April 13, 2022

Commissioner Lee

stated they can direct staff at the end of the meeting to look at the RE-1 zoning district to put certain parameters on the number of livestock they can have on lots or per acreage.

Commissioner Lee

stated she submitted minor typographical corrections to staff.

Commissioner Lee

asked what would happen if they deny the application, do they have options to continue and do they have any idea when the rezoning will happen.

Mr. Osborne

stated there is no other choice but to deny the waiver. On the code compliance case they will put it on hold until either the backyard chicken bill or the zone change.

Commissioner Turner

asked if that has been explained to the applicant.

Commissioner Turner

asked the applicant if he understands what they are suggesting. Juan Grimaldo applicant stated no.

Commissioner Turner

stated currently they don’t have the power to approve the waiver, upon denying it the code violation will be on hold until an action is taken to rezoning your parcel. It would resolve the code case.

Mr. Grimaldo

asked what do they do in the meantime with he chickens?

Mr. Osborne

stated no action needs to be taken by the applicant at this time, the code case will be placed on hold.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if staff is limiting the animals in RE-1 will that apply to chickens as well?

Mr. Osborne

stated there will be two bills, one for large livestock and separate backyard chickens that would limit the number they can have.

Mrs. Medici

stated she believes the limit will be 10 and no roosters.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating this is a request to extend an additional 6 months to obtain permits due to the Covid 19 supply and financial issues during the pandemic. If approved the new deadline would be April 22, 2023 to complete construction of the proposed hotel and casino an commence such use.

Commissioner Lee

stated this says to modify the previous deadline and asked if this would be to complete construction and obtain permits in 6 months or 1 year.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes, it would move it back 6 months.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked for clarification on the time frame once says completed one says commenced.

Commissioner Lee

stated the motion on the front page is to increase the time frame by 6 months. So instead of expiring 10/22/2022 it bumps to April 2023.

Commissioner Turner

stated he believes the original states the completion of and the following pages they added or commenced.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked if the county will be setting a hard date where people are no longer allowed to claim Covid has caused the issues or will we let this go on for longer.

Commissioner Lee

stated that isn’t their position to impose that, the code allows applicants to file for extension of time and the burden is on the applicant for the justification to make the findings why there is a need for the extension of time. If 10 years from now they are stating it is because of Covid and there hasn’t been covid for years then they are to review that. Richard Lane, applicant stated they are in plan check and about ready to pull permits so they are very close, but aren’t starting over right now.

Commissioner Tyler

asked if the dates are reasonable for them.

Mr. Lane

stated on the commencement side, yes.

Commissioner Meredith

asked if this will be a hotel/casino and Bass Pro Shops.

Mr. Lane

stated it will be a Spring Hill Suite independent of the casino. Page 4 of 12 Public comment opened at 6:37 pm. Lisa Bond wants the 160-corridor rezoned.

Commissioner Lee

stated she will need to speak at the public comment at the end of the meeting.

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Lane if he has read, understood and agree to the Conditions of Approval.

Mr. Lane

stated yes, as long as they clarify the commencement part.

Mr. Osborne

recommends a modification of condition #11, it states “unless construction is completed” and we should remove the unless construction is completed portion and just state unless the use has commenced.

Commissioner Tyler

suggested changing it to unless construction has commenced.

Commissioner Lee

clarified the change to condition #11. It should state “approval of the Conditional Use shall expired April 22, 2023 unless construction has commenced.”

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Lane if he was amendable to that.

Commissioner Curtis

asked when Red Apples rezoning was and what it was rezoned to.

Mr. Osborne

stated that was last month and it was changed to GC. Joe Dagher representing applicant stated they have nothing to add. Page 5 of 12

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Dagher if he has read, understands and agrees to the conditions of approval including the modifications made tonight.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report stating September 2021 the RPC denied the application for a wavier and the applicant appealed that to the BOCC and it was reversed the decision. The waiver was still subject to conditions and the applicant is now asking to remove those conditions. Staff went through in the staff report and gave comments and recommendation on the 7 conditions. Keep condition #1, #2 states applicant must comply with signage regulations, applicant has a waiver that is approved for an exception of the code, keeping condition #2, #3 all lighting must be complied with it is a requirement of the code, keeping #3, conditions #4 – 7 staff has no objections to removing those. Standard condition #1 standard condition on waivers, ZCs and CUPs they are recommending that be kept, Special condition # 2 states they have to comply with County signage regulations, the waiver doesn’t go away so they recommend keeping this condition, condition #3 they also suggest that it remains. Conditions # 4 – 7 staff doesn’t object to removing those. Condition #4 as far as future signage the applicant would be required to get approval of any future signs that require approval regardless. Condition #5 isn’t necessary, condition #6 is the requirement to turn the lighting off, that could be a potential conflict with NRS and you can’t turn off the gas station pricing. Condition #7 stalks about a review in 2 years and that isn’t necessary. Anyone can file a complaint if they have issues with the lighting so they don’t object to removing that condition. For clarification Mr. Osborne stated keeping conditions #1, 2 & 3 be kept and remove conditions # 4 – 7.

