March 9, 2022

Commissioner Lee

stated she provided some minor typographical errors to staff.

Commissioner Carbone

states Vet Extravaganza went great. b. Director’s Report

Mr. Waggoner

stated there were 228 planning applications which was an increase of 2 from last month. Total applications processed was 160, which was 16 less than last month. There were 1585 planning applications received and 237 code compliance received this year compared to 1588 application received and 192 code compliance received this time last year. Building permits: 69 SFR which was 31 more last month, 3 MF which was a decrease of 5 last month, total permits issued was 222, which was 16 more than last month. There were 400 inspections which is 21 more than last month. Since July 1st, there have been 310 SFR and 309 this month. Code compliance had 28 new cases which was 3 more than last month and 3 closed cases which was 7 less than last month. Previous items heard by the RPC were ZCMP-21-24 and ZCMP-21-25 for Red Apple Fireworks, the RPC board voted 6-0 for approval and will be heard at the BOCC meeting next month. Page 2 of 9 SITTING AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Commissioner Lee

stated for clarification the reason we went this route was because it was going to cost us time or money if we have staff do it. It will take staff a lengthier time to update the CIP, getting a quote, you know what your cost is going to be and how many hours it would take.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the Comptroller requires direction from this board to request the money from the CIP?

Commissioner Turner

asked if there was certain time of year the majority of the funds go in?

Mr. Bolling

stated he’s not sure if there’s a certain time when the funds get deposited in. But the current balance in the account is 4.5 million dollars.

Commissioner Lee

stated her concern is that she doesn’t want it to take away from another project.

Mr. Bolling

stated it will not.

Mr. Waggoner

stated for fiscal year 2022, that’s a year-to-date number and we still have a few more months of this year to go through, so that number will go up. Roughly $60,000.

Commissioner Meredith

asked Mr. Waggoner on a scale of 1-10, how crucial this project is for you? How better effectively would this allow you to do your job?

Mr. Waggoner

stated this project has outdated me, I’ve been here a little over 4 years trying to do it with staff and a decision was made many months ago and we need to farm this out to get it done. We are required by NRS to update this plan every 3-5 years, and we are quite a bit over that time.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they will have access to the raw data separated out as well that they collect for other uses, like traffic patterns, etc. Would that be broken down as well as in the full CIP use on other projects.

Mrs. Medici

stated the property was the subject of a masterplan amendment MP-2019-000014 and zone change ZC-2019-000041 applications were both approved by the BOCC at the December 17th, 2019, meeting subject to conditions of approval and final action included in back up. At the RPC meeting on this matter on November 13th, 2019, the applicant stated that the 30-foot access would be paved. The justification letter included a request to waive the prior driveway. Since the adoption of the dust control regulations in 2004, the Pahrump valley has seen a significant improvement in air quality which has been achieved through paving or chip sealing road waves and monitoring of construction site showing that annual concentrations are regulated particulate remain below the annual standard. This application is a request for a waiver from the development standards that are outlined in Nye County code 15.28.100 and 17.04.730. If approved it would allow for the development of an unpaved driveway and construction storage yard, on about 5.88 acres of a 28-acre parcel.

Commissioner Turner

stated he has a disclosure to make, he was the real estate agent involved with the selling to the property owners and believes he can move forward in an impartial way and the previous action will not persuade my decision. Patrick Rily, owner, stated they are not asking to not pave the entire thing, They don’t mind paving the 80 ft that adjoins Homestead, to the east. They want a wavier to not pave the driveway, which is 30 ft wide and goes back to the property where they are going to have their shop. The equipment they’re loading, and unloading is steel tracked and it would just ruin the pavement, it would be a waste to spend that much money to pave that kind of situation.

Mr. Waggoner

asked the applicant if the equipment, as it comes back or leaves your storage yard, is it going to be on a row boy? You're not driving track equipment out of the property without it being on some sort of trailer, right?

