December 12, 2012

Commissioner Hafen

states he gave some small typographical errors to staff prior to the meeting.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to approve minutes. Commissioner King seconded.

Commissioner Hafen

will abstain from Item #12, his family owns property in the direct vicinity. Page 2 of 25 Revocation Hearing:

Mr. Osborne

states the applicant has requested a continuation of the item to the January 16, 2013 meeting due to a medical condition. Staff recommends it be continued to the January 16, 2013 meeting.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Mr. Watkins if they need to take public comment on the item.

Mr. Watkins

states if we get a motion to continue the item and it passes we won’t be hearing any merits on the item so we don’t need a public comment.

Commissioner Parker

motions to continue to the January 16, 2013 meeting. Commissioner McCall seconds.

Mr. Osborne

states the item was originally heard by the RPC on November 14th, there was no motion made so the item died. The applicant has requested a rehearing and the District Attorney’s office is recommending it be reheard and the only addition is Condition #9 stating the maximum amount of dogs allowed on the property at one time is 15 dogs, not including puppies that are less than six months of age.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the board for questions, and there were no questions from the board to staff.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant. Jon Arriola represents the applicant. The applicants have 12 dogs they aren’t going to breed dogs for profit. They aren’t a commercial kennel and only have the dogs for their enjoyment, they show the dogs and there won’t be any commercial traffic to the property. It is more like a residential kennel, the fencing will be up and they clean up after the dogs.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Mr. Arriola if the applicants have any problems with condition #9. Page 3 of 25

Mr. Arriola

stated they have no problem with the limit of 15.

Commissioner Hafen

states the applicant stated they don’t intend to breed on a regular basis. The concern from the public is that there will be excess traffic due to a commercial breeding at the commercial kennel. The board has to look at it as if the applicant leaves they are giving the conditional use to the property not to the applicant. Would the applicant be willing to limit the litters to one per year?

Mr. Arriola

stated he doesn’t believe there would be a problem with that.

Commissioner King

asks how many breeding pairs the applicants have.

Mr. Arriola

stated he doesn’t have that information.

Commissioner Parker

addresses staff and states that a category needs to be in place between Residential and Commercial kennels. Something like a dog fancier or a cat fancier.

Mr. Osborne

stated they are working on a code amendment and it will be brought before the RPC in the next few months.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant.

Mr. Arriola

states there will not be commercial traffic going up and down the road. It is a husband and wife with their dogs, no other people will be living there.

Commissioner King

addresses Mr. Fanning and Mr. Watkins. If this is in fact a private road or has the road been brought for dedication?

Mr. Fanning

states it has been offered for dedication but rejected by the BOCC. Page 4 of 25

Commissioner King

asks Mr. Fanning if is maintained by the county, and if it meets the minimum standards?

Mr. Fanning

stated it is not, and a section of the road would have meet the earlier years back to the mid 1980’s which would have been 6” of pit run gravel where boulders 6” in diameter were removed. When the actual cul-de-sac came in somewhere in 1989 or 1990 that would have meet similar road construction, but it was never approved so an inspection was never done, as it was rejected from the board. .

Commissioner King

states what his understanding of the concerns are is the dust, the speed limit on gravel roads is 25 and even at that speed it is too fast on that road. If it is in fact a private road, can they have a lower speed limit on the road?

Mr. Fanning

states there would be no way to enforce that.

Commissioner King

asks if they could obtain a sign and put it up without conflicting with county code or laws.

Mr. Watkins

stated that would depend on the type of dedication to the County. There are two types of dedication a common law and a statutory dedication. Under Statutory Dedication when it is offered to the county it can be rejected but title still passes to the county. Under common law dedication if it was rejected then it is dead and the offer is no longer available to the County. We would need to see what type of dedication that it was.

Commissioner King

asks if the map states rejected with the offer to remain open till a future date.

Mr. Watkins

stated he doesn’t have that information.

Mr. Fanning

presented the map for Mr. Watkins to review.

Mr. Watkins

stated that the problem is that the only people that can accept land on behalf of the county are the BOCC. What was attempted was Nye County Planning Department attempted to accept or reject it. They have no authority on that.

Commissioner King

stated that they don’t know but they did at one time.

Mr. Watkins

stated he would have to look at the date of the statutes in effect at that time to agree on that.

Commissioner King

states it was possible it had been offered and rejected by the Planning Department if in fact they had the authority to accept on behalf of the BOCC.

Mr. Watkins

states if they had authority and there was an offer and it was rejected then the offer is dead and no longer alive until the offering entity makes the offer again under common law.

Commissioner King

asks if the offer for dedication to remain open was on the map.

Mr. Watkins

states there has been some confusion within the county. They try to accept it under NRS 278.500 & 278.510. Those are statutory dedications and have nothing to do with common law. They couldn’t accept it under those statutes because it isn’t a final map. He would really have to pull all the documents for that area. Page 5 of 25

Commissioner King

asks again if they can put up a speed limit sign up assuming it is a private road.

Mr. Watkins

stated he would have to research that to see if it can be done.

Commissioner Hafen

addresses Mr. Fanning and stated that on the memo he provided was that he requested a dedication of the road ROW along the three roads fronting the subject property and addition to that you request paving or an agreement in the future to participate in that. Finding #5 in the staff report states the conditional use will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, including roads. Do you agree with that statement that they are served by adequate public facilities including streets?

