May 10, 2017

Commissioner Adams

asked if they could direct staff to do that. Page 1 of 24

Commissioner Hafen

stated not at this time, but it could be brought up at the end of the meeting.

Commissioner Adams

stated on item #15 he has a modification to either delete last sentence or change will to may. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Hafen

presented former Commissioner Oscarson a plaque for his service on the RPC from 2015 – 2017.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is no item on the agenda to restrict horse ownership on property less than 40 acres. It will not be addressed tonight, and stated he doesn’t plan on addressing limiting horse property or restricting horse ownership in the valley.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he will not participate in item #10. The backup states they are to connect to a utility company, it isn’t specific to which company. He stated he is the GM of Pahrump Utility Company and will not participate in the item.

Commissioner Clark

stated for item #19 he lives in the area but doesn’t feel this will impact his judgement on the item.

Commissioner Fowler

recusing from items #12, #14, and #15 as his insulation company Aspen Insulation will be making bids on the projects and as the owner he stands to benefit financially from this.

Commissioner DeAnda

stated for item #19 she had visited the property. SITTING AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Lacy

stated there isn’t anything new to present. Page 2 of 24

Mr. Lacy

stated they had talked with a consulting group a few months ago. The estimate was $40,000 to update the plan.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if there is an NRS requirements that state the plan needs to be updated.

Mr. Lacy

stated we don’t necessarily have to update it but to review it.

Commissioner Hafen

stated it would benefit us to obtain bids to complete the plan and directed staff to obtain bids and bring back a time frame from the consultant on when they can update the plan. SITTING AS THE PAHRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Commissioner Hafen

turned the meeting over to Commissioner Adams and left the meeting

Commissioner Clark

asked for the original date for approval and have they stated any construction yet.

Mr. Osborne

stated the original approval of the CUP was in 2010 and no construction has been started.

Commissioner Clark

asked if they have actually started the development of the RV Park.

Mr. Osborne

stated correct, they haven’t started any construction.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there will be any review process to be assure that they are on track.

Mr. Osborne

stated they can bring back a status report to the Planning Commission, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months.

Commissioner Clark

asked if quarterly would work.

Mr. Lacy

stated they could present it at a milestone of 3, 6 and 12 months. Page 3 of 24

Commissioner Fowler

stated one stipulation was to start construction within a year. He asked if there has been any discussion on what milestone would have to be hit in their construction process for that year.

Mr. Lacy

stated they can’t start construction until they get approval of a site development plan and annexation agreement from the PUC. The earliest they can start is 9 months.

Commissioner Fowler

asked if getting a shovel and turning over some dirt considered construction.

Mr. Lacy

stated that would be an additional condition that you might want to talk to the applicant. Darrin Pappa with Megacon, representing Cliffwood Realty. They met with planning to show the developers willingness to make compromises. The compromises and conditions are pretty aggressive. He would hope it would be as simple as having a grading permit, but 12 months is pretty aggressive to have dirt moved for this project.

Mr. Lacy

asked Mr. Pappa if they start construction in 12 months how will the board know they will move towards the completion of the project, and what they think are appropriate milestones to discuss.

Mr. Pappa

asked if in order for permits to stay active in the County, are there inspections that have to take place at a certain time or the permit would die.

Mr. Lacy

stated that would take a year before that would happen. Building permits would have to be pulled. It can be added here or bring back for discussion.

Commissioner Fowler

stated the permits show a condition of good faith.

Mr. Pappa

asked if it would be acceptable if they had a grading proposal submitted within the 12 month time frame.

Commissioner Fowler

stated he would be amenable to that.

Commissioner Clark

asked what in his view would be more amenable to the plans. 24 months is out of the question.

Mr. Pappa

stated 15 to 18 months. There are things that could happen that are out of their control. 12 months is a good time frame for approvals but to get a shovel in the ground is aggressive.

Commissioner Clark

stated for clarification, 12 months for permitting to be completed, 15 months to actually start the project.

Commissioner Clark

asked if they are close to being in a position to wrap this project up.

Mr. Pappa

stated absolutely not. They need to revise the site plan and move into the site development plan process.

Commissioner Clark

asked if Mr. Pappa understand this isn’t a 275 space park.

Mr. Pappa

stated correct, they have reduced it by 25 percent.

Commissioner Adams

stated this is almost the same conversation they had in 2011. It was asked how close to making this happen. This is the second extension they are asking for. Page 4 of 24

Mr. Lacy

stated within the 90 days they will have to move the annexation process moving forward. They have indicated to us they are ready to move forward.

Mr. Lacy

stated the concept of annexation addresses that. They will be tying central water systems and tying their sewer into an existing sewage plant.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Pappa if they could accomplish at least 80 percent of their permitting and planning requirements in 12 months in this scenario

Commissioner Clark

asked if they are comfortable with extending the term from 12 to 16 months to start construction.

Commissioner Fowler

asked Mr. Pappa if the grading permit and contract be realistic within the 16 month time frame.

Commissioner Clark

stated in regards to ET-2017-000021 subject to all the CUP requirements as outlined in the back up from #1 to 14. Adding #15 quarterly milestone reports to be given top the RPC by the Planning Director, #16 completion of at least 80% of the permitting and planning requirements within 12 months and beginning construction within 16 months.

