Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call the meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission to order. If you would rise with me as we say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Okay, we're going to move into comments by the general public pursuant to NRS 241. This time is devoted to comments by the general public. In 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 is not specifically on the I feel like I'm too loud or something doesn't sound right but maybe it's All right, well, we'll move forward. Is there anyone that has anything that is not on the agenda that they would like to discuss? Okay, we're going to move on. Notice of the appeals process. Anyone aggrieved by an action of this Planning Commission may appeal such decision to the Oco 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. Okay, we're going to move into the minutes. We've got discussion and consideration of the minutes from June 18th.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I just had a quick question for the staff on this, just because I just want to make sure we've got our procedure down. So in the minutes last meeting, we had forwarded a recommendation to fulfill the board vacancy, and that item's come back up. Is it going to be a problem if we keep it in the minutes from last meeting, even though it's apparently been superseded?

Well, we still have to keep it in the meeting minutes, because it was part of the meeting. And what had happened there was there was some miscommunication between admin and my department. They didn't give us those other two applications. And so that's why we're revisiting it again this month.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions on the minutes?

Last month's minutes as written.

Second.

All right, we've got a motion from Commissioner Hartley and a second from Commissioner Gaworski to approve the June 18th minutes as presented. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. I'm going to abstain. Motion carries. We're going to move into preliminary hearings. We have application COZ 26-009, Elko Land Holdings Corporation. Corey.

An application submitted by Elko Land Holdings Corporation requesting the change of zoning from an open space district to a general industrial and extractive district for use as consistent with M1 zoning districts. Location is APN 01059F041. Parcel of land, 40 acres more or less in size, described in grant bargain sale deed document 865660, filed in the office of the county recorder, Elko County, Nevada, Elko County, state of Nevada, on June 5th, 2026, being the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 35, Township 40 North, Range 69 East, Mount Diablo Basin Meridian, County of Elko, State of Nevada. This is just a preliminary hearing. We have not had time to prepare our staff report yet, but this is going to be in conjunction with the exploration projects that are heading off to the north of Montello up there.

Okay. Any questions on that?

Okay.

That will move forward to public hearing for August. Our first public hearing, CUP 26007, has been tabled due to some clerical errors in the notifications. So we're going to move to application DLLP26-001, Paul and Lori Bottari. Corey?

Application number DLLP26-001, an application submitted by Paul and Lori Bottari requesting a tentative map of a division of land into large parcels for the creation of two parcels, being 40 acres or greater in size, per Elko County Code 5217. Location is APN 00652 Foxtrot 025, being parcel two, described in Grant Barton's sale deed document 851802, filed in the Elko County Recorder's Office on July 2, 2025, being a portion of land, 285.031 acres, more or less in size, located in Section 9, Township 33 North, Range 57 East, Mount Diablo, Basin Meridian, County of Elko, State of Nevada. So this is located north of the Spring Creek Association and north of Lower Lamoille Road. This is what the configuration will look like. It'll be a total of three parcels, two new ones being created. Oh, no, I'm sorry. One new parcel being created, just a total of two parcels. Staff recommends approval. Sorry, I'm having some technical difficulties. We're moving real slow. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. At the time of development, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Nevada revised statutes, Elko County code development criteria, and all local building and development requirements pertaining to open space districts. B, this division of land and large parcels map shall comply with all Nevada revised statutes, and Elko County Code pertaining to division of land and large parcels maps. That concludes my recommendations. And this is, you guys will be forwarding this on to the Board of Commissioners.

Okay, any questions of staff?

So parcel one is already designated?

Yeah, there's one total parcel, so the parcel, Parcel one is what's being created out of this parcel on the parcel two is basically the remainder Okay, so we're concerned about parcel one well both of them really they're all part.

They're both of them are part of the map okay, okay, so this is the new piece out of The larger piece yeah, okay? Okay, answer any quick sounds good you might sign it in for us Paul and state your name for the record I

Paul Buteri, and this parcel, if you're going down Lower Lamoille Road, where Hog Tommy turns to the right off of Lower Lamoille Road, it's just ahead of you and off to the left. It's a juniper-covered hilltop there, and it comes back. On top of the hill, there's a gate coming back into the property, and we're reserving an easement on that gate for us and them so that they can use that to get into the parcel. So it's a nice 40-acre parcel. Okay. Any other questions? Any questions of Paul?

Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this application? Okay. We're going to move to Commissioner's comments, questions, motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to forward a recommendation for application DLP26-001 with the staff's funding recommendations and commissions to the Elko County Board of Commissioners.

I will second.

Recommendation for approval.

Okay, Commissioner Gworski has motion to move this forward to the commissioners with the recommendation for approval, seconded by Commissioner Roche. 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. Application DLLP 26-002, MFRE 2U Ranch, LLC. Corey.

Application number DLLP 26-002, an application submitted by MFRE 2U Ranch, LLC, requesting a tentative map of division land and large parcels for the creation of two parcels being 40 acres or greater in size per Elko County Code 5-2-17. The portion of APN 005-250001 described in quick claim deed document 823722 of the official records on file in the Office of the Elko County Recorder being all of Section 1 Township 30 North Range 53 East, Mount Diablo, Basin Meridian, County of Elko, State of Nevada. This is all part of a very large ranch. And by NRS, if they're full sections, they don't have to submit maps. But this one, they're wanting to parcel off one parcel out of this one section. So that's why they've entered in. this application for division land into large parcels map. They are currently working on legal access through the BLM lands to get to this parcel. And so that'll be one of the conditions that'll need to be met before the final map can record. The staff recommends approval.

Corey real quick the you Back up to if it's a section Did you say if it's a section or more if it's if it's a complete if it's a full section?

Then they don't have to go through the mapping process to subdivide it if if each parcel is a full section in size oh So this one the they're splitting off a portion out of the section of a piece of this process all right and

Otherwise, the whole section could be split off without any mapping.

Yeah, Paul, they could do that with just assigning a new assessor's parcel number to that one section.

I see.

Okay. Staff recommends approval with 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 open space districts. Bravo. This division of land in the large parcels map shall comply with all Nevada revised statutes and Elko County code pertaining to division of land into large parcels maps. Need to add a third one in here, which will be C. This division of land in the large parcels map must have legal access before the final map can record.