Mr. Fanning

states they do not. Due to the fact there are no public roads that are maintained for access. The improvements have three different options, paving and going through the process and also agreeing to participate in future improvements. The road can remain a trail but in the future they will have to agree to participate when the area does improve. But until then there will be no public maintained road to the facility.

Commissioner Parker

motions to approve CU-12-0018 and to add special condition #10 which will state no animals will be offered for sale or shown from the home. That will cover any commercial kennels in the future as well as this one.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for a second, there is none and motion dies for lack of second.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for a motion.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to approve CU-12-0018 with additional conditions that there be a limit to the litters to one per year, as requested by Public Works the dedication of the Public road ROW 30 ft of Mae Road, 30ft of Woodchips and 30 ft of Alsina Lane be dedicated and to add no dogs will be shown or put up for sale at the residence.

Mr. Watkins

states that a tie is a fail. The item has failed to pass the commission.

Mr. Watkins

asks the Commissioners that voted nay what condition they didn’t agree with, for the record.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the Conditional Use isn’t a substantial improvement to the properties in the immediate vicinity and the CU will not be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, mainly the road and the CU could be hazardous to future and existing neighbors.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to staff.

Mr. Osborne

reviews the staff report. There has been an addendum added to the original staff report. In discussion with the DA’s office it was felt they needed to add 7 additional conditions of approval.

Mr. Osborne

reviews the additional conditions being added: 5. The Conditional Use Permit shall not be issued until all required Federal, State, and Local approvals and permits have been obtained. 6. The landfill shall not be allowed to operate unless and until all required Federal, State, and Local approvals and permits have been obtained. 7. In accordance with Nye County Code 8.24.540 SOLID WASTE PERMIT REQUIRED: Before any solid waste is received or disposed of at the landfill, the Property Owner shall obtain a Solid Waste Permit from the Nye County Board of County Commissioners. 8. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit does not exempt the grantee from compliance with all Nye County ordinances, including any other applicable permit and/or license requirements. 9. NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection) approval of a Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Site Permit does not obligate Nye County to approve a Solid Waste Permit.

Mr. Osborne

states there are at least three separate permits required and the approval of the CUP doesn’t obligate any approval of another permit. The DA’s office feels the application is vague and seems to describe that only industrial waste would be associated with the recycling business that he has. On the site plan it says A1 class landfill, which there is no such thing. They assume he means Class 1 but it doesn’t say that on his site plan. One of the issues with a Class 1 is that they can accept over 20 tons of waste a day, but it isn’t clear why the applicant is applying for a Class 1 landfill instead of a Class 3 which you would have if you had industrial solid waste, like construction demolition debris. That is something that needs to be clarified. The DA’s office is unclear as to what is going into the landfill and where the solid waste is coming from.

Commissioner Hafen

stated previously they approved a CUP for the asphalt concrete plan etcetera and in addition to that a waiver for the 1000 ft from a resident property line and the plan to put fencing. Under the current code would the landfill then require the fencing and/or the waiver for the residential requirement?

Mr. Osborne

states no, the code only says the landfill must meet the Federal, State and County regulations. There is nothing that would require a fence or wall according to Title 17. Page 7 of 25

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant. Rene Morales, applicant, states he is unhappy with the new issues that have come up. He spoke with Mr. Osborne yesterday and he was told there were no issues with the application. He arrives tonight and has new conditions. With condition #10 it states he can’t charge a fee. So that means if he has a call to pick up he has to do it for free? Condition #11 stated the landfill shall be limited to solid waste generated on site. Who is going to pay for the lining and permits for that? Should he just build the landfill to look at, he believes it is unethical.

Mr. Morales

reviewed an application that was approved for John Shea in 2008. Mr. Shea had no extra conditions so why does he have all the extra conditions and asks where the conditions came from.

Mr. Morales

stated he has come to speak with Mr. Osborne on several occasions and there were no issues.

Mr. Osborne

stated they just arose today from the DA’s office.

Mr. Morales

has his engineer that came here from New Mexico and they have been working on this for 6 -7 months.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Mr. Morales what his intentions are for the landfill.

Mr. Morales

stated his intentions are to be a recycling facility, he has read in the paper that the county pays to remove mobile homes and clean up property. He can offer the services for free, take it back to his landfill to the recycling facility, and dismantle it, sell the recyclables and dispose of the excess materials on site. He can help with 25 – 30 jobs for the community. He has a 120 ft hole, 30 acres and he can put 12 million tons of garbage there.

Commissioner Hafen

addresses Mr. Morales asking for clarification on what the project is. You stated you want to dismantle your scrap for your recycling business and dispose of whatever isn’t recyclable for yourself. But you are also telling us you are opposed to the condition to not accept solid waste for a fee from outside your facility. Are you going to accept solid waste from outside your facility or will it be only what will be generated onsite?

Mr. Morales

stated that as a business man if you want a landfill and you ask him to clean up his property he will charge you. It will be to make money. In his report he stated because he will be dumping he will be taking a fee from the landfill. He offered to give back 2.5% of his net profit back to the Park and Recreations and to the Nye County School District. He has to make money somewhere.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Mr. Morales if the proposal is not just for his own waste it is to bring in additional waste, correct.

Mr. Morales

stated whoever has waste he will go pick it up and bring it back.

Commissioner Hafen

stated just like any other landfill?

Mr. Morales

stated no, not like any other landfill. He will not be bringing any household waste. It is a municipal solid waste landfill for his use only. If he wanted to bring Ms. Parkers trash from her back yard he should be able to remove it and charge her. Page 8 of 25

Commissioner Hafen

asked if anyone else will be bringing their trash to his facility other than his own trash to the property.