Commissioner Fowler

would like a definition of starting construction to be pulling a grading permit.

Commissioner Clark

amended his motion accordingly. Seconded by Commissioner Fowler.

Ms. Beeman

asked for the motion to be restated for the record.

Commissioner Clark

stated his motion is to recommend approval of ET-2017-000021 with all the CUP conditions of approval for #1 to #14. Adding #15 quarterly milestone reports to be given to the RPC by the Planning Director, #16 that within 12 months the applicant shall accomplish at least 80% of the permitting requirements including a grading permit and start actual construction of the project within 16 months.

Commissioner Adams

asked for the confirmation of the second. Seconded by Commissioner Fowler.

Commissioner Hafen

returned to the meeting. For Possible Action – CU-2017-000034: Public hearing, discussion, deliberation and possible decision on a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a Commercial Kennel on property located at 200 W. Sunrise View Avenue also known as The Country Place II, Unit 3, Block 23, Lot 28, zoned Rural Estates Residential (RE-1). Robert & Janet Oliver – Property Owners/Applicants. AP# 029-281-01. (This item is Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or otherwise announced.) (CB)

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report. The applicant stated in her letter she will breed 3 dogs, 2 times a year for six litters, and we have clarified that the NRS says you can breed a dog once a year. She has clarified that with the applicant.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Ms. Beeman if she would want to modify special condition #10 from 6 litters per year to 3.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the conditions are clear that they must comply with all state and county regulations.

Ms. Beeman

stated the findings are outlined in the staff report and the applicant has provided photos of the facility. This location is suitable for the amount of dogs and the specific breed.

Commissioner Hafen

stated if we are going to limit this to 3 litters a year does she recommend to reduce the maximum amount of dogs from 15 to some other number.

Ms. Beeman

stated we should hear from the applicant.

Commissioner Clark

stated condition #5 states they must comply with all County, State and Federal Regulations. Do we need to specifically call out the NRS.

Ms. Beeman

stated it would be covered, but mentioning the specific NRS lets others know it is the law.

Commissioner Clark

asked if the way it stands we are covered.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes. Janet Oliver, applicant. She stated she raises French Bulldogs and they have to have C-sections. She can only breed a dog 3 times and she either keeps the dog or adopts them out. She does not have a kennel and the dogs live within her home. She has a dog house she can house 6 dogs in. She stated doesn’t expect to be doing this for more than 2 or 3 years and she will then have her dogs fixed.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if she is acceptable to the conditions of 3 litters per year and the rest of the conditions as presented by staff.

Ms. Oliver

stated she doesn’t know all of them.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if Ms. Oliver had a number limit she would recommend. Is 15 sufficient?

Ms. Oliver

stated 15 is just so she stays legal, she doesn’t plan on having that many. She has a handicap English bull dog that will be 8, another one that is done breeding that is listed on the Page 6 of 24 website for adoption, a 6 month old, 1 male and then there are 3 that only can have one more liter. They then will be placed up for adoption also.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they may want to limit the type of dog if the property is sold, have an expiration date of 3 years and she can apply for an extension is she wants.

Ms. Oliver

stated she guarantees the health on all her puppies for 1 year and she covers all the costs. She has taken a dog back and she finds them a new home. If she has one come back or had their share of pups, she doesn’t charge anyone for them to place them.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if she has read and understood the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Clark

asked if she participates in dog rescue.

Ms. Oliver

stated if someone has French bulldogs she will help get that dog a home.

Commissioner Clark

asked if she understands if she does a dog rescue it counts toward her total count. She stated yes.

Commissioner Clark

asked how many pot belly pigs she has.

Commissioner Clark

asked if she has participated in a pot belly pig rescue.

Ms. Oliver

stated she tells her vet not to tell her anymore.

Commissioner Clark

stated he is concerned that she is breeding and taking in rescues. He asked if she would be amenable to a 15 animal limit.

Ms. Oliver

stated at her age she won’t be taking in anymore rescues.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if she heard the two additional conditions by Commissioner Koenig. Limiting the breed to French bulldog and issuing the CUP for 3 years that could be renewed.

Ms. Oliver

stated she didn’t know, what if she wanted a German Sheppard down the road.

Commissioner Fowler

stated it might be reasonable to specify only French bulldogs be breed on the property but staying with the 15 animal limit.

Commissioner Adams

stated the footage on the drawing don’t match any scale. How close are the pens to the property line?

Ms. Oliver

stated it is on the plan.

Commissioner Adams

stated it says 16 feet, the measurements are off on the plan. Page 7 of 24

Ms. Oliver

stated she measured them and they are 16 feet from the back of the property line, the drawing isn’t to scale.

Commissioner Adams

asked if the dogs are kept inside at night.

Ms. Oliver

stated yes. There are two that are in the dog building that has a camera in it, the others are in the house. They bark during the day when the pig is walking around but that doesn’t last long. There are dogs all around us.

Commissioner Adams

asked if she will be doing a 12 foot setback. Two are marked at 12 feet and one at 16 feet.

Ms. Oliver

stated the pens are already there and nothing will be added.

Commissioner Adams

asked if she was amenable to a minimum 12 foot setback.

Commissioner Fowler

motioned to approve CU-2017-000034 based on finding and special conditions of approval amending #10 to state “applicant shall not increase the number of breed or number of litters from the stated maximum of 3 litters per year, with a maximum of 15 animals”, #13 limiting the specific breed to French Bulldogs being breed on the property, #14 issue permit for 3 years.

