December 11, 2024

Commissioner Lee

stated she has submitted some minor typographical corrections to staff and the changes have no impact on the context of the minutes.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they wanted to take it first.

Mr. Osborne

stated they can move that up.

Commissioner Carbone

stated this is his last RPC meeting as a Commissioner. b. Director’s Report

Mr. Osborne

stated Planning applications for November received was 128 which is 11 less than last month, total applications processed was 56 which was 71 less than last month. Since July 1st there has been 1003 planning applications received and 126 new code compliance complaints received. That compares to 1079 new applications and 19 Code Cases for the same time the previous year. Building Permits received: Single Family Residential was 20 which was 12 less than last month, Multi Family was 3 which was 3 more than last month, Commercial was 6 which was 3 less than last month. Total Permits issued was 126 which was 52 less than last month and total inspections was 344 which was 121 less than last month. Correction to last month’s total inspections the number for October was 465, which was 39 less than September. New Code Compliance complaints was 29 which was 9 less than last month and complaints closed was 24 which was 19 less than last month. ZCMP-24-12 was heard by the RPC on 10/2/2024 and recommended to the BOCC for approval. It was heard by the BOCC on 11/15/2024 and approved. ZCMP-24-10 and ZCMP-24-10 were heard by the RPC on 10/2/2024 and recommended to the BOCC for approval, they were heard by the BOCC on 11/15/2024 and continued to the December 17, 2024.

Commissioner Simunick

stated she is recusing herself from the item as she is the applicant. Amanda Marshall reviewed her staff report stating this is an appeal of the Zoning Administrators Determination that having livestock isn’t in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for VR-20. The back up contains the letter requesting determination and the Zoning Administrators Determination letter. Faith Simunick stated by saying that I have been clinically diagnosed with depression. A few years ago her sister Hope passed away. She was in the process of buying a micromini cow from Washington State but she lost out on that one. The current cow she has became available in Montana and her name is Hope. It was meant to be for her, and she realizes now, more than ever she is considered livestock even though she is her emotional support animal and dear to her heart considering what happened. She doesn’t disregard that and hide anything. She is cleaned up after her 3 – 4 times a day, she walks her down the street on a lead and the kids will come out and feed her treats, she is 42 inches tall. They spend hours together throughout the day. She has gotten signatures from everyone on her block that is within walking distance that is ok with her being there. That doesn’t change the zoning, she does own an acre of property that is all enclosed and she is double fenced. She will not get any bigger than the 42 inches tall she currently is.

Commissioner Bohannon

asked if she considers this an emotional support animal and if it falls within the regulations for support animals.

Mrs. Simunick

stated yes, she does. And there is no definition for a breed or type of animal that can be an emotional support animal. It is whatever you deem as an emotional support animal for you.

Commissioner Bohannon

asked staff what they used in the evaluation of the service animal requirement.

Mrs. Marshall

stated they don’t have that defined in our code.

Mr. Waggoner

stated if you read the determination letter it was ADA requirement, the only thing considered a service animal is a dog or mini horse. Unfortunately, they don’t have the authority to permit something like that and the RPC doesn’t have the authority to waive that because it is a permissive use in other zoning districts.

Mrs. Simunick

stated she wants to clarify that service animals are certified, she is an emotional support animal, there is a difference. She doesn’t have a certification to be a service animal. She knows that the RPC doesn’t have jurisdiction over this but it is part of the process she has to go through. She wants to keep her.

Mrs. Marshall

reviewed her staff report and stated the applicant has requested a continuation of the application to January 15, 2025.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that the previously approved CUP has expired, the waiver hasn’t and that is why they are coming forward with a new CUP.

Mrs. Medici

stated correct. Rick Lane stated they have 127 rooms now and has presentation boards showing the representation of the hotel/casino building. This also includes the construction of a round-a-bout on Hwy 160 and they have the State’s and Town approval for that.

Commissioner Lee

asked if much has changed from the original approval of the CUP to this one?

Commissioner Lee

asked if he has read, understand and agree to the conditions of approval in the staff report.

Mr. Lane

stated yes. Page 4 of 13

Commissioner Bohannon

asked Mr. Lane to explain the parking and storm standpoint.

Mr. Lane

stated he knows they have more stalls than required. They are providing 416.

Commissioner Tyler

asked what they are using for their paving and how will it affect the waterflow.

Mr. Lane

stated they have engineered plans and it is asphalt.