Okay, any questions of Corey?

Yeah, Corey, just to clarify that road issue, because the BLM road is marked here, but the easement would be even if the BLM decides to close that road, the property owner would still have a legal right of access? Is that where you're going?

Essentially, that's kind of how it works. These BLM easements, even though there is a BLM-designated road, Those designated numbers, from my understanding from them, are actually really used for fires. And so there needs to be an easement in place over the top of the BLM land on that road. Now, they do, the county holds several of these easements through the BLM, and they are reviewed and have to be renewed, you know, ever periodically. So it'll pertain to this outfit also.

Okay, thank you.

This kind of put in the cart before the horse if that's the case What's that isn't this put in the cart before the horse, but how's that in that case well? Parceling it out without access to it.

That's that's why I'm saying the final map cannot record until that easements in place, okay?

Okay any other questions is there anyone here that wishes to represent this I

Yeah, thank you, Bob Tebow, High Desert Engineering here on behalf of applicant. I'll take a second to sign in. Thank you, board members, Mr. Chairman. I was a bit caught off guard by the discussion on the road easements. I thought we were good on this one in section one. I am working on another one in a different section, same client, same project, just a couple of miles from this one. We are working on an easement from the BLM.

Did I get these crossed up?

To get from this existing BLM road that has a number across one other BLM section into, yeah, that was the one down in section 15.

Oh, you're right. I'm sorry, I apologize. So let's remove that condition C off of there.

Okay, so what is the legal access to this one?

Well, as Mr. Gavorski pointed out, there is an existing BLM road shown there in the southwest corner of the section. Touching that smaller parcel, if we could bring the map back up. Touching the smaller parcel. Yeah, you can see that on the southwest corner. You want me to drive this? Okay. So you can see their existing public road BLM road one one one three. Okay. It does cut through this smaller parcel number one If we need to on this map we could add a little east-west easement on the final map Submittal to make a legal access over to parcel number two. Yeah, I think we probably ought to do that Bob Okay, now that would be easy enough of course getting an easement from the BLM is a year-long process And I just started that on this other project we're working on so yeah this will be much easier because this is privately owned by the ranching company we can create the easement on the map simple no problem just to get across parcel one to person number two then both parcels will have a legal access so so just to clarify Bob they would use the BLM road coming into parcel one which is privately owned yeah and then you'll just cut a road over to parcel two okay Well, I've also just recently submitted the one in the other section. So it's a long process with the BLM. It's a long process to get through all these meetings with a tentative map and then the final map both to the planning commission and then the county commissioners. And so we're kind of putting the cart before the horse, but Corey's not going to sign off on the final maps until that BLM easement is in place. So that allows us to work through both processes at the same time, and we do appreciate that.

But the second project is in a different location.

Yeah, unrelated to this. A couple miles away, same client, being cut out of the same ranch. It's a couple thousand acres, this ranch that owns all these various sections over there in that township. So somewhat related, but not part of tonight's discussion.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, Bob.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this application? Okay, we're going to move on to commissioner comments or a motion.

I don't think your mic's on. I hear myself.

This just gets forwarded to the commissioners, so...

I'll make a motion to forward application DLLP 26-002 to the county commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the insert also under staff recommendations, item C. No, that's for a different, there was a mistake there.

That's for a different project.

Yeah, I kind of, yeah, I, Okay, I already does have the access right But there's a second access that Corey wanted to require from parcel one to parcel two, right?

Okay, Corey is it staying in or no well see you'll be worded different See you'll be access must be provided to parcel to however they do it. I don't really care just so there's legal access I So just leave it at that, that access must be provided to parcel two.

Okay. That's what I, okay. So the motion stands. Should have access.

Okay. Do we have a, we've got a motion on the table. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, Commissioner Hartley made a motion to forward this to the county commissioners with the recommendation to approve, adding some verbiage related to access. And Commissioner Gavorski seconded that.

Is there any further discussion?

All those in favor of the motion at hand, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. I am in favor. Motion passes. Okay, we're going to move down to application COZ26-006, Ellison Ranching Company.

COZ 26006, an application by Ellison Ranch Company requesting a change of zoning from open space districts to general industrial and extractive districts for use as consistent with M1 zoning. The purpose of the change of zoning is to allow a commercial gravel quarry operation to support current development project in the area and all And they're also all available surplus material will be made available for sale to Elko County Highway Department for road maintenance use Location is the south half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 17 the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of this northwest quarter of section 20 Township 41 North Range 52 East Mount Diablo Basin Meridian a parcel of land a portion of land, 15 acres, more or less in size, being a portion of APN 005-140-001, County of Elko, State of Nevada. So there's a little gravel pit on the ranch down there, and they're using it to create some more basically aggregate base for some projects that the applicant is working on. But he's also going to produce some extra gravel for the county to purchase from them for our road maintenance. Both myself and Dennis Price are very much in favor of this, because everybody knows how gravel poor we are. So 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 districts. 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 conditions.

Thank you. Any questions of query? OK. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this application?

Yeah, good afternoon. Mike Shanks with Modern Land and Development representing Ellison Ranching on this. Mostly just here to answer any questions. I don't see any negative impacts. It's pretty positive. I think a great need for aggregate up there, both for the ranch. We're doing a highway project up there and also for the county. So just here for any questions if you have any.

Okay. Any questions of Mike?

No.

Okay. Thank you, Mike. Is there anyone else that wants to speak on this? Okay, do we have questions, comments, motion?

Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the change of zoning C0Z26-006 with all the staff's findings, conditions, and recommendations.

Second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Gavorski to approve the zone change on this piece. And Commissioner Hartley has seconded. 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. A lot of... We've got a lot of public hearings, but we're getting through them.

Huh?

A lot of public hearings today. Yes. But we're busting through them. Okay. Application COZ 26-008, Malcolm Wittig.

