March 11, 2015

Commissioner King

stated he has revisions to the minutes of February 11, 2015. Item #13 on page 10, it should state Commissioner King asked if staff had information on what the cost of this Page 1 of 12 alternative material shown is to actually paving and adding in Mr. Osborne stated no, he didn’t have that information but could do further research on costs.

Commissioner Adams

stated he had sent his corrections to staff, that he was left off the list of attendees.

Commissioner King

motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Hafen.

Commissioner Koenig

stated for the record that Commissioner Carr is absent.

Commissioner Adams

would like to follow #12 after Item 8.

Commissioner Koenig

asked for objections. Seeing none it will become 8.5

Commissioner Hafen

will be abstaining from items #8 due to his family owns the property around the subject property and #12 (8.5) as his family owns the subject property.

Commissioner King

asked staff in the right corner it’s 21’11” from the corner to the rear of the property; on the left side it’s 17’2”. If it’s a rectangular structure, will that still maintain 10’ setback?

Mr. Lacy

stated according to their plan of development is the accessory building behind the RV garage would still leave 10’ setback on both sides. Richard Merryman, applicant. Has nothing to add to staff comments.

Commissioner King

motioned to approve based on findings in the staff report. Seconded by

Commissioner Goode

asked for clarification on application number.

Commissioner King

confirmed is states WV-2015-000006 on the agenda but WV-2015-000004 on the staff report. Asked staff for clarification. Staff confirmed correct application number is WV-2015-000006.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if Happy Acre Sanctuary a licensed non-profit?

Ms. Lee

answered yes, currently state licensed as a charitable non-profit organization.

Commissioner Koenig

asked about the pond on the site plan.

Ms. Lee

stated she discussed that with the applicant, cautioning them it cannot be larger than 250 square feet in surface area. It’s not meant to be a decorative water feature nor a body of water, it’s a place for the turtles. Applicant can give you more details on its intended use. Page 3 of 12

Commissioner Koenig

states we’ve reinstated grandfathered uses but they’ve generally had the original buildings on the property. In this case, everything that was there is gone. How do I re- grandfather something that isn’t there anymore?

Ms. Lee

replies during researching the grandfathered status of the property, I reached out to the Assessor’s office for assistance. They pulled their historical files of inspections up to the year the buildings had been removed. I have Assessor’s sketches of the property identifying sizes and locations of the manufactured home, kennels, structures, etc. from when it did operate. You could condition the approval that the property has to meet the same sizes, dimensions, set up, etc. Property owner removed the buildings because there was excessive vandalism. The site plan you have, in working with the applicant, the placement of the mobile home for the residence is in almost the identical location as the original location. During a staff site visit, noted they have uncovered the location of the septic tank, so without having to do a lot of excessive line work, they’re limited to where they can put the residence.

Commissioner Koenig

states theoretically we’re treating it as if it burned down and they’ll put everything back the way it was.

Commissioner Clark

asked there were 2 co-owners? But only 1 of the owners was involved in running the rescue operation?

Ms. Lee

answered yes, there were 2 co-owners of the property. Didn’t get into a detailed discussion with the applicant on that, but the lady that has passed is the name on all the documentation for the rescue.

Commissioner Clark

was there a pond to begin with? If not it would be inconsistent with a grandfathering.

Ms. Lee

replied the Assessor’s records don’t indicate a pond on the property, but during the site visit there is an area that could have been used as a pond previously.

Commissioner Clark

asked the layout in the staff report is pretty similar to how it was to begin with?

Ms. Lee

stated yes. The only structure that’s being replaced is the mobile home. Everything else like corrals and kennels, we don’t consider structures, but they do still need to be constructed according to Title 6 and within certain considerations but they’re not considered structures and you wouldn’t pull a building permit for any of those. The placement of the manufactured home would require a permit and that is in generally the original location.

Commissioner Clark

asked if Animal Control is satisfied with the way they run the existing operation?

Ms. Lee

stated yes, Animal Control Officers Zane and Gregory responded that both current locations are very clean, well maintained, exceed expectations, enclosure are top notch, and they had no reason to question reusing these kennels at the other location.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Animal Sanctuary under current code is allowed in what minimum acreage? Didn’t we recently change that?

Ms. Lee

responded the recent changed commercial kennels. We changed that to a minimum acreage of RH-4.5. Animal Sanctuaries are allowed in minimum RH-4.5. They aren’t listed in anything less than that. Page 4 of 12

Commissioner Hafen

asked theoretically if an animal sanctuary applied today they would not be allowed on this property under the current zoning without a waiver?

Ms. Lee

stated yes that’s correct.

Commissioner Hafen

asked District Attorney’s office are we stretching the reinstatement of the grandfathered use by allowing them to go in and expand, build; this looks more like a reinstatement and an expansion of a grandfathered use. Timothy Sutton responded it shouldn’t be an expansion of a grandfathered use. Everything that I’ve heard indicates that the layout is going to be similar to what it was before. If there’s a bigger expansion then I would agree with you.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there’s no structure there today, that’s my concern.

