January 11, 2017

Commissioner Adams

stated he made a change with staff and motioned to accept the minutes with his comments sent to staff. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Commissioner Hafen

stated item #13 has been pulled.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they might not have a quorum for item 14, it may have to be continued pending on having a quorum at that time.

Ms. Beeman

stated there are APA webinars available to the Commissioners that would be presented at our office. The dates are January 25th, February 15th and March 15th.

Commissioner Clark

will attend the 2/15 webinar.

Commissioner Hafen

asked when Ms. Beeman would need definitive answers.

Ms. Beeman

stated several days before registration.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we need to make sure there is no potential quorum issue.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he has asked Mr. Lacy to set up educational classes for the RPC members. The classes will be mandatory and will try and start them in March.

Mr. Lacy

stated in regards to the CIP committee, there is an agenda item requested by the BOCC to be on their agenda next week. The direction requested by Commissioners was to nominate the RPC as the Capital Improvements Committee that will change the membership of the committee from 15 to the 7 member RPC. Page 2 of 21

Mr. Lacy

stated the BOCC will have an agenda item for a contract for Public Works to utilize a gravel pit that would require a CUP or a temporary waiver. There is a temporary waiver that will be on the BOCC meeting next week. d. Chairman’s Comments

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like staff to advise the RPC at the next meeting the outcome of the CIP resolution.

Commissioner Oscarson

abstain items #14, 15 & 16, his company is contracted to do work on this project.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he is recusing himself from item #14 as his family is property owner of the parcel in question. If we don’t have a quorum by the time the item is heard it will have to be continued for lack of quorum.

Ms. Beeman

stated she has two additional documents to submit for the record.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve the additional documentation. Seconded by

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the additional back up we are receiving is staffs findings on the waiver request.

Ms. Beeman

stated correct, and one additional special condition of approval. Scott Swapp with William Lyon Homes, stated there was confusion on their side with the subsequent submittals of the TM. Instead of waiting for the RPC meeting, they had submitted a new map and hadn’t given Cheryl sufficient time to include those changes from the map into her staff report.

Commissioner Koenig

stated not only does this effect planning it also affects Pubic Works. This can’t happen any longer, they have 60 days and they can take longer.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and stated on Item #4 of the findings she handed out for the Waiver needs to be changed to a 20 foot minimum set back and not the 15 she wrote. Standard is 20 foot and they are asking for 10 foot.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Sutton if they can approve these waivers.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes, they weren’t over the DA and there is a clause in one of the exhibits that specifically allows the Planning Commission to make adjustments to the development standards. Page 3 of 21

Ms. Beeman

stated the board has delegated to the RPC final action on Tentative Maps. Staff has worked with William Lyon Homes and Taney Engineering to create tentative map design that is in the staff report. The Fire Department is okay with the 28 foot road way design standard.

Commissioner Hafen

stated it looks like additional proximity to fire hydrants were included in the cul-de-sac.

Ms. Beeman

stated they asked for them to be added midblock which they call the “T” not necessarily on the cul-de-sac.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the fire access plan that has been developed, however one section had two entrances/exits with a fire gate.

Ms. Beeman

stated she will leave that up to the applicant. She stated that all state agencies they have submitted to and the Town Manager and Town of Pahrump Fire Department have all recommended approval. There are some standard and special conditions of approval that will be recommended to change.

Mr. Swapp

asked Ms. Beeman if she will be reading in the changes that they are changing in the conditions.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes, they will review those.

Mr. Swapp

stated the fire access route that they show depicts the fire routing for access of emergency vehicles in the construction state and the expanded plan as the project is phased. This is a gated community that has fire access capabilities. Mr. Swapp reviewed exhibits presented in the back up.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the road widths. The difference between 59 and 51 is the sidewalk will have a landscape area and the sidewalk will be outside the ROW instead of inside the ROW and realistically it is the same width except with landscape added in the middle.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on condition of approval that these roads will be private. Is that an acceptable condition?

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the changes to the conditions. To item #1 add in Development Agreement. Item #9 is an issue with WLH and referred to Mr. Swapp.

Mr. Swapp

stated the language implies there is a different setback in Mt. Falls with what has already been done. This is something that isn’t relative to the TM at this time. They request this condition be removed at the TM stage.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification for staff, isn’t it standard for all parcels created to have a 10 foot utility easement along the edge of all the properties. Or is that only on Parcel Map process.