An application submitted by Malcolm Wittig requesting a change of zoning from open space district to special land districts for use as consistent with the special land districts. APN 008330027 being parcel number one, as shown on that certain parcel map for Malcolm F. and Gerlinda Wittig filed in the Office of the Elko County Recorder of Elko County, state of Nevada. On October 15, 2002, is file number 489182, being a parcel of land, 50.791 acres, more or less in size, situated in a portion of the northwest corridor of Section 3, Township 36 North, Range 62 East, Mount Diablo Basin Meridian, County of Elko, State of Nevada. Physical address is 625 Rainbow Road, Wells, Nevada. This is south of Wells, just a little ways. They are wanting to take this 50-acre parcel and divide it up into at least two parcels, possibly even three. It is consistent with the other zoning and land uses within that developed area. So 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. If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners... contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations findings conditions and requirements of approval of this specific change of zoning and that concludes my recommendations All right questions of staff Is anyone here that would like to talk about this one

Mr.. Chairman again Bob Tebow of high desert engineering. Mr.. Witte is also in attendance this evening I think Cory did a good job of explaining this for us, but I'm happy to answer any questions Any questions Thank you Anyone else wishing to speak on this okay, I

Commissioner comments questions motion To approve staff report Coz 2 6-0 0 8 a change of zoning with staffs recommend recommendations findings and conditions all second

All right, we've got a motion for approval from Commissioner Hartley and a second from Commissioner Jefferson. Any further discussion on this? All those in favor of the motion at hand, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor, motion carries. Application ROWVAC26-004, Vincent Squatro, I had this, I had this before. Squatrito? Squatrito, okay.

Staff. ROWVAC 26-004, an application submitted by Vincent Squatrito requesting a right-of-way vacation of that portion of Monte Carlo Drive adjacent to APN 009005088, as shown on that certain parcel map for Western Resource Management Incorporated, filed in the office of the Elko County Recorder of Elko County State of Nevada on May 19, 2000 is file number 458481. This request would include a concurrent street dedication of a map realignment of equivalent portion of right-of-way to align with the right-of-way with the existing roadway. Location APN 009005088. Being parcel a as shown on that certain parcel map for Western resources management filed in the office of the Elko County reporter State of Nevada on May 19th 2000 as file number four five eight four eight one being a portion of lot one of section one Township 47 North Range 64 East Mount Diablo Basin Meridian Jackpot, Nevada So what they're requesting to do is is vacate the existing right-of-way, which on this map here on the screen is the dashed line, and basically relocating it over to where the solid line is so it follows the existing roadway more consistently. The Jackpot Advisory Council did recommend approval And staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Title to the street or easement to be vacated will revert to APN 009005088, currently owned by Vincent Squatrito et al. B, this right-of-way vacation is contingent upon the reciprocal dedication to the county of realignment of equivalent portion of Monte Carlo Drive to be recorded concurrently with the resolution granting this vacation a Signed and notarized copy of the realignment street dedication documents shall be provided to Elko County planning and zoning Elko County division of planning and zoning prior to the record ation of the resolution granting this right-of-way vacation The applicant shall comply with all provisions of NRS 278480 and any other applicable statutes or local ordinances inclusive in reference to the abandonment of a public right-of-way. D, Elko County reserves an easement for access and maintenance of any and all public utilities shall they exist within the abandoned right-of-way. Elko County does not have any public utilities located within this portion of that right-of-way anyhow at this time. I did talk with Raft River. They didn't have any concerns with this vacay either. And like I said, the advisory board did recommend approval.

So the road is already in place, but it isn't quite where it was.

That's correct. And there is a road that runs along through there, and it's not. It's not centered very well with the existing right-of-way. And as you can see, it crosses outside of the existing right-of-way.

But this section of road is privately owned?

Nope, it's dedicated county right-of-way. Okay.

Does this go to the county commissioners?

This goes forward to the county commissioners, yes.

So we're just doing a land swap, basically, is what's going on here?

Basically, just moving the right-of-way so it fits the existing improvements.

Okay. Okay. Any questions of Corey? Does anyone wish to speak on that it's your You got a full full load tonight, but I do I think we're getting closer to the end though.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Bob Tebow high desert engineering again Mr. And mrs. Grotto are also present this evening for these three items you have before you on the agenda Long story short the squat Rita's bought this property recently and have discovered these issues and they're trying to get everything compliant and cohesive and you know in proper order You know approvals for mistakes made by previous Homeowners as we'll see on the The variance application coming up and on this one. I don't know it was An existing gravel road that's maybe always been there. Maybe it was there before the subdivision even got mapped I don't know what the map road missed the built road when they asked me to stake their property Corners and they own the land on both sides of this road oddly enough when they asked me to take their property corners, we found the property corners to fall inside the gravel road and So we're just trying to get that fixed. And yeah, it seems like a pretty straightforward land swap, as you put it.

OK. Any questions at all? Thank you. All right. Anyone else that would like to speak on this? OK.

I do have a couple clarifications. On the map it says Monte Carlo Road, and a couple times in the report it says Monte Cristo.

It's Monte Carlo.

Okay.

I think Monte Cristo is a sandwich. It is.

Unless let's not talk about food, right? We're hungry.

All right, so yes, Monte Carlo.

Okay.

Any other questions? Any, do we have a motion to move this forward to the commissioners?

I'll make a motion. Let's see, I'll make a motion to recommend to the county commissioners the approval of staff report R. with all of staff's findings, recommendations, and conditions.

Second.

Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner Roach to move this forward to the commissioners. Recommending approval. Mr. Grivorski has seconded that motion.

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. Application COZ 26-007, Vincent Squatrito. Corey.

An application submitted by Vincent Squatrito requesting a change of zoning from one and two family residential district to an agricultural residential district and one and two family residence district for uses consistent with AR districts and R1 districts. APN 009-005-088, being parcel A, as shown on that certain parcel map for Western Resources Management Incorporated, filed in the office of the county recorder of Elko County State of Nevada on May 19, 2000, is file number 458-481, being a portion of lot one of section one Township 47 North, Range 64 East, Mount Diablo Basin Meridian, Town of Jackpot, County of Elko, State of Nevada. Physical address is 2926 Monte Carlo Drive, Jackpot, Nevada. We have received several letters in opposition for this. And at the Jackpot Advisory Board, meeting, there was opposition spoken at that meeting. Staff is not making a recommendation for approval or denial. However, the Jackpot Advisory Board did recommend denial of this. And there's a couple of things I would like this board to consider in making your decisions. Number one, by ordinance, the county of Elko is a right to farm and ranch county. But on the other end, item two is if we, our plans are to expand the town of Jackpot further to the east. We're in the process of applying for some BLM patents. And as that town expands out to the east, all that land out there will be high density residential. which would make this a spot zoning and not consistent with our future plans. So do keep those in mind, please, as you make your decision. If approved, staff does recommend 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 agricultural residential properties. 2. 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. If this zone change is approved, Applicant owners shall submit a variance application to Elko County planning and zoning to request a variance for a front yard setback reduction For this zone change to agricultural residential will modify the existing setback requirements for the subject parcel an application for a variance for a front yard setback reduction as applies to the existing detached garage and will be required for compliance with agricultural residential district setback requirements. That's kind of a redundancy to number three. That concludes my conditions.

