January 13, 2021

Commissioner Lee

stated she turned in some minor corrections to staff.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that this is primarily because of a safety issue with 911 responders having issues finding the addresses in conjunction with mail and package deliveries.

Mr. Foster

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Foster if approved how these changes will go out to the appropriate agencies.

Mr. Foster

stated the USPS are notified to update their database, FedEx and UPS usually obtain the USPS database to update their records. Google has not signed a user disclosure statement to obtain the data. Anyone effected will have to contact anyone that would need to be updated. The BOCC will make the final determination. If no one protests it will go forward and the property owners will receive a letter. The USPS will forward mail for up to one year.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there are other areas in the Pahrump Valley that will need to be readdressed.

Mr. Foster

stated yes, if it is 10 addresses or less he can clean it up, unfortunately this isn’t the case. Most other areas he can do 10 at a time and aren’t major.

Mr. Foster

stated he hasn’t spoken to Mr. Donlan and this isn’t a duplicate address issue, it is a pre- and post-directional issue. There have been multiple times that people who are for this change have mentioned if they call 911 they end up getting a call back from 911 because they can’t find the address. The county will not pay for any of the changes, it is part of the process when issues are identified and need to be fixed for 911 purposes or other issues. As far as current loans, yes you need to let them know of the new address, prior loans nothing changes. Title addresses don’t change title it is done by legal only. APNS don’t change or transfer title only legal.

Commissioner Dureya

asked if RH-9.5 allows for Commercial agricultural activities.

Mrs. Medici

stated under a CUP.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes, with and without a CUP. Phyllis Pike, applicant stated what Qiana said is exactly what they want to do. Just a zone change from VR-20 to RH-9.5.

Commissioner Lee

asked Mrs. Pike if she has read, understood and agrees to the conditions of approval in the staff report.

Commissioner Lee

stated all the items listed in the justification letter are allowed in the RE-1 zoning district. What is enticing about changing it to RH-9.5?

Ms. Mickelson

stated it fits the property better, it is 9.7 acres and if he wants to grow something it makes it easier.

Commissioner Lee

stated it does not sound like the applicant has any specific use in mind. They can have churches, a farm or hobby breeding and anything further related to animals or intensive uses they are required to get a CUP and it would come back before the board and she would get a public notice.

Mrs. Monjie

asked for clarification that it doesn’t state what the use is for.

Commissioner Lee

stated that is correct but they are limited to what is outlined in the parameter of the zoning district

Mrs. Monjie

asked for clarification that the parcel won’t be divided.

Commissioner Lee

stated that is correct.

Mrs. Monjie

asked if they will have to come back before the board if it will become a commercial development.

Commissioner Lee

stated they can’t start without development standards and coming back before the board for approval.

Mrs. Monjie

asked if there is a single well or multiple.

Commissioner Lee

stated they are allowed to have one well and that is based on DWR and what they require and what the development is.

Mr. Waggoner

stated this zoning allows for one SFR and a guest residence and one well. They could do an AG well. Commercial uses other than an agricultural commercial use would require a ZC. Closed at 7:04 pm.

Commissioner Lee

stated this isn’t for action but just for review for Commissioners, so they know their responsibilities when sitting as the RPC and CIPAC. The applications they review when sitting as the RPC are land use applications some are final at the RPC some are final at the BOCC. The RPC decision is based on findings, NCC establishes finding for each application they see. Each application has unique findings that have to be made. Staff does their research they make their findings and come to a conclusion and that is where their recommended motion comes from. If after public comment and comments in the back up you find yourself in agreement with staff and want to follow their recommendation there is a recommended motion on page 1 and you read that motion. If you disagree with staff’s findings and you want to make a different motion you need to look at these findings and you need to make the alternate findings and an alternate motion is also listed on page 1. You need to state your alternate findings. For the conditions of approval included in the staff report, there are some sections of code that have required conditions, for example the CUP. There are standard conditions of approval and don’t change. If there is a time limit when the approval expires it will be stated in code. CUPs are privileged approvals, and they can suggest any conditions they deem necessary for the approval. If a requested ZC conforms to the MP it isn’t considered spot zoning even if it doesn’t match the surrounding zonings. Spot zoning would be something that changes the zoning and master plan that is different then the area. They don’t get involved with CC&Rs they don’t play into their decisions, they can be informed of HOA approvals and the CC&Rs but it shouldn’t be a factor in decisions or findings. When it comes to disclosing, recusing and abstaining those topics are dictated by NRS and OML you all should have the OML in your binders so you can go back to reference it at any point in time.

