October 12, 2022

Commissioner Lee

stated she submitted some minor typographical errors to staff.

Commissioner Carbone

stated they upheld the Solar vote. b. Director’s Report Brett Waggoner stated there have been 161 planning apps which is a decrease of 51 from the previous month and total applications processed was 107 which was a decrease of 51. Since July 1st there have been 620 planning applications received and 101 new Code Compliance Complaints received. Compared to 601 Planning applications and 89 Code Complaints for same period last year. Building permits there were 23 SFR permits which was a decrease of 8 from the previous month, Manufactured Homes there was 1 which was l less than the previous month, total permits issued was 185 which was 15 less than the previous month and total inspections all categories was 428 which was 95 less than the previous month. There have been 80 SFR this year compared to 94 this time last year. Code Compliance there have been 34 new complaints last month which was 3 less than the previous month and closed 9 which was 6 less than last month. They are moving forward and issuing citations through code compliance instead of requesting it through the DA’s office for prosecution. Previous items heard by the RPC - ZCMP-22-15 was heard by the RPC 8/31/22 and recommended denial and the BOCC heard it 9/20/22 and denied the application. ZCMP- 22-11 was heard by the RPC on 8/31/22 and recommended for approval to the BOCC. Page 2 of 19 That item was heard by the BOCC 9/20/22 and it is continued to the 11/1/22 BOCC agenda because the applicant has changed his mind on some of the conditions. ZCMP- 22-10 and was heard by the RPC on 8/31/22 was heard at the 9/20/22 BOCC and was approved. TA-9 Draft Bill 2022-06 for NCC 17.04.925 was approved. ZCMP-22-13 and ZCMP-22-14 were heard by the RPC on 9/14/22 and recommended for approval and will be heard by the BOCC 10/18/22.

Commissioner Lee

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

Commissioner Lee

aske staff if the applicant is supposed to pay for the advertising fees for the abandonment?

Mrs. Medici

stated yes, once they get those charges from the newspaper, they will provide the cost to the applicant.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating the applicant is wanting to run a non-profit animal rescue including intake, adoption of animals and welfare of animals placed in their care. The applicant also owns the adjacent lot. An animal rescue is permissive in the RH-4.5 with a CUP. Upon initial application the applicant requested an animal rescue/shelter after discussion the letter was revised it is only an animal rescue being requested now. An animal shelter can only be operated by a government entity and not permissive within the RH-4.5 zoning district. Staff recommends approval of the application.

Commissioner Skinner

asked for clarification on the difference between a rescue and a shelter.

Mrs. Medici

stated NCC definitions of an Animal Rescue is an establishment owned or operated by a licensed profit or nonprofit organization whose primary function is to provide temporary care and comfort to animals. The definition of an Animal Shelter, Government Operated: Any premises designated by the County for the purpose of impounding and caring for animals coming into the County's custody.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if we have a definition of what temporary may entail? For the temporary care of the animals.

Mrs. Medici

referred to the applicant for what their process will be.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the property is served by a septic tank and if it is sufficient in size for their operations.

Mrs. Medici

stated it does have a septic and one condition is that they obtain a commercial septic and water rights.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they have to worry about any oils, antifreeze or fluids since this was an automotive repair shop that needs to be remediated?

Mrs. Medici

stated she is not certain but previously the prior owner did have a code compliance case where he was required to clean up the area but it has been several years. Pat Leming stated she would like to review some of the conditions. They have a mobile home on the property and it has been refurbished and will become the residence for security on the property. They ask that they strike 2A – someone will be there full time on the property. Condition #5, strike the condition they do not want to combine the two lots. They have no immediate plans for improvement on the other lot.

Mr. Waggoner

stated condition #2a has nothing to do with the living quarters. What site development is for what improvements will have to be done on the property like customer parking, commercial driveways that type of things. It has no bearing if you can have a guard shack on the property. For Condition #5 he understands why it is there but it is there in case you intend to expand, regardless of the plans today, and it doesn’t require you to merge them today unless you plan to expand onto the other property. He doesn’t see the harm to have the condition as stated.

Ms. Leming

stated she asked staff about the category II site development as far as how long it takes and what it entails and as a non-profit their only income is from the community, and it is important for her to try and put forth a budget to see if they can even come forward with this plan. And she hasn’t received Page 4 of 19 any information from staff on what the cost would be at this time. They aren’t planning to do any improvements to the property at this time.

