Bike land should have been required

EDITOR:

Earlier this month the county commissioners heard an appeal of a condition of a land division application for a 184-acre parcel on Genoa Lane near the town of Genoa. The condition the applicant was appealing was a requirement to build a bike lane along Genoa Lane for the length of the property. This is called for in the master plan whenever such parcels are sub-divided. In fact Genoa Lane has specifically been identified as a "high priority" for a bike lane.

The applicant requested a variance to the improvement standards, so that they wouldn't have to build the bike lane, claiming it was "overly burdensome." Essentially, they didn't want to spend the money, even though it was called for in the master plan.

There are six required findings in order to approve such a variance. County staff determined that they did not meet any of the six requirements, and recommended denial. A summary of staff's comments includes the following:

a) Granting the variance would be "detrimental to the public safety, health, and welfare."

b) There are no conditions "unique to the property" for which the variance is sought.

c) "No particular hardship to this specific owner has been identified."

d) "Approval of this variance would contradict the ... master plan."

e) "Currently, this method is the only process in place to acquire the necessary improvements."

f) "If a bike lane is not required for this portion of Genoa Lane, it may serve as a precedence and effect orderly division of other parcels along Genoa Lane."

This is quite clear and compelling evidence to deny the appeal. The request for this variance is contrary to the master plan, and does not meet any of the six required findings for such a variance. All the commissioners agreed that a bike lane along Genoa Lane would be positive. Yet commissioners Brady, Lynn and Olson voted to grant the variance, hence approving the appeal by a 4-1 vote.

The only good news out of all this is that the easement still exists - the county just needs to find someone to pay for it (approximately $90,000).

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners, among other things, approved the following:

1) More than $195,000 for each of three public defenders, who defend people charged with a crime who cannot afford an attorney. Plus a $100,000 "contingency."

2) $275,000 for a sewer inter-tie project, even though the county's estimate had been for $175,000.

3) $600,000 for a substance abuse prevention/treatment agency.

4) $117,000 for a multi-county ethernet microwave interconnect project.

I think you see the point. If the commissioners think that the $90,000 is too "burdensome" for the applicant, then the county should step up and fund the bike lane themselves. They seem to have plenty of money for criminals, drug abusers, cost overruns and the ethernet. How about some money to benefit the quality of life of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? And to follow the master plan.

Jim Slade

Gardnerville