Govern by settlement?

EDITOR:

I'm familiar with land use litigation from my 30-year county planning career. The Walmart controversy has drawn attention to the county's February settlement agreement with Virginia Ranch. It's an odd one.

The owners alleged that the county mishandled Muller Parkway, flood and other requirements. A judge agreed and a settlement ensued. Fine. But the nature and magnitude of the settlement should relate to the damages suffered.

The usual remedy for an agency misapplying its authority is to point out the errors and require that they be corrected. If I limit your building to one story where you are allowed two, the court says, "Do it over and allow two."

There might be some attorney's fees and minor damages if the mistake caused undue delay, etc., but little more. And it would be extraordinary for the remedy to venture into areas unrelated to the complaint, especially into responsibilities of non-judicial branches of government.

In this case the county agreed to 70 plus acres of additional commercial zoning (above and beyond everything else already approved for Virginia Ranch), waiver of the 30 percent commercial open space requirement and limitations on future development review processes.

I find that extraordinary. Its value seems out of proportion to the mistakes made. It involved rezoning of land and changes to our development requirements through a judicial process, something properly done only through a legislative process. And those results seem unrelated to the mistakes made.

I don't know what 70 acres of commercial zoning is worth, but I'd guess easily $50,000 per acre. That's $3.5 million. Do your own math if you disagree. Plus, elimination of the 30 percent open space requirement allows just that much more commercial use per acre, upping the total. And truncated review procedures save builders money.

Was that really the magnitude of the damages here? If the county went back and corrected its mistakes, and given that not much would have happened at Virginia Ranch in the interim, given the economy, did we really owe them upwards of $3.5 million, or whatever your number is?

But more troubling is that the county allowed a settlement agreement to make changes to zoning and development requirements that should happen only through the legislative process, with proper notice and hearings. A 2007 decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates vs. LA) says that was wrong.

Our officials misapply some rules, easily corrected, and the result is the county granting 70-plus acres of commercial zoning, eliminating the commercial open space requirement and limiting the review of future development. All outside the legislative process. And shortly thereafter we get a Walmart Supercenter, where our plans call for village commercial. With no hearings. Odd is putting it mildly.

Are our officials simply easily bamboozled or has governance by settlement agreement arrived in Douglas County? Inquiring minds want to know.

Terry Burnes

Gardnerville