Mr. Morales

stated no, it will not be open to the public. It will be private for his own use.

Commissioner King

states that if they approve this you could contract with Las Vegas to have them bring their trash out here. What do you see as your limitations? If this is approved as a Class 3 landfill there are no limitations listed. Hue Walker – Applicants engineer, states he can’t accept hazardous waste. If Mr. Morales was in the process of dismantling trailers, he may get organics that would come to the site, he wanted to line the site, hence the Class 1 site. He wants to protect the environment.

Commissioner King

states if we open the door who else will come through that door. He doesn’t want to see trash trucks from Vegas coming into his facility. There needs to be limitations on this.

Mr. Morales

stated that he understands but if the rules apply for one it should apply to everyone equally. In 2008 you approved John Shea with no limitations. It is a Class 1 solid waste facility. They have trucks coming from everywhere, California, Las Vegas and he has no limitations.

Commissioner McCall

addresses staff stating this appears to be a more extensive operation than what we thought or indicated do we still hold that it isn’t going to be hazardous to existing or future neighboring uses as in relations to the municipal wells that are located down the fan. She realizes he will have a liner but is that going to be more of a concern now that it is a more extensive operation.

Mr. Osborne

states that is one of the concerns the DA’s office raised. Not knowing what will be brought in.

Mr. Walker

stated that is part of a process during the design for the site that they will have to put in a water monitoring network that is required by state law. In response to the questions it isn’t necessarily the waste that goes in there you also have to show proof you aren’t contaminating the ground water.

Commissioner King

asks staff if this development will require a site development plan.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes it would.

Commissioner Parker

addresses Mr. Morales and states that she is concerned with the unhappiness with the Conditions #10 and 11. With a Class 1 landfill without the conditions would allow you to bring in trash from Las Vegas, and there would be no way to stop you. Is it possible you would accept these two conditions or is it a deal breaker?

Mr. Morales

states at this point in time he can’t properly answer that question. He wants to open up his Mr. Clean construction clean up business again. If he has someone contact him from Las Vegas that wants him to pick up an old mobile home for him to recycle she should be able to. If he agrees to the conditions he couldn’t do that and he wouldn’t be making money.

Commissioner Parker

states if he is dismantling mobile homes there is nothing stopping him from bringing them here from Las Vegas, we are talking about garbage trucks and if you are bringing it there to dismantle then you are generating the solid waste. Page 9 of 25

Commissioner Koenig

stated that what they are trying to get across is that if you go to Vegas with your truck pick up a trailer, push it into the hole, strip it apart and take what you can salvage into a pile and what you can’t salvage into the hole. What isn’t okay is someone from Vegas bringing their trash here and coming to you and paying you $500 to take his trash. If you generate it on site, that is fine.

Mr. Walker

stated he does design work throughout Arizona, New Mexico and California. He knows of no landfill that has these types of restrictions on it. If you are worried about the traffic then you can put a limitation on the number of tons he can accept. The Nye County Landfill isn’t a lined landfill. He is designing one that is environmentally sound and responsible.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the application is for a Private Municipal solid waste landfill. They are saying is that it shall not be commercial, accepting for a fee. It shall not be allowed. He wants his own private landfill.

Mr. Walker

states private meaning that he won’t compete with the existing franchise. He won’t put collection trucks or bins out on the street.

Commissioner Hafen

states in the staff report finding there are 8 items the board has to look at and agree with the facts and findings. Have you read those facts and findings?

Commissioner Hafen

reviews finding #3, stating his property abuts ½ acre residential property. Where you live would you like a landfill directly behind your house?

Mr. Morales

stated previously when he was approved for his recycling facility and based on the findings they were unbuildable lots and won’t be buildable for many years to come.

Commissioner Hafen

respectfully disagrees with that statement, as a developer in the valley any lot is developable.

Commissioner Hafen

states that Mr. Morales did state he wants to use this for his own personal business to dispose of your own personal waste. But we keep going back to you want to bring trash in from other areas. Condition #4 is that it is a substantial improvement to the property in the immediate vicinity and the community as a whole. Is this for your own benefit or for the community? Is this for your waste you generate from your recycle business or to bring waste from anywhere in the country.

Mr. Morales

stated not from anywhere in the country, any one facility can bring something, except household waste. It isn’t used for his own good if you read his letter to staff he is donating 5% back to the community on the net profits. He is creating sustainable jobs for the community. If he doesn’t make money how can he have jobs? It doesn’t make any sense to spend a million dollars on a liner if he isn’t going to make a dollar.

Commissioner Hafen

stated you are then changing your earlier statement saying this is for your own recycling business this is now completely open for a complete landfill as a Class 1 operation, correct?

Mr. Morales

stated for his own disposal.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he is asking the question that the board has yet to get a direct response to. The question is whether or not the landfill portion of the land is going to be used for Page 10 of 25 your own waste generated onsite or if you will be, as you have stated repeatedly, open to the public for a profit as a private landfill.

Commissioner Hafen

is asking to get clarification to see if this is benefiting the community or only benefiting Mr. Morales.

