July 13, 2016

Commissioner Buchanan

nominated Commissioner Hafen as Chairman. Seconded by

Commissioner Oscarson

nominated Commissioner Adams. Seconded by Commissioner Carr.

Commissioner Buchanan

nominated Commissioner Oscarson. Seconded by

Commissioner Clark

stated he would like to be considered.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to nominate Commissioner Clark. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Carr

motioned to approve. Commissioner Buchanan seconded.

Commissioner Hafen

presented Mr. Koenig a plaque for his service on the RPC.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report stating there are three conditions that the applicant isn’t in compliance with, those are conditions number 9, 16 and 18.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on condition #16. Staff received a letter fro m the property owner, but not the applicants. The condition was to have a letter from the applicant.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the a pplicants were notified prior to this that they were in violation.

Mr. Osborne

stated they were sent a not ice of this hearing, he doe sn’t believe a notice was s ent previously.

Commissioner Clark

reviewed condition #16 from the CUP. He questioned if that wasn’t completed was there even a CUP then, since it states it must be done prior to getting the CUP. Page 3 of 13

Mr. Sutton

stated he won’t get to technical the e nd result will be to make a determination if the CUP will be revoked or not.

Commissioner Clark

asked if Mr. Sutton believes th e CUP was v iable at the start based on the fact we didn’t receive the notarized letters.

Mr. Sutton

stated if he goe s that route then the CUP was never in effect but the applicant should still be able to present evidence that they were in compliance or not.

Commissioner Buchanan

a sked if there was a specific time frame for building of the road o n #18b.

Mr. Osborne

stated there was no time frame specified.

Commissioner Buchanan

doesn’t believ e we can revoke on 18b as there was no tim e frame set forth. He asked for clarification on what exhibition is.

Mr. Lacy

stated if you look at t he conditions t hey have to be in com pliance with all State and Federal laws. One of the i ssues in rega rds to e xhibition is it is a requirement from the USDA. The USDA has a description of exhibition.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated is the posting of a picture of your cat on the internet considered advertising?

Mr. Lacy

stated some of these are determination of fact by the RPC.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if any one has firsthand knowledge that these pictures were t aken by the people or were the pictures taken by the owners of the cats.

Mr. Lacy

stated this is a show cause hearing, th is is your o pportunity to ask t he applicant and reach a conclusion on your own.

Mr. Sutton

stated you can ask the applicant and the appellant in the case. Also stating condition #9 is a two part condition.

Commissioner Hafen

referred to the petitioner. Carney Anne Nas ser stated the definition of exhibition doesn’t require for money to chan ge hands, those notations on the internet were made as business reviews. If this operation wasn’t a business and they weren’t publicly exhibiting those business reviews wouldn’t be needed. This is an individual that has had his exhibitors license revoked and his wife is n’t eligible to obta in a license because she is married to so meone who ha s had theirs revoked. Und er federal law the public contact that has been m ade with the white tig er that has been circulated is in violation of the federal law. The Mitchells have continuously violated the conditions and the law.

Commissioner Hafen

st ated there is no reco mmendation by staff, this is a show cause h earing. There are two conditions in the staff report he clarified.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is correct.

Mr. Sutton

stated those aren’ t the only two opti ons, you can also continue the application for additional research you are able to do that. Raymond Mielzynski stated the access has been submitted to PW, the road has been bladed and if they road needs to be bladed again it can be done. There have been no exhibiting on the property, he has told the Mitchells several times he doesn’t want anyone on the property. Levi from Animal Control goes out and inspects the tigers and their cages. Page 4 of 13

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification as to the road and if has been there for some time?

Mr. Mielzynski

stated he has had the BLM ROW for 20 years now.

Commissioner Clark

asked if Public Works has that documentation. Tim Dahl stated he has been provided the BL M ROW. He went out and to ok pictures and it doesn’t appear that any road work was done on this section of road on the legal description on the ROW. It could be that there is a discrepancy as to where the road is supposed to be.

Mr. Mielzynski

asked if they saw the ATV traffic.

Mr. Dahl

stated he didn’t go out, there encroachment guys went out. They initially went out and did a preliminary inspection of the inte rsection where they are to tie into at Cabot where the last portion of County ROW is.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated we could be possibly in the wrong spot.

Mr. Dahl

stated when staff went out and there is a misunderstanding. Karl Mitchell asked if they were supposed to blade a mile down to Cabot.

Mr. Dahl

stated that is the closest legal access you have to the property . That is where the BLM ROW is, from Cabot to the north, 1500 feet by 60 feet wide. That is the ROW BLM has granted.

Mr. Mitchell

asked if they saw the area they bladed 4 months ago and there is a stake and a red flag. They didn’t anticipate going down to Cabot, which is a mile down the road.

