January 16, 2013

Commissioner Hafen

states he has one minor modification to the minutes, on page 13 of 24 the very last paragraph, the last line states “potential contamination site directly above a municipal well” and it should say “municipal well field”. With no other corrections

Commissioner Hafen

motions to approve.

Commissioner Koenig

motions to accept the agenda as written. Commissioner Hafen seconds.

Commissioner Hand

states he isn’t allowed to take her comment during public comment.

Ms. Crossley

asks if she is able to speak on this later.

Commissioner Hand

states if they open the public hearing on the item she will be able to speak, if not then at the second public comment she will be able to speak. Page 2 of 32 Public Comment closed 6:12 pm.

Commissioner Hafen

states he has a disclosure statement that pertains to items #8 and #11, and reads his disclosure statement. “I am making the following disclosure prior to the vote on this matter because since the last meeting the applicant has questioned whether or not I have a conflict of interest. I feel I do not have any conflict of interest pursuant to NRS 281A.420 in this item that would affect my vote in any manner. The utility company that I am employed by does use VBL Environmental & Joe’s Sanitation to remove and process sludge at its dewatering plant. After this sludge is dewatered the effluent is returned to the utility company’s treatment plant. I do not own any stock in the utility company nor would I receive any monetary gain from voting on this matter. I also believe that it is irrelevant to this item that my employer uses Mr. Shay’s dewatering plant. I have not accepted any gifts or loans from Mr. Shay or his businesses; I have no pecuniary interest in anything related to Mr. Shay or his businesses, nor do I have any commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others that would affect my independence of judgment. Pahrump Valley Disposal picks up my trash at my house and at my employer’s business as Pahrump Valley Disposal has the exclusive right to solid waste pick-up in the Pahrump Valley, which is the same service provided to any other member of the general public or business in Pahrump which has or needs trash pick-up. I conclude that the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation would not be materially affected in this matter and because this is not a clear case of a disqualifying conflict of interest, I am going to be voting in this matter. The District Attorney’s office has advised me that I make this disclosure. As my statements at the last meeting indicated, I believe the location for this proposed landfill is not appropriate based on the residential lots and Page 3 of 32 zoning next to the subject property as well as the fact that a public health issue may arise from putting a landfill in this location because the Desert Utilities well field is directly downstream from this proposed landfill.”

Commissioner Goode

states he will abstain from #9, regarding the assisted living senior housing project since he is the architect on the project. Revocation Hearing (Continued from December 12, 2012 RPC meeting):

Commissioner Koenig

motions to continue CU-12-0007 till the next meeting on February 13, 2013, adding as part of the motion that this will be his last continuation,

Mr. Mitchell

or a representative will need to be present. This will not be continued again.

Mr. Osborne

states the applicant has submitted a request to continue the matter to the February 13th RPC meeting. After DA consultation, staff recommends continuation.

Commissioner Koenig

motions to continue CU-12-0020 to the March 13th meeting,

Commissioner King

seconds. Page 4 of 32 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Bob King, Gregory Hafen II, Jennifer McCall, John Koenig, Joseph Goode, Terry Hand. Master Plan Amendment (MP), Zone Change (ZC), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and related Waiver (WV) Applications: 9. a. MP-12-0009: (Minor) Master Plan Amendment application to change an approximately 0.9 acre portion of a 4.72 acre parcel from the Low Density Residential land use category to the General Commercial land use category, located at 780 W. Gamebird Road, further known as Palo Verde Ranchos, Lot 4. Michael Barawid – Property Owner. Lys L. Barawid – Applicant. AP# 35-542-04. b. ZC-12-0011: (Non-Conforming) Zone Change application to change an approximately 0.9 acre portion of a 4.72 acre parcel from the Rural Estates (RE-2) Zoning District to the General Commercial (GC) Zoning District for property Master Planned as Low Density Residential, located at 780 W. Gamebird Road, further known as Palo Verde Ranchos, Lot 4. Michael Barawid – Property Owner. Lys L. Barawid – Applicant. AP# 35-542-04. c. CU-12-0024: Conditional Use Permit application to allow a 4-story, 160 unit Assisted Living Facility and Independent Senior Housing Facility in the Rural Estates (RE-1) Zoning District, per NCC 17.04.225.E, located at 780 W. Gamebird, further known as Palo Verde Ranchos, Lot 4. Michael Barawid – Property Owner. Lys L. Barawid – Applicant. AP# 35-542-04. d. WV-12-0007: Waiver application to allow a building height of 52ꞌ 9" (fifty-two feet nine inches) for an Assisted Living Facility and Independent Senior Housing Facility where the maximum building height allowed in the Rural Estates (RE-1) Zoning District is 35ꞌ (thirty-five feet) per NCC 17.04.225.C, located at 780 W. Gamebird, further known as Palo Verde Ranchos, Lot 4. Michael Barawid – Property Owner. Lys L. Barawid – Applicant. AP# 35-542-04.

Ms. Lee

reviews her staff report and at this time staff doesn’t feel the proposed conditional use will be adequately served by essential public facilities specifically of water, sewer and EMS Fire services. The subject property is located approximately 2 miles from the nearest connection to water and sewer. Upon reviewing the findings for the waiver staff is unable to make favorable findings to allow 52’ 9” at this location. Based on the findings staff is recommending approval of the Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change, denial of the Waiver as they were unable to make the findings for the requested waiver and subsequently denial of the Conditional Use Permit as requested for four stories.

Commissioner Hafen

thanks staff for the water analysis that they include in their staff report, it comes from the Nye County Community Source Water Protection Plan and he finds it very helpful. Page 5 of 32

Commissioner Hafen

states this is for a Zone Change and Master Plan Amendment for .9 acres of a portion of a 4.72 acre parcel, would that also require a parcel map.

Ms. Lee

stated no, they allow split master planning and zoning. It would require a land division if there was as change of ownership of the property.

Commissioner Hafen

states in the Community Source Water Protection you put under #2, Class: Residential. Source: Septic system, cesspools. Risk Level (Low/Moderate/High): Moderate to High. Is that assuming it isn’t going to be hooked up to a municipal system and that it would be a commercial septic tank?

Ms. Lee

stated yes that is correct. In addition to that if there would not be connection to the existing water lines in the area they would put a well on site and there would be a community water source located there.

Commissioner Hafen

states that your comment in the Community Source Water all depends on whether or not the applicant hooks up to utilities or does it themselves.

Commissioner Borasky

addresses Ms. Lee and states the only time he thought you could use a commercial system other that public sewer and water was under commercial manufacturing.

Ms. Lee

asks under the zoning districts?