Ms. Beeman

stated on the Parcel map but not sure if it is a specific standard condition.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if staff is amendable to removing item #9. Page 4 of 21

Ms. Beeman

stated if it isn’t part of our code, and Public Works is okay with removing it, we can have it removed and placed on the final map.

Ms. Beeman

stated the next condition to be reviewed is item #27. This discussion has been heard before and because these will be private streets, they are all in agreement that this can be removed. We need to also delete item 31 it is covered under #15b. She wants to add an additional condition of approval to get the fire department standard placed into our conditions of approval so it is outlined in the Final Action Memorandum.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification they are removing conditions #9, #27, and #31 and adding in #32 addressing the fire hydrants and adding the wording Development agreement into item #1.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicants if they are amendable to the conditions and the recommend changes by staff.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Public Works if they are okay with the deletion of # 27, since they are private streets. Cody McKee stated yes.

Commissioner Clark

stated he assumes the parking enforcement will be taken care of the HOA, and asked how it will be accomplished.

Mr. Swapp

stated yes, they have a management company that does patrols. If it impacts any type of emergency vehicle access, law enforcement can be contacted by the HOA.

Commissioner Clark

asked if the HOA agreement has been completed.

Mr. Swapp

stated there is an amendment for the age qualified portion that isn’t completed yet.

Commissioner Clark

asked if at some point in the future the HOA can soften the no street parking language.

Mr. Swapp

stated no, it can’t be modified on the developer’s side. Terry Connelly, William Lyon Homes, stated the CC & R’s can’t be modified without a super majority vote of the homeowners including lenders. The existing CC & R’s include authority for Mt Falls to tow vehicles.

Commissioner Adams

asked if the 20 foot wide private street, would have houses on either side of that.

Mr. Swapp

stated the 28 foot street section that has no parking only is in a few select areas that have that requirement.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve TM-2016-000004 and waivers based on the findings by staff and adding the changes, adding Development Agreement to #1, removing #9, Page 5 of 21 #27, #31 and adding #32 to provide an additional fire hydrant mid-block at the “T” street section. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report, and making a correct to Item B4, where the minimum set back is 20 foot is the minimum and not 15 as stated. The emergency service access becomes important at this point. This item also requires the additional condition regarding the fire hydrant. Planning area 6 is proposed to have 4 access points, emergency access is a concern. One entrance is a shared access into planning area 4C, which is gated, there are 2 access points to the South that is to be at some point in the future, and another one to the North in the future. Scott Swapp stated with the improvement plan submittal the fire access and turnarounds will be address in the improvement agreement stage with the Fire Department review. This plan shows it being staged. The fire access routing plan shown, is actually the construction access for all the all the planning units shown on the exhibit. It will be constructed for fire access early on but as the improvement plans are decided for each one will the route be shown.

Commissioner Hafen

stated this one is 225 units but really will only have 1 additional access point. Whereas the previous TM approved was 103 with two access points. He is concerned there won’t be enough access for EMS knowing this is an age restricted community. Can there be a second emergency access added temporarily.

Mr. Swapp

stated the way the project is to be phased there is to be an additional access points as the development comes online. Two locations will be developed as they move through the development.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they would be amendable to a special condition that one of those be built out when you hit the 100th home of the 225 that a temporary access route would be added to that for emergency services.

Mr. Swapp

stated yes, they could do that.

Commissioner Clark

asked staff for clarification under external comments page 9, Nye County School District states they may have some interest in revisiting the school site pursuant to NRS.

Ms. Beeman

stated once they found out this was an age restricted community, they had no interest as there would be no school bus stops. NRS states under a TM they can state their intent, but have no interest at this time.

Commissioner Hafen

stated to the applicant he has read the justification letter and states the facilities you will be building and this is an age restricted community and playgrounds may not be appropriate for this section.

Mr. Swapp

stated the age restricted community provides a specific recreation center for that profile, with many amenities.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the justification letter refers to a club house, pool, and outdoor entertainment.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if they have read and understood the conditions and special conditions approval.

