Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call the meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission to order for April 16th. If you would please rise with me as we honor our country with the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. I'm going to mention real quick the... Scott, can you mute your microphone, please?

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.

The conditional use permit application CUP 26-003 for Thane Church has been withdrawn. So I just wanted to let you know if there was somebody here that was there for that specifically. That application has been withdrawn. This time is pursuant to NRS 241. This time is devoted to comments by the general public, if any, and discussion of those comments. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successive agenda and identified to be an action item. This is for anything that isn't on our agenda tonight. If there's anyone that has anything that they'd like to discuss, now would be the time. Okay, I'm going to move forward. I'm going to read the appeals process into the record. Anyone agreed by an action of this Planning Commission may appeal such decision to the Yoko County Board of County Commissioners within 10 calendar days of said action. An appeal form may be obtained from the Division of Planning and Zoning located at 540 Court Street, Suite 104 in Elko. When completed, return the appeal form with the required $250 filing fee to the Division of Planning and Zoning within the 10 calendar day period. We're going to move on to approval of the minutes for March 19th. Do we have any... Questions on March's minutes?

To approve the minutes from the March 19th meeting as written.

Okay. Do we have a second?

I will second that motion.

All right. Dina has made a motion to approve the March 19th meeting minutes, and Naomi has seconded that.

All those in favor of the motion at hand, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Aye. Thank you, Scott. Thanks for joining us, Scott, by the way. Where are you at? Let's see here.

Sorry, I'm down in Hawthorne at a health fair, so it's wrapping up. That's why all the noise.

All right, no worries. Thank you. I'm in favor. Motion carries. He's not in Vegas.

Oh, he should be.

Okay, we're going to move into preliminary hearings. We have application COZ-26-1. Jimmy and Kelly Faulkner. Corey.

Good evening. An application submitted by Jimmy and Kelly Faulkner requesting a change of zoning from a light industrial district to an agricultural residential and light industrial district for uses consistent with an AR zoning district and light industrial district. This is just a preliminary hearing. So it's a non-action item. This parcel is out East Idaho Street. It's actually, it's currently zoned light industrial. They're gonna keep a portion of it light industrial because there are billboards there. And that's basically it in a nutshell. So this is just a preliminary hearing. You'll see the actual staff report in May. Okay, thank you.

We're gonna move on to public hearings. We, let's see, that's withdrawn. We're going to move on to application COZ26-002, Lincoln Development LLC. Corey.

An application submitted by Lincoln Development LLC requesting a change of zoning from an open space district for use as consistent with a special lands district. Location is APNs. 0 0 6 3 1 echo 0 3 5 0 3 8 and 0 0 9 being parcels 1 and 4 as shown on the parcel map for KRL partnership file number 5 4 1 6 2 7 and the minutes 68 point 0 0 1 acre parcels shown on the boundary line adjustment record a survey for KRL Partnership and Gary Nunez, file number 541-626, both on file in the Office of the Elko County Recorder, Elko, Nevada, being situated in portions of Sections 30 and the west half of Section 29, Township 34 North, Range 56 East, Mount Fiablo Basin Meridians. This parcel is located within the Spring Creek Lamoille master plan and it does comply With the master plan this request does comply with the master plan designation It did receive Correspondence from the Spring Creek Association which Jesse Barr has asked that I read Into record so I will do that now before I move on to the conditions I Spring Creek Association respectfully requests that if the proposed zoning located outside SCA boundaries but utilizing SCA-maintained roads is approved, the county include the following conditions of approval. These requirements are consistent with the SCA's practice for any new homes or expanded use that relies on SCA roads for access. Proportionate road access fee. Because this development is outside Spring Creek Association boundaries that will rely on SCA infrastructure, the property owner must pay an annual road access fee or other proportionate cost-sharing arrangement to cover the property's fair contribution towards ongoing road maintenance expenses. And that concludes Jesse's letter. Staff does recommend approval with the following conditions. At the time of development, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of Nevada revised statutes, Elko County Code development criteria, and all local building and development requirements pertaining to special land district properties. Two, if said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners, the deed of conveyance shall contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations, findings, conditions and requirements of approval of this specific zone change 3 as per policy adopted March 4th 2026 by the Elko County Board of Commissioners the developer shall comply with the requirement set forth by the declaration of policy for new development access through existing homeowners or Road Maintenance Association adopted by the Elko County Board of Commissioners on March 4th 2026 And that was attached to the staff report. Four, any access from Lamoille Highway must be coordinated and permitted through the Nevada Department of Transportation. And that concludes my recommended conditions and my staff report. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions of query from commissioners? Corey what's the name of the? So this is actually getting over on to the west side of the summit That that very northern west parcel there does cross over the top of what you can consider the summit But it's not accessible

There isn't really anything that's accessible through there, and any access coming off of the Lamoille Highway, I don't want to speak for NDOT, but I think would create quite a bit of improvements for that encroachment to increase any of the volume of those existing roads.

