[{"_1":2,"_109":-5,"_110":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,97],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6401152,"mediaKeyId","2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150","parentId",2066094,"title","Commission approves staff changes to Tahoe-area vacation-rental rules, sends to commissioners","audioSeconds",840,"startMs",12025000,"endMs",12865000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150&start=12025&end=12865","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150/thumbnail_12025000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6401152/Douglas-County/Nevada/Commission-approves-staff-changes-to-Tahoe-area-vacation-rental-rules-sends-to-commissioners","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6401152-b6d7834466d9977e30f9c0ad0c100313/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141361&Signature=cBdxM1~VaW7fe9nk-TW~JSDQTpUZ6rzHvIuvEEpTVNAdJHgAhTQBKTRWI4sUEpTH62cgyAY1CP5UVPHJsnSGkxmmeGRshAK7KKop1osD9-eSuXIRc45~PzSbU~6SVGf18GNCGl3rt9SQTt8KrFSg4ktkUUZcgQVv6DVFRF6lEC~ulGa8jtzq1gswmCBQEPiotI5bFBcodDT3eaKwCwWpWDh1advKrMr3Mt~oY0wzh0AYuquVnR7f5zoQztCLYsWXiq9C3Jgzukn-M-zT7D9CpY16TbogQ1qdDLQs9TQBL8VWCRLPSV0Gx~9eHPFYwVaammM2XjlL1XGBcA1EQG~e9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Douglas County, Nevada","date","2025-01-04T00:22:33.967Z","article","The Planning Commission voted 6–0 to recommend staff-amended changes to Ordinance 2021-1588, a zoning-text amendment that revises the county’s vacation-home-rental (VHR) rules for the Tahoe Township.

Deputy District Attorney Doug Ritchie framed the amendments as narrowly focused clarifications prompted by litigation challenging earlier VHR rules. The court — identified in the hearing as a federal judge hearing a temporary restraining request — had raised concerns that some language left too little discretion for enforcement and that certain board-appointment provisions could be perceived as biased. Ritchie explained the draft revisions aim to address those concerns while preserving the ordinance framework.

Key changes adopted at the hearing include: clarifying that fines for operating without a VHR permit can be set up to the maximums in the code (rather than an “all-or-nothing” fine); refining advisory-board composition and tie-break procedures to reduce perceived conflicts by designating a non-lake, neutral appointee for tie votes; and other technical clarifications recommended by counsel.

Commissioners discussed several technical points, such as a proposed working definition for “bedroom” in the ordinance to guide occupancy and safety rules. Chairman Brian Walder urged caution about overly prescriptive bedroom definitions, noting fire-marshal input but asking staff to avoid unnecessarily micromanaging residential interiors. Commissioner Christie and others also urged appointment of a Tahoe-focused advisory board member who understands lake-area impacts.

Members of the public and several stakeholder organizations urged a broader reevaluation of the overall VHR policy. The Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe and several builders, represented at the hearing, said the county should slow down and reopen a comprehensive stakeholder process before making further changes. Opposing counsel in the litigation had also made suggestions that informed the staff changes.

After public comment and discussion, Commissioner Brian moved to approve the staff changes and findings in the planning report; Maureen seconded. The motion passed 6–0. The commission’s recommendation and the revised draft ordinance will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Douglas County Planning Commission | August 10, 2021","oneSentenceSummary","Planning commissioners approved staff-revised amendments to the county’s vacation-home-rental rules for Tahoe Township after a legal review and extensive public comment; the ordinance will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners.","taxTitle","taxId",56916,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6401157,"Planning commission backs ordinance requiring maintenance plans for closed golf courses",513,11263000,11776000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150&start=11263&end=11776","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150/thumbnail_11263000.jpg","/articles/6401157/Douglas-County/Nevada/Planning-commission-backs-ordinance-requiring-maintenance-plans-for-closed-golf-courses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6401157-113af795323cce86e2b39042928cc56a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141361&Signature=jjRcbzdbCsfTgV-00kzl34KwG5Mq1AKc365TMWbQkN1E33b-R0io1pg4Hs97GWYYf8PgUrwKYReqJ5CZLLQZl5Ta7ozb~7tRgtDSuU4296FRXhiO4FyQ0fjgwSvMyGZ-yjia89ssowIkRRhqRgu6s8x~f1sV-3A44FeE3eakd~4Eno4JfXyZF3l~ZfaZZIpcW5enGQV50eNCF8quBvLMAw~HqaPROZk41zsZ1N-iPI9BQNkj9JXs58tYDj-syOekK9ZcZgEWNXcmTsumVXDMroPLUQqCFOeU1LS8WFLY2eFh5-ry2ovjeLl5JeRwAGZY83bHywL8WHhQZ7W4kZASCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Douglas County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend Ordinance 2021-1587, a zoning-text amendment that would require a maintenance plan for golf courses that cease commercial operations and increase certain public nuisance fines.