Commissioner Borasky

states yes, under Commercial Manufacturing it did have a caveat in there not allowing for a self contained system, he didn’t know we were allowing that under other zonings too.

Ms. Lee

states we have historically allowed it in the past allowed that because we do have so many properties that are a distance from available sewer lines, she believes it was added as a caveat for Commercial Manufacturing zoning district when it was created for that, it was probably put in as a request. But we have allowed it in other zoning districts.

Commissioner Hand

asks for Chief Lewis to come up and speak regarding the building height.

Commissioner Hand

asks Chief Lewis where we sit for fire protection for this building and the height. Chief Lewis states one of the largest things is the building itself. We are a roof height of 53’ an average story of 4 and the current ladder truck they have is a 75’ vertical ladder truck. They don’t have the availability of placing the apparatus directly on the building to get the full access of the height. They have to work on Page 6 of 32 an angle of inclination. They have to clear the landscaping, sidewalk and parked vehicles. So 75’ height may only reach 4 – 4.5 stories of the building. Another consideration is the type of construction, if it is a wood frame building and doesn’t have a sprinkler system built into it they then have to worry about the collapsing, which is equal to 1 – 1.5 times the height of the building. The proposed site is located just out furthest from the stations that service the area. There is an extended response time to that particular area. Built in sprinkler systems would be instrumental in holding off the fire until the crews arrive and begin operations. The parcel and the building size give them very limited surround ability of the apparatus and crews around the building. All of these different factors give them operational challenges, the nature of the occupancy as proposed, safety measures and getting the people out in a timely fashion and the nature of the occupants themselves.

Commissioner Hand

asks if they had their own municipal well tank wouldn’t it have to be rather excessive to give you any fighting power. Chief Lewis stated that would have to come from the Fire Marshall’s office, as far as how many gallons per minute would be required over a two hour time frame to sustain the size of the fire with in the building and also for the size of the building itself. Also for consideration is if it is masonry or wood frame, a lot of those factors come into play as to how that will be protected. The ideal situation would be placing the building in a hydrant area with a good water supply that before their arrival would activate the internal sprinkler system to hold that fire at bay until their arrival, they would then arrive hit the fire hydrant, tag on to that supply the fire department connection that is affixed to the building and supplement that water until crews went in to either address safety issues or suppression.

Commissioner Hafen

states that Chief Lewis’ biggest concern is the availability of adequate water, correct? Chief Lewis stated it is sandwiched between a number of concerns, access to the roof, nature of the construction, availability of a suppression system into the building, having a Fire Department Connection and the water that would supply those, and also the location. Everything is based on a timeline. The quicker they can get water on the fire the quicker the outcome.

Commissioner Hafen

stated it is his understanding that all new Commercial buildings require a sprinkler system. Chief Lewis stated that is the State Fire Marshalls requirements.

Commissioner Hafen

stated then it is required to have a sprinkler system in the building. Chief Lewis stated that his understanding is that the nature of this building would require a sprinkler system. Page 7 of 32

Commissioner Koenig

asks Chief Lewis if they have a sprinkler system in the building would it have to be separate from the potable water system. Chief Lewis states they are separate systems.

Commissioner Hand

asks Chief Lewis, with a building of 53’ 9”, if you had the water, do you feel comfortable putting out the fire. Chief Lewis stated that if there was an established water system that could effectively manage the suppression requirement for the sprinkler system, they would still be required at some point to manage a roof operation. Our ladder truck is 75’ it is limited. If they can’t use the ladder truck they would have ascend to the building height within the burning building. So there are a number of safety hazards for the occupants and his staff that has to enter the building.

Commissioner King

addresses staff. Has the applicant entertained or been approached with the possibility of instead of the strip being General Commercial the entire property being General Commercial? That would allow them to go to a 48’ height building without a waiver.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct it would. The discussions have been to have the assisted living at the back and commercial at the front. Initially the uses they were thinking about for the commercial would fall under Mixed Use or Neighborhood Commercial. When they submitted their application that is when the discussion turned to uses that were only allowed under General Commercial. There was no lengthy discussion on rezoning the whole 5 acres. There were concerns on spot zoning with rezoning the entire 5 acres.

Commissioner King

stated it does front a major arterial. There are GC properties farther up, that particular area is primarily residential for what properties are developed in that area. It wouldn’t be out of the question to entertain the idea. As he recalls in the code the definition of building height those impertinences aren’t included in the building height if they aren’t part of the residential portion of the building.

Ms. Lee

stated that under the definition of building height, they are excluded from height restrictions.

Commissioner King

stated looking at the drawing of the building it shows on top of the fourth floor that they extend beyond the height of the building. That maybe something that may be discussed with the applicant whether or not they want to discuss doing that, and whether staff can support that having an assisted living center in GC.

Ms. Lee

stated that is something they will discuss with the applicant and entertain.

Commissioner Hand

refers to the applicant Page 8 of 32 JR Raviz, represents JGA Architect on behalf of the client. They are successful operators, owners and operators of this type of business. It has been discussed with the Fire Marshal and staff before they put together the application. The owner really wants to build it on this property and the only project they want to put on the property. The height has been discussed and on the top of the 4th floor it basically covers the roof mounted units, mechanical air conditioner units, is at 45’ 6”. The roof of the 4th floor is at 40’. The living area of the 4th floor is at 30’. The extended structure is basically the extension of the elevator the owner asked them to extend the elevator all the way to the roof for maintenance issues. They can eliminate that and just extend one of the stairs going up so they can still end up with 50’ height of the stair on the 4th floor. They have been taking with Utilities Inc on the water and sewer issues for a possible extension of services to the property, and talking with a consultant in dealing with the deep well, sewer tank that is available here in the valley. In the same time they anticipated the fire suppression requirements. That is why the package they are trying to put together is to satisfy the Fire Department requirements. The private sewer and water system will address the fire suppression system. They are ready to have the local consultants involved to satisfy the requirements for the development.

Commissioner Hafen

addresses Mr. Raviz asking if they looked at any other parcels in the valley for this project, or is it because they own this property and they wanted to find something to build on it.

Mr. Raviz

states that the costs have been explained to her whether they extend the water and sewer with Utilities Inc or have a private water and sewer system it could buy her a property closer to utilities, but this is where she wants to build.

Mr. Raviz

is familiar with the valley, and the goal is to have this as her retirement wish. Build it on this land because she wants to operate it herself, with her own residence there. The 1st floor is the assisted care facility and the rest from 2nd to 4th floor is senior housing.

Commissioner King

asks Mr. Raviz if they have any issues with requesting a Zone Change for GC for the entire property. That would preclude having to get a waiver for the building height.