Mr. Morales

states if he doesn’t make any money it won’t benefit the community, he doesn’t understand the question. He is going to collect garbage from someone and take it to his landfill and it is his private owned landfill for himself. That is garbage generated that he is going to pick up from anyone. He doesn’t want to set limitations that he can’t go to Crystal to pick up a trailer.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that the conditions that have been written by staff are not there to limit your business from doing that. They are here to limit you to allowing and contracting Las Vegas Republic Services and allowing them to come and dump their trucks here. He believes staff wrote that because they don’t want trash from outside the community being delivered here. It is important and as a member of the board it is his job to insure that this doesn’t affect the community as a whole.

Mr. Morales

states where ever he can get garbage he is going to bring it, except hazardous waste.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Mr. Morales if in his research in proposing this business if he had looked into what it would take to close the facility once he is done with the landfill.

Mr. Walker

stated that is part of the permitting process, they have to provide a post closure care for 30 years. It is what NDEP requires and a Federal requirement also.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is also a local requirement that this board has to review stating that each applicant for a solid waste permit shall be required to post bond or other form of security acceptable in the amount equal to 1 & ½ times the estimated cost of terminating the operations.

Commissioner Hafen

would like to get an idea of the financial insurances that will be put in place if this was to be approved.

Mr. Walker

stated the financial insurance could be an escrow account or a number of methods. If in the unlikely event the owner would default the closure fund would be there to provide for proper closure also for post closure care which is 30 years.

Commissioner Hafen

asks where the financial assurance is for this board and what the business plan that you have looked at estimates those costs will be.

Mr. Walker

states they haven’t done the plan yet, they have to design the site so they know what they are looking at, how big it is, what the footprint will be, how high it will be and what the liner structure is going to be and once they know the details to it they then can put a dollar number to it. Nothing has been designed yet, this is an idea in paper and the first step in the process is to get the CUP.

Commissioner Hafen

is concerned that currently the Nye County Landfill charges everyone $30 to close the landfill and it is his understanding to close the Nye County landfill it will cost in excess of $10 million dollars. It is a very large burden for a small facility like you state it will be to bare and he would like to insure the community will be protected and those guarantees will be in place. Page 11 of 25

Mr. Morales

states to Commissioner Hafen that it can be placed as a condition that if he doesn’t provide an original bond he won’t open his facility.

Mr. Walker

stated that he also can’t get a permit from the state without the bond, it is impossible.

Commissioner Koenig

opens public comment at 7:26 pm. William Hill is for the landfill. He has known Mr. Morales for 6 years he has done business with him as a homeowner and he is of the utmost upper character and helped Mr. Hill with nothing to repay. There are a lot of people that need this work that he is proposing. Harley Kulkin states private would be if Mr. Morales has his own old mobiles and wanted to tear them apart and buried them. But this is a Commercial Enterprise. We have another company in town that has a franchise agreement that must be honored. If he were Mr. Morales he would ask for this to be heard at a later date. He has the right to charge people to come pick up their old mobiles or trash.

Commissioner Koenig

states to Mr. Kulkin his application states that he wants a private municipal landfill. What they are trying to do with conditions #10 and 11 is that he can only bring his own trash there. Alfonzo Reca states he is in support of Mr. Morales. He believes this is a good idea because it will bring jobs to the community and share his money with the schools and parks and recreations, he hope you will consider this. Robert J. Cameron property owner and land owner at the Calvada Aeropark and he is in support for Mr. Morales. He does a lot of flying out of the Aeropark and as far as they are concerned there is no concern with obstruction of birds or anything else. Terry Capron represents Desert Utilities Inc., and they oppose the landfill due to the fact it lies close to their primary well that supplies all the drinking water to their customers. They recognize the potential of hazardous materials leeching into the ground and despite the regulatory measures such as lining it doesn’t guarantee materials can’t be leeched into the water table, and could pose a problem to their customer’s drinking water. Kimberly Plummer has concerns as to the effect on the drinking water and the environment. If he does cause some issues with the environment will he have the money to fix it? She is also concerned where the money is going, will it stay here in America or go to Mexico. Tom Oganesoff owner and operator of Top Soil Etc. They have dealt with Morales Inc. the operation is in compliance and well run. Morales Inc. is an asset to the community and they couldn’t find a better location for the landfill. It should serve to complement the Nye County landfill. Sean Wilson asks if Mr. Morales is able to charge a fee to get a trailer and dispose of it what is to prohibit him for charging a fee to take any other solid waste from a client and charge a fee the same way as long as it isn’t hazardous material. So that would be fully doable. He believes he should be able to charge for a trailer as long as he is using his own equipment.

Commissioner King

states that is what they are trying to decide. Page 12 of 25 Alex Delgado is in support of the landfill and he believes it will bring opportunity and revenue for the community. George Romero is in support of Mr. Morales and the landfill. This project isn’t as big as everyone believes it is. He still has many other issues to go through and the jobs that he will be creating for the community is huge. There will be things in place like monitoring and site development to protect the environment. Michael Chow is an employee for Mr. Morales and states Mr. Morales is here to give back to the community. Mr. Morales was the only one to give him a job and he has been the best thing that has happened to his family. He is willing to give back to the parks out here and we should look to see what he can do for the community.

Mr. Cantara

is for the landfill, if he is opening it as private he will help eliminate the thieves that are stealing things off property and taking it to the recycling places. There are a lot of questions that are still to be answered. He is looking for more physical yard trash not household trash.

Commissioner Koenig

closes public comment at 7:53 pm.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant.

Commissioner Koenig

states when a CUP gets approve it stays with the property. If Mr. Morales sells the property the new owners can do what they want with it.