Commissioner Adams

stated he seconds if he adds the dogs are inside at night and the pens are 12 feet from the property line.

Commissioner Fowler

amends his motion to include #15 the dogs are kept inside at night, and #16 that the setbacks of the pens are 12 feet from the property line.

Commissioner DeAnda

stated she would like to add that if the property is sold before the 3 years is up the CUP goes away.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Commissioner Koenig if they can do that.

Mr. Lacy

stated they already have a motion and a second.

Commissioner Koenig

stated there is a 3 year limit, they can only breed French bulldogs and then their done.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if that satisfies Commissioner DeAnda’s concerns.

Commissioner Fowler

is abstaining from item #12 and had left the room.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report. The BOCC have approved a waiver from title 15 for type II gravel. The findings have been outlined in the report. William Browning, applicant stated the property will only have nine trips a day to the storage units. The speed limit will be 5 mph and they are only addressing the back of the property. The front of the property will have store fronts and have paved parking and a landscape buffer.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they will have a landscape buffering in the rear to separate the commercial project from the residential.

Mr. Browning

stated he hasn’t completed the site development and if it is required it isn’t an issue. They have a fence up now, part of the property abuts to another storage facility.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he believes the code requires a 15 foot buffer between residential zoning.

Ms. Beeman

stated for clarification that the mini storage area and the open storage area will not be paved.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve WV-2017-000042 based on findings. Seconded by

Commissioner DeAnda

. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 0, Abstain = 1). Yes: Gary Bennett, Gregory T. Hafen II, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Paul Carr, Robert Adams, Vincent Clark. Abstain: Derek Fowler.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report and the waiver is to allow a zone change to the SE zoning district. NCC requires to change to the SE zoning that it has a minimum of 40 acres or more. This area is about 34 acres. The BOCC approved the ZC, with a waiver needed to waive the minimum acreage. Staff recommends approval of the waiver.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification that the RPC recommended the ZC to SE and it was an administrative oversight when the RPC approved the zone change and this is just a house cleaning item.

Commissioner Hafen

stated to the public they are here to see a zone change tonight only the waiver and to keep comments to just the waiver, the zone change has already been approved. Joe Richardson just bought property at 1051 China and he was under the impression it is within a rural zone and now is being told the area is being rezoned. Rules are rules and should be kept accordingly. Ammie Nelson spoke against the waiver, it is a step to justify the zoning that was already changed. This is a rural community where people come to have livestock. Mike Jacoby lives at 1091 China Street and is within the notification area. He received a notice in the mail and is against the waiver.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that he is outside the 26 parcels.

Mr. Jacoby

stated correct, he was notified because he is within the 300 feet. Lynette Sandquist spoke against the zone change. She feels that the neighbors are after her and her animals. She is against this waiver and is tired of the harassment. Don Cox stated he is against the waiver, the people have a right to live the way they bought their land. Judy Fesnock stated they were denied previously and it came back to the RPC. She went door to door and obtained signatures on a petition from people at that time. She sent certified letters and made sure everyone knew about what they wanted. Mr. Young knew about it and he told her no he didn’t want it. The ZC has already been approved by the RPC and the BOCC. All they are asking is to waive the 40 acres and to allow the people that signed and want the change to have the change. Merrilee Spoor stated she wants to know what it was prior to 40 acres and how long it has been on the books. She is against the waiver. Gordon Wicks asked if you make something illegal and you hold onto it for so long does it then become legal. Chris Sanders stated he wasn’t here when the original 40 acres was passed. If it is already a little over 30 acres why can’t we make that requirement of 40 acres and make a full community of that. Page 10 of 24 Cindy Richardson stated if it is 40 acres it needs to be 40 acres. She is against the waiver, it is unnecessary. Aaron Sandquist stated the waiver doesn’t seem fair, there is a select group of people that signed it and didn’t get a lot of input from a lot of other people. It isn’t fair to the animals, a lot of the people have animals. They just got a select group of people that want this passed. Herman Lewis asked if this is the precedent they want to set for this community. Kim Washington stated the old Calvada maps have equestrian trails so the people fighting this should have seen that when they got it and stated they shouldn’t approve the waiver. There is no reason why they can’t sell and move to an area that doesn’t allow animals. Christina Sterns stated she understands this was voted on at the last BOCC meeting and the petition wasn’t included. This plan needs to be null and void. They could have moved into a subdivision like mountain falls. Debra Stickland stated once they approve this waiver it could open up a can of worms and they can’t let this waiver move forward.

Commissioner Koenig

asked staff how long they have had the SE zoning with the 40 acres.

Mr. Lacy

stated it appears in 2007 and the SE zone is the only zoning that has the 40 acres applied.

Ms. Beeman

stated she was one of the authors in 2007, they had people come to them wanting large lot areas with no horses. Instead of having it applied to one or two properties it didn’t fit very well so they placed the 40 acre minimum size to have a SE zoning applied. It would be a bundle of properties to have the SE.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he understands everyone in the radius was notified, correct.

Mr. Lacy

stated we do have the affidavit of public notice.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if all the 25 applicants paid for this.