Mr. Raviz

stated they will entertain that. But the client wants to work with the community. If there would be issues regarding the fire suppression with the Fire Department that will be able to be resolved using the zoning they have now then they will try to resolve it that way, instead of going a different way.

Commissioner King

stated the issue isn’t the zoning, the overriding issue is the water and sewer.

Mr. Raviz

received a proposal from Utilities Inc and for the private water and sewer. He believes that in a meeting with staff someone gave him a calculation of Page 9 of 32 the number of gallons per minute they need which he believes is 480 gallons for the fire suppression. They are trying to put them in for a minimum cost they can get. The Fire Department issue will still be there with the Commercial zoning, if they have the 75’ maximum height ladder.

Commissioner King

states she hasn’t entertained building this facility on any other property?

Mr. Raviz

stated yes, she has but just wants to develop the property.

Commissioner Hand

opens public comment at 6:58 pm. Harley Kulkin, states most of what the board is talking about would come into play when they get the building permits. What we are talking about is a business that will create jobs for our community. This is going to be an asset for our community. Vince Clark, he isn’t for or against the project. How does anyone propose to evacuate the people there? They will be older and how will you get them out of a four story building that is on fire. He thought that Pahrump Valley had some water challenges. George Brizendine (581 W. Siesta) most of what he has heard tonight are none zoning issues they are design issues, not to be dealt with zoning. He supports the project and it might just be an asset to the community, but let the design issues deal with what has been discussed tonight. Deborah Mar, they reside on Ember Street, she has concerns on the evacuation and the water safety. They moved to that property for the acreage and to have their privacy, and for the ability to see the stars and the natural environment of the desert area. Most of the neighbors have farm animals and the residence should get comfortable with the noises of the animals. Terry Nelson, wanted to address the issue that once if approved, built, opened and has residence they will have to rely on their friends within the facility to visit them if they have had to go to the hospital or nursing care. There is not readily transportation there, how will they get to the store. No one has addressed if there are churches or anything for them to do.

Commissioner Hand

refers to the applicant.

Mr. Raviz

states the first floor is for the Assisted Care Facility and the other floors are independent Senior Housing. That is why they tried to put in the 8,000 sq ft commercial area on the front, because of the associated needs for whatever the residence will be, the plan has stores, dining and is basically to service the residence. The oldest son of the owner is a Doctor and he wants to put in an office Page 10 of 32 there to see the occupants. The goal is to have everything there the residents will need.

Commissioner Hand

states you want a waiver for the building height of 52’ 9”. But the residential is only at 30”.

Mr. Raviz

stated the livable area is at 30’ elevation.

Commissioner Hand

asks from the floor or the ceiling.

Mr. Raviz

stated from the floor. The top of the roofline of the 4th floor is at 40’. The top of the property is 45’ because they want to buffer all the mechanical equipment they are putting on the roof.

Commissioner Hand

addresses Chief Lewis and asks if they approve this for 52’9” does the State Fire Marshall look at your equipment and say this town can support this building. Chief Lewis states the Fire Marshall considers different factors but it doesn’t consider factors like their equipment or staffing levels. What they consider is nature of the construction, type of occupancy and fire flow calculations. The number of 480 that was given earlier was grossly underestimated. They will consider things as such as fire walls, fire doors and come up with the requirements, like the capacity of the storage tank, the gallons per minute that would be required for the fire flow for such a building.

Commissioner Hand

stated the Fire Marshall would approve a fire plan that would screw you over. Chief Lewis states that could be relatively accurate. Service levels are determined by the town and they do their due diligence. Their staffing levels are based on the type of fire events they come upon. The type of issue we are discussing this evening causes severe challenges to the system. They try to do everything in the preparatory stage to eliminate those risks. When we are talking about the 30’ living space they average 10’ per story, so the occupied space isn’t at the 30’ level that is the floor level then you have the occupancy space.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Chief Lewis if he would feel comfortable if the building was 3 stories, knowing where it is and the water supply. Chief Lewis states the thing that he has a problem with is the nature of the occupancy, the safety issues, time frame for a normal response given perfect conditions, fire suppression systems that are in most commercial buildings in town, that they arrive, connect to a hydrant, supply a FDC, affect any life safety issues that may be present and then suppress the fire. If the challenges are further blocked by the issues they have been discussing then the risks increase greatly and the chance for a successful outcome diminish greatly. Page 11 of 32

Mr. Raviz

asks Chief Lewis what the height he feels comfortable with, will a three story work with your equipment. Chief Lewis states if we are taking about 30’ requirement than that will be greatly beneficial to our operations on the roof lines given their current apparatus. However if we still decline to address the water issues and we have insufficient capacity to provide water in the event of a fire we are no better off. A roof operation is just that, we are still dealing with life safety of the fire fighters but the occupants. It is crucial that buildings like this and given the type of occupancy is to be sure the safety concerns are addressed.

Mr. Raviz

states those are all issues we need to satisfy when we go through the building permit process. They are working with local engineers here and talking with Utilities Inc to see what assistance they can get on the issues.

Commissioner Hafen

states he agrees with Mr. Kulkin and a business plan like this is a great benefit to the community. They are here to look at the specific location and the land use for the specific project. One of the findings that have to find for the CUP is that it will be adequately served by central public facilities, ie. highways, streets, Police and Fire protection. That is why they are having this discussion. He agrees with Chief Lewis and 480 gallons is grossly understated. Being in the municipal water business and in the municipal world you need a ½ million storage for a commercial building. 480 gallons is only about 57000 gallons of storage, so the number is grossly under estimated.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Mr. Raviz if he has personally driven by the area to see the surrounding areas and you understand it is highly residential and highly rural area and lots of farm creatures that make noise all day long.

Commissioner Hafen

states the current suggestion is to approve the MP Amendment for the front .9 acres of the property, but to deny the CUP and Waiver. However it has been discussed to maybe bringing this back as a ZC for the whole property and the height limits may be adjusted. If this board follows staffs recommended motion, it is his understanding that if the CUP is denied, Mr. Raviz can’t come back with this for a year.

Ms. Lee

states she will have to double check that. If it is withdrawn with prejudice there is a time limit on that. It could come back next month.

Commissioner King

states if Mr. Raviz does decide to go with GC of the entire property then the item will need to be continued.

Commissioner King

addresses staff and states in the RH zoning 35’ is the height limit. As discussed the height of the living portion is 40’. Everything over that is architectural detail. As code specifies appurtenances that are not taken into consideration for the height limit of the property. Page 12 of 32

Ms. Lee

states that is correct.

Commissioner King

asks if we are then looking at a 5’ waiver from 35’ to 40’.

Ms. Lee

stated as long as it meets the roof appurtenances of elevator shafts, etcetera, yes.

