september 9, 2009

Transcription

september 9, 2009

NYE COUNTY, NV
PAHRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
-
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 9
CASE DESCRIPTION(S):
TM-09-0002: Tentative Residential Subdivision Map application to divide approximately 80acres into forty-six (46) residential parcels and twelve (12) open space lots on property Master
Planned as Low Density Residential and zoned as Rural Estates-2 (RE-2)
WV-09-0006: Waiver Application to waive NCC 17.04.220 minimum lot size requirement of
two (2) acres and allow one (1) acre lot sizes
Located at 4751 W. Adkisson Street, situated northwest of the intersection of Corbin and Irene
Streets
LOCATION:
APN NUMBER(S):
AP# 027-501-01
LEGAL DESCRIPTION(S):
South 1/2, Township 20S, Range 52E
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
L.D.O.I, LLC
APPLICANT(S):
L.D.O.I, LLC
AGENT(S):
Civilwise Services LLC, by Dave Richards
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The two-fold application is for approval of a residential subdivision consisting of forty-six (46) residential lots and ten (10)
common lots in conjunction with a waiver from lot sizes as dictated by the RE-2 zone. The RPC first continued this item at the
July 15, 2009 public hearing due to concerns over the potential disposition of Conditional Use Permit No. CU-09-0002, which
was approved prior to these cases. Conditional Use Permit CU-09-0002 allows the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up
to twelve (12) animals with special conditions on a portion (northeast corner) of the entire 80-acre parcel. The applicant
requested a subsequent continuance at the August 12, 2009 public hearing in order to
allow the Owner to resolve the issue of
the CUP once and for all.”
“. .
Conclusions Staff has not changed its original position and continues to recommend denial of both the Tentative Map and
Waiver applications. The proposed Tentative Map violates required lot sizes of the RE-2 zoning (2-acres minimum per lot). No
findings in support of the waiver request could be made; the applicant openly testified in a public forum that the application does
not qualify for waiver relief. The position of the Nye County Planning Department, in concurrence with the Nye County District
Attorney, is that the intent and scope of the overall development was never fully vetted during the public hearing process for the
CUP. The approved CUP will not continue to run with the land if the tentative subdivision map is approved; there must be a
choice made between the CUP for 12 special conditions animals on the 80-acre parcel or the subdivision map. The tentative
subdivision map cannot be approved unless the CUP is cancelled by the property owner.
—
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to DENY TM-09-0002 based upon the Findings as shown on page two (2) (or move io approve TM-09-0002 based upon
alternate findings as established by the Pahruinp Regional Planning Commission, and subject to the conditions stipulated on
pages five [5] through eight [8].)
Move to DENY WV-09-0006 based upon the Findings as shown on page two (2) (or move to approve WV-09-0006 based upon
alternate findings as established by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission, and subject to the conditions stipulated on
pages five [5] through eight [8].)
Pahrump Regional Planning Commission
September 9, 2009
Staff Report; TM-09-0002, WV-09-0006
Page 2 of 6
Findings for TM-09-0002 as required under Section 278.349, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS):
1.
Plan consistency: The proposed map is partially consistent with the Goals and Policies outlined in the Master Plan
Update. While the tentative map conforms with the site’s underlying Master Plan land use designation of Low Density
Residential, it conflicts with Land Use Policy 3.E.l.l (Consideration of area land uses), Land Use Policy 3.E.l.3
(Establishment of hardship in support of a waiver), Land Use Policy 3.E.2.l (Provision of adequate access), Land Use
Policy 3.E.3.1 (Development Standards), Housing Policy 4.C.2.2 (Peripheral residential development), and Community
Design Policy 7.C.3.1 (Rural design). The tentative map does, however, promote Land Use Goal 3.E.4 and Land Use
Policy 3.E.4.l (Open space within new developments), Land Use Goal 3.E.6 (Preservation and integration of natural
assets), and Community Design Goal 7.C.I and Community Design Policy 7.C.l.l (Good community design
components).
2.
Design and Improvements: The design and improvements of the proposed division of land are inconsistent with the
Subdivision Regulations and could create significant public health or safety problems. The proposed design violates
§16.28.260 (H)(1) (Requirement for lot sizes to conform to underlying zoning) and §16.28.280 (Street design and
construction), Nye County Code governing land divisions within the Pahrump Regional Planning District (PRPD).
The tentative map proposes substandard one-acre residential lots within a zone that requires a two-acre minimum lot
area. The applicant cannot assure that the minimum width required for primary legal access to the site can be acquired.
The internal street design is highly circuitous, one-way, narrow, and inconvenient for residents, and such design could
hinder emergency response.
3.
Type of Development: A portion of the site exhibits extreme hillside terrain, but the majority of the site is,
nevertheless, physically suited for the development.
4.
Availability of Services: Private water and sanitation is proposed for the subdivision in accordance with County and
State regulations.
5.
Access: The tentative map does not completely contain full-width, legal and physical access.
6.
Dedications: Right-of-way dedications to the County are inconsistent with the Division of Land Ordinance. The
applicant has not demonstrated that primary access via a full-width eastward extension of Corbin Street has been
obtained. Additionally, the applicant has not made assurances that full-width access is available where the subject area
abuts private property to the east.
7.
Material Injury: The public could be materially injured by this action by increased residential density. The proposed
map layout is not harmonious with surrounding development patterns. The area does not have adequate property
access. The area is outside of a special flood hazard area. Approval of the Tentative Map application would
compromise or complicate the administration and oversight of a recently approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
application, CU-09-0002, that allows the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals with
special conditions on the undivided 80-acre subject area.
8.
Special Circumstances: The site does not have special circumstances that are specific and peculiar to the subject
property.
9.
The Planning Commission gave reasoned consideration to the information contained within the staff report and
information received during the meeting.
Findings for WV-09-0006 as required under NCC I 7.04.915.H of the Nye County Code:
1.
There are no special circumstances or conditions applying to the property under consideration which makes
compliance with the provisions of this Chapter diffIcult and a cause of hardship to, and abridgement of a properly
right of the owner of said property. The applicant does not provide sufficient justification for the waiver request, and
no findings to support the waiver application can be established.
Palsruinp Regional Planning Commission
September 9, 2009
Page 3 of 6
2.
The circumstances or conditions apply generally to other properties in the same land use district.
peculiarities or unusual circumstances specifically identified with the subject property.
3.
The granting of the waiver or exception will not substantiate justice to the applicant or owner(s) of the property.
Approval of this waiver could potentially circumvent the Zoning Ordinance and set unusual precedent.
4.
The granting of the 14’aiver(s) could result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, and the
granting of the waiver could be detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare.
There no site
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
Synopsis: The subject area was rezoned from Open Use (OU) to Rural Estates Residential (RE-2) on December 28, 2005.
The first tentative map, TM-06-0010, along with an accompanying Waiver application, WV-06-0014, was approved on
appeal by the Nye County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) on April 18, 2007; no final maps were filed subsequent to
this action, and the tentative map expired in 2009, in accordance with NRS 278.360. A Condition Use Permit application
to allow the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals with special conditions, CU-09-0002,
was approved for the entire 80-acre site on March 11, 2009. This case was originally heard at the July 15, 2009 public
hearing but was continued by the RPC pending a legal opinion on the status of the previously mentioned CUP for the
special conditions animals. Public road access from the southeast corner of the project site to Irene Street has been
established under recorded Document 730836. The applicant requested a subsequent continuance at the August 12, 2009
public hearing in order to “...allow the Owner to resolve the issue of the CUP once and for all.” The minutes from the July 15,
2009 public hearing were approved on August 12, thereby making them an official record. No other history follows.
CONCLUSIONS
To date, the applicant has not contacted Staff regarding this case, and it is unclear as to the premise for the applicant’s
request for continuance, particularly with regard to outstanding issues concerning the CUP that are still unresolved, if any.
The Nye County Planning Department continues to stand behind its original recommendation to deny both applications.
The proposed Tentative Map violates required lot sizes of the RE-2 zoning (2-acres minimum per lot). No findings in
support of the waiver request could be made; the applicant openly testified in a public forum that the application does not
qualify for waiver relief. The intent and scope of the overall development was never fully vetted during the public hearing
process for the CUP. The approved CUP will not continue to run with the land if the tentative subdivision map is
approved; there must be a choice made between the CUP for 12 special conditions animals on the 80-acre parcel or the
subdivision map. The tentative subdivision map cannot be approved unless the CUP is cancelled by the property owner.
The Nye County District Attorney’s Office concurs with the Department’s position. If the RPC determines there to be
sufficient merit for approval, however, the following modified Conditions of Approval are recommended:
Tentative Map Standard Conditions of Approval
1.
The Final Map shall comply with all applicable state and local statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations in
effect at the time of recordation as well as compliance with plans, documents, reports, etc. submitted by the
Developer(s).
2.
The Developer(s) shall, at their own cost, perform and complete all work and improvements required by state and
county statutes, codes, regulations, etc.
3.
No construction of public improvements shall occur until construction plans are submitted and approved in
accordance with the Document Submittal Requirements along with the calculations of the construction valuation, and
plans check and inspection fees shall be borne by the Developer(s).
4.
Prior to submittal of the Final Map, a preliminary title report not more than ninety (90) days old must be provided.
Should the title report reference additional holders(s) of security interest, written consent of each holder or a record of
a security interest must be provided by signing the map or by signing a separate document that shall be recorded along
with the final subdivision map. If a separate document is recorded with the map, the map must contain notation to
that fact.
September 9, 2009
Page 4 of 6
5.
At the time of Final Map submittal, all taxes for the current fiscal year shall be paid in full. (The Treasurer’s signature
will be obtained by the Planning Department).
6.
Final monuments must be set by a professional land surveyor licensed in the State of Nevada before recordation of the
Final Map. In lieu of setting monuments the Surveyor may furnish a performance bond or other suitable assurance to
the governing body that will guarantee that the Surveyor will set the monuments on or before a date certain. Please
note that the Surveyor’s Statement indicates that the monuments depicted will occupy the position.
7.
The form of the Final Map shall conform to the requirements outlined within N.R.S. 278.372.
8.
Public utility rights-of-ways and easements must be approved by the utilities in whose favor the rights-of-way are
being granted by signature of each utility’s authorized representative appearing on the map.
9.
All jurat sheet signatures must be present prior to submission of the Mylar (i.e., owner(s), Division of Health,
Division of Water Resources, surveyor, county surveyor).
10. All utilities servicing the development shall be provided underground except for main lines entering the parcels along
the perimeter. Utility easements shall be provided ten (10) feet each side of the centerline of all existing pole lines;
and a fifteen (15) foot public utility easement shall be provided along the perimeter of all properties within the
boundary of the map.
11. The map will not be scheduled for final action until the engineered improvement plans for grading, streets, and
utilities, the drainage study, the traffic study and/or traffic impact assessments have been reviewed and approved by
the Nye County Public Works Department. These studies will be used to determine on-site improvements and assess
developer for all off tract mitigation per NCC.
12. Off-Tract Assessments fees, bonding, and improvement agreements must be in place prior to Final Map submittal.
13. All road obstructions and encumbrances shall be removed from the Right-of-Way.
14. Should the developer submit the Final Map in phases, legal and physical access shall be provided to any remnant
parcel(s).
15. In such cases where double frontage lots are unavoidable, restrictions shall be implemented to restrict residential
access/addressing from the interior street(s) only.
16. The applicant shall pay for the cost and installation of street name signs in accordance with Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) standards and Nye County Public Works Department
standards. This cost includes the placement and/or replacement of street name signs at all street intersections affected
by this approval.
a.
Design and placement of traffic signs shall be in accordance with the Nye County Standard Details ‘and
Specifications for Public Improvements within the Pahrump Regional Planning District.
b.
Design and location of street signs shall be shown on the engineer’s plans for street improvements and shall be
installed prior to final inspection of the roadway.
c.
At least one (1) street sign shall be placed at each four-way street intersection, and one at each “T” intersection.
Signs shall be installed free of visual obstruction, and shall be installed under light standards where light
standards exist. The design of street name signs shall be in accordance with the standards found in the document
entitled Standard Details and SpecUications for Public Improvements within the Pahrump Regional Planning
District.
17. Driveway aprons shall extend from the edge of pavement within the street ROW to the private property and shall
conform to the Standard Details and Specifications for Public Improvements Within the Pahrump Regional Planning
District and includes:
a.
The developer shall obtain encroachment permits from Nyc County Road Department for any work within the
ROW.
b.
Developer shall maintain the drainage swales and shall not obstruct flows adjacent to the subject property.
September 9, 2009
Staff Report; TM-.09-0002, WV-09-0006
Pagesof6
c.
The type of ownership of land dedicated for open space purposes shall be defined within the Development
Agreement and shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of Final Map
review.
d.
Conformance to Nye County Standards regarding street ROWs and street improvements.
e.
Developer(s) shall participate and perform and complete all work (at their own expense related to on-site and offtract improvements) required by federal, state and county statutes, codes, and regulations that are in effect at the
time of development.
1 8. Developer shall dedicate to County up to the full width of half the right of way of any streets and highway on their
side of the property if such right of way is required by the Master Plan and/or County Capital Improvement Plan;
9. All future development shall follow Public Works Guidelines for Design and Review of Development Engineering
Submissions” in the Pahrump Regional Planning District;
20. The need for traffic improvements required as a result of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be subject to Public
Works Department review and approval of proponent’s TIA;
21. Geotechnical Reports and Technical Drainage Studies when required and must receive Public Department approval
prior to submitting any improvement plans for review.
Tentative Map Special Conditions of Approval
22. The Developer shall submit no less than three (3) revised copies of the tentative map that satisfactorily address all
noted deficiencies and any additional requirements imposed by the Regional Planning Commission within ten (10)
working days of final approval for the file.
23. The Tentative Map shall expire four (4) years from the date of approval. No time extension of the Tentative Map shall
be permitted.
24. The Developer shall provide dedicated drainage easements as determined by the drainage study.
25. All proposed internal private roadways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with §16.28.280(B)(1), Nye
County Code.
26. Corbin Street must be designed and paved to County Standard from Betty Avenue to the project site. The Developer
shall show thirty (30) feet of road and drainage easement on the east and south boundary of proposed subdivision.
The Developer shall design and pave east and south boundary right of way to County standard. Right of way easement
from Irene Street to proposed subdivision must be obtained prior to final approval.
27. The Developer shall show all existing improvements on the Tentative Map, per Nye County Code §16.28.140(B)(1).
28. The Final Map will not be scheduled for final action until a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) has been
approved by the Nye County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) and recorded with the Nyc County Recorder’s Office.
29. Approval of the Tentative Map, TM-09-0002, shall render the Conditional Use Permit, CU-09-0002, null and void.
Waiver Standard Conditions of Approval
1.
Unless otherwise specified, all conditions must be met or financial assurances must be provided to satisfy the
conditions prior to submittal for any required building permits. The Nye County Planning Department, Animal
Control Department, Sheriff’s Department and/or Public Works Department is responsible for determining
compliance with a specific condition and shall determine whether the condition must be fully completed or whether