Mr. Waggoner

stated when it comes to the staff reports it is for their education, staff puts the information together so you can make an informed educated decision. We need to be careful when there is a motion made to go against the recommendation made based on the findings that staff has presented to the board. You need to have findings to support your recommendation to go against staff’s recommendation. There are a lot of opinions on subjects and they weigh into decision that are made, that isn’t good enough. You need to have findings to support your recommendation to go against staff’s recommendations. If the board makes the determination that something isn’t a detriment to the community you have to explain why you are going against staff. You can’t say it has been done in the past or it is a silly requirement. You have to base your decisions off the code as it is today.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if there is a lot of negative public comment on an item how much do they let that play into their decision.

Commissioner Lee

stated it all boils down to the land use. They have to make those findings based on the land use.

Commissioner Curtis

stated that is where they bring up the traffic or dust issues.

Commissioner Lee

stated that is where they can place the conditions of approval. If staff or the board can make the findings in favor of the application and there are complaints it can be conditioned to mitigate the issues. Conditions of approval can only be applied to the property that is subject to the application that is front of them. Nothing can be added to a neighboring property they may own if it isn’t part of the application. Page 6 of 8 The CIP is the Capital Improvements Plan Advisory Committee. The BOCC appointed the RPC to sit as the CIP, NRS dictates the duties and states they need to review the CIP in its entirety once every 3 years and they may make changes and they aren’t required to change anything when it is reviewed. The last review and update was in 2005. We have a few options on review and updating the plan, it can be done by staff or we can go out to bid and have a professional firm do the work. Tom Bolling, Assistant Public Works Director stated it definitely needs to be reviewed and they are still trying to decide the best course of action whether they put it out to bid or do it in house it will take a lot longer if they do int in house because they are busy with other work and it will be more expensive to put it out to bid, but it depends on how fast they want to get it done.

Commissioner Turner

asked if portions of this CIP can be done in house and other portioned out.

Commissioner Lee

reviewed what parts of the impact fees benefit different sections such and roads and the fire department. If the review of the plan is kept in house with Planning or Public Works or if they want a sub-committee it can be addressed later.

Commissioner Blackstock

stated they may have documents that are pertinent, professionals who do these updates have experience and capabilities and can get it done quickly. The cost can be high but we are paying for their expertise.

Commissioner Turner

asked what the ball bark figure is and where does the money come from.

Commissioner Lee

stated they would have to go out for an RFP to see where the dollar figures are at. They aren’t under an obligation to accept one if it is too high.

Mr. Osborne

stated a few years ago they obtained quotes and they were around $50,000 to update.

Commissioner Turner

requested for the CIPAC to meet again at the next meeting. Adjourned as CIP 7:57 pm.

Commissioner Lee

stated the next meeting will be 2/10/2021 at 6 pm, and it will be a joint CIP meeting. Cheryl Beeman is hoping in February to bring back an action plan for updating the Master Plan.

Commissioner Lee

stated there were staff findings made to recommend denial. When it goes to the BOCC the minutes to the meeting will be part of the back up or you can reach out to staff to get answers. Page 7 of 8

Mr. Waggoner

stated the recommendation from staff was to approve. The RPC went against staff recommendations. The minutes for the meeting are part of this meeting or he can reach out to the department and we can forward them to him as well. Rodica Croitor asked Public Works if they can do some work on Bannavitch St.

Mr. Bolling

stated he will ask staff to give her a call.