Mr. Dahl

stated that is your closest legal access to the property for emergency vehicles etcetera.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the BLM ROW is a pproximately 1500 feet long and runs from the property to Cabot.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated yes it is 1500 feet.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified that Mr. Mielzy nski provided Public Works with the BLM ROW, and that Mr. Mitchell bladed 60 feet wide by 150 feet long.

Mr. Mitchell

stated 150 feet coming off the BLM access. He thought he was in the right l ocation and it came down from Alicia.

Mr. Dahl

stated b y using the BLM ROW perm it it starts at Cabot and cove rs 1500 feet an d reaches approximately the center of the lot.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated if that is the case it will be fixed.

Mr. Mitchell

commented on the pictures and revi ews that have been posted on a facebook page. He has a packet put together for acceptance. There are letters requesting visits and they responded stating they are private, not open to the public and not a zoo.

Commissioner Clark

motions to accept the additiona l information provided by the applic ant. Seconded by Commissioner Buchanan.

Ms. Nasser

asked if it will be available on the Nye county website.

Mrs. Sandoval

stated she can upload it to the site for her.

Mr. Mitchell

reviewed the animal welfare act in re gards to exhibiting. The y are private, they are not a zoo and not open to the public. They have stated that several times. Kayla Mitchell stated she is being harassed by these people. She has tried to take 2 Facebook reviews on the private shelter page. Alicia Cook is her personal friend and she is allowed to be there. The second person is believed to be a fake page. Personal friends and family are allowed to come to her property and see her ani mals. That is a violation of her rights. She said she wouldn’ t exhibit and she hasn’t.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated he isn’t sure what this notarized letter.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she remembers signing a notarized letter but doesn’t know where it is.

Mr. Mitchell

stated he didn’t realize that a notariz ed letter signed by Ray on Kayla’s letter head wouldn’t be sufficient. He stated they weren’ t aware they needed a separa te letter, but will provide one.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated the ALDF provided google search of ani mals and none of them are their animals.

Mr. Mitchell

stated he is allowed to take photos of his personal pets, to go to his brother’s house, and go to a private party and take hi s tigers with him and for them to be there, that is not exhibiting nor is that not exhibiting for a fee. I am a private person and am allowed those this as a private person. They haven’t heard from the USDA in 5 years, what they do is a non-regulated activity. They would ask for the RPC to lift the restrictions.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Mitchell for clarification for the record on his state ment that it is his right to take his animals to a relative’s house for a party.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if he does that currently.

Mr. Mitchell

stated he doesn’t.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if he has done that since they have had the CUP.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated the Mitchell’s will provide an affidavit, he will make sure the BLM ROW will be bladed for the entir e 1500 feet. He won’t have to go the full 1500 feet but 1200 feet, and stated there is no exhibiting. There are 10 animals and they are being well taken care of.

Commissioner Hafen

stated under the federal animal welfare regulations on page 7 of 12 in the staff report it gives the definition of ex hibitor that is being used in the CUP hearing, it states whether operated for profit or not. It doesn’t have to be for profit in accordance with this definition.

Commissioner Clark

asked if the USDA has ever visited the property. Page 6 of 13

Mr. Mitchell

stated the definition that stated for profit or not doesn’t mean you have to be collecting a profit. It means you are a non-profit or not.

Commissioner Oscarson

s tated the website has a reco mmendation for visitors to wear to the location.

Mr. Mitchell

stated we ar en’t talking about th e webpage, we are talking about Facebook posts. That website is 14 years old.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated we are talking about exhibiting.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we are here for a revocation hearing on the CUP there are a number of alleged violation, not just Facebook postings.

Mr. Mielzynzki

asked for clarification that it was 3 violations.

Commissioner Hafen

stated yes three alleged violations.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated they have a ruling by a fe deral judge that the webs ite doesn’t constitute a business. Also stating they aren’t claiming non-profit or profit they are private owners.

Commissioner Adams

asked what their relationship is to Big Cat Encounters.

Mr. Mitchell

stated Big Cat Encounters is a Non-Profit Anim al Humane Society . Under NRS 574.040 Private Animal Shelter. Not for public, no t a sanctuary where you can visit the animals, but they provide humane services to assist other people that have problems with ani mals that live in this community. The guys with the 1 50 dog’s gets food from us to feed his dogs, the y benefit from us as a Non-Profit Humane Entity. There is no display of the ani mals, there is no fee for displaying the animals. Other than wh at is on the internet or Facebook, that is a right for publication.

Commissioner Adams

stated it stat es to have y our picture taken with a Ben gal tiger on your website. It sounds like you are inviting people to take pictures.

Mr. Mitchell

stated an invite doesn’t prove that anyone has paid to take a picture. This permit was not given to Big Cat Encounters, it was given to Kayla Mitchell for her own private self. Big Cat Encounters doesn’t have a permit.