Mr. Waggoner

stated this project has already gone through SD and it just expired. Once it is certified they expire after a year. It has went through drainage study and reviews with departments. They will make sure nothing has changed. This has all been addressed already. Scott Lewis, Fire Chief, stated in 2018 they made comments regarding the proposal. At that time, they had one tower ladder, but since then they have increased their footprint with two additional trucks with both being 75 ft heights. With the development, a 4-story building should have no real issue for a 75ft aerial device. Opportunities to have systems built into the facilities like fully sprinklers, requirements for radio systems for amplification, with all those considered the only challenge is the closest facility is further away. They have been talking about that at the BOCC level.

Commissioner O’Brien

asked Mr. Lewis if they have the ability to get air rooms and supply rooms into the plan so they are available at this facility.

Mr. Lewis

stated it isn’t required and doesn’t meet the requirement of a big rise, it is still technically a low rise due to the number of stories of occupied space. Administratively that is something they would look at to make sure the building is equipped properly with services for any potential life safety issues.

Mrs. Medic

reviewed her staff report stating staff is recommending approval of the applications. Pubic Works is requesting a special condition of approval to dedicate 40 ft of ROW fronting Basin Ave. Koz Alighchi, Engineer on the project and Phil Comstock, Vice President of Operations for Delta Liquid Energy. Page 5 of 13

Mr. Comstock

stated they are a family-owned business that has been operating since 1936. They would like to expand from Las Vegas to Pahrump to allow them to provide propane service to the community. The property is already HI and there is a concrete business behind them and down the street is MediWaste that already had propane storage there.

Commissioner Lee

asked if Mr. Comstock has read, understands and agrees to the conditions of approval in the staff report.

Commissioner Lee

stated it states water and sewer will be provided by Great Basin Water, have you started the process with them?

Mr. Comstock

stated right now they have a well and septic tank, they don’t know if the current systems are legal.

Commissioner Lee

asked if customers can come onsite and buy individual propane tanks, this is distribution only.

Mr. Comstock

stated correct, it isn’t a cylinder pick up or dispensary location. They would work with gas stations where they would build a dispenser there.

Commissioner O’Brien

asked how many trucks will be coming in with propane.

Mr. Comstock

stated they would have one transport, one bobtail and one boom truck. Transports won’t be there every day.

Commissioner Bohannon

stated in condition #6 b it states June 11, 2025. Should it be 2026?

Mrs. Medici

stated it should be 2026.

Mrs. Marshall

reviewed her staff report, stating staff is recommending approval of the application. The project is required to go through Site Development and connect to water and sewer if available. Page 6 of 13 Richard Piggott stated they agree with the staff report and understand all the requirements. Public comment opened and closed at 6:58 pm with no comments.

Mrs. Marshall

reviewed her staff report stating staff is recommending approval of the application. The parcel is zoned HI and operates as a gravel pit.

Mr. Waggoner

asked if the gravel pit is permitted.

Mrs. Marshall

stated yes. Russ Meads stated for clarification that they don’t have a CUP but it was a Waiver to a CUP by staff, who was Cheryl Beeman. This was concrete batch plant and a asphalt plant under a grandfather clause that was passed. When the highway was redone in 2004 that product came from this gravel pit, and asphalt and concrete plant.

Commissioner Lee

asked if it was operational as a batch plant.

Mr. Meads

stated yes it was there for 11 years, in 2011 it mothballed and then moved to a different part of town and has gone dark since then.

Commissioner Lee

asked for waste product or run off generated by the plant.

Mr. Meads

stated this property has a commercial well with commercial water rights. Concrete batch plans utilize water to make the concrete inside the trucks. The water goes directly into the truck, during the winter it goes through a heater then into the truck. Waste water product is when the trucks return into the site, they clean out the truck in a contained area that is recycled and broke back up into product that goes back into the concrete.

Commissioner Lee

asked if any water comes from that goes into the groundwater?

Mr. Meads

stated no, the only water that goes onto the ground is water for dust control.

Commissioner Lee

asked if he has read, understands and agrees to the conditions of approval?

Mr. Meads

stated mostly. Condition #8 it shouldn’t state it needs to be a Cat I, that will be determined by staff since it is in an existing gravel pit.

Commissioner Lee

asked why we aren’t trying to do a Reinstatement of a Grandfathered Use?

Mr. Meads

stated the batch plant hasn’t continuously operated for 6 months and after discussion it is cleaner to just get one on the record. Page 7 of 13

Commissioner Lee

asked how Mr. Waggoner would like to proceed with the condition.

Mr. Waggoner

stated to remove the CAT I and have it state submit a site development plan.

Commissioner Lee

asked if Mr. Mead was amenable to the change.

Mr. Meads

stated yes. He has another change to Item #5 d. Must provide opaque screening or wall surrounding perimeter of property. This is an existing gravel pit normally they have berms that act as the screening, is that agreeable. They plan on doing that and a fence to prevent pedestrians in.

