Sierra Reflections Update

16 Days to Regional Planning Commission Meeting

Posts on Nextdoor accuse County Commissioner Mike Clark of "doing nothing" to stop the Sierra Reflections project before it was brought to the Planning Commission for approval. We're not sure a Commissioner has the power or authority to investigate and derail projects in the planning stages.

Word has come that the attorneys are on the case and their plan is wending its way through the judicial system.

Another Nextdoor member posted this response allegedly from County Commissioner Alexis Hill's office.

We think it's a stretch to call this case "similar". The developer in Las Vegas bought a defunct golf course and wanted to build homes on the site. Neighbors complained, zoning was questioned and the application was denied. The developer sued, arguing that the government was "taking" his property by denying him the use of it. This is not what is happening with Sierra Reflections. Residents agree that they can build homes there, just in the character of the community with safety for the future residents and surrounding community.

One of the commenters at the March 10, 2026 County Commissioners meeting had this to say on the subject:

"Submitting a development proposal, even one with long-standing zoning or extensive technical studies, does not guarantee approval. Findings must still be met. Importantly, a property owner is not entitled to the most intensive or most profitable use of their land. The denial of one proposal does not amount to a taking because this property retains value in other reasonable uses consistent with the county's code and master plan. With respect to the takings argument, the Nevada Supreme Court's one eighty land decision, also known as Bad Lands, dealt with government actions that made development futile.

That decision does not require the board to approve this project when the board cannot make the findings required under county code. If every claimed entitlement was treated as mandatory approval, it would undermine the county's ability to enforce land use standards and protect public health, safety, and welfare. That is not what takings law requires. A regulatory taking happens only when government action removes all economically viable use of the property, as you see on the handout you received.

That is not happening here. The planning commission did not prohibit all development. Your appointees simply found, as you should find, that the applications before the county do not meet the required findings under Washoe County Code. For these reasons, you must deny the appeal and affirm your planning commission's unanimous decision. And thank you for your time and attention and perseverance today."

The developer and County Planners seem to be staking their approval despite all the documented shortcomings by saying the development conforms to historic zoning and this it has to be approved as zoning cannot be changed. Or something.

On June 28, 2006, County Planner Eric Young (now Senior Planner) had this to say about zoning changes in approval of a zoning change to allow a hospital near Sparks.

Maybe on a fire, and flood prone Super Fund Site, with no local water, or safety infrastructure, and an established pattern of rural development, maybe the historic, obsolete, wrong, zoning could be changed? Is real estate the only investment where you are entitled to the profit you want? After all, the owners have had 25 or so years to develop the site and haven't been able to profitably do it, evidently. Now it is for sale while they are still pushing the application. If we were cynical, we would suspect something afoot but we admit we have no idea the owner/developers motives.

Meanwhile, the thirty-some odd members of the South Valleys Development Review Committee (SVDRC) working groups are adapting their comments to the requirements of the Regional Master Plan. They will once again show that the development cannot make the requirements of the plan in many ways.