February 10, 2021

Commissioner Lee

stated she sent in some minor typographical changes.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there are none.

Mr. Waggoner

stated total Planning applications received for January were 160 which was 20 more than last month, total applications processed was 132 which was 31 more than last month, Building Department there was 30 SFR which was 36 less than last month, MF was 0 which was 2 less than last month, MH was 29 which was 4 less than last month and total permits issued was 175 which was 56 less than last month, Total inspections all categories was 512 which was 165 less than last month. Since July 1st to date there have been 271 SFR and 212 MH permits pulled which was more than this time last year which had 192 SFR and 165 MH. Page 2 of 7 Code compliance had 16 new complaints which was 2 more than last month and they closed 29 which is 1 less than last month. Previous items heard by the RPC TA-2020-000027 Penalties for unpermitted work 15.16.110 Penalties adding subsection B for unpermitted work. On 10/14/2020 the RPC recommended approval. It is continued to the BOCC meeting this month due to questions by other towns. ZC- 2020-000050 was recommended for denial and heard by the BOCC at 1/20/21 and the ZC was approved. An appeal was filed for CU-2020-000106 and WV-2020-000125 that was heard at the 12/9/20 RPC and was denied. It was heard at the 1/20/21 by the BOCC and the RPC decision was overturned, and conditions were modified by one of the Commissioners that the Planning Department had recommended. WV-2020-000126 was heard at the 12/9/20 RPC and approved and it has been appealed to the BOCC regarding the requirement for a block wall on the rear property line and will be heard by them on 2/17/21. ZC-2020-000052 and ZC-2020-000053 were both heard at the 1/13/21 RPC meeting and recommend for approval and will be heard at the 2/17/21 BOCC meeting.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification on the changes for Medical Marijuana.

Ms. Beeman

stated the property is currently zoned BO and it was amended in 2019 and included into the list of zoning districts that allow retail and medical marijuana establishments. The entire frontage of Homestead from Hwy 160 to Gamebird is essentially where the BO zoned has been placed. Page 3 of 7

Commissioner Lee

asked if the master plan and zone change are approved would that eliminate the possibility for medical marijuana to develop at this location if the mini storage facility ceases to exist?

Ms. Beeman

stated that is correct NC doesn’t allow for it but GC does.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the MP designation of RDA would allow GC?

Ms. Beeman

stated RDA doesn’t allow for GC.

Commissioner Curtis

#8 refers to a waiver that shall be filed for the existing chain link fence that doesn’t meet code, what is the interpretation of that.

Ms. Beeman

stated the first expansion of the mini storage that is located to the south of the original development they came in with their SD and it showed a block wall and when staff went out to do the site inspection it was a chain link fence with slats. NCC has one section stating chain link with slats isn’t appropriate and another section that states it is in certain instances. It has been determined that the existing fence is likely to need this waiver for the development to be compliant.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if the chain link that could be in violation be replaced by a block wall.

Mr. Waggoner

stated what this has to do with is that the SD was submitted and reviewed by the technical committee. They specified and indicated they would build a block wall on the rear property line that abuts the residential properties. That isn’t what happened, and they installed a chain link fence with slats and that isn’t what was approved. Had they wanted to deviate from the development standards they would have needed an approved waiver from that deviation. Planning can’t approve that and it isn’t something he will be in support of, because a plan was submitted and shown with a block wall being built. In the landscaping standards it states chain link fencing with slats isn’t considered opaque fencing. Our code requires opaque fencing and when they submitted the plan with a block wall that was acceptable as opaque fencing.

Commissioner Curtis

stated the RPC can make it a condition to replace that chain link fence with a block wall, correct.