the applicant shall be offered the option of providing financial assurances. All agreements, easements, or other
documentation required by these conditions shall have a copy filed with said Departments.
2.
Compliance with the conditions of this approval is the responsibility of the applicant, its successor(s) in interest, and
all owners, assignees, and occupants of the property and their successors in interest. Failure to comply with any
conditions imposed may result in the implementation of revocation procedures.
September 9, 2009
Page 6 of 6
3.
Development of the property must conform to the plans approved as part of this application. The Nye County
Planning Department shall determine compliance with this condition.
4.
Nye County reserves the right to review and revise the conditions of this approval should it determine that a
subsequent license or permit issued by Nye County violates the intent of this approval.
5.
For the purposes of conditions imposed by Nye County, “may” is permissive and “shall” or “must” is mandatory.
6.
Approval of this application does not constitute approval of a liquor, gaming, sexually oriented business, brothel or
fireworks license or any other County issued permit, license, or approval.
7.
Developer(s) shall, at their own cost, perform and complete all work and improvements required by state and county
statutes, codes, regulations, etc.
8.
No construction of public improvements shall occur until any required plans are submitted and approved in
accordance with the Guidelines for Design & Review of Development Engineering Submissions along with the
calculations of the construction valuation, and plans check and inspection fees shall be borne by the Developer(s).
9.
If required, drainage study, construction plans and/or traffic studies must be submitted and approved and all
improvements must comply with the approved plans.
Waiver Special Conditions of Approval
10. The Waiver(s) shall expire in four (4) years from the date of approval unless construction of the subdivision has
commenced. No time extension for the waiver shall be permitted.
David Stallworth
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Renee Vassallo [rvassailo@civilwise.com]
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:22 PM
John G. Lohman: David Stallworth
drichards@civilwise.com; Keith Holding
High Peaks Subdivision TMIWV_8.12.09 PRPC Agenda
Jack:
Civilwise is herewith requesting that Agenda Item 8.a. TM-09-0002 and 8.b. WV-09-0006 (High Peaks Subdivision) be
tabled to the September 8, 2009,
PRPC Agenda to allow the Owner to resolve the issue of the CUP once and for all.
Renee Vassallo
Projects Coordinator
Civitwise Services LLC
1240 E. State Street, Suite 101
Pahrump, NV 89048
Phone: 775-751-1413
Fax: 775-751-3584
rvassallocivilwise.com
1
NYE COUNTY, NV
REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12, 2009
-
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 8
Streets
LOCATION:
APN NUMBER(S):
AP# 027-501-01
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
L.D.O.I, LLC
APPLICANT(S):
L.D.O.I, LLC
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
common lots in conjunction with a waiver from lot sizes as dictated by the RE-2 zone. This item was continued by the RPC
at their July 15, 2009 public hearing due to concerns over the potential disposition of Conditional Use Permit No. CU-090002, which was approved prior to the submittal of these applications. Conditional Use Permit CU-09-0002 allows the onsite housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals with special conditions on a portion (northeast corner) of
the entire 80-acre parcel.
Staff has not changed its original position and continues to recommend denial of both the Tentative Map and
applications.
The proposed Tentative Map violates required lot sizes of the RE-2 zoning (2-acres minimum per lot).
Waiver
Additionally, no findings in support of the waiver request could be made; the applicant openly testified in a public forum
that the application does not qualify for waiver relief. It is Staff’s opinion that the intent and scope of the overall
development was never fully vetted during the public hearing process for the CUP. It is Staffs opinion that the approved
CUP will not continue to run with the land if the tentative subdivision map is approved; there must be a choice made
between the CUP for 12 special conditions animals on the 80-acre parcel or the subdivision map. The tentative subdivision
map cannot be approved unless the CUP is cancelled by the property owner.
Conclusions
—
Move to DENY TM-09-0002 based upon the Findings as shown on page two (2) (or move to approve TM-09-0002 based
upon alternate findings as established by the Pahrunip Regional Planning Commission, and subject to the conditions
stzpulated on pages five [5] through eight [8].)
Move to DENY WV-09-0006 based upon the Findings as shown on page two (2) (or move to approve WV-09-0006 based
upon alternate findings as established by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission, and subject to the conditions
stipulated on pages five [5] through eight [8].)
Pahruinp Regional Planning Commission
August 12, 2009
Page 2 of 8
1.
Residential, it conflicts with Land Use Policy 3.E.1.1 (Consideration of area land uses), Land Use Policy 3.E.1.3
Policy 3.E.3.1 (Development Standards), Housing Policy 4.C.2.2 (Peripheral residential development), and Community
Policy 3 .E.4. I (Open space within new developments), Land Use Goal 3 .E.6 (Preservation and integration of natural
assets), and Community Design Goal 7.C.1 and Community Design Policy 7.C.1.1 (Good community design
components).
2.
§ 16.28.260 (H)(1) (Requirement for lot sizes to conform to underlying zoning) and § 16.28.280 (Street design and
construction), Nye County Code governing land divisions within the Pahrump Regional Planning District (PRPD).
The internal street design is highly circuitous, one-way, narrow, and inconvenient for residents, and such design could
hinder emergency response.
3.
4.
State regulations.
5.
Access: The tentative map does not completely contain full-width, legal and physical access.
6.
7.
access. The area is outside of a special flood hazard area. Approval of the Tentative Map application would
compromise or complicate the administration and oversight of a recently approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
application, CU-09-0002, that allows the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals with
special conditions on the undivided 80-acre subject area.
8.
property.
9.
Findings for WV-09-0006 as required under NCC 17.04.91 5.H of the Nye County Code:
1.
compliance with the provisions of this Chapter dfJIcult and a cause of hardship to, and abridgement of a property
August 12, 2009
Page 3 of 8
2.
3.
4.
The granting of the waiver(s) could result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, and the
There no site
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
Synopsis: The subject area was rezoned from Open Use (OU) to Rural Estates Residential (RE-2) on December 28, 2005.
The first tentative map, TM-06-0010, along with an accompanying Waiver application, WV-06-0014, was approved on
appeal by the Nye County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) on April 18, 2007; no final maps were filed subsequent to
this action, and the tentative map expired in 2009, in accordance with NRS 278.360. A Condition Use Permit application
to allow the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals with special conditions, CU-09-0002,
was approved for the entire 80-acre site on March 11, 2009. This case was originally heard at the July 15, 2009 public
hearing but was continued by the RPC pending a legal opinion on the status of the previously mentioned CUP for the
special conditions animals. Public road access from the southeast corner of the project site to Irene Street has been
established under recorded Document 730836. No other history follows.
Analysis Tentative Map: County Planning Staff maintains that the proposed Tentative Map cannot proceed under the
current zoning requirements imposed by the site’s RE-2 zone, which requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres. As
referenced in the original staff report, the design is in violation of §16.28.260 (H)(1), NCC, which requires proposed lots
to conform to minimum development standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. There are currently no provisions
within either § 16.28 or § 17.04, NCC, that provide for density bonuses, given that the proposal exceeds the site’s potential
yield of forty (40) residential lots under current circumstances. The Zoning Ordinance does, however, provide for the
creation of residential Planned Unit Developments, or PUD’s, to allow for the development of “planned units which do
not conform in all respects with the use patterns set forth in the Zoning Reference Map or with the zoning regulations
prescribed therefore (RE: §17.04, Chapters 600 through 670 and Chapter 690, NCC).” The creation of such
developments, however, must be situated within Suburban Estates (SE), Village Residential (VR) and Multi-family (MF)
zones. A Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be necessary to facilitate a PUD type of development.
—
A change to RE-I zoning would eliminate the need for a waiver to lot size and easily facilitate the proposed yield. In the
unofficial minutes of the July 15, 2009 RPC hearing, however, the applicant contends that the density level offered under
RE-I zoning is undesirable. The applicant emphasizes a desire to develop an exclusive, high-end residential community
that offers generous open space, but fails to explain why this same development cannot be achieved under the RE-i zone
by imposing platting restrictions for open spaces on the final map. Although a southerly extension of Corbin Street has
been established through abutting State lands by virtue of recorded Document 730836, the minimum width required for
primary legal access to the site has not been completely obtained, particularly where the subject area abuts private
property to the east.
Analysis Waiver: No findings in support of the waiver request could be made due to the applicant’s failure to: (a)
identify an undue hardship as a result of strict adherence to both § 16.28 and § 17.04, NCC; (b) identify an undue hardship
by virtue of site constraints or unusual circumstances specific to the site that would preclude normal development, or; (c)
offer compelling evidence that the subject area cannot be developed in accordance with prescribed regulations. In the
unofficial minutes of the July 15, 2009 RPC hearing, the applicant openly testifies that the application does not qualify for
waiver relief:
—
“It is a shame we don’t really don’t have a method for doing special unique designs for subdivisions like
this and we have to sit here and ask for waivers to be able to do something unique and you know glorified
or special and it really doesn’t fit under the wavier requirement because you don’t have the hardship. It’s
really not a hardship and I agree with that but there is no other process of asking of these waivers. There
is no variance proposal, no variance abilities here anything else that will allow us to do this.”
August 12, 2009
StaffReport; TM-09-0002, WV-09-0006
Page 4 of 8
Analysis Conditional Use: Approval of the Tentative Map and Waiver applications will conflict with an approved
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals with special
conditions (CU-09-0002) that was specific to the entire 80-acre site. The original staff report contends that a re
examination by the RPC of the previously approved CUP may be necessary to determine if any revisions to, or possible
revocation of the CUP is necessary to ensure the safety of the general public and minimize or prevent potential adverse
impacts upon neighboring property owners as a result of the approval of these applications. In the approved minutes of
the March 11, 2009 RPC hearing, the applicant proclaims that:
—
“We did submit a Tentative Map... which has been approved by both Boards for subdivision into fortytwo single-family homes in here and to this point the client here is not sure whether he wants to go ahead
with that subdivision or not. That’s just immaterial...”
In response to a notified property owner’s concerns regarding the proximity of contained animals to her property, the
applicant states the following:
.1 would like to point out the fact that those holding pens are right here, which is well within his
property. they are not abutting (her) property in any place where the animals would be. They are
approximately pretty close to a half mile away from where these pens are going to be... We don’t intend
these animals to get close to.. .the public.. .these are specifically for this owner and his family if he
chooses to have a family there.”
“. .
. .
In relation to proposed site development plan requirements on the property, the applicant states that:
“...we are only developing the (northeast) corner of the property... but it is a very small approximately
three-acre piece, half of it is already built with (a) single-family residence, that this is going to be
confined to. I don’t want to do a site development plan over the whole 85 acres.”
Jack Lohman, Nye County Planning Department Director, seeks clarification at this point regarding the extent of site
development plan requirements for this Permit:
.what you are talking about just.. .for the area impacted and not just for the whole site.. .for the area
where the activity is going to be, because if you have a huge expanse of land, it does not make sense to
landscape eighty acres around the perimeter and everything else.”
“. .
Subsequent discussion between the RPC and the applicant confirmed that the Permit to house and maintain twelve
animals would only involve one single-family residence under one property owner.
The referenced testimony suggests that the then-approved Tentative Map, TM-06-00 10, may have been entirely dismissed
in favor of development under the proposed CUP; the fact that the former Tentative Map was set to expire in April of
2009 only serves to reinforce this opinion. It can be further presumed that the applicant conveyed the appearance that the
development footprint would be limited to a small portion of the overall site and that the remaining balance of the site
would serve as a substantial buffer; no apparent nexus between the Conditional Use and a Tentative Map for a multiple lot
residential subdivision surfaced during the March, 2009 public hearing.
The applicant introduces a different perspective on the relationship between the approved Conditional Use and a new
Tentative Map for the same 80-acre parcel during the July 15, 2009 public hearing of the RPC, however, particularly
when contesting the proposed inclusion of Tentative Map Condition number 29. In the unofficial minutes of that hearing,
the applicant admits that:
“(owners of exotic animals are) one of the type of owners that is anticipated.. .throughout this project of
people that want to do special things that will be in a secure gated community where these special things
will be allowed and maintained and controlled.”
August 12, 2009
Page 5of8
The applicant continues on to state that:
“The Tentative Map (TM-06-00 10) was existent when the CUP was brought before this Board and
approved, so we had an overlay issue.. .at that time and it was never brought up or discussed that this was
a problem with the Tentative Map that was already approved on the site... You can get a CUP for special
condition animals in a RE-2 zone, this is why they cannot go to a RE-i zone because we cannot, we
cannot go forward with the concept of the project. Which may very well cater to people that want to do
those special things... What is wrong with a subdivision of this type that is based on the people, the exotic
people that like to have exotic animals and special condition animals in their dwelling? I’m not saying
that every single household is going to have it there but we would like to be able to say this area has the
ability to do this sort of thing. We have a project coming up soon that we anticipate as being the clients
of, the buyers of these lots and that is exactly what they would do within this subdivision, privately,
privately on their own. They don’t want a dog or a cat, they would like a leopard in a cage or household
animal that is not your typical type of animal and I don’t think it would be fair to limit this, in this
situation to say that nobody is allowed in there because there is one of the lots has a CUP on it for a
special condition animals. I don’t think that is fair at all to put that limitation on this type of development
(because) it kills the concept.”
It must be again noted that the proposed “concept” was never publicly revealed prior to the July, 2009 public hearing.
The applicant’s testimony appears to suggest that the CUP functions as the equivalent of a zoning overlay and that all
rights and privileges granted to the 80-acre parent parcel under the approved CUP should be extended to all successive
divisions of the parent parcel. This position is baseless, however, since the governing CUP was specific to one assigned
use by one property owner on a defined, single parcel with respect to noted circumstances; any subsequent divisions of the
subject parcel could be seen as an abrogation of the governing CUP, thereby warranting its nullification. Based upon this
chain of events, one must conclude that the intent and scope of the proposed development was never fully vetted during
the public hearing process, therefore a re-examination of the approved Conditional Use Permit, CU-09-0002, would be
warranted in accordance with the uncontested Condition number four (4), which states that:
“Nye County reserves the right to review and revise the conditions of this approval should it determine
that a subsequent license or permit issued by Nye County violates the intent of this approval.”
CONCLUSIONS
Staff has not changed its original position and continues to recommend denial of both applications. If the RPC determines
there to be sufficient merit for approval, however, the following modified Conditions of Approval are recommended:
1.
Developer(s).
2.
3.
4.
that fact.
August 12, 2009
Page 6 of 8
5.
6.
7.
The form of the Final Map shall conform to the requirements outlined within N.R.S. 278.372.
8.
9.
parcel(s).
by this approval.
a.
Design and placement of traffic signs shall be in accordance with the Nye County Standard Details and
b.
c.
entitled Standard Details and SpecfIcations for Public Improvements within the Pahrump Regional Planning
District.
a.
The developer shall obtain encroachment permits from Nye County Road Department for any work within the
ROW.
b.
Pahrurnp Regional Planning Commission
August12, 2009
Page 7of8
c.
review.
d.
e.
18. Developer shall dedicate to County up to the full width of half the right of way of any streets and highway on their
19. All future development shall follow Public Works “Guidelines for Design and Review of Development Engineering
be permitted.
25. All proposed internal private roadways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with §16.28.280(B)(l), Nye
County Code.
27. The Developer shall show all existing improvements on the Tentative Map, per Nye County Code §16.28.140(B)(l).
approved by the Nye County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) and recorded with the Nye County Recorder’s Office.
