Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
16. Public Hearing: Master Plan Amendment Case Number WMPA25-0002 & Regulatory Zone Amendment Case Number WRZA25-0002 (700 Harper Court).
Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation to:
(1) Adopt an amendment to the Washoe County Master Plan, Tahoe Area Plan, to change the master plan land use category on a 5.74-acre parcel (APN 125-010-21) from 80% Conservation and 20% Residential to 100% Residential; and if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect. The master plan amendment is subject to approval and a finding of conformance with the Tahoe Regional Plan by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
AND
(2) Subject to final approval of the associated master plan amendment and a finding of conformance with the Tahoe Regional Plan, adopt an amendment to the Tahoe Area regulatory zone map, to change the regulatory zone on the same parcel from 80% Mount Rose and 20% Incline Village-1 (1-unit per parcel) to 100% Incline Village-1 (1-unit per parcel); and if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect.
The applicant is Exline and Co., Inc. and the owner of the property is Mitchell E. Larson Living Trust. The site is located at 700 Harper Court, Incline Village. The Board of County Commissioners may adopt the proposed amendments, may modify the proposed master plan amendment and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for its report in accordance with NRS 278.220(4), or may deny the proposed amendments after the public hearing. Virtual Public Comment Eligible. Community Services. (Commission District 1.) FOR POSSIBLE ACTION
This proposed rezoning poses serious risks and is incompatible with the environmental sensitivities, wildfire risk profile, infrastructure limitations, and community goals of Washoe County’s mountainous regions.
More reasons to oppose:
1. Environmental Protection & Watershed Preservation. 80% of the parcel plays a critical environmental role providing watershed filtration that protects the clarity and quality of Lake Tahoe, vegetative buffers that help reduce erosion and runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Rezoning this land would allow development in fragile alpine terrain, potentially causing: Soil disturbance, increasing sediment flow into Lake Tahoe; harming biodiversity; and fragmentation of migration corridors.
This directly conflicts with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) goals and Washoe County’s own Master Plan, which emphasizes open space conservation in this region.
2. Wildfire Risk Amplification. This parcel lies within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)—a zone highly prone to catastrophic wildfires. Increasing residential density here would: add more structures and fuel loads to a high-risk zone; strain already limited evacuation routes; and overextend fire protection services in remote, steep terrain
As Nevada faces growing climate instability, upzoning fire-prone forestland is shortsighted and irresponsible.
3. Traffic and Infrastructure Burden. Increasing residential development will place additional strain on narrow, mountainous roads, worsen emergency response times; and require infrastructure expansion at public expense.
The region lacks the capacity to accommodate the infrastructure demands of a full residential build-out on this parcel.
4. Existing Zoning Is Already a Compromise. The parcel currently enjoys 20% residential zoning. Expanding to 100% residential is not a necessity—it’s a profit-driven maneuver that sacrifices long-term environmental and public safety.
I do NOT support moving this 5.748 parcel to 100% residential. This would be yet another example of growing wealth inequality. If this is a move to make the lot bigger to build ADU's then this is yet another example of moving property values way way out of reach of regular home buyers when we are already in an affordability crisis for average families. The societal structure in the Tahoe Basin is quickly moving into land of luxury out of reach of average people to even visit safely.
This ask goes against TRPAs affordability goals.
There is a growing wealth gap. This is a fact! By allowing this parcel to become more single owner developed, it further separates the haves and have nots which harms society in a vast number of ways you can find throughout the literature.
I am not against wealth building or capitalism but we must set upper thresholds on wealth to protect economic distribution and free market.
I would support this parcel being moved to 20% residential and the other 80% converted to IVGID Dist of the surrounding parcel. That could lower the property taxes on this parcel while moving it more in line with the other parcels.
Another thing I would support is splitting the parcel into multiple parcels. That would allow more residential units at a more equal value and in line with the surrounding parcels for future homeowners.
Please do not approve this further step toward growing wealth inequality and further!
This proposed rezoning poses serious risks and is incompatible with the environmental sensitivities, wildfire risk profile, infrastructure limitations, and community goals of Washoe County’s mountainous regions.
More reasons to oppose:
1. Environmental Protection & Watershed Preservation. 80% of the parcel plays a critical environmental role providing watershed filtration that protects the clarity and quality of Lake Tahoe, vegetative buffers that help reduce erosion and runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Rezoning this land would allow development in fragile alpine terrain, potentially causing: Soil disturbance, increasing sediment flow into Lake Tahoe; harming biodiversity; and fragmentation of migration corridors.
This directly conflicts with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) goals and Washoe County’s own Master Plan, which emphasizes open space conservation in this region.
2. Wildfire Risk Amplification. This parcel lies within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)—a zone highly prone to catastrophic wildfires. Increasing residential density here would: add more structures and fuel loads to a high-risk zone; strain already limited evacuation routes; and overextend fire protection services in remote, steep terrain
As Nevada faces growing climate instability, upzoning fire-prone forestland is shortsighted and irresponsible.
3. Traffic and Infrastructure Burden. Increasing residential development will place additional strain on narrow, mountainous roads, worsen emergency response times; and require infrastructure expansion at public expense.
The region lacks the capacity to accommodate the infrastructure demands of a full residential build-out on this parcel.
4. Existing Zoning Is Already a Compromise. The parcel currently enjoys 20% residential zoning. Expanding to 100% residential is not a necessity—it’s a profit-driven maneuver that sacrifices long-term environmental and public safety.
I do NOT support moving this 5.748 parcel to 100% residential. This would be yet another example of growing wealth inequality. If this is a move to make the lot bigger to build ADU's then this is yet another example of moving property values way way out of reach of regular home buyers when we are already in an affordability crisis for average families. The societal structure in the Tahoe Basin is quickly moving into land of luxury out of reach of average people to even visit safely.
This ask goes against TRPAs affordability goals.
There is a growing wealth gap. This is a fact! By allowing this parcel to become more single owner developed, it further separates the haves and have nots which harms society in a vast number of ways you can find throughout the literature.
I am not against wealth building or capitalism but we must set upper thresholds on wealth to protect economic distribution and free market.
I would support this parcel being moved to 20% residential and the other 80% converted to IVGID Dist of the surrounding parcel. That could lower the property taxes on this parcel while moving it more in line with the other parcels.
Another thing I would support is splitting the parcel into multiple parcels. That would allow more residential units at a more equal value and in line with the surrounding parcels for future homeowners.
Please do not approve this further step toward growing wealth inequality and further!