1. The Hunter Creek Project is inaccurately being described and sold as enhancing open space and access when the contrary is actually true. This proposed Hunter Creek residential development is actually converting a beautiful, completely open nature area and trail with existing historical roads and recorded and prescriptive easements into a private gated subdivision with very limited access for the public to the remaining open space and existing trails.

      2. This development will likely be a stepping stone to a much larger 320-acre contiguous development (potentially hundreds of additional homes) where several serious and dangerous safety impacts will be increased by multiples. This proposed development represents a failure to require sale of 320 contiguous acres to U. S. Forest Service to preserve it and to prevent development first and as a condition to other development.

      3. Fire Safety – We feel that fire emergency vehicle access is being compromised to the detriment of the whole region. Why would the County and/or the Fire Department even consider waiving code in an area with such a high propensity for fires and a history of evacuations?

      The development is proceeding without proper primary and secondary fire access – particularly singular secondary access coming from Eagles Nest on a trail only 12 feet wide when fire code requires a minimum of 20. Also: cul-de-sac maximum length violations on both primary accesses (Woodchuck 5,800 feet) and secondary access (1,900 feet).

       4. Traffic Safety

      5. Disingenuous and manipulative lack of proper notice to impacted parties along with intentionally not notifying and not meeting with directly affected and greatly impacted homeowners’ groups. There is a pattern of not following the spirit of the law regarding due process notice. The commissioners totally bypassed the Planning Commission and processed this inadequate secondary access separately. Even the Planning Commissioners found that to be their job and openly questioned this at the September 6th hearing.

            Residents were not given reasonable opportunity to speak at public hearings, including Community Advisory Board meetings as well as at the Planning Commission hearing. In fact, we were highly discouraged from speaking at all and were certainly not heard. 70 concerned residents attended the September 6th Planning Commission meeting, yet we were given only 18 minutes to speak in total, most for only 1 minute each.

      6. Development would compromise the rural nature of neighborhood. The value of the developer’s property is being increased and enhanced while the above undesirable changes and impacts devalue the current owners' property.

      7. Conclusion: None of the above items were given proper consideration and we strongly believe that the process should start over with full review of these critical items and with opportunity for complete community participation. The reason we want this item sent back to the CAB (Citizen Advisory Board) and Planning Commission is to allow for a full review of all options and opportunities to determine alternatives that will preserve the area for maximum open space, parks, quality of life, and public access similar to the Ballardini Ranch.

UPDATE Nov. 7, 2005 — Neighbors blast developer's misleading petition campaign

See for yourself: Visit the Hunter Creek Photo Gallery

Text of the appeal before the Washoe County Commission