"Neighbors Talking With Neighbors"
|
|
|
Home
Featured Local Blogs
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing photos in a set called
Washoe Valley. Make your own badge
here.
10 Things You Can Do To be involved in washoevalley.org 1. Send in a WV story or quip.
The county cable channel 17 has the county commissioner meetings, a news show, and various public info segments.
|
BCC MEETING, MAY 22, 2007 Transcript of Item #26 - SVAP, Public Comment, Discussion, Motion (From the beginning of the meeting) DA: You do not have any duty to act until you receive the certified copy of the plan, as approved by the Planning Commission. That is not what you have received here. There is not a time frame upon which you must act, following that receipt. There are some obligations, of course, for publishing notice for the public hearing, very much like for most of your other actions but there is no obligation for you to act until you receive that certified copy of the plan, as approved by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT (The first four speakers comments are included in the Commissioner’s motion.) Jane Countryman: (Speaking for the WWV CAB) I would like to read this (statement) into the record. The residents of WV represented by both CAB =s and the West Washoe Association are extremely concerned about one major issue, maintaining the character of our valley. We are concerned that some of the beauty may be taken away from us because of the way the SVAP was written. Rather than inundating you with details, I would like to address three major concerns that are within our power to address and correct.It is my understanding that the SVAP, being a part of the WC Master Plan, outlines the philosophy for the future of our area and establishes the strategies by which to achieve this. One particular area of the SVAP, specifically SV.5.1, does not seem to belong in this plan. Instead of describing a direction for future development of an area, it grants the developer of a specific set of parcels, commonly referred to as W/L property. It is mislabeled as a Special Plan, which in reality is a blanket authorization to the developer. We think this is very dangerous, and sets a precedent for numerous requests in the future by owners of large parcels, who will expect to be given the same entitlement. In addition, the supply of water as well as a means of sewer disposal for the W/L property is highly questionable, if not impossible, as reported by the county staff in past investigations. In summary, we suggest that the Special Plan for the W/L property be removed from the SVAP. In spite of several statements indicating that the main goal of the SVAP is to conserve and preserve the area, properties designated for commercial use are being expanded. For your reference you may want to compare the commercial zoning in the area west of little Washoe Lake on the previous land use plan with the current draft. In our opinion, commercial zoning directly across from the wildlife sanctuary, as proposed, is not acceptable. We suggest that the commercial zoning not be expanded, but be maintained as per our current SVAP. The current draft of the SVAP would authorize mixed-use in certain areas of WV, this would, in effect, allow multi-use family housing with a density of up to 14 units per acre. We believe that such a density in an area that generally requires one dwelling per 5 acres is completely incompatible. This type of use should be removed from the plan. In summary, while the SVAP, in it =s Vision, has many attractive goals for which the residents of the valley are thankful, the above issues are of great concern and should be taken care of before the plan is ratified. We respectfully ask the County Commission instruct the Planning Commission and staff to work with the community to remove these obstacles, and make this SVAP acceptable to the residents after more than two years of input.
Gary Houk: (Speaking for the EWV CAB) Already I have a chance to repeat, and I =ll try not to. Dozens of volunteers have worked over a thousand hours researching, discussing, documenting and presenting work on the Area Plan, and we=re dissatisfied, as shown by the vote of the EWV CAB earlier this year. It was a unanimous vote to send this back, to incorporate some of the ideas that we had come up with. There are commercial areas, and allowed uses, and municipal services; those are the three items that we would like to see changed.The biggest thing is, why can =t the plan mirror the majority consensus, the population that has to live with it? And it does not do that at this point in time.Tom Hall: (Speaking for the West WV Association) I want to tell you a little bit why the people are passionate about living in Washoe Valley. I lived in WV, 1979. I had four kids. The little girl raised a miniature horse and a miniature donkey. Now she is a veterinarian. My son, raised chickens. He =s now a BS graduate from UNR, and an MD graduate, practicing Psychiatry in New Orleans. My two boys raised pigs, Red Durock. They both graduated Stanford University, captains of the ski team. One is a practicing attorney, one is a PhD candidate, UNR, public service. We=re passionate about Washoe Valley. That=s why it=s taken two years to get as far as we have, and we’re still not done.I served as a member of the Washoe CAB for 10 years, chairman for the major part of that time. I also served as the President of the West Washoe Association for 15 years. We have written a letter to the Commission that I hand delivered last week. It sets forth our principal objections to this plan. The very prime objection that this plan has a defect in, is the incorporation of a special plan area for an individual property owner. There is no reason advanced why a special disposition should be given to landowners. Everyone else in the valley has lands, investments, and they would have a right to come to the Planning Department and ask for a change of zone, a change of use, any change they want. But they do not have, in the Master Plan, a special disposition as to density, use, and other factors. We see no reason why there should be a special disposition given to a individual in this regard. And frankly, it =s in violation of the control document which you operate under, which is the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. The Weston land has been determined by staff of this county to be unsuitable for septic systems. The letter from Bryan Tyre, March 25, 1996, states that unless acceptable