March 13, 2024

Commissioner Lee

stated the agenda should read 2024, and she turned in some minor typographical corrections to staff.

Commissioner Lee

stated everyone should have received an email regarding OML training and RSPV by March 25th for the date you need to attend.

Mr. Osborne

stated for February total applications received was 173 which was 8 less than last month. Total applications processed was 101 which was 29 more than last month, Building Permits: For SFR there was 43 which was 28 more that last month, multi-family was 0 which was the same as last month, Commercial had 6 which was the same as last month, total permits issued all categories was 153, which was 13 less than last month, and total inspections all categories was 460 which was 78 less than last month. Code Compliance for February had 36 new complaints, which was 11 less than last month and cases closed was 32 which was 15 more than last month. Previous items heard by the RPC ZCMP-23-29 recommend for approval by the RPC and will be heard 3/19 by the BOCC. ZCMP-23-35 recommended for denial by the RPC and will be heard by the BOCC 3/19/24 as well. ZCMP-23-36 for recreational vehicle storage facility was recommended for approval by the RPC and will be heard by the BOCC on 3/19/24.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if they need to consider at this time whether or not it gets asphalt on the ground or not.

Mrs. Medici

stated that will be addressed during Site Development.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they have plans to remove the manufactured home, can we make sure it is done properly.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there is an active code case on the property.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it is, and they have been in contact with us and the Assessor’s Office.

Commissioner Carbone

asked if that should be a condition of approval.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it can be added but they won’t approve SD without it. He would also like another condition included that a pick apart activity will not occur on this property. Derak Sikes representing the owner stated there will be no salvaging or going through vehicles on that property. Once they go to auction, pick apart buys them and they then pick them up and take them to pick apart. He said right now they are stuck at the dust control permit and they are required to get a sign application.

Commissioner Lee

stated staff will help with the dust control and sign permit.

Mr. Sikes

stated the MH is just a shell that they have been trying to get it removed off the property within a week.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the vehicles coming on the property will be leaking fluids and what will be done to prevent that.

Mr. Sikes

stated 9 times out of 10 they won’t be leaking. If they are a crash, contaminated or a biohazard, etc. they go to the actual police yard. The Nevada Transportation Authority has the control on how they operate under NRS and how they are brought into any yard in Nevada. They have precautions if they do leak that they have to do.

Mr. Waggoner

asked for an amendment of the added conditions. For condition #9 to put a time frame within 30 days.

Commissioner Koenig

rescinded his motion. Commissioner Tyler rescinded her second. Joe Jones Area Manager for the tow company spoke to Sheree Stringer at the Assessor’s Office, basically they picked it up for BLM. They have done some history on the trailer and she provided him with the proper documentation on Monday. They are actively trying to get with the old owner to see if they can get it signed off on. Otherwise, they have arrangements to dispose of it at their Amargosa location.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if 30 days to remove is good.

Commissioner Turner

asked for clarification that it was moved onto the property. Page 3 of 16

Mr. Jones

stated yes, at the request of BLM.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they have read, understood and agreed to the conditions of approval including the two that were added.

Mr. Jones

and Mr. Sikes stated yes.

Mr. Osborne

stated the properties are zoned RE-2 and it allows for an animal sanctuary with a CUP. The applicant states they will have 25- 30 dogs max at any one time, and they are proposing a condition for no more than 25 dogs, they have to combine the properties and go through the site development process. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions.

Commissioner Koenig

stated 25 dogs is a lot of barking at night. Is there any way to control that?

Mr. Osborne

stated they can put any number they want as a limit and the applicant could address the other questions.

Mr. Waggoner

stated in the justification letter it does state the dogs will be taken out in the mornings and brought in during the evening.

Commissioner Meredith

asked if it was noticed to the neighborhood.

Mr. Waggoner

shook his head yes.