Commissioner Turner

asked if that was intended to say “Any signs that require approval” or is that for any sign.

Mr. Osborne

stated the way it is worded it says any sign, it would be better to be kept as “any signs that require approval.”

Commissioner Turner

asked if staff would be okay with the wording instead of striking it completely.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes. It should state “will not install additional signs without prior approval.” Wendy Black, applicant stated she is a novice at this and this is new to her. She didn’t know that once the Planning denied it and they appealed it that the conditions would go on past that. Jennifer Aragon stated since it was denied, the conditions should have been addressed at one point before it was issued.

Mrs. Black

stated she agrees that conditions #1, 2 and 3 should stay. Page 6 of 12

Ms. Aragon

asked Mrs. Black how she feels about the amendment for condition #4.

Mrs. Black

stated will comply with whatever the codes is for signs.

Commissioner Lee

stated she is disappointed that the first time they were here that the applicant didn’t bring up the NRS requiring the sign. It is part of their findings and she can’t say that the 13 sections would have changed their thoughts but it may have pointed the board in another direction.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report stating staff is recommending approval of the CUP. Karren and Larry LaBove, applicants stated they have owned tattoo parlors in the past. They plan to retire here and build a home.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicants if they have read, understood and agree to the conditions of approval. Mr. and Mrs. LaBove stated yes.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating the intent is for the RH-4.5 portion is to allow a home to be built and utilize the existing farming that is in operation on the property and the GC portion is to let the area continue to grow and serve the neighborhood with the opportunity for retail business, grocery store or professional offices. Staff is recommending approval of the conforming zone change. The conditions of approval are for any new development and not the existing development on the property. Dan Harris applicant stated his family has owned the property since the early 1970’s. Part of the property was parceled out and they created Desert Trails unit 1. The property has to protect the water rights and they will occasionally farm the property to protect those. Mr. Harris described the previous uses over the years with the property. They don’t know what they will do with the remaining 400+ acres. They may in the future come back and ask for different zoning for some of that acreage. Page 7 of 12

Commissioner Blackstock

asked if the necessity of the farming will go away if it gets zoned differently.

Mr. Harris

stated no. That is one of the reasons he went to 4.5 that continues to allow them to farm and use the water rights.

Commissioner Meredith

asked why we have recommended to move this to the BOCC.

Mrs. Medici

stated zone changes are heard by the RPC to make a recommendation to the BOCC and they are final action by the BOCC.

Commissioner Curtis

asked for clarification on the special conditions of approval stating a Site Development plan to be done within 3 years and asked Mr. Harris if he is aware of that.

Mr. Harris

stated yes, and he has a question on that as well.

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Harris if he has read, understood and agree to the conditions of approval.

Mr. Harris

stated he has read, understood and does not agree to them. He doesn’t understand why there is a limit on #2, with the expiration.

Commissioner Curtis

asked staff why that requirement is there.

Mr. Osborne

stated on Zone Changes the expiration of approval is in the code and says there is a 3-year time frame, and the zone change will expire. That is so they don’t get people coming in and rezoning and having no plan with what they will do. This parcel is already developed with greenhouses and offices, he doesn’t believe we necessarily have that condition.

Commissioner Lee

asked if we should modify to remove the expiration and have a site development required if the commercial use is expanded or anything added, or it changes.

Mr. Osborne

stated they can amend it to state any future development will require the approval of a Site Development Plan within the GC area and not have it tied to a time frame.

Mr. Harris

stated that seems reasonable. He asked for clarification that what is there now he won’t have to pave around the existing shop etcetera.

Commissioner Turner

asked if Mr. Harris was okay with Condition #4, the dedication.

Mr. Harris

stated the property further West, they have no plans with the 400+ acres now.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they should recommend removal of Special Condition #2 and #3 since it references the expiration. Page 8 of 12 Motion: Recommend approval to the BOCC ZCMP-22-3 based upon findings and striking Special Conditions #2 and #3. Adding a condition that any future development will require the approval of a Site Development Plan within the GC area, Action: Recommend, Moved by Walt Turner, Seconded by Pamela Tyler. Motion passed unanimously. 13. a) For Possible Action – ZCMP-22-6: Public Hearing, discussion, and deliberation on an application for a (Conforming) Zone Change to change one (1) parcel totaling approximately 0.68 acres from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to General Commercial (GC) for property located at 3161 E. Cortina Street. Assessor’s Parcel Number 042-772-08. Gordon & Kimberly E. Kwan - Property Owners. Carlos M. Ramos, Sr. – Applicant/Agent. (The Pahrump Regional Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this item. Final Action by the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled for May 17, 2022, or as otherwise announced) b) For Possible Action – WV-22-5: Public Hearing, discussion, and deliberation on a Waiver application to waive the requirements of Nye County Code Section 17.04.770.I.7 (d) to allow a temporary off-premises sign on property less than five hundred feet (500') from residential properties, NCC 17.04.770.I.7 (a) off-premises signs shall have a minimum separation of seven hundred fifty feet (750’) from other existing off-premises sign on the same side of the street; and NCC 17.04.770.I 8 (c) to allow 3 supports instead of the maximum 2 supports as required, for property located at 3161 E. Cortina Street. Assessor’s Parcel Number 042-772-08. Gordon & Kimberly E. Kwan - Property Owners. Carlos M. Ramos Sr. – Applicant/Agent. (This item is Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or as otherwise announced.) c) For Possible Action – CU-22-11: Public Hearing, discussion, and deliberation on an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an off-premises sign at the property located at 3161 E. Cortina Street. Assessor’s Parcel Number 042-772-08. Gordon & Kimberly E. Kwan - Property Owners. Carlos M. Ramos Sr. – Applicant/Agent. (This item is Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or as otherwise announced.) (QM)

