August 12, 2015

Mr. Lacy

stated within each zone there are permissive uses and uses that are subject to a CUP.

Mr. Lacy

reviewed what would be the requirements for CUPs and SUPs and the governing authorities for those applications. CUPs come to the PRPC for approval and require noticing of surrounding property owners and a public hearing. SUPs go to the BOCC and also require noticing and a public hearing. Part of the requirements for a CUP are that the board must come up with facts and findings to either approve or deny the application.

Mr. Osborne

stated that in zoning districts they have standards for development. Examples being building setbacks, parking requirements, and lighting requirements.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the Grandfathering status with in NCC. Any use that was legally existing at the time the Zoning regulations were adopted is allowed to continue as a non-conforming use, or Grandfathering. There are regulations on expansion of the use, those require a CUP and public hearing process. Repairs and minor maintenance are allowed, you are allowed to sell the grandfathered us and the grandfathered use can still continue with the new owners, if the use is abandoned for longer than 6 months then you will lose the grandfathered use on the property. You can ask for reinstatement on the grandfathered use which requires a CUP from the RPC.

Mr. Lacy

reviewed what spot zoning entails and Special Use Permits.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed waivers, administrative waivers, administrative procedures, zoning reviews, Site Development Plan processes.

Mr. Lacy

reviewed information in the Planners Guide, Subdivision Maps and the requirements, parceling. If anything comes up on an agenda that you don’t have enough information on, contact the office prior to the meeting and try and get it explained to you before the meeting.

Commissioner Koenig

stated if any of the board members would like to talk about any of the subjects tonight we can discuss at a regular meeting. Tim Sutton reviews Conditional Use Permits. There is a Masterplan for the PRPD and there are 10 different masterplan designations and 29 zoning districts. In every zoning district there is a chart showing setbacks, there are also uses listed that are permissive and subject to a Conditional Use Permits. CUPs come to the RPC for approval. You must come up with findings and there are 8 findings that are standard for CUPs and the RPC has to make those findings. You have to address all 8 findings, if you don’t address the findings then your decision can be challenged and kicked out by a higher level of appeal. Staff will address each finding, give a blurb and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or continue an application. If you follow staff recommendation your work is already done for you. If you go contrary to staff’s recommendations you have to still address all the findings. Several uses that are listed as conditional uses that have general findings also may have additional specific findings under NCC17.04.700.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if staff recommends approval but you disagree with 1 of the 8 findings that is enough to recommend denial, correct.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes you could find against staff’s recommendations. Page 2 of 12

Mr. Lacy

stated the first Masterplan was done in 2003, State law has requirements that must be included in a Masterplan. We adopted a new Masterplan in 2014 and ended up with a more appropriate Masterplan for the valley.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed some changes in the Masterplan update and the current zone change processes.

Commissioner Carr

nominates Commissioner Koenig to remain as Chairman, Commissioner King as Secretary, and Commissioner Hafen as Vice-chair. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner King

motioned to accept minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Clark. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Bob King, Gregory T. Hafen II, Joel Oscarson, John Koenig, Paul Carr, Vincent Clark. Absent: Robert Adams. Page 3 of 12

Commissioner Hafen

abstains from item #11 as staffs report makes reference to Pahrump Utility which employs him and is his families business.

Commissioner Clark

refers to findings 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 he would like clarification on why staff has made the findings that they have.

Ms. Lee

stated these are land use findings and the RE-1 zoning district allows for multi-pet permit tier 2 with a CUP. Tier 2 is anything over 10 dogs or cats or any combination thereof. When the application comes in they review it and go through the findings. It is at the RPCs discretion if they agree with the findings or not. Page 4 of 12

Commissioner Clark

stated this should have been done prior to the move instead of after. He doesn’t see anything that addresses health and safety.

Ms. Lee

stated the applicant was advised that they needed to apply for the CUP first then move and they chose to do it the way it was done.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked staff if there are any Tier 2 permits in the area.

Ms. Lee

stated since the Ordinance 448 that became effective December 9, 2013 this is the first multi- pet permit tier 2 that they have heard since the Ordinance became effective. The other animal applications have either been CUPs to establish commercial kennels or to reinstate a grandfathered use of a commercial kennel activity.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if staff’s recommendation is to deny or continue.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct. Lynette Sandquist, applicant stated her dogs don’t bark unless there are sirens or coyotes. She got all her dogs and cats because she did dog and cat rescue in Las Vegas but the people she rented from also left their animals behind and she would take them. She told the neighbor closest to her before she moved in that she had goats, dogs and cats. She has little dogs that go in and out of the garage and they are fenced. She stated Animal Control has never told her they had issues with her, they told her she had 30 days. Her big dogs have kennels they go into out back, all animals are contained and they have gotten out once or twice. Her cats are feral and by animal controls law they have to take care of them until they die. She did her homework before she went into this house, Planning told her that as long as she gets her Tier 2 she will be okay and the okay from Animal Control.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the applicant said she was told she would be okay as long as she got her Tier. You are here to get the Tier, you don’t have the Tier so everything isn’t alright.