Mr. Waggoner

stated what they are wanting to do today has to be done per code and requires site development.

Ms. Leming’s

concern was because they are surrounded by vacant lots, and she couldn’t get a definition of the different categories.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there is a whole section of code with the description and will make sure she gets that.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that on the site plan shows a MH and a proposed security RV. Did she say she refurbished the MH and that is where the security will be.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they could put an end date on the TUP for the RV stating that it must be renewed annually until MH is complete.

Mr. Waggoner

stated the applicant has received a TUP for the RV. It was his understanding the MH was a storage vessel and not housing. Stating he isn’t sure the date of the MH but any construction on the MH would require a permit from manufactured housing. If it is an old unit, it may be a large expense.

Ms. Leming

asked if it is used for a purpose other than a housing facility are they still under the manufactured housing.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes, it would still have to meet HUD code if it is being lived in. Not if it is being used for storage.

Mr. Waggoner

asked the applicant if the animals will be housed indoors only.

Ms. Leming

stated it depends on what is decided here tonight. The intention is to have them all inside. It will depend on the SD and they have plans for a climate-controlled kennel. They may not be able to do that right away, it depends on cost.

Mr. Waggoner

asked what the number of animals is they are looking at and should there be a limitation on the number so it doesn’t become an issue with he neighbors.

Ms. Leming

stated in the current location they have been able to not have a disruption in the neighborhood and it is hard to say how many there will be any given day but it could be less than 50 but depending on the litters they get it can change on a daily basis and they are indoors.

Mr. Waggoner

asked what would be considered a normal day or month.

Ms. Leming

stated they are foster based, and most animals are out on foster anyways. If she would guess there would be less than 50. She would never bring in a number that she knows she can reasonably take care of.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the kennels where dogs will be kept if they will have access to outdoors from the kennels.

Ms. Leming

stated yes. Page 5 of 19

Commissioner Lee

asked if she is keeping the fence line in the middle of the building on the site plan. She knows fencing can be expensive but wanted to make sure if you have kennels that have access to the exterior that it is behind the fence.

Commissioner Carbone

stated he believes any animal taken outside will be on a leash.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they had an issue adding a condition that if any animals are there over night they are inside by a particular time in the evening.

Ms. Leming

stated that is impractical due to space considerations currently. They have no approved SD and it would be difficult to say yes at this point and down the road that would be their intent. After the final walking they all bed down and go to sleep. The final walking time is about 8 – 8:30 pm depending on the time of year.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if they could explain what the temporary care process is.

Ms. Leming

stated when an animal comes in, they process them in making sure they have all their vaccinations, do a behavior assessment, and try to foster them out within days of them coming into the shelter. In some instances that doesn’t happen. The longest resident has been 10 months to get him behaviorally ready to foster.

Commissioner Skinner

asked staff if they are looking at a conditional use on the number of animals.

Commissioner Lee

stated they can entertain adding that.

Commissioner Skinner

asked Ms. Leming if 50 would be an adequate number.

Ms. Leming

stated she requests that there not be a maximum number put on them.

Commissioner Meredith

stated they need assurances that what the county has just went through won’t happen again. Will you be amenable to inspections by Animal Control.

Ms. Leming

stated if her CUP is approved, she goes to AC to request her Commercial Kennel License to operate, and they are required to have AC come out and do an inspection yearly.

Mr. Waggoner

stated as part of Title 6 there is an annual inspection and with that Code Compliance can enter the property during normal operating hours if there is a complaint that can be investigated.

Ms. Leming

stated there was a blatant disregard on behalf of the person he was discussing, and the animals suffered because of it. It isn’t her intentions at all to be in that position and to rehome them as soon as possible. Page 6 of 19

Commissioner Carbone

asked Ms. Leming if they plan on breeding.

Ms. Leming

stated they do 80 – 100 spay and neuters a month, there are no animals that leave their facility that aren’t fixed. It is in the contract for the animals that they are fixed.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they could add a condition of approval that there are no residual automotive or waste on the property.

Mr. Waggoner

stated that would be the pleasure of the board.

Ms. Leming

stated her staff did an intense inspection of the facility. They found no evidence that they would put the animals in harm. They have no problem with someone coming out and doing an inspection.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the inspection was just staff or a building inspector.

Ms. Leming

stated no there was no building inspector.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if the NDEP has done an inspection. Asbestos can be in the ground too.