Mr. Swapp

stated yes once read into record.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the changes to the conditions. Adding Development Agreement to #1, deleting item #9, # 28, #32 add #33 to add additional fire hydrants to the mid-block T areas.

Mr. Lacy

stated Commissioner Hafen mentioned a potential requirement for a trigger point for emergency access.

Commissioner Hafen

stated his recommendation would be to add once the 100th permit is pulled to add an additional temporary access, but that is at the pleasure of the board.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification on the suggestion of 100 homes, is that when they are completed or framed or built out?

Commissioner Hafen

stated his recommendation is when the 100th building permit is pulled.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is the best point from staff’s perspective also.

Mr. Swapp

asked for clarification of temporary road, is that a gravel road that is approved by EMS.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for the record, he is not recommending an asphalt road, but a temporary access gravel road.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve TM-2016-000005 and the Waivers based on findings with the following changes, adding Development Agreement to #1, striking #9, and #28, adding #33 as the fire hydrants to the mid-block T section street and adding #34 to add a temporary fire EMS access at the 100th permit pulled. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification if the motion included striking condition #32.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated he had meant to strike # 32.

Mr. Sutton

asked for if there was any reason these items can’t be taken together. He stated items # 10 and 11 seem to have the same staff report.

Ms. Beeman

stated they are the same street names were submitted for both.

Commissioner Hafen

opened item #11.

Ms. Beeman

stated what they didn’t find in the list is a theme which is suggested in the street name guidelines. There are 75 street names available for use, Planning are 4C they require 11 street names and Planning Area 6 requires 23 street names.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if they have a sufficient number of street names to cover all their required street names, and some that you can find a common theme.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes, she will leave the theme to be answered by the applicant, they might have a theme in mind.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that there are a total of 44 street names needed and there are 75 available to use.

Ms. Beeman

stated 75 are acceptable to use.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they could find 44 that have a similar theme. Terry Connelly, with William Lyon Homes. Stated they are trying to deviate from the Italian theme that is out there right now, and go to a desert theme. What they typically find that there is a substantial amount of names that you have to get approved to help develop that theme they are trying to achieve. They are trying to do a desert contemporary, desert prairie or desert modern lifestyle. He appreciates having this many names to choose from to develop the theme.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked Ms. Beeman for clarification if the theme name must be documented within the street names, or will desert modern be acceptable.

Ms. Beeman

stated NCC just suggests a theme.

Ms. Beeman

asked the board if they had any preferences out of the list.

Mr. Cunningham

asked preferences in regards to.

Ms. Beeman

stated street names.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the board has to choose the 44.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes. Page 8 of 21

Mr. Connelly

stated they came for a list of approved names to pick from, it is necessarily up to the board to pick their street names. They would utilize the names to help pick their marketing theme.

Ms. Beeman

stated they aren’t assigning them to the map at this time, but they are approving the street names for their use.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification they are not choosing 43 they are either approving or denying 75 names and then it is up to WLH to choose the 43 names they would like and would be on the final map and the remaining names can be put back for future use.

Ms. Beeman

stated she believes the mapping administrator has a way of tracking that.

Mr. Sutton

stated he is checking code, and doesn’t see a problem approving the list of names and the applicant then chooses the names they want to use.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicants if that was amenable.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve the list of available names in applications SN-2016- 000005 and SN-2016-00006 based upon findings and subject to special conditions. Seconded by

Ms. Beeman

asked for clarification that they were approving the available names.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified the motion that they were approving the available names based on the report.

Mr. Sutton

stated there are a surplus of names that will be tied up, until they get their final map approved they names won’t be available for use for any other subdivision.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and stated Ms. Frick is wanting to hold weddings on the property that is why she is applying for a private recreation area. The property was created under a patent and no ROW was given up for Homestead Road because of that, staff is asking for the ROW dedication. Ms. Beeman stated staff is recommending approval of the application. Page 9 of 21

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification on item #2 water quality and how she came up with that point.

Ms. Beeman

stated the Community Source Water Protection Plan addresses that more, but any wells that are drawn into the aquifer are potential sources of contamination and this is the ranking it was assigned under the CSWPP.

Commissioner Clark

asked if this is something we need to remediate.

Commissioner Clark

asked if the septic system capable of handling a sudden onset of people.

