November 13, 2013

Commissioner McCall

motions to approve, seconded by Commissioner Hafen.

Commissioner Koenig

is pulling items #12 and 16.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that staff will be giving a report during item #15.

Commissioner Hafen

addresses Public Works and asks them to address the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) requirements. TIA would be required if they were to increase traffic by 180 ADT. David Fanning stated that is correct. The drainage and TIA are for the North hand side of the property if it impacts the South side they do not know.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they are trying to sell this property, shouldn’t the company that is buying the property be the one to do the TIA.

Mr. Fanning

stated that will be determined through the planning process.

Commissioner Hafen

asks if the issues are all addressed in the Site Development Plan. Tim Dahl stated yes it is a condition of approval with the site development that is generating between 100 and 180 ADTs.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to approve TM-13-0002 based on 9 case findings and subject to conditions, removing 20, 21, 22 and 23 as those will be addressed in the Site Development Plan with Public Works. Seconded by Commissioner Dolan.

Commissioner Koenig

states APN# 27-741-11 is listed on the PM and TM.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes that is correct, the TM covers a part of that parcel as does the PM.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Mr. Osborne to define a watchman’s quarters, as it isn’t defined in the code.

Mr. Osborne

stated typically it is a dwelling unit where the person living there oversees the property, and acts as security or caretaker for the site.

Commissioner Koenig

asks why we didn’t do this on the master plan, because residential is not allowed on heavy industrial.

Commissioner Hafen

asks the DA’s office if we have legal authorization to go ahead with this condition that they do obtain the MP amendment and zone change before the final map.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes the board does have legal authorization to do that, and to address

Commissioner Koenig

the definition of a watchman’s quarters is defined in the code, but wouldn’t be appropriate. However there is a definition in the GC zoning for a care taker quarters which would more adequately describe what is proposing to be built.

Commissioner King

asks why these parcels weren’t included in the TM.

Mr. Osborne

stated they wanted to get these three parcels in the PM recorded quickly so they can get the construction started. If they included them in the TM they would have to wait on the construction till the final map was complete.

Commissioner King

is concerned as to where the waste water is going.

Mr. Osborne

stated page 2 of the TM shows a proposed waste water treatment plant on site.

Commissioner Koenig

refers to the applicant. Russ Meads, applicant states he made a mistake in his justification letter by stating watchman’s quarters; it will actually be a caretaker’s residence. They have been able to do the other work on the property under the existing Site Development Plan. The TM lets the owners start advertising and marketing their project to members.

Commissioner Koenig

asks where the water and sewer will be coming from for the three parcels and asks if they are in UICN territory.

Mr. Meads

stated the three parcels are legally allowed to drill wells and have a septic. The original map of the racetrack property is in the UICN district.

Mr. Sutton

stated the term watchman quarters was misused and read the caretakers residence description. The proposed use does fall under the caretaker description. This is permissive under General Commercial and not under the heavy industrial but there is a provision in the HI code where the zoning administrator can allow it in the district. Page 4 of 10

Mr. Meads

stated the race track was built previous to regulations and when they went to expand they applied for a CUP and listed several items that were approved, one of which was a caretakers residence, they are non permissive under HI but the racetrack is only permitted under HI and they were able to get CUP for that, that is how the track has been able to expand is under the CUP.

Commissioner Hafen

asks if the applicant has read and understood and agrees to the conditions and special conditions of the tentative map.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to approve PM-13-0003 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions stipulated. Seconded by Commissioner Dolan.

Commissioner King

motions to approve TM-13-0003 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Hafen.

Ms. Lee

reviews the staff report and staff recommends approval.

Commissioner King

asks if any of this road has been developed at all.

Ms. Lee

stated no, a portion from Blosser Ranch to Bell Vista has only been developed at this time. The property fronting Blosser Ranch to the South did have a road abandonment approved and a portion of frontage road returned back to the property several years ago.

Commissioner King

asks if any of Frontage Road will be developed as a frontage road. Page 5 of 10

Ms. Lee

stated that is a question for Pubilc Works.

Mr. Fanning

stated they have no knowledge of any type of development.

Commissioner King

asks if each individual property owner has to ask for this or can we do it all unilaterally.

Ms. Lee

stated historically we abandon ROW based on each property owner asking and filing a request.

Commissioner King

asks the DA’s office what the options are.

Mr. Sutton

stated if we would want to abandon the entire portion of the road as mentioned by staff, it can be initiated by the county or an abutting property owner. If in a future meeting the board would like to make a recommendation to the BOCC, then they can move forward on taking the abandonment proceedings if they choose to. Dave Richards, Civilwise Services, Inc., who is representing the applicant, states they would like to move forward on the vacation on the front of the parcel with the timing issues with Dollar General and their requirements. There isn’t enough time for advertising to abandon the entire road. Frontage road to the South has already been vacated.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to approve AB-13-0002 based on the findings and subject to the 10 conditions of approval. Commissioner Earl seconds.

Mr. Osborne

reviews the staff report, and according to NCC the CUP is attached to the land and doesn’t automatically expire. The proposed text amendment is to correct that situation and require that if you relocate a use or if the use is discontinued the CUP will automatically expire without any additional action by the RPC.