Commissioner King

states this is new ground for the commission, this may be something Mr. Morales might ask for a continuation on and address further with staff and the DA’s office.

Mr. Morales

asks the commission to not place limitations on him as they want to do with conditions #10 and #11. If he takes these conditions the board is setting his employees will suffer. He still has a tremendous amount of work ahead of him and he is asking for approval today with no limitations.

Commissioner Hafen

states he believes that Mr. Morales is here to do the best for the community, but he doesn’t believe the landfill should abut ½ acre residential lots. We need to evaluate whether or not this is an appropriate location. Being next to ½ acre residential high density lots is not appropriate and he is very concerned with the municipal well sites that are in the vicinity for potential contaminations.

Commissioner Goode

states the hole has been here for a long time and the sites behind it might have come after it. Seeing that you can’t tell them no and just leave the hole there or fill it up with dirt. It can be very useful and it will be filled some day and could be a park.

Commissioner Parker

would like to applaud Mr. Morales for the idea and she believes it is a great idea. She has problems with not having conditions #10 and 11 there; she doesn’t want garbage coming from Las Vegas coming here. The CUP runs with the land and he could sell it and because there are so many wells in this town so we have to be careful as to what we bring in.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for a motion.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to deny CU-12-0020 based on the discussion of the board, as this condition will not be harmonious to future neighboring uses in the immediate vicinity and the potential contamination site directly above a municipal Well field. Commissioner Parker seconds. Page 13 of 25 Vote: Motion failed (summary: Yes = 3, No = 3, Abstain = 0). Yes: Gregory Hafen II, Jennifer McCall, Vicky Parker. No: Bob King, John Koenig, Joseph Goode. Absent: Terry Hand.

Commissioner Koenig

states the motion fails.

Mr. Watkins

states the motion to deny has failed.

Commissioner Kings

addresses Mr. Watkins. The items that were added 5 – 11 as presented were concerns from the DA’s office. He did have concerns that if they were approved without items 10 & 11 there is nothing to stop the current or future property owners to bring anything out form Clark County.

Mr. Watkins

stated those were their concerns that is why they recommended those conditions.

Commissioner King

asks if there is a way to reword item #10 to prevent bulk trash disposal from out of the county.

Mr. Watkins

stated the board can do anything they want.

Commissioner Koenig

states the problem is that we might want to go out of the county himself and bring things in.

Commissioner King

asks if he has a fleet of trash trucks.

Mr. Morales

stated no he does have 5 but two are broke down. If he has an opportunity to bring a load he will, he can’t compete with an existing franchise.

Commissioner King

motions to approve CU-12-0020 to allow for a private municipal solid waste landfill facility with all conditions as submitted in the addendum.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for a second, there was none.

Commissioner Koenig

states without a second the motion fails.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for a third motion.

Commissioner Goode

states that conditions 10 & 11 make it so you can’t run a business. What is he doing this for if he can’t collect a fee?

Commissioner Koenig

stated he asked for a private landfill.

Commissioner Goode

states what if he changes his request from a private landfill.

Mr. Morales

states change it to a landfill.

Mr. Watkins

stated the application is for a private landfill and it isn’t noticed on the agenda, we aren’t here to discuss a commercial landfill so we can’t do that at this time.

Commissioner King

addresses Mr. Morales stating he could ask for a continuation to address issues with staff and the DA’s office to see if they can come to a common ground. Page 14 of 25

Mr. Morales

states with the conditions he would make no money. He would have to create a business elsewhere.

Mr. Morales

addresses Mr. Watkins asking if we can be more reasonable with the wording. This is making it impossible to run a business.

Commissioner Koenig

states they will take a 5 minute break at 8:14 pm. Meeting resumes at 8:20 pm.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant.

Mr. Morales

states he would like to ask for a continuance for 30 days.

Commissioner King

motions to continue discussion and voting of the CU-12-0020 for 30 days or until the next meeting. Commissioner McCall seconds.

Commissioner Parker

states that in lieu of the fact the problems with the late minute information from the DA’s office on the previous items and now this one that staff get these in sooner than the last minute.

Commissioner Hafen

addresses Ms. Lee and asks if this was a normal business applying for a junk yard what kind of condition would be imposed on the new business.

Ms. Lee

stated if this was a new business applying there are conditions and safeguards under a CUP requirement. One of which it has to be a certain distance from a county maintained road and in addition it has to be screened from the road way. There would be requirements placed on the property.

Commissioner Hafen

stated a new business would require fencing and 1000 ft from a roadway. Page 15 of 25

Ms. Lee

stated that she believes that is correct but doesn’t have that section in front of her.

Commissioner Koenig

addresses Ms. Lee asking if the State of Nevada doesn’t allow this do we have any option to do anything except to deny it?

Ms. Lee

stated it wasn’t from the state it was from the DA’s office. You are free to not take that under advisement.

Commissioner Koenig

asks if it is based on Nye County statues.

Mr. Watkins

states it is based on the statute NCC 17.04.905B, it is limited to the original grandfathered property. If this is approved someone can buy a piece of grandfathered property and purchase the property next door and request it to be grandfathered. If you are doing it here this could create a host of new properties popping up. The goal is to get rid of non-conforming not create non-conforming. The statute reads it can expand within the grandfathered property not out to another piece of property.

Commissioner Hafen

addresses Mr. Watkins stating he said the original grandfathered parcel. This leads him to believe there cannot be any subsequent sub-parceling in addition or subtraction of the original grandfathered parcel is this correct.

