November 12, 2015

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to continue CU-2015-000010 to January 13th meeting. Seconded by

Commissioner Hafen

requested clarification that the request at the current zoning is prohibited by the current NCC.

Ms. Lee

stated if this was the first time the applicant was coming to you this would not be allowed under the current NCC. The original application was approved when Commercial Kennels were allowed in the zoning district this could be viewed as a modification or expansion of a grandfathered use.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they are currently approved for 30 dogs and they currently are in violation of that and have 132.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Clark

asked staff if they know of any homes or planned projects in that surrounding area.

Ms. Lee

stated at this time there have not been any application on any of the individually owned lots.

Commissioner Adams

when home based businesses become successful to the point they grow with size beyond the harmony with the neighborhood they should be moved to a commercial area. The dogs are well cared for but not a harmonious use for a residential neighborhood. Vasili Platunov and Oksana Haggins, applicants.

Ms. Haggins

stated they never intended to have this many dogs. 5 to 6 years ago they only had their own dogs for breeding and K-9 security purposes. They were also providing boarding and foster services. People would come to ask them to board the dogs for a few days and they would never come back. They have a special agreement with Australia Agriculture and they are sending dogs over there. The still have their 26 original dogs, they are their family. One third of their females are spayed. They are already down to 130 dogs and they are hoping by the next week to have two more dogs at their new homes. They will try and comply with everything Planning requires. There is no difference with 30 dogs or 130 dogs barking.

Commissioner King

stated the animals are very well taken care of, many of the kennels are older and some of the panels are in rough shape. They are attempting to construct new kennels. They are also operating a rescue and breeding of animals. He agrees with Commissioner Adams, it was a manageable home based business at first, but now it has grown way beyond a manageable home based business. It may be in their best interest to find somewhere in a commercial zoning district so they aren’t subject to the wildlife that will come past the property causing barking.

Commissioner King

asked the applicants if there are any plans with what they will do with the animals.

Ms. Haggins

stated they will still try to find homes for those that are still adoptable.

Commissioner King

stated they should have a plan to move the business or place the animals somewhere else, if the application is denied you can appeal to the BOCC.

Ms. Lee

stated by state law they have to notice 30 individual property owners. The lots are larger so we had to go out further to reach 30 individual owners. Paula Glidden played a recording of dogs from the applicants property barking. She stated they bark all the time and all night long. She has a letter from Mr. Brown who is a neighbor stating they did have a dog get out, come into his yard and fought with his dog. Debra McLoud spoke in favor of the application, she believes what the problem is, is that he has taken on dogs as a rescue stand point. He does take care of the dogs very well, they only bark when it is feeding time. Hal Long spoke in favor of the application the dogs are well behaved and very well taken care of. Hunter Mills stated the animals bark all the time, you can hear him yelling at the dogs in the middle of the night. He burns the feces and it smells, 150 dogs is a bad idea. The property is too small to have that many dogs. Christy Burkel stated realtors have told her she can’t sell her parents property due to the noise from the barking and smell from the dogs. No one wants to be around the constant barking and smell. Cecilia Armitage is against the application and stated she doesn’t believe this should be in a residential area. Scott Shoemaker spoke in favor of the application and stated the applicant should be given a number to get down to and a timeframe to get to that number.

Mr. Platunov

asked the neighbors why there have been no complaints in the last 5 years for barking. Dogs bark when people drive by his house.

Commissioner Adams

stated we need to put his off for a month and see if Animal Control and Mr. Platunov can come to an agreement on how to get the numbers down. Instead of 1/3 of the females spayed 2/3 should be spayed. It isn’t fair to the neighbors to have this large of a number.

Commissioner King

stated maybe there should be a delay of 90 to 180 days, but no longer for Mr. Platunov to find options to relocate the animals and/or his business more suitable for the dogs.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated he isn’t worried about 35 dogs. Mr. Platunov has violated his initial CUP by four times the amount he was granted initially.

Commissioner Koenig

agreed, he should have come in when he reached 32.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we aren’t here to determine whether or not he does a good job at taking care of the dogs. We are looking at the location of the facility. This will run with the property. The future uses for these properties is residential.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Platunov what specifically sets the dogs off to bark.