At this point, they're planning to use Carvel? Carvel and Buffside. and then go up over the top across Tower Road.

They'll go up to Tower Road.

Okay. All right.

Is the applicant here or someone wishing to represent this?

Hello, for the record, Bob Tebow, High Desert Engineering, 640 Idaho Street. I guess I better sign in real quick, please. Sorry I was late. I guess I got here just in time.

Yes, you hit it just perfectly.

Yeah, so I am here on behalf of Lincoln Development. They're looking to change this zoning here and then be able to divide these large parcels into 10-acre lots or bigger. And that's the general scheme. I think Corey gave you a good synopsis. And we see he had some conditions and comments. And they all seemed...

Reasonable so I'm happy to answer any questions Okay, any questions about just have one once once they've been broken down into ten acre lots Does that take into account the easements do they break are the easements included in the ten acres which brings them down below ten?

so If you want Bob I can answer that question go ahead.

I wasn't sure if those roads are dedicated or their easements I

Some of these roads are dedicated right-of-way, so the area of the parcel would not include the dedication. Any roads that are easements, the neighboring property actually underlies underneath the easement, rather than the county actually owning the right-of-way. So in those situations, the gross acreage of the parcel would include the easements. which would be calculated as the minimum of a 10-acre parcel. So in the long run, if you had a 10-acre parcel that was straddling an easement or going to the center line of an easement, the actual net acreage would be less than 10 acres. Right.

Which?

It's perfectly legal.

Okay. Just checking.

Okay. Think you're good, Naomi?

Yeah.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Bob. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this? Please come forward and sign in for me and state your name for the record.

My name is Darren Dyke. I am representing the Nevada Department of Transportation.

Go ahead, Darren.

Excuse me. I just have a letter from the district engineer regarding the Tower Road access. We'll read it.

Okay.

It says, this is regarding application C0Z26-002, the Lincoln Development LLC. Dear Commission members, references made to the Elko County Planning Commission meeting held today, Thursday, April 26, 2026, regarding the above-mentioned application. The department has no objections to the land zone reclassification request. However, there are concerns which have been expressed in the past in the 1984 letter from James E. Kress, District Engineer, the 2005 letter from Casey L. Kelly, District Transportation Engineer, and the 2018 letter from Boyd Ratliff, District Engineer, the road referred to as Tower Road is permitted to the FAA and currently does not meet standards or requirements for public access. Therefore, the department is considering closing this approach or reissuing the permit to the county as an emergency fire access with locked gate. Elko County is the permittee for the approach of Spring Valley Parkway from State Route 227, and the property owners are to be paying into the Spring Creek Association for use of their infrastructure to access their properties using that approach. If you have any questions, feel free to contact the district office for assistance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. physical copy. All right.

If you could get me, email me a copy of that, please. Okay. I'd really appreciate it.

You don't want this one?

That one would work. Yep. Were you? That way I can put it in the file.

Thank you. Were you aware of that, Corey? That they were looking to lock that access down?

That's the first I heard about that, but I would support it.

Yeah. All right. Okay, anyone else wishing to speak on this application? All right. Any comments?

I have a couple questions. So Tower Road, does that come from the highway?

It does.

And goes up? So they would block that whole space? I assume they'd have only access from Carvel.

The problem with Tower Road is there's no decel or acceleration lane in there. And so if you're trying to make a left-hand turn onto that road, somebody's going to rear-end you coming over the summit.

Yeah. So would the gate just be at the highway?

I assume. Okay.

All right.

Yeah, we haven't discussed any details on that, but that would be the logical place. Let's put it right there at the highway right-of-way.

Okay. Now that makes sense to me.

OK. Can I have a motion?

I had one. Would that be a condition we could put on there to lock that gate? Or is that just up to NDOT? No, that would be up to NDOT. That's just up to NDOT, OK.

So that's why I did put that condition in there. If they want to try to access anything onto the highway, they'd have to coordinate with NDOT and meet all their requirements and specifications, which I can't speak to what those would be.

I'll make a motion, Mark. I'll make a motion to approve application number COZ 236002, Link and Development, LLC, for a change of zoning from open space to special lands. And... must contain staff's recommendations, findings, and conditions, and Spring Creek Association's letter. Can we do that?

Yeah, I addressed that letter and my conditions.

Oh, okay. I didn't get that far.

Unless it's number one. Item number three.

Three. Okay.

Jesse just wanted the letter read into record.

Okay.

You can strike that last part.

I'll do it.

I will second your motion.

