Request for Denial of Modern Land & Development, LLC CUP 26-004.
We respectfully request that the Elko County Planning Commission deny CUP 26-004 as follows:
1. Mr. John George addressed in a clear, concise manner the reasons that this application should be denied. We agree with his assessment.
2. In addition to those concerns, we would also take note that the Elko County Fire Protection District does not currently have available in the Lamoille/Spring Creek area adequate eqiupment and will need to budget additional equipment for the purpose of fire protection and rescue of the proposed resort.
3. Also is a concern of fire breaks. Past experience over our 60 years has proved that a 50-foot firebreak will not be adequate to deter a fast-moving fire. (Range 2)
4. There is no mention of available water and possible snowmaking equipment to make the lifts viable.
5. Prior to approval, environmental assessment of impacts needs to be addressed.

Respectfully submitted,
Ed & Linda Sarman
Ruby Heritage, LLC.

I was born and raised in Elko, and my main takeaway on this proposed private project is simple: property rights matter. A landowner should have the ability to use and improve their property—it is their property, not the community’s to control.

Whether this project is in Spring Creek or elsewhere in the county, we already know our area is growing. With new mining activity and continued development coming into Spring Creek, change is happening regardless. The question isn’t if we grow—it’s how.

Let’s support smart, well-planned infrastructure and growth so we don’t get bottlenecked or forced into reactive decisions later. Thoughtful development benefits everyone.

My name is Aspen Clement. I was born and raised here in Elko. I am in support of the conditional use permit for a lodge and chair lifts on this owner’s private property. That being said, I am also in complete support for this owner to develop the ski resort that they plan to. Aside from the point I believe an owner should have the right to develop their own property as they wish, especially in the best interest of the community. I personally would be beyond grateful to see more people from our community step up and offer healthy activities for locals. There are numerous small towns within a few hours that get to enjoy the benefits of small, local ski resorts. This is something I’ve always envied since it is something the size of our community would greatly benefit from. I believe if this community had more healthy activities especially for our youth we would see a decrease in substance abuse, suicides, and other things that plague our town. I also find it a bit appalling how many in the area are unsupportive of our rights to our land as private owners. For a town with houses of ill repute and large mines (not exactly friendly to our environment), it’s unfortunate to see a wonderful project like this get so much push back. Lastly I would like to thank all involved especially the Shanks (our local family) that are involved in this project. I’m thrilled to see some positive development in this area that benefit so many people, thank you.

While this proposal is purportedly for "private use," it will greatly impact almost all area residents who will have NO benefit from its existence. It will permanently scar that area of the otherwise pristine Ruby Mountains. If 5 chair lifts are constructed at considerable unwarranted cost, the developer will ultimately wish to receive some tangible and ongoing return on that significant investment. The proposal that it is only for "friends and family" to use is highly suspicious, especially as an initial request for a public-access ski area on the property was denied. Ski areas typically are lit up at night to facilitate grooming and snow making, so those lights would add light pollution to the area and landscape. The beauty of the Ruby Mountains is largely due to its pristine nature; this proposed development would significantly damage that pristine and beautiful quality. If the proposed project were to be craftily turned into a public-access ski area at some point in the future, there would be even more significantly detrimental effects on the area and its infrastructure and quality of life. I sincerely oppose this proposal, as so many others have also done. Please do not pass it.
Kristi Glass
Lamoille, NV

I spoke at this commission in support of the original zoning application and I'm back to support this conditional use permit. It is genuinely unfortunate that the original application wasn't approved. The previous project would have benefited so many. I still believe that vision had merit and we missed an opportunity. But tonight we are discussing something different, and something that should be straightforward to support regardless of how you felt about the original proposal. This is a property owner improving his own private land for his own use. A private lodge, a five-chair lift, and some trails will generate far less traffic than the wedding venues and events that regularly operate in the area. Those concerned about environmental impact should know those reviews happen through separate regulatory processes and that is not what is before this commission tonight. There is already precedent for this type of private development in the area. Property rights are foundational, and this owner has shown patience and good faith throughout this process. Some opposition still seems aimed at the larger resort project that was denied, but that is not what we are discussing. I wish this could be something all of our families could enjoy together. But even setting that aside, this property owner has every right to develop his land. Please support this permit. Thank you.

I live in northern Nevada, but not in Elko. However, given that the proposal may have an intent to attract visitors from outside of Elko, I believe non-local perspectives have value in this discussion. I am drawn to Elko and the Ruby Mountains because of its unspoiled, off-the-beaten path beauty. I am decidedly not attracted to the possibility of developed lift skiing in the Ruby Mountains. To the contrary, I would be less likely to visit Elko and the Ruby Mountains during winter if this proposal were to move forward into development.