So if it's denied, the variance won't be needed?

If it's denied, the variance will still be needed. However, we will need to table it so the staff report can reflect can appropriately reflect being R1 zoning rather than AR.

What's the zoning of the parcels to the east?

Parcels to the east are zoned R1 as well as the parcels to the west.

OK. Any further questions of staff?

Yeah, Corey, one question I had. Just thinking through, I think it was stated in the last item that this property had been recently acquired, and I'm assuming the neighboring properties to the west had pre-existed that acquisition, correct?

Oh, yes, for certain.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Okay.

All right, so, I'm sorry, I'm nervous, but my name is Ruth Kennison-Squatrito. and my husband and I own the property. When we purchased it, and part of this was not truly knowing the residential codes and everything, but we thought four acres, my previous experience living here in Spring Creek, four acres, you could have small agriculture stuff for particularly 4-H projects. Then when we came to to fix some of the other problems that were already there with our land like the boundaries and you know um that's when we realized that the zoning was incorrect for what we'd had purchased the land with the intent to do as you can see and here i have four children and i just started a four-age club in jackpot and they were very excited to do particularly just like lamb projects. We don't want a whole herd of beef cattle or anything. We just want a couple of 4-H animals. And that is why we were requesting the zone change, particularly because we want to make sure we're doing everything correctly. And when we bought the property, I asked the realtor, and she had specifically told me, oh, yeah, you can do whatever you want with the property. And I had even spoken to Sean Burt of Public Works, And he said the same thing. So like I say, when we initially bought it, we thought we could. And then come to find out that was not the case. But we want to do everything the right way. So we just want to start to teach our kids how to be responsible people by doing their 4-H projects.

So if I can add to that just a little bit. I think, and I'll have to have legal look into it, that being a youth organization project, I don't think would be a violation of the R1 zoning, being 4H or FFA. But I would have to confer with legal on that to be for sure.

That's what I was going to ask. If we keep the zone in place, can we accommodate the use, if at least for a period of time?

Yeah, I think we probably can. I don't. I have a real hard time. I'm very pro agriculture, very pro 4-H, and very pro FFA. I grew up in all that. So I do definitely support these youth organizations. There's got to be a way that we can find an avenue for them to continue having these 4-H projects on this property. I'm wondering within reason of course and then obviously we don't want a great big old giant herd of sheep out there What's that can we can we get a conditional use permit? Yeah, I think that that's my next Avenue to look into to see if we can do this on it for that and which I think would be preferable because that would give us the opportunity to

Limit the number of animals and the type of animals that can be associated with those projects Yeah, I'm sympathetic to The applicant I'm also not wanting to do something that isn't going to work long term for the city of the Jackpot community.

I'm in a complete agreement with you there

I mean, we're at the very, very, as you can see, like the very north, and then it's Idaho. So, I mean, like I say, we didn't even think about the city having an issue with this four acres of property.

Okay. Well, let's try and work with you to figure out a way to make this happen.

And maybe, if needed, maybe we could propose an ordinance to the Board of Commissioners to add that as a conditional use. you know, for youth organizations.

Okay. There's got to be a way to make this work.

Right.

I need to do a little bit more digging, but my first review of the conditional use is that this does not apply. So we probably would have to submit a proposal to change the Elko County Code to reflect projects like this. It won't take very long to drop some language. I can get it to Corey.

Okay. Thank you. I think there's also, if I may, Chair, as laudatory as the purpose is, I think with the existing right to farm and ranch code that was argued on behalf of the applicant, I did some digging on the nuisance thing, NRS 40-140. TO A WHICH CREATES AN AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION BUT I WANT TO READ IT BECAUSE IT FOLLOWS MY PREVIOUS QUESTION THAT AN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND CONSISTENT WITH GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE AND ESTABLISHED BEFORE SURROUNDING NON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IS REASONABLE. My argument there is that since, in this case, the agriculture did not precede the non-agricultural neighboring activities, I would think that approval of this might create a nuisance situation and create problems.

Did the jackpot advisory... In their recommendation to us, was the issue have more to do specifically with the zoning, or did it have more to do with the agriculture issue?

The opposition was primarily for the nuisance of the animals. There were some people that were complaining about the animals. But the advisory board's main objection was the one that I pointed out, It would be inconsistent with our future plans for expanding jackpot as far as the zoning goes.

Yeah Yeah, okay Okay Did you have anything else or did anybody have any questions of the other night?

I don't have the applicant, but the county I know that doesn't a county allow for a certain amount of animals on an r1 and

That's what well it does for you know domestic like dogs and cats and things like that Okay, I do need to do more investigation into the agriculture Portion of it, but again like I said there's got to be an avenue available to allow for these youth organization projects because I believe we've had people come in front of this board asking for a variance for

4-H projects before out in Spring Creek. Not during my time here. No, it preceded you, Corey. But it was specifically for a short-term project during the school year for 4-H projects. So... and I believe it was Mr. Mendez, who was a schoolteacher out in Spring Creek, and it was his kids that were asking for that because the Spring Creek Association has a certain specific regulation on how many animals can be on less than an acre and over an acre. So I just didn't know if the county had that same thing in writing that, allowed it for so many hours.

Yeah, like I said, there's some things that we need to look at, but we've got to be able to find an avenue to help them out with these 4-H projects. Okay.

Agreed. I think Spring Creek's rules regarding the number of animals mirrors county code.