Commissioner Hafen

stated not all areas of Pahrump have animals. This board and previous boards have work hard to clean up the areas that prohibited animals, to allow the animals. There was a lot of VR-20 that prohibited people from having livestock and a lot of that was corrected to allow people to have that rural lifestyle. This will not prohibit 4-H, there is a permit you can get if an individual in SE or VR can obtain, they just have to file for a permit. Commissioner Cox brought up a misinformation and if misinformation was presented to the BOCC he is sure she will bring it back before the BOCC. It was a good point to be made whether or not they want to set a precedence or not. The 40 acre minimum doesn’t make sense to him, personally. If an individual or group of individuals want to rezone they should be able to do that, it is their property. The equestrian trails do not go away. Even if the waiver goes forward, the equestrian trails stay and the neighbors can ride their horses on those trails, if there is a recorded easement on your property it won’t go away.

Commissioner Fowler

asked if staff made note of the turnover in the area since the original petition had been signed.

Mr. Lacy

stated he doesn’t believe they have looked at that issue. Page 11 of 24

Commissioner Adams

stated this is too small of an area to be constituted a neighborhood, 40 acres make sense. The zone change doesn’t have a distinguished boundaries.

Commissioner Clark

stated maybe this should go back before the BOCC.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he believes Commissioner Cox will bring it back before the BOCC.

Mr. Lacy

stated this waiver should have been done before the process, we missed it and apologize for it. This is the only zoning category that has this 40 acres and it was overlooked.

Commissioner Fowler

asked Commissioner Koenig if it was a consensus that the BOCC was miss or under informed during the meeting.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that is the first time he has heard that comment, he was not misinformed and he doesn’t believe anyone else was either, it came as a surprise to him.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to deny WV-2017-000044 based on findings of RPC and public comment. Seconded by Commissioner Bennett.

Commissioner Hafen

stated since the findings in the staff report have been presented for approval

Commissioner Adams

will need to state the precise findings you are all finding. There are 5 findings to be clarified for the record.

Commissioner Adams

stated it is a 40 acre requirement and they shouldn’t waive that requirement. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: Gary Bennett, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Paul Carr, Robert Adams, Vincent Clark. No: Derek Fowler, Gregory T. Hafen II. Meeting went into recess at 7:59 pm. Meeting reconvened at 8:15 pm.

Commissioner Hafen

stated item #14 has raised questions that need to be answered by the DA’s office, and since we have no DA representation tonight, there hopefully will be a motion to continue the item to get the issues resolved. 13. a. For Possible Action – TM-2017-000007: Tentative Map application for a subdivision containing 145 residential lots on approximately 33.34 acres gross, located within the Mountain Falls Master Planned Community, Planning Area 8. Mountain Falls LLC and Mountain Falls Golf Course LLC – Property Owner/Applicant. Taney Engineering – Agent. AP#s 045-021-57, 58 & 61. b. For Possible Action – WV-2017-000043: 1. Waiver from the street design standards to allow for a 28-foot private street section where 29-ft. is the standard. 2. Waiver from the subdivision street entry design standards to allow for a 29-foot private street standard where 59-ft. is the standard. 3. Waiver from the front Residential low setback design standard to allow for a 10- foot front building setback where 15-ft is the minimum. 4. Waiver from the rear Residential low setback design standard to allow for a 10- foot rear building setback where 15-ft is the minimum. (These items are Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or otherwise announced.) (CB)

Mr. Lacy

stated they recommend continuation to the next RPC meeting.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if they are amenable to the continuation. Page 12 of 24 Brad Nelson, William Lyon Homes, stated yes.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to continue TM-2017-000007 and WV-2017-000043 to the June meeting. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he is questioning that the item may come to the BOCC and not the RPC with the law changing. Should it be continued to the next applicable meeting?

Mr. Lacy

stated he isn’t sure if they can continue and refer it to a BOCC meeting. It will have to be put on an agenda if they pass the bill and make the effective date of the bill prior to the time this board meets again. It will have to be dealt with at the time they set an effective date.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report stating the RPC has already approved 75 street names and have come up with one additional name. Staff is recommending approval of the name Ovation.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if Ovation works for them. Brad Nelson, William Lyon Homes stated yes.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to approve SN-2017-000011. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Mr. Osborne

stated all the lots in the subdivision are zoned MU. This subdivision was originally intended for single family homes, there are currently 10 homes built. The VR-8 zoning district would be the appropriate zoning district. There are a few lots that are not intended for residential use, one lot according to the subdivision map and Development Agreement is designated a park Page 13 of 24 and about 5 common element lot intended for landscaping. Those lots should be zoned OS parks. Staff is recommending VR-8 and 6 common element lots as OS.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he received a call from Great Basin Water Company, formally Utilities Inc. They wanted to make the RPC to know that UICN intended for those to be single family homes and not commercial in the annexation process.

Commissioner Hafen

stated if this moves forward that the staff report will reflect that answer.

Mr. Lach

stated they should give us an actual number so we know what it was per lot.

Commissioner Koenig

asked staff to address Ms. Nelson’s concerns with noticing on zone changes.

Mr. Lacy

referred to Celeste Sandoval. Celeste Sandoval reviewed the noticing process per NRS. If anyone’s property is scheduled to be changed they will received a notice in the mail.

Ms. Nelson

stated she never received one and a Dollar Store was put in 2 blocks from her.

