November 9, 2016

Commissioner Buchanan

motioned to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Carr. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Gregory T. Hafen II, Joel Oscarson, John Buchanan, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Paul Carr, Robert Adams, Vincent Clark.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he was asked to move item #13 to before item #8.

Commissioner Adams

stated he had a meeting with three people and Mr. Osborne today.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification stated he met with three members of the public.

Commissioner Adams

stated correct, they wanted to clarify their position on the item # 12.

Commissioner Oscarson

will recues himself from item #8, he currently has a bid in for the applicant for the item.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Saitta if he was amenable to all the conditions of approval and that they are aware of the water dedication requirements.

Commissioner Adams

motioned for approval WV-2016-000027 based upon staffs findings as shown and subject to the special conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report and staff recommends denial of the reconsideration.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked what started this in 2015.

Mr. Osborne

stated they submitted a request to modify then. Levi Gregory, Animal Control Officer.

Commissioner Clark

asked for comments from Animal Control.

Mr. Gregory

stated the care and condition of the dogs is good. As last year they are well taken care and well fed, the kitchen area is clean.

Commissioner Carr

is the acreage large enough to care for that number of dogs.

Mr. Gregory

stated they separated from one another decently enough so they can move around and that they aren’t stepping on each other. There are new kennels that have been set up. Last year some of the kennels had started to deteriorate and there are new kennels up. Jonathan Nelson, Attorney for the applicant. Last year this came to the board to increase the CUP to 150 dogs. They are trying to comply with the board, it isn’t a puppy mill and a majority of the dogs are used for security dogs. They are seeking alternative space for them, they are taken care of very well and the surrounding properties are vacant. They aren’t over breeding and are asking for an approval which would be temporary and if there are stringent restrictions he believes Mr. Platunov is on board with that.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if in the next 3 – 6 months they will be finding another physical location for the additional dogs. Page 3 of 13

Mr. Nelson

stated he has been in negotiations to purchase a property that has the correct zoning in place. Efforts are being made to not make this a permanent fixture in this location.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated if the board agrees with this extension they would need some sort of time frame to alleviate the situation. The applicant should give us a time frame to have this approved.

Mr. Nelson

they are seeking two years.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated they could probably vote down the request if they can’t give us a time frame and clarify their position.

Mr. Nelson

stated he understands, if 6 – 9 months with conditional approval can be agreed on by the board they can agree to that also.

Commissioner Adams

asked the applicant how many dogs are currently on the property. Vasili Platunov, applicant, stated there are 120 dogs on the property currently.

Commissioner Adams

stated over 1 year ago there was a decision and confirmed by the BOCC that the property was to be brought back to compliance to the original 30 dogs, more than a year has passed and the applicant ignored the last decision.

Mr. Nelson

stated his client came to the board to extend the number, 6 months was given to him to drop down to 30 dogs. Mr. Platunov was trying to find new contracts for the dogs, he doesn’t believe he was actively seeking other options as far as real property and transferring to another property. They are now trying to acquire a property that is better suited.

