I would like to make public comment supporting this project. I personally bought a home in Pleasant Valley because I desired a place that was outside of the Spring Creek Association. As a local realtor, I talk to people everyday who want to live in Spring Creek but do not want to purchase property in the SCA. Especially people who have livestock, other animals or those that are concerned about the fees and Great Basin Water System. I do not agree with the traffic argument, I would not consider 30 minutes of slower traffic at the roundabout at 5pm everyday an issue when the rest of the time traffic moves freely and without any issues. Traffic in Spring Creek is way better than Elko traffic. The development can pay a road fee to SCA for additional wear on the SCA maintained roads like other subdivisions already do. The developer has water rights needed to subdivide parcels below the 40 acre rule. The opposing parties soil concerns are interesting considering that the soil in the proposed development area does not differ at all from the soil where the existing adjacent homes septic tanks already are. These people purchased homes with septic tanks with the same soil - but other people shouldn’t be allowed the same opportunity? I support having more housing options in the Spring Creek area. I believe one day there will be a point when the area is maxed out, but I do not think we are there yet. Please approve more housing opportunities in a great community with many benefits.

I oppose this rezoning, these parcels need to stick to the original zone plan. We don't have the infrastructure in regards to roads but most importantly, we don't have the water especially considering the high density Ruby View Estates had it's rezoning approved.

Please deny zone change. My concerns are more traffic on highway and on Palace parkway, water shortages and the inability to get water right. I also would like the ruby mtns to remain undeveloped.
Thanks, Ted Taylor
Spring Creek resident