February 14, 2018

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like his comment made during the meeting to Mr. Brooks to please watch his language added.

Mrs. Sandoval

stated yes. She was going to address his request to have that statement added to the minutes.

Commissioner Bennett

motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by

Mrs. Sandoval

stated the DA’s office provided typographical errors and requested Marla Zlotek be removed she was removed from attendance. Commissioner Lee has also provided comments with some typographical errors that will be addressed.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if any of the changes are substantial and need to be read into the record.

Mrs. Sandoval

stated no they are all minor.

Commissioner Lee

motioned to approve the minutes including the changes submitted to staff. Seconded by Commissioner Bennett

Commissioner Adams

stated the Fire Department blood drive is March 16th and 17th at the Fire Department. Page 2 of 11

Mr. Waggoner

stated the total applications received at the counter through January 31st was 139, total processed 128, 41 SFR building permit issued, 14 MH permits issued. New Code complaints received 32, currently there are 132 active in the system. Updates on items that have come before the RPC CU-2017-000045 Karl Mitchell – applicant was denied by the PRPC has been appealed to the BOCC and scheduled for the 20th of February. ZC-2017-000020 MegaMotors – was recommend for approval by the PRPC, and is scheduled for the BOCC on the 20th of February.

Commissioner Hafen

thanked Ms. VanHouten and stated he has seen the hard work that is going in and the efforts the Planning Department has been putting in with the biggest example in the community is the signs. He stated if they require anything from the board that they could help support or input they are available.

Commissioner Lee

asked how it is doing code compliance under the current manual as it is adopted.

Ms. VanHouten

stated enforcing the code is only as good as it is written, that is the hardest part she has. It is a solid code manual and needs to be updated.

Commissioner Lee

asked how the public responds to the procedures outlined in the manual.

Ms. VanHouten

stated they don’t understand why it takes so many letters or so many days. It is frustrating to them that there isn’t an immediate fix to their complaint.

Commissioner Lee

stated there are some parts that are administratively cumbersome. Is this a hindrance to getting through the process and getting a resolution?

Ms. VanHouten

stated yes, she is the only person in the position. She does have an office that does help her out, however the letter writing process, and report tracking gets cumbersome.

Commissioner Lee

asked what the amount of voluntary compliance they have had over the years. Page 3 of 11

Ms. VanHouten

stated the low 30’s.

Commissioner Lee

asked how many cases have been to the DA’s office.

Ms. VanHouten

stated she has three on board ready to go and referred to Qiana Medici for past records. Qiana Medici stated in the past there were 3 cases sent to the BOCC and they stalled out there, then sent back to code enforcement to start the process again. Cases have been sent to the DA, they had been understaffed and if it wasn’t a priority it wasn’t getting done. The DA’s office had other priority cases.

Commissioner Lee

asked if a Hearing Officer, like they had for Air Quality in the past would be beneficial.

Mrs. Medici

stated yes, it could be modified to work for Code Compliance, it has been discussed internally.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if that would be something that would come back as a change to the manual or done administratively.

Ms. VanHouten

stated if would be something in the manual itself. Other jurisdictions have written it into code or their manual. Brett Waggoner stated it would probably require a code amendment, and it would be a process.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if Planning is looking into additional software or equipment to help expedite the process.

Ms. VanHouten

stated there has been talk about software, but we are waiting to see where the County is going with their own software.

Commissioner Hafen

stated if the County changes their system it could be something that Planning could dove tail on. Darrell Lacy stated for air quality it is a civil enforcement not criminal enforcement. It is a simpler process.

Commissioner Lee

stated in the Code Compliance Manual it states we assess the violators. Have we assessed them fines for reviewing the case and how is it calculated.

Ms. VanHouten

stated since December 2016 nothing has been assessed or collected.

Commissioner Hafen

stated Mr. Schulte is getting off topic, we are here to address the manual.