Commissioner Koenig

stated a dog isn’t considered a dog, right.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it isn’t. Andrew Chiu applicant stated that he has read and agrees to all the conditions of approval. He is the founder and President of Furever Nevada. They want to have a sanctuary for neglected senior dogs, this will not be a place of squaller, there is a 6 ft fence with barb wire on top, they have multiple play yards, the dogs will not roam the property, they will not be outside in the evenings, and they have a fulltime caretaker on the property. He has already taken in some senior dogs from the shelter and they are their private animals. They are installing noise panels in the enclosures, and designated times for dogs so they won’t be in the yard all day. If a dog is barking for more than 2 minutes they will be taken back inside. If they have modified intake policy that if a dog has a habit of barking it will impact if they take it in or not. They have moved a privacy fence between the neighbors and the play yards.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they have made contact with Animal Control.

Mr. Chiu

stated he has talked with someone in Code Enforcement.

Commissioner Carbone

stated yes, and it is documented in the details. Page 4 of 16

Commissioner Carbone

asked the applicant what they consider a sanctuary is as far as timing. Is it an animal that is there until it is no longer alive or something different.

Mr. Chiu

stated they are looking to take in dogs that are committed to euthanasia but that they feel still have love to give and receive, they will take care of the medical needs and they will stay at the sanctuary for the rest of their lives. They are also looking to rehome the dogs they do have that have barking issues.

Commissioner Lee

stated you are just taking in the senior population to live out the rest of their lives, you aren’t adopting or anything.

Mr. Chiu

stated he understands where his neighbors are coming from and he is looking to rehome 2 or 3 dogs that are causing the issues and he wasn’t informed until just recently about the barking issue. He is asking for a chance whether it is 30 or 60 days and if is a nuisance then he is fine with it being pulled.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he likes to give people a chance but asked if they can tentatively approve and call for a hearing in a month or two to have the neighbors come down and let us know if it is okay or not.

Commissioner Lee

agrees, she has a neighbor who has a dog that howls or barks all night long. Meeting went into recess at 6:53 pm for staff to discuss with the DA’s office. Page 5 of 16 Meeting reconvened at 7:05 pm Kristy Sidman, Animal Shelter Manager, stated she has worked with Mr. Chiu at his facility for a while now, she understands the noise. His facility follows the utmost sanitary procedures, he has the utmost medical care for his animals. The location of the kennels is very large, the staff cares for them, so noise is a discussion matter but from an animal welfare standpoint the care should also be considered. She considers Andrew a person who cares for the animals for the utmost and highest regard not only for the animals, the staff, the location of the facility and his neighbors.

Mr. Waggoner

stated one thing that could be a possibility if it is approved, with a temporary approval to be revisited after a period of 90 days but to also put a limit on the trial period of 10 dogs and have them come back on a stated date to provide feedback.

Commissioner Tyler

asked for clarification if they put a 90-day time limit a notice will still be sent out?

Mr. Waggoner

stated no, it is being put out on the record.

Commissioner Lee

stated so it would be June 12th 2024 at 6 pm unless otherwise announced.

Mr. Waggoner

stated at that point the board at its discretion can remove the condition and approve it indefinitely like every other one or if a need they can deny it at that point or extend the trial period. When you take an animal from one environment to another it will take them a little time to adapt to the new conditions.

Commissioner Koenig

asked how many animals are there now.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that is only two extra.

Commissioner Carbone

stated that is the limit in title 6, he can have 10 anyways.

Commissioner Tyler

stated for clarification, even without the RPC permission he is allowed to have 10 animals.

Commissioner Carbone

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they would still have an option when they return to go to 20 dogs for the next 60 days?

Mr. Waggoner

stated he doesn’t need a CUP to have 10 dogs there, more or less is all they are doing is continuing the item for a time frame and then have it come back like any other application in the past.

Commissioner Koenig

stated on page 2 of 6 on #7 it states a person can have 5 dogs on the property. But he is hearing 10.

Mr. Waggoner

stated that is because there is a discrepancy in Title 6 that is being amended right now.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if this is something he is amenable to?

