March 10, 2021

Commissioner Carbone

Assessor Parcel Number Board of County Commissioners Capital Improvement Plan Conditional Use Permit = General Commercial ~ Manufactured Home Nye County Code Nevada Revised Statues Pahrump Regional Planning District Public Works Right-of-Way Regional Planning Commission Single-Family Residential Zone Change requested to limit comments to items not on the agenda.)

Commissioner Lee

stated she provided staff with some minor typographical corrections. Public comment opened at 6:03 PM. Don Miller stated he received a flyer on a change of zoning.

Commissioner Lee

directed him to the appropriate time to speak during that item. Public comment closed at 6:04 pm Motion: approve with changes as submitted to staff, Action: Approve, Moved by Pamela Tyler, Seconded by Robert Blackstock.

Commissioner Turner

asked if we could clarify if this was the item Mr. Miller was wanting to speak on. Don Miller stated this isn’t the item he was waiting to speak on.

Mr. Waggoner

stated the Planning Department is reopening to the public on April 15", still following COVID-19 protocols. Commission/Committee/Director Reports: a. BOCC Liaison Report None. b. Director’s Report

Mr. Waggoner

stated total Planning applications received for February were 171 which was 31 more than last month, total applications processed was 173 which was 72 more than last month, Building Department there was 38 SFR which was 8 more than last month, MF was, 0, MH was 26 which was 3 less than last month and total permits issued was 188 which was 13 more than last month, Total inspections all categories was 480 which was 32 less than last month. Since July 1* to date there have been 309 SFR and 238 MH permits pulled which was more than this time last year which had 223 SFR and 210 MH. Code compliance had 16 new complaints which was 2 more than last month and they closed 17 which is 13 less than last month. Page 2 of 11 8. Previous items heard by the RPC TA-2020-000027 Penalties for unpermitted work 15.16.110 Penalties adding subsection B for unpermitted work and heard on 10/14/2020 the RPC recommended approval and was heard 2/17/2021 by the BOCC and was approved. WV-2020-000126 was appealed to the BOCC to allow for a chain link fence instead of a block wall and a paved driveway off Alfalfa, it was heard by the BOCC on 2/16/2021 and they approved the application, and the decision was overturned, and the waivers granted. ZC-2020-000052 and ZC-2020-000053 were all heard by the BOCC on 2/17/2021 BOCC and they were approved. MP-2021-000015 and ZC-2021-000055 were heard by the RPC on 2/10/21 and recommended for approval and will be heard by the BOCC on 3/16/2021. Ex Parte Communications and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statements None. For Possible Action — WV-2021-000128: Public Hearing, discussion, and deliberation on an application for Waiver from Nye County Code Title 17, Comprehensive Land Use Planning and Zoning, Article III. Zoning Districts; Establishment and General Provisions: 17.04.200 Residential Districts; 17.04.240 VR-20; Village Residential — D. Permissive Uses & E. Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Currently NCC 17.04.240(D)(E) does not allow for Subsistence farming for the growing of field crops or raising of livestock for food for household use as a permissive use. 17.04.910 Zoning Review Required for the existing chicken coop that was built without prior approval by the previous owner located at 3341 Zolin Ave. Assessor Parcel Number 045-084-10. Grimaldo, Juan L — Property Owner/Applicant. (This item is Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or as otherwise announced.) (QM) Qiana Medici reviewed her staff report the aerial views from 2018 show an open roof structure connected at the rear of the MH, prior to the Grimaldo’s purchasing the property in June of 2020. That was used as a chicken coop according to the Grimaldo’s when they moved in. The property does have an active code compliance case and the owners are asking for a waiver of code and staff finds sufficient justification to approve the application.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there was any research into grandfathering the chicken coop. Or was the 2018 aerial the only thing they have.