I highly oppose any development of land on the Ruby Mountains. My reasons are as follows:

1: Environmental: The disruption to local wildlife would be significant. The roads and trails that would need to be built for construction and maintenance alone would remove habitat for our Mule Deer and Turkeys. The extra foot/tire traffic would damage soil and lead to increased erosion. On top of that, the water that would be needed to sustain any snowmaking would put extra strain on the aquifers that support surrounding ranches and SC as a whole.
2: Eye Sore: Having lived in places with visible Ski resorts, they do nothing to improve the view of our mountains. That's especially true after dark when runs are lit for night skiing. The light and noise pollution would destroy the peace we have here in Spring Creek. Not even to mention how easily seen these lifts would be. Already, you can quickly spot the new road cut across the Rubies face from the summit. This property is not out of the way where no one would notice but rather in plain view from every back yard.
3: Cultural: The Ruby Mountains are completely unique in Nevada. They aren't some desert hill like Elko Mountain or the Adobes. A large development would take something we could never get back. The untouched land. Along with that, the small community sense is something many would miss once it's gone and building a ski resort would be the first step in destroying our local culture. Don't let us become Sun Valley or Tahoe.

I wish I could present this statement in person so my passion could be fully heard, but I hope my words convey my feelings clearly.

I strongly oppose the proposal to build a private ski resort in the Ruby Mountain Range due to its lasting negative impact on our community. This project, though smaller than the previously denied proposal, would still cause irreversible harm. The original plan was rejected because of its environmental and community impacts. Reducing its size does not change those fundamental concerns.

My wife and I, along with many of our neighbors, chose to live at the base of the Rubies with great care. One of the most important reasons was the unspoiled beauty and character of the mountains themselves. A ski resort of any size would permanently alter the landscape, introducing structures and visible scarring that would forever change the face of the range.

This development provides no public benefit. It is not intended for the community, but for an exclusive private group, while those of us who live here bear the consequences. The loss of pristine views will diminish the appeal and value of our homes and erode the very qualities that define our community.

I urge decision-makers and the community to oppose this private resort and to protect the land, values, and way of life that led so many of us to call this place home.

This proposal fails to meet the standard of public benefit required for approval. It is not a public resort. It is a private, gated development intended for a limited membership, with access, amenities, and economic activity restricted to those who can afford entry. That distinction is critical when evaluating whether the impacts on the broader community are justified.

The benefits of this project are private and concentrated, while the burdens are public and widely distributed. Local roads, emergency services, and law enforcement will absorb increased demand. Nearby residents will experience changes to traffic, density, and the rural character that existing plans are meant to protect. These are real and lasting impacts that extend beyond the project boundaries.

A development of this scale should demonstrate a clear, measurable benefit to the general public. This proposal does not. It does not provide meaningful access, shared infrastructure, or economic integration with the surrounding community. Instead, it operates as a closed system, capturing its own spending while externalizing its impacts.

Approving this project would set a precedent that private exclusivity can outweigh community benefit in land use decisions. It does not meet that standard and should be denied.

Should not be allowed!

Looking at a Forest Service map, it appears to me that private property and forest service land is checker bordered in this area. I would like to know how the U.S. Forest Service is addressing the concern of the local citizens in land management issues. In particular I am confused as to why Mike Shanks was allowed to bulldose a road across the mountains in Sept 2024 without permission from the Forest Service. This now can be seen from a long distance as a scar upon this mountain range.

While I can appreciate that many residents wish to have a local ski resort, there are major concerns about what is being proposed here for a CUP. I realize a small-scale private resort may be allowable within OS zoning & that would be one thing. However, what has me questioning this request, is the proposal for up to 5 ski lifts.

It's puzzling that the developer is planning to spend a large amount of money on a private resort & potentially 5 ski lifts for just 'friends and family'. Which causes me to suspect this may be a backdoor way of eventually getting the zoning change originally requested but was denied in 2024.

If it turns out to be an end run around the denial of re-zoning & it becomes a large commercial public ski resort, my main concerns are the issues regarding the lack of the infrastructure, the lack of an additional paved route into Spring Creek & water availability. We still don't know the details on if he plans to make snow or not. If all this was in place this winter, they would have been skiing on rocks without that capability.

There are other concerns in regards to the streams this development will impact. More roads, ski lifts, ski runs plus the removal of vegetation for that kind of development will create more erosion and runoff which has the potential to cause degradation of scarce surface water resources.

Given the uncertainties mentioned, I feel this application for a CUP should be denied as it stands. Thank you for your consideration.

Oppose
The serenity and majestic Ruby Mountains need to stay as is. It should be a PROTECTED area from defacing natural beauty. Once the damage is done, it CANNOT be restored to the natural beauty.
I oppose the Conditional Use Permit in the Ruby Mountains.
The negative impacts will be devastating. It will bring soil erosion, possible landslides and avalanches, and a negative impact on plant life and the wildlife. Plus, during the numerous dry winters, the water is very scarce. Then there is the adverse effect of making artificial snow and supplying water for the machines to make the snow. Will it be legal for them to stop the natural water flow to make a holding reservoir or pond to supply the water ? If they have wastewater trucked in, where is this water from and where will it be stored and what will the impact of wastewater have ? These are only a few points, there is so much more to consider the roads, heavy equipment, law enforcement, disturbance issues and what if the resort and ski lift fails, then what? Will private parties be allowed to purchase shares?
I am a lifetime resident. I grew up hiking, camping and doing family outings in the Ruby Mountains.