Commissioner Lee

asked what constitutes opaque screening.

Mrs. Marshall

stated that can fall under the site development process.

Mr. Waggoner

stated the comment the representative made about 5 D, regarding the opaque screening would need to be a waiver, it is specific to a concrete batch plant.

Commissioner Lee

stated that is something that can be addressed during site development and then come back to them if a waiver is determined to be needed.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating the property is located in a commercial subdivision that was created in 1973 and a waiver was approved in 2009 to allow for the Calvada Unit 7 Commercial Association to waive parking, landscaping and building setback requirements for zero lot lines. Staff is recommending approval of the application. Page 8 of 13

Commissioner Lee

stated since this is a commercial subdivision and this isn’t the first development in the subdivision, drainage should have already been addressed at some point. Bill Cookston, Civilwise Services, stated the owner has agreed to the conditions of approval except if they can get the 2025 to 2026.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating the applicant has requested the applications to move forward and a CUP will be submitted at a later date. Staff is recommending approval of the applications. Public Works is requesting a ROW dedication for 30 ft fronting Happy Lane and 40 ft dedication fronting Leslie and dedicate 60 ft and 30 ft of ROW where applicable on Wilson Rd.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the previous CUP expired.

Mrs. Medici

stated yes, she believes it did. Russ Meads stated this project has had several different owners, applicants and engineers. There have been many issues based on the conditions, whether it was the condition or the party unable to move it forward. The reason they aren’t including the CUP in with this is because of the requirement that will need to be met for the water and sewer and what will be required of them from the State in order to get the CUP to work with the timeframe.

Commissioner Lee

asked if he has read, understands and agree to the conditions of approval. Page 9 of 13

Mr. Meads

stated he has read them, but for #8 change from 2025 to 2026. This states that the applicant will have obtained approval of a CAT I SD application. In order to do that they have to have gone through the process with NDEP to be able to acquire, receive and put into action an approved discharge permit from Bureau of Safe Drinking Water and Bureau of Waste Management. That is probably a 4 – 5 year process. He doesn’t know what date is reasonable to keep from coming back year after year to ask for an extension. Can the condition be changed to a condition that gets put on the CUP. Then they would have that information to provide a date.

Mr. Waggoner

agrees with that. Those conditions would be more appropriate for a CUP when it comes forward.

Commissioner Lee

stated they are recommending striking conditions 7 and #8.

Mr. Meads

asked for clarification from Public Works, for condition #12 Wilson Road doesn’t run through the property, it dead ends on each side of the project. However, both streets that it dead ends into have ROW that need to be dedicated, so he is assuming the request for Wilson Rd is possible to do with the dedication of the other two roads. Tyler Mulvey stated Wilson Road has been sought-after, and it is part of this parcel. The Parcel cuts it off from the rest of Wilson Rd. The 60 ft would be in line with current Wilson and the 30 is where you only own half.

Mr. Meads

asked for clarification that they want them to dedicate ROW so Wilson Road could connect.

Mr. Mulvey

stated correct, it can be decided at another time when it could be built, but eventually it will be built.

Mr. Meads

asks for the condition to be struck. It cuts the project directly in half.

Mr. Mulvey

asked if the project is on the far south.

Mr. Waggoner

stated you’d be cutting the parcel in half, that is a taking.

Mr. Mulvey

stated Wilson Road is an arterial/collector depending on where it is at. It has been PW’s prerogative to get ROW when they can for these roads, including Leslie.

Mr. Meads

stated it would be fantastic to get Leslie’s issued fixed with this project. He understands the desire for Wilson but doesn’t agree with it.

Mr. Mulvey

stated they can keep the Site Development one and include it on the CUP.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he disagrees, you can’t require a ROW that doesn’t exist, unless we are willing to buy it. You can request it, which they have but they don’t have to accept the request. They can’t demand it.

Ms. Nelson

stated concurs with Director Waggoner.

Commissioner Lee

asked what they want to do with those conditions? Move to the CUP or keep them.

Mr. Waggoner

stated even on a CUP can not be conditioned that we demand someone give us a ROW. Just removing the condition for Wilson Road would be appropriate. Page 10 of 13

Mr. Meads

stated conditions #10 and #11 for the existing roadways he agrees with. They request to strike item #12 for the time being.

Commissioner Carbone

asked for clarification that they will be hearing this at the BOCC level and will have the same discussions.

Mr. Waggoner

stated this will move forward with all these conditions and we can recommend removal of those particular conditions discussed.

Commissioner Lee

asked if Mr. Meads is okay with those changes.

Mr. Meads

stated other than those, they are good with the other conditions.