I'll second We have a motion from Dina to approve this application with steps recommendations conditions and findings and Naomi has seconded that All those in favor of the motion hand please signify by saying aye aye aye aye aye Aye. Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor, motion carries.

Thank you, Bob.

Application COZ 26-004, Nevada Southwest Energy LLC. Corey.

This application the applicant did request a waiver which I have granted for preliminary hearings Public hearing for both this and the following conditional use permit an application submitted by Nevada Southwest Energy LLC DBA Southwest Energy LLC Requesting a change of zoning from open space district to a general industrial and extractive district for use is consistent with an M1 zoning district. The location, a 41-acre parcel or 40-acre parcel of APN 00506008 be in the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 11, Township 33 North, Range 52 East, Mount Diablo Basin Meridian, County of Elko, State of Nevada. We've seen a few applications. From this applicant in the past, this is where the emulsions plant is out north of Carlin. They are requesting to change another 40 acre parcel of that section where the emulsions plant is to M1 for basically a lay down yard for equipment and supplies. staff Recommendations findings and conditions staff recommends approval with the following conditions at the time of development the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of Nevada revised statutes Elko County code development criteria and all local building and development requirements pertaining to general industrial and extractive properties To have said property is sold whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner owner assistance

I'm listed as a participant.

Sir, can you please?

Yeah.

Mr. Thorpe, can you please mute your microphone?

Number two, if said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners, the deed of conveyance shall contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations, findings, conditions, and requirements of approval of this specific zone change. And that concludes my recommended conditions.

Okay. Questions of query on staff report?

Get out of here.

How do I do it?

The correspondence from the fire department, are you going to want to include that in your recommendations?

Yeah, you can add that in there. Any requirements from the Elko County Fire Protection District?

Corey, so normally I can see more of who's on Zoom on here, but I don't see anybody.

I am certainly not an expert at Zoom.

Well, people pop up occasionally, but there we go.

There we go. There's Scott in the wind. You're in the wind, Scott.

Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to represent this application? Okay, anyone here that would like to speak on this application? We will move on then. Can I get a motion from... It's your night to shine, dear.

It's my hat tonight. I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to approve application number COZ 26-004 Southwest Energy LLC Nevada Southwest Energy LLC. Subject to staff's recommendations, conditions, and findings, along with the recommendations from the fire department as noted on page six and seven of their report.

Okay, do we have a second?

I'll second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Hartley to approve this application with staff's recommendations, conditions, and findings. And Commissioner Jefferson has seconded that. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor. Motion carries. Application CUP 26-006, Society for the Preservation of Western Heritage.

Mr. Chairman, you skipped CUP 26-005. Oh.

So I did. CUP 26-005, Nevada Southwest Energy. Corey.

An application submitted by Nevada Southwest Energy LLC, DBA, Southwest Energy LLC, requesting a conditional use permit to build and operate a lay-down yard and storage yard for bulk materials and equipment in the general industrial and extractive district. Location, a 40-acre portion of a 640-acre parcel, APN 00506008, being the northwest corner of the northwest corner of Section 11, Township 33 North, Range 52 East, Mount Diablo Basin Meridian, County of Elko, State of Nevada. This is the exact same piece of property that we talked about in the previous change of zoning. staff recommends approval with the following conditions. At the time of development, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of Nevada revised statutes, Elko County Code development criteria, and all local building and development requirements pertaining to the proposed lay down and storage yard in the general industrial extractive district properties. If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners and the new owners wish to continue operating the lay down yard and storage facility, they must apply for a new conditional use permit within six months after the purchase of the property. This conditional use is contingent upon approval of application COZ 26-4, a request submitted by Nevada Southwest Energy LLC for a change of zoning from an open space district to a general, industrial, and extractive district. For this application, the applicant shall install a fence around the lay down yard and storage area that meets design specifications approved by the Elko County Planning and Zoning Division and all applicable federal and state regulations. Five, the applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements defined by Nevada Department of Environmental Protection relating to the proposed development. Six, at the time of development, the applicant shall submit copies of a grading and drainage plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Nevada to Elko County Building and Safety Division and Elko County Planning and Zoning Divisions. And that concludes my conditions. I would recommend that we add the additional condition that Dina added to the change of zoning.

Fire department.

Fire department.

Yep. Okay. Any questions of Corey on this? This is just the conditional use permit to allow for the use that's going to be taking place there in the new zoning.

Chair, I have a question. I'm just sort of curious because we talked about this quite a bit with the applicant's previous conditional use permit. Is there any complaints, Corey, about activity out there at this facility?