Commissioner Carr

stated he had a phone call from the public wanting to discuss this issue, he refused to discuss the application and asked them to come speak at the meeting. Kim Ruefer stated the applicants dogs bark all the time, if it was their dogs the dog pound would be at their house telling them to quiet down. They moved here for quiet and 150 dogs in that small of area is a lot and a lot of barking. Cody Bradley spoke in favor of the application, he stated he currently works for Mr. Platunov for the last 6 months improving the kennels. He stated the closest neighbor is a mile away and when you walk past the place you can’t see anything, it is all closed in and stated the dogs are being well cared for. Noel Young spoke in favor of the application and stated he has worked for Mr. Platunov for the last 3 or 4 months. Mr. Platunov is working towards finding a new place for the dogs and stated there is some noise but that can’t be helped. Page 4 of 13 Hunter Mills stated he lives within a 1/4 mile of the property. They aren’t doubting that he isn’t a good guy. The issue is the barking, the people speaking don’t live there and here the barking all night. George Glidden stated from his property to his is 1/10 of a mile based on the odometer. It does get loud and there is an odor from what they are burning. He stated there are 150 dogs, and asked where the waste goes when they clean and when the cement is washed where the waste water goes. He stated the waste water is going back into the groundwater. Chris Maynerd spoke in opposition and stated he owns property 1/3 of a mile from the applicant. There is barking that is out of control. His brother lives 1/4 miles away and you can’t sleep because of the barking, they don’t belong in a residential area, with that amount of dogs they should live in Amargosa. David Maynerd spoke in opposition and stated he is the closest lot to the applicant. The barking is ridiculous and can be heard inside the house. At what point if he isn’t abiding by the permit, how long does this go on before he gets in trouble. The smell of urine is not pleasant. Frank Raymond spoke in opposition of the application. The barking is a non-spot nuisance the barking makes the house shake. Scott Shoemaker stated he has some of Vasili’s dogs, and stated he knows how they can bark. They are usually drowned out by some of the other animals. He stated the numbers have gone down even though he has had additional litters. They should give him 120 for 6 months and then give him another number that he has to meet within a time period.

Mr. Nelson

stated animal control has no complaints and they are trying to be community partners, and denying the request creates a hard ship on Mr. Platunov.

Commissioner Hafen

stated no one on the board is questioning whether the applicant is a good owner to his animals. What this board is tasked with is whether or not the residential an appropriate area for 150 animals. The noise level, smell and odor are not irrelevant those matter. Those are findings that the board has to address.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if the dogs can be muzzled before reducing down to 30.

Mr. Platunov

stated no, he won’t pay to muzzle his dogs. Normally dogs have a chance to be in a muzzle for 1 hours. Oksana Haggins stated if they are put in a muzzle, yes it will muffle their barking but they won’t be able to drink water or eat. Winter time they can sprinkle water on them to distract them when barking. They tried this in the summer and it didn’t work. They request to let them try and keep them quiet this way for a few months.

Commissioner Adams

stated he assumed this was finished business. This isn’t an animal care issue, but a land use issue. Is it appropriate for a residential neighborhood, this was given a 6 month time period last year. A sliding scale of 6 months would give them 15 dogs a month to bring them down to the limit.

Ms. Haggins

stated they updated the board every month with the progress. They have been trying to decrease the number. Page 5 of 13

Mr. Nelson

stated 2 years was probably a stretch, they are currently are looking at property that is properly zoned. If this was livestock they could have 150 and this wouldn’t be an issue. Prior to the change a few years ago the kennel wouldn’t have been an issue. The reason he is here, is to stay in compliance.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated he with his partners own 200+ acres in Amargosa all cut up into 1.5, 5, 10, 20 acres and stated he would sell Mr. Platunov at cost at terms he can afford, if he takes his dogs and move to Amargosa.

Ms. Higgins

stated they have a deal.

Commissioner Buchanan

he would be glad to do it.

Commissioner Hafen

referred to Mr. Sutton.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated he is doing it at cost, there’s no profit in this.

Mr. Sutton

stated he doesn’t know if that was tongue and cheek or a serious offer.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated he is serious.

Mr. Sutton

stated if Commissioner Buchanan is potentially creating a business deal for himself on this iten, he should abstain from any voting.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated good thought.

Commissioner Borasky

stated they have had a year to come into compliance and they can’t seem to. He requests that the board consider staff’s recommendations.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to deny RC-2016-0000001 based on staffs findings. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Clark

asked what happens if this property were to be vacated. No matter how many animals it will be a mess in terms of animal waste. What are the ramifications of that?

Commissioner Hafen

stated if it became an issue it would be a Code Compliance issue, but they aren’t considering that this evening.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report. If the RPC determines that they have not complied with the conditions the RPC can revoke the CUP. Page 6 of 13

Commissioner Buchanan

asked what will happen if they decide to revoke the CUP.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is something that would have to be decided. Revoking the CUP he obviously wouldn’t be allowed to have the Commercial Kennel. The County would get together with Animal Control to handle it.