Ms. Leming

stated as far as she knows that wasn’t an issue on the property. She never found any evidence on the property of issues.

Commissioner Lee

asked if she has read, understood, and agree to the conditions of approval as they stand.

Ms. Leming

stated the two she had issues with they have resolved but has a problem still with #5 but it isn’t’ a deal breaker. She asked if fencing is called an improvement.

Mr. Waggoner

stated fencing the other parcel would not be an expansion of the facility as long as they won’t be keeping animals over there. He does want to point out condition #4 contradicts condition #10. He would suggest removing one or the other so there isn’t an issue down the line.

Commissioner Lee

asked Ms. Leming if she is okay with striking condition #4 and keeping condition #10.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if there are stipulations that a tattoo parlor would need to be from a bar or establishment like that.

Mrs. Marshall

stated no there is not. Page 7 of 19 April Lowe stated she owns Sharper Image barbershop, and her daughter will be the tattoo artist. She has been working with Sue Huff and as soon as they get the CUP they will have an inspection with the Health Department.

Commissioner Carbone

asked if the penciled in wall is already there on the conceptual site plan.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it was under his impression that the room that was going to house the tattoo operation was existing.

Ms. Lowe

stated that was there from the previous tenant.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if they have read, understood and agree to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report.

Mrs. Marshall

reviewed her staff report stating staff recommends approval of the application. The applicant will also submit a merger re-subdivison map to combine the parcels into one and site development to bring the current development to standard. Bill Cookston agent for the applicant. The business is currently already operating at the site.

Commissioner Skinner

asked the applicant to tell them more about the business. William Webb stated he is the liaison for the business. They are a facial clay company that processes natural calcium bentonite from a local mine. They have existed for more than 20 plus years and in Pahrump for just about the same.

Commissioner Lee

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

Mr. Webb

stated yes, they do.

Mr. Waggoner

stated condition #3 contradicts condition #2. He recommends they change #3 to remove the expiration language. Make condition #3 that the applicant must submit and obtain the approval of a site development plan with a 90-day period to submit for SD plan review. Condition #4 obtain building permits for all alterations or new buildings added to the property, Condition #5 construction of the expansion would have to commence construction within 1 year, possibly. Page 8 of 19

Commissioner Lee

asked if they were changing condition #3 a, b and c into separate conditions.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes. Clarification would be #3 that the applicant must submit and obtain the approval of a site development plan within 90-days.

Commissioner Lee

stated #4 would become obtain building permits for all alterations or new buildings added to the property.

Mr. Waggoner

stated condition #5 would be construction of the expansion would have to commence construction within 1 year of receiving approvals. And #4 would become condition #6.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if they were amenable to the changes.

Mr. Cookston

stated they are currently operating already as a grandfathered in thing. Somehow if they were able to say on an approved SD they had to conform to all of that but if something fell through and they don’t end up doing the SD then it would still be good that it became CM. It would conform to what is already there.

Mr. Waggoner

agrees but SD should have happened a long time ago and that is still a concern. Even as it operates today it isn’t a legal conforming use as it operates today as far as the development of the property.

Mr. Cookston

stated if they didn’t do it, the way they are operating would be good to conform by changing the zoning. Even if they didn’t do site development it would bring them into conformance with what they are currently doing. He is suggesting that there be some way they make this go through but if they go through site development all the rules start within a specific amount of time if the SD is approved.

Mr. Waggoner

stated what has been allowed to exist there doesn’t meet code as it is currently. He agrees on the zoning aspect and the SD needs to be done on the property even if no expansion on the property occurs.

Mr. Webb

stated they have gone through the yearly inspections with the health, but they are operating within what they know of the legal standards.

Mr. Waggoner

stated with the state maybe so, but with Nye County it doesn’t. There have been containers added to the property, the adjacent properties that never received approvals through the county. There are violations that exist outside the zoning and need to be corrected even if there is no expansion just to address what is there today.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they are amenable to the changes of the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if they own any of the properties adjacent to this one.

Commissioner Lee

asked Public Works staff if the bond is still pending resolution through district court and how does this request impact that. Tyler Mulvey stated they went out to bid for what was included in the original bond and received none. So now they are in the process of separating it out and getting quotes with different contractors. If you are asking if the park was included in the bond, it is not. It is road infrastructures and wet utilities.