No, absolutely none. Nevada Southwest Energy, from the very get-go when we first met them back in 2019, have been wonderful people to work with and HAVE BEEN VERY COMPLIANT.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU SCOTT. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? DO I HAVE A COMMISSIONER THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

I will make a motion, Mr. Chairman, my last motion of the evening, that we approve application number CUP26-005 for a conditional use permit to, I forgot them already. To the applicant, adhering to staff's recommendations, findings, and conditions, and the conditions of the fire department's report, page 7 of 9 in staff's report, and also page 8 of 9 in staff's report.

I will second that motion.

All right, we have a motion to approve CUP 26005 from Commissioner Hartley, and a second from Commissioner Rosch. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor, motion carries. All right, now application CUP 26-006, Society for the Preservation of Western Heritage.

An application submitted by the Society for Preservation of Western Heritage requesting a modification to an existing temporary conditional use permit. Application number 24-4000-0007, approved November 21st of 2024 per Planning Commission Resolution 24-2024, authorizing a lay-down and storage yard with a caretaker's residence from January 15th of 2025 through January 31st of 2027 in a multifamily residential district Elko County code 433B3 for use during the construction of a new electrical transmission line being built through Elko County. This application for modification is requesting an extension of time not to exceed 12 months to the term of the existing temporary CUP for an amended exploration of January 31st, 2028, as well as the removal of condition B A STIPULATION RESTRICTING TRANSFER OF THE CONDITIONAL USE TO NEW OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. AN EXISTING CONDITION RECORDED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION PCR 24-2024 AS INCLUDED IN THE NOVEMBER 2024 STAFF REPORT FROM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. location APN 0 0 9 0 0 5 0 0 6 and 0 0 9 0 0 5 0 0 7 Described in exhibit a a quick claim deed on file at the office of the Elko County recorder as file number 7 1 9 7 3 3 being situated in a portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 1 Township 47 North Range 64 East Mount Diablo Basin Meridian, Jackpot, Nevada. These are the two subject parcels. This was approved previously, as I mentioned. This is just a modification to that existing CUP. I was up in Jackpot last Thursday for the advisory board meeting, and they recommended unanimously that this board approve the updated modified conditional use permit. staff does recommend approval of this modification to the existing temporary conditional use permit with the following conditions. A, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of NRS, NAC, Elko County Code, and the Uniform Building Code or Applicable Building Code for the development criteria that pertain to the proposed use of the facility. B, this condition is actually going to be removed, and that's how I'll write it in the Resolution for this that as a removed condition from the previous resolution See vehicles traveling on the surface streets within the town of jackpot not including us highway 93 To not to not exceed 14 tons in weight D speed limits within the town of jackpot must be strictly adhered to he all outdoor lighting must be directed downward and and may not encroach on any adjacent roads or properties. F, the applicant will be required to install two new fire hydrants at locations acceptable to the jackpot fire chief. G, this modification to the existing temporary conditional use permit hereby extends the authorized period for the conditional use by 12 months to change the expiration date, the expiration of the temporary conditional use permit to January 31st of 2028. And that concludes our recommended conditions.

Thanks, Corey. Questions of Corey?

Go ahead. Why, excuse me, Corey, but why is this particular applicant receiving Item number B, why are you taking it out?

It's actually in process of being sold, and the new owners want to continue being able to utilize it.

I'll let Mr. Valtari speak. Corey, how did the two fire hydrants come into play?

It came into play from recommendations from the first conditional use permit. Go ahead.

It's all yours.

Good afternoon. This is Paul Buteri. I'm the president of the Society for Preservation of Western Heritage. We had some donors donate these two five-acre parcels to us a number of years ago. We came in when I had this Wilson construction. approached us to put a lay down yard there, or whatever you want to call it, and rent it to them, which we agreed. The only reason for us to have those were to sell them someday and use it for completion of our Western Heritage Museum in Wells, Nevada. So we're getting close, but we're short. And I've got a buyer for those two parcels now, but we can't cut off the lease agreement with Wilson Construction. And they haven't been able to get started because the permitting process with the government and whatever else has slowed them down. So we need the two things that they asked for is that, you know, that number one, we can sell it, you know, with the lease intact. And then number two is that it be extended so Wilson can extend their use on that property up there. So if we can get her sold, then we'll finally have... a Western Heritage Museum in Wells, Nevada, a lot bigger than what we have right now. So we'd appreciate your support, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Okay.

Any questions of Mr. Botteri?

Just so once they're sold, the approved permit from before is still going to be in the... Sellers.

It'll transfer.

And the good thing is that the buyer I have for it intends, after this lease is up, is to put some multifamily housing on it. So, I mean, it's kind of a good thing because these people that are, the Wilson Construction is going to be bringing some water Up there with the hydrants what's going to help add value to it and make it that much quicker to get some? Multifamily built up there and jackpot so it's a good thing all the way around I think if you guys approve this Thank you, thank you Paul Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this?