Deputy District Attorney Doug Ritchie and Community Development Deputy Director Sam Booth presented the drafting rationale. Ritchie said the changes respond to residents’ concerns that large, unmaintained golf-course landscapes can pose fire, mosquito and blight risks if commercial operations stop and no maintenance plan is in place. The draft would require owners of a golf course that stops commercial operations for a defined period to submit a maintenance plan; the county would reserve enforcement options if plans were not followed.

The proposal also increases residential public-nuisance fines from $125 to $250 and nonresidential fines from $125 to $750, consistent with the county’s interest in stronger deterrents for large properties that present hazards.

Commissioners debated timing and scope. Several raised winter-season concerns and recommended lengthening the time allowed for operators to file a maintenance plan if closure occurs in low-season months. District Attorney staff recommended replacing the initial 14-day window with a longer period; commissioners discussed 30 to 90 days and agreed to language that gives staff discretion to treat seasonality and allow operators to demonstrate an active maintenance plan.

Community Development director Tom Dallaire clarified the amendment targets the golf-course use category and not agricultural operations or natural open-space easements. “This is specific to golf courses and related facilities,” Dallaire said; enforcement of general weed and fire risks on other parcels continues under existing property-maintenance code and fire-protection authority.

After public comment (none specifically opposed at the hearing) Commissioner Bryce moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the staff-proposed changes; Maureen seconded. The motion passed 6–0.

The ordinance will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final action; staff said they will refine the time-period and maintenance-plan language before the board hearing.","After a staff and legal presentation, the commission approved changes that require maintenance plans for golf courses that cease commercial operations and raised nuisance fines; staff and D.A. clarified the proposal applies to golf courses, not general agriculture or open space.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":92,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6401161,"Planning commission sends mixed recommendations on growth-management amendments to commissioners",0,1938000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150&start=1938&end=1938","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150/thumbnail_1938000.jpg","/articles/6401161/Douglas-County/Nevada/Planning-commission-sends-mixed-recommendations-on-growth-management-amendments-to-commissioners","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6401161-0cdcccfa783f2f804bd6507cd473fea8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141361&Signature=jcOb05ZKDZZQ9UCEje-NMrUsUmPsEIj~UyU5y5avvsitOovrjGFVSys7gNY8r3qm6qdeNtB7G6ckKYy9GFdh5QpSAVQVc6N4iBYhEKSIPq8ziWj6lm7-ghTyXWs3s3AP4e~xJqlk2TuuhoMjEzF7SnUUQtE~V3Gz8jCWED1kQgMhx8nFKIYWTP4zRMeaCQUcKtYh2RAA8wKpEqzflCARXiSdJAgjasFEkkczIdTPv~d60ffg~JzOR1YyPwHReyJjlz3gWdJKMJzLBBIijSQyZC7MzJRwyu~4PClFBpRNs~dNFVl~xPvTROP0nd8qbjkvfOjPUpDHJFS~604VX0NvNQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Douglas County Planning Commission considered Ordinance 2021-1589, a comprehensive set of proposed amendments to the county’s building-permit allocation (growth management) ordinance, and voted to forward its discussions and recommended edits to the Board of County Commissioners without recommending approval or denial.

The proposed ordinance would make multiple changes to Title 20.560, including clarifying how accessory dwelling unit allocations are classified; shifting issuance of allocations from fiscal to calendar year; limiting carryover and use of unused allocations (the “excess pools”); striking a banking-and-borrowing provision; and directing periodic review of decennial census data to inform allocation procedures.

Staff Deputy Director Sam Booth summarized the package, explaining the proposed changes were prompted by Board direction after a July presentation of historical allocation data and pending projects. “This section is amended to state that allocations will be issued annually for each calendar year,” Booth told the commission, adding staff recommended several phrasing adjustments to avoid unintended changes to the ordinance’s 2% growth rate over the 50-year projection.

Presenters and public witnesses offered conflicting views. Jim Slade, chairman of the Sustainable Growth Committee, urged protections that preserve long-term limits on growth, arguing the allocation system was adopted to protect groundwater, infrastructure and the county’s rural character. “The goals of SGC were, of course, to control growth to a level our natural and fiscal resources can support,” Slade said.

Representing industry, Aaron West of the Nevada Builders Alliance urged caution against sudden substantive changes and asked for more data and stakeholder input. He noted that since 2007 the county has used only a fraction of the allotted permits and that entitlement and market factors kept construction below the 2% glide path.