Mr. Sutton

stated he spoke with council they have agreed so that we don’t have to listen to the same testimonies and that you will have to make findings in regards to revoke the CUP as to what conditions were violated. It is okay to refer to testimony that was already heard.

Mr. Nelson

, attorney for the applicant. They are making strides to get back to the 30 dogs and come into compliance.

Commissioner Clark

stated the original condition of approval 13 and 14 request a business license. Was the business license ever completed?

Ms. Higgins

stated yes and with the State and stated it is for the security business. Meeting went into recess at 8:05 pm Meeting reconvened at 8:12 pm.

Mr. Nelson

asked the chair to remind the public they have agreed to accept the public comment from the previous item.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they have agreed. Paula Glidden stated they were in the same predicament a year ago and the board didn’t know how to end this and pushed it off to the commissioners. Blake Tomkowiak stated he rides the bus home and walks home, he watches the house and is scared of the dogs. He is afraid he will get hurt. They scare him at night and he can’t sleep and it makes him fall asleep in class. Kim Ruefer they own vacant property around them and they want to build within the next couple of months. They don’t want to listen to them barking all night long. Belinda Hendrickson stated it has been breeding season again, a question needs to be asked how many of his dogs are pregnant now. He had 9 litters after you asked him to reduce his numbers the last time. Cody Bradley stated they are just allegations that he is breeding. He has been building partitions between all the dogs to keep them from barking. That is solving the noise issue, and the dogs can’t get out of the kennels. Noel Young stated he has been there for 4 months and they are working to help take care of the issues that need to be worked on, the breeding is under control and stated there are dogs that have had puppies in the last 3 months since he has been there. He stated right now there are no dogs being breed. Page 7 of 13 Hunter Mills stated 6 or 7 years ago he was required to have a double wall built, as of now it still isn’t done. For 30 dogs, and now he has 130. The barking is a chain reaction, one barks and the rest will bark. Scott Shoemaker asked if there was an official complaint issued or citation issued against Vasilli on the number of dogs or was this revoked due to him coming in and requesting a modification. He reviewed the past history on process. By revoking his permit, it will close a small business that employs people. Frank Raymond stated in regards to the business, the animals barking, it is a noise complaint, the neighbors should contact the authorities every day. He is way out of compliance, the dogs are huge and very loud.

Mr. Nelson

stated they are out of compliance, the board could automatically revoke the CUP, or continue the item to get down to the 30 dogs.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the original condition was that the property owner shall not have more than 30 dogs on the property at any time. There was also a condition that the property owner shall install a fence beginning at the rear of the house extending to the East and West property line and extending North 20 feet beyond the end of the kennel, within 90 days and asked

Mr. Nelson

if that was completed.

Commissioner Clark

referred to Special Condition # 10, and asked Mr. Nelson if that impacted the property and the property owner at all.

Mr. Nelson

asked for clarification if he was asking whether he had a drainage study.

Commissioner Clark

clarified and asked staff if this was required as part of the CUP.

Mr. Osborne

stated there were no studies required as part of this.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked staff for clarification that Animal Control advised the applicant the first time this was heard because he was out of compliance and was the AO Susan Ryhal.

Mr. Osborne

stated he believes that is correct.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to revoke CU-10-0013 for failure to comply with special conditions of approval. Specifically Special Condition # 2 compliance with conditions are the responsibility of the property owner and he has shown complete disregard of the Boards previous decision and the BOCC’s decision to uphold the RPC’s decision with his out of compliance on the number of animals. Number 11, property owner shall have no more than 30 dogs on the property and any given time, he has not complied with that, and number 12, the fence was not installed within 90 days. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Clark

asked if Commissioner Oscarson would consider amending the motion to allow the applicant 90 days to remove the animals from the property.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated no, if doesn’t believe the property is able to have a permit at this point due to the non-compliance and the neighbors’ concerns.