Commissioner Koenig

states that was my initial question. How do you reinstate the grandfathered use once you remove the structure? You could theoretically treat it as if the structure has burned down. Our code specifically says if it burns down you can replace it, as long as it’s the same size and the same place. Theoretically they removed it for a good reason, it was an eye sore, being broken in to, best thing to do for the community was get rid of it.

Mr. Sutton

states he’s assuming that structure was in place during the time the grandfathered use was active?

Ms. Lee

stated it was and reviewed the Assessor’s records showing several mobile homes. Reinstating it with 1 mobile home not the 4 that were there, would meet our code requirements and would be a lesser reinstatement.

Commissioner Adams

stated there are 10 cats and 10 dogs, but asked if there were similar limitations on the goats, horses and hogs?

Ms. Lee

stated the property is zoned RE-1, which allows large farm animals to be kept as a permissive use and the code doesn’t set a limit on the number that can be kept.

Commissioner Adams

asked if there had been complaints other than the written complaint in the back up.

Ms. Lee

stated she received a phone call regarding the exotic animals and we did discuss that, and the caller was not in favor of tigers or large cats.

Commissioner Koenig

asked how far the current sanctuary is from this property?

Ms. Lee

stated quite a number of miles. The current sanctuary is located on Martin, east of Homestead and south of Kellogg and the subject property is 372 and Bannavitch area. Christine Piazza, applicant. Currently house 6 dogs. We do not intend on exceeding 10 dogs and no more than 10 cats. All cats will be indoor with an exterior enclosure and not be outside the property. The pond is a 600 gallon stock tank.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if they’ll get warm in the summer?

Ms. Piazza

stated the location is surrounded by existing bamboo which will provide shade for the tank. Page 5 of 12

Commissioner Koenig

asked if the dogs will be inside or outside?

Ms. Piazza

stated they will indoor/outdoor dogs, inside at night. The kennels are steel panels with tops and shades for vision block to help with the barking.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if she has read the conditions of approval and agrees with them.

Ms. Piazza

stated she has read them and her only concern is the time frames of the dogs being outside and inside. Some elderly dogs need to go out during the night and wants to make sure they can go out.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if they will be going out with supervision.

Commissioner Koenig

stated we may want to consider rewording that condition.

Mr. Sutton

has a supplement to the extra condition of approval added concerning special conditions animals. Wants to include exotic animals in that conditions because there is a distinction in the code.

Commissioner Koenig

stated those aren’t allowed in the sanctuary unless they come back and get a permit. Tammy Lafreniere lives in the area. Concerned with the limit of animals and types of animals on the property.

Commissioner Koenig

stated there are no exotics being approved tonight. If they want exotics, they have to come back here.

Commissioner Koenig

asked why the sanctuary moving?

Ms. Piazza

stated the current sanctuary owner is on a rented property and in poor health. Pending the permit being granted and the lease being signed, I will be taking over the sanctuary as he is no longer able to care for the animals and that’s why we are requesting the move.

Commissioner Carr

wanted to ask Ms. Yorke a question.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if we can allow that.

Mr. Sutton

stated you can allow it.

Commissioner Carr

asked Ms. Yorke if she remembers when the property became vacated?

Ms. Yorke

replied she thinks it was not too long after she moved in. Being new she didn’t know anything was down there.

Commissioner Clark

asked about limiting the number of animals on the property?

Commissioner Koenig

stated you could add a condition to limit each type of animal or total number of animals.

Commissioner Clark

asked the applicant how many animals she would bring over?

Ms. Piazza

stated currently have 6 dogs, but don’t want more than 10 dogs and 10 cats. We have 7 small pot bellied pigs, 10 goats and chickens, and 10 water turtles and 5 tortoises.

Commissioner King

motioned to approve CU-2015-000004, based on findings, subject to conditions and revision for Item #2 and including #7. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Lacy

asked for clarification if the motion included the restriction that the dogs can only be outside at night with supervision.

Commissioner King

amends motion to include any dogs needed outside after 8 pm shall be supervised. Commissioner Clark amends his second.

Mr. Lacy

reviewed history of case. Mr. Jordan agreed to remove billboard by 2014. When billboard wasn’t removed, code compliance case was opened. Stated there is 1 billboard in a similar situation which will be coming up soon. This board does not have the authority to overrule a previous BOCC action. What’s being appealed is what’s happened in 2014, which is a code compliance case that identified this is a non-compliant situation from a previous case. Page 7 of 12 Timothy Sutton stated this discussion should not go into the actions of the prior board. We’re here to determine if the condition was met and if it wasn’t what to do about it.

Commissioner Koenig

stated we just did a CUP with conditions which we expect that person to meet to do what they want to do. This board 10 years ago put conditions on Mr. Jordan with the expectation that they be met.

Commissioner Clark

quoted Mr. Jordan’s letter, #3, and seems to be an issue of equity. Mr. Jordan’s sign seems to be well kept. Is it equitable under the law have a property owner destroy his own property at his own expense that otherwise is perfectly serviced?