Mr. Waggoner

asked for clarification if they are asking for the waiver where the actual equipment will be parked and loaded to remain as compacted gravel? Anywhere regular vehicles will be moving, will be paved?

Mr. Rily

stated yes. There are asking from Homestead, approximately 80 ft to the East, which would be our driveway, they will pave that part and the rest to remain gravel.

Commissioner Turner

asked what the size of the equipment storage area, is that the part behind the VFW?

Mr. Rily

stated yes, the part behind the trees is where our shop will be and that’s where the loading and unloading will happen.

Commissioner Turner

asked aside from storage, do they plan on doing maintenance or moving equipment to the shop to fix stuff? Page 4 of 9

Mr. Riley

stated yes, we will be moving stuff around where our shop will be. The driveway goes from Homestead back to the tree line.

Commissioner Lee

asked how far back does the 80 ft go, just back to the tree line?

Mr. Rily

stated no, the tree line is approximately 400 ft back from Homestead.

Commissioner Lee

stated the BOCC approved the 2018 International Fire Code, under section 202 general definitions is defined: “for fire apparatus access road, as a road that provides fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility building or portion thereof.” This is a general term inclusive of all other terms such as fire lane, public street, private street, public lot lane and access roadway. Under the 2018 IFC, section 503, fire apparatus access road section 503.2.3 surface; it states that “fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.” In appendix D, section D-102, D-102.1 access and loading: “Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter instructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of improved fire apparatus access road, with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75,000 pounds.” She doesn’t know that this board has the authority to waive the access road from the fire code. Who has the authority to waive that?

Mr. Waggoner

stated that would come from the AHJ, the authority having jurisdiction. Which would be the county. He understands the equipment parking area as being problematic and would possibly get destroyed moving the equipment around. Staff recommendation would be to require the whole entire driveway and if they are going to put a building there, at least all the way to the building with whether proof surface.

Commissioner Lee

stated she thinks this puts them into a conundrum based on the approved fire code requirements and that we don't have the ability to waive that portion. She just has a concern about waiving the paving for the access road.

Mr. Rily

stated this is the first time he’s heard about the fire department needing a paved access road. Jason Cooper with Civilwise, engineered the driveway with a foot of pit run on underneath and then type 2, to accommodate the weight of fire trucks and whatnot.

Commissioner Lee

stated the challenge that she has is that the IFC requires all whether driving capabilities and specifically talks about asphalt, concrete, or other approved driving surfaces. She doesn’t know if the pit run, and the type 2 is an approved driving surface that can support the weight of the apparatus.

Mr. Rily

stated that’s what he got from Civilwise that the pit run, and type 2 is all weather approved.

Mr. Waggoner

stated no, that’s not what that is referring to. It’s referring to concrete or asphalt surface. The only one who can agree to waive that is the Fire Chief. Our recommendations aren’t based off of fire code, they are based off of development standards. And our development standards do call for pavement driveways. He understands the parking area with the equipment, but anywhere where there is going to be daily travel with the interest of dust control, that’s where the pavement comes from. If they want to pursue the issue with the fire code, we will have to get the fire chief involved.

Commissioner Carbone

stated without having the fire chief’s evaluation, it doesn’t look like your going to go any further. Page 5 of 9

Mr. Waggoner

stated there is a site development review in which the fire chief is involved in, and he at that point can say that’s not going to work. Regardless of what the board decides today. It would be best to get his input prior to decision or you agree to paving it all the way up, when you have that conversation with him, you submit your plan that way and if he’s good with it, then we can amend that.

Mr. Rily

asked if he would have to go to the fire chief on my own and get permission from him?

Mr. Waggoner

stated if they were amicable to it, they can continue this item and try to get his input prior to it coming back before the board. Or you go with whatever they approve.