soils are found on the property, standard septic systems are not a sewer disposal option for the proposed number of parcels.Until we have an application filled out with uses, types of densities, where the water source will be, where the sewer source will go, we cannot comment to the public body. So why give this property a special disposition. I think it makes it an illegal act and we ask that you remand it for the elimination of SV.6.1. Bob Rusk: (Speaking as WV Liason) I =ve been a part of the citizens working group for all of the past SVAP updates, for the past 24 years. We have never seen a Specific Plan as a part of any of those updates.Mr. Molliath, the attorney for his client Weston, made some comments in the paper and I =d like to address those, because it provides the forum to maybe explain further, our feelings on this issue. It was unfortunate he referred to us as a bunch of chicken littles. At some point, the state will require, he went on to say, that the valley that has it=s own municipal water and sewer systems because of groundwater pollution, he said, it=s coming. In fact, WV already has municipal water systems where the county thought appropriate. And further addresses the subject of septics and leach fields by requiring all new land divisions of ten acres or more, to be no less than 5 acres. He went on to say, they=re sticking there heads in the sand; they=re saying; no growth, no growth. In fact, that is absolutely not so. The same legal process for subdividing land in WV for the past several years, remains available to his client, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.Commissioners we are simply asking for you to maintain the status quo. If the land can bring the required dedication of water, and pass the Health Department =s requirements for septic leach lines, then you have a viable proposal. Concurrency is the standard. On the other hand, if the proposer requires, municipal sewer and water to be piped into our valley through the TMSA amendment, then it must be denied. Which begs the question, how to keep the TMSA out of WV? I am told by our planning staff there are ways that would require an amendment to the TMRP to accomplish that. That, in turn, would get the support of the city council members who also vote on the Regional Governing Board, if the City of Reno, and it=s a big if at this point, is able to get their amendment through the legislature that would allow them to form a GID in the north valleys.If you believe as we, the citizens of WV, should remain an agricultural, fauna / flora protected, recreation jewel that it is today, please help make that happen. You will be thanked by generations to come. The attorney went on to say, that, they can have their rural lifestyle, but the only ones that are going to be able to live there are cows. We take exception to that because we love our cows, our pigs, our horses, our chickens, our goats, our kids and our grandkids, not to mention the thousands of Washoe County residents who enjoy our state, and county, and federal parks. By referring this item back to the Planning Commission, if that is what you are going to do, we would hope that you would lay out to those commissioners, who have denied us twice, what it is you would like to see in this plan so we have a fighting chance to come up with something that we can agree to. The portion of the plan that =s in Pleasant Valley, we have absolutely no problem with. That=s a done deal, as far as we=re concerned and as far as their CAB is concerned. But our two CABs in WV, neither one of us has passed on this proposal because of the major three issues that we are trying to get you to address.Discussion by Commissioners following the Public Hearing portion. Larkin: The Public Hearing is closed. Commissioners, are there questions or comments? Commissioner Humke. Humke: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am just trying to compile the list of topics that we send back to the staff and to the Planning Commission. I heard protest as to the one large lot and the specific treatment and specialized treatment under the plan that people objected to; there was related objection to municipal sewer and water system coming into Washoe Valley, also defined as TMSA, the TMSA line moving south into Washoe Valley. Expansion of the commercial zoning, in words of Ms Countryman, across from a wildlife protection area; and that same commercial zoning area would also allow multi-family dwelling at 14 units per acre. Then I heard other comments as to lot sizes from one citizen, Mr. Bill Naylor; and at a previous meeting with citizens, I believe that they wish to see no fixed number of units to be approved by this plan, and that the density should be computed using land that is not development constrained; they specifically would not like to see any half-acre lots approval, would like to see a one acre minimum for such approvals; they would like to see permanent protection for all development constrained land; and then there is a repeated reference to the no TMSA or municipal services for water and wastewater treatment facilities to enter Washoe Valley. Now, there was another reference by Ms Monika Frank to another commercial area in the vicinity of the St. James Village approval, where it touches Eastlake Blvd. And there was a protest of that change in the SVAP draft as well. Those are the main items on the list that I have, and I would be willing to entertain others that we send to the staff and the Planning Commission. Larkin: Commissioner Galloway Galloway: Well, first let me add two things that were raised, I think that Commissioner Humke picked up most of those issues and I guess it =s all for the Planning Commission to review the appropriateness of these things that we are questioning. Mr. Williamson, I would like them to review whether or not it is unlawful in (policy) 23.8 to make the restriction on where water can come from, it either is or isn=t. And whether or not the plan, because of Ellen from WV questioned whether the plan is compatible with the national flyway restrictions that may or may not apply. I think that should be looked into.But then I have a question for staff, because something was said today by one person that I had always been told worked differently. Mr. Freund, if someone holds a Special Use Permit, (I understand that if someone is doing a business that has never been zoned but they have just been doing it before the zoning was created, they are non-conforming. And if their business