap up really fast.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Go ahead.
MS. DUGAN: There is no approved method of providing culinary water and sanitary waste disposal that's been provided. The adequacy of the wells and the septic systems has not been determined. Evans Creek hasn't provided any necessary access to federal lands, as required.
And it's even in litigation against the County, and trying to challenge the County's finding that a public road, is a public road. And it doesn't have the water rights that it needs to irrigate this property.
This application is premature, and it should be denied. And I have got four more Dugans right here that feel the same way I do. So please deny it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you. The next request here is from Robert and Donna Rose. They say they want the denial, they support the denial, but they do not wish to speak, so that's on the record.
Next one I have is from a Charles Ragusa? Am I saying that right?
MR. RAGUSA: Good evening. I'm Charlie Ragusa from Reno, Nevada, and I would like to strongly encourage this Commission to uphold staff's recommendation, and to deny the applicant's proposal.
I feel that the Southwest CABS' use of the word premature really sums it up. There are just too many questions yet to be answered in regards to this issue. Not only on this project, but on this property.
I know your decision must be based on the merits of the applicant's proposal, but an incredibly generous offer has been made by a member of our community in regards to this property.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Sir, we aren't going to discuss that point tonight. Only discuss what is in --
MR. RAGUSA: I understand that and I appreciate it, but I feel that some recognition must be given to the hundreds of people who have dedicated thousands of hours in an effort to preserve Ballardini Ranch. I also don't feel that Evans Creek has acted in good faith with our community in this area from the beginning.
In summary, the decision reached in regards to the Ballardini Ranch, will leave a lasting legacy not only for our community, but for our entire region.
Please give us an opportunity to leave a legacy we can all be proud of. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Sheila Millian? Am I saying that right?
MS. SHEILA MEGAN: It's Megan. I don't wish to speak, but I did want you to deny the application.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Next one I have is Diana Foley.
MS. DIANA FOLEY: Diana Foley, and I also do not wish to speak, but I would like to respectfully, adamantly agree with staff's report for denial, and ask that any of my additional time could be given for Steve Walther, if possible.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you.
MS. KVAS: Mr. Chair, they really do have to come down, because the recorder can't pick up these comments or their names.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Would you ladies mind coming down here?
MS. SHEILA MEGAN: I am Sheila Megan. I do not wish to speak, but I do hope the Commission will deny the application by Evans, LLC. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you.
MS. DIANA FOLEY: Good evening. My name is Diana Foley, and I would like to respectfully and adamantly agree with staff's report for denial, and if possible donate my additional time to Mr. Steve Walther, if he would need that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Next speaker I have is Claudia Patraw.
MS. PATRAW: My name is Claudia Patraw. I live here in Reno. I just wish that the Commission here would deny the proposal by Evans Creek, and any additional time that I have be given to Steve Walther. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Tyre one more questions before he leaves? I forgot to write something down.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: How many test holes did you do for your perk test?
MR. TYRE: Originally, and you know, these go back quite a ways, because there have been a couple of consultants on this thing, but I looked at something like 50 or 60, quite a while ago, but I only saw about 20 that were acceptable.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: How many of them were negative?
MR. TYRE: 50 or 60, minus one. 30 or 40 were unacceptable. There were some bad ones.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I just wanted to check. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Our next speaker is Cynthia Adams.
MS. ADAMS: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Cindy Adams, and I live in Reno, Nevada. I would just like to ask that all the people that are here in opposition to the Ballardini Ranch would rise for a moment. (A large portion stood.)
I think probably that's the strongest statement I could make. Thank you very much. I would like to also have the Commission consider that because there is litigation currently around this property on a public road, it seems also premature that the Commissioners could make any sort of decision on a tentative map when it could be caught up in litigation, as well as all the other reasons that have been mentioned before me. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, Miss Adams.
Susan Kaiser?
MS. KAISER: Thank you for this opportunity to address you. My name is Susan Kaiser, I am a resident of the Chardonnay Village at 6560 Montecello
Court.