Ms. Lee

states to Commissioner Hafen and under Code 17.04.895 in the event that an application for a ZC is denied the first disapproval or withdrawal has a 1 year time limit to return and resubmit.

Commissioner Borasky

asks if Mr. Lewis if when he did his calculations that he took into account your MOU with the County Fire. Chief Lewis asks what MOU.

Commissioner Borasky

stated being able to fight the fire. Chief Lewis stated that is a mutual aid assignment and it doesn’t assist them with what they are discussing tonight.

Commissioner Borasky

states that normally when you approve something this big there are water rights needed and he doesn’t see any comments from the Water Board that he believes is crucial on this project. He also doesn’t see any consideration given to the 1 acre lots and you want to put Commercial way out there. There have been other times and it hasn’t worked. Another issue is if you are going to put in a commercial septic and there have been major failures in the leach fields in the area.

Commissioner Koenig

states on page 6 of 7 it addresses water and sewer and addresses it negatively. Stating it will have a negative impact on water and sewer and moderate to high with septic system risk levels.

Commissioner Hafen

states this all depends on whether or not the applicant connects to Utilities Inc or not. The analysis is based on the applicant not connecting to Utilities Inc. If they do connect to Utilities Inc the risk level goes away because there is no more septic system and community source water.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

states this is a very rural area and a great project he would like to see come to the valley. He doesn’t know how a 53’ building fits into such a rural area. We should discuss the ZC and MP Amendment that has been recommended. As soon as any ZC has been approved they can put in a gas station or a bar. Is this an appropriate location for zone change?

Commissioner King

states that it is rural residential out there, there have been other properties in the area and around town with split zoning. Page 13 of 32

Commissioner Hafen

asks if he knows of anything around there. At Gamebird and PV Blvd there is Commercial zoning, other than the Catholic Church.

Commissioner King

stated there are a lot of GC properties that are being used as residential that were zoned GC during the comprehensive rezoning, mostly by the PV Blvd end of Gamebird.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is two miles away.

Commissioner Koenig

motions to deny MP-12-0009, ZC-12-0011, CU-12-0024, WV-12-0007 based on staff recommendations for the last two, if we aren’t going to let them build there isn’t a need to rezone or change the Master Plan.

Commissioner Borasky

asks if he is going to add any discussion you have had.

Commissioner Koenig

adds any discussion they have had on fire issues, water, sewer, contamination of the water, etcetera.

Commissioner Hand

states that it fails because it needs a super majority vote.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is correct, in order to approve or deny on the MP amendment you have to have a super majority of 5 votes either for or against to take action.

Commissioner King

motioned to table the item until the next meeting in February, where the applicant can speak with staff and his client to review the presentation.

Commissioner King

stated next month we should have the representative from the town board.

Commissioner Hand

calls the meeting back to order at 7:44 pm. Page 14 of 32 Master Plan Amendment (MP), Zone Change (ZC), and related Waiver (WV) Applications: 10. a. MP-12-0010: (Minor) Master Plan Amendment application to change approximately 4.2 acres from the Low Density Residential land use category to the Heavy Industrial land use category, located at 10531 N. Mountain View and 1961 W. Garnet Road, further known as Mountain View Estates Lots 128 and 129. Oscar Gonzalez, Regina Gonzalez, Sergio Gonzalez and Ana Vel Gonzalez – Property Owners. Pahrump Regional Planning Commission – Applicant. AP#’s 28-098-08 and 28-111-01. b. ZC-12-0012: (Non-Conforming) Zone Change application to change approximately 4.2 acres from the Rural Estates (RE-2) Zoning District to the Heavy Industrial (HI) Zoning District, located at 10531 N. Mountain View and 1961 W. Garnet Road, further known as Mountain View Estates Lots 128 and 129. Oscar Gonzalez, Regina Gonzalez, Sergio Gonzalez and Ana Vel Gonzalez – Property Owners. Pahrump Regional Planning Commission – Applicant. AP#’s 28-098-08 and 28-111-01. c. WV-12-0008: Waiver application to waive paving, landscaping, screening/fencing, and all other development standards required by Nye County Code Title 17 (Zoning) for a junk/salvage yard (Two Brothers Junk) located at 10531 N. Mountain View and 1961 W. Garnet Road, further known as Mountain View Estates Lots 128 and 129. Oscar Gonzalez, Regina Gonzalez, Sergio Gonzalez and Ana Vel Gonzalez – Property Owners. Pahrump Regional Planning Commission – Applicant. AP#’s 28-098-08 and 28-111-01.

Commissioner Hand

refers to staff.

Ms. Lee

reviews staff report and states staff has received one letter of opposition. Staff recommends approval of the MP Amendment, and ZC and approval of waiving the development standards with the exception of paving. Per NCC 1528.100.C unpaved areas greater than or equal to 5,000 sq ft are not permitted to be unpaved and the non grandfathered subject property located at 10531 N Mt. View is 91,476 sq ft in size.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Ms. Lee if the paving requirement is just for the new parcel.

Ms. Lee

stated yes, the parcel located on Garnet is the grandfathered property and wouldn’t be the subject of the paving requirements.

Commissioner Hafen

asks if the proposal is to change both parcels.

Ms. Lee

stated yes the proposal is to change the Master Planning and Zoning on both parcels and waive the development standards on the new parcel. Page 15 of 32

Commissioner Hafen

states the existing business on the one parcel it doesn’t need anything on it.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

asks so to expand they just need the Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change on the one parcel. It is important for the board to understand they don’t need it on the one but they do on the other.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

addresses Mr. Watkins. With waivers we can add conditions correct.

Mr. Watkins

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

if we want to make a condition to the waiver that it is for this use as a towing yard we can add that condition that the waiver only applies to the towing yard.

Mr. Watkins

states yes for waiver provisions we are open to adding any conditions that are reasonable.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that if another business comes into Heavy Industrial such as a gravel pit that waiver would be eliminated and they would be required to abide by all of the paving, landscaping, screening, fencing and development standards required in Title 17, correct.

Mr. Watkins

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hand

refers to the applicant. Urban Chavez, representing Oscar Gonzalez, applicant.

Commissioner McCall

asks Mr. Chavez if he has read and understand the Waiver Special Conditions of Approval that they have proposed, specifically that there won’t be any items stored within Mt. View or Garnet Road ROW’s and that they are asking for the dedication of 30’ with ROW for Garnet and a 40’ ROW for Mr. View?

Mr. Chavez

states yes, they have a fence on both lots. The only thing on the waiver of one lot is the business is exiting right now but the lot across the street will be storage for cars. It is all gravel, solid rock and you can’t put a pick through it. We are just wondering about the asphalt.