Ms. Haggins

stated it is the noises they hear, seeing something and the smell. She also stated they don’t burn the feces.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they are legally to have 30, they illegally have 130 plus. How do we whittle these down from 140 back to 30, and how long will it take to do that. Page 4 of 17

Commissioner Adams

motioned to deny CU-2015-000011 and asks animal control to work with the applicant to get the number back down to the 30.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if that was based on staff’s findings.

Commissioner Adams

stated yes. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Commissioner Clark

would like clarification on the motion. Is this to get the number back down to the 30?

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on a time limit for this.

Commissioner Adams

stated to limit it to 60 days to have a report from Animal Control with a plan.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the 60 days is for Animal Control to get back to us.

Commissioner Adams

stated correct, it isn’t 60 days to get the animals down.

Commissioner Kings

asked if it can be continued.

Mr. Sutton

stated you can continue it.

Commissioner Adams

withdrew his motion.

Commissioner Oscarson

withdrew his second.

Commissioner King

motions to continue for 60 days pending a report from Animal Control, the owner and staff to develop a plan to bring the property into compliance with the original CUP with a max of 30 dogs. The plan has to show steps and time not to exceed a year on how to reduce in a timely matter.

Commissioner Adams

stated a year is too long, maybe 6 months.

Commissioner King

restated his motion they have 60 days to come back with a plan to reduce the numbers in a timely matter.

Commissioner King

withdraws his motion.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we are here to discuss the CUP the discussion that is going on is something that would take place for a revocation hearing on his violation of the Conditions of Approval. That need to come back to us and that is when we should address the removal of the dogs.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to deny CU-2015-000011 based upon findings. Seconded by

Commissioner Clark

questioned if Animal Control or Mr. Platunov can sound proof the property. We have heard the dogs react to sound.

Commissioner Koenig

stated there is a motion and a second and called for the vote.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report. The applicant is asking for 10 tigers to be kept as personal pets. Staff stated the findings that are required in NCC have not been met. The proposed use is not compatible with the adjacent zoning, there is a plated subdivision, adjacent to the South and East of the subject property, and the use may be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses and the Conditional use may be detrimental to person or property, by traffic, noise or odors. Staff is recommending denial of the application.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification on legal access to the property.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is an issue noted in the findings, there is no legal access to the property. The physical access to the property is off of Baker which crosses over recorded lots. The physical access doesn’t match legal access.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if they were crossing over other people’s properties to get to their property.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is correct. Ray Mielzynski property owner, Kayla Mitchell applicant.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated there is no one close to them, there is also no development. He does have a road ROW from the BLM for the last 21 years, it is on the West side of the property. It is 60’ by 1500 feet that access the property. It also access all the other 20 acre parcels that his property used to own.

Commissioner Carbone

helped them to get reestablished as far as reapplying for another CUP. He stated Kayla is the owner of the cats. Kayla Mitchell stated she just filed for her 501(c)3 this week and these are just her personal pets. She has no visitors to the property, she is not required to have a USDA license because she isn’t exhibiting and not open to the public. She has seen the backup submitted with pictures, those are pictures with Karl and celebrities but those were done before they moved to this property, none of the people have been to this property. She has no intent to be open to the public, running a zoo or having visitors.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mrs. Mitchell if she has been on the property with the animals for 5 years.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if she was there prior to the original CUP being approved.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has been there since February 3, 2011.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if she has been through this process before, when the original CUP was issued by the BOCC in 2012, when it was revoked.

Commissioner Hafen

asked how many animals are on the property and how many tigers are on there. Page 6 of 17

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has 10 tigers, 5 dogs and a blue crown amazon parrot. They also feed wildlife on the property.

Commissioner Hafen

asked how many tigers are males and females.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has 3 males and 7 females.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they have been breeding the animals.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated they don’t normally breed, but they did put two together and had a cub born on October 1st. This is the first baby born on the ranch.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they have brought any on or off in the last 5 years.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated yes, they have rehomed three cats from GW Zoo in Oklahoma.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if from there to here.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated from there to our home here.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the ranch is called Big Cat Encounters and asked Mrs. Mitchell what her position is there.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated that is her husband’s name for the ranch. She just filed for her 501(c)3 and she would like it to be called The Serenity Ranch for anyone who wants to donate.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if she has a position with Big Cat Encounters as a manager or is that all just your husbands.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she takes care of the animals.