29. Approval of the Tentative Map, TM-09-0002, shall render the Conditional Use Permit, CU-09-0002, null and void.
1.
Control Department, Sheriffs Department and/or Public Works Department is responsible for determining
2.
August 12, 2009
Page 8 of 8
3.
Development of the property must conform to the plans approved as part of this application.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The Nye County
8. No construction of public improvements shall occur until any required plans are submitted and approved in
9.
DOC # 730836
Ccnty Nevada
Ø7/22/20eg 1e:56:
Requqst,ecj By: CIV
Recorded By: ds
Recording Fee:
Non Conformity
Pagejof
•
•
•
II
GRANT- 5, #3322,100
NYE COUNTY
APN’S: 27-501-14
Recording Requested by *nd Return to:
NEVADA DIVISION OF STATE LANDS
901 S. STEWART ST., SUITE 5003
CARSON CITY, NV 89509
OF WAY AG1{F4T
THIS RIGHT OF’ WAY, made this /5day of% 2009, at Carson City,
Nevada by the STATE OF NEVADA, acting by and through the STATE LAND REGISTRAR,
hereinafter referred to as GRANTOR. and TI-lB COUNTY OF NYE, a Nevada Political Body,
hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE.
Vfl’NESSEIF1:
TI IAT THE (iRAN OR. for and in consideration of the rents hereinafter described and
other good and valuable consideration. the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
GRAN’I OR does hereby grant to GRANTEE a right of way for a paved and graded road,
along with an easement for public utilities adjacent to said road, with the right to construct,
place, inainta. repaiz together with the right of ingress anti egress over and across that
certain real property located, Lying and being in Pabrump, Nyc County. State of Nevada, more
particularly clepiqed t.the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as shown on
the map attached’hketo as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein; which property is
subject to and together with all easements and reservations of record.
N
Nyc Cotnty Right of y-Corbin Street, Pahrump
APN 27-501-14
Page lofS
.
.
.
730836 Page2of8
GRANTEE, its assigns; and successors understand and agree to the following specific
conditions:
1. GRANTEE understands that this right of way is subject to the acqui tio
necessary local, regional, state and federal permits and approvals.
2
GRANTEE understands and agree’. that the right of way is non-ccclusi t, and b
definition said right of way shall not be to the exclusion of others, including the
GRANTOR, and that GRANTOR retains underlying fee ownership of the land.
3. GRANTEE agrees to pay for and be responsible for all damages to the real property,
improvements, and personal property of the GRAN’4OR caused by GRANTEE, or its
contractor(s), while constructing, r
the unpaved, graded road and utilities.
4. GRANTEE agrees to pay GRAN
FOUR HUNDRED AN1OTO/l00
nstructing, opeFailiig. repairing; or maintaining
‘N
açneimné’ fee of FORTY-ONE THOUSAND,
($41,400.00) for the right of way.
Payment is due and PaYabJ>>uPn4nIccePtance of this agreement.
•
5. GRANTEE, its agent(s
0
NRS chaP(tê/41
•
4
contrar(s) understands and agrees to the fullest extent of
N______
a
ity
ións, GRANTEE, as Indemnitor, agrees to indemnify,
defen
N%sth State of Nevada and its agents from and against any and all
liabili
perso
prop res
ti
‘uries, claims, actions, damages, expenses, or for loss of life or
from, or in any way connected with the conditions or use of the
u
mises
red herein, including any hazard, deficiency, defect, or other matter, known
or\4thlmfrf( or connected with the right of way and utility easement.
de
This
fication does not exclude that State of Nevada’s right to participate in its defense
Right of Way Corbin Street Pahrump
730836 Page3of8
of a mater subject to this indemnification. GRANTEE shall not be liable to indemnify or
hold harmless any attorney’s fees and costs for the indemnified party’s chosen
to
participate with legal counsel of its choice.
6. GRANTEE agrees that the unpaved graded road and appurtenances
in good repair at all thnes.
7. GRANTOR and GRANTEE are aware that a roadway has
the right of way location. In the future
8.
shall continue so long as
and required for the purposes for
which it was granted.
maintenance for a
and all
and
have no further obligation to GRANTEE.
Right of Way-Corbn Street, Pahrump
-14
•
730836 Page4of8
114 WITNESS WHEREOF, the STATE LAND REGISTRAR has caused this instrument to be
executed the day and year first above written.
GRANTOR:
STATE OF NEVADA
Division of State Lands
bYr!fra:oo
STATE OF NEVADA
)
CITY OF CARSON CRY
)
S
‘J
On
20O$jozall9’aeared before me, a Notary Public,
JAMES R. LAWRENCE, Administrator d E,
- fficio State Land Registrar, Division of
3
State Lands, who acknowledged tOne thai he ec
the foregoing instrument.
,
of Way-Cothin greet Pahmmp
I
730836 Page 5of8
GRANTEE:
COUNTY OF NYE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
E
by:
-
-
Joni Eastley
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sandra Merimo
County Clerk
STATE OF NEVADA
0
COUNTY OF NYE
on
personally appeared before me, a Notary Public,
Board of Commissioners and SANDRA
of Nye, who acknowledged to me that they executed
)Uflty
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NEVADA
COUnty Of Nye
No; 9-5917.14 VlIcKI A. PUR DEN
Appohm, Expires June 12,
Qi ¶
of Way-Corbin Street, Pah rump
,pL
730836 Page6of8
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Attorney General
by:
Kerry Benson
Deputy Attorney General
Street, Pahrump
&‘$MI5IT
14h
CuhlI4Z !t2t9S’
Seo&?r,CSS ssc
44’ F44’
4i1’J
730836 Page 7of8
RCVD SEP N ‘07
1240 E state Sircet suite lot
Pahnnnp, Nevada 89048
Phone; (775) 751-1413
(715) 751-3584
Fax;
October 20, 2005
Tract 1:
Ingress/Egress Easement
A tract of land being a portion of the South Half (SVz) of Section 2, Township 20 ou 1’ Rang
2 East,
M.D.M., Nye County, Nevada, 60.00 feet in width lying parallel to and 30.00 feet wi
r side of
the North South Centerline of said Section 2, more particularly described
1o
,
—
Beginning at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 2; Thence 9S 17’ ‘W alo
e South Line of
said Section 2,30.00 feet; Thence N00°17’30”W on a line 30.OjY5eá west
Id to said North
South Centerline of Section 2, 1384.24 feet to a point on the N6yfh Line of the
east Quarter (513¼)
of the Southwest Quarter (SW¼) of said Section 2; Thence N952’40”E aioyg said North Line,
30.00
feet to the Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter (513¼) &f the Southwe tuarter (SW¼
) of said
Section 2; Thence N89°52’35”E along the North Line of the Sciuth
r (SW¼) ofthe Southeast
Quarter (513¼) of said Section 2, 30.00 feet; Thence S00°17’30”E o
30.00 feet east of and
parallel to said North— South Centerline of SectiorO>c85. 12 feet to a point on the South
Line of said
Section 2; Thence N89°16’48”W, 30.00 feet to the PbiIfof Beginning, containing 83,080
square feet, or
1.907 acres, more or less.
—
Tract 2:
Public Utility
A tract of land being a portion of the
Section 2, Township 20 South, Range
lying parallel to the North South
—
s) of the Southeast Quarter (513¼) of
Nye County, Nevada, being 10.00 feet in width
2, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the
Section 2; Thence S89° 1 6’48”E along the South Line
of said Section 2,30.
of the tract of land described herein; Thence
N00°17’30”W on a
iparallel to said North— South Centerline of Section 2,
1385.12 feet to a,
said Southwest Quarter (SW¼) of the Southeast Quarter
(513¼) of Section
‘35”E along said North Line, 10.00 feet; Thence S00°17’30”E on a
line parallel to saidtort&— South’Chterline of Section 2, 1385.26 feet to a point
on the South Line of
said Section 2; Then N 9 6’48”W, 10.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, contain
ing 13,852 square
feet,or0.318ac
reor s.
,
NNN
VEYING • CON5IRUCIION STAKING • SUBDIVISION TOPOGRAPHY
GLOBAL POSITIONING (GP5) • WATER RIGHTS
CWIL ENGINEERING • HYDROLOGY / DRAINAGE • WATER AND SANITATIO
N UTiLITIES
730836 Page8of8
,‘PN 2—0i —Cii
LC MA?(MEN U. C
\4
E-AI’)Y
N 1/2 OF
THE SW 1/4
OF SECTION 2
N89s24O’E:
N89’52’35E
60.00’
ROAD ROW
/2 CF APN: 27—501—14
[ NFVAL)A V OF LAND
SE 1/4 OF
THE SW 1/4
OF SECTION 2
DJ i
SW 1/4 OF
THE sa 1/4
OF SECTION 2
GRAPHIC SCALE
(
I
_y )
-
N
Verbatim Minutes July 15, 2009 RPC Meeting
17.
a.
TM-09-0002:
Tentative Residential Subdivision Map application to divide
approximately 80-acres into forty-six (46) residential parcels and twelve (12) open space
lots on property Master Planned as Low Density Residential and zoned as Rural Estates-2
(RE-2), located at 4751 W. Adkisson Street, situated northwest of the intersection of
Corbin Street and Irene Street, described as the South 1/2, Township 20S, Range 52E.
L.D.O.I, LLC Property Owner/Applicant, Civilwise Services Agent, AP# 27-501-01.
-
—
b.
WV-09-0006: Waiver Application to waive NCC 17.04.220 minimum lot size
requirement of two (2) acres and allow one (1) acre lot sizes, located at 4751 W.
Adkisson Street, situated northwest of the intersection of Corbin Street and Irene Street,
described as the South 1/2, Township 20S, Range 52E. L.D.O.I, LLC
Property
Owner/Applicant, Civilwise Services Agent, AP# 27-501-01.
-
—
David Stallworth reviewed the staff report and project synopsis; The two-fold application is for
approval of a residential subdivision consisting of forty-six (46) residential lots and ten (10) common lots
in conjunction with a waiver from lot sizes as dictated by the RE-2 zone. Conclusions Upon extensive
review of both applications, Staff finds no sufficient justification for approval. The proposed subdivision
cannot proceed under the current zoning requirements imposed by the site’s RE-2 zone, which requires a
minimum lot area of two (2) acres. No findings in support of the waiver request could be made due to the
applicant’s failure to: (a) identify an undue hardship as a result of strict adherence to both § 16.28 and
§ 17.04, NCC; (b) identif’ an undue hardship by virtue of site constraints or unusual circumstances
specific to the site that would preclude normal development, or; (c) offer compelling evidence that the
subject area cannot be developed in accordance with prescribed regulations. A waiver would not be
necessary if the subject area were rezoned to RE-i, which would facilitate the proposed one-acre
residential lot sizes. Furthermore, approval of these applications will conflict with an approved
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12)
animals with special conditions (CU-09-0002); the approved CUP applies to the entire 80-acre site. A re
examination by the RPC of the previously approved CUP may be necessary to determine if any
revisions to, or possible revocation of the CUP is necessary to ensure the safety of the general public
and minimize or prevent potential adverse impacts upon neighboring property owners as a result of the
approval of these applications. Staff is recommending denial.
—
(Dave Richards) Thank you Commissioners Dave Richards, Civilwise Services, representing the
applicant. This is just a repeat of something that has already gone through the system and it was quite a
battle back then. We did prevail at the Board of County Commissioners as far as the RE-2 zoning, which
exists on the property now, that RE-2 zoning was given with the condition or with the caveat I guess that
there would be one acre lots within the project with open space to make up the density of 2 acre or one
dwelling unit per two acres that was part of the zone change approval to the RE-2 zone. The statement
that they have 46 lots on their by looking at the Tentative Map yes you can but if you read the, you could
say there were 46 lots but if you read the justification letter it says there will only be 42 residences on the
site and four flex lots and we really didn’t know what to call these but we anticipate that some of the lots
will be combined into one lot because of the type of development so we are trying to anticipate where
potential custom home, these are high dollar custom homes in a gated community would like to own more
than just one of those lots they would own two of them and combine them into one residential parcel.
Chances are were are going to end up with a lot less than 42 homes in there but no more than 42
residences will be built. So what we did was we drew a Tentative Map up that would kind of lay out
where these lots are and then as they are sold to custom home owners, there they would choose which
1 of 8
areas they would like to own and then we would eliminate lot lines so that we end up with with more than
the 42 homes. As far as the site itself, you all have probably been up there it would be a shame to square
that off with roads in an RE-i zone and just chop it up into one acre lots squared off you know with
square roads in it, things like that. We intend this to be a gated community, the inside of it will be all
private roads, built for more of an aesthetic enhancement of the property, where there will be jogging or
walking and we intend to have little Qffset park benches and drinking fountains and things like that
because we would like this to be an active community outdoors where people can do you know outdoor
activities and have the amenities and the landscaping and so forth that would cater to that type of
community. We’re not, we’re not I mean we do not want one acre lots up there and we do not want the
one acre density up there we want the open space because we are anticipating putting in a club house,
tennis courts and swimming pools and things you know that, will go into the common area that you see
throughout the center of this with the pathways going around these common areas and very very
expensive very high dollar type landscaping surrounding what would be considered more of a of a trail
then an actually road, but we are getting road uses out of it to get cars you know to their private residents.
We want this to be one way road because we don’t want two way traffic going in there; we do not want to
allow parking on the roads as a matter of fact it is going to be strictly for bid to have any cars parked on
the road. We would like to maintain the roadway with the homeowners association and the people that
will be allowed in this community will be of the sort that can afford a homeowners association, keep it
active and keep it maintained. So this kind of a special development, we don’t want it to end up to be a
tract home type of development it is not going to be allowed. The houses that are built there are going to
have to have a particular appraised value to it that will be set fairly high and that is the only thing that will
be allowed in here. As far as the Conditional Use Permit that was allowed on this I have comments I
want to make about some of the special conditions of approval but this is one of the type of owners that is
anticipated there throughout this project of people that what to do special things that will be in a secure
gated community where these special things will be allowed and maintained and controlled. In the Special
Conditions they are trying to limit the CUP that was approved before to just lot ten, well if you look at the
drawing for the CUP, it already goes beyond the limits of lot ten. So that is one lot that is going to have to
be eliminated right there, is lot number nine combined with lot 10 and that is also going to cause some
adjustments of the little road that goes up through there, that corners through there so we’re expecting to
be able to do or have to do adjustments to what we are considering a Tentative Map to the final design.
We expect to do adjustments to it again some of these lots are going to end up much larger you can see lot
number one is I think it is four almost five acres in size, we are expecting to see more of that throughout
this project where the buyers or the home owners will, will actually occupy a couple of the lots. The lot
line will have to be removed. We want the private roads we don’t want a wide paved road there we want
a narrow road that doesn’t take a lot of pavement. I think people do not want to see the pavement they
would rather see the landscaping and rock work and things like that along the sides and keep the
pavement to a minimum and that is the intent of this particular layout is. It is a shame we don’t really
don’t have a method for doing special unique designs for subdivisions like this and we have to sit here
and ask for waivers to be able to do something unique and you know glorified or special and it really
doesn’t fit under the wavier requirement because you don’t have the hardship. It’s really not a hardship
and I agree with that but there is no other process of asking of these waivers. There is no variance
proposal, no variance abilities here anything else that will allow us to do this. So that is why it was
presented like this in the past and that is why the Board of County Commissioners elected to go along
with the zone change. They were aware that they were given an RE-2 zohe, but there would be a
minimum lot size of one acre lots. They were aware of all these things and all we are asking for is, it’s
almost like an extension but you don’t have extension ability for a Tentative Map either. We would like
to go ahead with the development but the two year time frame fit right in the middle of our economic
crash and of course nothing went forward during any of that. Just to let you know this Tentative Map had
a two year expiration date on it, that was according to NRS statue at the time about 2 weeks after the this
this Tentative Map expired, NRS revised its statute to allow four years instead of two years so we missed
that by one or two weeks to have four years on this anyway. So we are just asking to keep the same plan
2 of 8
intact so that when we do decide to go forward with this we can. Now there is also questions brought up
about the right-of-way we have required the sixty foot right-of-way through the State land, I have
documents here to show this, to prove this, that I would like to pass out I put copies on the back table.
This shows that individuals from the State have already signed, signed the agreement. The County
Commissioner have approved and signed the agreement and it does exist.
(Commissioner Kimball) Mr. Chairman I move to accept the additional documentation.
(Commissioner Skinner) seconded
(Commissioner Masterson) It has been moved and seconded, vote.
(Commissioner Opatik,) Aye
(Commissioner Skinner) Aye
(‘Commissioner Minnick) Aye
(Commissioner Masterson) Aye
(Commissioner Kimball) Aye
(Commissioner Tolladay) Aye
(Commissioner Parker) Aye
(Dave Richards) And I would like to note also that the Board of County Commissioners approved this
based on this plan here so that’s why this went ahead and forwarded. It took us two years to actually get
this accomplished with the State and about $16,000 of appraisal fees and processes through the State and
a nice check of $41,000 made out to the State for the right-of-way agreement so it was very costly to go
through this whole process with this development in mind and that, this is what the State is expecting to
see and this is what the County Commissioners were expecting to see when they approved this right-ofway through the State land and the fact that the Board of County Commissioners approved, the fact that
Nye County Public Works would take over the maintenance of this right-of-way once it is constructed to
county standard.
(Commissioner Kimball) Dave can I bring up one point.
(Dave Richards) Sure
(Commissioner Kimball) As you know I have been somewhat sympathetic with this design. The first time
this came up before the RPC, there was some real controversy over the RE-i versus RE-2 and there was