Mr. Lacy

stated they were already zoned GC.

Mr. Lacy

stated all affected lots will be notified, a minimum of 30 adjacent lots up to 300 feet.

Ms. Beeman

stated this is all outlined in the NRS.

Commissioner Hafen

stated to staff if this does move forward contact GBWC to get those concerns addressed. Either have a representative here or written testimony from their files. Before the OS moves forward find out who the property owners are, the County and association or an individual.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to initiate a zone change to include a study of OS and what arrangements have been made with GBWC. Seconded by Commissioner Clark. Page 14 of 24

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification any and all information that GBWC can provide that would be beneficial such as water rights, water or sewer lines that may or may not be present.

Commissioner Hafen

turned the meeting over to Glen Ledgerwood for a presentation. Glen Ledgerwood read a letter into the record regarding the many multifamily parcels he owns and has developed. Michael Lach presented a PowerPoint to visually show the Commission some of the changes as far as setbacks and the types of buildings that can be built. Most of the MF they are discussing are four-plexes on approximately 1/3 acre of land. What they allow is the flexibility to provide every resident a two car garages. If they don’t then personal belongings end up in the front yard and blown all over. Two car garages allow for a vehicle and belongings to be inside. The useful courtyards end up being on the inside. If you pinch units together you have to start going up and then become non-senior friendly.

Mr. Ledgerwood

stated two car garages create a buffer between living space and driving space.

Mr. Lach

stated they are trying to get back to the structures with a 5 foot on the side instead of the changes that have been made, dating back to the start of changes in 2006. The question is what is the purpose of the changes and what did it help. The side yard setback is the most important and the setback between the garages in the center.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Lach if the way staff has presented the language he is referring to, it is amenable to the stakeholders in the community.

Mr. Lach

and Mr. Ledgerwood both stated correct.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he wanted to make sure everyone is recommending these modifications of the increased minimum lot per dwelling, the setback changes, some increase and some decrease, and that some uses are being moved into a CUP.

Mr. Lach

stated that is correct. They aren’t asking for something that is less restrictive than what is there.

Mr. Lacy

asked if it would be appropriate to have different setback for one story and two story units.

Mr. Ledgerwood

stated he would have no objections to that. Debra Strickland stated that would be smart.

Mr. Lacy

asked if they have any recommendations on lot sizes or setting a different development standards for new lots and subdivisions moving forward versus the existing ones. Page 15 of 24

Mr. Ledgerwood

stated he made a suggestion in October that you go from a 3,000 Sq Ft per dwelling lot to a 3,500 Sq. Ft. It is better to prioritize the serviceable lots mapped since the 70’s first. The minimum lot size going forward is 15,000 Sq. Ft for MF.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is his question. Is that appropriate or should they be looking at something larger. What would the impacts be of a larger lot moving forward for new developments?

Mr. Ledgerwood

stated based on his research he has done the largest minimum square footage 7,200 Sq. Ft. on average in other areas. He is fine with 15,000 with newly developed newly mapped land.

Mr. Lach

stated there are plenty duplex and four-plex lots not built on right now. We don’t need to be looking at higher density in this town. He agrees there is no reason to do it under 15. There is a simple sentence that they can add stating from a certain date forward, no new parcels shall be created for MF that are less than 15,000 Sq. Ft.

Ms. Strickland

stated they are asking for the original parceling setbacks and keep it a standard.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on two story vs one story. Is everyone okay with 10 foot setbacks for two story and 5 foot setback for a single story?

Commissioner Koenig

asked when the last time this was changed.

Mr. Lacy

stated he doesn’t know when it was changed, but they have encountered these questions before and we need to make sure we are appropriate for new land divisions going forward. It does need to be explained in the code that this is for new projects moving forward.

Commissioner Adams

recommends approval to the BOCC Bill 2017-10 with changes, 1 story there be a 5 foot setback, 2 stories have a 10 foot setback and that there is language in the bill that states “from this day forward these setback and restrictions apply”. Seconded by Commissioner Fowler.

Mr. Lach

stated it is important that they set the date on the 15,000 sq. ft. minimum. For Possible Action – Discussion Relating to Legal Non-Conforming Uses (“Grandfathering”): Discussion, deliberation and possible direction to staff relating to Nye County Code as it pertains to the lawful non-conforming use of land and buildings. Page 16 of 24

Mr. Lacy

stated there is a lot of misunderstanding of what the grandfathering term means. General grandfathering comes in when they adopt a new zoning ordinance that would make an existing use or building out of conformance with the new code. When issues come to staff they look at all the possible ways to resolve a nonconformance. Some cases is could be a ZC to make it fit within a permissive use of a different zone, or at the code level they have made several changes to add a CUP process for grandfathering. Within the code grandfathering is lost after the 6 month operationally abandonment clause. We have addressed that stating any reestablishment or expansion of a grandfathered use can be done with a CUP. Adding the CUP process people have a path forward and not put them out of business. Burden of proof is on the applicants to prove grandfathering. We also pull information by aerial photos, Assessor’s office records, Planning and Building and Safety department permitting records. If it can’t be proven as a grandfathered use that is when we come back to the CUP process to move forward. It is very specific within the code about continuation of use. Its states that any expansion or use of the land shall not be extended, expanded or additional structures except as set forth below. He has included the section of the code for reference.