Mr. Chiu

stated yes. He apologizes to his neighbors but they do have a new intake policy that they won’t take in dogs that are barkers and they are looking to rehome those that they have that are barkers.

Mr. Kunzi

asked if he could add that the property not house more than 10 dogs. Page 6 of 16

Commissioner Turner

added to the motion that during such time the property does not house more than 10 dogs. Action: Continue, Moved by Walt Turner, Seconded by Pamela Tyler. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0). Yes: Beth Lee, Gina Meredith, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Pamela Tyler, Walt Turner. No: John Koenig.

Mrs. Medici

stated this is a CUP for a fuel dispensing facility on 2 parcels. A CUP is required per NCC 17.04.700. Staff met with the applicant and discussed the requirements to proceed. After approval the applicant will submit a tentative commercial subdivision map to combine the parcels and will require a Cat I SD plan and encroachment permit with Nye County. They were advised to contact GBWC, VEA, NDEP, NDWR, NDOT and Nevada Health Department. This Circle K won’t have a carwash at this location. Staff is recommending approval of the application. Juan Mendoza, applicant stated they are just proposing a 5,200 C Store at the SW corner of Gamebird and Hwy 160. It will have 17 pumps and 2 diesel pumps on the corners of the canopy.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they will have well and septic or utilities.

Mr. Mendoza

stated they are in conversations with Great Basin Water now. Circle K is still deciding if they will connect in or have well and septic.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they will reverse parcel the lots or keep them separate.

Mr. Mendoza

stated there is a condition to combine and they will have one lot and then reviewed the site plan.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the turn lane going onto Gamebird from Hwy 160, will there be requirements for widening.

Mr. Mendoza

stated from their previous conversations with PW there will be requirements to do things on Gamebird Rd and they have been in conversations with NDOT, they will be required to have an acceleration lane.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the property owner has read, understood and agree to the conditions of approval.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting a waiver of the front yard setback requirement. There is a 15 ft setback requirement from the front property line for an accessory structure, they are asking for a zero setback. There are no special circumstances relating to the property, so staff recommendation is for denial based on the findings.

Commissioner Turner

asked what the setback is required to temporary ones that can come down or is it just to the poles and overhang.

Mr. Osborne

stated the poles and roof.

Commissioner Turner

stated for clarification if the poles were moved 15 feet and they could hypothetically suspend the roof it would still need to be within the 15?

Commissioner Koenig

stated in dealing with the structure, it isn’t a building because it doesn’t have a roof and walls, what is the setback for the structure.

Mr. Osborne

stated the minimum setback for a structure is 15 feet.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he sees residential and non-residential buildings, he doesn’t see anything that says structure.

Mr. Waggoner

asked if he had different definitions of a building than what is in the code?

Commissioner Koenig

stated he looked building up and it is a structure with roof and walls. The structure he is putting up has a roof but no walls.

Commissioner Turner

if where the poles go there are receptacles and they can take the shade down if they want will that still qualify?

Mr. Osborne

stated the poles and roof/shade are all apart of it.

Commissioner Meredith

asked if the home was in an HOA, and are there standards in the HOA that he can’t put the shade structure up before he ends up here?

Mr. Osborne

stated there is an HOA and they do have CC&Rs that have a 20 foot setback is required.

Mr. Osborne

stated the HOA is not active but they do have CC&R’s.

Commissioner Tyler

asked if the posts were semi-permanent or permanently anchored? Do you have to have a permit for a post? She can see calling a post a structure but it is a loose interpretation of a structure. It does go down to the ROW. Tyler Mulvey stated yes, the ROW does behind the curb up to 10 ft in some areas, that is why their comment is that they are in the process of abandoning behind the curb so anywhere between 6 – 10 feet depending on the location in the subdivision it will go back to the property owner at some point. Page 8 of 16 James Kahl, property owner stated the structure is a sunshade, they weren’t aware of the setbacks when they put it in. They are 6 inches off the curb and aren’t intruding on the road. They had a problem with the neighbor in the neighborhood and after they filed a TPO they reported us for this. It wouldn’t have been brought here if it hadn’t happened with everything that went on with them.