even, I think so misunderstanding. A lot of us thought of it as a very creative project because you were
going to have the common area owned by all of the owners. We passed it on to the Board of County
Commissioners with a negative vote here because we didn’t like using the waiver to do zoning, so we
allowed them to make that decision and they passed it five to nothing. The thing that has changed a little
and I am only asking the question, Jack is that I wish Ron Kent were here because I don’t see how we can
proceed until we get a legal response from the District Attorney’s office as to whether or not this
Conditional Use Permit we issued covers all eighty acres or not. Whether we can overlay that on this
Tentative Map. One interpretation of the CUP we gave says it was given for eighty acres; the other
3 of 8
interpretation is well there is a containment area within the eighty acres. I thinks it is a simple legal
question that needs to be cleared up by the District Attorney’s office or anything we vote on will be moot.
(Jack Lohman) Mr. Chairman I would like to comment yeah I agree with Commissioner Kimball. In the
fact that the application clearly states that it was for an area of eighty acres to be utilized for the animal
special conditions use permit. There was no separate parcel defining where that area was supposed to be.
So it did cover and that’s determination that you currently have to make that in fact it was covered for the
80 acres. At the time the use permit was, well let’s put it this way, at this time this subdivision does not
exist even though it did exist at one time, it’s just a blank, one parcel so there are, the first issue is to
resolve the legal issue about you cannot overlay approvals, one over the other and that the original
approval stands unless it is removed to replace it with the new subdivision. Do you follow me so far?
And then we also, after that point we have a number of issues with the design of this subdivision and the
need of a waiver when you can rezone it to RE-i. These are in fact, these are one acre lots even though
there is open space in the middle it’s still one acre lots.
(Commissioner Kimball) I guess my point Jack is we can’t debate the merits of the subdivision unless
legally we are allowed to debate the merits of the subdivision and I think we need to clarify the CUP. If I
am being fair to Mr. Richards, I see us continuing the item.
(Jack Lohman) That is a good idea I think as a matter of fact that I think is an appropriate solution, to get
the legal opinion first on the permitting and then we can deal with which which permit we are going to
deal with. If it is going to be the subdivision, we’ll talk about the issues when we get to the subdivision.
So I think the appropriate motion would be as Mr. Kimball suggests, continuing this for review by the
District Attorney on that single issue to start with.
(Commissioner Masterson) Mr. Richards
(Dave Richards) I just don’t see the point in that. I think that Mr. Kent could be could offer his opinion
to the County Commissioners if this gets forwarded to the County Commissioners. But I, I was a big part
of the request for first of all this Tentative Map when it first came about. The Tentative Map was existent
when the CUP was brought before this Board and approved, so we had an overlay issue, if you want to
call it that, at that time and it never was brought up or discussed that this was a problem with the
Tentative Map that was already approved on the site. Had it been brought up at as a problem at that point
we could have resolved it at that time and said no the CUP doesn’t fit into this Tentative Map which I
disagree because it’s an RE-2 zone. You can get a CUP for special condition animals in a RE-2 zone, this
is why they cannot go to a RE-i zone because we cannot, we cannot go forward with the concept of the
project. Which may very well cater to people that what to do those special things. And that is another
fact I want to bring up in the special conditions of approval. Because all of a sudden we’re saying look
airight we’re going to start limiting these people to all kinds of things that they think is right, we being the
Plaiming staff or whoever else is reviewing this. What is wrong with a subdivision of this type that is
based on the people, the exotic people that like to have exotic animals and special condition animals in
their dwelling? I’m not saying that every single household is going to have it there but we would like to
be able to say this area has the ability to do this sort of thing. We have a project coming up soon that we
anticipate as being the clients of, the buyers of these lots and that is exactly what they would do within
this subdivision, privately, privately on their own. They don’t want a dog or a cat, they would like a
leopard in a cage or household animal that is not your typical type of animal and I don’t think it would be
fair to limit this, in this situation to say that nobody is allowed in there because there is one of the lots has
a CUP on it for a special condition animals. I don’t think that is fair at all to put that limitation on this
type of development it kills the concept. There are other things I would like to point out in here that, that
I think should be discussed and I understand that you want to continue it, I don’t think we’re going to
come to a resolution on any of those things. If it is continued I don’t think we’re going to come to a
4 of 8
resolution, it’s still going to have the same issues the same conditions and we’re going to disagree with
them. Our, I was part of the request for the CUP, the reason this person is purchasing that home up there
and wants to do that CUP is because he can do what he wants to do with those animals and he can be
surrounded by the same type of people who want to do the same sort of things and this is an exclusive
area totally secured and why not that concept. Why do we want to say that is not a viable concept for a
community like that?
(Jack Lohman) Mr. Chairman if I can make a comment for the record, not disputing what Mr. Richards
saying but I think getting back to the basic point is to clarify this, that the Tentative Map that was
approved previously was about to expire when that use permit was, about a month after that use permit
was granted. And there is no way they could have ever filed a Final Map to keep that Tentative Map alive
because none of the conditions were ever, were in process at all to full fill the requirements on the
Tentative Map including the Corbin Road issue which was the main access. So there is no way, the
reason we could proceed with that use permit the last time was that there was no possible way that the
Tentative Map was going to remain alive even if it happened to expire technically shortly thereafter when
you approved the use permit. That’s point number one for the record. The second point is the fact that it
is very clear that that use permit was applied for on eighty acres, not three acres 80 acres.
(Dave Richards) It was not
(Jack Lohman) And it is clear on the record. We’ve got the application that states it and and the third
point is I think it is unfair and inappropriate for the Planning Commission to take any action until this
legal issue is clarified. I think that Commissioner Kimball’s idea is the way we should go.
(Dave Richards) I am the one who did the application for the CUP; it was not on the eighty five acres. We
had to specify the eighty five acres cause it was one parcel. But we specifically asked that it be kept in
that one corner. If you look at the site plan for the CUP it only shows that one corner. We asked for
modifications of the site plan development requirements because we were only doing it in the one corner,
the whole discussion involved that one corner not the entire tract. Just because it was one entire tract
because we could not parcel that off or subdivide that off at that time. I’m the one who made the
application I know exactly what was intended on that and I know it was discussed at the hearings, of what
was going to be included in that CUP and that’s why we only showed the corner of that site on the CUP
site development plan. Always intended just to be in that corner.
(Jack Lohman) Mr. Chairman we have the application right in front of us here and there is one parcel
number and it says eighty acres and if it was intended for a corner of that it should have been parceled off
and said only three acres of the eight acres now we frequently approve use permits on large parcels which
we show a site plan for a portion of it but it covers the whole parcel. So legally I’m not going to say
legally because I am not the attorney, but that is what we have to find out from Ron Kent, that in our
opinion though at this point that he should clarify that and we think that it covered the whole eighty acres
and that is what the Board was represented when it was presented to you as a Commission.
(Commissioner Masterson) I tend to agree on this and at least it was my intent that when I voted for this
that it was going to be one person with animals on that area. Now if they are saying from what you’re
saying there could be 42 people, it may be less it may be less than that but you are saying there could be
42 people up there with large animals and that is very different than what I voted for, now it just makes, I
couldn’t do this because that was not in my mind that we were putting in an area up there where people
would have 42 lots that could have exotic animals. It’s just different to what I was seeing at the time.
5 of 8
(Commissioner Kimball) Mr. Chairman even if the subdivision were approved and each of those
homeowners wanted to have animals with special conditions, they would have to file for a CUP have the
same discussion and have the same vote and if we
(Dave Richards) That is absolutely correct.
(Commissioner Kimball) And if we approve the waiver making one acre lots, you’re not allowed to have
animal’s special conditions on one acre lots. So there’s couple of complicated issues here and I’m really
trying to be fair Dave I really think we’re spinning our wheels until we get legal clarification.
(Commissioner Parker) Mr. Chair can I bring up another issue on this right-of-way agreement, I don’t
know about your copy but the copy I have is blank, it has never been executed and it has never been
signed.
(Dave Richards) it’s got signatures from the Commissioners and certain members of the State, they’re
still waiting on one final signature from the State.
(Commissioner Parker) It starts out the very first page made this day of, it’s blank. And when you to the
signatures from the State all you have are signatures here from the Commissioners. It hasn’t been
completed it hasn’t been done.
(Dave Richards) No there is signatures also from the assistant I forget the exact title of the person.
(Commissioner Opatik) Attorney General
(Commissioner Parker) Right but as to when the agreement was made that’s blank, signature from the
Division of State Lands there is nothing there.
(Dave Richards) We’re waiting for the last signature, if they look on the email that was stapled to the
front you will see where the individual of the State, Kevin Alson I believe it is he is the one at State Lands
that we are working with. He said that it is on their desks waiting for a signature right now they have been
out so, it’s been approved, it’s been approved all through all those agencies and through the committees
and so forth. It’s been approved and the final document was drawn up by the State. We did not draw it
up they drew up the document they sent it to us, we distributed it to the County Commissioners they had a
hearing on it. They approved that final document; they signed it now it is going back to the State for all
of their signatures so it’s just a matter of processing the signatures. The agreement has been all approved,
so and the reason I brought that information to you is to show you that we are in the very final days of
that fully being executed and recorded.
(Commissioner Opatik) Mr. Chairman I’m like you, I thought this was a one parcel, whether it was just
the corner of the parcel, I do remember conversations about it being a corner parcel I do remember having
a conversation also asking you about the exotic animals and you specifically said that there would be no
one coming to see the animals and that it would not be open to the public.
(Dave Richards) That is still correct.
(Commissioner Opatik) But you indicated that it was one person wanting exotic animals. And I had no
idea, if it was in the backup I missed it somehow that there was a Subdivision Tentative Map on this
particular parcel, if it was there I apologize I just missed it, I don’t recall that portion of it. But when I
approved it, it was for a one person with exotic animals and that was what was in my mind.
6 of 8
(Dave Richards) That was what the CUP was for one person.
(Comments from the Commissioners in audible)
(Commissioner Opatik) Right that is exactly what I voted for; I remember the same thing Mr. Chairman.
(Dave Richards) And granted and I agree with what you’re saying up to a point, we didn’t mean for that
to limit the use of the rest of the property. That was for that specific CUP. So you know I think something
was missed and slipped up on and what the intentions, the Tentative Map was there and was approved and
it should have been brought up in this hearing on the CUP. I think it was Chairman Masterson that
brought up or maybe Mark, Commissioner Kimball, the fact of when any of those other lots decide that
that is what they want to do, which we are not saying they’re going to, they will have to get the same
CUP. They will have to come before you and have a hearing on a CUP whether they can have an animal
like that or not in their on their property. That will still have to be subject to approval, separate CUPs for
every lot. When the decide to do that, if they decide to do that. But the important thing I would like to
make is that we would like to go ahead with this Tentative Map, whether it ever goes to Final Map or not
at least we have the Tentative Map process done and leave the CUP in place and going ahead with this
without limiting and saying to these people well because this one lot in the corner got their CUP nobody
else can do it. I don’t think that’s fair you know I think if you were to do that with CUPs I guess you
need to put that in the code that you know if your neighbor applies for a CUP for a special condition
animals then you are not going to be allowed to.
(Commissioner Opatik) That would be all, you are absolutely right, it is just that the parcel that you are
talking about is not really a parcel, it is part of the eighty acres is that not correct, it is just one parcel.
(Jack Lohman) It is one house on eight acres.
(Commissioner Opatik) That’s the issue that we are having, that is the problem there in lays our problem.
And until we find out about the CUP I don’t think we can go forward. I think your best answer is to
continue.
(Commissioner Masterson) I think we would be best to continue this.
(Commissioner Kimball) Mr. Chairman I’d like to suggest we open public comment and see if there is
anybody who wants to speak and move on.
(Commissioner Masterson) I agree is there any public comment on this. Yes, come forward.
(Zuzana Kukol) My name is Zuzana Kukol and I live next door and as I remember it was suppose to be
one person on the whole eighty acres and that’s why I as a neighbor I was supporting it. However I don’t
support the one acre parcel it would be to crowed there and I (in audible) seeing how people would be
jogging the place are full of rattle snakes, the hospital better prepare more anti venom if
(in
and getting bitten left and right. The other thing is when when studying CC&Rs which means
audible)
(Inaudible)... all the people with CC&Rs are complaining about people like us. Who
we are putting
are not part of it, our animals are noisy they smells there’s gun fires, it will have problems and it doesn’t
belong there. I mean it looks nice and it doesn’t there, the one guy on eight acres that belongs there the
one acre parcel does not belong there. So I am opposing.
(Commissioner Masterson) Any other further public comment.
7 of 8
(Scott Shoemaker) I live next door at 1211 Arnold Court and you got a, animal special conditions you’re
almost shooting yourself in the foot asking for the one acre because ass I mentioned it requires two acres.
But in your Tentative Map it shows, all of a sudden, instead of having two neighbors we would have five
butted up against us, with their property lines right on ours. So I oppose this.
(Commissioner Masterson)
Commissioners.
Thank you any further public comment?
We’ll close public comment,
(Commissioner Tolladay) Mr. Chairman in view of the fact that we do not have a legally executed
document here we don’t have a recommendation from staff for approval and perhaps most importantly of
all we don’t have a legal interpretation from counsel as to whether or not we can overlay this project with
a CUP. I’ll move to continue this item to the August 12 meeting.
(Commissioner Opatik) Second
(Commissioner Masterson) It’s been moved and seconded to continue this to the August 12 meeting, do
we have a vote.
(Commissioner Opatik) Aye
(Commissioner Minnick) Aye
(Dave Richards) Thank you Commissioners
(Commissioner Masterson) Let’s take a ten minute break.
8 of 8
Verbatim Minutes March 11, 2009 RPC Meeting
7.
CU-09-0002: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application to allow the housing, training and
caretaking of up to 12 Special Conditions Animals in a specially designed holding/containment
area, located on 80+ acres at 4751 W. Adkisson Street, further described as the South 1/2,
Township 20S, Range 52E. L.D.O. 1, LLC
Property Owner, Eden Oasis, LLC & Bayan
Multimedia Group, LLC Applicants, Civilwise Services, LLC Agent. AP# 27-501-01.
—
—
-
(Kyle Walton) Mr. Chairman the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the training of and
caretaking of twelve exotic/special condition animals with specially designed holding containing areas
that will be designed for custom operating. They will be harmonious in appearance for characters in the
area. Upon extensive review of the application staff finds justification for approval. We support approval
of this application and available for any questions.
(Commissioner Kimball) Thank you, do we have any question Commissioner’s for the staff.
(Commissioner Opatik) I just have one, what is the current zoning is of this property.
(Kyle Walton) Currently it is RE-2.
(Commissioner Kimball) Actually this came before them once before for that zoning. You might
remember that there was a subdivision proposed up there and it was RE-i Ok so, applicant.
(Dave Richards) Civilwise Services representing the applicant. I would, I really don’t want to get in a big
long discussion about it but I would like to talk about towards the end I’d like to talk about the
Conditional Use Permit Special Conditions of approval there is a couple of items on there that I would
like to talk about but in a summary this application is a Conditional Use Permit to hold animals, exotic
and special condition animals in a facility that is specifically designed for these animals. I can assure you
since we are involved in the design of the facilities that they’re sparing no expense on the design of these
facilities with the safety of both human life and the animals themselves. Very expensive holding facility,
