Glenbrook pier ban again before TRPA

Tuesday, April 11, 2000 | 1:50 a.m.

An advisory board to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will hear the proposed pier ban nearly a year after the same issue gained approval from its planning commission.

In May 1999, Glenbrook property owner Robert Daiss proposed a ban on new piers on the bay's half-mile beach area, where only one community pier now exists.

Daiss was concerned because a pier was being proposed near his property by powerful casino lobbyist Harvey Whittemore and wealthy liquor distributor Larry Ruvo.

Lending unofficial support to Daiss, the Glenbrook Homeowners' Association expressed concern that up to 15 more piers could be built if the Whittemore-Ruvo plan went through.

Daiss eventually worked out an agreement with Whittemore and Ruvo, with the pair agreeing to pull their application to build near the property in question.

Now, the homeowners' association is proposing a ban.

Because the existing pier can be used by any property owner in Glenbrook, no new ones are allowed there under TRPA rules. However, a comprehensive rule review now in the works could result in many more piers around Lake Tahoe in the future.

The purpose of the new proposal is make sure pier-building in Glenbrook is prohibited regardless of what shore-area rules may soon change.

"The homeowners want to make it real clear ... their desire to have no new piers in Glenbrook," said Gary Midkiff, consultant for the homeowners' association.

TRPA staffers agree with the association's desire to ban piers along the beach area. The Glenbrook property owners want the ban to extend a few parcels beyond the beach, but TRPA says it can't justify including those non-beach pieces of land.

Midkiff said as many as five piers could go on the land that the TRPA and homeowners are in disagreement about. That includes property owned by Ruvo.

Whittemore's and Ruvo's pier proposals had been met with controversy prior to the TRPA incident last year. During the 1999 Nevada Legislature, Whittemore had an amendment slipped into a Senate bill that would have helped his pier project.

The "Piergate" bill was gutted in the Assembly after clearing the Senate with the controversial provisions intact.