Commissioner Lee

stated rezoning this violates the subdivision section of the ordinance. Because it as designated as a park in conformance with the subdivision codes.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes, that is correct.

Commissioner Hayden

asked for clarification that the subdivision was created, and this was designated as a park and it was sold to the applicant telling him they could build on it.

Mr. Montalvo

stated they didn’t tell him anything about it. It was on realtor.com site and he bought it as residential, and it may be a legal issue.

Mr. Waggoner

stated what happened was in 2006 it was approved, the subdivision went belly up and went into Treasurer’s trust and was sold at auction and this gentleman wasn’t the purchaser it was resold outside of the auction to this gentleman. In our development standards for subdivisions, we have an open space requirement based on the density and size of the subdivision.

Commissioner Hayden

asked what the status of the subdivision was, and if it was in court.

Mr. Waggoner

stated the residential zoned lots have been purchased by several larger purchasers. Regardless it is a subdivision whether or not development agreements are in place or not. It is mapped as it is today and the map to meet the requirements for OS has the park in it.

Commissioner Hayden

asked what the remedy is? Is there a waiver? Can the subdivision be realigned somehow. Is the only recourse to sue the person who sold it to him?

Mr. Waggoner

stated he can’t give out legal advice but as far as the county goes it is mapped OS and a zone change could fix that for the individual, but it isn’t the intent of that property. Page 10 of 19

Commissioner Tyler

stated the problem is Nye County sold it under the Treasurer’s Trust at auction and it wasn’t reasonable that someone would develop it as a park and now we want to say they can’t do anything with it except as a park.

Commissioner Carbone

stated there are many lots that are mapped as OS and they have APN’s assigned. The Treasurer’s office doesn’t know one APN from another. When it goes on the tax sale it goes on as an APN.

Commissioner Tyler

stated the Treasurer sold it under the tax sale and the only thing they can do is develop as a park. Most parcels they sell are not designated to public OS.

Commissioner Carbone

stated the parcels are designated as OS and unfortunately people don’t do their research with Planning.

Mr. Montalvo

stated he was told by Planning that it may be possible if he requests VR-8 or something. If it is VR or SE he doesn’t care he isn’t trying to develop it or sell it anytime soon. He didn’t know what it was, and they gave him the list of what it was allowed to do, like a public shooting range.

Commissioner Skinner

stated he understands the circumstances and it is highly unlikely to be developed as a park. It is more reasonable to develop the space then not.

Commissioner Hayden

asked Mr. Waggoner if it wasn’t developed as a park what else would be acceptable as OS.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there is a list of uses in code for OS. Some wouldn’t be very practical since there are houses around there.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if the subdivision will be resurrected, and homes built.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there have been developers contacting the two major land holders that are looking to purchase the lots from them to develop. They are required to make certain findings and those findings are where the recommendations come from. The reason the VR-8 was thrown out there was because we won’t tell you, you can’t apply for a zone change.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant they understand if this is rezoned that they can’t just parcel the property out it will have to be subdivided through the subdivision process.

Mr. Montalvo

stated they have no plans to subdivide.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they need to continue this to the next meeting since it wasn’t noticed to be changed to SE.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he believes they can change it in the motion. Michelle Nelson, DDA stated where in the backup he is referencing.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it is within the staff report in the conclusion.

Ms. Nelson

stated since it is the back up it is an acceptable modification.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if they have read, understand and agree to the conditions of approval in the staff report.

Mr. Montalvo

stated yes, he agrees to them. Page 11 of 19 Public comment opened at 7:52 pm. John Koenig stated this caught his attention because of the VR-8. It is too small, and we don’t need any more of it in Ishani Ridge. There are a lot of trust properties that they sold at auction that were ¼ acres and are unbuildable. It isn’t the county’s fault when you don’t do your homework. Ammie Nelson stated there were a lot of complaints from people on the auction properties and John Prudont said buyer beware. Is this a planned park, what would the water usage be. There are a lot of questions that need to be addressed with this.

Commissioner Hayden

asked for clarification that if the property is zoned SE, he could build one home on it and not subdivide it.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked if this gets taken out as a park and someone wants to subdivide what would happen.

Mr. Waggoner

stated with 2 acres it would be almost impossible to subdivide to 8000 sq ft lots with the cul de sac requirements to accommodate them. Anything less than VR-20 requires a development agreement and would be approved through the BOCC and isn’t very realistic.

Commissioner Lee

asked the DA’s office if those findings were sufficient.