Although I have not studied the details of this proposal, I have strong feelings about development of the Ballardini Ranch.
I am a second generation native Nevadan, and as a young girl I remember a heated debate over setting aside land for the Rancho San Rafael Park. Thankfully at that point in time our elected officials had the foresight to preserve that land that is enjoyed by so many individuals today.
I am here tonight to urge you to preserve the remaining open space in the southwest foothills to benefit the many residents of our valley over the greed of a few out-of-state developers.
I urge you to deny this application for development of the Ballardini Ranch. In the interest of future generations of Nevadans, my own three
children, and the four Dugans who are my students. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
Next speaker is Christopher Henry. But you say you do not wish to speak?
Come down and say your name into the microphone, if you're here.
MR. HENRY: I am Christopher Henry, I live at 1450 Joanie Court. I am also speaking for my wife tonight.
I am opposed to this proposed development. I can't really add anything to what everybody has said, but really sounds like a bad idea. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir, appreciate that.
Eugene Jezek?
MR. EUGENE JEZEK: Good evening. My name is Eugene Jezek. I live at 3260 Sansimmion Court.
I agree with my fellow citizens here. I strongly urge that you deny this project. And I would also like to donate any available time to Mr. Walther.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Craig Schriber?
MR. SCHRIBER: My name's Craig Schriber. I live at 2190 Dent here in Reno. I am a professional Realtor, I deal in a number of high-end homes and primary in Southwest Reno.
I would like to say that I really would appreciate if you would vote with the staff recommendation against this project.
One thing I see is a number of my clients come from out of town. They have moved to the area, moved here for certain things like quality of life. Quality of life is defined by open space.
People who live in this community who move to that area of town, go there for the quality of life, as well as people who want to go for walks, hikes.
I think it's essential that we do the right thing for our community. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing, and I hope you will support the
staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Catherine Smith?
MS. SMITH: My name is Catherine Smith. I live at 3565 Rosa Linda. I agree with everything that's been said about supporting the staff recommendation.
And I would like to say that we are an area that is beset with applications for development all over the place, and it's all you and the staff can do to keep up, and keep up standards.
If you accept something that's as substandard as this for such a prime piece of property, it's going to be open season; anybody can do anything. And I know none of us wants to have that happen.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am. I have no further requests to speak. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this subject? The lady back there?
A LADY: I have a letter from Ms. Steiner.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Would you identify who you are and where you're from? You may have permission to speak.
Do you want to come down, give your name, location? You have three minutes.
MS. RONSHEIMER: My name's Diane Ronsheimer. I live at 6675 Evans Creek Drive, in the Chardonnay Village.
And I agree with everything that's been said, and I am really worried about the environmental impact that is going to happen by the building on this
property.
We need to leave something to our future generations, and this is a good place to start. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: You've already had your three minutes.
MS. RONSHEIMER: This is for someone that could not be here.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: I'm not so sure we can do -- well, go ahead. Two minutes.
MS. RONSHEIMER: I am reading this for Ellen and Elaine Steiner, a member of and current Chair, respectively, of the Southwest Truckee Meadows CAB. This is from the two of them. They are unable to be here.
“We have read the staff report. We do agree with their conclusion that the Planning Commission should deny the application. However, the staff report, although it discusses the CAB recommendation for denial and the concerns which led to that recommendation, does not reflect the tone of the presentation by the applicant at the CAB meeting.”
“Never in all the years we have been involved in these issues, and that includes the City Council, have we been so outraged at the conduct of a presenter. His arrogance was without peer. He refused to answer many of our questions, and the information he did manage to impart was so lacking in the usual detail that the CAB almost couldn't make any recommendation. Also, while we agree with staff's recommendation for denial, we do not agree with all of their report; to wit: We do not agree that the Planning Commission should allow them to, in effect, void the regulations about the appropriate time frames between applications, which it would be doing were the Planning Commission to follow the suggestion of staff. If the Planning Commission cannot make the findings necessary to vote in the affirmative, then it shouldn't vote to deny, up or down, no in between.”
