December 17, 2020 the Lyon County Board of Commissioners reversed their decision on denying the Sage Vista Specific Plan. 

On April 2, 2020 the Board of Commissioners held a public hearing for the Sage Vista Specific Plan application . After the Planning Department staff’s presentation, a presentation by the property owner’s representatives and public comment, the application was subsequently denied 4-1 (Commissioners Keller, Gray, Hastings and Mortensen – yea; Commissioner Dini - nay) (refer to the attached action letter).

A petition for judicial review of the April 2, 2020 Board of Commissioners’ decision on the Sage Vista Specific Plan application by the property owner’s legal representative was received in 3rd District Judicial Court on April 23. 2020.

In seeking to avoid the costs and amount of staff time involved with a legal action, the District Attorney, County Manager and Planning Department staff suggested attempting to reach a negotiated settlement with the property owner. The Board of Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Gray volunteering to participate in the negotiations along with Planning Department staff and the District Attorney.

The outcome of the negotiations resulted in what is a revision to the original Sage Vista Specific Plan submission. The revisions alter the proposed minimum detached single family residential lot size within the project site from six thousand square feet (6,000 sq. ft.) to seven thousand five hundred square feet (7,500 sq. ft.), adds specific language regarding the process that the property owner/developer would have to go through in order to annex into the Lyon County Utilities Department Mound House – Dayton service area for domestic water and domestic sewer service and minor amendments to reflect the change in proposed land uses resulting from the negotiations.

Commissioner Gray made a motion to deny the application and Commissioner Keller seconded the motion. Commissioner Gray made his motion with the findings of: 

The Specific Plan application is not compatible with the Findings required by section 15.210.03 of this title: 1. 15.210.03: 

• Consistency With The Master Plan: The applicant has not demonstrated that the amendment is in substantial compliance with and promotes the master plan goals, objectives and actions. 
• Compatible Land Uses: The proposed amendment is incompatible with the existing or master planned adjacent land uses, and does not reflects a logical change in land uses. 
• Response To Change Conditions: The proposed amendment has not demonstrated and does not respond to changed conditions or further studies that have occurred since the master plan was adopted by the Board, and the requested amendment represents a less desirable utilization of land. 
• No Adverse Effects: The proposed amendment would adversely affect the implementation of the master plan goals, objectives and actions, and would adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. 
• Desired Pattern Of Growth: The proposed amendment would not promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the County, would not allow infrastructure to be extended in efficient increments and patterns, would not maintain relatively compact development patterns, and would not guide development of the County based on the consideration of natural resources, the physical geography and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. 
• That the proposed location of the development and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained would not be consistent with the goals, objectives and actions embodied in the master plan;
• That the proposed development would not be in accordance with the purposes and objectives of this title and, in particular, will not further the purposes stated for each zoning district; and 
• That the development would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to such a development; and would be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the County.

Several residents urged the Board not to approve the application citing traffic concerns, no more additional growth and having sufficient water capacity. The motion failed 3-2 (Mortensen, Dini and Hastings voting against and Keller and Gray voting in favor.

Commissioner Mortensen motioned to approve and Commissioner Hastings seconded the motion with the findings of:

• That the application is compatible with the Findings required by section 15.210.03 of Title 15: 1. 15.210.03: 
• Consistency With The Master Plan: The applicant has demonstrated that the Specific Plan is in substantial compliance with and promotes the master plan goals, objectives and actions.
•  Compatible Land Uses: The proposed Specific Plan is compatible with the existing or master planned adjacent land uses, and reflects a logical change in land uses.
• Response To Change Conditions: The proposed Specific Plan has demonstrated and responds to changed conditions or further studies that have occurred since the master plan was adopted by the Board, and the requested Specific Plan represents a more desirable utilization of land. 
• No Adverse Effects: The proposed Specific Plan will not adversely affect the implementation of the master plan goals, objectives and actions, and will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare.
• Desired Pattern Of Growth: The proposed Specific Plan will promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the County, allows infrastructure to be extended in efficient increments and patterns, maintains relatively compact development patterns, and guides development of the County based on the consideration of natural resources, the physical geography and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services.
• That the proposed location of the development and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained is consistent with the goals, objectives and actions embodied in the master plan; 
• That the proposed development is in accordance with the purposes and objectives of this title and, in particular, will further the purposes stated for each zoning district; and 
• That the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the subject site; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the County. 

The same residents voiced their concerns under public participation. Commissioners Mortensen, Hastings and Dini voted in favor and Commissioners Gray and Keller voted against. The approved specific plan addresses property east of the current Copper Canyon estates on approximately 547 Acres. The plan envisions a total of 1462 homes with a mixture of 6% of the acreage being designated commercial, 34% being parks and open space and 2% being used for Public Use (School).

The proposal envisions 253 homes on 12,000 square foot lots, 176 homes on 9000 square foot lots, 433 residents on 7500 square foot lots and multi-family housing for 600. A copy of the staff report can be found /DocumentCenter/View/9988/Sage_Vista_Staff_Report_and_Backup_BOCC_12172020.