In a previous letter I outlined an approach in which Park could develop the 600 units allowed under clustering while preserving its option to apply in the future for the type of amendments it seeks today, when circumstances might have changed to create a public need for or benefit from them, which do not exist today.
That approach seems like a reasonable compromise to me but I'mconcerned that the proposed "horse park" or equestrian facility might create a rush to judgment in favor of Park's master plan amendment. I have three comments about that:
1. A horse park would no doubt be desirable to some in the community but it seems to me that the costs in terms of overall project impacts (5,000 new homes and extensive non-residential development) would burden the community as a whole, while the benefits would accrue to a narrow segment of the community, the future users of the horse park.
2. Why not develop the horse park as an adjunct to the county fairgrounds, where it might be achieved without the burdens created by the Park Land Co. development, and where it would enhance the utility of an existing public facility?
3. But, most importantly, I don't believe there is any reason why the horse park couldn't be included from the outset in the clustering option that I outlined in my earlier letter.
The last point warrants further explanation. With regard to clustering, your Code Section 20.714.020 (D) says:
"The remainder parcels with density removed are restricted to ranching, farming, recreational, or agricultural open space use as designated, and cannot be developed for any other use.
The remainder parcels must be further restricted by including Douglas County in a deed restriction on the land owned in common by the owners or developer of the clustered parcels, or an open space easement in favor of the county, another governmental entity, or a non-profit conservation entity."
It seems to me that a properly designed horse park could qualify as some combination of "ranching" and "recreational" use under the terms of this provision and that the conservation easement for Park's lands northwest of Minden, the land that should be preserved under clustering, could be written to designate the horse park as outside of the restriction on that land.
My understanding is that there may be minor aspects of the horse park that wouldn't fit under the A-19 zoning and would necessitate a rezoning to something like PR (private recreation) but I believe careful design could accommodate some limited zoning changes in that regard without compromising Park's ability to qualify for clustering.
My conclusion is that if you want to support the horse park you have the ability to do so within the clustering alternative outlined in my earlier letter.
I would suggest you direct your staff to meet with the equestrian community and Park to further develop this option as part of encouraging Park to take full advantage of what our master plan currently allows it to develop before asking for more.
n Terry Burnes is a Gardnerville resident.