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to Commissioner comments or a motion I

I will make a motion to approve CUP 26-006 with all staff's findings, recommendations, and conditions. Anything else?

I second.

Okay, we have a motion from . Hang on, Scott. We have a motion from Commissioner Roche and a second from Commissioner Gavorski. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor. Motion carries. We are going to move on to application VAR 26-001, Milo Karchner.

An application submitted by Milo Karchner requesting a variance for a reduction from 30 feet to 10 feet in a west side yard setback reduction from 20 feet to 10 feet in an agricultural residential district to accommodate the construction of a proposed home and shop within topographical and lot layout constraints. APN 0 3 7 0 1 6 0 0 8 being lot 8 of block 16 Meadow Valley Ranchos unit number 5 as shown on the map thereof on file on the Elko in the office of the Elko County recorder is file number 1 1 6 1 5 Situated in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 33 Township 35 North Range 55 East Mount Diablo Basin Meridian County of Elko, State of Nevada. Physical address is 3139 Fox Glove Street, Elko, Nevada 89801. This parcel is located up in the Kitchridge Canyon area. And due to topography on that parcel, he's really limited to areas that he can place his parcel or place his structures. This is kind of what he's looking to do here a little bit of a plot plan Staff does recommend approval with the following conditions and restrictions This variance is subject to the restrictions and conditions as outlined in Elko County code 495 the time of development the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions and Nevada revised statutes Elko County code development criteria and all local building and development requirements pertaining to the proposed residential development If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to new owner or owners the deed of command shall contain verbiage identifies and adopts the recommendations findings conditions and requirements of approval to the specific variants and future residential development The minimum front yard setback will remain unchanged at 50 feet, while the minimum rear yard setback will be 10 feet, and side yard setback will be 10 feet along the west line, as applies to the new proposed 43 by 48 shop in the northwest corner of the parcel. And that concludes staff's recommended conditions.

Okay. Any questions of Corey? Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this? Okay. All right, do we have a motion?

Motion?

Yeah. Oh. That's what's next.

I'll make a motion.

Okay.

I'll make a motion. You said that you had done your last one. It's Jake's turn.

I'm a woman, I can change my mind. I'm exhausted after this meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve application number VAR26-001 for Milo Jean Karchner with staff's recommendations, findings, and conditions.

I second.

All right, we have a motion to approve from Commissioner Hartley. And a second from Commissioner Jefferson to approve the application via error 26001. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Eric Raborski votes aye.

Thank you, Scott.

In favor of?

Got that. Any opposed? Same sign. I'm in favor. Motion carries. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Paul. We are going to move on to application VAR 26-002, Logan and Andrea Heitz. Corey.

An application submitted by Logan and Andrea Heights requesting a variance for a side yard setback reduction from 20 feet to 12 feet in an agricultural residential district for two existing 12 by 12 outbuildings. Location is APN 074008006, being lot six of block eight, track 109. Spring Creek Corporation, as shown on the map thereof, on file in the Office of the Elko County Recorder, is file number 72209, being situated in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 16, Township 33 North, Range 57 East, Mount Diablo Basin Meridian, County of Elko, State of Nevada. Physical address, 244 Cliff Street, Cliff Place, Spring Creek, Nevada, 89815. I didn't really work on this one. Ian did. But I am going to make an assumption that these setbacks were probably brought to the applicant's attention by Jess Phillips, our building official. Thank you, Ian. Go up to the mic, please, if you're going to speak.

Ian Collier with Echo County Planning and Zoning. But the adjacent parcel to the east, I believe, that this setback applies to it what it was those lots were previously owned by the same owner which is the in-laws of the applicant i believe it says in the staff report and so that's part of why they're wanting to keep those structures there i guess but that's all okay thanks and thank you ian

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions and restrictions. This variance is subject to restrictions and conditions as outlined in Elko County Code 495. Two, at the time of development, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of Nevada revised statutes, Elko County Code development criteria, and all local building and development requirements pertaining to the proposed residential development and agricultural residential district properties. If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners, the deed of conveying shall contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations, findings, conditions, and requirements of approval of this specific variance and future residential development. For the minimum, southwest side yard setback will be 12 feet as applies to the two existing 12 by 12 outbuildings, shed and gazebo, as shown on the site plan drawing. submitted with application number VAR 26-001 as depicted within this report. All additional structures on the property will comply with the required setbacks for the agricultural residential district zoning of this parcel. Five, the variance application for the west side setback reduction from 20 to 12 feet for the two existing out buildings described herein. is contingent upon approval from the Spring Creek Association of Architecture of this variance application that was received on December 18th of 2020, or approved on December 18th of 2025. And that concludes our recommended conditions.