Ms. Sandquist

stated she knows she doesn’t have the Tier. She called and spoke with Beth and was told she had to get the Tier.

Commissioner Koenig

asked why she didn’t get the Tier before she moved into the house.

Ms. Sandquist

stated because her dad was the one who had to sign for the land.

Commissioner Koenig

asked how long they have been in the house.

Ms. Sandquist

stated three months. The animals aren’t bothering anyone and stated someone is letting her cats out of their cages.

Commissioner King

stated Animal Controls comments state they have had 29 calls for service over the 4 years at 4 different addresses. Some were unfounded but some were founded, and that over the course of 4 years she was repeatedly told she wasn’t in compliance with Title 6. If they put this off could the applicant get into compliance?

Ms. Sandquist

stated yes she could. She stated she wasn’t founded by Animal Control. She only got warnings. Why would they give her 30 days to get done, they haven’t even been in her back yard.

Commissioner Clark

quoted Ms. Sandquist “My neighbor doesn’t want animals next to them.” Is it possible that they just don’t want 18 animals next to them? There has been no compliance completed at all. Page 5 of 12 Susan Ryhal, Animal Control officer, stated for Ms. Sandquist they have had 29 calls for service from 2013 spanning over 4 addresses. It isn’t just one neighbor it has been multiple neighbors at every address she has lived at. She stated she has never been cited because they have tried extensively to work with her. Some of the violations have been unfounded meaning they didn’t find truth to some of the complaints and some were founded. Complaints range from running at large, care and conditions. Hogs, horse and dogs running at large. She has had ample time to come into compliance.

Ms. Ryhal

stated she heard the applicant say she brought these animals from Las Vegas, she states she remembers her having only 4 or 5 dogs on her property when they first made contact with her in 2013. It has grown since then.

Ms. Sandquist

stated she doesn’t have any kittens. They just aren’t her cats they are neighborhood cats. The reason she had cages is because she was trapping the night before. She has a dog that is white and brown spots. She has gotten out two times and it was taken away by Animal Control. The little brown dog has been in her house for two months since Animal Control came to her and said neighbors have been complaining. She just needs Animal Control to come over and see the place.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Sutton is there is a problem with the applicant and property owner being two different people.

Mr. Sutton

stated as with most land use applications as long as you have the owner’s consent it is fine. Page 6 of 12

Commissioner Oscarson

asked what the number she is allowed to have of dogs and cats combined.

Ms. Lee

stated under the Multi-Pet Permit Tier 2 it is any number over 10, and that is determined by the RPC through the hearing process of the CUP.

Commissioner Koenig

stated without the Tier 2 she is allowed to have 5, Tier 1 she can have up to 10.

Ms. Lee

stated a Multi-Pet Permit Tier 1 is a permissive use in this zoning district. She can have up to 10 without having to come to the RPC, but would still have to comply with Title 6 and Animal Control.

Commissioner Koenig

stated if the part of Title 6 gets passed with the BOCC this would be a moot point because no additional permits will be given out.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to deny CU-2015-000008 based on the findings, the testimony given by Animal Control and the general public, and stated that this isn’t the appropriate location for the permit. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Ms. Lee

reviewed the staff report and staff recommends approval of the parcel map application.

Commissioner King

stated he recalls that Terribles came in to abandon the ROW to Shoshone Drive. Did it ever go through?

Ms. Lee

stated the road abandonment did get approved and recorded but there has been no further development beyond that.

Commissioner King

stated the ROW doesn’t exist there then,

Ms. Lee

stated not the full width of ROW a portion of the ROW went further into the property. They abandoned a portion of that to make Shoshone Drive an even ROW.

Commissioner King

asked if Public Works was okay with this? Tim Dahl stated what he believes they are referring to is a portion of the property that is the parking area. The property fronting this map he believes is dedicated to the County on both Frontage and Shoshone. David Jeffs, representing the applicant has no comments. Page 7 of 12

Commissioner Hafen

asked if he has read and understood and agree to all the conditions of approval.

Mr. Jeffs

stated he personally hasn’t read any of them from this merger. Tim Watson probably has be he himself has not.

Mr. Dahl

provided Mr. Jeffs with a copy to read.

Mr. Jeffs

stated he agrees.

Commissioner King

motioned to approve PM-2015-000007 based on findings and subject to conditions in the report. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if they would have to get state approval again.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes they would. Dave Richards agent for the applicant.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Hafen if the three wells that aren’t being used are due to the residential lots not being developed.

Mr. Hafen

stated yes. Those are already annexed in to the service territory.

Mr. Richards

stated the concerns you have heard are the same arguments that the public has had through this whole process. The safeguards and security have already been established for these facilities before both boards, and the state. The applicants have to go through the same stringent measures as everyone else has to.

Commissioner Koenig

stated this is in a different neighborhood than the rest of the facilities. Scott Sibley stated they have an existing SUP for another property.

Commissioner Koenig

asked why they are now wanting to relocate here.