“When conditions change, the applicant can then refile just as any other unsuccessful applicant might, according to the time frame set out in the regulations. There is no justification, in our mind, to do anything else, particularly wherein the applicant has refused to work with the County on
relevant issues, such as the traffic and trail preservation.”
“And the fact that the applicant and County are engaged in a relevant legal dispute, is even more of a reason why the County should not make any special exception for this applicant.”
“But the biggest hole I see in staff's argument, and perhaps one they felt could not address openly, but one we can, is the fact that the citizens of this community have expressed over and over again that they wish this land to remain in the public domain, whatever that takes.”
“Therefore, our elected representatives and their appointees, i.e., the Planning Commission, have a higher mandate than just making findings.”
“Although they are as important as a legal record -- (the time limit bell is loudly ringing) -- they must carry out the wishes of the public as expressed in the bond election wherein the public agreed to tax itself in order to preserve this area or future generations.”
“There is no doubt in our mind that he necessary funds will become available to see that the will of the people is carried out.”
“Respectfully, Ellen and Elaine Steiner.”
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Diane Ronsheimer?
MS. RONSHEIMER: I have already spoken, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Oh. Holly Coughlin.
MS. COUGHLIN: Good evening. My name is Holly Coughlin, I'm Chair of the Great Basin Group, Sierra Club, here in Reno, Nevada.
I live at 2122 Sycamore Glen Drive in Sparks, Nevada. As a native Nevadan of five generations, I have watched the Truckee Meadows slowly disappearing in the name of development and growth. The Ballardini Ranch area is the last meadow area left that retains the beauty and integrity of our area. Over the past several years, I have led numerous hikes with hundreds of people through the Ballardini area up into the U.S. Forest Service property to the west.
Losing access to this area would be a loss to all Washoe County residents, and all the voters who supported the parks and the trails bond, which should have included this property from its inception. Access to trails is an increasing problem throughout our area. You have the ability to preserve this area of open space for the enjoyment of future generations. On behalf of the Great Basin Group of the Sierra Club, who have over 2000 members in Northern Nevada, we ask you to deny the development of this property.
As a life-long resident of this area, I personally plead for you to leave this area as open space.
Respectfully, Holly Coughlin.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, ma'am.
I have no further requests to speak. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this subject?
Sir? Mr. Nelson?
MR. NELSON: Tim Nelson on behalf of Evans Creek, LLC, the property owner.
Would you like me to fill out one of your cards, or give it to you after?
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: She's got it over here.
MR. NELSON: I am the secretary of Evans Creek, LLC. I'm also a Consultant to and for Evans Creek, LLC. I have been involved with these owners for a long time.
I'd like to comment in response to some of the questions and statements made. First, it's not a huge item, but we do have substantial water rights to irrigate the property. There are surface water rights that are being used to irrigate the property currently, and they are plenty ample to allocate amongst the individual lots for future irrigation.
The gated community aspect, that's not an appropriate consideration for review of a tentative map. I understand that some people don't like gated communities. A lot of people do like gated communities and live in them.
There are a great number of gated communities that the Washoe County Commission has approved in Washoe County. Virtually all of the most highly recognized residential communities in Washoe County, Washoe Valley, have some gated aspect to them, or are an overall gated community, including portions of Caughlin Ranch, Arrow Creek, Del Monte Ranch, Caughlin Ranch, Bell Sierra, right off the corner of the Ballardini Ranch, Lakeside areas just to the east of the property, Demetra Drive, which is immediately adjacent to the east.
And I'd also submit to you that a number of people in the Southwest Truckee Meadows have gated properties, if they don't live in a gated community, individual acreage properties that utilize gates for the same purpose that a gated community does.
I find it kind of interesting that the staff report, which again we just received on Friday of last week, talks about the application being premature for review and approval, when at the agency review session with County staff, where most of the County staff, department heads and County planning members were present, there was nothing expressed at that meeting at all about the application being premature.