Commissioner King

asks what the vehicle used to initial expiration of the CUP. How do you find out about the expiration?

Mr. Osborne

stated there is no action that is required under this proposal; the CUP becomes void if the use ceases.

Mr. Lewis

stated it could be we get notice that the business has went out of business, or a code complaint comes in and we document the use has stopped.

Commissioner King

wants to put the responsibility on the business owner to tell us that they have moved or plan to move or the business no longer exists. He would like to add to the first sentence of the text “this will happen immediately upon formal notification by the property owner or applicant to the Planning Director that the specified use has ceased to be preformed and the specified location of address.” He would like them to issue a formal letter to the Planning Department from the property owner or business owner.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that we can’t limit it to those two people.

Mr. Lewis

stated at the end of the paragraph there is a statement about continuing a business license. If the business owner doesn’t continue to carry a business license then it would be notice that they are no longer in business and expires.

Commissioner King

stated the business license isn’t handled by the County but by the Town.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for the business to renew a business license they would have to have a review and it is addressed in the Planning department. He prefers to leave the statement more general and not limit ourselves to only the business owner or property owner.

Mr. Sutton

stated he believes Commissioner King’s recommended language is fine, but the only way the time starts to run is through the notification letter, and also make a requirement that anyone can notify the use has ended and there are other instances where CUPs have been granted besides business.

Commissioner Koenig

how do we know a grandfathered use hasn’t been used for 3 or 5 years?

Mr. Osborne

stated it is similar; we look at the assessor records or if there is a business license.

Commissioner Carbone

asks if this includes to existing CUPs that are out there, is there a way to validate if they have completed the CUP conditions. If that isn’t covered what will happen.

Mr. Lewis

stated anything lingering would then expire.

Commissioner Carbone

asks how 0we would know if something from 2009 or 2010 that the CUP would expire, is there a file we go back to where we look at it and a letter goes out to the land owner.

Mr. Lewis

stated we are making case by case bases in consistency with it to clean it up. Page 7 of 10

Commissioner Koenig

stated a lot of the CUPs they issue have an expiration on it. We can’t have staff checking every year to see if a CUP is still in business.

Commissioner Dolan

stated the town board receives a report from the Town that shows the business that have opened and closed. He suggests the Mr. Lewis sits down with the town to get that report monthly.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to recommend adoption of the text amendment to the BOCC based upon the four required case findings as shown on page 2 of the report. Commissioner McCall seconds the motion.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the staff report and stated the amendment has been reviewed and approved by the Nye County Water District and staff recommends approval.

Commissioner King

asks if the parcel size requirement applies to condominiums as well.

Mr. Osborne

stated no they are multifamily residential. This is only for the single family residential use that you would have to have the 5 acre minimum.

Commissioner Dolan

stated this needs to be reworded, it is too limiting to the people and isn’t right. If someone can’t afford this large lot and wants to sell it off for income we are telling them they can’t. What he is reading is if you have 5 acres you can’t subdivide to another single family residence and he has a problem with that.

Commissioner King

asks if he divides the property and put a duplex on it, it would no longer be a single family residence.

Mr. Osborne

stated you would have to rezone it; we are talking about properties already zoned for a single family residence.

Commissioner Dolan

stated under this amendment it states if someone buys a piece of land under 5 acres they can’t place a home on it. This needs to be reviewed and additional work to be done to it.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Mr. Sutton if we can make a motion to send this to the new committee or send it to the BOCC.

Mr. Sutton

stated it needs to go to the BOCC since their new board doesn’t exist yet.

Commissioner McCall

motions to recommend adoption to the BOCC the proposed text amendment based on the findings. Commissioner Hafen seconds.

Commissioner Koenig

states this is an aggressive schedule and asks if staff has the time to do this.

Ms. Beeman

stated they do not, but she needed to come up with a working schedule. Mr. Lewis has redirected some staff assignments and it has helped somewhat to get her focus on the Master Plan and it has helped a little but we have limited staff.

Commissioner Koenig

asks Ms. Beeman to keep him informed if things start to slip and he will get with Mr. Lewis to try and get this back on track and he will come back to the RPC and let them know. The four meetings listed for the RPC should be enough for the changes they might have. Discussion Item regarding the official boundary line of the Pahrump Regional Planning District:

Commissioner Koenig

asked for an agenda item for general comments for the RPC members. On the December agenda he would like the PRPD boundaries as a voting item to recommend to the BOCC or not.

Commissioner King

stated he spoke with Mr. Osborne in regards to the waiver application we had regarding building separations. He would like to see if we want staff to review the building separation requirements and either recommend keeping it, or modifying it. Also to have a look at the frontage road that runs along Hwy 160 and to see if it is of value or if we need to give back to the property owners.

Mr. Sutton

stated to address the agenda item for open discussion is against the open meeting law the public must be advised of what will be addressed. You can still request staff to bring items back on the agenda, but he will look into that.

Commissioner Dolan

stated the BOCC and Town Board all do that, we don’t make decisions, but direct staff to bring items back.