Commissioner Hand

refers to staff. Page 16 of 32

Ms. Lee

states per Nye County Code requirement allow double layer chip seal or two inches of asphalt.

Commissioner Hand

states and there is no way to waive that?

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct and that statement came directly from the Air Quality Officer.

Mr. Chavez

stated it is solid rock nothing will get into the water table and it is better than concrete. They are just asking for the RPC to do the best they can for them, they just want to stay in business.

Commissioner Hand

opens public comment at 7:53 pm. Harley Kulkin, states the solution in the beginning was to give them a waiver for the second property, and because it is an adjoining property your zoning laws could have been changed. By rezoning to HI you are saying it could be a dump or gravel pit, it is out of context for what the Rural Homestead Zone was created for in the first place. The water table is 1,000 ft down there is a well by them that is 1,200 feet down to the water table. Rene Morales, agrees with Mr. Kulkin, he is a paving contractor, and to pave the area 94,000 sq ft it could be $300,000 dollars. Can this be waived it is just to store cars, it will help our community to keep them in business. Ben Smith, asks what the logic is to allow one property to remain unpaved and the other be required to pave. Putting these requirements on them will make them go out of business.

Commissioner Hand

closes public comment at 7:58 pm.

Commissioner Goode

recommends waiving the paving requirements. He would like to make a motion to waive that.

Commissioner Hand

stated we are still in deliberation.

Commissioner Koenig

states he was the one at the last meeting making a statement to waive the paving. It comes down to Nye County Code 15.28.100 specifically says “Waivers or variances of the requirement to reduce fugitive dust for unpaved areas greater than or equal to five thousand (5,000) square feet are not permitted.” Ordinance 317, back in 2006. He has spoken with everyone and the law says you can’t waive paving. Darrell Lacy, Director of Community Development, states he understands the concerns about the paving of Dust Control. This wasn’t a decision that Nye County made to require this it was negotiations with NDEP and the Federal Division of Environmental Protection. Nye County can’t make any changes Page 17 of 32 without renegotiating agreements with those two parties. We don’t have the authority to waive this that is why it ended up in the code that way.

Commissioner King

states this is the issue from last month about the Zone Change for the adjoining property that isn’t grandfathered. To change it to a zoning district that would allow it for the recycling facility to function there.

Commissioner Hafen

agrees with Mr. Kulkin that we are solving one problem with another problem. We are going to do a Zone Change to HI which is not conducive of that neighborhood of very Low Density Residential. What we really should have done is change the way the Grandfathered law is written, to allow them to expand their business onto that other piece of property. He doesn’t think a gravel pit or another HI industry in that area would be appropriate, and that is what they are approving if the vote to approve this tonight.

Commissioner Hafen

states if anyone does motion to approve the Waiver that we add the condition to that waiver that it is limited to only a junk and salvage yard. That way the Waiver would be removed and any of the requirements in the County Code would then be required by another business, such as if a gravel pit were to come in.

Commissioner Koenig

states it is a code compliance issue. We could drop the whole thing and it goes back to Code Compliance. We have to find a way for what he is doing to be legal.

Commissioner Hand

asks staff if they make a motion and it is turned down, what is the time limit before it can be brought back again.

Ms. Lee

states under the code if the ZC is denied the wait time is 1 year to resubmit.

Commissioner Hafen

asks even if the RPC is the applicant.

Ms. Lee

stated that would be something better answered by legal counsel. This portion of the code is silent regarding who the applicant is.

Commissioner Hafen

states then that means when we did our hard zoning we would have had a year moratorium on any Zone changes.

Mr. Watkins

states that if the code doesn’t exempt you from those provisions then you are not exempt you are treated like everyone else under the code.

Commissioner Hafen

states we could withdraw this without prejudice as the applicant and then it could back in front of us.

Mr. Watkins

states yes. Page 18 of 32

Commissioner Hand

asks staff if they wanted to fix something with the Grandfathering, what is the time line to fix it?

Mr. Osborne

stated it could come back next month to the RPC as a draft bill, you could vote on that to proceed on taking it to the BOCC who then would set a public hearing the following month. It is a 3 month processes to change County Code.

Commissioner Hand

asks if they continue till the April meeting would that work.

Mr. Osborne

stated if they want to go that route we probably wouldn’t need to bring the rezoning back. If that was approved and the Code was changed to amend how we treat grandfathered uses you wouldn’t need the Waiver, Master Plan Amendment or CUP.

Commissioner Hand

states we wouldn’t need to do any continuance.

Mr. Osborne

stated no, you would not have to continue this matter.

Commissioner Koenig

states if we try to change the Grandfather and it doesn’t happen this has to come back for some sort of resolution. While we are in the process does the Code Compliance issue stay on hiatus?

Mr. Osborne

stated while there is some type of pending action to do a ZC or Amendment Code the Code Compliance case is then on hold until the resolution.

Commissioner Koenig

asks if they should give him some type of direction to do something but at the same time make a motion to bring this in April.

Mr. Osborne

stated you could go ahead and continue this until the April meeting and in the meantime go forth with trying to amend the code.

Commissioner Borasky

recommends going to the May meeting. He is going to direct staff in the BOCC meeting to look into the situation and see if they can come up with a solution to this problem. This will give them time to have hearings to change the code to possibly find a solution.

Commissioner Koenig

motions to continue MP-12-0010, ZC-12-0012, and WV- 12-0008 until the meeting in May.

Commissioner Hand

refers to staff.

Mr. Osborne

reviews staff report, Nye County Code requires a CUP to put a building on a non-conforming piece of land. Staff recommends approval.

Commissioner Hand

refers to applicant Robert Groesbeck, representing applicant, he agrees with Mr. Osborne. They agree with all the conditions and ask for your approval.

Commissioner Hand

opens public hearing with no comment at 8:13 pm.

Commissioner Koenig

motions to approve CU-12-0025 based upon findings of staff and subject to the Special Conditions of Approval outlined in the staff report. Commissioner McCall seconds.

Commissioner Hand

refers to staff.

Ms. Lee

reviews staff report and staff has received on letter of opposition. Staff is recommending approval of the application.

Commissioner King

states the one letter brings up the problem with lighting. Should a facility like this not have lighting? He understand they are only going to be operating from 9 am to 5 pm but for security reasons there should be lights so that people don’t climb over the fence and steal items.

Ms. Lee

stated that is completely up to the applicant if they want lighting. Should he choose to light it he will have to meet the development standards for lighting. They will have a height limitation and fully shielded and downward facing. Page 20 of 32

Commissioner King

asks if in the Code that outlines characteristics needed for a storage yard does it not include lighting.

