Rocky start for new county commissioners

The county commissioners have gotten off to a rocky start this year, having made disappointing decisions at each of their first two meetings.

At the Jan. 5 meeting, the first order of business was to elect a new chairman and vice-chairman. After electing Nancy McDermid as chairwoman, the question was who should be vice-chairman. The choice came down to two: Dave Brady, with four years on the board, or Greg Lynn, with four minutes. Brady brought a wealth of experience and critical thinking, years as an elected school board member (including the chairmanship), a solid background in finance, and a balanced perspective. Greg Lynn, a developer, had just been elected to office for the first time.

The other new commissioner was Mike Olson. He had raised and spent more money on his campaign than any candidate in county history. The vast majority of his funding came from developers and pro-development groups (such as the so-called Coalition for Smart Growth). It was commissioner Olson, in his first day on the job, who nominated Greg Lynn to be vice-chairman. Why did he feel compelled to nominate a newcomer in his first day on the job, rather than someone who had already served for four years? What happened to promises of compromise and consensus?

Lynn is a smart man and a quick learner, and may well end up being a fine commissioner. But it is completely inappropriate for him to be vice-chairman in his first year. That is like making a rookie cop the deputy chief in his first day on the job. It doesn't make sense, and is unnecessarily adversarial. Commissioner Lynn was quoted as saying that, "The vice chairman is not quite the weighty role some assign it to be." Then why did he cast the deciding vote in his own favor, rather than deferring to someone with much more experience? This started the year on the wrong foot for the commissioners.

Even more troubling was a decision reached by commissioners at the Jan. 15 meeting at Lake Tahoe. This involved a planned development application for a 40-unit condominium project at the corner of Jack Circle and Tramway Drive near the top of Kingsbury Grade. This project first came before the commissioners in January 2008, just after the property was purchased by Rancho Pacific, Inc. The application was denied by a unanimous vote.

Rancho Pacific re-applied after making changes, and their application was re-heard in May 2008. Still, the application had any number of problems. They wanted a major height variance for an 85-foot-tall building in an area that only allows 35-foot buildings, and where there are no buildings over 35 feet nearby. They also wanted to place their 40 condos on 12.24 acres that was zoned FR-19 (Forest and Range, 19-acre minimum parcel size), rather than on the adjoining property that was zoned for multi-family residential.

In addition, there were problems of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, diminution in value of surrounding properties, fire access, etc. Many neighbors spoke out in opposition to the project, while others spoke out in favor. Everyone had an opportunity to make their opinions heard. Then the commissioners did what they are elected to do: make decisions based on the evidence presented and the required findings.

Commissioner McDermid made a motion for denial, and, at length, went through the four required findings that the application failed to meet. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, again listing the four required findings that were not met. The project was again denied by a unanimous vote. Three weeks later the developer sued the county, claiming the Board's decision was "arbitrary and capricious," (despite two lengthy hearings, voluminous written and spoken opinions on both sides, and a clear listing of the required findings that the application failed to meet).

This was reminiscent of the Clear Creek case of several years back, in which the commissioners approved the controversial Clear Creek development. The adjacent Alpine View Estates Property Owners Association sued the County to overturn their decision. When the Nevada Supreme Court finally ruled on this case, they stated that since the Board of Commissioners had heard all the arguments both for and against at great length, had weighed the pros and cons, and done their elective duty in reaching a reasoned decision, that the lawsuit was invalid, and the commissioners' decision was confirmed.

Surely this same reasoning held for this case. Surely the commissioners would stand by their unanimous decision from last May, knowing that the Supreme Court's ruling was on their side. In a word: no. At the District Attorney's suggestion, the Commissioners caved in and accepted the developer's proposed settlement agreement. The vote was 3 to 1 (McDermid, Lynn and Olson in favor; Johnson opposed; Brady absent). Not only did the Commissioners approve the project, but gave the developer an extra 30 percent, increasing his condo units from 40 to 52. They did this without addressing any of the four required findings that the application had failed to meet.

Were the commissioners so fearful of the lawsuit that they were willing to ignore the required findings? Did the concern over the potential cost of the lawsuit trump right versus wrong? It certainly seems so. What is the message to other developers? If your application is denied, just sue Douglas County and, regardless of what is right, regardless of the required findings, they will roll over and give you what you want, maybe even more. Why does it seem like the District Attorney and the Board of Commissioners side with the developers in every lawsuit?

This is the wrong message to be coming from the board. It is contrary to the interests of the majority of citizens. Expediency should never win out over tough decisions. Financial concerns should never triumph over doing what's right. Let's hope that this is not indicative of things to come from this board.

n Jim Slade is a Gardnerville resident.