Ascente Developments 11/26/22

It looks like the first construction work is underway on the Ascente property at the Fawn Lane entrance. The initial driveway onto the property now has large aggregate. A dump truck appears with a tractor presumably to fill the large depressions in the dirt road that connects the end of Fawn Lane with the end of Brushwood Way. The conditions placed on the developer by the county include a requirement that Brushwood Way not be used for construction access. The first Final Map approved for this development is close to the end of Brushwood Way, so the builder (Toll Brothers) will need to traverse their property so they would logically improve the road for all the construction equipment.

Additionally, the large boulders that builder had placed at the end of Brushwood Way have been removed. The fence with the padlocked gate remain. This is in violation of the requirement that residents be able to cross from Brushwood to Fawn in the case of an emergency evacuation.

Sierra Reflections Gets 8th Extension

The Board of County Commissioners reversed the decision of the Washoe County Community Services Department (CSD) Director denying the final map of Sierra Reflections development (938 residences on 760 acres in Pleasant Valley) on October 25. The result is that the project which received tentative-map approval in 2006 gets an unprecedented eighth extension of 6 months for “first” final map submittal (redux).

Community Services Director Dave Solaro rejected the final map submittal by World Properties for the Sierra Reflections development on 5/31/2022. Their submittal was only 20 days prior to the recording deadline (6/14/2022) when the statutory requirement is a minimum of 60 days. Furthermore, the final map submittal did not include the minimum content of five residential lots. It was late and inadequate.

The developer had previously applied for an extension that was denied by the Board of County Commissioners on 4/26/2022. Commissioner Lucey made the argument at that time that the project was too old and that the design from 2006 was no longer appropriate. He went on to say that “the project does not know what it wants to be.” and that the developer should submit a new plan for the development and start the approval process over.

Kelly Mullen and Dwayne Smith made a presentation representing the Washoe County staff’s position.

  • The final map was submitted after the deadline.
  • The final map did not include 5 residential lots as required.
  • Did not include an environmental site assessment as required.
  • The developer has not completed their plans for sewer lines.

Garrett Gordon gave a presentation on behalf of the developer.

  • He claimed that the only issue before the board was whether or not to approve the final map. He wanted the final map approved rather than an extension. It is not a time to talk about the development itself or related issues.
  • The developer will work on their part of the sewer design when the county has finished with their part.
  • He claimed that the deadline date required by the CSD is not consistent with the last extension of the deadline (development agreement).
  • He claimed that the lot requirement isn’t specifically for a residential lot and that the lots identified in their application meet the legal requirements.
  • The developer has submitted a petition for judicial review of their appeal. The developer will withdraw this petition if the county will approve the final map as submitted.

Commissioner questions

  • Commissioner Lucey asked about the county’s progress on their portion of the sewer design. Smith said that the county had completed their portion of the design. The county has funding and permits to proceed with construction. They plan to put the sewer construction out to bid in January 2023.
  • Commissioner Hartung asked why the developer needs the county to provide a detailed list of deficiencies when they have not submitted a detailed design yet? The developer should know the requirements for conformance.
  • Lucey asked if additional conditions could be added to the development agreement as part of an extension granted by the county. Nate Edwards (County Attorney) answered that minor conditions could be added regarding the agreement but not conditions regarding the substance of the development.

Commissioner discussion and comments

  • Hartung has a problem with the fact that this project is so old and that so much has changed. “We’ve seen so many changes in the region including traffic patterns …” Repeated extensions mean that we have to retrofit for previous codes.
  • Commissioner Jung made an extended free form comment that proved indecipherable.
  • Lucey made the point that the I-580 highway wasn’t complete in this area when the Sierra Reflections tentative map was approved in 2006. He would like to see a new development agreement with additional conditions of approval.
  • Nate Edwards thinks this appeal is a pretty “novel scenario”. Where an extension is denied and then a final map is submitted of questionable merit. Whatever they decide will not establish a new precedent.
  • Lucey recognized that he had opposed an extension to this project in April. He was frustrated with World Properties.


  • Lucey made a motion to overturn the decision of the CSD Director and to give the developer 180 days to submit a new final map and then 60 days to have it recorded.
  • All five commissioners (Herman, Hartung, Hill, Jung) voted in favor of Lucey’s motion: it was unanimous.

There was no public comment.


AGENDA (see item 16)