Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

Washoe County Board of Commissioners

Tammy Holt-Still and Lemmon Valley Swan Lake


WTM18-001 (Lemmon Valley Heights)
Recovery Committee

Plaintiffs

-vs-

Washoe County Planning Commission

Defendant

AFFIDAVIT

I, Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee, of Reno, in Washoe County,
Nevada, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT:

1. I, Tammy Holt-Still, Chair of the Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee, live and
conduct board business at 11493 Tupelo St., in District 5. This affidavit is to show "Standing" as
a resident and committee for the appeal of Tentative Subdivision Map Case Number WTM18-
001, Lemmon Valley Heights.

2. Washoe County Commission Meeting of April 24, 2018, Page 2 of 6, SUMMARY:


Sentence 2 "The appellant, Tammy Holt-Still, has appealed that approval, based upon concerns
over public safety."
What was actually stated for the record:
1st. sentence - Approval of the Lemmon Valley Heights plan will subject my property to increase
flood risk and further increase the health risks caused by flooding and water-treatment plant
effluent.
2nd sentence - The hydrological report prepared for the applicant is suspect and has not been
subjected to an independent review.
3rd sentence - As stated by Commissioner Lawson, the applicant and project have not met the
health and safety of the community.

Page 1 of 14
Do you believe the simplistic statement by staff is understated and misrepresents the facts of the
appeal to create a questionable "Standing"?

Could this be considered a tort?

The third (3rd) sentence by staff "Washoe County Strategic Objective supported by this item:
Stewardship of our Community".

This phrase was used Washoe County Commission Meeting of December 13, 2016, Page2 of 3,
regarding the selling of water rights. How does this have any correlation to the current case and
appeal?

See attachment A.

3. Washoe County Commission Meeting of April 24, 2018, Page 2 of 6, Previous Actions.
Is it not fact that Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee had
appeared at both the NV CAB and Washoe County Planning Commission and spoke at Public
Comment?

Is it not true that at both the NV CAB and Washoe County Planning Commission Meeting:
Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee, did declare the following
"Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee"?

Then would you not say at this time that Tammy Holt-Still and Lemmon Valley Swan Lake
Recovery Committee are one and the same?

See attachment B.

4. Washoe County Commission Meeting of April 24, 2018, Page 2 of 6, Background: "The Washoe
County Planning Commission has approved the Proposed subdivision map, having made all
required findings including:"
items 1 - 10 are addressed in the appellant's merit of the appeal. Due to the fact Washoe County
staff is addressing this before "Legal Standing Appeal" I will address each item.
"1) Plan Consistency. That the proposed map is consistent with the Master Plan and any specific
plan;"

Page 2 of 14
(a) Tentative map is not consistent with Master Plan. Is it not true that the Master Plan states
Medium 1 equaling 3 homes per acre and Medium 2 equals 4 homes per acre?
(b) Is it also not true that the current approved "tentative map" is showing "6 or more per acre"?

"2) Design or Improvement. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the Master Plan and any specific plan;"
This is not met either
(a) the improvement as project applicant has stated the storm run off is detained and retained by
40% more than impervious ground. Is it not true that development has four (4) times the storm
water run off as impervious ground?
(b) The road Deodar improvement will increase flooding by placing it in the 100 year flood
plain.
(c) The geographical definition of standing does not account for the off-site effects of drainage
from the development, which have the potential to disrupt traffic and damage property well
beyond a 500 foot proximity to the property;
(d) How can you state it meets "Design" when it does not meet Master Plans M1 and M2 zoning?

"3) Type of Development. That the site is physically suited for the type of development
proposed;"
This element is not met either.
(a) Is it not true if Item 1 and 2 are met then how is it possible for Item 3 to be met?

"4) Availability of Services. That the subdivision will meet the requirements of Article 702,
Adequate Public Facilities Management System:"

4. (a) NRS 278.335 (3) - When submitted to the Planning Commission the project and staff does
not have included Washoe County Health for sewage collection and water supply.
(b) When submitted to the Planning Commission Truckee Meadows Fire was not included.
(c) NDEP stated denial of this project

"5) Fish or Wildlife. That neither the design of the subdivision nor any proposed improvements
is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to any
endangered plant, wildlife or their habitat;"
(a) this element has no merit to the case for either side.

"6) Public Health. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvement is not likely to
cause significant public health problems;"

Page 3 of 14
This element has not been met.
(a) staff report states not receiving Washoe County Health approval. Is it not a violation of NRS
278.335?
(b) Was it not stated by NDEP for denial of this project?
(c) Was there a TMWA letter of approval?