Commissioner Hafen

disclosed he has been through the CUP process with Pahrump Utility on the waste water treatment plant. They went to expand and argued with staff that they were grandfathered and didn’t need a CUP. They were proven wrong, NCC is clear and stated they needed one. The RPC approved an application to expand under a CUP.

Mr. Lacy

stated for clarification a legal or lawful non-conforming use is interpreted to maintain the grandfathered use you must maintain all conformance with all local, state and federal laws and if you don’t follow the laws you lose your grandfathered status.

Commissioner Adams

stated page 3G – change of ownership can continue. He reads can as may, does it mean shall or must.

Mr. Lacy

stated it can, must or shall continue at the level it was operating prior to the ownership change.

Ms. Beeman

stated the BOCC has remanded this item back to the Planning Director to see whether or not a CUP was required for the property. Mr. Lacy’s determination after research and review that the property wasn’t compliant and would require a CUP. In the appeal process the burden of proof is on the applicant. The staff report states in order to conform to the zoning requirements the property owner is required to file for a conforming zone change and a CUP for the animals. The Property is zoned VR-20 and RH-4.5 is more appropriate. This is only if they chose to take that route. Jacki Freeman, applicant, Abby Hedengren, agent, Harley Kulkin, agent.

Mr. Kulkin

stated terrible things have happened to these two people that shouldn’t have happened. This is basically a decision whether they are grandfathered in or should be revoked. The Directors research states they aren’t compliant with Local, State, and Federal laws. Stating

Mr. Lacy

refused to go to the property or meet with the property owners. He feels Mr. Lacy didn’t get all the information he could get. He determined the property needs a CUP. This permit is about having now 5 big cats. There was no expansion, cages are not permanent structures. This cites they had illegal animals, this is about grandfathering. The petition in the back up doesn’t Page 17 of 24 belong in there. They started in 2005 and whatever was in place in 2005 for grandfathering should only apply to them, not any further changes after that. Of all the facilities he has inspected in the town this facility has covers on the tops on the cages. You could pay him $100 to sleep in the cages with these animals, they are friendly animals. He asked that the experts come speak now and not under public comment.

Mr. Hedengren

stated when they went before the BOCC the amendment attached before they took the vote. It was added in an effort to insure it wouldn’t be a problem later. Expansion is expansion of use of the land. The property was bought in 2005 and they brought many animals there. In 2007 title 6 and title 7 started appearing and there has been many changes since then. He worked with animal control since then and provided them with inventory lists. Most of the agency in Nye County and Clark County out there. The facility has been used for training for various officers. They were up to 11 large cats. They have two types of cats, they have felines that aren’t covered under code and he will only refer to the larger cats. He reviewed the Animal Control reports that are in back up. Back up states there were years that no inventory was provided. He stated he has cooperated with Animal Control and they did provide inventory, Animal Control lost them on numerous occasions. They had kept animals for a few days for animal control. They aren’t breeders or selling. They have no commercial business of the animals. Since moving to Pahrump, they stopped exhibiting. They have never allowed anyone on the property. They have improved the enclosures for the animals by giving them some growing room, they move the animals around, but the land use hasn’t change. He has never received a single complaint from the neighbors or sheriff. He recently offered to the County to have an open house for the neighbors to settle their concerns. He can’t invite them because he would be exhibiting, but if the County want to do it as informational, he is okay with that.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we aren’t here to talk about the noise, but we are here to talk about the appeal. He thanked Mr. Hedengren for working with Animal Control, it is greatly appreciated throughout the community. For clarification he asked in 2006 they had 11 big cats.

Mr. Hedengren

stated yes. The first inspection occurred in 2008 and at that time they had 9 large cats. For a short time in 2015 they had 10.

Commissioner Hafen

stated somewhere between 2007 and 2015 you built additional facilities.

Mr. Hedengren

stated no, they haven’t built anything.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he is looking at the aerials included in the back up. In 2007 it shows the house and a couple structures. In 2010 it appears to be additional structures and in 2015 there are even more structures. He asked for elaboration on the difference from 2007 to 2015.

Mr. Hedengren

asked what he means by additional structures.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is what he is asking.

Mr. Kulkin

stated this is the perfect example. A cargo container is for personal use, it has nothing to do with the animals.

Ms. Freeman

stated she sent emails out to the Commissioners and asked Celeste to send them. She thanked the three of the Commissioners came out to inspect the property. If you look at her property, you can see nothing has been added to the property, only fencing has been moved. The two buildings on the front of the property are 40 foot containers, they have nothing to do with the property. The 8’ x 8’ sheds that have been there for years. They sometimes refurbish trailers to sell and help feed the animals. Not one building has been expanded on the property. Had they come to the property she would have shown them.

Commissioner Hafen

stated this is an appeal hearing on the Zoning Administrator decision not a CUP hearing. He is just trying to get the facts based on what the Planning Director saw on the material he saw. It has nothing to do with him or other members going out there or not. If this Page 18 of 24 comes to them as a CUP he guarantees they will drive by. That doesn’t mean they are going to enter the premise. The offer of $100 to sleep with the tigers by Mr. Kulkin sounds like exhibiting animals and stated he will gladly pay $100 to see that. Ms, Freeman stated she wouldn’t allow him on.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they should be very careful what they state on the record.