Yeah, and that's gonna be my next question too is that if that's something that I have to draft language for what would the body be thinking as far as a limitation on head animals I Think we could probably have it to where it could be based on an individual basis parcel size I think it's got to be connected to a parcel size What's the minimum parcel size on our one I?

6,000 square feet yeah, that's that's your limiting factor right there well I Think I understand what Justin saying he's wanting to know He's one he's wanting to know if there should be language in the ordinance that specifically limits the number of animals I personally think that it needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis and

Well, we did something similar to the young lady that was raising all the dogs. Yes. We limited the number of animals she could have.

Yeah.

So...

But that was in a different zoning district.

It was in a different zoning district, but I mean, it still gave the board latitude as far as

As a conditional use permit, that's the great thing about them is the conditions that we can potentially put on them.

And one of the things too that you're going to run into if it's limited on size is the amount of kids that reside there that can participate. So this lady has four children. then if we put a size limitation, maybe one per, then only one of our kids can participate. And then there's also the issue with alternates. So if these kids are doing their project and their animal dies, they need to have an alternate in a lot of these cases.

Well, Spring Creek is... I hate to always bring Spring Creek back into it, but it's basically two animal units per acre. Right. Obviously, at 6,000 feet, you're going to have to have half an animal unit to make that work. But at three and a half acres, you could work along those lines. I don't know on the participation requirements.

I don't know how that's going to... What I'll do is I'll draft the language. I'll put in a variable for the head limitation, and then when it's voted on and proposed, you guys fill in the blanks.

Would we not think that the head limitation is also going to be tied to the type of animal? I mean, presumably cattle will need far more room than, say, goat.

So Cory Justin how would be the correct way to go about this is this a denial of this one and then a request for a Conditional use permit that would be or do we just want to table this and let them let you work with them on a conditional use I think What you can do is you can?

deny this change of zoning and then give staff directions on drafting an ordinance to fit this in as a conditional use permit on R1 zoning.

Another question for clarification, too, as far as this is that, Harid, do we want to do conditional use or accessory use? Because are we going to have to have folks come in and apply for a conditional use permit every time their kid needs to put in a project?

No, I think we can have it associated to the family regardless. I would rather do it as a conditional use than an accessory use.

So the conditions would basically be that the conditional use permit is not transferable or applicable to the loaner without a separate application.

Very few of our conditional use permits are transferable. For example, a guest home would be. I mean, obviously, if somebody put a guest home on their property and then sold it, We're not going to make the new owners tear the home down.

And then it would exist in perpetuity. So if they have a couple of kids that are 15 years apart, then they don't have to apply after a certain expiration date or something.

Right, not until the property, not until the ownership of the property has changed.

Justin, also, if you look at the definition of agriculture in our county code, what they're asking for, it really doesn't fall into the definition that we have in the code. So that may be able to help with this.

Yes.

Good conversations and things to work through. Bob, did you have something?

I did, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Bob Tebow on behalf of the applicant. A couple things. One, yeah, I did research the code before bringing this before you. And R1 zoning does not speak to 4H activities, whereas the agricultural zones do. It didn't mention it as a permitted use in R1, nor did it mention it as a conditional use in R1. So that's why we're here before you tonight with this zone change application. This parcel being over four acres is not your typical R1 parcel. It's much more suited to AR, Ag Residential Zoning. And parcels of this size typically do enjoy that type of agricultural and 4-H type activities. And that's why I don't even fault the property owners for coming in with that understanding or being led to believe that by their realtor, if the case may have been. So, again, I just ask that you approve this tonight and let them move on. I do appreciate that we're all trying to find ways to accommodate this. Changing code is a lengthy process. It's going to take a while, and we'll be back before you with a different permit, paying another application fee, and going through all this again. Whereas we followed today's code and have this before you in the best way that we could within the rules that we have. to work in today. If you can't find it within you to approve this tonight instead of denying it, I ask that if we could possibly take no action so that it could be brought back before you, would be preferred in the same manner or a slightly different manner without having to repay an application fee hopefully.

Of course we table it it just comes back at the next meeting in the next meeting so if there's a way we could Let me ask this Bob as far as the parcel size go There's the ability though to split that parcel down smaller significantly So it's not stuck and at the three and a half acres with the current zoning. There's ability at some point to do something else with that parcel to meet that R1 designation a little more cleanly.

True, but that's not what the buyers were looking for.

Right.

And we're also, I feel, I'm empathetic given the situation, that we're not bound by what a realtor told them. So that's...

Certainly.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? I think the kids want to talk.

They are cute.

Do we need to write all the kids' names on there too?

Yeah, whoever wants to talk.

I would like to be able to show the animals

And not having to be, having to go to Spring Creek to take care of them. Instead of just having them at the house.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you. I will.

This is the quietest they've been all evening.

I know, I know. It's like when we ask them to speak.

I want to be able to raise a sheep.

Raise sheep? All right. Not fair.

Okay.

Thank you, kids.

There's a pen. My name is Brad Hester. I live at 2871 Monte Carlo, the green spot across the street. The dog barking, chickens clucking, dogs out in my yard all the time, the dog do in my front yard all the time is aggravating. I'm very hard of hearing, and I can hear it all. In my house, I hear the dogs. I can hear the chickens and the rooster in my house, the goose two weeks ago. My neighbors and I, Chuck Steele, Dana Hollinger, Don Vandiver, we all vehemently do not want this. We don't want the sounds, the sights, the smells. We don't want it to affect our property values. I've been in that house for 25 years. The other people have had theirs for a few years. Chuck Steele is planning on building a very large house just immediately east of this property on the golf course. The sights from the golf course are not what you want to see on a golf course. It's a shining jewel of jackpot, and that's not what you want. Don Vandiver looks out her back window straight at it and doesn't want that on earth. We just think it's in the interest of jackpot. We want to grow. We want to make the place nice, to deny this variance, because once you open that gate, you can't close it. Everybody else will come. Anybody else will come wanting to do this. We had a teacher years ago who had horses and a cow Teachers trailer court in town at school that kind of got shut down finally But we don't want to turn jackpot into a farm. We've been there in that residential area for 25 years, and I know Their parcel is just just immediately east of the subdivision. It's not on it But it does affect it.

It does affect property values Okay just for clarification dogs are allowed in our one I

Yes, absolutely. I have two. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? Okay. I'm going to close public comment. What do we want to do?