Commissioner Lee

stated it is the same 9.94 acres. They are asking for a 9.94 acre parcel to have a Zone Change and a Master Plan change for only the 9.94 acres of the property.

Ms. Wessler

asked what happens to the remaining acreage and asked what it currently is.

Commissioner Lee

stated it stays exactly as they are currently zoned and reviewed the map in the back up showing zoning.

Ms. Wessler

asked if this will have a lake or pool. When they built other RV parks it drained the other homeowners wells around them and what impact will this have on them. How long can they stay in this RV park? They have enough RV parks they don’t need another one. This is a rural area and have homeowners all around it, what will it do to their property values. Carl Jocob stated he is against this because of traffic, water usage and to listen through the history of the property there was no mention about the last time they applied for the RV park, they lost a majority of the water rights. What he gathers all that is available for water rights is for a SFR. Wilson road is being used as a dirt road right now it would be a big mistake to cap it on both ends. If it does get approved there should be no access off Happy or Wilson Rd. Tony Kirchen stated there has been an easement created with Wilson Rd, he has used it for 8 years. Many people have used it for a throughfare created for lack of use, no one has told them they couldn’t do it. This will create a water issue with properties on Leslie. There will be a lot of legal opposition if they do the easement. John Cozad stated he opposes this for all the reasons others have spoken of. It will devalue the properties, it is a rural area, if they want to do a park they can do it by 372 and Leslie. Frank Martinez stated he opposes this, it is a residential area and he doesn’t want it changed to whatever they want it changed to. The traffic will not be for the residents. Beth Borysewich stated she is opposed to this, if you drive down Leslie it is a nice drive and no reason to put an RV park in the middle of an area where they just finalized the plan for residential and commercial areas within the town. This will be a long way from 160 and there is no shopping there so they will be going in and out of town to get food and coming back. It will harm the entire area. Will this be an open- air sewage plant? They want a water plan? Where will they get the water from, why can’t they use what they have in town and run the water there and pay the impact fees. Who will inspect that? They need to Page 11 of 13 look at the impact to wildlife out there with the sewage, where will it drain and what will it do to the wells. It shouldn’t even go to the BOCC, you shouldn’t approve this.

Mr. Waggoner

stated the water rights are part of the verification process they go through with the SD process as well and the CUP conditions. The other with the easement, there is no legal easement across the property, whoever is using that is technically trespassing. If it was him, he’d put trespassing signs up. One condition they’d put on the CUP would be a 28-day stay maximum for the purpose of Room Tax Collection. The sewage treatment plant inspections would be done by the State and NDEP and requires an licensed operator as with the water there, it is regulated with the State.

Mr. Meads

stated this is for a land use only, they would like to bring in the future something for a specific use which would be when they would address the particular issues. If they can’t it wouldn’t be given to them to build. According to this approval today, it would revert back to the existing use. Sewer is regulated by NDEP Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Wastewater Division. The application goes to them, and they issued a discharge permit by their office in Carson City. Inspections are done daily by a licensed Wastewater Operator.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification on what a Discharge Permit is.

Mr. Meads

stated a lot of studies have to be done, and a three-mile radius has to be studies of every well, sewer treatment facility, waterway or drainage and submitted to NDEP. Wells within a 1-mile radius have to be monitored for 12 months previous to file the application with NDEP. All discharge from the sewer treatment facility have to be placed in a rapid infiltration basin, which is basically an open hole. The state requires it be treated to a 97% drinkable standard before it goes back into the ground to finish the filtration process and this is reported daily to the state. It is noticed to everyone in the 300-mile radius. Everyone in that radius will have the ability to weigh in with the State as the discharge permit is issued.

Commissioner Bohannon

stated how do we make the public feel they aren’t in a major commercial development area that is a concern he is hearing. From GC perspective if they do change the zone, anything can go on that property as well. That is a concern, what type of assurances are they providing the citizens.

Mr. Meads

stated for clarification, a large part of the property is zoned GC. The far majority of the permissive uses in GC don’t require a CUP. He could build a shopping center there tomorrow and there wouldn’t be any discussion here. A RV park is a use that needs a CUP to address these exact issues with the neighbors and in neighborhoods.

Commissioner Bohannon

asked how the traffic impacting the area.

Mr. Meads

stated this is for a Zone Change for a piece of property that doesn’t have anything to do with Wilson Rd. When a CUP or use is brought before a board or agency or department and the impact of that specific development. They look under development, specifically that development. We look at it and say traffic patterns are going to be impacting that neighborhood in a negative way to a degree that the best result would be to add Wilson Rd. and figure out a way to help the local traffic and additional new traffic based on that specific use. At this point they don’t have that information. The next step will be addressing these issues with the state to see if it is a viable use.