Commissioner Meredith

asked the applicant why the aren’t using the garage.

Mr. Kahl

stated their vehicles won’t fit in the garage.

Commissioner Carbone

asked when they will release these areas through public works.

Mr. Mulvey

stated the surveyor is still working on it, he still have some streets to survey and prepare the map and present the abandonment to the RPC.

Commissioner Carbone

stated if you want to bring this back or not because less than 5 months we will be hearing this.

Commissioner Lee

stated we have setback and an ROW encroachment issue. Resurveying and abandoning still only takes care of one issue. Or does it depend on where the property lines is.

Mr. Mulvey

stated it depends where the property line falls based on the GIS it could be 20 ft which would be close.

Mr. Kahl

stated he received the abandonment letter and it was 7 ft on the East side and 5 ft to the front.

Mr. Mulvey

stated that was based on the survey, his 9 – 10 was based on the GIS, without the survey he is just estimating.

Mr. Kahl

stated he is only looking for 5 feet from where the posts are.

Commissioner Lee

asked the board if they’d like to see this come back after the abandonment is done.

Mr. Kahl

asked if it would be easier to go before the BOCC.

Commissioner Lee

stated no, they don’t have jurisdiction over this. They have to wait for the road abandonment which would reduce the setback issue, they will let that be completed and they will rehear it.

Commissioner Tyler

asked if the BOCC granted a similar waiver to mini storages not long ago?

Commissioner Lee

stated that was for an existing business this is a new development but yes they did.

Commissioner Turner

asked for clarification on the lay out. Is the center of the layout parking spots? Josh Wheeler applicant stated we are growing massively here and we are in need of storage units. Before he bought the property, he met with Qiana several times and they spoke about what would happen and he’d need a waiver and that because of the location it shouldn’t be a problem. If it was a guaranteed denial he wouldn’t have bought the property.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the center of the layout is for parking?

Mr. Wheeler

stated it is parking.

Commissioner Turner

asked if he will ever have RV, boat or car storage.

Mr. Wheeler

stated that is what it is for, long-term parking. He will change the plans a little bit he wants to change the entrance at a 90 degree so they have the ability to pull the vehicle off the road and not block traffic if someone else needs to come in as well. The parking at the front would be a hard surface, it is just type 2 in the back.

Commissioner Turner

asked how many units he will have.

Mr. Wheeler

stated initially he’ll start with 48 and all of the parking. Then slowly add two or three a month. They are about $5000 a piece.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they were site built.

Mr. Wheeler

stated they are like connex boxes, like a pod.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they are fastened to the ground.

Mr. Wheeler

stated he can put rebar in the corner, currently they would not be, but if it is a requirement he was told by Albert he may want to stake them. He can put a 4ft rebar in it to anchor it to the ground. He has already done the dedication on PW’s side as well.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there are drive aisles and customer parking, development standards require 5 parking spots, the application is only for specific to the drive aisles. He would need to have paved parking for customers.

Commissioner Koenig

stated NCC 15.28.100.c doesn’t allow for waivers for unpaved areas greater than 5000 sq ft. We’ve had this problem with other developments. They board hasn’t approved any of these but for some reason the BOCC can approve them.

Mr. Wheeler

asked for clarification that if that is the concern and we have current standards then typically then every new projects would have those new standards we wouldn’t just look at grandfathered project that owns 10 more pieces of land and wouldn’t allow them to add on with the grandfathered standards. We have a board that can allow waivers Page 10 of 16 for sensible objects. He specifically bought the property right next to the same use that was just approved for the same thing he is asking for.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there is an alternative to asphalt, it is chip seal. It is much cheaper, but hard to find. The problem with this board is that they have certain parameters that they have to consider and staff also has to consider in the findings that are pretty limited. There has to be extenuating circumstances for them to approve this. There is an appeal process and you can take it to the BOCC.