Ms. Nelson

stated yes. Seconded by Pamela Tyler. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting went into recess at 8:02 pm Meeting reconvened at 8:15 pm 13. a. For Possible Action – ZCMP-22-17: Public Hearing, discussion, and deliberation on an application for a Zone Change to change 8.45 acres of a 29.97-acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) & Village Residential (VR-10) to Calvada Commercial (CC) on property located at 151 N. Blagg Road. Assessor’s Parcel Number 035-111-06. Settelmeyer & PBSM, LLC – Property Owner. Michael J. Livingston -Applicant/Agent. (The Pahrump Regional Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this item. Final Action by the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled for November 15, 2022, or as otherwise announced.) (SO) b. For Possible Action – ZCMP-22-20: Public Hearing, discussion, and deliberation on an application for a (Minor) Master Plan Amendment of approximately 8.45 acres of a 29.97-acre parcel from Rural Density Residential (RDR) to Community Development Area (CDA) on property located at 151 N. Blagg Road. Assessor’s Parcel Number 035-111-06. Settelmeyer & PBSM, LLC – Property Owner. Michael J. Livingston - Applicant/Agent (The Pahrump Regional Planning Commission Page 12 of 19 makes a recommendation on this item. Final Action by the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled for November 15, 2022, or as otherwise announced.) (SO) c. For Possible Action – CU-22-33: Public Hearing, discussion, and deliberation on an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Mixed-Use development on property located at 151 N. Blagg Road. Assessor’s Parcel Number 035-111-06. Settelmeyer & PBSM, LLC – Property Owner. Michael J. Livingston - 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.) (SO)

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report. The applicant is proposing to build 140 apartments with a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 room apartments with a mixture of commercial uses on the first floor. They are asking for Calvada Commercial because of what they are proposing to build on the site. Staff is recommending approval of the applications.

Commissioner Hayden

stated 140 units are proposed. Is the number-based documentation of families in the community that total that or is it part of the grant for funds to be used. Michael Livingston stated he is the architect on the project. Frederick Melms stated he is not the attorney for the project, and stated Pahrump has about 50 commercial rentals that range from $900 to $3000 with an average price of $1700. They did a market analysis they need 1500 rentals in the price range they will be offering which is $600 – $1200 range.

Commissioner Hayden

asked what percentage of the units would be section 8?

Mr. Melms

stated none will be directly slated for section 8 but if someone had a voucher, they would accept it.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if they are under any requirement to have a certain number of those.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if any will be rent controlled.

Mr. Melms

stated they won’t be per say. The program requires that any apartment funded by the grant be designated for anyone making under the 60% area of medium income. There is an income cap and the rent would be 30% of income per month.

Commissioner Hayden

asked who would be managing the units.

Mr. Melms

stated they will. He is doing business as Las Vegas Executive Services.

Commissioner Hayden

stated they are looking at doing commercial units on the first floor. How are they going to mix or divide the elderly or younger families.

Mr. Melms

stated they won’t be dividing or mixing them. It will be as them come in.

Commissioner Hayden

stated it wouldn’t seem they would want elderly people on the second or third floors unless they are going to have elevators or handicap accessible. Has any thoughts been done to where people will go to live peacefully Page 13 of 19

Mr. Melms

stated they haven’t put any thought into that. If they start segregating units they may run into civil rights issues or HUD issues, but they will look into that. They will have first floor units, there are 28 and are ADA compliant.

Commissioner Hayden

asked what type of medical facilities will be available in the complex.

Mr. Melms

stated it will just be office space for a local medical business to use, they won’t charge them rent and will be there for the tenants to use. It would be staffed by anyone that wants to partner with them.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if they will provide transportation for those that have limited accessibility. There is no bus there will you be contracting with a local service.

Mr. Melms

stated he believes there is a bus stop at the corner of Blagg and Basin. He was under the impression there was. It is his understanding Pahrump has available transportation they can call.

Commissioner Hayden

stated if you are going to add an additional 140 families it may not be sufficient to meet everyone’s needs.

Mr. Melms

isn’t anticipating the families coming from the outside but within the community.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if they will have staff on site 24-7?

Mr. Melms

stated that is the plan, yes.

Commissioner Hayden

asked how many jobs they think it will add?

Mr. Melms

stated about 10.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if there will be elevators in the units?

Commissioner Hayden

asked what type of security would be used for the 140 units?