"7) Easements. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public for access through, or use of property within, the proposed
subdivision;"
This element has not been met by staff or proposed project.
The way that the staff wrote up the comments for this element it ties into #8.
Please see response in #8.

"8) Access. That the design of the subdivision provides any necessary access to surrounding,
adjacent lands and provides appropriate secondary access for emergency vehicles;"
This element has not been met.
(a) Is it not true that the report from Truckee Meadows Fire was not received as required by NRS
278?
(b) Please explain how staff can state appropriate secondary emergency access is sufficient
without have the Truckee Meadows Fire Department approval
(c) Please explain how Deodar Way being relocated into the 100 year floodplain will meet
appropriated standards for emergency access when flooded?
(d) Is it true that Lemmon Drive will be elevated in the project sight? If so please explain how
2600 feet raised 2 feet will assist emergency access when Lemmon Drive was closed north just
after that location of project during 2017 and 2018?

"9) Dedications. That any land or improvement to be dedicated to the County is consistent with
the Master Plan; and"
No merit to case

"10) Energy. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive
or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision."
No merit to case.

5. Washoe County Commission Meeting of April 24, 2018, Page 3 of 6, Legal Standing for Appeal:
"In analyzing this appeal, the threshold issue of "standing" must be addressed. Standing is the
legal right to bring a challenge in the first place. In courts it is treated as part of the analysis of

Page 4 of 14
subject matter jurisdiction, meaning that without it, the court has no power to even hear the
Challenge. It is the burden of the appellant to establish standing."

At this time, I ask on who's legal authority does staff have the right to question "standing" for
myself or Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee who has represented the residents
for over 1 year to every Washoe County and City Meeting for the record?

Paragraph 2: NRS chapter 278 limits appeals of Planning Commission decisions to "aggrieved
persons." See NRS 278.310, 278.3195, and 278.328. The statutes do not go on to give a detailed
definition of "aggrievement" but rather leave it to the local governments to enact ordinances,
which can broaden the scope of standing under chapter 278, but cannot narrow it. See City of
North Las Vegas v. District Court, 122 Nev. 1197, 147 P.3d 1109 (2006). The county has
enacted such an ordinance. Like NRS chapter 278, the Development Code limits standing to
"aggrieved persons." WCC 110.910.02 gives useful guidance on the definition of an aggrieved
person." That definition provides in pertinent part as follows:
Aggrieved Person. "Aggrieved person" means a person or entity who has suffered a substantial
grievance (not merely a party who is dissatisfied with a decision) in the form of either: (a) The
denial of or substantial injury to a personal or property right, or (b) The imposition of an illegal,
unjust or inequitable burden or obligation by an enforcement official, the Board of Adjustment or
an administrative hearing officer."

Is it not true that the Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee is establish as
representative of the residents residing in Lemmon Valley?
Is it not true that Commissioner Hartung stated on record he was tired of speaking to residents
representative and he wanted to speak with them at the Board of Commissioners meeting dated
March 27, 2018?
Is it also not true that All Lemmon Valley residents in this hydrological closed basin are
substantial and aggrieved because of Swan Lake out of it's natural basin?
The residents as an entity have and will be substantial aggrieved personal and property.

Can you state for the record that the residents of Lemmon Valley do not accept Tammy Holt-Still
as their representative and as such speak on their behalf?

Is it not true Washoe County Staff can broaden the scope of standing under chapter 278, but
cannot narrow it?

Please explain why Tammy Holt-Still as a resident of Lemmon Valley is not an aggrieved person

Page 5 of 14
in this matter?

See Attachment C.

6. Washoe County Commission Meeting of April 24, 2018, Page 4 of 6.


Paragraph 2: In the North Las Vegas case cited above, the Nevada Supreme Court determined
there was no standing to appeal the Planning Commission's approval of a special use permit for a
check cashing business. The Court appeared to take into account both the distance of the property
from the proposed project, as well as the stated basis of the appeal. The appellant lived over 900
feet from the project. North Las Vegas' ordinance apparently presumed standing for property
owners within 300 feet, but required anyone beyond that to their property a project would cause.
The appellant stated the basis of her appeal as an "oversaturation" of similar businesses in the
area. According to the Nevada Supreme Court, this was inadequate to give her standing under
the North Las Vegas ordinance or Chapter 278. Her appeal was thus invalid. "

This paragraph addresses a business vs a person and the oversaturation of similar business.
Is it not true that the appeal in question WTM18-001 is a development within a closed
hydrological basin which has been flooded because Swan Lake has exceeded it banks from
January 2017 to current time of this hearing?