Mr. Hedengren

stated they use heavy duty tarps on the top of the cage and they might be confused with structures.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there is an agreement between Mr. Hedengren and Ms. Freeman on the care and custody of the animals in relation to the property. The property owner is Ms. Freeman, applicants Jacki Freeman and Abby Hedengren.

Mr. Hedengren

stated he was originally the owner of the property with his wife, Emma. He has resided on the property since then continuously and they have a partnership and an agreement on expenses and costs. He has been on the property every single day taking care of the animals.

Commissioner Clark

stated he is looking at the back up from Animal Control, specifically the animal facility certificates. There are several years and the names are inconsistent. It is important because it could constitute an abandonment of the grandfathered clause. In July 2008, Mr. Hendegren was the owner, July 2009 Abby Hendegren and Jacki Freeman, October 2010 Abby Hendegren and Jacki Freeman, again in July 2012 both parties, he comes to 10/8/2013 and it is only Abby Hendegren.

Ms. Freeman

asked if he was ready for her to answer. They have talked with Tim several times.

Commissioner Clark

stated they have different ownership names on the only official document that he can see.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it has been discussed before that change of ownership doesn’t lose grandfathered status.

Commissioner Clark

stated he understands, but what he is trying to determine is who owns that animals.

Mr. Hendegren

stated he doesn’t think this refers to ownership, it is a permit issued by Animal Control on who is permit to have the animals.

Commissioner Clark

stated his concern is if the grandfathered nature abandoned by one party or the other.

Mr. Kulkin

stated grandfatherness (sic) goes to the property, not who owns the animals. Animal Control hasn’t been run very efficiently. The animals are co-owned.

Commissioner Clark

stated they have to have documentation that states they are in compliance with Local, State and Federal regulatory requirement. Where is that documentation to support that?

Mr. Kulkin

stated he doesn’t know what documentation he is referring to, please explain.

Commissioner Clark

stated ownership would be a place to start.

Mr. Kulkin

stated that isn’t what a CUP is about, it isn’t about who owns them. It is about how many you are allowed to have.

Commissioner Clark

stated we have a different definition of what grandfathering is. Page 19 of 24

Commissioner Hafen

stated he agrees with Commissioner Clark and would like to address Mr. Lacy since this is an appeal of his decision.

Commissioner Hafen

stated in reviewing Title 17, specifically the Grandfathering Clause went into effect in 2004. Under 17.04.090, Ordnance 285.

Mr. Lacy

stated they have ordinances back to 2001.

Commissioner Hafen

stated and changed in 2004.

Mr. Lacy

stated and in 2007, that is when special condition animals were added to the code. Before 2007 they regulated Kennels and not special condition animals.

Commissioner Hafen

stated since 2007 per the code, anytime anyone wants to build a shed, or bring a connex container on the property they have to file a zoning review with planning. Were any zoning reviews filed with Planning for any of the additional facilities that were specifically stated on the record tonight?

Mr. Lacy

stated no, they don’t have record of those.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the records we do have are 11 cats in 2005, today there are how many.

Mr. Lacy

stated basing the initial starting point of the first inventory after 2007. May 8, 2008 showed 7 big cats, that was his starting point. Grandfathering you can look at the numbers and they can look at lawful conforming use. The number of animals starting in 2008 at 7, then they went in 2009 it went to 9 and it is a combination of lions and tigers. One of the key components was 2015 they also had three leopards in addition to the lions and tigers. They brought in a new species of animals. Title 6 doesn’t just regulate the number of cats, they regulate species of animals. Code states if a new animal is brought on board they are supposed to be notified within 72 hours. His analysis was that they added total animals, added species of animals and made changes without provided proper notification through Title 6. The

Commissioner Hafen

asked notification was given on the increase from 7 to 9, within 72 hours?

Mr. Lacy

stated all the records they have are of the annual inventory that Mr. Hedengren indicated is when he provide the information to Animal Control was only on the annual inventory forms.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the second aspect was the legal non-conforming portion.

Mr. Lacy

stated on the record at the BOCC meeting there was a prohibited animal from the state regulations was brought on board, a fox. That was entered onto the records at the BOCC meeting. From his perspective there was a minimum of 4 different things that would have triggered a loss of grandfathered use from a total number of animals, new types of animals and a couple regulatory issues that were non-conforming.

Commissioner Hafen

asked where the illegal fox is today,

Mr. Kulkin

stated it is legal in Utah that is where it went. No one has went to court of that yet.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he just wanted to know where it was.

Commissioner Fowler

asked Ms. Freeman where the fox was taken from that was taken to Utah.

Mr. Kulkin

stated it was taken from her residence. He stated a Fennec fox really isn’t a fox, and NDOW is working on doing something about that. Page 20 of 24

Commissioner Bennett

asked staff what the difference in requirements are under the grandfathered clause and a CUP to have these animals.

Mr. Lacy

stated a CUP can be just to reestablish a grandfathered use or expand the grandfathered use. It is up to the board to determine the level they would set in regards to the expanded use of large cats. Ms. Beeman stated with a zone change from VR-20 to RH-4.5 they would become conforming with a zone change and a CUP. The CUP comes to the RPC and you set the conditions for that use. It is his recommendation that is a better solution to the problem. The analysis that we are hearing is his determination on grandfathered use. It has nothing to do with if are they good people, are they taking good care of the animals, and what is the appropriate level of animals for the facility. Those are things that are determined through the CUP process. They have historically helped animal control and he appreciates their help. There is nothing in the grandfathered use that says they have a certain level and have additional if you help animal control. There is no exception within the code for that, but there can be with a CUP.

