Terra Vi Lodge hearing delayed after new appeal is filed
A public hearing for an appeal of Tuolumne County Planning Commission’s approval of Terra Vi Lodge outside of Groveland has been delayed until Dec. 29, after a group opposed to the project filed a separate appeal on Friday and accused the person who filed an initial appeal on Dec. 3 of having a connection to the owner of the property where the proposed resort would be constructed.
The new appeal was filed Friday on behalf of Save Sawmill Mountain by the group’s attorney, Ellison Folk of Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger, LLP, a San Francisco-based law firm that specializes in land use and environmental law. As a result, the county delayed the hearing that was previously scheduled for this Friday.
Folk also submitted a letter to the county Board of Supervisors, which will consider the appeal, alleging the original appeal filed by Clare Cosovich less than two days after the county Planning Commission approved the project should be tossed out because she’s engaged to a relative of the property owner, Carol Manly, wife of the late Tim Manly.
Cosovich could not be reached for comment on Monday, nor could Joel Manly, the son of Carol and Tim Manly.
“She is not an ‘aggrieved party’ within the meaning of the (county code of ordinances) and her appeal is specious,” the letter from Folk stated. “Because it does not constitute a valid appeal, the County should not have set the Board hearing based on its filing.”
Folk said her clients became aware of the engagement through Facebook, where Cosovich’s profile publicly lists a person named Nick Manly as her fiancé.
A separate public hearing is still scheduled to take place at 2 p.m. Thursday for the board to consider appeal filed by Save Sawmill Mountain over the approval of the Under Canvas glamping resort project that would be located at Hardin Flat Road and Highway 120, about a quartermile from the Terra Vi Lodge site, on land also owned by Manly.
The county is required to schedule a public hearing at least 10 days from the date an appeal is filed, which is why the now cancelled hearing was scheduled for this Friday after Cosovich's appeal was filed on Dec. 3.
Many opponents of the projects have accused the county of trying to rush through the process so that three outgoing county supervisors will be able to vote on the appeals before they leave office at the start of January, which Folk reiterates in her letter and states that the county has made procedural errors as a result.
“We urge the County to defer action on the project until the new Board members are seated.” the letter stated. “This project, as well as the Under Canvas project, will have significant impacts on the surrounding community. The new Board, elected by the voters in Tuolumne County, should be given the opportunity to ensure the projects are in the best interests of the community and that all of their many impacts have been fully disclosed and mitigated.”
Folk said she and her clients believe the original appeal was filed to get a hearing for the appeal scheduled more quickly, which she's never seen happen before in her 30-plus years of environmental law.
Quincy Yaley, community development director for the county, said there were contents of Folk's letter about the legality of Cosovich's appeal that were not accurate. She said any “aggrieved party” can file an appeal and that the hearing was pushed back “to ensure all requirements for noticing under the Brown Act and Ordinance Code are met.”
Cosovich's stated in a brief email to the county that she has been a lifelong Tuolumne County resident and didn't believe there was enough water in the area to serve the development, in addition to paying the $1,000 fee for filing an appeal.
Cody Nesper, deputy county counsel, also said that the county doesn't have any information on the “purported connection between Ms. Cosovich and the Manlys” and there are no specific rules defining what constitutes an “aggrieved party.”
“The County treats all aggrieved parties fairly, without regard to their identity or affiliations, and does not investigate particular aggrieved parties or make any judgments regarding the legitimacy of their request for an appeal hearing,” Nesper said in an email. “If the aggrieved party files the proper documentation, that appeal is processed in accordance with the Ordinance Code.”