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification that Kayla Mitchell has a private animal sanctuary.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she is a private animal owner.

Commissioner Adams

stated there is a website for Big Cat Encounters that invites people to the private facility.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she runs Facebook she doesn’t invite anyone over, no one comes over.

Mr. Lacy

read from the website stating it says we are a private entity reserved for the VIP t ypes and not the general public.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that it states that on the Big Cat website.

Mr. Lacy

stated correct. Page 7 of 13 Public comment opened at 7:09 pm Don Cox stated this is just an attempt to put them out of business, his wife County Commissioner Donna Cox has been there with Comm issioner Frank Carbone and the property and animals are taken care of. Lou DeCanio, Alicia Cook, Dea nna O’Donnell, Sam Jones, and Diane Marie Victoria Holguin- Brooks all spoke in favor of the applicant. Meeting went into recess at 7:22 pm. Meeting reconvened at 7:32 pm. Ammie Nelson, Charles Augustin, Rick Monto ya, Dean Brooks all spoke in favor of th e applicants.

Ms. Nasser

stated there h ave been numerous vi olations and non-com pliance with very clear conditions imposed on the CUP granted to Mrs. Mitchell after the county has found illegal violations of the animals on the pr operty. The reason USDA hasn’t been to the propert y is because the license has been revoked permanently over 10 years ago.

Commissioner Hafen

refers back to the applicant.

Mr. Mielzynski

stated everything that ALDF has talked about is against Mr. Mitchell. There are three points being questio ned today. The letter can be taken care of next week, the road can be bladed and completed in 30 days, and there has been no exhibiting on the property.

Mr. Mitchell

stated they have made every effort to comply with the requirements. The affi davit was done on Kay la Mitchell letterhead signed b y Mr. Mielzynski. The letter can be co mpleted and signed tomorrow.

Mrs. Mitchell

stated she is trying to comply with everything the RPC has placed on her. She will sign the letter, she hasn’t exhibited and they will fix the road.

Commissioner Borasky

asked Mrs. Mit chell if she h as read and u nderstood the 18 conditions of approval.

Commissioner Borasky

stated he wanted Mrs. Mitc hell to sit dow n with Mr. L acy to make sure all the conditions have all been met. He also in structed Public Works to go and place 4 stakes i n the ground to mark out where they need to blade.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the definiti on of open to the pub lic under conditi on #9 is being confused with exhibiting, his understanding of the motion made with open to the public was that they wouldn’t be showing the anim als to friends or family or taking pictures with friends and family. Yes they are allowed to the house but no in with the animals. He would like clarification in the motion what open to the public means under #9.

Commissioner Clark

st ated the road is n’t a problem, his concern is whether or not they have a viable complaint, and condition #16 was not fully complied with.

Mr. Sutton

s tated although it is a condition he doesn’t know if the board wants to take the position that for the last five m onths because we haven’t received the affidavit that the CUP Page 8 of 13 wasn’t in existence. The r equirement itself is questionable because it w as just reaffirming the acceptance of condition #6. It should have been brought up a lot earlier than this.

Commissioner Clark

stated he would still like to see the condition fulfilled, t he condition was understood by Mrs. Mitchell at the time of the hearing.

Mr. Sutton

stated he wasn’t stating the condition doesn’t have to be complied with, for revocation purposes he doesn't think this will be sufficient fo r a CUP revocation. If the y were reluct ant to sign any affidavit that would be different. But he doesn’t believe that is the case.

Commissioner Carr

asked for clarification that the board will hear this again in a year.

Commissioner Hafen

stated yes in 2017.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification that the Alicia Cook who wrote t he review is the same person who spoke and public comment.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that was th e testimony by the Mitchells and Mrs. Cook during public comment.

Commissioner Hafen

stated before he asks fo r the motion he would like to ask that under condition #9 there is clarification on what open to t he public means, that the not arized letter and the legal access be completed in 30 days if that is the direction the board decides to move.

Commissioner Carr

motioned to co ntinue the CUP provi ded there is a timeline to o btain signatures required under item #16 and #18 finishing the road within 60 days, and clarification of exhibition as discussed.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for definition of open to the public or exhibit in the motion.

Commissioner Carr

stated to follow the flag man.

Commissioner Hafen

stated and to not allow family members or friends to see the animals.

Commissioner Carr

stated when friends are at the property they aren’ t exhibiting they are observing.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified the motion made by Commissioner Carr stating the motion was to continue this for 60 days and they are to bring it back to be reheard with evidence of the notarized letter.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified the motion meaning to not revoke the permit, give them 60 days to submit the n otarized letter signed by both Kay la and Karl Mitchell, 60 day s to blade the legal access under 18b which i s 1500 feet of BLM ROW, de fine open to the public meaning when friends and fam ily are over the animals are not to be allowed o ut of their caged facility and friends and family are not allowed within the caged areas.