Mr. Lacy

stated they have been meeting with stakeholders and property owners. They will work on bringing this back to you in December. 12. Discussion and Direction to Staff: Discussion, deliberation and possible direction to staff regarding a possible future zone change for the River Plate Drive area to the Suburban Estates (SE) zoning district (This item is for discussion and direction to staff; further action will be brought back to the RPC for action at a later date and time to be determined.)

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report. The map that shows the orange lines, which the applicant submitted, was what staffs maps were based off of. The applicants have since stated that was not their intentions they wanted the black lines and have provided us with another map they would like to submit for back up.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification that there is a group of property owners that want to rezone their properties.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is correct, there are 26 property owners wanting SE.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if this is their responsibility to make application.

Mr. Osborne

stated as of now it is under discussion and if the RPC want to proceed with the zone change.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to accept the additional back up. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Ms. Snyder

stated there are 26 parcels. They have signed affidavits to go along with the proposal to SE from RE. They understand that they bought their properties zoned RE-1. There is one property that said no and two others they haven’t been able to get in touch with. They would like to have their properties zoned SE.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that the properties highlighted in pink, have individuals that have signed off on wanting the zone change and the properties ending in 03 and 22 have had no yes or no, and the property 16 the Sandquist said no.

Ms. Snyder

stated she did speak with her and she said no. Page 9 of 13

Ms. Snyder

stated she understands there are monetary issues, they had some concerns with that and they would like to help and pay and are more than happy to work with Planning to see what they can do to help it move forward. John Fesnock stated he supports moving on to an SE zoning, it secures the value of the property as the town grows. This will avoid issues like they have had in the past by changing the zoning. Keep the liked people in the area without problem and future fights won’t be happening. Tom Duryea stated the property owners in the area have all gotten together and they have all agreed they will reimburse the County for any expenses, so the County will not be out any money. They understand that those people like Ms. Sandquist that have livestock are grandfathered in and she will get to keep her goats. Once they sell the property then the new owner will be under the SE zoning.

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification on the grandfathering staying with the property.

Mr. Lacy

stated the grandfathering stays with the property as long as it is in continuous use. If there was a livestock owner that sold the property and the livestock was continued without losing that activity for 6 months it could continue on. If the new owners stopped with livestock it would lose the grandfathered status.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification on grandfathering, it would end after 6 months.

Mr. Lacy

stated 6 months of non-use. If they stop having livestock on the property even if they don’t sell it then it would lose the grandfathering.

Commissioner Hafen

stated potentially the grandfathering could last forever. Debbie Young stated are just a few houses down from the problem house, they own horses and want to make sure they are outside of the rezoning. They want to keep their rights to have their horses. Bob Young stated he refused to sign the petition that was going around, he was concerned that he would get a notice that he would have to get rid of his horses.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they were opposed to the request of the neighbors to have the zone change.

Ms. Young

stated as long as it doesn’t include them.

Commissioner Borasky

asked if there was some way to block their property on the map that stipulates that on there.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is a mark on the map for them to not be included.

Mr. Sutton

clarified on the page provided for additional back up that the Deed of Restrictions did have an expiration date, they expired in 2010.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification that the action tonight is to start the zone change process and the fees of $1,425.00 that is covering the cost of the preparation of the hearing. It is money spent regardless of the decision made at the hearing. Page 10 of 13

Commissioner Hafen

stated the property owners in the area have agreed to help donate money to the Planning Department.

Mr. Sutton

stated this isn’t listed as an action item

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is one that has stated no, two that have not responded. If they decided to move forward they can remove them at that time but not add them if they don’t include them originally.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes, you can remove them at the meeting.

Commissioner Hafen

stated direction to staff is to proceed with the zone change application including the two that have been non responsive.