Ms. Beeman

stated she can’t answer that the septic was put in in 1998 and those records would be kept at the state level, she deferred to Mr. Lacy.

Mr. Lacy

stated a special condition to have the septic inspected and have a report provided by the inspector on what capabilities of the septic. They could use port-a-potties for large events if the applicant is amenable to that.

Commissioner Clark

asked if they had records on the capacity of the existing septic.

Mr. Lacy

stated that was installed and inspected by the State back then, it wasn’t done locally until somewhere around 2000 and suggested having the septic inspected and pumped to determine capacity.

Commissioner Clark

asked if that is something that can be determined during a normal inspection.

Mr. Lacy

stated yes, if Ms. Frick is amenable it can be added as a Special Condition of Approval.

Commissioner Adams

asked if there is an event permit through the county.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is for over 1000 people.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated if we can determine the septic size could a condition be in place for over a certain amount of people they would be required to provide port-a-potties.

Mr. Lacy

stated yes. Stacy Frick, applicant, stated she hasn’t bought the property yet, she applied to see if she can purchase the property and use it for what she wants to use it for. She doesn’t anticipate any more than max 100 people at one time. The property already has an existing church, dance hall, outdoor barns, and gazebos. Several places to have the ceremony and either an indoor or outdoor reception.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they’re are one or two septic’s on the property.

Ms. Frick

stated there are two wells but she isn’t sure on the number of septic.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if there are permanent water rights associated with those.

Ms. Frick

stated yes. Page 10 of 21

Commissioner Hafen

asked if she was amenable to an inspection of the septic tank (s) to determine the capacity.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if she has read and understood the conditions of approval. There are 5 possible 6 if the septic gets added.

Commissioner Hafen

stated on page 4 of the staff report the only special condition is that legal transfer of the ½ width of ROW for Homestead, the road is currently built on this parcel. They ask as a condition of approval that be dedicated to the county.

Ms. Frick

stated yes. She asked for clarification of the easement, she has a half wall with a metal fence. Would she be required to move that wall?

Mr. McKee

stated if the fence is within the 40 feet to be dedicated it would have to be relocated before the offer of dedication can be accepted.

Ms. Frick

hasn’t measured how far it is from the road.

Commissioner Hafen

stated it would be 40 feet from the current property line, which is the center of the road, not the edge of the pavement. Asking for clarification from PW on the width of the road.

Mr. McKee

stated roughly 15 feet of the road is on this property.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if it would be amenable to leave the wall if it falls within 5 feet of the ROW.

Mr. McKee

stated the wall might be outside of the 40 feet, to have an accurate dimensions his guess would be that the wall is outside of the 40 feet from existing center line of the road. It shouldn’t be an issue, if it is the offer of dedication could be 30 feet or 35 feet if the Public Works Director is supportive of that.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that way the block wall would be outside of the ROW that would be a good solution so the wall doesn’t have to be move. However the County doesn’t want a liability of having a block wall in the ROW and they wouldn’t want anyone driving into the wall either.

Ms. Frick

stated there seems to be quite a distance from where the road begins.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if she accepts the rest of the conditions.

Commissioner Clark

asked if she would be amendable to a safety inspection by the fire department to ensure the safety of the properties and asked if it was ADA compliant.

Ms. Frick

stated she doesn’t believe it is.

Commissioner Clark

stated she would have to bring it up to ADA requirements.

Ms. Frick

stated yes. Page 11 of 21

Commissioner Hafen

stated he believes if a building was built prior to current ADA, unless Ms. Frick makes additional improvements she doesn’t have to bring it up to current ADA standards as long as it was built to the ADA standards that were current when it was built in 1998.

Ms. Frick

stated she thinks the main building was built in 1998, other outdoor improvements added after that.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Ms. Frick if she understands that if she makes any additional improvements that she would then need to bring those up to the current ADA standards.

Commissioner Adams

asked Public Works if the ROW for Squaw Valley if the ROW is on the property.

Mr. McKee

stated yes it looks like it outlines the Eastern property line. We would ask for 30 feet on Squaw Valley as well.