Commissioner Bennett

asked the applicant what they can’t abide by within a CUP.

Mr. Kulkin

stated he believes he is asking why they don’t want a CUP versus Grandfathered.

Mr. Hedengren

stated he would like to make a correction to what Mr. Lacy stated. Mr. Lacy stated in 2007 they had 7 big cats and they actually had 9 big cats. In 2005 and 2006 they had leopards and even into 2007, some of those were on a temporary basis.

Commissioner Adams

stated staff’s recommendation is a ZC and a CUP.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Adams

asked what the cost of those would be.

Mr. Lacy

stated the cost would be nothing. He has been instructed to support them in getting the change done with their support for Animal Control.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if he would assist in filling out the application. Mr. lacy stated he will do whatever he can to help them.

Mr. Kulkin

asked if Scott could come up, he was the chairman of the animal board.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he will open up public comment and ask the applicants to come back up after.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they are getting off topic, they are here to talk about the appeal of the zoning administrator’s decision. Zuzana Kukal she believes they are grandfathered and don’t need a CUP. If you add another tiger that doesn’t remove grandfathering. For them to go after her for another tiger, it is unfair, it is the same use just one more animal. If they don’t agree with her that she doesn’t need a CUP there is a good chance there will be an expensive lawsuit the county doesn’t need. Donna Cox, County Commissioner. When this came before the BOCC she made the motion for the Sheriff’s department to give back the permit. This stated because Jacki had a fox, it doesn’t even look like a fox. This was overkill by the Sheriff’s department, we don’t need a lawsuit. Animal control knew she had a fox for years, they raided the place and confiscated everything. Two cats have died since then. She personally took tours of the property and they won’t hurt anyone. Jacki has five acres of property and someone approved mobile homes on smaller lots. She advises them to quit while they are ahead. There are buildings that have been there since 2005 – 2006 and you can’t see them very well in one picture but you can in one picture, it doesn’t mean they weren’t there originally, they are just bad pictures because they are taken from the sky from a satellite or something. They should get their license back. Rebecca Whittecar stated she just bought her home in August, and she didn’t know the lions were there. Her realtor didn’t tell her they were there, they should have been told about it.

Commissioner Bennett

asked the applicants why they don’t want a CUP.

Mr. Kulkin

stated being grandfathered in has a purpose, whatever they are doing remains the same and no one can take that away from you. With a CUP you don’t have to do anything wrong, when you reapply it is a conditional use permit, when you reapply it could be the neighborhood Page 22 of 24 changes and if the whole neighborhood signs the petition then the CUP should be gone. People have to take responsibility for your actions.

Commissioner Bennett

asked for clarification.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for example the CUP he holds for the Waste Water Treatment Plant does not expire. As long as he broke ground within the first 3 year period and started construction. The CUP will not expire and they are allowed to continue to expand with their CUP and they don’t have to go back before the board. They have heard some CUPs that were limited to a 3 year time frame and that was because the applicant was amenable to it. This applicant has made it clear they don’t want a time frame set on them.

Commissioner Bennett

asked if they got a CUP and followed all the rules and regulations they would never lose it.

Mr. Kulkin

stated the example is his CUP. He stated a CUP was just approved with a 3 year time limit.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is what he just stated.

Mr. Kulkin

stated there is no guarantee of what the CUP will be. Right now they are grandfathered, no matter what the board’s opinion is.

Commissioner Clark

asked the applicant if it is his contention that the grandfathered clause is unlimited. He suggests it is not.

Mr. Kulkin

stated it is limited within the parameters of what the grandfatheredness (sic) is.

Commissioner Clark

asked if they accept the limitations of what the grandfathering is.

Mr. Kulkin

and Ms. Freeman stated yes.

Commissioner Adams

stated with a grandfathered clause in place, what happens if it is sold as a special conditions animal sanctuary. The next owner may very well expand the use. With a grandfathered use in place there isn’t anything that can be done regarding that. If they decide an expansion of a use is really the intensification of the use. When was a CUP required for this type of facility?

Commissioner Bennett

stated the fox exemplifies the issues he has with this. The fox was either there by ignorance because they didn’t know what would hold or what wouldn’t, or blatant disregard for the law. Neither case would he be comfortable continuing to let them be without oversight.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is his biggest concern, the illegal possession of an illegal animal that was admitted on the record to being on the premise, and since being removed. The structures don’t constitute expansion, however the bringing of the illegal fox on the premise, in direct violation with the NRS does concern him.

Commissioner Carr

asked how many animals they will be entitled to over the next 10 – 15 years.

Commissioner Hafen

stated this is to either affirm, modify or deny the decision of the Zoning Administrator.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator pertaining to AP-2017-000011. Seconded by Commissioner Fowler. Page 23 of 24 Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: Derek Fowler, Gary Bennett, Gregory T. Hafen II, Paul Carr, Vincent Clark. No: Leah-Ann DeAnda, Robert Adams.

Commissioner Koenig

stated staff can remove the CIP section on the agenda and it can be placed back on when there are items to be heard.