Commissioner Carr

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Adams

asked for there to be a specific date put forth for the notarized docu ment, set to July 21st. Page 9 of 13 Kayla Mitchell stated she agreed.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the motion is for 60 days.

Commissioner Carr

stated he is amenable but would want them done at a single date to simplify it for the applicant and staff.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report , there are several different businesses on the property . There is a 14 space trailer park, auto s ales and repair garage and a building that had a prev ious hair salon that the property owner is wanting to reopen but has been discontinued for several years. The property is zoned correctly but doesn ’t meet curren t development standards. The minimum requirements needing to be met are ADA requirements for parking, the building would have to comply with fire and life safety issues.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked for clarification on how long the business has been abandoned.

Mr. Osborne

stated according to the Town of Pahrump it hasn’t had an active business license for the beauty salon since 2006.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if there were active businesses on the property currently.

Mr. Osborne

stated there is the trailer park and Bob’s Tires.

Commissioner Hafen

noted the applicant is not present at the meeting.

Commissioner Hafen

sta ted staff noted ther e was insufficient inform ation to support recommendation.

Commissioner Osborne

stated that is what is recommended.

Commissioner Clark

is concerned about the age of the buildi ng and supp orts the idea o f reopening the beauty salon but he doesn’t think it will generate traffic and it is run down and he is concerned about public health and safety.

Mr. Lacy

stated this is zoned co mmercial and a permissive use for the property, to get a CUP for a grandfathered use is so they don’t have to do a full upgrade of development standards. There is a minimum required to get building permits for ADA compliance. It will require refurbishment, they will be a requirement to get a tenant im provement permit, they will have to meet all health and safety issues for the work in addition to the ADA and nonstructural life safety. Page 10 of 13

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification from Mr. Lacy that if they deny this tonight they still can open a business there but comply with all applicable county code because it is zoned general commercial.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is correct, it would be Site Development.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated they should be able to pave a few spots not the entire 2 acres.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is what they are trying to accomplish with extending the grandfathered use. We would allow them to do the minimal requirements.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the last business license was 10 years ago.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to deny the CUP based on the findings on page 2 and 3. Seconded by Commissioner Carr.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that staff is recommending approval.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if both parcels are owned by the same owner.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification on the option for motion to deny the application.

Mr. Sutton

stated there i sn’t anything for the RPC to decide on, just to make sure the map meets the technical requirements. There are no special findings for maps that the RPC needs to consider.

Ms. Beeman

stated before the map is recorded it will be reviewed to make sure all prior comments from staff are addressed and will be technically correct. Jyoti Madhura – Franchise operator for Jack in the Box. Stated he plans on having it open by 2017, they are just waiting on the permits.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if they are aware of the 21 standard conditions of approval.

Mr. Madhura

stated his architects would have received those. Page 11 of 13

Ms. Beeman

stated she has been corresponding with Mr. Dave Lundy with PM Design Group and they have received the back up.

Commissioner Hafen

would like the applicant to review the conditions.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if PM Design Group is okay with the conditions.

Ms. Beeman

stated she hasn’t received comments back. Meeting went into recess at 8:31 PM to allow the applicant review of the conditions. Meeting reconvened at 8:35 pm.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the appli cant has r ead and understood t he standard conditions of approval.

Mr. Madhura

stated yes and they do.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve PM-2016-000017 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Sutton

st ated this is a resolution that was di scussed at the previous meeti ng. It allows the board the option to donate the co mpensation back to the county. If this is an issue with finance it will be brought up at the BOCC level.

Commissioner Hafen

stated it was his intent to do nate the money back to the Nye County Planning Department fund. It is subject to the board.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the y would be able to donate the compensation to a non- profit of their choice or is this something that would be cut to the board members.

Mr. Sutton

stated he isn’t sure that is an option.

Commissioner Oscarson

m otioned to reco mmend to forward the resolution to the BOCC with clarification on whether or not it can be placed back into the Planning fund. Seconded by Clark.

Commissioner Carr

asked for clarification if the motion allows them to make a decision after this is passed.

Commissioner Hafen

stated yes, this is just a recommendation to the BOCC to allow us to do that in the future, he believes it is all or part.

Commissioner Hafen

would like brought back to the next m eeting the sta tus update of the portions of the Groundwater Management Plan that have been r ecommend by the BOCC that would involve the PRPD. He would like status update to what level is it at, does the NCWD want them to move forward or are they still reviewing it.

Mr. Lacy

stated the water district is stil l reviewing it and there are sections th at have potential discussion on growth control and zoning that would come back to the RPC.

Commissioner Hafen

asked to bring back the SE zoning to include livestock.