Commissioner Adams

asked if they would like that as a special condition.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Ms. Frick if she is amenable to dedicate 30 feet of ROW on Squaw Valley, as an additional special condition of approval.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve CU-2016-0000026 with adding special condition of a septic inspection 60 days within closing of escrow, after septic inspection setting a maximum of people that would require portable restrooms, dedicating 30 ft. ROW on Squaw Valley. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the septic inspection. 60 days from today or after closing.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated after closing of escrow.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Ms. Frick if that was amenable.

Commissioner Clark

asked if Commissioner Oscarson would amend his motion to include a safety inspection.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated Commissioner Hafen spoke on that regarding the building code. Whatever State license she has to obtain will cover those inspections. Page 12 of 21

Mr. Sutton

stated if she operates a business, she will have to get a business license and one of the requirements is to have a fire inspection.

Commissioner Hafen

and Commissioner Oscarson are abstaining from the item and left the room.

Commissioner Hafen

turned the meeting over to Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Carr

is on audio conference.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report, staff is recommending approval. Megan Ramos with Beazer Homes. They are requesting the signs to help direct traffic to the model home communities.

Commissioner Adams

asked Mr. Sutton if the noticing is standard.

Mr. Sutton

stated Mrs. Sandoval can better answer that. Celeste Sandoval reviewed his hearing notice. She explained that the notice was postmarked on December 30th, the post office then sends them to Las Vegas to be mailed back out and stated that the notices were properly mailed out within the 10 day requirements.

Mr. Hohl

stated they should get 30 days to respond.

Mr. Lacy

stated they are required to mail them 10 days prior to the meeting. Page 13 of 21

Mr. Hohl

stated they will appeal this, they should be noticed, they wouldn’t have known there was a meeting. The residents of Roger’s Estates should have been noticed. They have a right to respond in writing.

Commissioner Adams

stated there could be motion to continue the meeting.

Ms. Ramos

asked if the issue was the proximity of the sign to the community.

Mr. Hohl

stated he isn’t in the position to speak for everyone in Roger’s Estates. They would like to provide comments in writing

Commissioner Clark

asked Mrs. Sandoval for clarification that the notices were properly sent out.

Mrs. Sandoval

stated yes. The requirements are that the notices are postmarked and mailed no later than 10 days before the meeting, it was postmarked on December 30th and stated there was also an advertisement ran in the PVT on December 30th.

Commissioner DeAnda

asked if that was 10 business days or 10 days.

Mrs. Sandoval

stated 10 days.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it might be in the board’s interest to continue, it will be heard in 30 days. If it is approved and appealed to the BOCC it could take 60 or 90 days before it gets to the BOCC for action.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to continue CU-2016-000030 to the February 15th RPC meeting. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Carr

is no longer on audio conference.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report and staff is recommending approval of the application, subject to the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the time from the sign would be up. Would it be until all the units are sold?

Mr. Osborne

stated correct, the sign would have to be removed within 7 days of the last unit being sold.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that it would have to be in good condition, no fading, chipping. It would be in violation of the CUP and cause for revocation. Page 14 of 21 Megan Ramos with Beazer Homes, this is the corporate brand standard for Beazer and the intent is to drive the perspective home buyers to their community they are reopening.

Commissioner Adams

stated to set a maximum limit of 2 years with the ability to renew.

Ms. Ramos

asked for clarification that the concern was that it would be there for 2 years or it would deteriorate.

Commissioner Adams

stated a little of both. He would just ask for it to be revisited in 2 years once that phase is sold out.

Ms. Ramos

stated she anticipates the sign needing to be refaced in 18 months to 2 years, depending on the weather. As corporate brand standards and marketing change they would probably request a update through the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Adams

asked if they are amendable to the two years.

Ms. Ramos

stated three years would probably be better, but two is fine.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve CU-216-000031, adjusting special condition #5 limiting the sign to 2 years. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report and stated staff is recommending approval of the application.