Um, can Corey just, and I'm not sure there's a clear answer to this, but this tabling verse no action issue is sort of interesting. So tabling, of course, it'll keep coming back on the agenda. Um, but neither one is there, I guess what I'm asking is there a deadline for the fee that if the fee isn't completed within say a hundred or the process isn't completed within 180 days or something that the fee is rendered null and void.

I've actually got quite a bit of administrative latitude with that.

So if we took no action, they could basically pull this off, come back with the CUP?

Yeah. And I'm pretty certain that I'd be able to, if we did come back with the CUP, I could waive the fees on the CUP in lieu of the fees for this change of zoning.

Okay. Okay. And would that apply to the variance request 26-005 as well?

That's where we run into a snag with taking action on this. So if we don't take any action on this, that leaves that variance for the building setback really in limbo. If this board decides to deny the change of zoning, then the variance will need to be tabled until the next meeting so the staff report could be rewritten to reflect the R1 zoning.

But if we table COZ 26-007, the change of zoning, pending further clarification, we could just table the variance request? Yes.

In that situation, they would both have to be tabled. Okay.

Otherwise, if there is a denial, then the variance gets tabled.

Variants and get tabled until the August me so the variants get unless it's approved the variance gets tabled either way yep Okay Real quick the variants were asking for a 6.7 foot setback for that garage from the Property was at the proposed line excuse me from the 18.3 from the proposed line Either way, regardless of the zoning, variance request stands at the same distance from the road setback. So I would think we could still act on that and approve that.

It changes what the variance is. Because of lot line setbacks. Because of the lot line setbacks, yep. So the AR zoning has a front yard setback of 50 feet, and the R1 has a front yard setback of 10 feet. So it changes the content of the staff report as well as the request.

Well, can't we just make the adjustment?

I suppose that you probably could, yeah.

We can do the math here real quick.

Yeah, you could. Yeah.

Wait a minute. For the R01, the setback's 10 feet, right?

I believe it's 10 off the top of my head. Or maybe it's 20.

Okay, okay. If it's 20, it's a problem. If it's 10, it's already far enough away.

Either way, there's going to have to be a variance.

Okay, let's get through one, and then we'll see where we go from there. Can I get a motion?

Mr. Chair, I'll motion that we table application COZ 26-007 pending consultation with legal about an alternative approach.

I'll second. So do we want to direct staff to...

Consultation for, say that again?

Consultation with legal, if this is the proper approach. Whose consultation with legal? The applicant or staff? Staff, staff consultation. Or do we just want them to look into a CUP, like we've talked about?

Well, I think if it was alternative, if it's a CUP or an ordinance or whatnot.

Okay.

I mean, would you like specific instructions?

It's always nice.

We just kind of threw it way up in the air.

Okay, I'll withdraw my motion then.

You really, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah, let's withdraw that because that's pretty wide open. I don't know what would come of that. Okay. As I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of we either deny as has been, we either approve, deny, or retable. If we deny, we can recommend that staff work with the applicant to, well, it's got to go back to the commissioners. There's got to be language drafted to incorporate some verbiage into a CUP that makes would make this allowable for and we're not talking a I guess in my mind I'm not talking a full-blown ranch out there but it's a an opportunity for the kids to participate in a 4-h program

I just think at this time we make a motion to deny this application with staffs directing staff to look into the possibility of a Conditional use permit to allow these animals on the property within obviously the guidelines set forth by the County Commission in any new ordinance that's written so Just to make sure that everybody understands.

You know what it takes to write a new ordinance and It will take a couple of months to do this, because it has to go to two different readings. But as soon as that ordinance is passed, we could have the CUP before this board. So we're looking at a minimum of three months, maybe four. But I think we can probably get it done in three.

Do we have any definitions of what animals are allowed in R1? I couldn't see anything anywhere.

No, that's a problem that we're running into.

And in the definition for agriculture, you have to have enough animals to produce enough income to support at least one person above poverty level?

That does not include hobby-type agriculture.

Okay, okay. So the hobbies is still only in the agricultural, okay.

Yep. Okay. That's specifically what AR zoning is there for, is for hobby agriculture purposes. That was a motion. Okay, we have a motion.

That will allow for the R1 to stand, but also us going forward to look at the possibility of, within reason, allowing them their hobby and 4-H endeavors.

Okay, we have a motion to deny... The zone change. The zone change. Do we have a second?

I'll second with the comment that this would also, I think, allow us to potentially solve future problems like this as Elko County continues to grow. So, second.

Okay.

That's what we're hoping.

We have a motion to deny... from Commissioner Ginzel and a second from Commissioner Gaworski. And there is verbiage in the motion that staff is going to draft ordinance to address the youth agriculture as a CUP option. Okay. Just to clarify a little bit more, I think we're going to waive some fees potentially on a CUP. Is that what I gathered?

Yeah, that would be my preferred avenue.

Okay. Okay. I think we got, does that make sense? Mm-hmm. All right. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed, same sign. I'm in favor. Motion carries. Okay, now we're going to move to application VAR 26-005. I'm not going to get this right. Okay, Corey, can we quick do the math on this and get the variance figured out for... This is front yard only, right?

This is front yard only, correct. So we don't need... So it would be the front yard variance for R1 zoning would be from 20 feet to 6.7 feet.

And is this off of the... Sorry, I didn't let you do your staff report. We're just going to work through this real quick. Real quick. Is this off of the existing right-of-way or the?

No, this will be off of the, that's why I've got it in this order.

In order.

so it it takes place from the Right-of-way, okay, so the new right-of-way new right-of-way to the garage is how far now six point seven feet Oh 18.3, I'm sorry real quick one of the things one of the things sorry to interrupt, but it's I'm just wanting to make sure or just

Make sure you guys stick to the agenda considering the staff report as part of the agenda I guess making amendments or doing the math on the fly might be Going outside of the scope, but I'll leave it up to you So You're you're saying as far as letting Corey do the staff report It could be or as far as changing the scope of I think he's I think he's saying that he would

You would feel more comfortable if we tabled this so I could redo the staff report?

Yeah. Probably because we've got posting issues.

Right, and I think there's, correct me if I'm wrong, this variance would not take effect until the final report of the right-of-way.