With that in mind, would that not make the above mentioned case insignificant or a standard in
which to adjudicate this "standing"?

7. Washoe County Commission Meeting of April 24, 2018, Page 4 of 6.


Paragraph 3: On the issue of distance from the proposed land use in this case, Washoe County's
ordinances include similar recognition of the presumed effects of development projects on
neighboring properties based on proximity. WCC 110.608.16 requires that written notice be
given to property owners "within 500 feet" of the property where the subdivision will be. It
follow from this provision and numerous authorities that the farther away someone is from a
subdivision, the less likely they have standing to challenge it. Conversely, residents living in
"close proximity" to a proposed land use unquestionably have standing. See Citizens for Cold
Springs v. City of Reno, 125 Nev. 625, 630, 218, P.3d 847, 851 (2006). Where the exact line is,
however depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

Who are the numerous authorities in this paragraph?


What NRS states "close proximity" v. "actual footage"?

Page 6 of 14
Based on this statement: "On the issue of distance from the proposed land use in this case,
Washoe County's ordinances include similar recognition of the presumed effects of development
projects on neighboring properties based on proximity." Does this statement have recognition of
"closed hydrological basins" with the effect of flooding and downstream flooding to residents
around that basin?

Is it not true property further way for the appealed tentative map project are more likely to be
damaged by flooding because of downstream effect?

Is it not true that properties further away from the property in question will be effected by
tentative map changes to accesses?

8. Washoe County Commission Meeting April 24, 2018, Page 4 of 6.


Paragraph 4: "The appellant's property is in this case is listed 11493 Tupelo St.
The subdivision itself is listed at 1200 Estates Rd. The distance between these addresses is
approximately 2.5 miles, or 13,200 feet. Thus the appellant's property is roughly 26 times farther
from the proposed subdivision than the properties within 500 feet that are entitled to written
notice, and almost 15 times farther than the property was in the North Las Vegas case where there
was no standing."

1. Is not true that Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno it was ruled "close proximity " does
matter?
2. Is it not true that 11493 Tupelo address is in "close proximity" to Swan Lake the "close
hydrological basin" which has flooded residents since January 2017.
a. Attached are photo's of 11493 Tupelo St. address that had a portion of the property flood
during the 2017.

So being almost 15 times farther than the property of North Las Vegas case where there was no
standing does not hold water for this case because of it "depending on the facts and circumstances
of each particular case"?

Do you realize detention/retention basins generate mosquitoes?


Do you know depending upon the species, mosquitoes can fly at about 1 to 1.5 miles per hour.
Mosquito species preferring to breed around the house, like the Asian Tiger Mosquito, have
limited flight ranges of about 300 feet. Most species have flight ranges of 1-3 miles. This is by
American Mosquito Control Association. Do you understand that my home is within that range
and is in danger of additional mosquitos because of additional standing water from

Page 7 of 14
detention/retention basins?
Please explain why 1200 Estates is set up in the middle or other side of the vacant property? Is it
because this way residents downstream in Lemmon Valley from the property to intentionally
avoid notifications of the proposed development and hearings?

This means Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee, does have
"STANDING" OR IS "AGGRIEVED" based on just this information in this paragraph.

See Attachment D.

9. Washoe County Commission Meeting April 24, 2018, Page 4 of 6.


Paragraph 5: "Turning to the stated basis of standing, the appellant argues that the proposed
subdivision will pose an increased flood risk for her property. Proposed mitigation of flood risk
in the project, including increasing the elevation of Lemmon Drive and constructing water
detention basins on-site, are inadequate according to the appellant. And the hydrology report
prepared in support of the project is "suspect and has not been subjected to an independent
review". Notably, while the appellant apparently disagrees with or does not trust the evidence
submitted in support of the project, the record does not, for example include contrary report of
experts on the hydrological issues presented, unlike Red Rock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe
County, 127 Nev. 451, 254 P.3d 641 (2011) (conflicting hydrology report submitted by project
opponents)."