Mr. Osborne

asked for clarification on the fee. Going by the fee schedule for a ZC of this size the application fee is $1425.00.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the PRPD is the applicant, he will leave it to the property owners to meet with Planning to hopefully cover all costs. 13. For Review Only: Review of the Nye County Water District’s report entitled Pahrump Groundwater Management Plan Progress and Status. (This item is for review only; there is no action to be taken at this time on this item.) Oz Wichman, General Manager of the Water District, reviewed his involvement with the report and stated the Water Board requested the RPC look over the Water Conservation section and how it relates to the Pahrump Master Plan. The plan has a table that is put together by estimates and are probably at 250 gallons per day per person in the Community. Based on estimates the Community can grow to 80,000 people. They haven’t taken in account the recharge, but are working on that. The Community has to pursue the policies outlined in the Pahrump Master Plan to help make this work. They have requested the Board categorize into three segments. First is everything in the Water Conservation plan for new construction. Second everything in the Water Conservation section for existing homes. Third would be all items with significant funding implications. There needs to be discussion on how to fund the items in the list. There is a significant over dedication of Water Rights for this basin. Table 3 in the plan has been put together to clarify how much over allocation there is.

Mr. Wichman

reviewed items that the Water District has been discussing at their meetings regarding the plan.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that they want the RPC to work on are under Chapter 5B, adopt a water conservation plan and Chapter 5L, Growth Control.

Mr. Wichman

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that the rest of the information the WD is working on, such as the table and will have to the board at a later date. Page 11 of 13

Mr. Wichman

stated they have set a date to sit down with the State Water Engineer to review Hamilton Reeds first pass at the over dedication. Hamilton Reed will submit a report and the State Engineer will then have someone on staff review it.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that the WD is wanting the RPC to take this information in the plan and turn it into NCC and bring back to the WD in three parts. We are looking at getting one part to the RPC in January, the second in March and the third in May. Meeting your deadline to have it completed to you by your June deadline.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked for clarification that they are trying to break it down into ½ acre foot per year on individual usage.

Mr. Wichman

stated based on assumptions it appears we are at 250 gallon per soul per day in this community.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked what the recharge rate is.

Mr. Wichman

stated the perennial yield is 20,000 acre foot per year. What they aren’t counting is the return flows to the treatment plant, or RIBS.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there is a cushion to the 80,000.

Mr. Wichman

stated yes, based on years of data the State Engineer adjusted the perennial yield.

Commissioner Clark

asked about the dry lake, is it possible to reclaim water from there.

Mr. Wichman

stated he would be trying to figure out how to get the water off the fan, because it comes off the fan, runs through the valley and out across the California border.

Commissioner Clark

asked what the effects of over pumping on the aquifer are.

Mr. Wichman

stated basically once it is empty it can’t be refilled.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked what some inexpensive ways to help the conservation budget.

Mr. Wichman

stated the first step is new construction, discouraging people on planting salt cedars, limiting turf.

Commissioner Adams

stated the Conservation District has a public education budget and had a salt cedar removal budget. At what extent does the WB work with the conservation district?

Mr. Wichman

stated he is currently not engaged with the local Conservation District at this time. He reviewed issues with connecting to utilities and some requirements that could be set.

Commissioner Hafen

disclosed for the record he is the GM of Pahrump Utility which is owned by his family.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated State law says if you are within 400 ft of a public utility you must hook in.

Mr. Wichman

stated 180 feet.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated we could force them to meter the wells, so they can be charged for going over the allowable water usage. Page 12 of 13

Mr. Wichman

stated he doesn’t believe metering wells will be a tool they will allow the State Engineer to use.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if a new house is built and they are on a domestic well, you can force them to sign an agreement stating they can’t use more than ½ acre feet a year?

Mr. Wichman

stated no, it would have to be an order by the State Engineer’s office. They are trying to define at the legislative level what the State Engineer has authority to do.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the State Engineer has given the community an opportunity to write our own plan, he hasn’t come in and said no additional domestic wells. Our job is to write the code that has been approved by the BOCC and Water District and get it back to the WD.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Lacy what the requirements are for Pahrump when a well goes dry.

Mr. Lacy

stated it isn’t regulated here, it goes to NDWR. 14. Future Meetings/Workshops: Discussion and Direction Concerning Items for Future Meetings/Workshops; Set Date, Location and Time of Future Pahrump Regional Planning Commission Meetings. Future meeting is December 14th at 6:00 pm.