as you can see on the Conceptual Site Plan, that’s just a horizontal layout of the facility. The pins will be
of course the type of material that can facilitate the animals plus most like we’re putting a cone shaped or
a dome over the top of it to provide shading and everything for the animals and of course keep the
animals from being able to get out at all. It is a double pin so if they even escape from their own enclosure
they’re again in a secondary enclosure around the entire facility. We are providing cooling systems in the
form of mist systems and shading to keep the animals comfortable. Each animal enclosure will have its
own cave or covered area where it can escape from sunlight or anything like that so the animals will be
very well cared for, all of the necessary inspections, certificates, both County, State and Federal will be
provided for the site. And I think that every possible means of caretaking and provisions have been made
for these animals. So other than that I would like to entertain any questions. I know that the RE-2 zone
does allow for this sort of thing so we don’t, there is no Zone Change applied for here it just requires the
Conditional Use Permit for those type of animals.
(Commissioner Kimball) Why don’t you go ahead and mention the two items while we can mark them
that you wanted to at least address.
(Dave Richards) Ok in the Special Conditions item 16 and 17 regarding roads, do you want to discuss
those now or do you want to ask other questions first?
(Commissioner Kimball) Well we have marked them so we know what you are referring to so then we’ll
come back to it. Commissioner’s do you have any questions so far?
1 of 16
(Commissioner Tolladay) I do Mr. Chairman, I noted in our backup there was one letter of opposition
that the individuals did not identify where their property was in proximity to this piece. Mr. Richards you
indicate that the applicant is going to be engaged in training animals, is this training animals of their own
for the own amusement or are they engaged in a business of training animals?
(Dave Richards) There is no business involved what-so-ever it’s for their own amusement as you would
put it but it is also to be able, no more than you would train a dog or a cat to live with your other animals.
They are going to be trained to live harmoniously with the other animals that are in the same facility so
it’s really just training of their own its not for any kind of public events or anything, there is no circus no
amusement or anything, no commercial use of this at all.
(Commissioner Kimball) He’s not trying to get an exhibitor permit for example.
(Dave Richards) Noas a matter of fact that is why we’re out there, we’re looking for privacy rather than
public viewing.
(Commissioner Tolladay) Mr. Chairman I have one question for staff. On the aerial is Adkisson Street
incorrectly identified in our back up. It’s parallel with Irene, is it not?
(Kyle Walton) That’s where it is on the map.
(Dave Richards) Adkisson is mislabeled there.
(Commissioner Kimball) There is an error, there has got to be an error. You cannot chip seal Corbin to
Adkisson according to this map because Adkisson is the boundary of this property.
(Dave Richards) Adkisson is actually the North line of the property itself. The street labeled Adkisson is
actually Richard Drive.
(Commissioner Tolladay) Adkisson is where?
(Dave Richards) Is the north line, would be the north extension. The North side of the property, is
Adkisson was extended to come over to the property it would be the north line of the property.
(Commissioner Tolladay) The north boundary of the property.
(Dave Richards) Right.
(Commissioner Tolladay) Staff do you concur?
(Kyle Walton) Obviously the information we got on the map is incorrect.
(Commissioner Tolladay) So now I understand why they are talking about chip sealing from Corbin to
Adkisson.
(Kyle Walton) Adkisson to East West Right-of-way.
(Commissioner Masterson) Mr. Chairman, in the past we had a problem with this because of this State
owned School District. Has that been taken care of?
2 of 16
(Dave Richards) For the Single-Family Residence right now we have an access permit with the State. It
is legitimate and it will continue forever so that has already been taken care of.
(Commissioner Tolladay) So the applicant has the legal authority to chip seal that piece of ground.
(Dave Richards) We are going to talk about that in a little bit.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Mr. Chairman, I recall a few months back we had an application to do
animals on the south side and the name involving that was Darryl Yates, is he involved in this? Cause I
know these businesses, Eden Oasis, they own Multi-Media Group he holds interest in that, so would he be
doing this?
(Dave Richards) Yes he is involved in this.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) I noticed on the last application his name was there and now we have the
businesses, Ijust wondered. The businesses make me think there is some kind of business involved.
(Dave Richards) There is no business involved in this, this is just going to be his residence and some
animals at that point.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) The other Commissioner’s remember some of the history that Mr. Yates had
or not.
(Dave Richards) That application was withdrawn because it was totally in a wrong place for what he
wanted to do.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Ok.
(Commissioner Kimball) To be fair, I think I know what you are referring to back down to the case, I
don’t know, to be fair to Mr. Yates, I don’t know how you can do better than moving up an apartment in
New York to 70 acres in the country to try and do this appropriately, so at least in that regard he’s trying
to do the right thing.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) My concern was that had them in an apartment to begin with.
(Commissioner Kimball) Well it was a long time ago and he payed whatever the price was for that in
New York City. Do we have other questions at the moment for Mr. Richards?
(Commissioner Schinhofen) I have one more for the staff, Mr. Chairman if I might, it does say chip seal
the road and I think we got that worked out now where that road is. When I drove out there with
Commissioner Borasky, we ended up finally getting all the way down and coming up that last street out
there, can you get emergency vehicles out there? Are they going to sink when that’s wet?
(Kyle Walton) I went out there myself, they’ve got new gravel actually in place between Corbiri and
Adkisson and actually the chip seal is a Public Works condition but I can see that they are making
improvements to the easement that has been granted to them by the State and that’s one of the conditions
that they had in the lease that they got from the State is that they had to maintain it so that come a good
rainfall its look, the gravel that I was on was quite substantial so it probably can hold up an army but I am
not an engineer.
3 of 16
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Maybe Mr. Fanning can tell me what I saw down there then, I believe it is all
the way at the end of Basin, I am trying to remember the street.
Commissioner Kimball) I don’t think you guys went on the right access, did you drive up the driveway to
the house?
(Commissioner Schinhofen) We eventually got to the house, yeah. We went up that other road that was
cut in miraculously at that one time.
(Commissioner Kimball) The proper access is simply down Corbin and he has a lease form the State of
Nevada to extend Corbin to his driveway and that’s been improved with gravel, perfectly accessible road.
The present owner who lives there, if he needed an emergency vehicle it would come that exact route.
(Kyle Walton) It was not like, unlike any other roads that I was out there on. I drove around quite a very
around the property.
(Dave Richards) That road has been there for two years now and seen some of the worst rainstorms and it
has never been a problem to drive on what-so-ever, even in the worst rain. It is just the access for a
Single-Family Residence it’s no more than a driveway than anybody has on their property.
(Commissioner Kimball) Is Mr. Fanning here? Give us your thoughts on why that chip sealing needs to
be done.
(Dave Fanning) There is two reasons that Public Works is concerned with, is right at Corbin and Betty,
that is where the county maintained road stops. Two miles to the North up to Adkisson on Corbin is nonCounty maintained road, that is one reason there is no right-of-way for accessing that area up there for
two miles from Betty all the way to Adkisson, the other reason is is it is a criteria by our Air Quality, Dust
Control, our PM1O is to actually go out there arid abate dust is this valley that we have done for the last
ten years with Nye County. So our road actually stops two miles before we’re actually talking about
access to that point, if you look at that map that is currently on the wall, if you look what would be to the
cul-de-sac area minus, not even talking to that lot, that is a chip sealed area right there that a gentle man
had to provide chip seal lawn and he does not even have a county maintained road to get to that spot that
was required for him to chip seal in that cul-de-sac. You’re gonna wind up in the same predicament that
we actually currently are right now. So that’s the two major concerns that Public Works has, we have two
miles of none County maintained road without access.
(Commissioner Kimball) If he had just bought the house and was moving in you wouldn’t have had
anything to say about it at all except that we are asking for a CUP for animals.
(Dave Fanning) That is correct.
(Commissioner Kimball) Jam not faulting your reasoning just pointing out the facts.
(Dave Fanning) Yeah I understand that.
(Commissioner Skinner) Mr. Chairman, so do we have the authority since it’s a State road not a County
road, this is a question for staff, do we have the authority to have that as a condition that they chip seal
that road being that it is not a county road.
4 of 16
(Commissioner Kimball) Well it is kind of complicated and I don’t know if Mr. Kent wants to comment
but they’d have to get involved in a right-of-way from the State in order to have the right to chip seal the
road.
(Dave Richards) And I’d like to talk about that further if we can get to that.
(Commissioner Kimball) Let’s see if Mr. Kent wants to comment and then we will move on.
(Ron Kent) I didn’t quite here everything that Mr. Skinner said, would you repeat your question? And
loudly please.
(Commissioner Skinner) The question is, since it’s not a County road, do we have the authority to make it
a condition that they chip seal that road since its owned by the State rather than owned by the County.
(Ron Kent) And if I may, David do you want to jump in here? Is that really an issue whether or not it’s a
State road?
(Dave Fanning) No its not but can I go over there to that map that’s on the wall and I can show you what
we are talking about?
(Commissioner Kimball) Sure, yeah.
(Dave Fanning) Referencing map, this is the property that we are talking about which is State property,
that is a half a mile. From here to here is another haifa mile.
(Dave Richards) No that is a quarter of a mile David. Those are quarter miles. The whole thing from
down below all the way up to the other side is a mile. That is a quarter of a mile its 1300 feet across the
State land there.
(Dave Fanning) You’re calling this a quarter. (Still referencing map)
(Dave Richards) That’s a quartet, that’s a quarter, that’s a quarter, yes.
(Dave Fanning) You’re calling that a quarter, this is the State property that was, that is not the property
that they need the right-of-way on. You still have right-of-way issues up here and down here and down
here. You are not just talking about this little piece.
-
(Commissioner Kimball) No but Corbin, which he has a legal lease for goes right through his driveway.
His property is right at the end of Corbin, Corbin runs right into his driveway. No he is right at the tip.
(Commissioner Opatik) He is right at the very top.
(Dave Fanning) That is the point that I am trying to make is from that yellow line out here to the bottom,
there is no right-of-way.
(Commissioner Skinner) If I remember, cause I drove out there, I drove up further one more up and it was
chip sealed up to that point and then from that point on it was a dirt dirt road on the State owned property.
(Commissioner Kimball) What we are trying to get at is a good justification for making one home owner
and one residence chip sealed road for the County when it’s a State owned road that he has leased to cross
and we aren’t even sure he would be allowed to chip seal the road.
5 of 16
(Dave Fanning) But this is the only section of road that you are talking about is State owned, this is State
owned property.
(Commissioner Kimball) I drove out there on all chip sealed rods until I got to Corbin. The only way it
would become County maintained is if a right-of-way is obtained from the State for the road, be chip
sealed and then gives it to the County and that could be what happens.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Mr. Chairman, going back to one of the statements I keep hearing that he is
just a homeowner, I understand that but this being a Conditional Use Permit and this being that there will
be exotic animals and you may need more than a normal home owner has then he doesn’t have a problem
requiring that there is access to that property. I think probably health safety and welfare would make us, if
he is just having his home and it is just dogs and cats then he is fine, but he is talking tigers and exotic
animals.
(Commissioner Kimball) He can have a home out there and have twelve horses and eight dogs and all
kinds of stuff and nobody would have said boo.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Horses aren’t considered exotic and neither are dogs but the exotic ones are
the ones that
(in audible).
(Commissioner Opatik) Mr. Chairman and the other point is, is that you can access this home. I did it
with my vehicle and I don’t have a super sized anything. You can get there without any difficulty what so
ever.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) and my question is what about fire trucks or emergency services that might
need to get there.
(Commissioner Kimball) I don’t think there is a problem. For example, at one time Mr. Richards was
here talking about a subdivision for this property, if they proceeded with those plans then there would be
all kinds of requirements for easements and drainage and site development and all kinds of roads going in.
But I’m not sure we understand the legal technicality, he’s at lease to go across that piece right now, in
order for us to require him to chip seal it doesn’t he have to obtain the right-of-way from the State. I don’t
know the answer to that.
(Ron Kent) That is correct, Chairman what it really gets down to is this Board can impose requirements
but not on land that we have no jurisdiction or authority over. When I heard from Mr. Fanning we
absolutely have no legal right-of-way or claim to a right-of-way through that property to require that
individual to chip seal it to County standards would require to complete a trespass. I think you have
essentially two options, you can impose a requirement to chip seal access to the property from some other
route or you can give the option to obtain, to put the condition on the applicant to obtain a right-of-way
and permission to chip seal or get a dedication to the County of the road right-of-way through that area
that we have been discussing. Now whether that’s possible or not, I will not opine but if you can place
that option and that burden upon that applicant as a condition.
(Commissioner Kimball) As I understand the background to this, Dave you correct me if I am wrong, but
when they were considering this being a subdivision they pursued with the State the option of actually
purchasing this driveway and then dedicating it, giving it to the County as a dedicated road and it was the
State that came back and said no that’s too complicated, there is too many obstacles, let’s consider giving
them a right-of-way and then they would have the right to go across it and maintain it.
6 of 16
(Dave Richards) I can go through the whole scenario with you if I can have a few minutes to just discuss
the whole thing. First of all this is Corbin right here but it is chip sealed to Betty which is right here and
then this section from here to here is gravel and if you look at the assessor’s map you’ll see that there are
right-of-ways offered for dedication along there. The only place there is not right-of-way offered for
dedication is across the state land, which is here for 1300 feet, which they do now have a access permit
across there for that road that does exist. That road is graveled and is very solid. It has with stood two
years of rains and storms and construction of the house that was up here, they have cement trucks going
across there. The road has with stood all of that, it is very solid and is on very firm ground but it is fine
for a Single-Family Residential. It is no more, it doesn’t require any more than what any house would
have but it is even better road than that. It is a good road to get up to the site and it’s never been a problem
what so ever. It does, the right-of-way that is given, for across the State land, ends right there which
connects thirty feet into the corner and into this property here. The rest of it is private drive that goes up
and into the house. We did submit a Tentative Map, which Zone Change, Master Plan Amendment, which
has been approved by both Boards for subdivision into a forty two single family homes in here and to this
point the client here is not sure whether he wants to go ahead with that subdivision or not. That’s just
immaterial but if he were to choose to go ahead with that then he would have to gain all of the right-ofways that Mr. Fanning is talking about, the road will have to be paved from this point all the way up into
the subdivision and we have agreed to that, full County improvements, bar ditches, three and half inches
of pavement, the whole works. We’ll be done if this becomes any kind of a road other than the use of the
owner of this house right here. All that is there right now is for one person to live in that house and a
driveway for that house, that is all that is going to be there. So right now we have adequate right-of-ways
and leases through the State land that cover all of that. For this application, I don’t feel that number 16
and 17, particularly 17 is necessary.
(Commissioner Kimball) How would you respond to this question? We’ve asked somebody else to chip
seal a road once before for something that was going to be a kennel or a rescue, because it was going to
be public. How would you respond to a condition that if he were to apply for a USDA permit as an
exhibitor and that makes it a public access question that he would then have to settle the right-of-way
question and chip seal that road.
(Dave Richards) If he was setting that up as an exhibitor, I would agree with that, but that’s not what we
are doing.
(Commissioner Kimball) I would suggest that we add the condition that if he does do that he would have
to meet that condition.
(Dave Richards) That is fine. The intent for exhibition is not the intent what so ever so if you want to do