Okay. Any questions of query? I've got one That may or may not apply in this exact situation, but my understanding on these smaller Sheds and buildings is that if they're not permanently affixed That is that is planning and zoning point of view apparently there's a little bit of difference between what planning and zoning and building and safety and

Really I believe the minimums to are the maximums 200 square feet right for our building permit for our yeah So if they're over if they're over that size so these would fall within that Unpermitted size restriction yeah, that's true because they're 12 by 12.

That's correct That's where I was saying that Jess, and I have a little bit of Differences on how that views being a movable shed It's planning and zoning's view that it can be within those setbacks if it's not a permanently fixed foundation.

I think we all need to get on the same page on this.

I would agree, and I've had this conversation with him several times. Okay.

Maybe we need to take the first step in drafting some sort of resolution to get this clarified.

That's probably a good idea. Okay.

Logan, you want to talk? Don't be shy.

I'm Logan Hines. I'm the property owner at 244 Cliff Place. I can shed a little bit of light. There's four structures on the property now. As we've been moving things through the county, we inherited from a commercial property the old pellet company's VersaTubes. And as I move them commercially, well, I move them from our commercial property to our residence, It was unbeknownst to me at the time that two of those needed to be permitted structurally once you move them, and we're in that process right now getting those reengineered because those will be fixed foundation buildings that do meet the threshold of 200 square feet. At the time when that was highlighted, because we also build in a shop, adjust everyone doing their part, these two side buildings that are quite small, they are 12 feet versus 20 feet from the property line, but they fit very well on a, on a very steep slope. We have a challenging, nice lot there. It works well with our neighbors who are our in-laws. It's like a combined play yard. So we appreciate if there is an approval to keep them there. Yet I understand why it became convoluted with the other structures that do need to be permitted and structurally grounded to the ground. And we're working on those as well.

So a quick question for you. On these two structures that you're applying for this variance for, Are they on a permanent foundation, or are they sitting there on a soft set?

Technically, the black is a 12 by 12 storage shed. I can move it if I had to. It doesn't give us much parking room. When we ordered the 140 square foot Amazon simple little gazebo, we were surprised that that was applicable to foundation. But being a good property owner, we did redhead that to a piece of concrete.

OK. So that does make it a permanent fixture, Mr. Chairman, to go with our previous conversation.

So technically, if we get this cleaned up for that gazebo, the variance would need to be in place? Yes. but the shed maybe wouldn't need to be, but we're dealing with it all at once here, so let's see what we can do.

It's not doing any harm to have the variance for the shed. Correct.

Okay.

And they were approved by the Spring Creek Association back in December.

Okay.

Any questions of Logan?

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this?

Corey, I have a question for you. Is the setback for accessory buildings the same as the setbacks for permanent in the county?

Yeah, 20 on the sides.

Okay.

Okay, can I get a motion?

Mr..

Chair I'll make a motion to approve var 2600 to with all staffs recommendations findings and conditions second All right, we have a motion for approving this application var 2600 to by Commissioner Jefferson and seconded by Commissioner Hartley I Any further discussion on this? All those in favor of the motion at hand, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor, motion carries. We're going to move on to... There's a lot of public hearings, but we're getting through them. Yeah. We had a full agenda.

Kind of busy this month, huh?

Yeah, in more ways than just this.

Application ROWVAC 26002, Gary Sampley. Corey.

An application submitted by Gary Sampley requesting a right-of-way vacation of one-half width, being 40 feet wide, of those portions of First Street and C Street adjacent to Block 13 along with all of the alley within Block 13 of East Mountain City Township as shown on the map thereof on file in the Office of the Elko County Recorder as file number 73265. Location APN 003423001 being lots one, through 16 of block 13, East Mountain City town site, as shown on the map filed, there are filed in the Office of the Elko County Recorder on June 12th, 1940, is file number 73265, situated in portions of section one, Township 45 North, Range 53 East, Mount Diablo, Basin Meridian, Mountain City, County of Elko, State of Nevada. The applicant, he owns this entire block here in that corner of the subdivision for Mountain City. He's requesting to vacate all of the alleyway, bisecting the block, and then half the width of A Street and 1st Street, or C Street and 1st Street. At first, when they talked to me, I did tell them that I did not want to vacate all of those roads there because we do use the outside portion of that road for a fire break, and I wanted to maintain that. They seemed to be fine with it, and I support this right-of-way vacation with that concession. I did have a couple of phone calls from residents up there, primarily just with questions. Once I answered their questions, They didn't seem to have any issues with these vacations. So that being said, staff recommends approval with the following conditions and restrictions. A, title to the street or easements being vacated will revert to APN 003423001, currently owned by Rhonda K. Meyer and Gary Sampley. B, the applicant shall comply with all provisions of NRS 278.480 and all other applicable state statutes and local ordinances inclusive in reference to the abandonment of a public right-of-way. C, Elko County reserves an easement for access and maintenance of any and all public utilities shall they exist within this abandoned right-of-way. Elko County does not have any record of public utilities located within the proposed vacation or abandonment. To elaborate a little bit more on condition C, the county of Elko does have water and sewer available in Mountain City. However, because of where these parcels sit, those lots are actually not serviced by that. and would be very difficult to ever be put in place to at least go around the block.