(A)"Notably, while the appellant apparently disagrees with or does not trust the evidence
submitted in support of the project, the record does not, for example include contrary report of
experts on the hydrological issues presented, unlike Red Rock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe
County, 127 Nev. 451, 254 P.3d 641 (2011) (conflicting hydrology report submitted by project
opponents)."
1a. The appellant does not have the resources to prepare and submit the type of analysis referred
to in Red Rock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe County 127 Nev. 451 254 p3d 641 (2011). The
type of analysis needed would be similar to the 2007 report previously cited "Quad Knopf" repot
and should be part of a comprehensive planning process that acknowledges and estimates the
potential for changes in hydrologic response (including from rainfall and snowmelt) associated
with changes in the amount of impermeable surface added to the watershed since the 2007 report
was completed.
1b. Per Staff Report for Washoe County Commission Meeting of August 8th, 2017, Page 3 of 6
Number 5) Appellant Concern: the storm water runoff provided in the hydrology study of the
application greatly under-predicts actual measured values of runoff. Existing infrastructure is

Page 8 of 14
insufficient to handle additional runoff from the project.
Staff comment: The development proposed the construction of four storm water detention ponds
to accommodate the peak flows resulting from the Ascente Development. According to Washoe
County Engineering and Capital Projects Division staff, the storm water detention ponds have
been over-sized to handle any increase in runoff. The hydrology study submitted with the
application was a preliminary study. Staff has conditioned the submittal of the final (detailed)
hydrology/hydraulic report prior to the finalization of the first final map.

For the record the appeal states: The project does not meet the criteria for flood risk. The area
has been in flood waters for nearly a year. The proposed catch basins incorporated in the plan
will be ineffective for reducing the risk of flooding posed by additional development and
impenetrable surface area produced.
The project does not meet the public safety risk. The area is flooded with water partly composed
of partly-treaded sewage effluent. The water treatment plant itself is below grade, sits below the
waterline and only protected by emergency berms.
Lemmon Drive is proposed to be raised two feet and serve as the emergency access. However,
only a small portion of Lemmon Drive will be raised rendering this strategy ineffective as an
emergency access provision. "

Is the staff rewriting and stating for the record what I said differently to prove I don't not have
standing? Could this be a tort?

Why did staff in the this paragraph omit the following statement ? "The project does not meet the
public safety risk. The area is flooded with water partly composed of partly-treated sewage
effluent. The water treatment plant itself is below grade, sits below the waterline and only
protected by emergency berms."

Would this because it would effect the facts and circumstances of each particular case for me to
make "standing"?

Is it not true that staff by misrepresenting what is actually stated on the appeal is a tort?

Example: The project does not meet the criteria for flood risk. The area has been in flood waters
for nearly a year. The proposed catch basins incorporated in the plan will be ineffective for
reducing the risk of flooding posed by additional development and impenetrable surface area
produced.

Page 9 of 14
(a) Starting with the lowest catch basin, this basin will have "Fleetwood dr." going through the
basin cutting down the amount of detention and retention and allowing more runoff to an already
flooded lake.

(b) As stated by the hydrological report and representative for TWM18-001 the volume of run
off is reduced by 40% during storm surge, however the volume of water is increased by about
four (4) times the volume of natural impervious run off.
(c) Does the hydrology report submitted discuss the total amount volume of water to leave said
property and basins to Swan Lake?

Example: Lemmon Drive is proposed to be raised two feet and serve as the emergency access.
However, only a small portion of Lemmon Drive will be raised rendering this strategy ineffective
as an emergency access provision.

This is because only 2600 feet in length will be elevated by two feet, this portion of the elevation
is not where the current closure was which is a public risk. Point in fact Cody Kennedy posted on
Facebook that his one (1) year son was in medical danger and it took emergency crews over 20
minutes to reach them because of the dirt road Deodar.
Is this not a public risk and inadequate because Lemmon Drive was closed from Deodar to
Nectar?
Do you realize I live on Tupelo past the closed section and with my health risks it put's my life
endanger?

As 11493 Tupelo St. has documentation of flooding in 2017 and was reported to Washoe County
Board of Commissioners but was not negligible at this time. Can Washoe County and it's staff
give a 100% guarantee that our property will never see the flooding like other residents occurred
with additional development?

See Attachment E.

10. Washoe County Commission Meeting April 24, 2018 Page 4 of 6.


Paragraph 6: "In deciding the standing issue, the Board may take into account the distance of the
appellant's property from the proposed subdivision. The Board may also take into account the
type of harm alleged in the appeal itself, as well as its likelihood of occurring based on the

Page 10 of 14
evidence. Additionally, the board may also take into account the record before it and before the
Planning Commission."

Based on that paragraph is it not true that Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan Lake
Recovery Committee has established "standing" and "aggrieved" on 4 counts?
1. Is it not true that the property of 11493 Tupelo St has flooded in 2017, just not to the point of
inconvenience and cost to repair?
2. Is it not fact that Washoe County can not prevent the type of flooding to occur again as stated
in the above paragraph?
3. Is it not true that Tammy Holt-Still has provided more than enough evidence of "standing" and
"aggrieved person"?
4. Is it not true that Tammy Holt-Still has proven without a doubt that Lemmon Valley Swan
Lake Recovery Committee is the representative for the Lemmon Valley Residents who have been
"aggrieved" and have "standing" due to the flooding and road closures of 2017 and 2018?