that, that would be fine.
(Commissioner Kimball) do we have any other questions for the applicant.
(Dave Richards) I would like to talk about number sixteen also. Number sixteen talks about roads around
the entire perimeter and the perimeter of the property is this eighty acre piece here with is a half a mile
across, a quarter of a mile wide. This property all through here and down through here is BLM property,
these as you can see in there, these are cliffs that extend clear down to this area here just right up to the
house and cliffs that come down into here. There will never be a road built here, you would have to
destroy beautiful terrain there and this is BLM property that goes for thousands of acres up in here so he
would like to not include easements for roads along here and along here for that reason. That we want to
preserve that as natural reserve, BLM reserve land, which is what it is. I would like to reword sixteen to
just be the east boundary line and the south boundary line of the property. The South boundary line, of
course these houses here, this is all developed here, so there is really no reason for a road across here but
7 of 16
if you see fit and put a thirty foot reservation for a road there if fifty years from now someone wants to
build a road across there fine but there is intent to build a road across there at all. I can see from here to
the house but up in here is cliffs so I don’t understand why we would want to put a road up into those
cliffs. You can’t hardly even hike those right now. I would like to limit the road access to what really is
needed there, not just carp launch perimeter roads around the whole side.
(Commissioner Kimball) So while I open this to Public Comment for a minute you might want to
consider some wording you could propose on that condition that we could consider cause we would have
to word it a specific way when we make the motion.
Public Comment 6:58 p.m.
(Scott Shoemaker) I reside at 1211 Arnold Court we maintain animal special conditions and listening to
what is going on here I am sitting here thinking it is almost like any excuse not to allow it. Actually they
have approached us for recommendations for the housing of the animals. And. the house is already there
they already have access all that they are going to need is a conditional use permit to put his animals there
and the unpaved road we are out there Warren is not paved, Irene is not paved and its has never been an
issue. And as far as the USDA permit condition he can become an exhibitor but not exhibit on the
property. He can do that off property so it is kind of, just because you have an exhibitor license doesn’t
mean it is going to be a business at the location.
(Commissioner Kimball) Well we would word it so that it was at the location obviously; we wouldn’t try
to do that. And don’t interpret everything you have heard tonight as being against this, I think we pretty
much tried to indicate that there is a lot of favor for it but
(Scott Shoemaker) I also just want to let you know that animal special conditions are already there.
Lions and tigers are already right next door. And it has not been an issue.
(Commissioner Kimball) Mr. Shoemaker is very aware of the other rules that have been put into place
and so he understands as I think Dave does that this property one of the conditions is clearly that you
work with animal control and there is an inspection of the property and that that inspection is repeated.
Just so that there is good local control. And Mr. Shoemaker has a very good reputation for dealing with
animals with special conditions him in a very professional way. So my question to you is do you know
the applicant and are you willing to work with him to make sure this thing goes smoothly.
(Scott Shoemaker) Yes I have met Mr. Yates he had actually came out and viewed our property our
caging our mister system to get ideas for his. And requested that he assist him in designing his.
(Commissioner Kimball) Good Thanks that’s helpful. Ok is there other public comment? Please, you
have to say your name into the mic say your name into the mic and spell it so we can, we have to be able
to hear you on the record. Maybe Dave can help you with his laser.
(Nancy Goodson) My name is Nancy Goodson I am representing Financial Sales Management and one of
the owners of the properties did send in a comment sheet.
(Commissioner Kimball) We got it
(Nancy Goodson) On it are the parcels listed the comment earlier was there was no mention on where the
parcel was. So I want to point out that this is the land we’re talking about here that belongs to Financial
Sales Management. What that means is a company where the owners have had that land for over 30 years
now with the intent of retiring and living there. So suddenly we get a notice that there’s going to be
8 of 16
twelve, now it sounds nice when you say it is just a residential area and that there is just going to be some
exotic animals well it is twelve lions and tigers and it is going to be in my back yard. I’m a little unhappy
about that, now it’s not that their necessarily dangerous or enclosures won’t be safe enough, that’s a lot of
animals. Do any of you have lions and tigers in your backyard right now?
(Commissioner Masterson) Very close.
(Nancy Goodson) Ok and I need you to understand there is an awful lot that goes into this they have, they
eat a lot for one thing. Which means you are bringing in hundreds of pounds of meat a day. And one of
the most common ways to do that is to actually slaughter on sight. And I don’t know, their saying no they
are not going to do that but, if every day you are having to bring in you know several hundred pounds of
fresh meat at some point there is going to be some issues there. You’ve got a lot of waste and a lot of
controlled to take care of these things. Now,.. If you have addressed all of that then it seems like it
would’ve been a good idea to present that to the adjoining property owners. Because to me it is not just
an exotic animal in the back yard it’s a dozen and their lions and tigers. And I would I am really
concerned about this and keep in mind I’d like you all to come in my backyard sometime and bring your
grandchildren to run through the backyard with somebody pacing them on the other side of the fence and
tell me there is no problem ok. I really do need you guys to think about this. Cause it is a serious issue
for my family and it has been a lot of years we’ve been paying the taxes and looking forward to our
retirement and this tells us that horses are going to be unlikely because horses really spook at the sound of
lions and tigers. They lose their foals they become very unhappy so it means ok now you’ve said the
adjoining property owners in the future should will probably not be able to have horses close by. You are
taking an action that involves an awful lot for everyone else to absorb and deal with.
(Commissioner Kimball) I am not debating your point and I appreciate all the information you are
bringing but that property we are talking about was suppose to be a horse property and it adjoins a lion
and tiger property so that was going to be worked out ok.
(Nancy Goodson) I think most people would agree there is a difference between having horses and
having lions and tigers.
(Commissioner Kimball) I would agree with that.
(Nancy Goodson) Yeah Ok I mean I just what to make that point clear and who is it actually going to be
doing the inspection which one of you are approved or certified on some level to approve an exotic
animal situation? Are you going to be inspecting that regularly I mean. You are taking a pretty big risk I
guess that is what I am saying.
(Commissioner Kimball) Not to bore you with the details but we’ve worked for 2 years on legislation to
appropriately deal with this subject. And I was involved in doing the research and getting the groups
together to have those conversations in public. And to just reassure you I was the guy who insisted on a
CUP. So that the neighbors would be informed and have the right to comment and be able to see that it in
fact was going to be done correctly. And the way we’ve guaranteed that is to is to have an inspection
process that’s required through emergency services and animal control. So that you can’t just, there are
areas where you can just buy a piece of ground and stick some lions out there and so we want to make
sure that that wasn’t the case. So there is going to be site development requirements that really require
very professional fencing, very professional caging this is not going to be some guy that has you know a
cage in his backyard and let them just run around.
9 of 16
(Nancy Goodson) Ok I just want to register both mine and the other property owners complaints, I don’t
you know the comment earlier was that there was no note on of where the parcel was. It’s very specific
right in that first line exactly where the parcels are. So and actually here.
(Commissioner Kimball) Show them to us again just so we make sure you have been able to show us.
(Nancy Goodson) This is our property right here.
(Commissioner Kimball) Listen we honestly
(Nancy Goodson) The gal who sent this in is right here, she flew in today also and this is all we have
received. So we have no way of knowing that you have done anything. This is the first we heard about it
was last week when we got the notice.
(Commissioner Kimball) We just heard about it to, so the fact is what you should now look at are the
conditions of approval that’s in the backup so that you’re satisfied that there is sufficient process in place.
Our job is to hear the applicant just as we are here to hear you.
(Nancy Goodson) Ok.
(Commissioner Kimball) And then to make sure that we’ve place conditions properly to monitor this and
have safeguards. None of us are in the business of you know willy nilly throwing something out there.
(Nancy Goodson) So when my property value is no longer when I can’t sell my land then you’re the
people I would address that to, is that correct?
(Commissioner Kimball) No I don’t think so.
(Nancy Goodson) Ok, I just want to make that point. Who is going to want to buy the land next to the
lions and tigers? You know.
(Commissioner Kimball) Valid question
(Nancy Goodson) Thank you
(Commissioner Tolladay) Mr. Chairman I would just like to clarif’, the letter that I mentioned in the
backup was not your letter it was received from a lady in Boulder City who failed to identify where her
property was.
(Commissioner Kimball) Is there additional public comment.
(Zuzanne Kukol) I’ve been here since 2002 and he knows that I live, can you put your laser there, no
lower, lower yeah there. No that is the other neighbor. No no no you have it wrong.
(inaudible comment from the board)
(Zuzanne Kukol) Anyway I have been here since 2000 and I have cougars, lions and tigers. I have been
here before the zoning ordinance was in effect. I have been here before the building department even
existed. So the people on the property next across what do you call mountain. We will give you a
business card if you want to visit us tomorrow you can see our property and how we house our lions and
tigers. And it would put you at ease.
10 of 16
(Commissioner Kimball) Zuzanne please talk to us because we have to record it.
(Zuzanne Kukol) we have been here before so we are already there we have the supporting these people
because we are all there and we don’t try to help them to get their conditional use permit and get their
caging in compliance with existing regulations federal and state level. And
(inaudible)
it is too
late because the tigers and lions are already there. It’s just a matter of how many but they are already
there because they moved here before there was ordinance in effect. So if they want to oppose it it is too
late. They just get to know us and see how we house this animals and it is very safe because
(inaudible)
we love our animals they are our pets. And we don’t want our animals to escape and cause
public safety issues with the human. So we support you to approve this permit. Thank you
(Commissioner Kimball) Thank you. Would the lady who flew in like to comment.
(Carol Dean Meyers) Hi my name is Carol Dean Meyers
(Commissioner Kimball) Spell your name for the record
(Carol Dean Meyers) M-e-y-e-r-s I have some questions I understand that there are already exotic
animals in the vicinity but what we are here tonight to talk about is the Conditional Use Permit to allow
12 more. So even though we have something grandfathered in does not necessarily mean that you have to
approve more.
(Commissioner Kimball) no that is correct.
(Carol Dean Meyers) Right
(Commissioner Kimball) Yep
(Carol Dean Meyers) I haven’t read the backup because it wasn’t available to me in terms of what you
are going to do about the waste products and but it seems to me that early the conversation was this is a
residential property it’s just going to be one resident there, its going to be lots more traffic when you are
bring all that meat. And all those things and you are now talking about an exhibitors license or
something. Or a potential exhibitors license. Well what does that mean does that mean traffic. Then you
are talking about a big some sort of covering over the property to provide shade. I mean I am not qualified
to know if the enclosures are adequate. And we have terrible tragedies out of our zoos. I mean it seems
unbelievable to me that you are willing to risk this community and the danger. I mean is anybody here an
expert on any of this.
(Commissioner Kimball) Our job isn’t, I don’t mean to interrupt you but I am trying to answer your
question, our job is not to be the expert to make sure the caging is in right, ourjob is to make sure that the
conditions requiring it to be done and inspected by experts and that will be done.
(Carol Dean Meyers) And who is going to do the enforcement, the regular enforcement on it.
(Commissioner Kimball)
Town.
Animal Control through emergency services and Code Compliance in the
(Carol Dean Meyers) Animal Control is that a dog catcher here or what.
(Inaudible comments)
11 of 16
(Carol Dean Meyers) I mean seriously we are talking about a zoo here, I mean it is unbelievable to me
and you guys are arguing about the road being chip sealed. I mean I think we have a real problem here
something that should really be thought about, I mean you don’t want have an accident. What happens if
a lion or tiger gets out and kills somebody who is going to be responsible for something like that.
(Commissioner Kimball) The owner
(Carol Dean Meyers) Great certainly not going to help the family of the victim, thank you.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Thank you
(Commissioner Kimball) You know I know sometimes you guys have trouble hearing us but we have no
trouble hearing you so please don’t talk loudly its just we can’t even concentrate. Sir would you like to
come up.
(Jerry Gridlow) I live directly across from Zuzanne Kukol and her animals. At one time I owned the 40
acres there I live directly across the road from her. She takes better care of animals than people take care
of dogs in this town. They are kept in close environment caged properly, feed properly, you can go on
their place anytime you want. The animals are very quiet in fact I am going to tell a cute little story, a
place kitty-corner from where I live was getting robbed 12 at night their lion whose name is barn bam
roared at 12 o’clock at night and other neighbors complained about the roar, and they came down and
caught the guy coming out of his house with rifles and pistols. So I don’t think there is anything wrong if
they are kept in proper containment. With having animals on both sides of me and I have been living
there ever since for the last 10 years and they haven’t been there no where there that long. And they keep,
those animals are so tame that me and my wife go on the property and we can pet them. We really can
they have assorted animals in they take great care of them. I don’t see what the big deal is, there is people
all over this town that can’t take care of a horse. I’m living up there and I see numerous horses running
out of other peoples yards because they didn’t have them caged in. Numerous horses dogs all over the
place. No problem with them what so ever. That’s all I wanted to say. I am happy to have them for a
neighbor.
(Commissioner Kimball) We appreciate it thank you. OK do we have other Public Comment? Hearing
none I am going to close public comment. Are we done looking at the map can we turn the lights back
on.
(Dave Richards) Actually I would like to point one thing out. I want to just respond to the lady that was
up here a minute ago. She mentioned the comment about the animals pacing up and down her back fence.
I am sure she was just trying to point something out. But I would like to point out the fact that those the
holding pens are right here, which is well within his well within his property. On all sides around exact
for BLM property here. Their property was down across over here somewhere. So they are not abutting
the property in any place where these animals would be. They are approximately pretty close to a half a
mile away from where these pins are going to be. Secondly everybody knows this area up in here and
you have heard all of the reports about there being bob cats and cougars up in there, those do exist in the
wild up here. Uncontrolled, un-caged and there has not been any problems with them at all. And so you
know, these animals are controlled so the wild animals are, have not been a problem in the wild so why is
this, is this expected to be a problem what so ever. We don’t intend these animals to get close to anybody
in the public, we are not gonna be exhibitors there, we are not applying for an exhibitors licenses up there.
There will be no commercial usage of the property. And so it’s not going that route, these are specifically
for this owner and his family if he ever chooses to have a family there. But that is it and that is all that’s
going to be visiting this. No public access what so ever. Then secondly I would like to talk about the.
12 of 16
(Commissioner Kimball) Are you done with the map?
(Dave Richards) Yeah I am done with the map now. Now in one of your conditions you do say that if
this Conditional Use Permit is approved that we would be going through the site development review
process. That’s where a lot of the other questions that have been asked will be answered. Regarding
waste regarding the design of the system, the pens, everything else. Will be dealt with in the site
development process as appropriate as required with your existing requirements. So that is not going to
be ignored. Those all of those issues especially all the issues listed in the letter that the lady wrote. Those
will be dealt with. There is one thing I would like to mention and it really didn’t get put in the write up,
but on our application we asked for special considerations on the site development process because as you
know site development process is very complicated can be very complicated in some cases needs to be
complicated, but we would like modifications of the site development requirements. We would don’t see
a need for doing a full drainage study that is called for in site-development or traffic study since this not
commercial, we are not asking for public access to the sight or anything else. So I do not see the need for
the traffic study that is called out in site development plan. So if you could see your way through special