Okay. Is this one of those that goes to the commissioners for final approval?

It is.

And there is nobody else adjacent to this that's going to be negative?

No, those lots do not. Provide primary access to any neighboring parcels Okay any other questions of course?

Is there anyone that would like to speak on this application I?

Hello again, Bob Tebow, High Desert Engineering, here on behalf of the applicant, who is also present in the audience this evening. I think this one's pretty straightforward. The land surrounding this corner of Mountain City, I believe, is tribal lands. Is that correct?

I don't think the actual adjacent property is, but there are tribal lands in the area.

I was thinking it was. But anyhow, yeah, there's no interest really in extending any of these streets into those adjacent areas. And, you know, we did maintain, I believe, a 40-foot wide. I don't have my sketch in front of me there, but a 40-foot wide strip for a fire break around the perimeter of the town. There it is, yes, 40 feet. And I hope that answers your questions. But if you have any more, we're here to help. Thank you.

80 feet is an awful wide.

Those roads were created really wide in that town. Yeah. by a relative of mine, by the way, an ancestor. Really?

I guess better too wide than too narrow.

80 feet's a nice right-of-way, though, if you're having to build something in it.

Yeah, especially an interstate. All right. Does anybody else wish to speak on this application? Okay, let's move on to a motion.

I think it's my turn.

It's your turn, Naomi.

I will make a motion to approve ROWVAC26-002 with staff's recommendations, findings, and conditions.

I second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Roche to approve ROWVAC 26-002. And Commissioner Jefferson has seconded that.

I didn't exactly hear it. Did that include furbidge to go to the county?

County Commissioners for yeah, this is a recommend. This is to move forward Yeah, this is yep.

This is a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners Okay, so I'm gonna say that again This will be you'll be recommending to the Board of Commissioners, okay, so I will be recommending to the Board of Commissioners approval of Is that right? Okay. Yep. R-O-W-V-A-C 26-002. Okay.

You good with that, Jake?

Yes. Okay.

All right. Any further discussion on this? All those in favor of the motion at hand, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor. Motion carries. Isn't there like a back tax on that? How does that work?

You know, that would be a better question for the treasurer's office.

There is some tax implications there, but I don't remember how that works.

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure either. It might be like seven-year back taxes on the right-of-way. I'm not sure. Yeah, I don't know.

Okay.

We're going to be much there.

No. Application ROWVAC 26-003, Isaac Levanos and Dave Robertson.

Corey. An application submitted by Isaac Levanos and Dave Robertson requesting a right-of-way vacation of a portion of Montrose Way and a portion of the unnamed street now aligned with Antimony Street, both as shown in the right-of-way map for Elko County Highway Department on file. The office of the Elko County Recorder is file number 106482, and being all of that 33-foot right-of-way reserved in U.S. Patent 1220810, and U.S. Patent Number 1220813. APNs 006, 09J, 027, 006, 09J, 028, and U.S. Patent Lots 1220813 and U.S. Patent Lot 1220810, Government Tracks 9j as shown on the right-of-way map for Elko County Highway Department on file in the office of the Elko County recorder as file number 106 482 located in portions of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 8 Township 34 North Range 55 East Mount Diablo Basin Meridian County of Elko state of Nevada This is up in the government tracks I did actually personally reach out to the city of Elko to make sure they didn't have any issues with it. They did not get back to me. So I'm assuming that Kathy was okay with it. And the reason why I did reach out to them, there's a really good potential in the future that the city is going to be annexing that area. So... Staff recommends approval with the following conditions and restrictions. Title to the street or easements to be vacated will revert in equal part to the adjacent parcels APN00609J027, owned by Isaac Lavenus, and APN00609J028, owned by Dave Robertson, and further described in Exhibit B, Parcel Map of Elko County highway right-of-way vacation attached here to B the applicant shall comply with all provisions of NRS 278 480 and all other applicable state statutes and local ordinances inclusive in reference to the abandonment of a public right-of-way C Elko County reserves an easement for access and maintenance of any and all public utilities should they exist within this abandoned right-of-way Elko County does not have any public utilities located within the proposed vacation abandonment and that concludes our recommended conditions Was the original intent of those for utilities months They the original intent would have been for access utility and drainage easements. Yes, I

No roads were envisioned through there.

Well, yeah, access is included.

Okay.