Mr. Watkins

stated we have an original grandfathered lot, and what they have begun is storing vehicles on an adjacent lot from their business. Now they want to extend their grandfathered use to the lot next door. If you want to extend the grandfathered use of his business on the already grandfathered use of property the board could issue a CUP. But for it to extend to a separate piece of property they don’t believe the statue allows that.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant. Urban Chavez speaking for Sergio, the only thing they want is to store cars they want to bring into their business. He was written up because they had cars in the street. No laws or rules have been broken besides storing the cars in the lot they bought. This is two miles from anything. There are no houses, no water, electric or phones they have water tanks on both properties to provide water and they run off of generators.

Commissioner Parker

asks Mr. Chavez what they are doing on each half of the property and are you using the other half as a parking lot.

Mr. Chavez

stated they are using half as a parking lot and the other half to disassemble the cars. It is a salvage yard.

Commissioner Parker

states on the salvage side once the cars are salvaged you move the cars form the other lot to work on them.

Mr. Chavez

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Parker

states this is in the middle of nowhere and asks staff if they can spot zone them heavy industrial or designate it as a parking lot if they take care of the dust problem.

Mr. Osborne

stated that rezoning the other property to Heavy Industrial is the only remaining option. Page 16 of 25

Commissioner Parker

states that is her suggestion and asks if this can be brought back as a zone change.

Mr. Osborne

stated the RPC can initiate a zone change.

Commissioner King

asks staff if the legal non-conforming parcel is the southern parcel and if the code compliance issue is with the northern parcel.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is correct.

Commissioner King

stated when he was out there the other day the northern parcel was almost cleaned up and everything inside the fence. If the applicant were to submit application for a zone change/master plan amendment for heavy industrial that might be looked at as spot zoning but it is a residential zoning area in name only. No one else lives out there. Would that be something they could do? It would make both parcels legal conforming parcels.

Commissioner Koenig

opens public comment at 8:44 pm. Harley Kulkin lives inside the area, and it is Rural Homestead zone and he believes it fits in the area. An option is that it needs a map of reversion to remove the property lines or a waiver request. It is a good location and the zone is correct. George Romero is here to support the CUP. The location is perfect and should be approved. He travels all over the country and every major city you can see a salvage yard from the highway and it is in the right part of town. Vince Cappetto is here to support Oscar and it is the only place in town that deals with salvage and it would be good pick up all the old cars around town. Gary Olsen and he is here on behalf of Oscar. He has bought many parts from Oscar provides them with parts they need and they are just trying to make a living.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the board.

Commissioner Borasky

stated that the public needs to understand we have to stay consistent and if we do it for one we have to do it for all. One way to solve that is to move the PRPD to Roadrunner where we should have stopped a long time ago.

Commissioner Koenig

states if the application was worded differently we would be at a different decision.

Mr. Chavez

asks how they can reword it to make it work.

Commissioner Koenig

states the law says you can’t expand a grandfathered use, you can rezone but we can’t do that tonight.

Mr. Chavez

stated that when they went it to fill out the application they asked questions, is there any way we could rewrite it because they need that lot to stay in business. Page 17 of 25

Commissioner Parker

motions to direct staff to bring this back to the board for consideration to rezone to Heavy Industrial Zoning, due to the fact that the DA’s office got their comments in at the last minute.

Commissioner Borasky

states that even if we rezone it they still have to abide by the code where it requires a paved parking lot.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that you can get a waiver for that.

Mr. Chavez

stated you can gravel a storage area, because he has been made to do that. Had they known about the issues before it would have been reworded.

Commissioner Koenig

asks for a second.

Commissioner McCall

seconds the motion.

Commissioner King

asks Mr. Osborne what options are available.

Mr. Osborne

stated the only option that is left is for a zone change to Heavy Industrial for both parcels, that way we avoid the spot zoning. The Map of Reversion would go against the DA’s option that you can’t change the original grandfathered parcel and with a Map of Reversion it would change the original parcel.

Commissioner King

states it would be a Zone Change and Master Plan Amendment and it would be one application and one fee.

Commissioner Parker

stated if the RPC originates it there won’t be a fee.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Mr. Watkins for clarification if we can motion to direct staff to do something that isn’t being presented in front of the board. Or do they need to wait till the agenda item for action on future meetings.

Mr. Watkins

states you aren’t directing staff to take action on this item you just see a problem with the zoning and he has no problem to direct staff look into the item.

Commissioner Hafen

states he wants clarification whether or not they can direct staff while discussing the agenda item.

Mr. Watkins

stated it would be best if the board is going to deny based on legal opinion to then direct staff to bring it back for recommendation.

Commissioner Parker

asks Mr. Watkins if she should withdraw her motion, and come up with a motion to deny.

Mr. Watkins

stated yes he thinks that would be appropriate, but the second would have to be withdrawn first.

Commissioner McCall

withdraws her second of the motion.

Commissioner Parker

withdraws her motion, and motions to deny.

Commissioner McCall

seconds the motion. Page 18 of 25 Vote: Motion to deny carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Bob King, Gregory Hafen II, Jennifer McCall, John Koenig, Joseph Goode, Vicky Parker. Absent: Terry Hand.

Commissioner Parker

asks Mr. Watkins if she should make her motion to staff now or later.