Ms. Lee

didn’t find any when she researched that.

Commissioner Hand

refers to the applicant. Mike Armstrong, applicant.

Commissioner Hand

states in his letter he will have 10 to 20 vehicles stored at any given time, and that vehicles that are damaged will be parked on concrete or asphalt to the property.

Mr. Armstrong

stated yes anything would leak fluids was what he was looking at when submitting the letter, but whatever regulations he has to follow he will follow them.

Commissioner Hand

states any vehicles parked have to be parked on asphalt or concrete. Not just the damaged ones.

Mr. Armstrong

states he understands and has read the Special Conditions. When it comes to trailers will they be required to be placed on pavement and asphalt?

Commissioner King

asked what type of trailer.

Mr. Armstrong

stated flatbed trailers, construction trailers. Under the conditional use it stated all activity will have to be focused on the asphalt and concreted areas, he would like clarity if a trailer constitutes a vehicle that will need to be stored on asphalt. His intent was to only have the vehicles on those surfaces.

Commissioner Hafen

stated to the applicant that they said they read the Conditions of Approval, and then stated you would be storing leaking vehicles, wrecked vehicles and do you understand that one of the conditions is that the keeping of wrecked or junked vehicles on the subject properties is not allowed.

Mr. Armstrong

stated yes and that was one of his questions. He addressed in his letter what he was asking for. His understanding of the Ordinance was the purpose of stating wrecked vehicles, would be it isn’t going to be a junk yard the vehicles aren’t going to be stored for disassembly, or for that potential usage. That was his understanding as to why that was put in under the conditional use. He is a tow company he will be towing in vehicles that have damage to them. It just isn’t clear to him on that aspect of the Ordinance.

Commissioner Hand

states that the Special Condition #4 the keeping of wrecked or junk vehicles is not allowed. Temporary storage when we take it to a yard to get fixed or for insurance that isn’t keeping of vehicles that is just storage. Page 21 of 32

Mr. Armstrong

stated that is what would be the purpose, typically if he brings in a vehicle and it was damaged it would typically go through a process of lien sale or auctioning. Then the vehicle would be removed off the property, it is just storage of the vehicle until it is disposed of.

Mr. Osborne

stated the main purpose of #4 is to keep this from being a salvage yard, a junk yard because it isn’t zoned for that.

Mr. Armstrong

stated he won’t be keeping anything. His intention is to revolve it out, because that is cash flow.

Mr. Osborne

stated any new parking lot or storage area has to be paved. It doesn’t matter what is being stored, whether it is a vehicle or trailers, a storage lot has to be paved. That is our understanding of what the code says.

Commissioner King

asks how long ago was this used as a facility in the past? He can see by the staff report that it had been a service station, filling station. Is there a stretch for Grandfathered here, or are we reaching too far for that.

Commissioner Hafen

thinks the grandfathered would have expired by now. We would have to come back for a CUP for Grandfathered.

Commissioner Hand

states for the extension of the Grandfathered clause.

Mr. Armstrong

stated what he has read is that the vested interest of the original person that put that it would be protected under that grandfathering. It can fall under vested interest as well.

Mr. Osborne

stated that in order to continue a Grandfathered use, the Use cannot elapse for more that 6 months. If this property was used for storage of vehicles 6 months ago then you could continue that. He believes it has been a couple of years since it has been used for that.

Commissioner Hand

opens public comment at 8:25 pm. Dorothy Bromley is a resident in the Autumn Wood subdivision. A storage yard will have an increase of rodents, and will be a attractive nuisance in the area. If you were going to put this place across from the street of the winery you would have uproar. Why should they have to look at it? Bruce Bilyeu is the owner of the property that adjoins this on two sides. When looking over the fence in the upper left hand corner of the photo he took it looks like he is storing wrecked vehicles. He is worried that 10 to 20 cars is 23 and they aren’t parked on the asphalt, it looks like there is a trailer that is being used, and no development standards being enforced. They are worried it will become a junk yard. How long can he store them before he auctions or stores them? Are you waiving the development standards, and how long is the CU valid for? Is the public going to be allowed to come on to the site without any safety features? Page 22 of 32 Public Comment closed at 8:32 pm

Commissioner Hand

refers to the applicant.

Mr. Armstrong

addresses Ms. Bromley and states he has a fence around the property so rodents will not be an issue. He also has it buried into the soil so they can’t dig in and he has wind screen to cut out the visibility and will fully encompass the property. Other than getting on their scissor lift and taking photos of the property. His intention is to not degrade the property values in the area.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Mr. Armstrong to address the Code Violation and how long he has had the vehicles stored there.

Mr. Armstrong

stated they have been there for a month.

Commissioner Hand

asks Mr. Armstrong if he understands that any vehicle on his lot has to be on paved or asphalted areas.

Mr. Armstrong

stated he is fully aware of that at this time.

Commissioner McCall

asks if the gas tanks from the gas station still on the property.

Commissioner McCall

asks if the gas tanks are still there is it a continuation of the Grandfathered use.

Mr. Osborne

stated the use has to still be there, the gas station is no longer there.

Commissioner McCall

stated she was informed by staff that she needs to state that she lives in Autumn Wood Estates but lives outside the 1000 ft buffer and she doesn’t feel this will affect her vote, but if Mr. Armstrong has an issue with it she will abstain from voting.

Mr. Armstrong

stated he has no problem with it.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Mr. Armstrong if he is aware that you are agreeing to park on asphalt or concrete and if you do not the CUP can be pulled.

Commissioner Koenig

Motions to approve CU-12-0026 based on staff findings and subject to the Special Conditions of Approval as outlined in staffs report.

Commissioner Hand

refers to staff.

Mr. Osborne

reviews the staff report and staff recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Commissioner Hafen

addresses Mr. Osborne regarding Condition #8. It states the applicant will remove all illegal signage prior to operation of the facility. Are you aware there are illegal signages off the premises as well?

Mr. Osborne

stated yes that has been brought to his attention and we have noticed there are several offsite as well.

Commissioner Hafen

stated those are in violation in the current code, and are considered illegal.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

states in the Community Source Water Protection Plan water analysis that you provided it states it will be a septic system and the risk level will be moderate. Does this property have a commercial septic capable of handling the facility as proposed?

Mr. Osborne

stated no they don’t have a commercial septic, they have a residential system, and that is something that would be addressed with Building and Safety inspections of the facility. They will have to get a change of occupancy to go from residential to this use and that is something that will be evaluated at that time.

Commissioner Hafen

asks if the building department would determine whether or not the current septic is adequate for the facility or not?