burns down and they don =t rebuild it within a year, they will lose their historic right of use.), but if they hold a Special Use Permit for a particular use, I was always told that runs with the land and it doesn=t matter if your place burns down, you have still got it. Which is it?Freund: My recollection is that if you have a special use permit, and you have satisfied the conditions of that special use permit, and it has not expired, that, in effect, that use does run with land. (Galloway: so if no date was ever set on the special use permit for expiration? ) Right. And there are some wrinkles, because if you look at our land use tables in the Development Code, certain types of uses within that land use category are required to get a special use permit. So there is all different sorts of types of situations. Galloway: Well, that =s right, but specific reference was made to businesses operating on rural land but with a special use permit. So if they burn down, I think you need to advise the Planning Commission whether or not those people, and I think some of them are in Steamboat Valley area (Freund: Correct), would or would not lose their ability to rebuild after a year. And that should be taken into consideration.Freund: And I also recalled, Commissioner, in addition, that we had some in the Steamboat Valley area, some of those uses that were actually legally non-conforming under our code. (Galloway: Ok so they were so old, they never had a special use permit) and clearly there are circumstances a legally non-conforming use was destroyed in excess of 50%. Galloway: Well, could that be that the plan could consider also then, I would ask, whether or not to grant special permits for those uses, as sort of in the plan. I don =t know if that is lawfully possible, but I think it ought to be considered.Freund: Yes, Commissioner we can take that under consideration and in addition to that, I believe from my memory, part of the plan for the Steamboat Valley area involved giving those non-conforming uses ... Galloway: ... giving them Neighborhood Commercial. Well, I =d say I=d just like the alternative to be looked at. And the reason is because some people have raised this issue that under Neighborhood Commercial, they believe you can have 14 units per acre. Which is what Commissioner Humke said; he flagged that, he didn=t say that=s true, he just flagged it. So I would also like to know whether there is some way to restrict Neighborhood Commercial to one business - one single family dwelling kind of thing, so that couldn=t happen unless you had 14 businesses per acre. Which I sincerely doubt would happen given that businesses need to store things, (Freund: True) the kind of businesses that are there, that exist there. OK?Freund: True, Commissioner and that =s one of the items that we talked about, because it is true if you look without respect to the conditions in the Specific Plan, and you go to our general Land Use table county wide, you could conceivably accommodate up to 14 units per acre and multi-family. (Galloway: OK) You may recall that we do have areas that have what we call area modifiers? In other words, those areas are treated differently, and we believe we can tie down those numbers.Galloway: Ok, so you might say if you build strictly multi-family you can have some lesser number of lesser density. Or if you have a business and you want mixed use, you can have say some restriction, one business - one residential unit. Or maybe you could get some lesser number, I =m not saying this is the right number, but maybe four, if you don=t build it as uses four per acre. Something like that.Freund: I will investigate that with counsel. We can do that. Galloway: Thank you, that =s all I have.Sferrazza: I have one question. I think it =s been said, but I think it=s clear that a major problem is with the Weston/Lowden Specific Plan. I agree that that absolutely needs to be addressed.Larson: (question about business owner and impact of 60 day delay.) (Discussion...) Galloway: Question for Louis Tess: The problem is, if we get NC, which is what you are asking for, there is this 14 units per acre thing that =s unresolved. Why don=t you go to a special permit to sell ATV=s.MOTION Commissioner Humke: Mr. Chair, first of all I would like to specifically incorporate the full remarks of the first four speakers, Ms Jane Countryman, Mr. Gary Houk, Mr. Thomas Hall and Mr. Bob Rusk and ask that the clerk be granted permission to revise and extend their remarks. Larson: Commissioner are you ready for a motion. Humke: I am. Larkin: Please proceed. Humke: I would move that we remand this South Valleys Area Plan to the Washoe County Planning Commission for further consideration, taking into consideration the items mentioned by the Board of County Commissioners in discussion this evening. Galloway: Second. Larkin: Got a motion by Commissioner Humke, seconded by Commissioner Galloway, further discussion amongst commissioners? Larkin: I =ve got one comment and that is Washoe Valley has been a tremendous asset to this community. I heard one gentleman say his family goes back to 1857. My family goes back in the state to 1870=s and we=ve down to this area many, many times and Washoe Valley has always been a jewel. I don=t live in Washoe Valley, never have lived in Washoe Valley, but have done lots of things in Washoe Valley, that I won=t mention, in high school in Carson City. But I do enjoy that valley.I know staff has been working very, very diligently on this, it is never easy when we have these kinds of land use plans. But I think the Commission making a decision tonight to move forward on material that is not before us, which would place all businesses in jeopardy, I think it is incumbent upon this Commission and I would support the motion to continue this simply because we need to have the right information, we need to make everybody, all comments incorporated so that we have a plan that everybody can live with. We just can =t go forward with something that doesn=t have the complete record before this Commission. So I will rise to favor this particular motion and would call for a vote. If there is any other comments anybody else would like to make? Commissioner Humke.Humke: Mr. Chair, I think I did not place in the motion the 60 day time frame and I would do so and ask the seconder to ... Galloway: I =ll accept that.Larkin: A motion and a second, everyone in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. (Unanimous vote by WC Commissioners) |