modification on that, and then secondly we have been in here in the past for requesting this, we are only
developing the corner of the property, too bad the map isn’t up there, but it is just a very small
approximately 3 acre piece, half of it is already built with single family residence, that this is going to be
confined to. I don’t want to do a site development plan over the whole 85 acres. You know grading plans
and all that, I don’t think that’s necessary, so if we can have some kind of modification to the site
development requirement I would appreciate that also.
(Commissioner Kimball) Jack would you like to comment on that.
(Jack Lohman) Just for clarification, what you are talking about just the site development plan for the
area. impacted and not just the whole site. We’ve done that before and it’s fine. For the area where the
activity is going to be, cause if you have a huge expanse of land it does not make sense to landscape 80
acres around the pen and everything else.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Mr. Chairman I have one other question for Mr. Richards, maybe a follow
up I am not sure but, you’ve said before it just, just a single family residence, just this one gentleman.
(Dave Richards) That is correct
(Commissioner Schinhofen) So that one gentleman is going to take care of these 12 animals.
(Dave Richards) Basically.
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Just him by himself
(Dave Richards) Right
(Commissioner Schinhofen) Again that is Mr. Yates then
(Comment made in audible)
(Commissioner Kimball) If he lives, ok bad joke airight. We closed public comment so, would you like
to round up whatever your gonna say.
(Dave Richards) Ijust did
13 of 16
(Commissioner Kimball) Airight so, are there any other questions Commissioners or thoughts you would
like to share with us about this or concerns? Or are we ready for a motion and we have to deal with his
request on sixteen and seventeen if you make a motion.
(Commissioner Tolladay) Mr. Chairman I will take a stab at it here. I would move to approve SU-0900002 with the following changes in special condition number 16 would require the easement only on the
east and south boundaries, and regarding special condition number seventeen if I understood
Commissioner Skinner’s question, that is do we have the authority to require chip seal across the state
land counsels answer if I understood it correctly it was no. But with respect to Public Works concern
over dust control I would amend seventeen to reflect that chip sealing across the front of the property
which is Bass to Adkisson, I think that does it...
(Commissioner Kimball) And would you add the condition that if in the future the applicant where to do
any exhibiting on the property that we would then require him to complete the right a-way process and
chip seal Corbin.
(Commissioner Tolladay) So moved I will and will call it special condition number eighteen.
(Commissioner Kimball) That’s just to add a protection for the County in case at some time he wanted to
do it or you could make a condition that you can’t do it. Why don’t we think about that one for a minute.
Well it is your motion so you make the motion and then we will see how it goes.
(Commissioner Skinner) Mr. Chairman
(Commissioner Kimball) Yes
(Commissioner Skinner) Or Commissioner Tolladay did you what to add the no traffic study, no drainage
study and the
(Commissioner Tolladay) I thought that was address by by planning, that they were amendable to
working with the applicant.
(Commissioner Skinner) Ok should we amend that into the motion
(Commissioner Kimball) Jack do we need to say something or is your comment sufficient.
(Jack Lohman) I would defiantly, well I would echo I would make it part of the motion, so we have it on
record and there is no question about it.
(Cominiss loner Tolladay) Ok then I would further amend special condition number eleven to exclude the
traffic and drainage studies for the express purpose that the applicant has represented here.
(Commissioner Opatik) I’ll second it.
(Commissioner Kimball) Have you dealt with the question of the road. Chip sealing or not having him
do public exhibitions at that property.
(Commissioner Opatik) Mr. Chairman I would think that if he entertained any type of commercial use on
that property it would have to be revisited. It certainly would be a commercial use.
14 of 16
(Dave Richards) We would have to make an application.
(Commissioner Tolladay) Wouldn’t that be a major change and require an additional CUP?
(Commissioner Kimball) There is no condition there so.
(Commissioner Tolladay) I will go with this special condition number nineteen, that there will be no will
commercial enterprise on the property.
(Commissioner Skinner) Second
(Commissioner Kimball) Alright we have a motion and a second. If there is no further conversation I
will call for a vote starting with Commissioner Skinner, I’s sorry Commissioner Masterson is still here.
(Commissioner Kimball) Long ago I thought we should have been down there doing the other stuff so,
I’m sorry was that an Aye
(Commissioner Masterson,) Aye
(Commissioner Opatik) Aye
(Commissioner Schinhofen) No
(Commissioner Kimball) Ok the motion carries.
(Dave Richards) Thank you Commissioners
(Commissioner Kimball) Now to the lady that flew in can I make a comment, I just want you to
understand that a very very lengthy and thorough public process was gone through over a two year period
to even get to the pint of allowing a Conditional Use Permit. I assure you, I am making a comment and
you do not have to accept it. I am only thing to reassure the public many of us were condrned about how
this gets done and that it be done correctly and there are places already in Pabrump, not grandfathered that
are not being properly done and have to be closed down. So in fact what we tried to say was if this is
going to occur in the valley it needs to be done professionally needs to be done properly, the idea wasn’t
to say people couldn’t have animals it was to say animals need to be controlled and cared for properly.
And the public safety must be guarded. All I can tell you is that we did everything we know how to do to
put that in place and the people who are in charge of doing the inspections and know what they are doing.
(Comment from the public, inaudible)
15 of 16
(Commissioner Kimball) It, animals with special conditions is what it is called and that’s all kinds of
animals could be chimpanzees, happens in this case to be lions and tigers. And those things are possible
with a CUP in residential areas down to at the current time two acres. That’s the lowest it is not allowed
to go below that you are allowed to have livestock at one acre. I’m just trying to reassure you that this
isn’t some willy nilly knee jerk thing we are doing here it’s been thought about a lot, that doesn’t mean a
problem could not develop or that you wouldn’t have a right to complain, Code Compliance still carries
out complaints so does Animal Control. So everybody needs to be vigilant and so does this applicant. Ok
that’s it, next, you know what we need to take a ten minute break and we will come back. Thanks.
16 of 16
July 12,2009
Nye County Planning Dept.
250 North Highway 160, Suite 1
Pahrump, Nevada 89060
I
I
garding WVQ9
Please do NOT change the current designation for this property from two acres per lot to
one acre per lot. This is a beautiful, quiet, and rather remote part of the valley (the county
currently provides virtually no road maintenance and the Post Office will not deliver mail
to this area.) A change of this magnitude would amount to creating what for rural Nevada
is urban sprawl and destroy the quality of life that the families who moved to this area
now enjoy. As I look out at my neighbors’ properties, no one currently (by choice) lives
very close to anyone else. All of us appear to have built rather large single homes
surrounded by at least ten acres. Even one house on two acres will seem crowded.
A change in zoning to force more houses onto this land seems to us to be entirely
unnecessary. Given the long-term economic forecasts and abundance of properties
currently for sale in Pahrump, there is apparently little need for new development. It
seems clear to us that future developments of this density should be confined to lands that
have already been zoned for these types of neighborhoods. That is why, we believe, the
Planning Commission has the important function of providing (and upholding) for
citizens a guideline they can rely upon when making choices as to where they want to
live. The families who built homes in this beautiful, remote area did so because they
wanted a farm and ranch type lifestyle. To rezone the area now to a higher density would
largely disturb the beauty of the area and degrade the way of life all of us chose when we
Dave and Lee Green
4930 W. Irene
P.O. Box 128
NYE COUNTY, NV
REGULAR MEETING JULY 15,2009
-
Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 17
Streets
LOCATION:
APN NUMBER(S):
AP# 027-501-01
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
L.D.O.I, LLC
APPLICANT(S):
L.D.O.I, LLC
STAFF CONTACT:
David Stallworth, Planner I
V
V
—
(775)
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
common lots in conjunction with a waiver from lot sizes as dictated by the RE-2 zone.
Conclusions Upon extensive review of both applications, Staff finds no sufficient justification for approval. The proposed
subdivision cannot proceed under the current zoning requirements imposed by the site’s RE-2 zone, which requires a
minimum lot area of two (2) acres. No findings in support of the waiver request could be made due to the applicant’s
failure to: (a) identify an undue hardship as a result of strict adherence to both § 16.28 and § 1 7.04, NCC; (b) identify an
undue hardship by virtue of site constraints or unusual circumstances specific to the site that would preclude normal
development, or; (c) offer compelling evidence that the subject area cannot be developed in accordance with prescribed
regulations. A waiver would not be necessary if the subject area were rezoned to RE-i, which would facilitate the
proposed one-acre residential lot sizes. Furthermore, approval of these applications will conflict with an approved
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals with special
conditions (CU-09-0002); the approved CUP applies to the entire 80-acre site. A re-examination by the RPC of the
previously approved CUP may be necessary to determine if any revisions to, or possible revocation of the CUP is
necessary to ensure the safety of the general public and minimize or prevent potential adverse impacts upon neighboring
property owners as a result of the approval of these applications.
—
Move to DENY TM-09-0002 based upon the Findings as shown on page two (2) and subject to the conditions stipulated on
pages three and four (or move to approve TM-09-000] based upon alternate findings as established by the Pahrump
Regional Planning Commission.)
Move to DENY WV-09-0006 based upon the Findings as shown on page two (2) and subject to the conditions stipulated on
pages three and four (or move to approve WV-09-0006 based upon alternate findings as established by the Pahrump
Regional Planning Commission.)
July 15, 2009
Page 2 of 9
1.
Residential, it conflicts with Land Use Policy 3.E.l.l (Consideration of area land uses), Land Use Policy 3.E.l.3
Policy 3.E.3.l (Development Standards), Housing Policy 4.C.2.2 (Peripheral residential development), and Community
Policy 3.E.4.1 (Open space within new developments), Land Use Goal 3.E.6 (Preservation and integration of natural
assets), and Community Design Goal 7.C.1 and Community Design Policy 7.C.1.1 (Good community design
components).
2.
§16.28.260 (H)(1) (Requirement for lot sizes to conform to underlying zoning) and §16.28.280 (Street design and
construction), Nyc County Code governing land divisions within the Pahrump Regional Planning District (PRPD).
The internal street design is highly circuitous and inconvenient for residents, and such design could hinder emergency
response.
3.
4.
State regulations.
S.
Access: The tentative map does not contain full-width, legal and physical access.
6.
7.
access. The area is outside of a special flood hazard area. Approval of the Tentative Map application could
ultimately compromise or complicate the administration and oversight of a recently approved Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) application, CU-09-0002 that allows the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals
with special conditions on the undivided 80-acre subject area.
8.
property.
9.
Findings for WV-09-0006 as required under NCC 17.04.915.H of the Nye County Code:
1.
compliance with the provisions of this Chapter difficult and a cause of hardsh4 to, and abridgement of a property
Pahrunip Regional Planning Commission
July 15, 2009
Page 3 of 9
2.
3.
4.
The granting of the waiver(s) could result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, and the
There no site
LAND USE MATRIX
CURRENT ZONING
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION
CURRENT LAND USE
SITE
RE-2
Low Density Residential
Vacant Residence
NORTH
Reserve
BLM
Federal Lands
SOUTH
RH-9.5; RH-4.5
Rural Residential; Low Density Residential
Residential; Vacant State Lands
EAST
RH-4.5
Vacant
WEST
Reserve
BLM
Federal Lands
DISCUSSION
Background: The subject area was rezoned from Open Use (OU) to Rural Estates Residential (RE-2) on December 28,
2005. The first tentative map, TM-06-0010, along with an accompanying Waiver application, WV-06-0014, was
approved on appeal by the Nye County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) on April 18, 2007; no final maps were filed
subsequent to this action, and the tentative map expired in 2009, in accordance with NRS 278.360. A Condition Use
Permit application to allow the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals with special
conditions, CU-09-0002, was approved for the site on March 11, 2009. No other history follows.
Area Characteristics: The subject area is approximately +/-80.00 acres and is located northeast of the intersection of
Warren and Irene Streets; there is no physical road access to the subject area. The site contains a vacant single-family
residence located at the northeast corner of the property. The subject area also contains extreme topography along the
northernmost property line, but enjoys mostly a five-percent (5%) slope throughout the remainder of the site. The subject
property is located within flood zone X (unshaded), which corresponds to areas outside the 500-year flood hazard area as
indicated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
External Comments: One (1) letter of public opposition to these applications has been received. The Town of Pahrump,
Emergency Services (Fire and Sheriffs Departments), and the Nye County School District offered no comments on either
application. Nyc County Public Works general comments apply, along with the following comments relevant to the
tentative map application: Remove all details of proposed improvements on road depths. Those Improvements are subject
to review and approval of future improvement plans, Technical Drainage study, Traffic Impact Analysis and Geotechnical
study. Asphalt surface width must be increased to twenty 26 feet in width and the twenty-four 24 foot P/L to P/L width
must be increased to a minimum of forty 40 feet in width in accordance with Nyc County Code § 16.28.280 (B) (1).
Provide dedicated drainage easement as determined by the drainage study. Corbin Street must be designed and paved to
County Standard from Betty Avenue to project. Please show thirty (30) feet of road and drainage easement on the east and
south boundary of proposed subdivision. Design and pave east and south boundary right of way to County standard.
Right of way easement from Irene Street to proposed subdivision must be obtained prior to final approval. Show existing
improvement per Nye County Code §16.28.140 (B) (1), Public Works will provide further comments with future
development submittals.
July 15, 2009
Page 4 of 9
ANALYSIS
Application Details: The applicant is requesting approval of both a Tentative Residential Subdivision Map that was
previously approved but has since expired, and a waiver to land use and design standards. There are no changes or
modifications on the current submittal from the previously approved tentative map. The RPC takes final action on both
applications, each requiring a simple majority vote of the members present to pass a motion.
Tentative Map Considerations: Pursuant to NRS 278.349, when contemplating action on a tentative map, the governing
body shall consider:
•
Environmental and health laws and regulations concerning water and air pollution, the disposal of solid waste,
facilities to supply water, community or public sewage disposal and, where applicable, individual systems for sewage
disposal. Private water and waste-waterfacilities are proposedfor this development.
•
The availability of water that meets applicable health standards and is sufficient for the reasonably foreseeable needs
of the subdivision. The Nevada Division of Water Resources and Health are the approval agencies for the
sufficiency and health standards related to water.
•
The availability and accessibility of utilities. The developer shall be responsible for both water and sewer systems,
andfor the costs of bringing in power.
•
The availability and accessibility of public services such as schools, police and fire protection, transportation,
recreation and parks. The developer will contribute fair-share impact fees to service areas to pay for the cost of
constructing capital improvements orfacility expansions necessitated by and attributable to new development.
•
Conformity with the zoning ordinances and master plan, except that if any existing zoning ordinance is inconsistent
with the master plan, the zoning ordinance takes precedence. The development conforms to the Master Plan Land
Use Designation of Low Density ResidentiaL The development does not conform to the Rural Estates Residential
(RE-2) zoning district. The development does not conform to §16.28, Nye County Code governing land divisions
within the PRPD.
•
The effect of the proposed subdivision on existing public streets and the need for new streets and highways to serve
the subdivision. The current street grid surrounding the subject area is substandard and varying stages of
improvement. The new development could potentially impose an adverse impact on existing streets and result in a
serious compromise of emergency response time. The developer will be required to participate in improvemeiis to
roadways adjacent to the subject site as determined by Public Works.
•
Physical characteristics of the land such as flood plain, slope and soil. The small portion of the subject area contains
significant terrain features, but a relatively 3-5% slope is found throughout the remaining balance of the site.
There are no 100- or 500-yearflood plain issues relative to the subject area.
•
The recommendations and comments of those entities reviewing the tentative map pursuant to NRS 278.330 and
278.3335. No comments have been received.
•
General conformity with the governing body’s master plan of streets and highways. Not evaluated.
Tentative Map Analysis: Upon initial technical review of the submittal, the following comments and observations have
been noted:
Design and Layout: The tentative map conforms with the subject area’s underlying Master Plan land use designation of