Commissioner Carr

asked how long it will take her to get her permit.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has no idea how long the IRS takes.

Commissioner Clark

asked who has legal ownership of the animals.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated they both do. The cub just born is her cub, the three from the zoo are in her name those are her cubs. When she met Karl he had tigers already. Together as a married couple they are all theirs.

Commissioner Hafen

stated you are married and this is a community property state so the new ones that are in your name are they in a separate trust or just in your name.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated it is just verbal that it is my cub.

Commissioner Hafen

stated being a community property state that you are married would lead him to believe they belong to both of you.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Sutton if he could explain what a 501(c)3 is.

Mr. Sutton

stated it is a tax designation that is issued by the federal government. It is a status that is given to a particular entity. He isn’t sure how long the process takes either.

Commissioner Clark

stated the applicant was taking about the only problem is a paperwork problem. Page 7 of 17

Mr. Lacy

stated the 501(c)3 is irrelevant to a CUP. A sanctuary would require the permit also.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated he knows he is a sanctuary. The judge ruled they don’t have a sanctuary designation because they don’t have a 501(c)3. With the approval of the CUP everything goes by the wayside. It is dangerous to move the tigers.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they stated it is dangerous to move the tigers but on the website it talks about taking the animals to California for exhibition, TV Shows and movies.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated not all animals can be loaded and moved. Not all their tigers can easily walk on a leash. There is one tiger that was rescued years ago that is blind in one eye, he is very dangerous and not able to walk on a leash at all. There is another cat that doesn’t want to go. It is easy to put a leash on a cub, but when they get big the one that is damaged can’t do it. He has to be knocked out and he could die.

Commissioner Koenig

stated Mrs. Mitchell says she doesn’t exhibit, they can’t be moved, but the website says they move them, and they do exhibit them. Big Cat Encounters has exhibited. You are part of them.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has never and will not ever exhibit. She is applying for a CUP herself. She isn’t applying for a USDA license either.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mrs. Mitchell if she has applied for a sanctuary with the board.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has not.

Commissioner Hafen

stated a sanctuary is irrelevant and they are only here to hear the CUP for special conditions animals.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified that Mrs. Mitchell stated she has two very large and can be dangerous tigers.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified that she stated she has not exhibited.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified Mrs. Mitchell stated she doesn’t exhibit and will not. However she has testified today that she has been there for the last 5 years and the animals are hers. There was a revocation hearing to permanently revoke the CUP because her animals were exhibited. They may not have been exhibited by you.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated her animals were not exhibited and asked for proof other than a picture. Her animals were not exhibited.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated animal control comes out to check on the animals, there is no neglect. They have a 60 day window to move the animals.

Commissioner Adams

asked Mrs. Mitchell what special license or credentials do they have.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated you only have to have 5 years’ experience to get a USDA license, I’ve been there 5 years.

Commissioner Adams

asked if she has a license. Page 8 of 17

Mrs. Mitchell

stated anyone with only 5 years’ experience could get a USDA license. I have 5 years’ experience with that.

Commissioner Adams

asked which one of you holds a license.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated they don’t hold one license.

Commissioner Adams

asked if there would be a problem with being licensed.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she doesn’t want one. She isn’t exhibiting, she isn’t running a business or a zoo.

Commissioner Adams

stated for public safety there should be a license, what are your credentials.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has been trained by Karl Mitchell who has been doing this for 30 years. They aren’t required to have a USDA license, they aren’t exhibiting, and they aren’t open to the public or a zoo. Those are the requirements for a USDA license along with the 5 years’ experience.

Commissioner Adams

stated he would feel better if you did have a license.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated Karl did have one, he has been doing this for over 30 years.

Commissioner Adams

asked if Karl had a license.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated he isn’t required to have a license, he had one for 25 years.

Commissioner Adams

asked what happened to the license.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated some people state it was revoked, he let it go because he wasn’t exhibiting anymore. He isn’t doing show business so it isn’t required.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if anyone comes out, any volunteers, or Mr. Mielzynski?

Mrs. Mitchell

stated no one.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they have a vet that comes out.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated yes he makes house calls and animal control comes out.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification that she owns three of the cats and her husband owns the other seven correct. Do I have that right?

