Reno City Council members on Wednesday approved updates to the Bella Vista Ranch Phase II Planned Unit Development (PUD). Changes included several requirements surrounding building sizes and the removal a requirement that developers provide a watering area for the Virginia Range feral-estray horses.
Initially, the PUD was initially approved for 575 homes on 19 acres. It has since been amended to allow for 609 homes on 27 acres. There is no increase in density, just in development size. Council member Naomi Duerr, the council’s de facto horse advocate, has in recent months pushed for the developer to work with wild horse advocates on how to best handle horse safety.
During the initial permit for the PUD, certain conditions were agreed to, including providing water access to the wild horses. According to Duerr, in 2013, developers agreed to provide water access to the horses and access to Steamboat Creek at the north end of the project.
She said that regardless of development within the area, the developers should not be allowed to simply delete provisions they previously agreed to in their permit. Duerr added that if they did not want to provide a watering area, she would be amenable to the developer providing funds to help mitigate the issue, which could be dedicated back to the wild horses.
In advance of the Wednesday meeting, however, Duerr wrote a memo to city officials saying the developers “proposed deleting the horse watering conditions in thew newly drafted PUD.
Dispute erupts over water for horses
Tensions flared between Duerr and the developer’s representative, attorney Garrett Gordon, over requirements for the horses. One argument repeatedly raised by developers is that the Virginia Range wild horses are not “wild” but are instead designated as feral livestock by the Nevada Department of Agriculture.
Gordon said that it is illegal to water feral livestock. However, both Duerr and Mayor Hillary Schieve cited statements from the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA), that indicate that while it is not advised to water wild horses, it is not illegal.
NDA’s factsheet about the horse population reads: “Watering horses is not illegal under NRS; however, the NDA recommends NOT watering horses in or near urban areas or major roads out of concern for public safety. Please be aware that some local jurisdictions have additional restrictions on watering
estray horses.”
“You can’t just follow a law to the nth degree and then kill the very things it’s designed to help.”
Duerr claimed that the developers misconstrued state law, which only applies to federally owned land, as opposed to private or city-owned land.
Gordon told Duerr that “everything [she] said completely misstates the law,” and that the NDA states you cannot water livestock unless you own, possess, or manage them yourself.
“And why? Because you can’t own, possess or manage the livestock and water them without a water rights permit,” Gordon said.
He said that while there is no prohibition against watering feral and stray animals incidentally, providing regular water sources requires a water rights permit issued by the state engineer. Gordon further argued that the state owns the horses, and no such permit could be granted to the city or the developer.
“So it’s a crystal-clear law, Council [member] Duerr, and we’ve met on the property at least a half dozen times in the last two years,” Gordon said. “We even fenced the property pursuant to your — and I say your because you’ve taken credit for it over and over — feral horse management plan, a fencing plan, a contiguous horse fencing with no gaps, which horses may enter the property in accordance with [state law].”
“we voted to deny it because they didn’t provide the water.”
He also said that city code prohibited asking developers to implement provisions regarding wild horses.
Schieve asked if the city code differed from the NDA’s provisions regarding watering wild horses and if the developer was complying with all provisions. “Because we gave you direction, and you’re following direction, right?” Schieve asked.
According to Leah Piccotti, an associate planner with the city, the developer is meeting all of the same criteria in the Reno municipal code that other recently approved developments in the area have met.
Duerr argued that in those cases, those PUDs did not include water and did not have conditions requiring them to provide it for the horses, which Bella Vista does. “When we have a PUD that was done before ordinance changes, we go with the PUD,” she said.
She also stated that they do not need permits from the state engineer to allow animals — any animals — to drink from a creek. “You can’t just follow a law to the nth degree and then kill the very things it’s designed to help,” Duerr said. “It’s inconsistent.”
Piccotti said that, in 2019, language was proposed to be modified in the PUD, removing the watering conditions by the city’s own legal staff.
“There was a whole discussion … because our legal staff didn’t want watering horses in the PUD handbook, and they asked the developer at that time to reach an agreement with Wild Horse Connection outside the PUD handbook.”
“I’ve never heard that,” Duerr said. “And we voted to deny it because they didn’t provide the water.”
Piccotti said they denied it because there wasn’t a standard in place for what to do with the wild horses and to give the developer time to work with Wild Horse Connection.
“Right, to figure out the water,” Duerr said.
Schieve, growing impatient, said they needed to move on.
Council member Meghan Ebert said that the provision to water the horses is still in the PUD and that staff and developers are asking to have it removed.
Language removal
“From staff’s perspective, and from the 2019 meeting, the city attorney advised that the language not be in the PUD handbook because, if it’s in the handbook, it’s essentially zoning code and is enforceable by us,” Piccotti said.
Gordon argued that the city cannot require water access on the developer’s land “because it’s, one, a taking, and two, it’s a direct contravention to your requirement to fence our land to keep the feral horses out.” He reiterated that they couldn’t divert the horses to another area of the property to water them because they would need a permit.
Ebert asked if any agreement or discussions had occurred between the developer and Wild Horse Connection.
“No, there has not,” Gordon said. He explained that all prior amendments had been made under a different owner and a different consultant group, and that his client purchased the property in 2020. He implied that the amendment asking the developer to meet with Wild Horse Connection should not apply.
Gordon said the NDA, “who owns the horses,” wants the horses out of the development property.
Ebert asked if there are any plans to move the horses. She expressed concern about fencing the horses out from their water source and then leaving them to die outside the fences.
Gordon said the horses had already been fenced out of the area and are now “safe” from the construction site.
Schieve voiced frustration with the situation, especially considering the amount of time and effort Duerr and the council have put into the provisions, as well as the developer’s work, only for each side to end up with completely different opinions.
“It’s gotten very, very challenging,” Schieve said. “It’s very hard to understand.”
Since the borders of the wards have recently changed, the project now falls into Council member Miguel Martinez’s ward. He only asked one question to city attorneys during discussions prior to making a motion on the item.
“The removal of that section [of the PUD] is still your stance and recommendation?” Martinez asked.
City attorney Jonathan Shipman replied yes and stated that the city does not own the horses and can’t ask a third party to water them “in violation of state law.”
After this was affirmed, Martinez moved to uphold the recommendation, removing the language and approving the update to the PUD on first reading. However, no one asked why, if that was the case, the condition had been included in the PUD in the first place.
Council member Jenny Brekhus said developers are becoming too bold in making demands of the city and should have to “live with” the entitlements they’ve been given instead of being able to remove conditions from their permits.
Ebert said she would not support the motion because the council should support the PUDs they’ve put in place. Schieve said she would support the motion because there are no horses currently on the property.
The motion passed 4-3, with Duerr, Ebert and Brekhus voting against. The ordinance will return to the council for a second reading and adoption.