And it's pretty common with newer patents from like the 1930s and forward to where they would reserve these 33-foot easements along the edges of the parcels that were being patented.

So the north side of those double 33s, is that a road in there?

No, there isn't any improvements in any of these. Right, Bob? So... The road dead ends right up there at the top.

I see. Montrose Way comes into that. Not from the south. No, from the north.

From the north, yeah.

So right now Montrose Way just kind of and goes into two driveways, I'm assuming? Yes, that's correct. Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to... Corey asked a question.

I think you guys worked through it, so I was going to sit here.

Yeah, all right.

Okay, so is there a reasonable terminate? Excuse me, is there a reasonable termination at the end of Montrose Way? Is that, it just...

It just stops right there at the edges of those properties as the driveway enters into them.

And we're good with that.

Well, in Montrose Way itself, I always assumed it was a driveway. I mean, it's not something that the public is taking generally.

No, it does not continue through past those parcels.

Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? Go ahead, Bob.

Once again, Bob Tebow of High Desert Engineering here on behalf of the applicants requesting your approval of this. Mr. Roberson is present. Mr. Lovanos could not make it this evening. But yeah, Montrose Way ends at the, well, the use ends at the two properties and winds into the two parcels right there at the northerly property line as kind of a shared access into the two parcels and has never been used beyond that by the public. And the street along the unnamed street to the south has never been used or developed. It's just not needed. The other surrounding parcels have other means of access. And as Mr. Rice mentioned, there are no utilities in any of these. We request your approval of this vacation.

And this is BLM to the north, right?

That is correct. Currently BLM, but there are some applications being filled out now to get them probably patented to the city. Okay. But the county's going to be, Curtis and I are working on those applications for the city.

Yeah, they're kind of, well, they need to be put into use.

Yeah, that weird situation up there with that patchwork BLM needs to be cleaned up.

That makes no sense.

Can Bob just bring a stamp with his signature on it for the next time that he needs to sign in?

Yeah. Sure, I'd be fine. Business is good tonight, Bob.

I am going to start making them. Give me royalties here for all these right-of-way vacations.

We're going to start selling this stuff.

Applicants not laughing.

All right. If there's no further comments, do we have a motion on this?

I will make a motion to refer application ROW to the county commissioners with a recommendation of approval granting staff's recommendations, findings, and conditions. I will second that.

Okay. Commissioner Hartley has made a motion to forward this, forward a recommendation onto the county commissioners to approve this right-of-way vacation, seconded by Commissioner Roche. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion at hand, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor. Motion carries.

Thank you, Bob. Have a great evening.

Staff updates. Staff update. Commissioner comments. Do you have anything, Corey?

Yeah. As I'm sure most of you are aware, that two of the items that were before this board last month have been appealed to the Board of Commissioners. We're still trying to figure out when that's going to be, whether we're going to try to do it at the regular meeting on the 20th of May. Or hopefully, I would prefer that they hold a special meeting just to hear those two appeals. But we haven't come to a final decision on that yet.

Okay, thank you any Commissioner comments. You got something like eight Appellants people either eight or nine for one of them and one for the other one I Was thinking along the lines of This issue with the storage sheds or greenhouses or whatever and I in the setbacks, does it make sense that instead of stressing whether they're attached or unattached, gravity is attaching most of them anyway, that it's based off of whether it falls within the square footage of permit requirements or not?

I've toyed around with that thought a little bit. over the years in my own head. And if they're putting in a real foundation underneath it or even a slab on grade foundation and then anchoring it to it, I think that changes the dynamics of that shed a little bit.

Okay. So, but... There is, you can pour a flat work.

You can pour a slab without having to have.

And you can set a shed on it. So I'm looking at the actual letter of the law here at this point. It is the attachment that's the problem.

In my point of view, yes. It's the actual physical attachment to that concrete slab.

Okay. And then Jess's point is that it doesn't matter if it's attached or not. It needs to meet the setback requirements.

Connexbox down without attaching it you'd still want the requirements yeah, and I think we need to have a conversation maybe Justin you he and I and I can understand where Jess is coming from from a Fire code perspective a fire setback versus a planning and zoning setback I agree Because you know by fire code there has to be five feet of separation The zoning code setbacks are a beast all by themselves. And so, and I think that's where Jess and I get into our, I don't want to call it a disagreement, but different points of view.

Looking at it from different perspectives.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, because my understanding, I guess, has been that as long as it's not attached... affixed, there's not an issue with it.

Because there are... That's the way I've always viewed it. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Any other discussion from commissioners or staff? All right. Comments by the general public. Pursuant to NRS 241, this time is devoted to comments by the general public, if any, and discussion of those comments. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successful Agenda and identified to be an action item is there anyone that has anything further to say Okay hearing none meeting adjourned