Low Density Residential, The proposed design relies less upon the standard gridiron layout and instead more upon largelot divisions along an internal curvilinear narrow roadway, thereby promoting Land Use Goal 3.E.4 and Land Use Policy
3.E4.] (Open space within new developments), Land Use Goal 3.E.6 (Preservation and integration of natural assets), and
Community Design Goal 7.C.] and Community Design Policy 7.C.].] (Good community design components) of the
Master Plan. Open space tracts are dispersed throughout the development, with the largest being a centrally located area
consisting of slightly over thirteen (13) acres; the aggregate total of common area is +/-28 acres, private roadways
included.
Pahrunip Regional Planning Commission
July 15, 2009
Staff Report; TM-09-0002, WV.-09-0006
PageS of 9
The applicant proposes forty-six (46) residential lots ranging in size from 1.00 acre to 4.307 acres in land area for a
composite total of +1-55 acres. The design is in violation of § 16.28.260 (H)(1), NCC, which stipulates that “Lots shall
conform to the Zoning Ordinance...provided, however, that where (16.28, NCC) imposes higher standards, the
requirements of (l6.28, NCC) shall prevail;” with this in mind, the proposal is counter to both Land Use Policy 3.E.1.3
(Establishment of hardship in support of a waiver) and Land Use Policy 3.E.3.1 (Development Standards) of the Master
Plan. The subject area is located within the RE-2 zone, which calls for residential lots with a minimum land area of two
(2) acres; all but two of the proposed residential lots fall below this threshold. Maximum yield for the site could go up to
approximately forty (40) individual single-family lots. Approval of the proposed subdivision would grant an unwarranted
density bonus of six (6) additional residential lots; there are currently no provisions within either §16.28 or §17.04 of the
Nye County Code for such allowance. Given that surrounding properties contain land areas of five acres or greater, the
tentative map is not in keeping with Land Use Policy 3.E. 1.1 (Consideration of area land uses), Land Use Policy 3.E. 2.1
(Provision of adequate access), Housing Policy 4.C.2.2 (Peripheral residential development), and Community Design
Policy 7.C.3.1 (Rural design) of the Master Plan.
Street Names & Traffic Circulation: Street names relative to this application have not been established. Design and
placement of traffic signage shall be in accordance with § 16.28.260 (D), Nye County Code (or “NCC”). The applicant
proposes to construct a private one-way internal roadway of twenty-four feet (24’) in width with twenty feet (20’) of
paved surface. Upon closer scrutiny of the proposed internal circulation of the site, the following comments and
observations are noted:
•
Primary site access will be derived through a northward extension of Corbin Street from Betty Avenue, to terminate at”
the southeast corner of the project site;
•
A gated secondary entrance designed for non-routine, emergency vehicle access is proposed at the southwest corner of
the project site via a northward extension of an unnamed, previously platted, dedicated roadway. Inclusion of this
access should satisf’ Section D107.1, International Fire Code, 2003 ed.;
•
From a planning perspective, the proposed internal private street width complements a rural residential environment
that has little to no expectation of on-street parking. It can also function as adequate traffic calming with its
curvilinear design to discourage speeding. From a traffic circulation standpoint, however, the suggested one-way
traffic pattern transforms the street into an over-extended, one-mile-long, functioning cul-de-sac which can make
driving within the site highly circuitous and inconvenient for residents. The suggested traffic pattern can also
seriously compromise emergency response time;
•
Given the rural environment that the internal roadway serves, the proposed widths may be inadequate for traffic that
may be typical of this type of development, such as large recreational vehicles and trucks with horse trailers;
•
The applicant explains neither the benefits of this alternative design nor reasons why using current street design
standards would be unsuitable for this development.
Perimeter Street Dedications: In accordance with § 16.28.280 (B), NCC, any division of land proposal shall have adequate
public.., access consisting of full-width legal and physical access that must be a minimum of forty feet (40’) in ROW
width. § 16.28.280 (E), NCC further stipulates that where a one-half width street has been constructed on adjoining
property along the perimeter of any subdivision or parcel map proposal and, in the view of the Planning Commission said
street will be necessary for future development, developer shall be required to dedicate and construct a one-half width
street tying into the existing one-half street.
The applicant does not propose typical all-around street right-of-way dedications due to topographic and ownership
constraints surrounding the subject area, notably Federal and State land ownership abutting three sides of the site and
extreme grade variations to the north which could make street extensions of Warren and Adkisson Streets untenable.
Current area roadway conditions near the project site are either substandard and sporadic or non-existent, however. There
is no clear definitive primary access to the subject area, and the applicant has not assured Staff that the minimum width
required for primary legal access to the site can be obtained, particularly where the subject area abuts private property to
the east.
Page 6 of 9
July 15, 2009
Landscape Design: Landscaping shall be required at all entrances into the subdivision in accordance with § 16.28.260 (J)
of the NCC. The applicant proposes two gateway treatments at the primary entrance to the development from Corbin
Street.
-
Open Space Development: §16.28.270 (A), NCC requires the provision of open space for all developments of forty (40)
acres or greater. The applicant proposes to plat approximately twenty-four (24) acres of open space for multiple purposes,
to include recreation, private community water and waste-water facilities, and buffer and gateway landscaping. No
specific details on how the open space areas will be developed have been submitted with the tentative map application.
As this is a tentative map application for a common interest community, it is presumed that all open space and private
roadway tracts shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners’ association. This is not clearly indicated on the plat face
or in the applicant’s justification letter, however. Additionally, there are no stipulations or limitations on the plat face
preventing these open space tracts from reverting to residential use at a later date.
Traffic Impact Analysis: All subdivisions creating an Average Daily Trip of 100 or greater shall provide a traffic impact
analysis prior to the approval of the final map.
Waiver Application Analysis: A waiver from § 17.04.220 (B), NCC to allow one acre lots within the RE-2 zone was
submitted in conjunction with the tentative map application. The applicant is claiming that approval of the waiver will
facilitate the required density and ample open space, while adherence to the minimum required land areas will
“considerably diminish the open space areas.” No peculiarities or unusual circumstances specific to the subject area or
undue hardships resulting from strict adherence to both § 16.28 and § 17.04, NCC, have been identified by the applicant,
however. Additionally, the applicant has not demonstrated that the subject area cannot be developed in accordance with
prescribed regulations or elaborated on why various mechanisms as conservation easements throughout the development
were not explored. Approval of this waiver could ultimately compromise or complicate the administration and oversight
of a recently approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application, CU-09-0002, which was approved for the entire 80acre site on March 11,2009 which would allow the on-site housing, training and caretaking of up to twelve (12) animals
with special conditions. The applicant does not explain the accommodation of this new development within the scope of
the approved CUP.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon extensive review of both applications, Staff finds no sufficient justification for approval. The proposed subdivision
should not proceed, given the current zoning requirements imposed by the site’s RE-2 classification. Additionally, no
findings in support of the waiver request could be made due to the applicant’s failure to: (a) identify an undue hardship as
a result of strict adherence to both §16.28 and §17.04, NCC; (b) identify an undue hardship by virtue of site constraints or
unusual circumstances specific to the site that would preclude normal development, or; (c) offer compelling evidence that
the subject area cannot be developed in accordance with prescribed regulations. With this in mind, Staff recommends
denial of both applications.
1.
Developer(s).
2.
3.
4.
July 15, 2009
Page 7 of 9
that fact.
5.
6.
7.
The form of the Final Map shall conform to the requirements outlined within N.R.S. 278.3 72.
8.
9.
parcel(s).
by this approval.
a.
Design and placement of traffic signs shall be in accordance with the Nye County Standard Details and
b.
c.
entitled Standard Details and Specflcations for Public Improvements within the Pahrump Regional Planning
District.
a.
The developer shall obtain encroachment permits from Nye County Road Department for any work within the
ROW.
b.
July 15, 2009
Page 8 of 9
c.
review.
d.
e.
18. Developer shall dedicate to County up to the full width of half the right of way of any streets and highway on their
19. All future development shall follow Public Works “Guidelines for Design and Review of Development Engineering
be permitted.
25. All proposed internal private roadways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with §l6.28.280(B)(1), Nye
County Code.
27. The Developer shall show all existing improvements on the Tentative Map, perNye County Code §16.28.140(B)(1).
approved by the Nye County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) and recorded with the Nye County Recorder’s Office.
29. With regard to condition number four (4) of CU-09-0002 as approved on March 11, 2009, Nye County exercises its
right to review and revise the conditions of approval to include the following:
a.
Permissions granted under the Conditional Use Permit, CU-09-0002, shall be applicable solely to Lot 10, High
Peaks Subdivision. This shall be indicated on both the Tentative Map and the recorded Final Map;
b.
The Tentative Map and the recorded Final Map shall indicate that any permissions granted under CU-09-0002
shall not be extended to any other residential lots or open space tracts within the High Peaks Subdivision.
1.
Control Department, Sheriffs Department and/or Public Works Department is responsible for determining
Page 9 of 9
July 15, 2009
2.
3.
Development of the property must conform to the plans approved as part of this application. The Nye County
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
No construction of public improvements shall occur until any required plans are submitted and approved in
9.
SUBJECT
Case No. TM-09-0002 & WV-09-0006
EXHIBIT “A”
I —— I
-
0
I
AREA ZONING
TM-09-0002 & WV-09-0006
RE-2; Rural Estate Residential
3000 FOOT BUFFER
RH-4.5; Rural Homestead Residential
NOTIFIED PROPERTIES
RH-9.5; Rural Homestead Residential
RE-i; Rural Estate Residential
VR-20; Village Residential
R
875
I
I
1,750
I
I
I
3,500 Feet
I
I
I
•
I
•
I
NYE
OUNTY
NYE COUNT’V NV PLANNING DEPT.
Pahrump Regional Planning District
(PR PD)
The information shown hereon is approximate and for
exhibit use only. Nye County is not responsible for any
claims, injuries or liabilities resulting from the use of this
document beyond the purpose for which it is intended.
SUBJECT
-I
J
Case No. TM-09-0002 & WV-09-0006
0
EXHIBIT “Ba AREA MASTER PLAN CATEGORIES
-
TM-09-0002 & WV-09-0006
‘
I 3000 FOOT BUFFER
___l
I
I
—
BLM
—
NOTIFIED PROPERTIES
Rural Residential
875
1,750
3,500 Feet
—1
NYE
COUNTY
NYE COUNTY NV PLANNING DEPT.
(PRPD)
exhibit use only. Nye County is not responsible for any
SUBJECT PROPERTY
L._
Case No. TM-09-0002 & WV-09-0006
0
875
1,750
3,500 Feet
NYE COUNTY, NV PLANNING DEPT.
(PRPD)
exhibit use only Nye County is not responsible for any
RAGE (ILL AIR,)
PRIVATE DRIVE CROSS SEC11ON
N.T.S.
(COOP. TO 955)
AGO
T”RC U LLESS N
NCINIflM
N.E S.
64W SWJNI’T. IMYAOW
N I/A RE OW SW 1/4 RE SEET1AN 2 7205 652W USIA
A “COMMON—INTEREST COMMUNITY”
0.06 THIPS PEN DAY PER FANILY PER LOT. AN LOIS. TOTAUNG AA3
—Ts35
RESOFNSAL/EA’EN SPATE
.238,782 SF
3,SNT.145 SE
3,829,639 SE
LL392.NT’T SE
THOCT 3
THACY
msa
RR
OPEN SPATE M SEWAGE DISPOSAL
OPEN SPATE ft LNMOSCAPTNG
PAIOGTC ORISE
OPEN SPATE & RATER SYSTEM
s
NERVE
\,,roloO’
f 27—501—01
I
RE
SlEET
2
JOG
ORANN MY:
EDO MANAA2EMENT EEC
PREPARED FOR
ANN
1O5-I.V
£6 NIMNEN
IDlE N 1/2 00’ mE sw 1/4
CR’ SEC IDON 2 T20S RS2E MOM
NOR’ COUNTY; NEVADA
0
TEWTAHVE
4
P
FeI
.,
410
WESIOCNYAL SRTHO FAMILY O9EGLWGS OW LOTS I-AN RE SIUWRAST
H.
LAND USE:
CPEN SPACES:
THSIOENTRG, NET:
RN.TNA AC
63.306 AC
SA.933 NE
28.383 AC
Y AFFECT THE PROLCT.
TOTAL GROSS AREA,
TOTAL NFT AREC
ARE&
-
I
EMIT IS AWOENEESPET 66TH NO ENARCNMENEAL DEORAOAS
THI THAT EOI.EO
NESATNEL
HISTORICAL USAGE;
007.
ESOMATCO
AVERAGE ONLY TRAYYIC;
ALL FROATE 60005 ARE TO RE ASPTTALT 0210 BUILT PER RETOIL GROWN
RETRION
OR OS OEYERMINED NY SOOS REPORT AND ENSINEERED DESIRE
ALL PARUC
ARE TH NE CONSTRUCTED 89 SCECROAAICE 18TH THE NYS CTHANTY DEPAATNA ROADS
ERT RE
PURGE WORKS SPECIRCATTTHI.
DY AGREEMENT ESIEWED INTO PRIOR TH F3IAL MAPPING. THE
NEAREST
ETASTRIC SEWER SERACE IS TN EOCESS EN S MILES FROM
THIS STLL
SENAGE DISPOSAL SHALL NE THRURJCA A COMMUNIT SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM
LOEATEU AS 500661 AERETH ADO MI NE MAJNTAJNY NH
EA
AN EOISYRG AYOTES
CTHAPAOY
SEP GECE
ER
0
h
AYUTES OOMPANR
NY AGREEMENT ENTERED RTO PRIOR TO RNNL NAPPINLL
THE NEAREST EOSTTNO
WATER SERREE IS IN EACTSS RE S MIlES FROM THIS SITE.
RATER SHALL WE PAORDEO FRAN ANDERTHQJND NY CANMANIT
T NELL AND
DISTOIRUTON SYSTEM ART WILL NE MAINTAINED NY AS COSHNU
WATER SEANCE:
TINS PRAPTAEA IS LOCATED TN PLATE CURIE
A ANDITADED AS SHOWN ON
EONMUNITY PAAEL 0320016 4385 C, DATED SEPT,
28, 1990. AND COMMUNIET
PANEL 0320206 A3NS C, DATED SEPT, 28, 1990, ART T&ISIRUCT
THA ON
IMPNOGEMENT WITHIN THE SPEDAL FLOOD NADARD AREA
MUST NE RI
ACEGMDAJNCE NMTH NYC EOJNTE cONE YTLE TS.12, TIlE FLOCN
DAA9NTE
PREGENTTHA ONTINAATE,
TRW 0’ SF,9TE SF THE IVY PAENRAMT RAT 4R (‘flT,I73T—
TAT7
r
R9Tl7
ft000 ZONE STATEMENT;
(334) ATA—S300
LAS GEGAS, NEVADA
LTD M2AAGEMES LEE, KEITH HEEDING
7RNT NEST CHARlESTON RLTH., STE NSA
OEREWLOPER
El
0
0
0
I—
z
o
I—
(I)
U
I—
z.
\—
z
.x—y 0
2
1240 E. State St., Ste 101
:
Phone:
Y:\CWJOBS\2005\01 05\0105-2 1\2009_TM_Resubmittal\JustificationLetter_HighPeaksTentativeMap_2009.06.doc
June 1,2009
Nye County Planning Department
250N. Hwy 160
Suite 1
Pabrump, NV 89060
To Whom It May Concern:
Subject:
Tentative Map for High Peaks Subdivision: AP# 27-501-01, Section 2, T2OS,
R52E, 4751 W. Adkisson Street, L.D.O. I, LLC—Owner/Applicant
Tentative Map (TM-06-0010) and Waivers for High Peaks Subdivision were approved by
the Board of County Commissioners at its April 18, 2007 meeting. The County Commissioners
also determined at that April 18, 2007 meeting that a development agreement would not be
required. It soon became apparent that it was not feasible or prudent to develop the subdivision at
that time due to market conditions. This approval expired on April 18, 2009. The tentative map
and waivers are being resubmitted, along with the appropriate fees, for approval.
High Peaks Subdivision will be a private gated community on approximately 84 acres
and will include 42 residential lots, plus four (4) flex lots for service/maintenance and/or
residential, private streets, private community water and sewer facilities, a clubhouse and other
facilities for resident use.
The parcel is in a remote area of the Valley and the north boundary (Adkisson Street
alignment) is a mountain with rocky outcroppings intruding onto the parcel and BLM property to
the north of that; the south property line (Bass Road alignment) is bordered by a State owned
parcel and privately owned parcels; the west line is (Warren Street alignment) bordered by BLM
land and the east line (Corbin Street alignment) is bordered by a privately owned parcel.
Except for a portion of Corbin Street the applicant does not propose right-of-way
dedications for street alignments noted above due to the topography at the north boundary and
BLM to the north of that; BLM on the west boundary line, State owned property on
approximately half of the south line and the other half (privately owned parcels) has access via a
cul-de-sac (Arnold Court) from Irene Street.
—
c,’j
0
\
LAND SURVEYING
•
CONSTRUCTION STAKING
•
SUBDIVISION
•
TOPOGRAPHY
•
GLOBAL POSITIONING (GPS)
—--
•
WATER RIGHTS
Nye County Planning Department
June 1, 2009
Page 2
Corbin Street, as noted on the tentative map, is a 30’ right-of-way from Bass Road up to
the gated entrance to the subdivision. The applicant has just about completed the process of
obtaining a 60’ right-of-way easement for Nye County across the State owned parcel to the south
to bring Corbin Street from Irene Street to the subdivision entrance. The applicant proposes to
construct Corbin Street as a paved roadway to Nye County Standards, when the subdivision is
developed. An emergency ingress/egress has also been planned for the west property line
(Warren Street).
A waiver is requested from the Standard Details and Specifications for Public
Improvements within the PRPD, Drawing 1.1 (attached) to allow for an alternate design
(attached “Private Drive Cross Section) of the interior “private” streets. Drawing 1.1 requires a
thirty-five (35) foot ROW width with no street parking and no sidewalks and our alternate design
provides for a maximum of twenty-four (24) feet with twenty (20) foot wide pavement with two
(2) foot shoulders each side, no street parking and no sidewalks. Drainage and street
embankments will be within ten (10) foot easements on each side of the roadway. Actually the
private streets, as you will note, will be built to a better standard than that of Nye County. We
feel that the alternate design provides a more than adequate street without giving the appearance
of a parking lot in this upscale private community.
A waiver is requested from NCC 17.04.220.B. to allow one acre lots for the single family
living area where the minimum is two acres. This design would allow keeping the density at one
dwelling unit per each two acres and still keep the open space; whereas, two acre lots for the
living areas would considerably diminish the open space areas.
The developer proposes to create CC&Rs for the development prior to the final map
being recorded.
Thank you for your consideration and should you require any additional information,
please contact this office.
Sincerely,
David A. Richards, PLS
President
C,
C.,

september 9, 2009

Transcription

Similar documents

Kardinia International College Agreement 2015

NY Correction History Society images of NYC DOC Black History

to view the minutes

N"ewf9J~dland

Piano Spec Sheet Template

City Commission Meeting 06-07-2011

10/06/2015 Minutes - The City of McCall

NTERIOR$ESIGN - National Office Furniture

detective skills