Please, consider ALL the negative impacts this will have and PLEASE keep as “Open Space.”

If this was directly in your backyard and now you will have the possibility to see a lodge & ski lift every day rather than the untouched Ruby Mountains, you might think differently.
Sincerely,
Renee Wright

Some places are too important to turn into private playgrounds, and the Ruby Mountains are one of them...

I am commenting to oppose the Conditional Use Permit in the Ruby Mountains.

I grew up in these mountains. My family's home is here, and the Rubies have always been a place of peace and grounding for me. They are not just a landscape—they are part of who I am. The proposal to develop this area for private use is deeply concerning and disheartening.

This proposal introduces development into land designated as Open Space—land meant to PROTECT natural and agricultural resources. As outlined in greater detail by others, this is a fragile environment that is not well-suited to disturbance.

Construction, road building, and ski infrastructure would cause lasting environmental damage, disrupt wildlife habitat, and introduce light and noise pollution into an otherwise quiet landscape. The Ruby Mountains are known for their stillness and natural beauty—qualities that cannot be restored once lost.

I also question the public benefit of this project... This appears to be a private development for non-local use, with environmental and community impacts borne by residents. That is NOT AT ALL a fair or reasonable tradeoff.

The Ruby Mountains are a shared and irreplaceable resource. Once altered, they cannot be restored to what they are today.

I respectfully URGE the Commission to deny this permit request and protect the integrity of this special place.

Sincerely,
Cammy Evans

So many good memories fishing, hiking, camping with friends…enjoying every season, like visiting an old friend. Fall colors, snow covered mountains, Spring flowers where you think you can see the curvature of the earth, waterfalls and summers hiking with lake surprises. A place of peace, staring at the Milky way and then a shooting star.

Growth is going to happen, no matter what and someday, maybe a ski lift. more golf courses, premier homes dotting these beautiful mountains to have that view and eventually a road that goes straight through to the next valley. Can Elko keep up with the traffic, has there been more studies to Wildlife such as the Himalayan snowcock and other wildlife, …when dynamite is set off for avalanche control for the skiers …will it set off more avalanches further up in the canyon and how about erosion?
How fast will zoning change after this so those wanting the view start building their homes upward. . .
Could this be the beginning to connect to the next valley, the beginning of a new community.

Oh the possibilities…I think I like the Ruby’s the way they are, it’s nice to know an old friend is waiting untouched full of future memories for the next generation. I oppose

Katrina Olson

Too many negative impacts on the environment and resources. There is already heli skiing for those interested that is not demanding on resources. Where is this developer going to draw its customer base from? Certainly not Reno or Salt Lake who have large populations near many ski areas. Why destroy our natural resources for this folly?

Please consider the impacts that a private ski resort would have on our community resources. We as a community, do not have the capacity to support the demands of a ski resort that would need to make snow to be useable, as proven by a very dry winter. Wells are drying up, the Humboldt River is fully appropriated, and more homes are already zoned to be built, increasing the demand on an already strained system. In addition, our community is small, rural, and enjoys our natural beauty. None of is want to see five ski runs carved into the side of our backyards, just for the benefit of a few friends and family. If the intent of the purchase of this land was to enjoy the generational property and rugged, beautiful mountainous terrain, then I would encourage the landowners to enjoy their land in the aspect that it was intentionally zoned for.

I write in support of Modern Land and Development’s application for a Conditional Use Permit.

The project will provide good jobs and will have positive economic development affects throughout the community. It will strengthen recruitment and retention of professionals across industries, especially in health care. A year-round recreation amenity—skiing, biking, hiking, and more—will enhance quality of life and help rural Nevada compete for professionals. Given ongoing workforce shortages, particularly in health care, this matters. Our mining industry and other sectors would benefit as well.

Additionally, a ski resort will help attract students to Great Basin College. Research shows students often remain in the communities where they study. Growing enrollment and graduating more locally trained students would help build the professional workforce Elko County needs.

A ski area will certainly increase commercial air traffic to Elko, creating more flight options and lowering fares at Elko Regional Airport. For decades, our community has pursued solutions to our limited air service without lasting success. The most effective way to expand service is to create demand. A destination resort will give travelers an excellent reason to fly here.

Finally, the project is on private land. Rural Nevadans value property rights, and this proposal represents a meaningful economic development opportunity for our community.

Please See attached letter

I strongly oppose this request for a number of reasons. The area where Mr. Christodoulos plans to develop his personal playground is vast, visible, and highly sensitive to disturbance. This type of thin-soiled, low moisture mountain terrain does not recover from carving roads, bringing in large equipment, and building resorts and ski runs. It will inalterably change the mountain, impacting wildlife and fragile plant communities. It will bring in light and noise pollution. These changes will benefit no one in the community and will be an eyesore in an area whose character is shaped by the beauty of the Ruby Mountains. The question for you is not whether granting this permit can be done, but whether it should be done. I say, clearly no.