Commissioner Lee

stated this board is bound by the code that states it isn’t permitted. Your neighbor was denied by the RPC because of the constraint under the code and they appealed it to the BOCC and it was overturned, and that is how they got it.

Mrs. Marshall

reviewed her staff report stating upon review staff finds sufficient justification to approve the waiver. They feel there are special circumstances in regard to the property. It has been used as a casino, hotel convention center, restaurant and bowling center since 2001 and predates when code was introduced. The mixed use of the property makes conformance with the current code difficult to afford adequate signage for the tenants to use. There is a condition that if Pink Box does end its tenancy at the location that the sign structure is to be removed within 90 days. Frank Vivirito representing the applicant stated they are just asking for approval of the sign with an additional 25.25 sq ft.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the sign is internally illuminated.

Mr. Vivirito

stated yes with LEDs.

Commissioner Lee

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

Commissioner Carbone

asked what the brightness of the sign will be.

Mr. Vivirito

stated it is LED and won’t be blinding.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the lights will not be directed at any traffic.

Mr. Vivirito

stated the sign is totally enclosed.

Mrs. Marshall

stated condition #3 states all lighting and illumination must comply with NCC 17.04.750 and 770.

Mr. Vivirito

asked if it can flash? Page 11 of 16

Mrs. Marshall

stated it can’t be distracting or dazzling, there is specific wording in the code.

Mr. Vivirito

stated the sprinkles go on and off.

Commissioner Lee

stated the code is written that it can’t flash or sparkle to the point where it is blinding or interrupting drivers’ field of vision.

Mr. Vivirito

stated it won’t.

Mr. Osborne

stated this is a request to change the zoning to CM, it previously had an auction house on it. The applicant wants to use the property for light metal fabrication. They have a main shop in Vegas and this would be a satellite facility here. Rezoning conforms to the masterplan. Staff finds sufficient justification to recommend approval of the ZC.

Commissioner Turner

asked what is directly East of the property?

Mr. Waggoner

stated they are other metal buildings, he doesn’t know what the use is. Lorenzo Alvarez stated he is trying to open a welding shop to work with the race track and casinos in town.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they are already customers of his?

Mr. Alvarez

stated he has a lot of clients but they went to Vegas, he wants to open one here.

Commissioner Lee

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

Commissioner Koenig

asked if they will be working on automobile bodies.

Mr. Alvarez

stated no, commercial kitchens and work with the cabinet people.

Commissioner Koenig

asked how much volume of noise they will be making?

Mr. Alvarez

stated it isn’t they don’t hammer metal, they have a machine that cuts it and it breaks the plate.

Commissioner Turner

asked what the thickest gage they go up to.

Mr. Alvarez

stated 1/8 of an inch. Page 12 of 16

Mr. Waggoner

stated it is more decorative type work and rather than going back to Vegas for adjustments and repairs he is trying to open the shop here.

Mrs. Medici

stated this is for a conforming zone change to allow for a permissive use of a mini storage facility and the property owner has already submitted a division of land application to combine the adjacent parcel and will be required to go through a Cat I site development. Staff finds sufficient justification to recommend approval of the application.

Commissioner Koenig

stated this one will have asphalt. Bill Cookston applicant stated the applicant is wanting to change the zoning to NC because it has different setbacks and wanted to conform both parcels to be the same. They have already submitted with Great Basin for water and they have approval for a septic because they will have an office.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the applicant was aware that asphalt will be required.

Mr. Cookston

stated yes, and he has read and agreed to the conditions.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report stating one condition is that the applicant was to get an approved SD and Building Permit for the facility by March 1st. They do have an approved SD and the only thing remaining is the permit. At the time of application of the extension they did not have the building permit, but they do now have their building permit issued along with grading, fire and encroachment permits.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the application is moot?

Mr. Osborne

stated he believes so, he doesn’t think it is necessary to take action. Page 13 of 16

Commissioner Koenig

asked what the date the containers have to be gone by?

Mr. Waggoner

stated he doesn’t remember what the date is.