Mr. Watkins

stated to wait until the item for direction of staff. 11. CU-12-0022: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application to reinstate the previous grandfathered use designation of a Class II Liquor Sales Establishment (Sunset Tavern) on property in the General Commercial (GC) Zoning District, per NCC 17.04.905.I.3, located at 680 S. East Street, further known as Raycraft Subdivision, Block F, Lot 1-6, Part of Lot 4. Pahrump Mobile Home Park, LLC – Property Owner. Daryl Keppner – Applicant. AP# 35-303-01.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to staff.

Ms. Lee

reviews the staff report and recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. There are no questions for staff.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant. Daryl Keppner applicant states that he just wants to open the preexisting establishment again.

Commissioner McCall

asks the applicant if they read and do you understand the proposed special conditions of approval.

Commissioner Koenig

opens and closes public comment at 9:03 with no comment.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Ms. Lee that if under the General Commercial zoning liquor sale are allowed, correct?

Ms. Lee

stated yes all three class of liquor sales are all permissive uses in the General Commercial Zoning district.

Commissioner Hafen

asks why they then are asking for the grandfathered clause extended.

Ms. Lee

stated that in 1967 it started as a tavern and it lost its grandfathered use and if they wanted open at that location they would have to bring the site up to current development standards under code, and pave the parking lot, go through site development and bring it up to current building code. It is her understanding they want to open it exactly as it is. Since there is a provision to reinstate grandfathering that was the option that was chosen.

Commissioner Hafen

asks the applicant if he understands that if the grandfather clause is reinstated that he can’t expand the business.

Mr. Keppner

stated yes he understands. Page 19 of 25

Commissioner Parker

motions to approve CU-12-0022 to reinstate the previous Grandfathered use designation for class 2 liquor sales establishment on property in the General Commercial Zoning district based on staff findings and subject to conditions as listed. Commissioner McCall seconds.

Ms. Lee

reviews the staff report and recommends approval based on the findings in the staff report.

Commissioner Hafen

states he is abstaining from the item.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant. Jane Tyrka applicant, she just wants an opportunity to sell some of her used items and allow others to sell their items and rent spaces to them. This will give her an opportunity to get to know more of the community and help the community.

Commissioner McCall

asks if she has read and understood the proposed special conditions of approval.

Commissioner King

asks if all the activity will be indoors.

Ms. Tyrka

stated yes the building will fit around 10 spaces easily. It depends if someone wants to rent two spaces.

Commissioner Koenig

opens and closes public comment at 9:11 pm.

Commissioner Parker

motions to approve CU-12-0023 to allow a swap meet in the general commercial zoning district based upon finding and special conditions.

Mr. Osborne

states there are two options. Option A is modeled after the Clark County Ordinance. Which gives the BOCC the authority to approve a CUP for special condition animals instead of the RPC. It is in the RH-9.5, RH-4.5 and RE-2. Under the condition and safeguards for CUP for special condition animals they have added, which is modeled after the Clark County Ordinance, the qualifications of the applicant. Must be 18 years old, two years of experience in the care and handling of that animal family, the applicant shall not have been convicted of violation of any State or Federal Wildlife regulations within three years of the date of the application or any offence involving cruelty to animals, proof of liability insurance in the amount designated in the table, depending on the family type. Option B is taking the Special Conditions out of RPC and BOCC and putting it as a permissive use in the RH-9.5 and go to Animal Control for a animal special conditions permit. Also removing it from RH-4.5 and RE-2, not being allowed as a CUP or permissive use in those categories.

Commissioner McCall

asks Mr. Osborne if he copied the table of the insurance requirements directly from Clark County.

Mr. Osborne

stated not exactly, it is identical except for the amounts. They increased the amount based on discussion.

Commissioner McCall

wonders why a buffalo is more dangerous than a hyena.

Mr. Osborne

stated everything is identical except the amount, the $1 million, $500,000 and $100,000. Clark Counties is $100,000, $50,000 and $10,000. We increased that based on the RPC discussion that it was too low.

Commissioner McCall

asks if they based the tables off of statistics.

Mr. Osborne

stated he isn’t sure where Clark County got their information from.

Commissioner McCall

just has some issues with the buffalo as being more dangerous than a hyena.

Commissioner Hafen

does have a comment on option A. On page 8 it states applicant shall not have been convicted of any violation of any state or federal wildlife regulations within three years of the date of application, or any offense involving cruelty to animals. It is his opinion that if they have been convicted of cruelty to animals whether it was 3 years or 20 years they shouldn’t be able to have a permit to have these animals on their property if they have already been convicted of that. Animals should be treated properly. He disagrees on the three year limit in place. He also wonders if a buffalo is more dangerous than a hyena.

Commissioner Hafen

mentions it because maybe we need to look at the table and maybe even have animal control look over the table and see how they feel about the limits. He isn’t an expert on animals and it is his suggestion to have someone that is to look this over.

Mr. Watkins

stated that was one of the goals to Option 2 was to take those animal type decisions, are they commercial or not and leave that to animal control. Leaving our decisions to simply land use, and if you are deemed commercial by Nye County Animal Control you will be on Commercial property period, no discussion you will not be on residential property. Page 21 of 25

Commissioner Parker

stated she would like to follow up on the item Commissioner Hafen mentioned. If the wording is revised would it be alright.

Commissioner Hafen

doesn’t believe that will resolve the issue. Maybe if we split that into two separate sections.

Commissioner Parker

agrees and states it should be split into two different sections.