Yeah, this variance would be contentioned upon the new right-of-way being dedicated, the old one being vacated.

Okay. I like to get things done, but... It is government that we deal with.

That's for AR. We're dealing with R1.

OK. Corey. So we're not going to have the staff report. Because we're going to table this. Justin, do I open this up for public comment?

You can just table it. I think, yeah, I was going to say, I think you can just table this.

And then in the August meeting, you'll have an updated staff report. Okay.

I don't think he does. Nobody kills a buzz like a lawyer.

I'm sorry?

Nobody kills a buzz like a lawyer does. Good job, Justin.

I appreciate that. I like to get things done. Okay, so we're going to table this, and we will get both of these cleaned up, and we'll figure something out here.

We're going to move on to... Can I just ask a quick question? Does that mean... So I'm Vincent Squatrito. Does that mean you want us back in like a month or two down here?

It won't be a month or two. It will be after... It's probably going to be three months before we get all the...

But, okay, regardless, do you want us back down here in three or four months then to plead our case?

Yeah, it's going to be a little different... It's going to be a different application.

Okay, because we're school teachers and I'm a high school cross-country coach, so planning stuff like this is going to be...

I believe you can just zoom in, correct?

You are available to zoom in for the meeting. And applicants have done that in the past.

Or Mr. Tebow can represent your application. He's good at that.

Okay, thank you. Sorry. Thank you.

We didn't mind him.

We didn't mind him. Okay.

Thank you all.

Thanks, Bob. Board vacancy. review discussion and consideration of three new applicants interested in filling a Planning Commission member vacancy and consideration to forward recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for appointment. I wasn't here last month.

I believe you... Yeah, I'll fill you in on a little bit of what's happened here. So Andrew Meek put in an application And he spoke to this board in June. There was some miscommunication between the admin offices and my office. They received two other applications and didn't inform me of those. And those two applications did come in before the deadline. So that's why we're back here again. This Jessica Lacey has requested to withdraw her application. So she is no longer part of tonight's discussion. But I do believe that Joe is here, and then Andrew is here again also. OK. Well, then you don't have to worry about it.

Well, I'd like to hear from both of them, but I've got a simple answer to this We'll have another vacancy here shortly.

So I'll have another vacancy in December How shortly December I'm making him stay to the very end.

Okay Joe is first so Jody wanna Good afternoon

So a little bit about me, personal. I've been in Elko. I came here in 1990. I've came and gone four different times. I'm told about 21 years I've been in Elko. Married 31 years, got one son, 31. So like to fish, like to go boating a lot, just like the outdoors. Professionally. I have been in the ready mix and aggregate business for 35 years. It isn't anything I really haven't done in it. I've worked for some of the largest in the world, worked for some of the smallest, been part of some great projects over the years in Arizona, Utah, did a lot of the Olympic venues back before the 2002 games. So yeah, I believe I got some experience that I could bring to the table and help out. You know, it's time for me to give back a little bit to my community. You know, and I came here and I want to retire. This is why I'm back at Silver State Rock this last time. I got about another good 15 years in me. Crushing rocks is a hard business. So, yeah. I'd be happy to take any questions.

Okay. Any questions of Joe?

Are you retired from that? No, I'm not retired.

Okay. Because I just see your application, it stops on 2018 from Grand Junction.

So I'm back at Silver State Rock. I've been there since 2019 when I came back. Oh, okay. I didn't update my resume. You're good. I was just going to clarify.

So I'm going to ask this question of Andrew also, but would you be willing to wait until the opening in December? Sure. If this board decided to select Andrew instead? Either way. Absolutely. And I'll be asking Andrew the same question.

Like I said, I feel it's time for me to get involved and give back a little bit. I'd like to be part of it.

Yeah, along with Corey, I think, well, whatever the commissioners want to do, but Andrew had his name in the hat first, right? Yes. So I guess you could look at it that way.

I'm fine either way. I just want to make sure that both applicants are able to get on the board as they want to. And if either one of them are willing to wait until December, then all the better.

All right. Well, December comes really quick. Right.

OK. Thank you, Joe.

You bet. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it.

Come on up, Andrew. I missed your speech last month, so.

Andrew Meek, for the record. You missed me in my work uniform last time, so I'm a little more professional. My name is Andrew Meek. Used to work at Elko County as a GIS technician in the assessor's office. That's kind of how I got to dabble in the planning and zoning world. So I worked extensively with planning and zoning at my time at the county, managing the geospatial data for, for example, a zone change like that was just discussed. If that had gone through, I would have managed that layer for county purposes. Worked with managing CUPs that go through variances, right-of-way changes, vacations, so on and so forth. After I left the county, I worked directly in planning up in Idaho, which different statutes, but, you know, I'm familiar with both, but worked as a planner directly in Mountain Home for Elmore County. And then now I'm the public works director for the city of Carlin. So a bit of a Jumped around a little bit, but as far as career career wise, but I'm originally from Cleveland Ohio And I got I was in the military and after the military I went to school in Utah Where I got my degree and then I moved back home to Cleveland where I got started utilities That's kind of how I got back in utilities because that's where I kind of got my start missed the mountains and I've been to – Melco was always a stop on my way to the coast, so I always go to McAdoo's before I moved here officially. So moved here in 2022, did a little stint up in Idaho, and now I'm back here. So any questions? I know most of you were here.

So you're currently with the city of Carlin. Correct. Yes, I guess the only issue would be if we have anything specifically around Carl Yeah, we'd have to address it the same way that we address it with Jake when we've got something in the city of Elko, right?

Okay Which is pretty darn rare for us to have anything to do with Carlin.

Yeah, right And I I do I do go to the city of Carl's PNZ meetings when it's pertinent and as Carlin Carlin moves a little slower than Elko sometimes so there's not always things that come up to this level that's usually handled at the city level unless it's like a like I said a boundary line adjustment or something that needs to be reviewed so but I understand that if something that was Carlin related that I would potentially recuse myself from that if it was to impact me but because as a department head for the city so

Okay. Any questions of Andrew?

I have one.

Yeah.

Are you, did you get on to the 911 board?