Mr. Lacy

stated when our code was adopted there were many grandfathered signs, some were installed intentionally right before the code adoption, and this board, the BOCC and the recently adopted master plan all agreed signs needed to be removed when the opportunity presented itself. There’s 2 ways to address removing signs: 1. We pay them for it; 2. Removal can be part of a discretional approval. Mr. Jordan applied for a zone change and agreed to remove the billboard.

Commissioner Clark

said he’s not arguing the agreement. Is the master plan the vehicle we want to use to remove signs? What did the master plan say in 2004 when this agreement was made?

Commissioner Koenig

said the same thing it says now. We didn’t change that section. It reads exactly as it did in 2004.

Commissioner Clark

stated his concern is of equity.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the fact remains this board made a condition on Mr. Jordan and he agreed with that condition to remove the sign. Now 10 years later he doesn’t want to agree with it anymore.

Mr. Sutton

stated it doesn’t matter if he agreed to the condition or not. There were appellate procedures in place and the time to make that argument and challenge that condition were 10 years ago. Dan Simmons stated at the last meeting staff was directed to draft an ordinance and identify others affected. Doesn’t believe we need another ordinance. Has spoken to Brock Metzka who has no intention of removing his sign. Doesn’t think this issue will surface again. Removing this billboard will hurt Mr. Jordan as he has renters for both sides of the sign. You have the authority to set aside this notice of violation. Other sign owners will not sign something agreeing to remove their sign. Darrell Lacy stated there are others in town that were not given 10 years. Andy Jordan stated wanted to build, had all the financing in place, didn’t agree with the condition. Sign provides lots of income and removing it would be a burden.

Commissioner Goode

asked how long is the contract for the signs you have now?

Mr. Jordan

stated he believes it’s a year.

Commissioner Goode

asked if you have a contract with them for a year, don’t you have to provide the sign for that time?

Mr. Jordan

stated that’s correct and that would probably have to come out of pocket to reimburse these people, maybe a lawsuit. Page 8 of 12 Public comment opened at 7:11pm Dwight Lily applicant had an agreement to pull the sign down. Signs look like shanty town. Turn down the request. Applicant had 10 years. Bob Howard stated if you’re going to set conditions you have to follow through with them. John MacLaughlin this went through the RPC and BOCC previously. We’re at a point of breach of contract with the agreement with the BOCC.

Mr. Simmons

if we restricted development, told people they couldn’t build unless they removed their sign, you’d find people wouldn’t build. Asking you to find a way to set this aside. We’re not talking about an ordinance or the master plan, not a requirement, but this one we could set aside.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification we’re not voting on whether we think the sign should stay or go, we’re simply voting on whether or not what the Planning department did by issuing a code violation is correct, correct?

Mr. Sutton

stated this is an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision; to either reverse or uphold the decision of the Planning Director.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there’s no basis on whether or not we think he should keep the sign? Simply whether or not Planning did their job?

Mr. Sutton

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Carr

motioned to accept Planning Directors findings and Code Compliance findings and they acted properly. Seconded by Commissioner Adams

Commissioner Koenig

stated body of water has been removed from permissive uses; do we want it added to conditional uses?

Mr. Lacy

suggested an appropriate place to add it where the code already addresses certain recreational uses.

Commissioner Carbone

asked if you want to call it a body of water or would you like to call it something else? Page 9 of 12

Commissioner Koenig

stated he doesn’t know what else to call it, but we still have the problem of defining what a body of water is. It could be anything from a lake to a puddle after it rains.

Commissioner Carbone

stated they are looking for something to navigate.

Commissioner Hafen

supports adding body of water to conditional use. Previously we granted a waiver on that and we should clarify to avoid the issue in the future.

Commissioner Hafen

agrees we shouldn’t try to define bodies of water at this time.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to recommend to the BOCC the removal of Bodies Of Water as permissive use and making it a use subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Seconded by

Commissioner King

motions to direct staff to bring back a ZC for Artesia @ Hafen Ranch Phase V subdivision from Village Residential VR-20 district to Village Residential VR-10 district. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to accept changes to II. Officers and Duties, C and E, as stated by the District Attorney’s office. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Sutton

reviewed the second change to the bylaws which is to address an ambiguity in the last sentence of Section C, regarding terms of officers.

Commissioner Koenig

stated discussed a third option that you could hold an office for 2 years of each of your 4 year terms.

Commissioner Clark

asked if we should be able to have the chair and vice chair be whomever we want regardless of how many years they’ve served?

Commissioner Hafen

stated concern with option 1, is if former chair became vice chair, he would be restricted from serving in the absence of the chair and we’re back to where we started.

Mr. Sutton

stated he checked the NRS to see if there were any statutory term limits imposed and found none.

Commissioner King

stated he is not a fan of term limits.

Commissioner King

motioned to amend C. Annual Meeting and Election of Officers, to have all officers eligible for re-election. Commissioner Clark seconded

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Howard to expand on his ideas for a workshop.

Mr. Howard

further explained his idea.

Commissioner King

asked staff if the CUP for the current location of Happy Acre Sanctuary would need to be revoked?

Ms. Lee

stated the current location of the sanctuary does not have a CUP, as they were legally operating prior to the adoption of the ordinance that required a CUP.