In fact, virtually all of the items raised and comments regarding the project were described by planning staff at the meeting as items that were subject to resolution prior to the final map, which is according to the codes and ordinances, or were items that could be resolved with a condition of approval.
There was specific representations made about the road litigation being appropriate for resolution by condition of approval. That's in your staff report tonight.
The same thing was the case with respect to resolution of the Catch 22 that County regulations put us in on connecting to community sewer versus private septic systems.
One of the problems in getting the inspections done on the perk tests is the availability of District Health Department staff to come out and inspect the sites. That wasn't our problem. We invited them out weeks ago, and there wasn't a representative available until last Friday.
There are scheduled visits for tomorrow to review additional perk test holes and results. And we expect that all of those matters will be resolved to the satisfaction and approval of District Health, in addition to the water quality testing.
I think it's also significant that no mention was made, until the last day, of the need for additional water tests on other wells, when they knew
full well that the water tests that were being done, were done on the well at the ranch house on the property.
We expect those full results to comply with all the drinking water standards, and to support septic and individual wells on the property. I'd just like to reemphasize that we're not seeking any rezoning, we're not seeking any increase in density. In fact, the average density on this
project is almost 15 acres. It's probably larger than the density, if you added up the ranchettes within a one-mile radius, I would venture to guess that the density of this project is less than the density in those individual properties accumulated.
Many of the items raised at the CAB meeting and by the speakers tonight, are items that typically are dealt with prior to approval of a final map. I believe staff would verify that, and I would ask you to consider items that are appropriate for the tentative map, for the considerations laid out in your ordinance and state statute to review, and to not review, not to consider items that are not applicable to the tentative map, but are part of the final map review process, where the County has authority to deal with those issues.
There have been several comments made that suggest that this proposal is attempting to cut off access to the national forest, or to stop the public access that has allegedly been in place for many years on this property. Nothing could be further than the truth. This property has never been public. There has never been public access across any portion of the property, as testified to by prior the property owners of the Ballardini family.
The access that is proposed by the County in terms of the presumed public road, is not the access that Mr. Romero claims to use across the northern part of the property. In fact where he claims to have gone isn't even part of this tentative map application, the area of the property.
There is no historic evidence of maps or evidence in the tentative -- excuse me, the parcel map 616, that supports any claim to a public road. That matter will be resolved in litigation, and will be resolved in favor of the applicant that there is no public road across the property, and that it was
incorrect to include that on the County's maps as presumed public roads back in 1999.
It's unfortunate that the proper research wasn't done at that time, so that we're required to bring that issue forward at this time, amidst claims that we're trying to close off some public access and public roads that have existed for a long period of time. That is not the case, and it will be proven to be the case in that litigation.
Notwithstanding that, it's appropriate to approve the tentative map based on the ability to resolve that issue in litigation. And staff's own recommendation regarding that is that the result of that can be taken into account in approving the tentative map.
We do request that if you decide to deny the tentative map, that you deny it based on staff's recommendation, that it's denied without prejudice, so we can continue to work in good faith with the District Health Department, to show that the lots perk properly, and the septic systems work, and the water quality support individual wells on the property.
I appreciate your time, and thank you for this opportunity.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this subject tonight?
Sir, would you like to speak? Come on down. Give us your name, where you're from.
And also I request that you have permission to speak once you have spoken.
MR. ROBERT CAMERON: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Robert Cameron. I live in the Mt. Rose Highway area.
I would just like to add that I was at the CAB meeting where the applicant was stating their position on all this, and you heard different descriptions of what went on, and I would only like to add when I asked the question, "Will there be trails available to the forest service land?" Now this is not verbatim, but it was in the area of, the answer was: I don't believe our clientele would want that.
And I personally am not interested in those kind of people. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Is there anybody else that would like to speak?
I have a Rose Strickland, and you have just a comment; is that correct?