Mr. Schulte

stated the red tags on signs is selective enforcement. Nye County isn’t going out and abating properties that have nuisances, why are we starting with signs. It’s because she can go out and cut them down easily. Let’s clean up the town, let’s do something that is going to make a difference. Removing signs isn’t doing any good. If our DA had any teeth and willing to prosecute we could get some of this done, if they aren’t willing to do it why are we enforcing anything. Dawn Murphy stated she is all for bringing the booklet back and asked for them to simplify the dust permit. It is a lot of work and she has people that doesn’t understand and it is hard for them to explain to everyone at the customer at the counter. It needs to be easier to access and turn in. She wants clarification on why she has a 1.1 acre parcel that she pulled a dust permit and they told her they wanted an additional $50 because it went over 1 acre, that is a little ridiculous.

Commissioner Hafen

stated everyone wants to expedite the process and they all understand it is only one person and that they are doing a good job. They do it case by case when they receive complaints. In regards to selective enforcement, he disagrees, they received letters stating they needed to remove signs that were on their properties. He doesn’t know about other cases but he did receive those. They all want the process expedited and streamlined and an online form would be nice.

Commissioner Adams

stated it takes a long time to mitigate the process. Every couple BOCC meeting there are items to bring properties to task.

Commissioner Koenig

stated for clarification on some of Mr. Schulte’s comments. He stated sometimes he is the front line because they call him and they complain about their neighbors not getting rid of their garbage. He will go out and take pictures and send to Amanda and then he follows up on it. There is one he has been following up on for 2 months now and there is no water or sewer. It is frustrating for everyone because it is private property and they can’t always get access to the properties. It might end up in court someday. Unless we can prove it is a health and safety issue there isn’t much we can do about it except ask for compliance. After three letters it is processed to the DA’s office and they determine what is more important. As he drives around town he finds junk he wishes he could make go away. They are working on it, they realize it but it is difficult and frustrating. They went for years without a compliance officer.

Commissioner Bennett

stated one of the solutions could be getting more staff. Maybe the people in Pahrump wouldn’t mind paying more taxes to afford that. Page 5 of 11

Commissioner Blundo

stated he appreciates that enforcement is getting done. There is a transitional period and given some more time we will see a cleanup of town. Moving forward out of Planning we need to do the best we can to be able to work with the people around it. The people in the audience complain about some many little issues, but if you see something but there is no complaint on the books, code compliance can’t do anything about it. If anyone sees a problem, go to the office and submit a complaint to get the process started.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is a way to submit the complaint online so you don’t have to go to the office.

Mr. Waggoner

stated most everyone has a smart phone, take a picture of it and send it in.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if there is a way to upload photos using the online compliant.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he emails Amanda with the pictures.

Ms. VanHouten

stated it can also be submitted to the general planning inbox at planning@co.nye.nv.us.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the best way to go is delete the substantial improvements and give direction to staff and the board that in the future when adding conditions of start of construction look at the project and give a determination at that time. Looking if there are different circumstances where start of construction is not pulling a building permit. They will have to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Commissioner Adams

stated adult uses in the definitions, maybe there is another title they can use for that.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we aren’t agendized for that, just for the start of construction portion. He can bring it up under item #15 if he wants it addressed.

Commissioner Lee

motioned to recommend approval to the BOCC the start of construction text amendment striking the last sentence referring to substantial improvement from the definition of start of construction and removing entirely the definition of substantial improvement. Seconded by