Mr. Osborne

stated that could make sense.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Mr. Osborne what his reasoning for putting in “if convicted of any violation of any state or federal wildlife regulations within three years”. Were you looking to see if they had been convicted of stealing in three years or just specifically relate to cruelty to animals?

Mr. Osborne

stated that was copied directly from Clark County.

Commissioner King

agrees and thinks we should strike out the statement “within three years of the application”. Take it out all together.

Commissioner Parker

states it should be left in from the stand point of federal regulations. It isn’t hard to become afoul of something very minor. You shouldn’t be barred for life on that.

Commissioner Koenig

opens public comment at 9:21 pm. Scott Shoemaker, chairman of the Animal Advisory Committee. He states they are going through the same stuff they already have. He recommends neither option A or B and come up with an option C. In option A the age limit and 1, 2, and 3 are already in Title 6 they need it for their animal control permit. The insurance requirements are not Clark County it hasn’t been passed and they aren’t even considering it in the meetings. In reading this they are also requiring $100,000 insurance for all dogs. You also have animals in here that are covered in animal special conditions. Buffalo isn’t considered a special condition animal but considered as cattle.

Mr. Shoemaker

states the liability insurance they have discussed at the Animal Advisory Committee and at Title 6 says you are responsible and liable for any damage or injuries your animal inflicts. The liability insurance is nothing but if something goes wrong. It isn’t a preventative measure, you are telling people to spend money on something they may never need. They do have on dangerous animals that once it has been determined they may be required to have liability insurance. That is per incident per animal basis to have blanket judgment. To require $500,000 insurance for a jungle cat is a little extreme. This is nothing to prevent it and the money would be better spent on fencing and preventative measures.

Mr. Shoemaker

stated option B is stating they can only have it on RH-9.5 and nothing smaller. With animal special conditions they do have wolf hybrids where most are classified as dogs. You are basically saying they can only be on 10 acres. He is on 10 acres but you might want to come up with an option C, making it permissive on 10 acres, Conditional use all the way down to two. Remove the liability requirements and don’t duplicate Title 6 on the conviction on any violation. If you look at animal law a lot of the conviction is on paperwork. It doesn’t have to be cruelty it can also be neglect or failure to do something. Title 6 has it at 5 years.

Commissioner Hafen

agrees with Mr. Shoemaker. He believes that some exotic animals are more than just land use issues, and that is what this board is for is land use issues only. He Page 22 of 25 believes the intent to give staff direction was to give this to someone else that has more expertise and has more jurisdiction over other items other than just land use. He agrees that maybe what they have presented is over kill for what is needed especially if it is a duplicate of Title 6, they are open to suggestions.

Mr. Shoemaker

states there are people in town that warrant these consequences but don’t duplicate Title 6, the liability review was done with the DA’s office. What this is saying is that you need insurance whether your animal has done something or not. Each animal has their own personality. His recommendation is to have a Conditional Use on below RH-9.5, permissive on RH-9.5 with 10 acres you can have pretty much any type of animals there. You have to look at what animals are on Animals with Special Conditions. They left a lot of the animals off because they set a benchmark to who keeps them and the size of the animal. They aren’t worried about the land use but about the animals and the containment and safety of the animals and humans.

Commissioner Parker

asks Mr. Shoemaker if he is saying that if under 9.5 we let them deal with it. You don’t want requirements for under 9.5 but above 9.5 acres you think it should be a CUP but that they have to get the animal permit through the County through you before it comes to us?

Mr. Shoemaker

states his recommendation is to make it permissive in 9.5 and everything below that a CUP. You need to look at what animals they intend to have there.

Commissioner Parker

stated above 9.5 as long as they have a permit from Animal Control then we don’t have to even look at it. Below 9.5 they need a CUP and it will still come through Animal Control.

Mr. Shoemaker

stated they will need a permit and if there are any issues with the permit that is where the Animal Advisory Committee will look into it.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that the problem usually is that they don’t have the permit before they get here.

Commissioner Parker

stated that can be made a requirement or a condition. No permit it doesn’t happen.

Commissioner Hafen

suggests tabling the item until we have had further time to review or suggests having staff prepare Option C. There isn’t enough information to send this to the BOCC.

Commissioner King

suggests staff to get with the Animal Advisory Committee to come up with an Option C.

Mr. Osborne

stated they can come up with an option C based on what was discussed tonight and present to the Animal Advisory Committee for their comments. Then we can come back to the RPC in a month or two.

Commissioner King

motions to direct staff to coordinate with the AAC to develop an Option C to address their concerns and eliminate redundancies.

Commissioner Parker

motions to directs staff to bring back the CUP for Two Brothers Junk for both lots as Heavy Industrial as a Zone Change and Master Plan Amendment. Commissioner McCall seconds.

Commissioner Hafen

asks if they would need to come back with a waiver also. There are a lot of additional waivers that may or may not be needed.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes that is correct, assuming they don’t want to complete any of the improvements there are many waivers they would need. It is something that we would have to sit down with the applicant to see what they do want to do. It will probably be another hearing after the zone change if it is approved. That would be a step two of the process.

Commissioner Parker

asked if it can be done all at once.

Mr. Osborne

stated it could be.

Commissioner Parker

stated she is just trying to make it the easiest for them.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Mr. Watkins if the RPC direct staff to give them a waiver.

Mr. Watkins

stated we can’t direct staff to give them a waiver but to look into what waivers are possible or needed.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to bring in any additional waivers that may or may not be needed for the two parcels at the next meeting in conjunction with the last motion. Commissioner Parker seconds.