Mr. Melms

stated he anticipates having 1 or 2 security guards at all times.

Commissioner Hayden

asked how will refuse be managed?

Mr. Melms

stated they have looked into contracting with the local trash company.

Commissioner Hayden

asked who will maintain the roads inside?

Mr. Melms

stated that will be them.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if pets will be permitted?

Mr. Melms

stated they have not determined that yet.

Commissioner Hayden

stated they said it will be a self-contained community, does that mean it will be a gated community.

Mr. Melms

stated no it will not be.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if there will be an HOA or tenant’s board. Page 14 of 19

Mr. Melms

stated they haven’t considered a tenant’s board at this time but a possibility.

Mr. Melms

and Mr. Livingston reviewed the PowerPoint presentation, and they have named development the Mojave Village Lofts. They look to bring more affordable housing to Pahrump. There will be a small store, gymnasium, and childcare.

Commissioner Meredith

asked why they decided to go three stories.

Mr. Melms

stated they were looking at the most efficient way of getting to the 150 – 140 units.

Commissioner Hayden

asked for clarification that they will be using the solar piping to heat the units. Masonry block will be cold in the winter.

Mr. Livingston

stated it will be supplemental with a HVAC system.

Commissioner Hayden

asked about the playground and the gardens.

Mr. Livingston

stated the playground is linked to the childcare center. The other gardens are for community use.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if there will be walk in showers or grab bars on the ground floor units.

Mr. Livingston

stated the ground floor units are all ADA accessible.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if they have been in contact with any vendors for the spaces.

Mr. Melms

stated they look at an 18 month build time and they then can look for partners.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if they have been approved for the grant or are they conditionally approved.

Mr. Melms

stated they have preliminary approval.

Commissioner Skinner

asked what preliminary approval is.

Mr. Melms

stated the grant process is 3 steps, they are through the 1st level of approvals, they are waiting on the second and the third level is compliance. Once you get the second you are approved then it is just complying with the requirements.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if the total financing depends on the grant.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if the project was 20 million.

Mr. Melms

stated they are looking somewhere about there, maybe a little higher.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if they have done this before.

Mr. Melms

stated he believes Michael has.

Commissioner Skinner

asked if Mr. Livingston was the owner. Page 15 of 19

Mr. Livingston

stated no, he is the architect. He has been in the business for 40 years and understands what is going on.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that they will be using grey water for the fountain.

Mr. Livingston

stated yes, they are looking at that and for irrigation.

Commissioner Lee

asked how big the fountain is going to be.

Mr. Livingston

stated 10 foot in diameter.

Commissioner Lee

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

Mr. Livingston

stated yes. He has questions on page 9, item 6 under patios it says it must have 100 sq feet of private space provided. Which they provide community private space but don’t provide balconies.

Commissioner Lee

stated these are development standards of the zoning district so if you don’t want to or can’t comply with those you will need to apply for a waiver application.

Mr. Livingston

stated on page 10 the parking buffer, that there must be a 6 ft high parking buffer between residential. Does that mean outside residential.

Commissioner Lee

stated yes. It is a development standard not the conditions of approval and again asked if they have read, understand and agree to the conditions.

Commissioner Carbone

asked how much water rights they believe they will need.

Mr. Livingston

stated he doesn’t know the mathematical answer to that, but they do have water rights. They will use water smart technology.

Mr. Melms

stated they have 152-acre feet to transfer.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they will have to connect to the utility company so they will also make sure there are sufficient water rights before they will allow a connection.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there will be shade structures over the playground area and outdoor work out area.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he suggests amendments to the standard conditions of approval for the zone change keeping #1, adding condition #2 which is standard language, “For a Zone Change subject to special conditions of approval and any associated applications the property owner must comply with all conditions otherwise the approval will expire within 3 years after the date of approval at 5 pm. Holidays and weekends will not extend any expiration date and the zoning will revert to the zoning in effect prior to the approval of the zone change application. Any extension of time must be applied for prior to the date and time. Development of the property must conform to the plans as submitted with revisions specified by the Planning Commission or BOCC.” Strike special conditions #2 and #3. Renumber starting with #4 and so on.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if they are amendable to the revision of the conditions of approval.

Mr. Livingston

stated he approves.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating this bill is to clean up Nye County Code to make it consistent and to add in Reconsideration of Conditions into the Waiver section.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if this was approved by the DA’s office.