Commissioner Lee

asked if that condition would apply to properties not part of this application or just to this property.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it could affect this application, but he isn’t necessarily stating to withhold their application, but it needs to be addressed but can be made a condition that all violations on adjacent properties need to be brought into compliance. Justin Wallin, applicant stated he would like to discuss Director Waggoners concerns. They completed an expansion at 3890 Homestead and the concerned neighbor is directly behind the original facility. The previous owners had gates that were left open and then closed at dark. They have automatic gates and they are from 6am – 6pm and will not operate after that time. The fencing concern of the 3890 expansion they were told they needed a block wall and one visit to the B & S department said they didn’t need a block wall and stated his ignorance with the B & S department probably put the cart before the horse in installing the chain link fence. But they told him a chain link with slats was acceptable. They had another landscape waiver on this property that was approved and he was almost certain that the chain link fence was included in that and after speaking with Cheryl today she stated it wasn’t and he stated it is very possible his Page 4 of 7 paperwork wasn’t filled out correctly. They keep the property maintained well and they are willing to do what they are asking for is behind an existing facility built in 2004 and this property just touches the corner of their property and they are willing to put in slats there on the original location very easily on the original buildings built in 2004. On this project they are asking for approval everything with the conditions of approval looks fine with them except for condition #4 it states, “An operational approved, permanent water source sufficient for fire protection covering all 3 properties (APNs: 041-222-15, 16 & 17), is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development of the subject parcel”. There is existing water storage on the property. There is no water or sewer on 3860 or 3890 either that is why they asked for the waiver before. The reason why they bought the subject parcel at 3820 property is because it has an existing residential well and septic. There are no facilities, and they want a care takers residence there in the expansion and will not be providing a public restroom and want to keep the residential well and septic. Everything else is fine with them. Kurt Wallin, applicant stated he agrees with what Justin has addressed.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they have an issue with dedicating the Right of Way that Public Works has requested.

Mr. Wallin

stated no, they had to do that on the 3890 property as well.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if not requiring a block wall for this case would be in conflict with the appeal for the property on Hwy 160.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes it would, but that item isn’t part of this item. For this property unless a waiver is applied for and approved removing the block wall option when site development comes through for the expansion they would not approve the plan that doesn’t adhere to NCC requirements. The last SD that they submitted for their last expansion was approved with a block wall, it wouldn’t have been approved with a chain link fence without an approved waiver. They need to either build a block wall that was approved on the plan submitted by the applicant or apply for a waiver from the RPC then submit a revised SD plan after the waiver is approved showing the change.

Mr. Wallin

stated they didn’t just put the chain link fence in because they thought they could. They were very aware that there was a block wall on the plans that they submitted and stated it is their ignorance that they were told by contractors in Pahrump that it wasn’t required. They put the fence in because they were told they could. They weren’t aware that there were other requirements Page 5 of 7 if they did do that. If they are telling them they need to put a block wall behind 3890 they will do that but that won’t make the people behind the property at 3860 happy.

Mr. Waggoner

stated behind the last expansion and behind this proposed expansion there isn’t a residence yet, but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be one built there. So a decision today could affect someone later. Even with the waiver that was approved here last November for landscaping that was another thing that was indicated on the plan that there would be artificial landscaping and through the development it was later decided it wouldn’t be installed and came back later and applied for a waiver to get that approved. Again, they had a plan that showed artificial landscaping and a block wall installed and it wasn’t approved that way. Coming back after the construction to ask forgiveness for not following a plan that you had approved isn’t the proper way to do things. There are other storage facilities in town that did get waivers for landscaping, of the block wall requirements but done through the proper channels and approved. That is what needs to happen regardless.

Mr. Wallin

stated the waiver for the landscaping deviation was done after the fact because he was told by the locals, his contractors and even staff that the artificial landscaping would be stolen.

Commissioner Curtis

motioned to recommend approval of MP-2021-000015 and ZC-2021-000055 with conditions of approval and adding a block wall to be built at the rear of the property.

Commissioner Lee

asked if she wanted to add in PW request for a ROW dedication.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he would like it stated that the block wall be built to the applicable NCC standards and stated for clarification that this only applies for the rear property line only.

Commissioner Curtis

modified her motion.

Commissioner Lee

stated last meeting they discussed the pros and cons with staying in house or doing an RFP. We can direct the PW staff to develop an RFP and bring back proposals for us to review. We are under no obligation to enter into a contract, but it will give us a cost of what it would be.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if is necessary to get this study done at this time, is it to get federal grants?

Commissioner Lee

stated they are required under NRS to review the plan every 3 years and possibly update it. What they can do with the RFP is a have professional firm review and see if there are updates that need to be made. To this point they haven’t reviewed the plan in its entirety. They need to determine if they will have staff review and bring it back to them or initiate an RFP and have a professional firm do it. Their review may result that there may not be many modifications that need to be made but there could be a lot and things that don’t apply and need to be updated. Page 6 of 7

Commissioner Blackstock

stated it needs to be done by an outside firm and this will be time consuming for staff. Everything in there is outdated and old and things have changed dramatically. It costs quite a bit more but up to date with today’s standards.

Commissioner Lee

stated they need to decide if they want to pay for it by having a professional firm do it and have a shorter turnaround time or pay for it in staff time where they will have to split their time doing their daily work and this review and could potentially drag this out a lot longer. Staff can write the RFP for whatever they want.