Commissioner Hafen

stated he is concerned that if it is a single family residence converting to a 12 bedroom Adult Day Care Facility that the current septic may or may not be adequate. Will they now be required to have a commercial well? And is that something that is being addressed in the Building inspection or not?

Mr. Osborne

stated potentially that is a possibility. They will evaluate whether or not they comply with the fire code requirements. Whether or not it is a commercial well or not he doesn’t know if that specifically is addressed by the Building Department. Page 24 of 32

Commissioner Hafen

stated that when the previous businesses in town converted their single family residences to commercial they had to go out and purchase water rights and commercial water rights or paying commercial water rights through the State Engineers office based on their usage. He just wants to make sure these things are being addressed. He isn’t saying he is for or against the project but just wants to make sure those items are being addressed either now or somewhere down the road.

Commissioner King

states the facility will be an Adult Day Care, how we will know if they are not staying overnight. He knows child day care times can vary greatly from very early in the morning to very late into the night. He is concerned the Adult Day Care will become a full time facility.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is something they can address in the conditions by adding a condition setting time restrictions. The only way you would know is if inspections are done either after 5 pm or after 8 am, or complaints from neighbors.

Commissioner King

is perplexed that we don’t have a definition for an Adult Day Care in our code. We are relying on the NRS definition where it says during the day. Do we want to be so restrictive on the applicant and say only from 8 – 5, if they have the need for something in the evening perhaps. We open the door to allowing them to be open 24 hours.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is something you could ask the applicant what their intended hours of operations are.

Commissioner Hand

refers to the applicant. Jazelle Bassett speaking for the applicant, Gertrudes Schwartz. She is seeking to open the Adult Day Care. The hours of operation will be 6:30 am to 6:30 pm. Which are normal hours for an Adult Day Care. There is a 2,500 gallon septic tank on property and a well of 150 ft, and it is away from the home and on 1.9 acres.

Ms. Schwartz

states this is an Adult Day Care they cannot accept a client after hours.

Commissioner Hand

opens public comment at 8:47 pm. Harley Kulkin, would like to address some comments, to his knowledge being in a commercial business they would have to get water rights for the well and have their septic tank certified. A 12 bedroom house the septic system would have to go through the proper things to fit that size structure and be certified commercial. Limiting it to a Day Care he assumes that when they get their license they will be licensed by the State and they will have inspectors to address those. The licensing agency will address all your concerns and as will their inspectors.

Commissioner Hand

refers to applicant. Page 25 of 32

Ms. Bassett

read the definition of an Adult Day Care as defined in the NRS 449. They are in the process of getting their licenses, they are waiting for the Fire Marshal to come out and HQ has already been out. There will be a trained staff there. She will employ two care givers and they are only looking for 10 to 15 people during the day.

Commissioner Koenig

motions to approve CU-12-0027 based upon findings shown on page 2 and subject Conditions of Approval as outlined in the staff report with the exception of Special Condition of Approval #8, he would like to reword it to say, applicant shall remove all illegal signage on and off property prior to operation of the facility, applicant shall obtain approval of sign permits in Nye County prior to placement of any signage on or off the property.

Commissioner Hand

refers to staff.

Ms. Lee

reviews staff report, staff has received three letters of opposition and based on findings outlined in your staff report staff is unable to make the findings for this waiver and are recommending denial.

Commissioner King

asks if there is an open animal control case with the client.

Ms. Lee

stated yes, that is her understanding.

Commissioner Hand

refers to applicant. Dorothy Cole, applicant, addressing changes that should have been on her letter for her application. She wasn’t applying to have 23 she didn’t understand when she was filling this out. She has 14 dogs and 1 cat. She is not trying to get more dogs, she doesn’t breed them, she just saves them. She is asking for 14 not 23. She doesn’t have an existing case with anyone. She did get a personal citation issued from a lady and she went to court, the DA approached her and asked if they could drop the charges. There were no charges filed and she hasn’t paid any fines. She has had no animals removed nor has she had any citations. Two dogs will leave in approximately 2 months then she will have 12. She has one dog that is 17 and when she passes she will not get any more dogs. These Page 26 of 32 are existing animals and she doesn’t want any more once she gets to 10. She just wants to keep the existing animals she has.

Commissioner King

stated he has been by the house several times you have a dog house with a dog chained to it with no interactions with other dogs. It looks like landscaping your dogs looked like they are tied up and it looks like the dogs are in the same place all day long. Are they your pets or landscaping?

Ms. Cole

states they are her pets. She has Golden Retrievers and Golden Retriever/Pit mixes. They are positioned in the yard they way they are is because she gets people coming up to the gate to work on the yard or house. She has a 30 x 60 shed that when one of the dogs aren’t strategically placed she has had people come and cut her horses tails off. She was told by Nye County that this is a problem within the county. The dogs are rotated, and they aren’t the same dogs on hooks. That was a complaint one particular woman called on and when Animal Control came out on every time she called the dogs had shelter, water and rotated. The dogs aren’t on the same chain for more than 14 hours. They are on a 20 ft swivel lead they play catch and can get to their water. The ones that are chained are ones that can’t interact with other dogs. Some animals do interact but the ones that are out there are ones that can’t interact. They go from being on their leads they go to the kennel. She is very particular with who she gives her dogs to.

Commissioner King

asks if she is operating a dog rescue.

Ms. Cole

stated no, these are her dogs, she doesn’t want to take any more dogs, she just wants to get to the ten she is allowed. She doesn’t know what to call herself, she isn’t for profit, and she doesn’t sell them or breed them.

Commissioner King

asks if they are all spayed or neutered.

Ms. Cole

stated all but one it is a puppy she just acquired.

Commissioner King

mentioned that when he goes by her place the dogs would each bark as he drove by. He can understand that could be distressing for the people that live around you to have to listen to this every time anyone drives by.

Ms. Cole

stated they are set that way. She has never received a write up or fines for dogs barking, no neighbors have come by to discuss the dogs. She has dogs around her that bark all the time, and one runs loose.

Commissioner King

stated the past few nights it has been cold out, are the dogs all in doors.

Ms. Cole

stated not all the dogs they do have dog houses with blankets and pillows. The older dog is 17 and the puppy is little they are in the house. A few of them do come in if they need to. Dogs aren’t the same as people when it comes to temperature, there is a big difference with the furry ones they do fine outside. Page 27 of 32

Commissioner Hafen

stated Ms. Cole had a civil matter brought against you in regards to your animals. You said it was a civil matter, a private citation. Did that go before the DA’s office and when was that?

Ms. Cole

stated not a civil matter a private citation yes. The DA approached her and asked if they could dismiss it. She received the private citation September 30, 2011.