Mrs. Medici

stated the 2018 the only aerial photo that shows the chicken coop on the property.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they had a similar situation a few meetings ago, the circumstances were similar but the parcel size on that property was .46 acres where this one is .91. This property is an area they will be discussing to review a possible zoning error, that is why they are recommending approval of the application, he believes this could be an error in zoning.

Commissioner Lee

stated she agrees the VR-20 isn’t applicable and believes it needs to have an area study, but she doesn’t believe under NCC they have the authority to grant this use. The code states they don’t have the authority to grant a use for one zoning district that is permissive in another zoning district.

Mr. Waggoner

stated one finding that has to be made to support a waiver is the fact there is some particular characteristics of the parcel that doesn’t exist in the same zone properties in other psec It does meet the criteria for a RE-1 property.

Commissioner Lee

stated she disagrees, and she doesn’t think they have the authority to approve this.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the physicians letter gives it a different angle to allow approval?

Commissioner Lee

stated this is a zoning issue. Page 3 of 11 9.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the applicant can gather the neighbors for a zone change and then proceed with this?

Commissioner Lee

stated there are a few options she sees. They can move forward and deny it and the applicant can appeal to the BOCC they can direct staff to rezone the area or the applicant can discuss with staff to rezone the property or they can continue it till there is a rezoning on the property.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they could also follow the recommendation of the Planning Department and choose to approve this.

Commissioner Lee

stated she believes that approving this will violate Nye County Code.

Mr. Waggoner

referred to the DA’s office. Marla Zlotek stated if the chair believes the code doesn’t allow for the action and the Director interprets the code to allow for the action her only recommendation is to do the research on what the intent of the code is. If the motion is to continue pending the DA’s office opinion, she will talk with the Director to obtain the correct questions and concerns.

Commissioner Lee

stated they will address grandfathering next month. Public comment closed at 6:35 pm.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there is anything acceptable in the code for the substitute of opaque fencing other than a block wall.

Ms. Beeman

stated no, the code just states opaque with no definition to determine opaqueness. Justin Wallin, applicant stated they are working with the neighbor behind them for the chain link fence and are trying to get that in writing. They had a misunderstanding with one of their previous waivers for two lots down that they thought included the chain link fence but the way they filled out the application doesn’t resemble that. That was a mistake on their part and a little bit of ignorance. They have looked at other storage facilities that have chain link fences and though they don’t know when they were approved, but they are against residential properties. They believe the opaque fencing they want meets all the criteria. The merger of the lots isn’t an issue, the only thing that needs utilities is the caretaker’s residence, there will be no public utilities and they are working with NDEP and DWR to use the existing well and septic that is there for strictly the caretaker’s residence. If that changes and they have to make it a larger well and purchase water rights and commercial septic it won’t make sense for the couple to make a living there. If the lots are merged what will become of the existing conditions for the other properties, will these conditions then go to all those properties? They don’t mind giving up ROW for the new buildouts but the existing facility there is fencing and stuff there that would be expensive to move. The only home currently built is only behind the original facility and that has a chain link fence. They are willing to install an 8 ft tall privacy fence across that back property line.

Commissioner Lee

asked staff if they can hear this waiver since the original MP and ZC haven’t been heard by the BOCC yet.

Ms. Beeman

stated they had that conversation with Mr. Wallin and she doesn’t believe so. It can move through the process piece meal but not ideal.

Mr. Waggoner

stated if the findings were in favor of the applicant for the waiver the condition that is on the MP and ZC for the block wall can be updated and they can remove that. But a waiver has to go before the RPC first. He would like to address some things addressed by the applicant. The issue with the chain link and slats is that code doesn’t offer other options, but it does specifically say in this instance it says chain link with slats is not considered opaque fencing. Other areas of code for other uses it says chain link with slates is acceptable opaque fencing. For whatever reason a commercial use that borders a residential use it specifically says it is not. That is where staff’s findings are coming from. The second part the applicant stated that there was a chain link fence on the other parcel for over a year. That chain link fence was installed illegally, it was not submitted or approved on the site development plan by the applicant and approved by the technical review committee. The fact that they have gotten away with it for a year is moot point.