Mr. Sibley

stated another applicant has purchased the property and moved into that location. The property they are applying for is currently banked owned.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated Mr. Hafen brought up issues on water. Are there any plans for doing anything with the water further?

Mr. Sibley

sated there is a current well on the property, but they would like to check on the feasibility to connecting into the water utility. The grower they will be using organic materials and reuse the waste water.

Commissioner King

asked how they plan to deal with the odor.

Mr. Sibley

stated they will do what is required.

Commissioner Carbone

stated there is a specific system that is required and so far it works.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the current zoning is NC. Isn’t one of the permissive uses Nurseries and greenhouses? One of the concerns was fertilizers going into the groundwater. BOCC is the one that would make that determination, and we are here to speak on the rezoning.

Mr. Lacy

stated there is an intermediate level of zoning of General Commercial that could be considered as an alternative of CM. That could still allow the Medical Marijuana cultivation. They currently have a SUP and they will have to get an amendment to the SUP through the BOCC and the State. Standard condition of approval at BOCC level is a water impact report that requires monitoring groundwater in the area.

Commissioner Koenig

cautioned the board that Zoning stays with the land, so if the applicant gets turned down for SUP, the CM zoning will remain.

Commissioner Oscarson

verified that the property east of the subject property is zoned CM as well. Page 9 of 12

Commissioner Clark

asked what the separation requirements for this use are.

Mr. Osborne

stated the separation to a school is 1,000’ and a community facility is 300’, no separation from residential required.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to deny ZC-2015-000008 based on findings that the application isn’t complete, there is no information from NDEP, the road is undeveloped. No second Motion dies for lack of second

Commissioner King

motioned to approve. No second Motion dies for lack of a second. Dies for a lack of a motion. 12. For possible action: Discussion, deliberation and possible action to recommend amending Nye County Code Title 17, Comprehensive Land Use Planning and Zoning, relating to the standards for Manufactured Homes. (This item is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.) (SO) Steve Osborne reviewed the text amendment including minor changes from last time this was heard.

Commissioner Carr

motioned to accept additional back up from staff. Seconded by Commissioner King.

Commissioner King

motioned to forward to BOCC with a revision to item 5 striking the words “do not” after the word “regulations”. No second.

Commissioner King

withdrew his motion.

Commissioner King

motioned to forward to BOCC with staff changes and reverse the order of paragraphs 4 and 5. Seconded by Commissioner Carr.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified the motion and suggested language.

Commissioner Carr

withdrew his second; Commissioner King withdrew his motion.

Commissioner King

motioned to forward to the BOCC with staff revisions and reverse the order of paragraphs 4 and 5; new paragraph 4 to read “the above regulations do not apply…” Second by

Commissioner Hafen

verified with the District Attorney’s representative that the proposed language is acceptable. Page 10 of 12

Mr. Sutton

confirmed that language is acceptable.

Commissioner Koenig

clarified that AZ states they condition the zone change to only be what is proposed at that time, and if another use wants to occupy that site, even though they may be permissive in that zoning district, they can’t.

Mr. Sutton

stated that’s correct but they also put time limits on the construction schedule, and if it’s not developed within that time frame, the zone would revert or could be extended.

Mr. Sutton

continued his presentation by citing North Carolina law which specifically prohibits placing site specific conditions upon a zone change request.

Mr. Sutton

concluded by stating our current code does allow for conditional zoning, NCC 17.04.895.I, and to answer the question if the Planning Commission can impose conditions of approval on a zone change – yes. We aren’t bound by that and we can propose alternatives to the County Commissioners.

Commissioner King

verified our current procedure is legal.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes, but keep in mind if the Supreme Court decided to take on a case, that could change our position.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there were any recommended limits.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes, be careful with the “back door deal” or contract zoning and spot zoning. Our findings help keep us steered away from that. It forces the Board to consider compatibility.

Commissioner Hafen

verified we can’t do contract zoning. Where do you draw the line between a condition and a contract? Page 11 of 12

Mr. Lacy

stated that’s where you get into the takings issue. There has to be a relationship not only to the project but it has to be proportional to the impact the project will have.

Mr. Sutton

stated determining the line is difficult, because you can impose reasonable conditions that relate to the public health, safety and welfare and those are very broad concepts. 14. For possible action: Update and discussion relating to new or pending State of Nevada legislation. (TS)

Mr. Sutton

reviewed SB70 which deals with public entities and open meeting law. Added an additional requirement that affidavits of posting in additional locations have to be done. Minutes have to be approved within 45 days or the next meeting of the board. AB222 relates to adult day care facilities. Misdemeanor to operate without a license and vests the authority with the Department of Health & Human Services to investigate. 15. Future Meetings/Workshops: Discussion and Direction Concerning Items for Future Meetings/Workshops; Set Date, Location and Time of Future Pahrump Regional Planning Commission Meetings. Next meeting will be September 9th at 6pm. Commissioner Koenig will discuss with staff where Tier 1 and Tier 2 are allowed, lot size for livestock, dogs etcetera.