Commissioner Clark

stated it must be expensive to feed the cats.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated they have three stores in Las Vegas that they get all their meat from. Anything the cats don’t eat they distribute back into the community for homeless dogs, and a cat lady with a bunch of cats.

Commissioner Clark

stated you aren’t derive any funds from exhibiting these animals.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated no that aren’t exhibiting.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated they have to pay a stipend to be in the program. Page 9 of 17

Mrs. Mitchell

stated they pay $1200.00 a year for the meat program.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated the Mitchells bring it in from Las Vegas, take care of the cats and then donate to other places nothing gets thrown away.

Commissioner King

asked if Big Cat Encounters is functioning.

Mrs. Mitchell

doesn’t not constitute a business.

Commissioner King

stated the website says a once in a lifetime entertainment, parties welcome. The ranch offers the opportunity to meet Karl and Kayla, and an educational seminar. Is this website accurate?

Mrs. Mitchell

stated the website Karl made, a federal judge decided a website doesn’t constitute a business.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated to give them the opportunity to make this all work out.

Commissioner Clark

is concerned that there is a paperwork failure. Maybe it should be postponed for 2 or 3 months to clear the paperwork up.

Commissioner Koenig

stated there is no paperwork failure. It is a plain decision to grant or not.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the paperwork issue in not relevant to the decision they are making tonight. The 501(c)3 is absolutely irrelevant to what we are doing, they applied for a CUP to keep 10 tigers. We are looking at the location of the property. The property is adjacent to RE-1, VR-10 and 20 lots. He is concerned that they made the testimony that there are two animals that are highly dangerous. Mr. Hafen reviewed the list findings that they have to address from the staff report.

Commissioner Clark

stated if it was a sanctuary the paperwork failure is that the application has not be processed yet.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the 501(c)3 or not is irrelevant.

Commissioner Clark

believes it is an issue and asked the DA’s office for clarification.

Mr. Sutton

stated one of their arguments made in court is that they were grandfathered as a sanctuary. A requirement of a Sanctuary is to have a valid 501(c)3. You can’t come back later and apply for something that you didn’t have in the first place to try and reinstate grandfathering. If she had a 501(c)3 today it wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion today. Page 10 of 17

Mr. Mielzynski

stated all the adjoining lots have been there forever. He suggests setting for review or status on the property and revisit the CUP in 2 or 3 years to see if anyone is building on it.

Commissioner Koenig

stated 20-25 years from now the properties could be developed. The problem is the CUP runs with the land and at that time there could still be tigers there.

Commissioner King

asked if they have read and understood all the conditions of approval.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated I do and I have.

Commissioner King

stated there are two items that require you to get a USDA permit or any other agency if you are going to exhibit. Item #9 says you will not exhibit.

Commissioner King

asked if she or Karl will exhibit.

Commissioner King

asked the DA’s office to provide a definition of exhibit.

Mr. Sutton

stated the concept behind the Animal Welfare Act is to protect the animals but also the public from the animals. These are large animals and they can be dangerous. Exhibiting is any time that the public is in contact with or in proximity with the animals without the appropriate safeguards.

Commissioner King

stated he has been out to Zuzana and Mr. Shoemakers and seen their animals but not once have they asked him to step into the cage.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated they would not either.

Commissioner King

stated however in the past that has occurred at Big Cat Encounters, because there are photographs of people petting the tigers, Miss America sitting by the tigers taking pictures with her.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she never touched the tigers though.

Commissioner King

stated she was there and mostly this is handling the small cats, and asked if that kind of activity will continue.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has her friends and family come over and they take pictures with my animals.

Commissioner King

stated that goes back to the website where it states people are invited and parties are welcome.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated they don’t have business hours, they don’t invite people out or have parties.

Commissioner King

stated the issue they have is what has happened in the past, what assurance do they have that it won’t happen again.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she has never exhibited, and her cats will not be.

Commissioner King

stated in the future if there is any exhibiting happening this will be gone.

Commissioner Adams

asked the DA’s office if a CUP can be written to sunset in 5 years. Page 11 of 17

Mr. Sutton

stated he would need to research that.

Commissioner Carr

stated Mrs. Mitchell has given her word she won’t exhibit, but what about your husband or a member of your family.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she will tell him he can’t because we have a CUP. Neither on of them will exhibit.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated he as the property owner will make sure there is no exhibiting.