Commissioner Turner

asked staff what the process for opaque fencing that some areas it qualifies and some it does not. What is the procedure when definitions differ, is this something that needs to be remedied across all ordinances?

Mr. Waggoner

stated it would be a code amendment and it can’t happen as an action with this agenda item. The applicant can offer to do anything outside a block wall other than a chain link with slats to meet the opaque requirement.

Commissioner Turner

asked the applicant if the caretaker’s residence is planned to go on 041-222-17, correct?

Mr. Wallin

stated yes. Page § of 11 10.

Commissioner Turner

asked Mr. Wallin where the well was currently located.

Mr. Wallin

stated the well and septic are on located on APN — 17.

Mr. Waggoner

stated with the merger of the parcels should have been required prior to any of these approvals like any other commercial property there could potentially be access issues with them if they stay separate and since it hasn’t went to SD or through building permits there could possibly be a requirement in the building code that there is a public restroom facility based on the occupancy of the property.

Commissioner Curtis

asked Mr. Waggoner if the plans are approved for the new development would it include a separate access for the development and is the fence they are discussing only for the rear lot line that is adjacent to residential and the appeal that was heard on Hwy 160 did it go before the BOCC and did they approve the chain link?

Mr. Waggoner

stated the access would come through site development process, depending on fire or emergency access they may require a second access, the BOCC unfoundedly reversed the decision of the RPC with no findings to support it and allowed the chain link fence that was denied by the RPC. Yes, this would only affect the property line to the rear of the parcel that abuts a residential zoned property.

Mr. Wallin

asked if the properties are merged would the ROW be required for the property that is already done and asphalted and would the rear property line still require a block wall. If the properties require a block wall there is no way for them to have drainage on the property and put a block wall on the existing property. Tyler Mulvey, Public Works — stated if there are existing block walls on properties there have been instances where holes have been put in the wall to allow for drainage and the ROW for the Merger Resub would depend on what the PW Director would like but most likely it would require the ROW for the existing parcel at that time.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and stated staff finds sufficient justification to approve all three applications subject to conditions. Public Works made a comment on the Regional Flood Control Plan and staff is recommending they add a condition to the CUP is support of PW’s comments.

Commissioner Curtis

stated #11 in the conditions of approval states the CUP expires in 4 years but the ZC expires in 3 years.

Ms. Beeman

stated that is current Nye County Code.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if fencing is required around the property.

Ms. Beeman

stated the properties to the North and East are commercial and to the South they are BO and residential. When we go through site development and a block wall is required then they will require it. Charlie Concoby, representative of Western Trades Construction he stated he does have plans for a block wall with potential iron on top.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report stating staff is recommending approval of the applications subject to conditions. Derrick Takara, architect representing the owners. He stated the current zoning is NC and they are requesting GC to meet additional requirements that are not covered under NC. They believe the proposed use would be beneficial and appropriate to the vicinity and adjacent commercial services.

Commissioner Curtis

asked what the maximum stay is for the guests.

Mr. Takara

stated currently they are still determining the maximum stay. They do not expect it to be long term.

Mr. Waggoner

stated that is an important question when it comes to room tax. When there are stays over 28 days it could affect the room tax payments to the Town and County.

Mr. Takara

stated they haven’t discussed the time duration of the guests. They would like the guest to stay for extended times of a week or two at a time. Their intent is to market those that are planning to Page 8 of 11 13. visit for days or weeks. They don’t expect it to be one or two months ahead. As they continue to work with the client they will work out the restrictions they have to meet if it is beyond 28 days and put in protocols to not allow extended stays.

Mr. Waggoner

would like the RPC to consider adding in a condition to limit stays to 28 days or less.

Commissioner Curtis

asked Mr. Waggoner if this will affect the 40-foot height when the current allowed is only 32 feet.