Mr. Ehrheart

stated at the last meeting they would like agricultural uses added and adjacent property owner that had travel trailers added, this change reflects those additions. They have added definition of principal building, as in 17.04.110. Page 6 of 11 Public comment opened at 6:46 pm. Kathy Mueller stated in regards to the property next door, it was graded last July. She objects to changing the existing permitting under NCC Title 17, specifically allowing accessory uses or structures without a permit for the primary residence. The situation is happing adjacent to her primary residence, there is no dust control and they erected sheds with no building permits. The dust issue is all the time. The intended use what they told everyone was for the storage of construction material. If they do this they will make Pahrump more of a dump then it already is. They have a burn pit and no water on the property. Every time its windy she has to pick up all the construction debris. If people are coming here and not planning to be a resident, for health and safety reason, with the dust and burning it is a fire hazard and a health hazard. If she is reading this right it says they can do this without a principal building permit. Dawn Murphy stated she agrees with her that the construction site next door to her. But she doesn’t agree to what is new here, she feels they are turning this into CC & R’s and HOA’s. She doesn’t live here to be watched over. She bought 1 ¼ acre properties and she has placed things on her property with zoning approval prior to putting on her residence. By adding in all these new rules, it is taking the property owners rights away.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification on Ms. Mueller’s comment. The change will be that it is unlawful to build an accessory structure on the lot without a main residence or principal structure. Addressing Ms. Murphy’s comment, they will be allowing a temporary structure once the building permits are pulled. They are trying to find a happy medium so that they can have accessory structures and bring your building permit and materials to the property.

Commissioner Adams

stated he has an interpretation in between both members of the publics comments. The fire department will take care of the burning of the trash. He stated they are asking that until a building permit is pulled you don’t put anything on the property.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he believes the confusion is in the title, where it shows the language that has been stricken.

Mr. Waggoner

stated all the activities located on the property next door, there are no building permits and they have been issued a stop work order.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to recommend approval to the BOCC. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like to go over the rest even though they have no jurisdiction over that section, they would just like to provide comments.

Mr. Osborne

stated MH that are outside the PRPD would comply with the same NRS requirements unless, for example in Amargosa, if the ATB adopt their own guidelines then those would be the guidelines followed. This doesn’t apply to MHP or subdivisions that have their own CC & R’s that allow for different standards for manufactured homes.

Commissioner Blundo

stated under # 2 & #3 it must consist of 1,150 sq. ft. of living area. Is this a standard size?

Mr. Osborne

stated the NRS specifies the home must be 1,200 sq. ft. unless the governing body approves a lesser amount. He believes the 1,150 is the smallest MH that would have multiple sections.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification that we are trying to be more lenient than the NRS and it grants us the authority to be more lenient. Gerald Schulte stated a little history behind NRS 278. There was senate bill 232 back in 1999, he was part of that. This law was created because in parts of Nevada there were a lot of older subdivisions that had owners wanting to put a manufactured home there. They can now comply with CC&R’s by tiling the roof, and stucco. Clark County discriminated against MH and they lost. There is a lot of intent behind this that no one understands. Nye County never discriminated against MH. They can build a multi-section out of 900 Sq. Ft. He stated he is all for this and it will clean up the town, it will get rid of the house that were built for MHP, and it will help him sell homes. It should be down to 960 sq. ft, there are a lot of seniors that are on a budget. Nye County wants them to be converted because they want tax revenue. Not everyone can get a FHA, VA type mortgage that converts the home. Nye County needs to look at that in a different aspect. Dwight Lilly stated there is no language that grandfathers existing homes. If they are wanting to sell their investments does this mean they would have to comply with the requirements for instance putting a MH on a foundation. Many homes have decks built around them and they would have to tear them down to put them on a foundation. He would like to see language added to protect those existing owners. If they try to see it they could have someone from the County telling them they have to come into compliance and put it on a foundation. Some of these are 25 – 30 years old and are still livable, there is nothing wrong with them. If you leave the language the way it is, it gives owners no protection for what is existing.

Mr. Lacy

stated the ordinance specifically states this is for new installation of MH. Existing homes that are currently installed are not affected by this ordinance. Clark County and California have restricted use of older MH. There are older MH’s being sold cheap and we were one of the few jurisdictions where they would bring them because we didn’t have these regulations in place.

Commissioner Hafen

stated under the grandfathered section of the code and the development standards are uses existing prior to the code adoption are either conform or are illegally non- conforming. This is only applied to new.