Commissioner Hafen

asks how old the puppy is, is it less than two years old.

Ms. Cole

stated yes, it was dropped off.

Commissioner Hafen

stated then she knew she was in violation of the County Ordinance by having too many animals in September 2011 and she went and got another puppy recently.

Ms. Cole

stated that is not true, where she lives she is allowed to have 10 dogs. Tim told her she was grandfathered in and not to worry about it and to apply for the kennel license. When she told them where she was living it was a slow process and no one was worried about it.

Commissioner Hafen

stated you knew it was an issue before you got the puppy with the number of animals you have on the property.

Ms. Cole

stated no, she has applied for this months ago. She was told she can have 10, and when she asked about the dog running down the street, and they told her wait and see what happens and what they will allow. The puppy was running down the street about to be hit by a car so she took it in. She had already applied for this.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he understands she already filed for the waiver knowing by taking an additional dog in you were already in violation, you increased your violation.

Ms. Cole

stated she didn’t think she was in violation.

Commissioner Hafen

asks Ms. Cole why she was then applying for the waiver if she didn’t think she was in violation.

Commissioner Hafen

stated if she didn’t think she needed the waiver she wouldn’t have filed for it.

Ms. Cole

stated he suggested she does that when she moved her address. The law changed and she thought she should apply. She applied for a kennel license and she was told that isn’t what she wants but she needed a waiver. She doesn’t want to be in non compliance and cause trouble. She thought since she already applied that it was.

Commissioner Hand

opens public comment at 9:12 pm. Page 28 of 32 Harley Kulkin, states the board doesn’t have jurisdiction over animal control issues. She stated she wants to keep the number of dogs she has and not get anymore as they go away. Giving her the permit and putting that in her conditions would be appropriate. Under Nevada Law her neighbors have a right to complain and if declared a nuisance that supersedes all law.

Commissioner Hand

refers to the applicant.

Ms. Cole

reads from a letter of support she brought from her daughter and another friend. She isn’t sure how to give them to the board.

Mr. Osborne

stated it is up to the Commission if they want to accept them.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Ms. Cole if a puppy runs down the road tomorrow would you then have 15 dogs.

Ms. Cole

stated no she would call Animal Control.

Ms. Cole

reads from a letter by Jonnie Castro and Electra Cole.

Ms. Cole

states these dogs are like her children.

Commissioner King

asks how many dogs and cats she has now.

Ms. Cole

she has 14, two dogs are her sons that will be going the end of February.

Commissioner King

asks you don’t really need the approval for 23 then.

Commissioner King

asks if she will go with 14, and you will still have to get a residential kennel permit, do you have that.

Ms. Cole

stated yes, and she does have her residential kennel permit. Animal Control told her she can have 10 dogs.

Mr. Watkins

stated wants to advise the board we are here on a Waiver application and there are four considerations the board needs to consider. We have discussed character, whether there are citations or not, none of these things should come into this board’s decision. It is whether these four conditions in front of you have or have not been met.

Commissioner King

motioned to approve WV-12-0006 based on the finding and to limit the number of Dogs and Cats to maximum 14 above the 10 for the Residential Kennel.

Commissioner Goode

seconds. Page 29 of 32

Commissioner Koenig

asks for clarification on the motion. Does that motion mean that she is allowed to have 14 or have 14 forever? He can see the motion saying she can have the 14 she has now, two are going away in three months, it will leave her with 12 dogs plus 1 cat and she isn’t allowed to have anymore until she gets down below the 10 for what she is allowed for a Residential Kennel.

Commissioner King

asked to amend his motion.

Commissioner Hand

stated that the second must be amended if he approves.

Commissioner King

motioned to amend his motion for WV-12-0006 with all the findings and conditions with an additional Condition of a maximum of 14 and as dogs or cat leave none are to replace them with the ideal goal to get to 10.

Commissioner Koenig

stated and the cat, 14 dogs and 1 cat.

Commissioner Hand

states 15 and as they go away they don’t get replaced.

Commissioner King

states maximum total of 15 and as they leave they don’t get replaced.

Commissioner Koenig

stated to Ms. Cole that there was a similar case where they gave a lady the same condition and a few months later she had 3 or 4 dogs more than they allowed and her permit was pulled. She had to get rid of the dogs. Do you understand if you obtain another animal her permit can be pulled.

Ms. Cole

stated yes, she has 14 dogs and one cat and as they go away she will get down to 10 and they won’t be replaced.

Commissioner Koenig

directs staff to look at the Grandfathering clause to see if they can be rewritten in a way where a grandfathered use can acquire more property and have it grandfathered also. Without creating an endless loop that we never get out of grandfathering property. We can’t allow them come back every two years and buy more property and grandfather that. Page 30 of 32

Commissioner McCall

stated she would like to see where it will come back to the board for approval, whether as a CUP or before someone else. There are some of the Grandfathered clauses that shouldn’t be allowed to expand further. She would like to see where it goes before someone for approval.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he thinks the process is a CUP to expand the Grandfathered use because there are some instances in the valley where a business prospers and grows and it should be allowed to, but some businesses maybe should not based on the findings and CUP process.

Commissioner Hand

opens public Comment at 9:26 pm. Anula Wyledrich, stated she is here to support the revocation of Karl Mitchells permit. He has a known history of breaking the law and animal cruelty. He has displayed a lack of respect for authority and his community. The USDA has fined him thousands of dollars and permanently revoked his Exhibitor license. He is currently under investigation by the USDA and Fish and Wildlife for continuing to exhibit and transfer animals across state lines without a valid license. If this is a land use issue, consider this land isn’t for animals that aren’t indigenous to the area. Carnie Ann Chester, attorney with the PETA Foundation, the issue of Mr. Mitchells permit revocation marries the lifetime of her legal experience. The Nevada Supreme Court has made it clear the issuance of a CUP require substantial evidence showing that not only the use of the land pose no detriment to public safety, health or welfare but show evidence that it will enhance the surrounding area. The Board that overturned your decision by granting his permit they did vote in violation of the law. Mr. Mitchell’s license has been revoked. When the USDA takes the action to pull someone’s license that is a big deal. Harley Kulkin, wonders if anyone of the previous speakers has been out to Mr. Mitchell’s property. The animals don’t pay any of us attention when we are there. He understands his wife is applying for the license. Vitianna Vidal, Univision channel 15, has been trying to get a hold of members and no one has called her back. She is working on a story on Mr. Morales’ project.

Commissioner King

stated he will speak with her.

Commissioner Hand

states that they have nothing to say at this time because they haven’t had all their Public Hearings and received the testimonies from the applicant, and his engineers and people that are for or against it. Page 31 of 32