Commissioner King

asked Mr. Mielzynski if he plans on selling, or donating the property over to the Mitchells.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated the property is in joint tenancy with his brother. He isn’t able to do anything right now. He does however like the fact of having a sunset for 5 years.

Commissioner Hafen

stated again we are here to look at whether this is an appropriate location to house 10 tigers or not. Based on the staff report being it is a small lot subdivision next door and you have testified you two tigers that are highly dangerous.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to deny CU-2015-000012 based on findings in the staff report and testimony. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Commissioner Clark

motions to approve CU-2015-000012 subject to all special conditions and for a period not to exceed 2 years.

Mr. Sutton

stated if you are going against staff’s recommendations you will have to make the findings that are required under NCC 17.

Commissioner Clark

stated the findings are that #1 he suggests looking at the aerial map and the only property in the area is their property, it is harmonious with nothing else, #2 there is no general vicinity, there are no residences out there. Based on those two factors and the facility has operated successfully safely for a number of years I see no reason for to not allow then to continue to do so.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they have to address all 8 of them.

Commissioner Carbone

asked to take a 10 minute break. Meeting went into recess at 8:06 pm. Meeting reconvened at 8:17 pm.

Commissioner Clark

continued his findings: #2 stated the surrounding lots are currently not buildable, they are too small for a well, and there is no activity there, so there is no impact. #3 stated it is covered under #2, the lots aren’t buildable therefore there won’t be any neighbors. #4 stated the neighborhood isn’t not buildable. But what we would require is that the owner blade a road for access from Woodchips for direct access onto the property.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that needs to be made a condition of the motion.

Commissioner Clark

stated it will be. Page 12 of 17

Commissioner Clark

continued his findings. #6 same as #2 there is no neighborhood surrounding the property. #7 same as #2 there is no surrounding neighborhood and isn’t one to potentially occur at any time, there is no traffic impact. #8 if a road was bladed to provide access of Woodchips it would solve that problem. To continue with the motion it will include all the items that are listed as conditions of approval, also a signed notarized letter from the Kayla and Karl Mitchell acknowledging they understand that the CUP is revoked immediately by the proper authority if there any display of animals occurs on the property, regular visits to the property from animal control to make sure the animals are healthy.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if he will be adding a condition to blade the road.

Commissioner Clark

stated yes, they need to have access off Woodchips to the property. Seconded by

Commissioner Adams

. Tim Dahl would like clarification on what part of Woodchips they would like bladed.

Commissioner Clark

stated exhibit C.

Mr. Dahl

stated there doesn’t appear to be legal access to Woodchips on that section of road.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated he has legal access for 60’ x 1500’ that accesses Woodchips from the South.

Mr. Dahl

stated he would like to see the paperwork.

Commissioner Clark

amended his motion to include that they provide Public Works the documentation with the legal authority to complete the blading of the road to access Woodchips.

Commissioner Adams

amended his second.

Mr. Dahl

asked to add as a condition that any work that is determined to be a County ROW to obtain an encroachment permit.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that is done.

Mr. Lacy

stated in the motion it was stated an affidavit that they will not display animals. Please use the term exhibition as found in USDA regulations.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the motion and second are changed.

Commissioner Hafen

stated in finding #2 Commissioner Clark stated currently no residents in the area and the lots are not buildable. For #3 you stated same as #2. The future uses are not being addressed here. He is only using current.

Commissioner Clark

stated currently unbuildable.

Commissioner Koenig

asked Mr. Sutton if all 8 were okay.

Mr. Sutton

stated as they addressed all 8, but he can’t say if they were adequate or not.

Commissioner Hafen

stated finding #3 was not adequately addressed, he is using currently. Finding #3 is to address future neighborhood uses.

Mr. Sutton

stated as council he is just is to tell you what the standard is, he can’t weigh in on the findings.

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification on condition #14. Page 13 of 17

Commissioner King

stated that is if they have not met all the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Adams

stated they must meet all conditions of approval prior to the three years?

Ms. Lee

reviewed her staff report and staff is recommending approval of the application.

Commissioner Adams

asked if the shelter was closed.