Commissioner Koenig

stated grandfathering is a non-issue. It is the same as a stick built house that was built 20 years ago and doesn’t conform to the code today but is grandfathered in. There is nothing in the code that says grandfathered, but that is what the section of the code does. If Mr. Schulte can put together a 960 sq. ft. home he would recommend that if they adopt this they change that to be 960 feet so he doesn’t have to change it later. Page 8 of 11

Commissioner Hafen

asked if we have dimension of what 960 sq. ft is.

Commissioner Koenig

stated half the house would be half of 960.

Commissioner Blundo

asked if 960 is the most typical of the manufactured.

Mr. Schulte

stated he could go smaller.

Commissioner Adams

stated primarily it is the lenders that tell you what needs to be done with the house. He doesn’t know how you could go back to 1999 and approve everything that was built without permits. If it is there it is grandfathered.

Commissioner Hafen

stated section 8 on page 3, they are just providing comments, because it is outside the PRPD. It talks about not needing an engineered pad design or a soils report, he isn’t sure how the soils are outside the PRPD and has a problem recommending it for approval without an expert. He has concerns with section 8 and would like those comments passed to the BOCC.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the comment is noted.

Commissioner Hafen

stated another question he has is a section that talks about a permanent foundation in the PRPD. He asked for clarification that they aren’t waiving anything but they want the structural walls and back fill then converted to real property.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

stated this is a whole new section, nothing is being deleted from County Code and they are trying to be more lenient than the state law allows. There was a suggestion to bring it down to 960 sq. ft. if that is the desire of the board.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to recommend approval to the BOCC 17.04.820 as written with amendments of the minimum size of the home being 960 sq. ft. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on his motion that his making recommendation of the sections 1 – 3 and providing comments for the sections outside the PRPD.

Commissioner Adams

stated not having authority outside the PRPD they are making individual comments on the section.

Commissioner Blundo

asked for clarification that the 960 sq. ft. would be reflected in section 2.e and 3.b.

Commissioner Hafen

asked where is the proposed design corridor. It shows from Bell Vista to the County line. Page 9 of 11

Mr. McKee

stated yes, Bell Vista on the North end and Mabes on the South end and on Hwy 372 from the intersection at 160 down to Linda and the intersection at Charleston Park where it terminates.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that this is just being discussed, but the discussion is that limited waivers or no waivers from the code in this section or adjoining the highway or a distance out.

Mr. McKee

stated as of now it is properties fronting these areas.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if it includes properties that front a frontage road as well.

Mr. McKee

stated he believes so, yes.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that it is for no waivers, limited waivers or up for discussion.

Mr. McKee

stated that would still be up for discussion. It is their recommendation that stick with an urban standard within the design corridor, which is curb, gutter, sidewalk and urban would be outside of that with gravel, road side ditches.

Mr. Lacy

stated what is driving this is that we changed the code to include a category II development review which gives opportunity for waivers from category 1 requirements, is essentially what they are calling urban standards. Within the development corridor is no or limited waivers allowed outside of that. Category 2 doesn’t mean all of those would be rural standards but we have the ability to look at the community and how it is developing.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there are occasions where property owners on Hwy 160 it is hard to meet standards and they have come before them for waiver, are we stating no waivers period.

Mr. Lacy

stated waivers can always come to the PRPC and the BOCC. This definition is going to staff for site development review process and if they don’t agree with staff they can request a waiver.

Commissioner Hafen

asked what the thicker red line is on the document. Is it trying to encompass the frontage road?

Mr. McKee

stated he can look further into that. It could be the width of the ROW, or tracing property lines in the area which isn’t always consistent.

Commissioner Blundo

asked if we are giving staff direction or are we saying no waivers period.

Commissioner Hafen

stated staff is in the process of designing this corridor and this is the area they are presenting to us today for the design corridor. It will either have no waivers or limited waivers from county code but on the outskirts away from the highway corridor more waivers could be granted.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. McKee when language will be coming to them before it goes to the BOCC.

Mr. McKee

stated this is just a guide to staff, it isn’t anything that will be codified.

Mr. Lacy

stated when they adopted the Category 2 site development it gave staff the authority to do things with less intensity. Then we had people on Hwy 160 wanting those things. Page 10 of 11