Mr. Waggoner

stated if the height restrictions is being exceeded, they would need to apply for a waiver. The board could add in a condition that they obtain an approval of a waiver if the proposed height is 40 feet.

Ms. Beeman

stated the GC maximum building height is 48 feet. Public comment opened at 7:54 pm Tim Bohannon asked if there is a car limit per room and stated the parking looks thin. He asked if there was enough parking for full capacity and employees.

Commissioner Turner

asked if there are plans for RVs or off-road vehicles when guests come in with trailers.

Mr. Concoby

stated on the East side of the property they will have a pull in and out type parking on that side.

Commissioner Tyler

Motion: motioned to recommend approval ZC-2021-000058 to the BOCC and approve CU-2021-000110 subject to the conditions of approval adding a limit on stays to 28 days or less, Action: Recommend Approval, Moved by Pamela Tyler, Seconded by Tom Duryea.

Commissioner Curtis

asked staff if the extension is approved what will the dates be.

Mr. Osborne

stated it would be from the action today. They would have until September 2021 to get the SD approved and then 2 years from today, March 2023 to complete the warehouse.

Commissioner Custis

asked if they will need a zone change for a warehouse on the site.

Mr. Osborne

stated this is just for the CUP for the storage of the property on Alfalfa. The new property will require a CUP and WV as well for the proposed warehouses.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it is the pleasure of the board to approve the 6 months. These conditions expired in December and these conditions can be amended and agreed on by good faith of the applicant.

Commissioner Lee

asked if this was the first extension applied for at this property.

Commissioner Duryea

stated to the applicant they were promised 2 years ago for the warehouse. What guarantees are there that they will get this done or will they be back asking for more extensions. Doug Burda stated if all the moving parts were in his control the building would be done already. They have run into delays and COVID has set him back quite a bit. He does have conceptual site plans that have been addressed with staff and Commissioners. It is their intentions to be in the warehouse and out of these conditions as quickly as possible. They have a contractor and site plans in the works now.

Commissioner Curtis

asked for clarification that there will not be any retail sales from this site.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they are in a position to submit site plans in 6 months.

Mr. Burda

stated yes, if all the moving parts to get to the point were in his control he could, but 6 months is reasonable.

Commissioner Carbone

asked what these moving parts are.

Mr. Burda

stated he has to delegate the drawing of the Site Plan out and if he could do them himself, he would have them submitted already, he has to work with the contractor’s deadlines.

Commissioner Carbone

stated you have had 2018 to now and they still have a problem.

Mr. Burda

stated there are no problems, they are moving along well. The delays are less than optimal, and they are moving ahead. _ Public comment opened and closed at 8:15 pm with no comments. Doug Burda stated the onus is on the contractor to provide the site plan in the time frame and the engineers are acting as they speak and are working to get the site development plan submitted.

Mr. Waggoner

stated the onus isn’t on the contractor it is on the owner and the CUP permitee that is obtaining the permit has to abide by the conditions. He thinks they should go by what was agreed upon 2 years ago and stick with the dates it should have happened by for deadlines of any future actions. Page 10 of 11 14.

Mr. Burda

stated from the contractual standpoint the onus would be on the contractor to get those done and he agrees it would be on them to submit within the stated time frame.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he would like to follow suit with the way the BOCC meeting is being held, they can allow the public abiding by the social distancing and a maximum of 50 people in the chambers. The only challenge would be accommodating the RPC because we have 7.

Commissioner Lee

stated if they do that for April, they will still have the ability to call in, correct.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes. Michelle Nelson, DDA, stated at the BOCC there is someone to disinfect the facility when someone speaks. If a Commissioner has a medical exception, they can take it to HR and provide it to them and HR would evaluate and they could possibly just have to wear a full face shield but that would be for HR to determine.

Ms. Beeman

stated they are moving forward on the Master Plan and they will bring forward in April to go through some items and make a priority list for the next steps forward.