MS. ROSE STRICKLAND: Thank you. My comment was really for the record. I am not sure I can add anything to what you heard from all of these people tonight, other than: Please deny this application and support the acquisition of this property so we can keep it as open space, and we can keep our access to our national forest. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, Miss Strickland.
I have another one that wants to make a comment. Dennis Ghiglieri?
MR. DENNIS GHIGLIERI: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name's Dennis Ghiglieri.
Again, I would just make the comment that I would certainly hope that we could continue to honor the voters of the County, who I believe overwhelmingly support the acquisition of this property. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Thank you, sir.
Again, is there anybody else that would like to speak?
MR. NELSON: Would you permit me --
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, if we keep doing this, we will have contradictions and --
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: I think this is the last one.
MR. NELSON: I neglected to address some of the materials that you received that show a map of existing and proposed public access points to the public lands in Southwest Truckee Meadows.
There is a lot of talk about that this is the only opportunity for access, or this is the last opportunity for access.
I provided a map that shows existing legal public access in the Juniper Hills neighborhood, by the Caughlin Ranch mini-storage, which is just off to the northwest corner of the Ballardini Ranch; in the Quail Valley in the Pine Subdivision; the Arrow Creek Washoe County Open Space, and its 1400 acres; and the Cosmos/Landmark property, the developers proposing access through open space to the County open space; the Whites Creek trailhead; the Thomas Creek trailhead; and Galena Park. All these areas have existing, other than the Cosmos/Landmark, which is the proposed existing legal access to the forest, with multiple connections to the Arrow Creek open space.
We don't think there is a public need, which the ordinance requires as a finding for public trails through the Ballardini Ranch to the forest, and that there are multiple opportunities that simply aren't publicized by the County, and maybe by the trails' groups, that should be. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Mr. Nelson, because you have given us a long list of developments that have allowed public access, does that really excuse or give you, in your mind, the right to deny access through your property to the mountains?
MR. NELSON: Well, the examples I gave aren't all developments. In some cases the County has acquired access rights, which they have the ability to do.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Regardless of how the access rights have been acquired, should we say in just for good faith and for good neighborliness with the land that you're talking about, why is it such an impossibility for you to -- or your company to allow access to the open space?
MR. NELSON: Because we think there are adequate access points nearby on both sides of the property, and that there is not a public need.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Thank you, sir. We've sort of gone full circle, I guess, haven't we?
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to go to you again, I am going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the Commission. Questions?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I have some questions of staff, please. I guess this would be for Mr. Freund. I notice in the staff report that it says that -- contained in Section 110.40.20(b), to permit development within areas of a hillside property considered less suitable for development. I guess my question is: Why?
MR. ADRIAN FREUND: That would be done in conjunction with basically a common open space development, and our hillside development ordinance. Again, the development would not occur on slopes greater than -- (The bell loudly sounded for his time limit) -- because development on those lands obviously is not appropriate under the regional plan or under our comprehensive plan, that allows them to count that area, and the area of development.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Thank you. Could you tell me if this is an open-space development?
MS. SHARON KVAS: No, it is not. All of the 40 lots encompass the entire project.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: So then I would expect then that this would not apply?
MS. SHARON KVAS: At the time that he made that determination, it was a different map than the one you're seeing tonight. And at that time they had pads that showed that portion of the lot that would be developed. So that was the configuration that Mr. Freund made that determination on.
MR. FREUND: Miss Kvas is correct, that was the map that they looked at in 2002, late --
MS. KVAS: Late '02, early 2003.
MR. FREUND: And at that time Summit Engineering Corporation was the representative and they were willing to tie down the building pad locations so that we would know that none of that would occur on excessive slopes or development.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: So, Ms. Kvas, does that approval then carry forward to this recent configuration of the lot?
MS. KVAS: There was going to be, if we had recommended approval, there was a condition crafted that would require showing pads that would be -- building pads that would be on the least constrained slopes. So there was a condition, should you feel compelled to approve this.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Then I guess I have another question of staff, and that relates to comments by Mr. Nelson, wherein he said that a tentative map stage, there are certain things we are not supposed to be questioning or looking at? What would he be referring to?
