County failing residents, and master plan

County commissioners again failed the citizens of Douglas County in approving a master plan amendment and zoning map amendment for Peri Enterprises for their property at the corner of 395 and Pinenut Road (the Matley Ranch). Commissioners failed to uphold both the letter and intent of the master plan and of the amendment process. The decision in May to approve this master plan amendment ranks right up there with the Clear Creek MPA as the worst decision made by county commissioners in the last decade.

This application requested not only a master plan amendment and zoning map amendment, but also amendments to the East Valley and Minden/Gardnerville community plans, the urban service area boundary, the transportation plan, and the trails plan, just to name a few. This alone should have raised a red flag that this project needed too many changes.

There are four required findings for all master plan amendments. This application met none of them.

One required finding is "a demonstrated need for additional land to be used for the proposed use." In this case, that would mean more land was needed for commercial land use, which is clearly not the case. The staff report only addressed the Gardnerville area, and even failed to include the recently approved Walmart development in its findings. How can they ignore the Walmart development, not to mention the nearly empty development opposite Raleys, the disastrous Minden Gateway and Riverwood redevelopment areas, as well as any number of shuttered businesses scattered around town. After all, these are not the Gardnerville commissioners, they are the Douglas County commissioners, and supposed to look at the county as a whole.

What did staff claim was the supposed demonstrated need: the need to realign Pinenut Road. Yet staff stated clearly: "The county should have realigned Pinenut Road with the 2001 and 2007 Transportation Plan and we did not." So, it is the county's failure to follow its own plans that led to this master plan amendment. What will be next: a demonstrated need for a new senior center that a developer offers to build in return for an amendment to build 4,000 homes?

This amendment also failed to meet the requirement it be "compatible with the actual and master planned use of adjacent properties." There is agricultural land on all four sides of this development, with only one small adjacent commercial business: 7-Eleven. What this approval (for more box stores and a shopping mall) is promoting is sprawl.

In addition, this MPA doesn't meet the required finding to "promote the overall goals and objectives of the Master Plan." Goal MG.01 is to "preserve and enhance the existing character of the Minden-Gardnerville Community." Policy MG.01 is to "encourage all new development to complement the distinctive historic character of the towns." Clearly this development would not. commissioners are essentially saying: "Welcome to Gardnerville, where we aspire to be just like every other community in the country."

In reality, commissioners were doing some "horse trading," figuring the road improvements the developer was offering were worth ignoring the requirements of the master plan. When commissioners were considering this quid pro quo, its lack of precedence and questionable legality, the assistant district attorney admonished them on three separate occasions to focus on whether or not the application met the required findings. Yet Commissioners didn't.

They looked at the carrot Peri Enterprises was dangling before them, decided it was too tempting, and ignored the required findings. In doing so they breached the public trust.

This amendment met none of the required findings, yet commissioners approved it anyway. They have essentially said that expediency and horse trading are the way business is done in Douglas County, that master plan amendments are for sale; that, despite lip service to preservation of ag land and the transfer of development rights program, that neither was really that important, that getting a developer to pay for the county's failure to act on its own plans was sufficient, and that quid pro quo trumped required findings.

Commissioners had an opportunity to stand up for the letter and intent of the master plan and the amendment process, for principle and integrity, but they failed to do so.

At their June 6 meeting, commissioners heard the second reading of the zoning map amendment. I applaud commissioner Dave Brady for his "no" vote on this item. Apparently he felt that a decision that was based on incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information deserved to be re-examined in its entirety. Sadly, none of the other four commissioners agreed. I went straight from the commissioners meeting to early voting. Unfortunately, none of those four commissioners were on the primary ballot - it would have been satisfying to vote against them right then and there. I guess I'll just have to wait until this (and future) November(s).

Jim Slade is a Gardnerville resident.