Mr. Rily

stated this whole process is slowing him down. He would like to continue the item.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he appreciates that they are trying to comply, but our findings as the Planning Department have to follow the code requirements, which is where our recommendations came from. It’s up to the board to grant you your waiver.

Commissioner Turner

asked staff how long of a delay would this be if they were to continue this and get the fire chief involved? Because they still must do the site review.

Mr. Waggoner

stated no in order for the Planning Department to approve a site plan review without asphalt or without meeting the development standards, you would have had to have a waiver done first before they can approve it.

Mr. Rily

asked if they are going to ask this question to the fire chief?

Mr. Waggoner

stated if you would like for us to continue it, you can request that for 30 days in April. And in that period of time, they will have a discussion with the fire chief and see if he will support that.

Mr. Riley

stated okay, but their building is scheduled to be here this month. Is there any way they can skip coming here again and the board can approve it on condition the fire chief approves it.

Commissioner Lee

stated is it possible to do a special meeting to help speed things up?

Mr. Waggoner

stated, until the site development is certified you cannot get a building permit yet. We can certainly do a special meeting within a couple weeks.

Mr. Rily

asked if he has to be involved in the meeting?

Mr. Waggoner

stated if he would like to be. The driveway right now as you explained it, is shown on the plan right now?

Mr. Rily

stated the plan that we have right now from Civilwise does not include asphalt.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he will set up a call with Scott Lewis and Patrick Rily.

Mr. Rily

stated he would like to continue the item.

Commissioner Curtis

stated the narrow end of the lot normally gets the address. In other words, it was addressed on David maybe it should have been addressed on Basin to begin with.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it could be the case, but you could always change your address especially on a corner lot.

Mr. Schulte

stated it wouldn’t make any difference at all if the unit is set far back from Basin, it compliments more of the side street of David. It makes sense to have a David address.

Commissioner Turner

asked for clarification that changing of the address is not a solution?

Mr. Waggoner

stated not where the house is being proposed to be located at, no. Because it would still be 10 ft off the property line. And to clarify on some confusion on the last public comment. This would have no effect on street widening because it’s on the interior property line.

Commissioner Meredith

asked Mr. Waggoner if this would be okay with the electric lines and everything else back there? Like if the cable company has to come in, is the right of way going to be affected by this?

Mr. Waggoner

stated he’s going to guess the power lines are probably running along what would be considered, the side property line, which is the rear of the properties behind it and down the street so no Page 7 of 9 I don't think that would affect that. Even so, a rear property line set back is always going to be at least a minimum of 10 feet to allow for the electrical line easement for overhead powerlines.

Commissioner Turner

asked if combining lots would serve nothing at all for this? It looks like the property to the west would be crossing that 10 ft with their driveway.

Mr. Waggoner

stated that’s the concern if that property sells, their driveway encroaches into this property. But a merger re-sub wouldn’t be a solution.

Mrs. Medici

stated this is a request for conforming zone change one parcel to 4.844 acres from VR-20 to RH-4.5 to allow a family hobby farm with livestock. Staff finds sufficient justification to recommend approval of this application. The master plan is RDR, Rural Density Residential, so rezoning the parcel to RH 4.5 within the in conformance with master plan. The RH 4.5 zones are intended to provide low density uses of the minimum lot size of 4.5 gross acres, where animals may be kept as well as accessory buildings and quiet rule setting without maintaining a large agricultural operation. The RH-4.5 homestead residential zone is appropriate in rural areas where urban services will not be provided for an extended period of time.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he would like to add this is another similar situation that we have been discussing the past couple meetings these are all 5 acre, 2 acre, 1 acre plus lots and that's another big area in the valley that got zoned VR-20.

Commissioner Meredith

asked Mr. Waggoner how the chicken ordinance is going?

Mr. Waggoner

stated we have been doing some research on that.

Commissioner Lee

asked staff if after the VR-20 Zolin area, should we start looking at other areas and start addressing VR-20?

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes, I do think that’s appropriate.