MR. KELLY: I would be at a loss to know. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: In other words, we can discuss critical stream, we can discuss wetlands, we can discuss water and sewer issues. Am I leaving something out? Or can we not discuss those things?
MR. KELLY: The Planning Commission can review and discuss a condition, whatever it would like to discuss at this meeting; there are no limitations.
MS. KVAS: I would piggyback on that and say that there is only the limitation that an acquisition for -- the public acquisition is not at issue tonight; that is not part of what you're looking at. So that would be the only thing that I would say is out of the realm of what we would be looking at.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Nor was I going to entertain any conversation --
MS. KVAS: I noted that.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: That's it for staff. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Mr. Salerno?
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: Well, it seems to me there's quite a few problems that remain with this project, but there are two major problems, and the problems are certainly sewer and water. And until that's solved, I think our hands are pretty much tied, and I don't believe that we can approve the project, as long as it's as open ended as some of the other items that have been discussed tonight.
So, therefore, I am going to move that we deny the Tentative Subdivision Map Case Number TM02-005 for Toiyabe Ranch Estates for 40 lots, without prejudice.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Second that.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: At this time, having made six findings, in fact, which have been stated in the staff report in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.608.25, Nevada Revised Statute 278.349, and Nevada Administrative Code 278.350.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: It's been moved -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: I'm still going. If the appropriate approvals from the District Health Department are obtained, and evidence of ground water availability is submitted, the tentative map may be brought back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration under this application.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Okay, it's been moved and seconded.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Not yet. When we deny anything, it's always without prejudice, isn't it? Or is it with prejudice? The only one that can do anything with prejudice is the Board of County Commissioners; am I correct?
MS. KVAS: We have consistently utilized the "without prejudice" as part of the Planning Commission's prerogative.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: May I ask our legal advisor a question, please?
COMMISSIONER BARNES: Ordinarily without prejudice with the Board of County Commissioners, I think what's meant here is bring it back under this application, and I see no problem with that. So I would recommend not using the term without prejudice, and just say we bring it back under the same application.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I agree, and I'll second the motion then.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: It's been moved and seconded that we deny TM02-005.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: The reason I'm seconding it, is because I agree with Commissioner Salerno 100 percent; plus, there's a lot of other issues that have got to be straightened out before this thing is in operation. And I think, in my opinion, I think the Evans Creek, LLC, has got a long ways to go to be a good neighbor on this, and also the people in the area have got a long ways to go together. It's a give and take, it's not just a one-way thing here.
So I think we get these things ironed out, I think it will be a good project. But before it's ironed out, I think they have a lot of problems here that have got to be resolved.
And I also think, the thing I have with -- you may have the water rights, but you don't have the water, it's not there. We have had a drought for 15 years. You can have 10,000 feet of water rights, but where are you going to get the other 9,000 feet?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that they only have water rights for irrigation, they don't have drinking water rights. I am not going to support the recommendation. I support the denial, but I support it only down to the Nevada Administrative Code
278.350.
If the maker of the motion would be willing to leave off the statements about approval from District Health Department, etcetera, I would support the motion, but I can't the way it is.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: Are you saying that they would also still be able to bring it back under the same application?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: No.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: In other words, what you're saying is straight denial ?
COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER SALERNO: I pondered that, but I believe in this case I've stated what I have proposed.
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: It's been moved and seconded that we go along with Commissioner Salerno's recommendation. All in favor? (Rogers, Salerno, Sullivan say aye. Frandsen and Barnes say no.)
CHAIRMAN DOXEY: Three ayes --
MS. KVAS: Those decisions are appealable to the Board of County Commission. If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission and you want to appeal its action, call Planning Services' staff immediately at 328-6100, you will be informed of the appeal procedure application, and the 10 days in which time to make an appeal.