Mrs. Medici

stated there is one letter of opposition that was received that staff would like accepted into the back up.

Commissioner Turner

disclosed the applicant is the landlord to his business and he doesn’t not feel the need to abstain as he will be impartial.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating that staff recommends approval of the applications. The GC zoning is in conformance with the Master Plan.

Commissioner Turner

stated there is a frontage road required in any development along those parcels. Will the sign placement be crossing that? He believes it is a 15ft frontage road required. He just had plans done with an engineer and they had to include the NDOT ROW and a frontage road in front of their parking.

Commissioner Lee

stated that sounds more like a cross access easement at 15 feet.

Mr. Osborne

stated it does sound like the cross-access road/easement. That would be done at the time if they develop the property, then they would be required to put it there.

Commissioner Turner

clarified that if all the other parcels create the road, would the sign be in the way of that.

Mr. Osborne

stated it could be, the easement would vary and it could be in the area of the access driveway. Page 9 of 12

Commissioner Lee

stated it doesn’t exist now, so if the sign is there and there is future development that requires the cross-access easement, they would have to remove the sign at the time of development. Carlos Ramos applicant stated they are working closely with DR Horton for the project.

Commissioner Tyler

asked if these will be a wooden sign it won’t be a lit sign. Mr, Ramos stated this will be a temporary sign and as soon as the development is done the sign will come down. If they decide to use the property again in the future as long as the zoning is changed then they would come in front of the RPC again to get the waiver and the CUP.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if they have read, understood and agree to the conditions of approval.

Mr. Osborne

stated NC allows indoor commercial businesses like offices, store fronts and convenience stores and GC allows for more intensive uses like Automobile repairs and car washes.

Mr. Burt

stated he lives two doors down across the street and he is surprised what the address is, the area across the street is residential if it is a commercial property he assumed it would be a highway address. NC fits the area better then Commercial. This will create a lot of traffic on Cortina. There are enough signs in the area and against this one. He asked where the easement would be if it would be on Cortina or on the Highway. Tyler Mulvey stated generally it is on the highway side if the property. It would be parallel with the highway because NDOT has certain restrictions on how many access you can have an how close they are.

Mr. Burt

stated he wants it to keep it as a neighborhood commercial and this isn’t the spot for it, this is a residential area. They don’t need anymore signs.

Commissioner Lee

stated the applications were denied. The ZC will go to the BOCC as a recommendation of denial.

Commissioner Meredith

asked how the chicken ordinance was going. Page 10 of 12

Mrs. Medici

stated she has a very good draft from Cheryl Beeman to move forward with and will be presented at the May 11 RPC.

Commissioner Meredith

asked how Arby’s was coming along.

Mrs. Medici

stated they are moving forward with their Site Development and mapping process. Public Comment:

Commissioner Lee

stated to stay in touch with staff, and when the ordinances do come forward there will be public notice. Carlos Ramos they do a lot of off site signs in Pahrump and asked if there was still progress being made on adjusting the off premise section of the code. It was being worked on previously but doesn’t seem to have went anywhere. He would like to bring back more information to clients when they question him if applications have been denied.

Commissioner Tyler

stated if she recalls the signage ordinance they weren’t planning to expand it beyond the current zoning but looking to change the 3 posts so you didn’t have to have the waiver.

Mr. Osborne

stated they current don’t have a bill they are working on.

Commissioner Lee

stated she remembers the board struggling with it and not finding anything to move forward on. Maybe they can look at bringing it back.

Commissioner Turner

stated he believes they did have workshops planned but covid hit and it all was canceled.

Mr. Ramos

stated he would like it to be brought back forward it would make the process easier instead of having to come back every time for temporary signs.

Commissioner Tyler

suggested reaching out to the neighbors if there is residential around the property prior to coming to the RPC so everyone understands what is going on before it happens, and everyone is upset. Lisa Bond would like the 160 Corridor rezoned for when the properties back up to neighborhoods take it from NC to Commercial because it gives them greater permissive uses and it will generate revenue to the Town when the properties sell and transfer tax increases the value of the properties does as well. GC gives the opportunity to bring in investors to diversify and invest in Pahrump. Also consider conditions in regard to the businesses and there ingress/egress is from the Highway and not the residential streets behind them. Require the properties to keep their back of their properties clean and weed free so it doesn’t look like abandoned so it doesn’t bring the value of the residential properties behind them. Page 11 of 12