Commissioner Koenig

stated right now there is no shelter.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Sutton if they can add a condition that if the Nye County Animal Shelter opens back up this reverts back to 6.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes. Jane Young, co-founder and president of Furgotten Friends Dog Rescue, stated for clarification they are not an animal rescue. Any dogs that Animal Shelter takes in, and the owners don’t claim they reach out to rescues to find the dogs new homes. Being limited to 6 dogs doesn’t help out. They are looking for a facility of their own in a commercial area.

Commissioner Carbone

stated from the animal shelter they have taken in at least 20 of those dogs and adopted those out.

Ms. Young

stated they have actually have counted close to 40 they have brought in from the shelter.

Commissioner Adams

asked about the complaint on barking.

Ms. Young

stated they are working on getting a commercial kennel silencer. It is designed to help the dogs learn to not bark. Manda Baker, applicant, stated there are also other dogs in the neighborhood that also bark. It sets them all off no matter where it starts. They go in completely at night 8 – 8:30 till 5:30 – 6:00 the next morning.

Commissioner King

asked if they have read and understood all the conditions of approval.

Ms. Young

questioned #2, about the driveways. When they originally applied for the CUP it was determined because they don’t have visitors at the facility they had decided the driveways were fine.

Mr. Dahl

stated at the time you came before the board the first time, there was a driveway being constructed. They requested you obtain a Ney County Encroachment Permit so it could be built and Page 14 of 17 constructed to Nye County standards. They have not seen a new encroachment permit. They would like you to still obtain the encroachment permit.

Ms. Young

stated the secondary driveway is very rarely used.

Mr. Dahl

stated it appeared to be a newer driveway that was specifically associated with the new buildings you were creating to house the dogs.

Ms. Young

stated they didn’t build any buildings. Everything was existing, they only hung up shade.

Mr. Dahl

stated the encroachment permit is only $75 and they just want to ensure you have built it to Nye County standards.

Commissioner Hafen

asked how many animals they currently have on property.

Ms. Young

stated 10 personal and the 6 rescue. They are waiting to get fosters, there are 8 – 10 dogs awaiting to get into foster homes. A couple are sanctuary dogs and are included in the 10 personal.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if they have a permit to have the 10 personal dogs.

Ms. Young

stated she was under the impression they could have 10.

Ms. Lee

stated per the zoning district they are allowed to have up to 10.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they have to get a permit from Animal Control for the 10.

Commissioner Hafen

stated 40 dogs is a lot of dogs, would you consider a smaller number.

Ms. Young

stated they came to that number as a what if. They just want to be prepared if the shelter comes across a hoarder case and they need to help and place the dogs they want to help. They don’t want 30 to 40 dogs on the property. It is just to help and be prepared. They have learned what they can and can’t handle, along with the numbers.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification if the 40 includes the 10 personal.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he is concerned they will go from 24 to 40 and if they get a hoarder case you will already be over.

Commissioner Koenig

asked Animal Control if the animals in a hoarder case become property of the county or the court. Levi Gregory, Animal Control, stated they remain property of the county.

Commissioner Carbone

stated they would keep the dogs that are under court control but have to move out the other dogs in the shelter.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated they should have an opportunity to continue to help the community. 30 dogs that are well maintained and in and out all the time. There aren’t 30 dogs living there constantly.

Commissioner King

stated clearly 40 dogs is the maximum you could have.

Ms. Young

stated yes. Their goal is to get the dogs in and out as fast as they can, they take them every weekend to adoption events. They have rescued almost 360 dogs and adopted out 362. Page 15 of 17

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if they would be amenable to returning to the 10 personal and 6 rescue dogs if the shelter were to reopen.

Ms. Young

stated they have put up individual dogs runs, not buildings and shade tarps. Michael Baker, co-property owner, stated the buildings that are there were previously there. Ms. Young was correct in stating the only new additions were the dog runs and shade.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve CU-2015-000013 based on staff findings and set the number of dogs to 35. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Koenig

would like to address Mobile Food Vending, and asked the Director to address some of the water issues we have been trying to address regarding VR-8, 10 and maybe 20 limiting the amount the create.

Commissioner Hafen

would like staff to look at 2790 E Camilla Street CUP and address the obvious violations of conditions of approval.

Ms. Lee

asked if it would be as a revocation.

Commissioner Hafen

stated staff to investigate.

Commissioner Koenig

stated in the next three months.