February 14, 2024

Commissioner Lee

stated she provided some minor typographical correction to staff.

Mr. Osborne

stated they will have to pull item 7 due to an error in the APN and they will have to renotice that for the March 13th RPC meeting and item 10 they received legal opinion of the DA’s office there is conflicting language in the code and this will need to go to the BOCC.

Commissioner Koenig

stated for number 3a it should state 2024 and not 2023.

Mr. Osborne

stated total Planning applications received was 181 which was 25 less than last month. Total applications processed was 72 which was 88 less than last month. Since July 1st there have been 1279 Planning applications received and 269 new Code Compliance complaints received. Compared to 1206 Planning applications and 211 Code Compliance complaints for the same time period last year. Building Permits for SFR was 15, which was 13 more than last month. MF was 0, which was 1 less than last month and Commercial was 6, which was 2 less than last month. Total Permits issued in all categories was 166, which was 51 more than last month. And the total inspections of all categories were 460 which was 17 more than last month. Code Compliance, new complaints received was 47 which was 21 less than last month and closed 17 cases which was 18 less than last month. Previous items heard by the RPC TA-22 for LI by removing “renewable energy generating facility, has been continued to the 3/19 BOCC meeting. ZCMP-23-31, for all the VR-20 parcels, it was heard at the 1/17 BOCC agenda and was approved. CU-23-22, to allow MF transitional temporary emergency housing on GC parcel. This application was heard by this board on the 11/15/23 agenda and was denied and appealed to the board. The BOCC voted to overturn the RPC’s decision due to a new operator. CU-23-29 for a 125-foot cell tower denied by the RPC and the applicant appealed. The BOCC heard the item 1/17/24 and voted to uphold the RPC’s decision. WV-23-14 Night Hawk Logistics for storage of semi-truck trailers. This application was heard by this board on the 11/15/23 agenda and was denied. The applicant had filed an appeal to the BOCC which was heard on the 1/17/24 BOCC agenda and the BOCC voted to uphold the RPC’s denial.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if this just eliminates the road, and the property owner remains the same.

Mrs. Medici

stated yes, the property owner remains the same. Susan Florian representing Taney engineering, stated they agreed with the conditions.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that they have read and understand the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report?

Commissioner Koenig

, on the other side of Pavia, there’s are a lot of undeveloped lots. Once we close off Trevano, if they developed that, how would you get in there?

Mrs. Medici

stated closing of the rest of Trevano does not affect any other portion of Trevano as it goes around.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he understands, but it affects Pavia with all those lots on the left side.

Mrs. Medici

stated you will still be able to access Pavia from Trevano. Brett Waggoner stated the illustration has one more dot so it looks like it doesn’t go through, but the abandonment stops right before the turn off to Pavia.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report and stated this is a request for a 32-unit one bedroom apartment complex. The property is zoned GC and MF is allowed in GC with a CUP. The masterplan is CDA, which is intended for Higher Density and Higher Intensity areas designed for goods, services, and housing types. If this is approved the developer will need to go through site development plan process. Staff is recommending approval of the application.

Commissioner Lee

stated conditions of approval number 5, submit a complete application for a site development plan within one year of approval of CUP. If they submit and application and it doesn’t go all the way through to approval, have they fulfilled that timeline? Or does it have to be a complete application all the way to an approved site development plan.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes, condition 5 states they have to submit a complete application within the year and if not, the CUP will be voided. And condition 6 is once they get approval of the SD they have 180 days.

Commissioner Turner

asked for site development for this location, do you require the property to be fenced in?

Mr. Osborne

stated for GC there’s no requirement since the lots are adjacent to other GC lots.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there is specific development standards that are more intensive for GC., the site development would have to meet those requirements, or they would have to get a waiver.

Commissioner Turner

stated when building on GC, one bedrooms are more intense than putting a 4 plex on a regular MF

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes. Bill Cookston asked for confirmation that condition number 5, they have one year to have a completed application and then 180 days to complete the site development.

Mr. Waggoner

stated correct, once the application is deemed complete, the 180 days start.

Commissioner Lee

stated that conditions 5 and 6 go together for a complete application and an approved site development plan.

Mr. Cookston

stated the owners agree to the standard and special conditions. By the code, they have to have a landscape buffer on the sides and if we don’t then they have to do some sort of a wall. The owner is fully funded on this and not looking to build low-income units. There is commercial of some sort all the way around it.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the owner is looking to do apartments, condos, rent or buy?

Mr. Cookston

stated rental apartments.

Commissioner Hayden

stated the landscaping in the center between the units states a detention basin, is that for water?

Mr. Cookston

stated yes, that is because there is more that 70 % impervious coverage there needs to be a drainage study. And there are requirements from PW that will make them put that in there. It will have a barrier around it so people won’t fall into it.

Commissioner Carbone

stated they mentioned this was fully funded, and asked if it is through a grant.

Mr. Cookston

stated no, it is privately funded.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating this property has been used for commercial business operations since 2002 when the owners applied for a swap meet CU-02-00005 permit and has been used for a construction office. Currently, it is a shipping and receiving Hazel Solutions. They are requesting a conforming zone change from VR-20 to GC to be compliant with the existing use of a third-party shipping and receiving center and requesting a CUP to reinstate the legal nonconforming use of shipping and receiving center to the parcel. PW does have requirements for the CUP there is no encroachment permit on file for the exiting driveway and since it is a commercial use the existing driveway needs to be constructed per the Nye County requirements. They requested this project go through site development to ensure traffic and drainage issues are resolved in accordance with NCC.

Commissioner Koenig

stated his issue with this is a commercial operating there based on a CUP it’s surrounded by residential. Once we change the zoning to GC, in the future when this operation goes away, and someone wants to put something else there they don’t need a CUP anymore. If you leave it the way it is, and someone wants to put something there they have to come to the board to get a CUP for approval. If it wasn’t surrounded by residential, I wouldn’t care.

Mrs. Medici

stated if it suits the board to deny the zone change and approve the CUP that still works, we have some options.

Commissioner Lee

asked if it was confirmed that it was a previous legal nonconforming use?

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that the CUP is only for shipping and receiving. Page 5 of 7

Commissioner Carbone

asked if there will be pavement on the property for shipping and receiving?

Mr. Waggoner

stated from his understanding the owner will be packing up goods and shipping them out via FedEx/UPS occasionally. No dust issue and no complaints up to this point. We did add in there if anything were to be expanded it would require full site development and they can revisit it.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the current CUP or use allow public traffic and customers.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it is mail order business.

Commissioner Koenig

asked the DA’s office for clarification on recommended motion A - it states based upon the findings. He doesn’t see the finding for the ZC. Michelle Nelson stated the general findings for the ZC are at the top of page 2. If the board were to recommend denial of the ZC they board needs to make their own additional findings for that.

Mrs. Medici

stated the applicant has provided an updated site plan they would like accepted into the back up.