Mr. Osborne

stated there is a requirement of the applicant to submit 6 months compliance report after the approval of the CUP. The CUP has that condition already so if you don’t take action on this the CUP would still have the condition.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he doesn’t believe you have to take action on this, he doesn’t see there isn’t a condition regarding removal of the shipping containers. You could take action to grant the extension and add the condition.

Commissioner Koenig

Page 7, Item 7 and # 3 say the same thing, he’d suggest removing the 10 minutes time limit per item, but leave 3 minute per person.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification on page 4 item C: conflict of interest #4 says that RPC shall not represent themselves before RPC or BOCC. Does that mean they can’t recuse themselves and then go down and represent themselves before the RPC of Commission?

Commissioner Turner

stated he would be interested in allowing at least representing at a different board. If he is on this board he can go to the BOCC and represent himself and vice versa.

Commissioner Lee

stated for example if you are the agent for an applicant and there is a conflict of interest you have to recuse yourself, but you can’t go down and represent as the agent for an applicant. She wants clarification if that is what the statement means. Brian Kunzi, DA stated in some respect you don’t loose your rights, you should be able to articulate what you are proposing. You obviously can’t participate and recuse yourself and disclose the conflict, recuse and not participate but there is no law that says you can’t represent yourself. You get into more of an issue if you are representing someone else as being a member of this commission. But you being able to participate in something effecting your property.

Commissioner Koenig

asked staff to elaborate more on that in the document.

Mr. Kunzi

stated they can tweek that language he doesn’t like the word represent.

Commissioner Turner

asked if adding in anything about hiring or compensation clarify that line on whether you can or can’t.

Mr. Kunzi

stated that falls under the ethics law.

Commissioner Lee

Page 5 representation in public could they add something in there also pertaining to social media? Page 14 of 16

Mr. Kunzi

stated if you are using social media and putting things out there you need to recognize that is an avenue for you creating a serial communication.

Commissioner Lee

stated and it is the representation are you social media as John Q public or commissioner public.

Mr. Kunzi

stated if you are on social media and you are taking about anything that comes before this board you have now created that problem.

Commissioner Carbone

stated that falls into email communication as well.

Commissioner Lee

stated on page # 9 - Item #13 Planning Commission action items; could they incorporate something about motions, votes - if a motion fails, when does it die? Taking no action. Example staff recommendation is to deny and they approve it and it fails then what happens etc.

Mr. Kunzi

stated the issue was because the positive vote was actually a negative vote and it cause confusion. He recommends being careful how you are tying your hands on it. If a motion has been made, been voted down, it doesn’t mean another person can’t make another motion. You can’t vote on the same matter again but if someone wants to offer a different motion they can.

Commissioner Turner

stated one thing that wasn’t covered is if it is shot down and no one makes another motion what is the action from there. If there is no decision then there is no appeal, correct?

Mr. Kunzi

stated that will determine if the board is the final acting authority, some of it is an appeal. You don’t want to limit yourself.

Commissioner Meredith

stated on the social media thing she would like to see a signature agreement with staff and the Commissioner. If you put that in there you will tromping on people’s first amendment rights.

Commissioner Lee

stated she doesn’t think so when you are in public if you are offering an opinion you’re identifying it as a Commissioner.

Commissioner Meredith

stated if someone comes up to her, and she doesn’t identify herself as a commissioner, and they ask her something she has every right to give them her opinion.

Mr. Kunzi

stated you don’t have every right in the first amendment when you become a member of this board, you do have a right generically but if you are acting as a member of the board the first amendment doesn’t... If you are on social media and you are expressing opinion as a member of the board and other members are reading in and looking at it you will cause problems for you and it may have conflicted all of you out now.

Commissioner Carbone

wants something quickly to come to them for the paving issue.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they have been working on it and the last conversation with the Mr. Kunzi was that those rules were put in place by the BOCC and it is a tangled mess because it becomes a U.S. and plus the State Page 15 of 16