Ms. Ramos

stated this is the same artwork just a different direction than the previous.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve CU-2016-000032 based on findings and adding a 2 year sunset on the sign. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Ms. Beeman

stated this is the first project request from the Water District. What they have managed to do is pull together the policies of the GWMP, the Master Plan and existing NCC. What you have in front of you is already from code or the adopted GWMP. Item B, the scope has had wording added to make it more specific that is outside the current code and the adopted GWMP. Another point of discussion is under the landscape plan where they ask for the estimated total annual landscape water use. Under Item D, D4 Water Conserving she added the word rain sensors and that is for a point of discussion. Item F-1a, our current code has an allowance that residential aerobic septic system that requires turf grass for irrigation. That was discussed and they don’t believe there is any of those systems within the valley, so that is up for discussion to delete that. For discussion and clarification Item F7, discusses livestock pastures being exempt, we might want to work on wording there. Landscape buffering’s under Item I, we need to develop some language where alternatives to landscaping may be appropriate in certain situations. Outside of general language scrivener’s errors, this is the code she is providing to review. Item K1 talks about the NRS and NACs regarding the unlawful waste of water that should apply to everyone in the community, so that might be added back into the scope of purpose of the code.

Commissioner Hafen

wants to go through the clean version and make sure the board is okay with the changes, prior to this going to the NCWD.

Commissioner Hafen

likes adding K1 and asked the board if they would want this added to the purpose of the scope.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated it could be added in both. Purpose would probably be the most relevant place for it.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for objections to adding it.

Commissioner Clark

doesn’t object, but asked for clarification on the definition.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is already defined in NRS and listed under K1.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if that is grandfathered or moving forward.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is current NRS and DWR is the enforcer of wasting water.

Commissioner Clark

asked if it might be clearer for the local population to cite examples of the NRS that would help people consider what illegal wasting is.

Ms. Beeman

read the NRS definition for section 0.165 and 0.202.

Commissioner Hafen

stated NRS 537.07 does state unnecessary wasting of water shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification if it is enforceable by DWR.

Commissioner Hafen

stated yes, in the judgement of the State Engineer.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if that can be enforced by any Nye County Deputy, since it is NRS.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the Code Enforcement Officer falls under that. Page 16 of 21

Mr. Sutton

stated we have in incorporation statue, any misdemeanor under NRS is also a misdemeanor under NCC. This will be under Title 17, under the Planning code so it should be fine.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if this section is under current NCC now.

Ms. Beeman

stated that section is directly out of the GWMP and not currently within the code.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification if it was added into the code it would be a misdemeanor and Nye County peace officers or Code Compliance officer could enforce it.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the Code Enforcement officer is going to be a sworn peace officer.

Mr. Lacy

stated not at this time, but we have cooperation with the Nye County Sheriff’s department for writing citations.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated he doesn’t want to put this through and not have any teeth to enforce this.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is a general provision under NCC that states any violation of the NCC is a misdemeanor.

Mr. Sutton

stated it is a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 6 months, or both.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification the highlighted words on page 1 where staff has included Great Basin, desert compatible and low to moderate water use. The highlighted words were not directly from the Groundwater Plan, the Masterplan or in current code. That was staffs way of trying to define drought tolerant, correct.

Ms. Beeman

stated that is correct, and they left off the word zero, they just stated low to moderate.

Commissioner Hafen

stated it is important to point out zero. There are ways to have native habitat that uses zero water.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the board had an objection to using zero instead of low.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the next area is under the landscaping plan - # 2H. These are for applicants for building permits. He asked for clarification that this isn’t for residential but for site plan development.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes, Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Family units greater than five.

Commissioner Hafen

has no problem with the estimated total water landscape use. That is a part that people are required to do for Pahrump Utility Company to determine their capacity fees, and water right needs to the PUC.

Mr. Sutton

stated under J, salt cedar plants must be identified, it references section H for prohibited plantings, and it should be G.

Ms. Beeman

stated it is G. Page 17 of 21

Commissioner Hafen

stated E-1 they tried to simplify the code.

Ms. Beeman

stated it is already in the code, but much more descriptive than the code.

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification on shall and must.

Ms. Beeman

stated after research from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it states we shouldn’t use shall, it means may and strongly suggests using must or must not as mandatory.

Mr. Sutton

stated may, shall and must are all defined in the NRS 0.025, it states must expresses a requirement, shall imposes a duty to act.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the difference is a requirements for must and a duty to act on shall, in accordance with NRS.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they want to make this a requirement so we should want to use must.

Ms. Beeman

stated she isn’t sure if she should be using must in most of these parts.

Commissioner Hafen

directed staff to review the must/shall definition out and determine if used properly.

Mr. Sutton

stated he didn’t go through the code first, and just went to NRS. But NCC does define shall and must and states each are mandatory.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if NRS supersedes our code.