I guess I did. So I'm kind of new to this as well, too. As far as when I worked for Elko County, I presented to the E911 board as staff for GIS. However, I did apply for that board, E911 board, as a member of that, as a member at large. So it's kind of like a community member, so to speak. I was under the impression that they're kind of two distinct worlds. So I wasn't, I didn't, I guess maybe do my due diligence to see if that would be of a conflict of interest for this particular board. However, I understand that may be a question for legal.

I don't think it is, but what was, did you have a concern with that, Jake?

I was just curious if he got time, just time. Okay. If there was conflicts ever.

Oh, so the E911 board is during the day at 1.30. So it would not conflict with any PNC meetings.

Justin's going to look into it to make sure there isn't a conflict, but we don't think there is.

Right. And I'll point out for the record, I went through this when I applied for this position, because I also currently sit on the management commission for Elko County, and I think you can serve up the two. Okay.

All right. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Joe. So if you were selected, would you be willing to wait until December, until the opening seat?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Do we want to make a, is there, is there anyone else that wants to speak on this, I guess?

I do need to address one thing, Mr. Chair, just because it was in the previous records. I had pointed out I had worked with Andrew Meek when he was at county in a volunteer capacity, but there's no conflict, but it is in the previous meetings minutes, so my belief that I can be impartial on this still stands.

If I could just bring something up here. which might make this a little bit easier of a decision, is since one of them is going to be replacing you and you're going to be on the board that's going to be making that decision of who he gets, I would make a recommendation that we put forth Andrew's name now. And get him on the board that way it may be a little bit easier of a transition to bring Joel on to fill your spot to Have you approve it am I wrong or I mean? I'm open for suggestions, but that would be a motion. I would make if Well if anybody asked for that matter so Okay, all right. That was beautiful

And I just want to clarify that we'll still have an application process in December, correct?

That's correct, yes.

Okay. Okay, that's all.

But Joe's would be at the top of the list.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, thank you both for your interest. The pay is not great, but the...

Your mileage check?

It's a lot of fun sometimes. Yeah, sorry, I gotta get back to the meeting. But it's a good board to serve on. Okay, we have a motion. Let's see, Commissioner Ginzel and a second from Commissioner Hartley to recommend that Andrew replace, who are we replacing? Samantha, yeah and then Well Joe goes to the top of the list for December Do we have any further discussion on this? All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye aye Opposed same sign. I'm in favor motion carries I

I look forward to having both of you guys on the board.

This time is devoted to comments by the Elko County Planning Commission or county staff.

I don't have any updates for you tonight.

Okay. Any commissioner's comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I just... This is just something that seems to have come up quite a bit. I think I know where it's coming from, but I think it's just something we might need to keep an eye on. We've had about three or four CONTENTIOUS ISSUES BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD WHERE PEOPLE IN PUBLIC COMMENT ARE BRINGING UP THESE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE FILED WITH THE COUNTY AND IT LOOKS IN MOST CASES LIKE IT'S ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THEY'RE ASSUMING IT SORT OF CARRIES OVER. Just, I mean, I don't really know if there's a, I mean, there's not much we can do because it doesn't seem to be applying for everything I've seen from the property in question. But this does seem to be a matter that maybe if we start getting into some of these issues about access rights and whatnot, where we have these preexisting CCRs, we might need to start paying attention to that a little bit more.

The problem with that is CCNRs are civil rights. And we we cannot police them Police them Yeah, we're not the enforcement agency for that right and that's those are civil matters if if somebody has an issue with Somebody for their CC and ours that that becomes a civil issue not not a regulatory one right except for the problem of property access and I guess I'm not understanding.

Well, if we have CCRs that limit, I'm just thinking in a case, you know, where there's a property that wants to use it and like we've seen in a couple cases where people are complaining they're using, you know, an HOA road that has CCRs and the neighboring property violates the CCR. Doesn't that sort of put us into a even if we can't enforce it?

I just wondering if it's anything regulatory we need to keep an eye I know the situation you're talking about and that is actually County right-of-way not HOA Road Anybody else I Was just gonna say as far as like issues up in jackpot Obviously we heavily rely on their advisory board and They're there. They're the boots on the ground.

And they're a pretty good group.

Yeah. I'm wondering if there's a representative that would be willing to come down and it'd be nice to put a face with an organization that we rely on.

I can certainly ask the chairman. Okay. Okay. Think he'd be a good face for that. Yeah, I want a good working relationship there same that I do with Spring Creek or any other organization that I've got I've got a very good working relationship with the town of jackpot and the advisory board whenever There's an item that's coming before this board. That's going to be on their agenda. I actually drive up there for the meetings, okay, so

Maybe we could set up a we could invite him to August or September's meeting and I've got questions. I'm curious about jackpot. What's what's going on up there? What are their? Desires where do they want to see jackpot do how can we?

Best help them sure you bet I think that's I think that sounds like an excellent idea chairman

Do we want to do something similar with Montello in the future with this exploratory thing coming out?

The Montello Advisory Board does not exist anymore.

Oh, you got rid of it?

It lasted about six months and people quit showing up.

Okay, fair enough.

It's now called Karaoke Night at Cowboy Bar.

I thought that's something we might want to consider for Jarvidge, Mountain City, too. Mm-hmm. because all three of those do have active boards. Yeah. Although the Jarvis board, a lot of those members are out of Idaho, and they're only there on the 4th of July, so they only meet once a year. Isn't Troy on that? Huh?

Isn't Troy on that?

Yes, he is.

Okay, well, we can get him here.

Yeah.

Yeah, I just want them to know that we stand with them and want to work together with them.

Absolutely. And I try to make that very clear, you know, from my department standpoint with these small communities, outlying communities, I do spend a lot of time in them. And I always try to make at least a couple of trips a year to each one of those communities, at least so they see that I do care.

Yeah. Okay. Well, let's start with jackpots, see if we can get somebody down here and we'll kind of round table and see how things are going in jackpots.

Sounds great. Okay. I'll probably try to shoot for the September meeting.

Okay. That works. All right, I'm going to move on with the last of the legal. Pursuant to NRS 241, this time is devoted to comments by the general public, if any, and discussion of 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. Is there anyone that would like to speak? It's your chance.

Okay. Okay.

Oh, with the newspaper. All right. Well, thank you for your time here. If nothing else, meeting adjourned.