11. Washoe County Commission Meeting April 24, 2018 Page 5 of 6


Paragraph 2: "If the Board finds there is standing, it must then analyze the merits of the appeal. If
it finds no standing, the Board is free to deny the appeal without analyzing the merits.
Alnatively, in the interest of completing the record in case of any possible future legal challenges,
if the Board finds no standing it may nonetheless also indicate what its findings on the merits
would be if standing did exist."

At this time I do not have any pro's or con's on this paragraph.

12. Washoe County Commission Meeting April 24, 2018 Page 5 of 6


Fiscal Impact: "No fiscal impact."

Is it not true after 3 years the HOA for this project does not have to guarantee the
detention/retention basins on the property will be maintained for sediment and storm water
retention capacity?
Will it not be a fiscal impact if the basins do not work properly and create flooding after 3 years?

13. Washoe County Commission Meeting April 24, 2018 Page 5 of 6


Recommendation: "It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners affirm the
decision of the Planning Commission and uphold the approval of Tentative Subdivision Map
Case Number WTM18-001 (Lemmon Valley Heights)."

Page 11 of 14
Is it not true that the staff is recommending the above passage because they have decided without
complete knowledge of the merits of "standing" and/or "aggrieved"?

Is it not true that Nevada Revised Statues where violated by Staff and Planning Commission by
recommending and approving the "Tentative Map" on WTM18-001 without having all required
letters and approvals in place?

It is the Recommendation that the Board of Commissioner to acknowledge and approve that the
appellant, Tammy Holt-Still, and Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee have
"STANDING" and/or are "AGGRIEVED" and move forward to the merits of the appeal.

It is also Recommended the Board of Commissioners hear the merits of the appeal on WTM18-
001 which was approved by the Washoe Planning Commission even though there were violations
of Nevada Revised Statue.

14. Washoe County Commission Meeting April 24, 2018 Page 5 of 6


Possible Motion:
"Should the Board of County Commissioners agree with the Planning Commission's
approval of Tentative Subdivision Map Case Number WTM18-0001 (Lemmon Valley
Heights), staff offers the following motion:
"Move to affirm the approval, with conditions, of Tentative Subdivision Map Case Number
WTM18-001 (Lemmon Valley Heights), having found that the appellant lacks standing and/or
having not found that the decision of the Planning Commission:
(A)Was made contrary to the constitution, a statute, an ordinance or
regulation, or the law of the case;
(B) Exceeds the jurisdiction or statutory authority of the deciding official
or body;
(C) Was made on unlawful procedure;
(D)Is affected by an erroneous interpretation or other error of law;
(E) Is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial
evidence on the whole record, or
(F) Is arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion."
Should the Board of County Commissioners disagree with the Planning Commission's
approval of Tentative Subdivision Map Case Number WTMI8-001 (Lemmon Valley Heights),
staff offers the following motion:
"Move to reverse the approval of Tentative Subdivision Map Case Number WTM18-001
(Lemmon Valley Heights). having found that the appellant has standing, and having found that

Page 12 of 14
the decision of the Planning Commission:
(A) Was made contrary to the constitution, a statute, an ordinance or
regulation, or the law of the case;
(B) Exceeds the jurisdiction or statutory authority of the deciding official or body:
(C) Was made on unlawful procedure;
(D) Is affected by an erroneous interpretation or other error of law;
(E) Is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole
record, or
(F) Is arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion."

Is it not true that before any decision on merits of the actual appeal on WTM18-001, it has been
stated that it is required to establish "standing" and /or "aggrieved"?

Please explain why motions are set forth before "standing" is established?

Motion Recommended by Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee.

The Board of Commissioners approve Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery
Committee have "standing" and move to hear the merits of the appeal by Tammy Holt-Still and
the Lemmon Valley Swan Lake Recovery Committee for WTM18-001 (Lemmon Valley
Heights).

Page 13 of 14
STATE OF NEVADA

COUNTY OF WASHOE COUNTY

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE


ME, on the ______________ day of April,
_______________________________
2018
(Signature)

Tammy Holt-Still, Lemmon Valley Swan


Lake Recovery Committee
Signature
_____________________________ (Seal)
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission expires:
______________________

Page 14 of 14
©2002-2018 LawDepot.com™

S-ar putea să vă placă și