Legal counsel for the county, Deputy District Attorney Sam Taylor, advised that while the board can redistribute allocations between pools by resolution, it cannot eliminate the total number of allocations in the 50-year projection without first taking the change to voters. Commissioners debated mechanisms to distribute excess allocations over time — staff proposed a 10% annual cap on issuing from the pools and an expiration mechanism that staff later recommended striking. Several commissioners proposed alternate approaches, including capping issuance by a fixed number per year instead of a percentage.

After extended public comment, including from local developers who said their projects and significant investments rely on the current allocation framework, the commission did not take a recommendation to approve or deny the ordinance. Instead Commissioner Bridal moved that the commission forward the record of its discussion and the staff changes to the Board of County Commissioners without an overall endorsement; Mark seconded. The motion passed 5–1 (Commissioner Bryce opposed). The commission’s packet and staff presentation will form the basis of the report the board will review when it takes up the ordinance.

Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer redlines and the specific draft language for any recommended edits so the public and board members can review the exact changes. The Board of County Commissioners will receive the planning commission’s materials for further consideration.","After extended public and expert testimony, the Planning Commission forwarded staff-proposed changes to the building-permit allocation (growth management) ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners without recommending approval or denial.",{"_33":98,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":99,"_41":100,"_43":101,"_45":102,"_47":103,"_49":104,"_51":105,"_53":106,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":107,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":108,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6401165,"Douglas County planning commissioners debate requiring in-person attendance, stop short of a vote",1361,520000,1881000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150&start=520&end=1881","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2066094-92b2d9d9fd1d6afcbe4fcb2b5b891150/thumbnail_520000.jpg","/articles/6401165/Douglas-County/Nevada/Douglas-County-planning-commissioners-debate-requiring-in-person-attendance-stop-short-of-a-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6401165-b8c9ade5b6e77cc5e56fb02c0360b67a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141361&Signature=nyIWIQjZz4Bsja~AuWMQN5a5-TrJimvb5E0s7qZOwDK~~EVdifhsccFJqNnwdNPbVpQGAjPhIpCpSUF-vp3RxLT63YqTYRwgeHX86Atu8jnEf-7s5u49GDW32YYFUzVqu0sx5hhjd0Xx~DRRSoTsGA1ekh-2d1EX4ngdbM5kGrQRl4vJhTBAzRtnaRSKzqxlfn6bCZAMCHhOL~qAHEwn5UsRUnt6ClKbN7tZCSVDq0UNgtrWRsiFY-gZwcMLyT10Y2zkiEKaVogcTeNBntOYMkMzo82OjHWB7~fMWQasWq3DAVwN~XgqsZURwEhDMlBUK0PEF56mNq1Z~h3eHLlu9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Douglas County Planning Commission discussed whether to amend its bylaws to require commissioners to attend meetings in person, but did not take a formal vote.

Commissioner Maureen read the item into the record as a policy question and framed the issue around Nevada open-meeting law, saying, “This is strictly a policy decision on the part of the planning commission.” She said she believes in public, in-person interaction for transparency and accountability, but acknowledged exceptions for travel or health reasons.

Commissioner Christie, speaking remotely, countered that limiting virtual access reduces participation. “When we went back to in person participation only, we went back to excluding a large portion of our community from participating in their local government,” Christie said, arguing the pandemic demonstrated how virtual meetings expanded access for working and younger residents.

Public commenters weighed in on both sides. Longtime local activist Jim Slade said the planning commission should require members to attend in person, but that the public also should have remote participation options. “I believe that that is in the public interest,” Slade said. Michael Avila, a resident, urged the commission to keep the virtual option to address affordability and scheduling barriers for working families.

Commission discussion ranged from the value of face-to-face deliberation to whether a camera-on requirement for remote participants would address concerns about reading facial expressions. Commissioners also noted technical and health accommodations may be necessary for some members.

Chair Brian Walder closed the item without a motion after no commissioner moved to amend the bylaws and said the commission would move to the next agenda item. With no formal motion, the matter was left for future discussion rather than a referral to the Board of County Commissioners.

The debate highlighted a split between commissioners who favor returning to in-person meetings to support public visibility and those who see virtual access as an important tool to broaden civic participation and inclusion.","Planning commissioners debated calls to require in-person attendance for meetings and whether virtual access reduces public participation. Commissioners heard public comment urging virtual access to broaden participation, but took no formal action on Maureen's proposed bylaw amendment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves staff changes to Tahoe-area vacation-rental rules, sends to commissioners

Planning commission backs ordinance requiring maintenance plans for closed golf courses

Planning commission sends mixed recommendations on growth-management amendments to commissioners

Douglas County planning commissioners debate requiring in-person attendance, stop short of a vote