Mr. Sutton

stated no, NRS definitions define the NRS.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if section F1-A could be removed.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there was discussion on item #7 under F-7, it states livestock pastures are exempt from turf restrictions and asked if that was current code.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like to expand on this, he wants to make sure current farming activities aren’t restricted.

Mr. Lacy

stated this could be a potential loophole.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like to leave this in but clarify the intent of this to be a commercial farming or ranching livestock pastures utilizing permitted water rights in existence prior to this code being adopted should be exempt from the turf and grass restrictions.

Commissioner Clark

asked what the legal definition of livestock is.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that will have to be reviewed, he doesn’t remember if it was livestock or large animals that was defined. Page 18 of 21

Mr. Sutton

stated livestock is defined within NCC.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification that in section F-7 Livestock Pastures, the language would reflect grandfathered uses only, and new livestock pastures will need a CUP from the board.

Commissioner Hafen

stated these turf restrictions are only for new construction. If it is stricken and eliminated it would solve the problem. All current operations can continue as is. He asks staff to strike the section.

Mr. Lacy

stated they could come back in another section and add it to the zoning code that it requires a CUP.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated that closes the loophole.

Commissioner Hafen

directed staff to strike the section and they will address it with future language to come back to the board.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the salt cedar section is directly from the GWMP and part of NRS and the Masterplan.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for comments on the clear sight section from Public Works.

Mr. McKee

stated he preferred the previous language, there are a lot of areas in Pahrump where a curb doesn’t exist.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that PW likes the old language over the new proposed language.

Mr. McKee

stated either that or clarify the 30” addresses both.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification of both.

Mr. McKee

stated both meaning where there is or isn’t a curb. It reads now only references to the nearest adjacent asphalt, gravel or pavement street surface.

Ms. Beeman

stated to add curb back in.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if that would satisfy the concern.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification if we move to the 33” or stay with the 30”.

Mr. McKee

stated they could say 36” without, when there is no curb existing and 30” when there is a curb.

Commissioner Oscarson

recommends changing 30” to 36” and add the curb back into the language.

Commissioner Hafen

stated section I, on page 4, the landscape buffer and screening requirements. 75% cover contradicts the water conscious effort, trees to get 20 feet high use a lot of water, should we modify the current language to be more water conscious. Page 19 of 21

Ms. Beeman

stated the current code states when adjacent lots have similar zoning, side and rear landscape buffers may be reduced to 3 feet on each property or replaced with a decorative block wall. Adjacent properties with no similar zoning there is a different requirement.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if there should be wording that states the Director of Planning has the authority to waive.

Mr. Lacy

stated waive alternative landscaping plans that utilize lower landscaping.

Commissioner Hafen

stated to add that word for word into I.

Mr. Lacy

stated it could also be under J, under special landscape standards.

Commissioner Clark

stated new home construction should be where we start. Why do we allow grass to be grown in this county, we should ban grass completely.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there are limitations on turf restrictions in the document.

Commissioner Hafen

stated within the clean version, on top of page 5, section 2 – D, he asked if this is a current requirement of any individual, do we really need this?

Ms. Beeman

stated this is current code.

Commissioner Hafen

stated if we are going to leave it in, we can add Commissioner Clark’s idea to add no turf to those areas.

Commissioner Hafen

stated bottom of page 5, section J, C-3 swimming pools. The GWMP contradicts current county code.

Commissioner Clark

stated to use the word required.

Ms. Beeman

stated we can change to encourage rather than require.

Commissioner Hafen

stated on the last page, section L, and modify to match Section K to say for new construction, so we know what the intent is to be implanted for.

Commissioner Hafen

directed staff to make the suggested modifications and provide to the Water District, comments should then be brought back to RPC prior to sending to BOCC.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated at the last meeting there was a gentleman that received approval for a building to be built on a second lot behind him. One thing that was discussed was to make it in conformance with the GWMP was that the lot not to be used as an additional lot down the road. He would like to recommend to the Board to allow the Administrative authority be granted for the Planning Director to approve joining lots. It will make the process easier if it can be done administratively.

Mr. Lacy

stated he will bring it back as an ordinance change. Page 20 of 21 Public Comment: