Elko County Planning Commission

540 COURT STREET, SUITE 104, ELKO, NV 89801 PH. (775)738-6816, FAX (775) 738-4581

ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2015

5:15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission was called to order at 5:15 PM on Thursday June 18, 2015, in suite 102 of the Nannini Administration Building, Elko, Nevada.

ROLL CALL: Members Present: David A. Galyen Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson Dena Hartley (arrived 5:35pm) David Hough Mike Judd Jack D. Larason

Absent :

Others Present: John Kingwell, Supervisor / Planner Eleanor O’Donnell, Administrative Assistant Kristin McQueary, District Attorney’s Office Curtis Moore, District Attorney’s Office

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Larason led the pledge of allegiance.

COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC:

Ms. McQueary introduced Curtis Moore as a new addition to the DA’s office. Curtis Moore introduced himself and briefly described his background.

CONSENT AGENDA:

Approval of Minutes-

May 21, 2015 – Regular Meeting Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 2

MOTION: Commissioner Judd moved to approve the minutes as written for the May 21, 2015 meeting as written, Commissioner Galyen seconded. Motion carried.

VOTE: AYE: David A. Galyen Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson David Hough Mike Judd Jack D. Larason

NAY:

ABSENT: Dena Hartley

ABSTENTIONS:

NOTICE OF THE APPEAL PROCESS

Chairman Larason advised everyone of the appeal process.

PRELIMINARY HEARINGS

None

PUBLIC HEARINGS

15-4000-0004, Ruby 360 LLC/ Joe Royer A public hearing regarding a request by Ruby 360, LLC / Joe Royer for a conditional use permit for the recognition of existing private helipad locations used for an existing commercial helicopter ski operation on private property within the Ruby Mountains. Location: Thirteen (13) locations within a 1,109.89 acre parcel of land located within Sections 1 & 11 Township 32 North, Range 58 East, M.D.B. &M. Applicant/ Owner: Ruby 360 LLC

Mr. Kingwell presented the staff report.

Commissioner Hartley arrived at the meeting 5:35 pm.

Mr. Kingwell read into the record all the comments that were received. There were 19 supporting comments and 10 opposition comments received. A copy of the comments are available in the Planning & Zoning File #15-4000-0004, Ruby 360 LLC.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 3

Chairman Larason recessed the meeting for 10 minutes. Meeting went into recess at 6:48pm Meeting resumed 6:59pm

Public Comments:

Mr. Johnathon Whitehead representing Ruby 360 and the Royer family. Mr. Royer will present a presentation and then after the public comments he would like to address any of the oppositions.

Joe Royer owner of Ruby 360, gave a power point presentation on his operation and his proposal. The Lodge is proposed on 120 acres zoned agricultural recreation. Mr. Royer commented that none of the 30 closest owners sent in any negative comments or concerns. There will not be taking off or landing within the wilderness area or flying over the wilderness area. In the wintertime, there are currently about fifty landings of which eleven are on private land and the rest are under a special use permit issued by the Forest Service in 2014. The intention for the eleven landing zones are for one helicopter on a limited basis. Estimate of ten flights per year at the present time. Flights will be early in the morning, and will take about three minutes each way, for a total of six minutes of flight time. All the flights will be in Class G airspace, which is uncontrolled with limited restrictions. The helipads could also be used for rescue and firefighting. The flights will be direct from the lodge to the helipad sites, no sightseeing flights are proposed. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 139 basically, says that heliports do not have to comply with the Part 139 because they are small and undeveloped. The yurts are temporary structures and all the waste is removed from the property. In closing, this is private property and the impacts are minimal, with no flights into the wilderness, no landings in the wilderness and no hunters being transported.

Commissioner Hough asked Mr. Royer in the letter from the Back Country Hunters &Anglers communicated the idea that Ruby 360 would ferry people and equipment to remote sites for hunting and fishing, where did this concept come from. Mr. Royer answered there has been some misinterpretation that started with the initial proposal, there is no hunting, transporting of hunters or fishermen, transporting of any game or scouting. Mr. Royer is willing to have restrictions put in the conditional use permit that no transporting of hunters, scouting or fishing be allowed by the helicopter access.

Commissioner Hough asked that within the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) letter there was mention of the Ruby Mountain Heli-ski Environmental Assessment in 2004. Mr. Royer explained in 1977 when we started there were a 5-year permits that were granted by the Forest Service. Later it was turned into a 10-year permit that required the permit go through an environmental analysis within the NEPA process. Ruby 360 complied with the Fish & Game restrictions, included in the permit. They went through an environmental assessment in 2004, to see if the helicopter skiing service was street legal. Within the process, there were public comment periods where public concerns and issues were addressed.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 4

Commissioner Genseal asked about Mr. Wasley’s comment in the NDOW letter about no authorized flights from May 23rd through June 13th identified as the fawning and kidding time for sensitive species in the area. Would you be willing to work with them on these restrictions? Mr. Royer commented he had an extended conversation with Mr. Wasley yesterday and none of those points were mentioned. Those points are new to him and he needs to do some research on them but is willing to work with NDOW concerning them. Mr. Royer has a huge amount of respect for the wildlife that reside in these mountains and doesn’t want to negatively impact them in any way.

Chairman Larason asked MR. Royer that NDOW’s position can be very arbitrary as to when you could access your private property or not; are you willing to give up more of your property rights. Mr. Royer stated he is willing to work with them, but expressed concerns that basically, the restrictions would allow him to fly into his property during the month of July. Chairman Larason stated the decision on the permit would be made tonight.

Chairman Larason opened public comments:

Chad Smith (local resident) has witnessed Ruby 360 and the Ruby Mountain Heli-ski for the last 10 years. Joe has allowed us to utilize his land for hunting purposes, also for skiing and outdoor activities. I own a local family farm that his helicopters have flown over. There has never been any issues with the helicopters flying over his cattle. The helicopters have always been flown at a responsible elevation. Joe has always been responsible and promoted good land stewardship by instructing how he would like his land used in regards to the use of ATVs and vehicles and the effects they might have on the wildlife.

John Rice (resident of Elko) expressed his support of this condition use. He is an avid back country user and has been impressed with the responsibility that Ruby Mountain Heli-ski and Joe Royer, his guides and employees stewardship of the back country. I believe their proposal is a responsible one and continues responsible stewardship. The economic impact of this proposal with new summer time operations is important to Governor Sandoval’s ambitious economic proposals, this will help to diversify the economy of Elko, Nevada. The increase in people using the operation will increase the room tax revenues and most will arrive using the local airport. This operation will also provide good jobs that will be an economic benefit. Ruby Mountain Heli-ski, the Royer family and Ruby 360 are terrific stewards of the land and the way of life in rural Nevada.

Bruno Carr stated the Mr. Royer has allowed the use of his equipment to rescue people before the air ambulance and other modern rescue equipment was available, whenever needed. During the recent fires, he allowed the use of his helipads for various things that the Forest Service needed to control the fires. He is the only merchant that is willing to buy eggs from a local farm. He contributes to the local economy not by bringing in other people but by working with local people.

Pete Bradley expressed his opposition to the Ruby 360 proposal. Quite to the contrary, this is not a private land issue, the constant focus on the private landing zones is disingenuous since these ports are most often surrounded by public lands, the noise impacts will be felt on these

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 5

surrounding lands, wild life and primitive recreationist will be impacted by these over flights every time, every flight all year long. 3.44 miles by the crow is a long way in the Rubies and will cover a lot of wildlife habitat.

Henry Krenka- (Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association) expressed that The NV Outfitters strongly opposes this for the affect on the wildlife and it is not a private property issue. It is an issue of circumventing the law. Mr. Krenka read comments into the record as follows:

First of all let it be clear that this is their second attempt to apply for helicopter activities in the Ruby Mountain District, in which they were previously denied by both the Forest Service and Nevada Dept. of Wildlife. Ruby 360 LLC has recently found an exemption in NRS 503.010 (5) that would allow helicopter transport, of game, hunters, hunting equipment, etc. if heliports are established through a county or municipal government. This research has not been included in his request to Elko County; however these heliport designations would have grave consequences to the users and habitats within the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest.

If this request is approved by the county it opens up the opportunity for him to transport game, hunters, and hunting equipment, which lends to an unprecedented way of hunting in Nevada. Consequently, this request is an attempt to circumvent NRS 503.010 and if successful it sets a scary precedence for what can be done in other areas of Nevada.

Furthermore, the designated heliports will also violate NAC 503.148 which prohibits locating or observing any big game mammal for the purpose of hunting for 48 hours prior to the season opening until the close of the season. If these heliports are designated NAC 503.148 will be circumvented because how would anyone prove if the helicopter was legally flying to a heliport or not.

SAFETY The Ruby 360 LLC proposal lends to a commercial operation of transporting, not to be confused with a private individual flying occasionally to his private property. For this reason he will be receiving compensation for a service that he is not permitted for by the U. S. Forests Service or the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Consequently there will be safety and liability concerns with regard to his clients pursuing wildlife and recreational activities on public land surrounding his private land that he is not permitted for.

The noise factor of a helicopter and its rotors flapping can be heard for miles and the echoing is deafening. It is an extreme detriment to all public visitors and guests of the existing outfitter in operation and especially to wildlife disbursement. All which de-value the outdoor/hunting experience.

A large safety concern is the effect that the helicopter will have on hikers, sportsmen, horses, pack animals, and all users on the Talbot Creek and Conrad Creek trails (Historical Trails). These trails run directly through several of the proposed heliport designations.

Federal Land Concerns Within the Ruby Mountain Ranger District the Forest Service has managed each special use permits by territory and service days for Guiding and Outfitting. Ruby 360 LLC /Ruby Mountain Heli-skiing also has a special use permit, which is specifically for over the snow operations, never for 365 days a year. K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 6

Therefore this proposal offers direct conflict to the existing guide and outfitter special use permit holders in the Ruby Mountain Ranger District, who have historically provided summer and fall activities and are held to a specific amount of use days to operate in an effort to protect the resource.

According to the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan under Management, Direction, Standards, and Guidelines for the Ruby Mountain Management Area there are several concerns since this is such a small acreage of private land, that there is going to be a connective action to the surrounding U.S. Forest Service land, wildlife, and its’ users.

Under the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines it specifically prohibits landing of aircraft, or dropping or picking up any materials, supplies, or person by means of an aircraft, including a helicopter, except by permit in designated areas. It goes on further to address outfitters and states to Limit summer and fall outfitters/guide permits to those existing unless a public need can be shown. Reference IV-107.

The National Humboldt Forest Plan sustains that the Forest Service is required to conduct a Needs Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Analysis (NEPA), in order to fulfill a public need, therefore it will be important to insist that the Forest Service requires this protocol be followed.

Under the Desired Future Condition of the Forest Plan when addressing recreation it is mentioned that unless timber harvest or mineral development are used that it be maintained for primitive recreation (IV -82)

It is also reasonable and prudent to believe that this proposal will have off site impacts on users and wildlife. The air space on National forest lands around the designated Heliports will be the new tarmac for conducting their operations.

Many of these heliport designations come within close proximity of U.S Forest Lands, and Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) areas; including the Lamoille Canyon Scenic Byway, which is heavily used for recreation by the public.

Wildlife Concerns The Ruby Mountain Area provides habitats for over 325 species of fish and wildlife and is home to the largest herd of Mule Deer in Nevada. Under the Forest-Wide Management S&G it specifically states protect and improve key or important habitats. Restrict oil and gas exploration and development activities in key big game habitats. (IV-29) The Forest-Wide Plan goes on further insisting they cooperate with NDOW in managing wildlife habitat.

Both the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats have struggled to survive since the 2009 pneumonia outbreak. Both of these species exist in the proposed designations and the constant harassment would be detrimental to their survival.

To date the only population of Himalayan snow cock that exists in North America in the wild is in the high elevations of the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range. This bird inhabits many of the proposed heliport locations, which causes serious concern for the snow cocks.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 7

It is widely accepted knowledge that wildlife is disturbed by aircraft. Therefore it would behoove the Nevada Department of Wildlife to shed some light on the biological adversity that the aircraft may have on these wildlife species, when flying over their habitat several times a day. Mr. Krenka continued: As an association, we believe it is unethical and illegal for a client to book a trip with an unlicensed guide. Nevada Law states that a person shall who knowingly compensated person who holds himself out as providing guide service or engaging in businesses as a master guide or sub-guide or acting in any other capacity for which a master guide or sub- guide license is required. In conclusion, this proposal has long reaching consequences on outdoor recreationalists, sportsmen, environmentalists, wildlife, the natural order of the forest, the Forest Service permitted outfitters & guides in the Ruby Mountain District. We as Nevada outfitters & guides believe we have the inherent right to protect all public land user, wildlife and their habitats for the current and future generations. Also, if he is allowed to have these private heliports, the other forests in Nevada that consist of the East Humboldt, Jarbidge, Toiyabe, have checkerboards in them too. That would open up that anyone could buy a section, come in, and take out hunters. I have heard Mr. Royer say that is not his intent at this time. That doesn’t mean he can’t change his mind down the road. What happens if he sells out or leases the hunting part of it out? Another thing, the surrounding business should be notified and asked if this would make a difference in their businesses. As outfitters, this is definitely going to make a difference in our businesses. It will cripple us up. We do primitive hunts and it is hard to set up a primitive hunt when you have a helicopter just across the ridge landing and taking off. These people are not going to come back. These areas are surrounded by the Forest Service. We have asked the Forest Service before on these private sections what they expect, and they expect from the outfitter to treat them as their Forest Service ground. That doesn’t allow any mechanical type of anything. We believe this a circumvention of the law and not a private land issue.

Commissioner Hough stated the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit and if he should sell his property the conditional use permit does not transfer. It is not transferred to the new owner, the new owner would have to come in and apply for new permit.

Commissioner Genseal asked how are these flights different from NDOW doing their annual surveys during hunting season while you are out there with clients. Mr. Krenka stated NDOW has it printed on the tags that it is possible NDOW may be counting wildlife during the season using helicopters. Commissioner Genseal understood that but asked how these proposed flights are different in the disturbance of game from what NDOW is currently doing. Mr. Krenka commented that NDOW only flies and area twice a year, Ruby 360 would be flying daily. Commissioner Genseal stated when you say an area you mean Area 10 where they are flying up and down those canyons, it may take several hours for you to get far enough away from those helicopters for the game to settle down. I am trying to distinguish the difference between the disturbances from Mr. Royer’s operation; since you are saying Mr. Royer’s flights are going to be so disruptive to your game, how is this different from NDOW out there doing their surveys. You expect this board to take into consideration your guide service and the impact it will have on private property, how this board can put a stipulation against Royer’s private property. Mr. Krenka commented because he is trying to circumvent the law.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 8

Commissioner Genseal stated that Mr. Royer has stated he is not going to take hunters and has agreed to a stipulation to the conditional use by this board on that.

Chairman Larason asked how you would know they are game spotting just because they fly over. Mr. Krenka stated the way the law reads if you fly over you would have to wait 48 hours before you could go up there, because you have been spotting. Chairman Larason commented but if you are not spotting game if that is not your intent and purpose then that law does not apply to you in that way. That law was to keep people from spotting game, coming back, and reporting to their clients in order for their clients to easily bag game. You said the law was being circumvented; in the history of the United States Laws were created to stop action from taking place, if there is no law to stop an action, then that action is generally lawful. I don’t understand how you mean they are trying to circumvent a law. Mr. Krenka responded that NRS 503.010 states that you cannot take game, hunters or any equipment. Chairman Larason questioned if the NRS is talking about private land. This sounds like it may be a private property rights takings. Questioned Mr. Krenka comment about large land and then smaller pieces of land. Are you indicating that is someone has a smaller piece of land vs. a larger piece of land, they would they would enjoy less of our constitutional rights as we know as being landowners? Mr. Krenka stated not at all.

Commissioner Hartley stated that from Mr. Royer’s presentation that he is not be transporting hunters, fishers or any of their equipment. Mr. Krenka commented that he also said at this time. Commissioner Hartley stated that those conditions would probably be part of the conditional use permit so that is probably a moot point. Susan Kennedy commented she is a Lamoille native and has shared a community with the Royer’s for 40 years. In other communities with heli-skiing operations, there is a tremendous amount of conflict between the operation and other recreational users, competing for resources, quiet and just common courtesy. The Royers and Ruby Mountain Heli-skiers are very respectful of other back country users and a safety net. They share their knowledge of the conditions like avalanche dangers. For example, a few years ago, there was an extreme avalanche danger and the Royer’s took it upon themselves to put up signage in the dangerous areas to warn all everyone knew they were risking their lives by getting out in the snow at that time. They are good neighbors and avid back country users themselves as well as hunters, they get it, and they know what is going on up there. As someone who has shared the winter quiet with helicopters, the concerns about noise are not a big of a concern as one might think. I am up there on foot, so I have the opportunity of hearing the helicopters going over, when they are in your canyon, yes you can hear them, but the next canyon over, you can’t hear them very well. They are talking about going up one canyon that has very limited public access, right now you have to pay one of the hunting guides or know someone who has keys to the locked gate and very limited trips up that canyon. Joe and his crew are the most experienced, qualified, equipped and trained back country rescue team that we have within hundreds of miles, having them available in the summer is a huge safety benefit for everyone, including the hunting guides who are opposed to this. The ultimate question is about access, Talbot Canyon and Conrad Canyon have very, very limited access particularly if you are not a hunter. What Joe is trying to do is improve access to the area for everyone to enjoy. Joe and his family are pretty much a one person chamber of commerce for

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 9

the Lamoille Valley and they have done more to improve my property values then anybody. They are tremendous promoter Lamoille and having them year round working to promote the area can only be a benefit to the community.

Fred Esparza (NDOW) clarified questions about the flights and information about the law. The differences between the flights Mr. Royer proposes and the NDOW survey flights, the biggest difference would be the intent of the flights. NDOW’s flights are for the benefit of the public and counting game numbers, in order to maintain a sustainable herd. The intent for Mr. Royer is to transport people to and from his property. NDOW’s flights are done during certain times of the year in areas where the animals are expected to maximize the counts. The survey flights are written into the NDOW regulations and printed on the tags. There was a question on NRS 503.010 and how the law is being circumvented; the law was written to prevent helicopters from transporting hunters to general hunting areas. The law was written to exempt airports and heliports, the fact is most people fly in from out of state and other areas, not to include general hunting areas. The heliport would have to be State, federal or County approved. It was not the intent of the law to fly into general hunting areas. Presented a map of the area showing the Talbot and Conrad Trails. (Map attached at the end of minutes) NDOW has an issue more with the overflights over the Forest Service land and the effects on the wildlife, especially the mule deer than with the private property access. NDOW has been in contact with Mr. Royer over the last few weeks on this issue and he has been very open to communication, there is no doubt that he would be willing to work with us on various issues that may come up in the future, but there are still some concerns with the overflights during certain times. The Ruby Mountains has the largest mule deer herd within the entire State of Nevada. Estimated about 18,000 to 20,000 mule deer. Estimated 3,000 to 4,000 hunters are hunting in that area, which is the most populated hunting area within the state for big game.

Commissioner Wilson questioned the difference in the flights would be the intent, but how would it affect the animals differently. Mr. Esparza stated Royer flights would be directly from the lodge to his property, the NDOW flights would be the fact that they would be surveying/counting the ratio of fawns, bucks and does. Commissioner Wilson commented the NDOW flights would probably have more effect on the animals. Mr. Esparza stated there would be more effect in the fact that we are counting but the end effect in our flights, benefit the animals because we are making sure we aren’t over harvesting them or the overall health. Commissioner Wilson comments I understand what the end results for NDOW are supposed to be but the effects on the animals will be the same. Mr. Esparza stated the flights NDOW do, to maintain hunting, are a necessary to benefit.

Commissioner Genseal clarified the question is the actual disturbance to the animals, I understand the purpose of the NDOW flights, the information is needed to manage the herds, but the NDOW flights are still a disturbance. There will be some disturbance to the animals either way.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 10

Chairman Larason questioned the general areas, general areas and private property are two totally different things. The fish & game laws are via a regulatory commission as opposed to a legislative process. Mr. Esparza explained this particular law is a NRS that goes into a statute, which is a legislative process. Chairman Larason expressed concern this NRS addresses flying into a general hunting area instead of the from one private property area to another, and the airspace that we can lay claim on in relation to the fish & game commissions. The definition of general areas is still unclear and that it would incorporate private property.

Mr. Esparza quoted NRS 504.390 (1) b that defines what activities a hunting guide is defined: “Guide” means to assist another person for compensation in hunting wild mammals or wild birds and fishing and includes the transporting of another person or the person’s equipment to hunting and fishing locations within a general hunting and fishing area whether or not the guide determines the destination or course of travel.” The NRS defines a guide as including the transportation into the general hunting areas. Chairman Larason commented they are very broad and far reaching. If a guide pays Mr. Royer to fly him in, does Mr. Royer have to be a guide as well? Mr. Esparza stated it would depend if this permit were approved. If the permit were approved with no stipulations that he can’t guide on his property, then according to the regulations, he would be able to fly guides into his property and hunt on his property alone.

Ms. McQueary stated it is important to note for the purpose of this discussion, that this statute in question is the only mention of heliport or helipad in the NRS, after a computerized search of NRS. Heliport or helipad is not defined in the NRS or the Elko County Code. There is very little definition and this is a novel issue statewide. Commissioner Judd asked if Mr. Royer wants to post no hunting on his property, nobody could hunt on his property, correct. If the noise is the problem, wouldn’t the 4-wheelers, side by sides, snowmobiles and everything else. It boils down to the fact that it is private property, this board cannot tell him what he can or cannot do on his private property as long as he is not, transporting hunters, which would violate the law, and he has said he would not.

Danny Riddle (Ruby Valley resident, part time guide and backcountry horseman) expressed concerns as a back country pilot, when these things go wrong the fixed winged pilots are the ones that suffer. If Mr. Royer one of the questions is what is the difference between NDOW and Royer. NDOW will not be flying over the wildlife during the sensitive times for the wildlife, they will not be scaring the snow cock or dusty grouse off their winter places. Within Tony Wasley’s letter, he mentions sensitive times to be flying and Mr. Royer said he would be open to that. Mr. Royer mentioned only Ten trips, ten trips is not going to pay for all of the work, there will need to be a lot more than that. The Ruby Mountains are a big area but it isn’t very far across it. In Ruby Valley, where I live is only three miles from Lamoille Canyon. Lamoille Canyon is not wilderness but it is noise sensitive area. He will be flying from private property to private property but with public land all around it. What he does in his private property affects the public property? His property is valuable because of the proximately to the public property. The issue about hunting, he can already do what he wants to do regarding his private land without having to go before the Planning Commission, the only reason, that I see, of having to go before this commission is to be able to do the hunting and guiding without the guiding license.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 11

Commissioner Genseal expressed concern that it sounds like you are already convicting Mr. Royer of flying in hunters, when he has said he isn’t and has offered to accept the restriction of not flying any hunters or hunting equipment on the conditional use permit. Mr. Riddle stated that was not my intention but why else would he be willing to come before this commission. He has his private property, he is doing his business and he has a permit with the Forest Service. Commission Genseal stated with this restriction on the conditional use, the permit can be withdrawn if he violates the restriction. Commissioner Hartley commented it sounds like you are saying he coming here to get a conditional use permit in order to circumvent the requirement to having the guide license, when he Mr. Royer has said he would not be doing that. This is about private property and what he can do with his property. Mr. Riddle stated that once this commission authorizes this helipad it then becomes legal, to transport game, hunters and gear. At that point, Fish & Game cannot give him a citation without having to go through a court process. Commissioner Hartley stated that if the conditional use permit is approved it will be subject to certain conditions and restrictions. If he breaks those, the conditional use permit can be pulled. Chairman Larason expressed the thought that maybe he is trying to protect his rights from future regulations or restrictions by some regulating authority from preventing him to do what he wants to do with his private property. Mr. Riddle conceded if that is true that would make a lot more sense.

Austin Wilson commented he grew up in Lamoille, the Ruby Mountains were his backyard. He is a hunter, businessman and a rancher. I know the Royer’s personally and the kind of people they are, they are hardworking people. They want to share a dream that they have built over the last thirty-eight years with everyone else by giving the opportunity to bring people up to experience the Ruby Mountains that may otherwise not have the opportunity. If everyone was so concerned with the wildlife, we should probably stop hunting them. The noise factor, all helicopters should be kept out of the area. They are able to do their business and have a minimal impact on the animals and environment in that canyon and the Ruby Mountains. They are opening an industry that is going to benefit Nevada, and Elko County. It will bring in more tourism into the area. They are my neighbors in Lamoille, I have known them all of my life and I support what they are doing. Commissioner Genseal asked how far is your ranch from the operation. Mr. Wilson stated that it is five miles away from the Rubies. I have never heard the helicopters. Commissioner Genseal asked it the flights go over the ranch. Mr. Wilson stated the flights do not fly directly over the ranch and the cows are not disturbed by the helicopter.

Mitch Buzzetti (NV High Desert Outfitters) stated this is a serious issue to me, the surrounding Forest Service land around the Ruby 360 proposal is how I feed my family with a Forest Service permit. These comments were written before the Royer’s comments about no hunters. I am going to read my prepared comments into the record. “Good Evening, thank you Mr. Chairman Mitch Buzzetti with NV High Desert Outfitters (Going to read the comments I have provided to you. I have done a lot of work on this and researched this issue. I have given you a summary with a lot of

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 12

support material.) I am a 5th generation in Elko County; 4th Generation on the ranch in Lamoille. I have been guiding for 17 years, providing summer and fall trips under my special use permit with the Forest Service, which surrounds the proposed designated heliport locations. I chose this type of lifestyle because I enjoy educating and providing people with a quality primitive outdoor experience. It is important to me, my family, and my business, that we maintain this traditional western lifestyle in the beautiful majestic Ruby Mountains. I am opposed to this proposal because of the grave consequences to wildlife, the environment, and the primitive forest experience of which my business is based on. This particular proposal that is being brought before you is not your typical zoning issue, as it has severe implications on the natural resources as well as it is a clear attempt to circumvent the laws of both the Forest Service and the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife. It is reasonable to think since this is such a small acreage of private land that Ruby 360 will not be profitable unless their clients can access and utilize the forest lands during the time at which these lands are traditionally used by me to sustain my business. I am the only legally licensed and permitted outfitter in this area on the public land.

I would like to point out that the Forest Service permit, which our business is based on and operates under requires us to maintain a primitive form of recreation such as horse back riding, hiking, tents, and of the like. Please refer to the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Our clients pay us for this type of experience. When we take a back country trip our clients don’t expect to see a helicopter. If this proposal is approved our clientele will diminish.

Within the Ruby Mountain Ranger District, the Forest Service has managed each special use permit by territory and service days for Guiding and Outfitting. This permit is a vested right and is considered private property, therefore this proposal offers direct conflict to the existing guide and outfitter special use permit holders in the Ruby Mountain Ranger District. We have historically provided summer and fall activities and are held to a specific amount of use days to operate in an effort to protect the resource. Total usage days for summer and fall activities have been distributed amongst all the permitted outfitters, and there are no usage days available.

So it would be prudent to believe that these clients, which will be dropped on private property, which Ruby 360 will be compensated to assist, are going to spill over onto the surrounding public lands because they will need to come onto the public land to recreate. All of the clients will utilize the public land, and trash the resource to the extent that my business will become unsustainable because there is only so much the resource can withstand.

Safety is a serious concern, take for example several of these heliports, ( 1 for every 85 acres) are in close proximity of the surrounding public lands. We use horses and mules a lot to access the remote areas. We use the Talbot creek and Conrad trails for both summer and fall activities and I have serious concerns about the safety of our clients, employees, and our stock. The topography of these trails are treacherous by nature, with boulders, creek bottoms, trees and steepness. The bottom line is that horses and helicopters do not mix and who is going to be responsible when someone is hurt due to the flying activity. These 1,109 acres are surrounded by forest service land and flying activity will cause a

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 13

great liability for us and other public users. If we cannot offer a safe experience to our clients then we become liable, and I ask you, who will be liable then?

Again I would like to point out that he is circumventing the existing hunting and guiding laws on the county and state level. First of all this proposal as stated in his application with the county he references 400 pickup and drop off areas for the heli ski operation under a Forest Service Permit. This demonstrates that the new heliport landing sites are not for the skiing operation. This is all about the ability to shuttle from private property to private property. However if it is just shuttling from private to private, I would think the only reason to have the county approve the landing sites would be to invoke the exemption found in NRS 503.010 (5). I have included that statute for your reference. This also leads me to ask the question why so many landing sites? Is it so they can hunt? I think there are experts in this room that can point out the legal problems with hunting from an aircraft.

NRS 503.010 and NAC 503.148 both prohibit using aircraft to locate or observe big game mammals. There is evidence of a violation of these two laws when flying slow, hovering, circling or repeatedly flying. However, how would anyone prove that the person was actually locating an animal during the trip. You will take the anti-flying laws out of existence by allowing the transportation of hunters during the hunting season and if these heliports are approved then both of these laws are subject to abuse. Yes, the 24 hour and the 48 hour laws that pertain to hunting in an aircraft will not apply. Therefore a hunter will be able to book a helicopter ride to the top of the mountain; get out and shoot their animal; load it back up in the helicopter and be transported back home all within hours. That will ruin the sport of hunting.

Now this is not a permitted use but a conditional use that Ruby 360 is applying for. The applicant references Open space Zoning county code section 4-2-1. The proposed landing heliports are not even similar to the permitted uses listed under 4-2-1 (Crops, Dairies, stables, Flower farms) or the specified conditional uses such as (Lodge, Church, School, Park, Golf course) . This board should not find that the landing sites are similar uses that are allowable. Please refer to County code 4-2-1. I feel that this would be stretching and a bending of the allowable uses listed within the code and this board should not in its judgement be making these decisions. According to Mr. Kingwell the county is not requiring the designations of these heliports. In addition, Mr. Royer even pointed out at the Wildlife Advisory board meeting, the FAA doesn’t even require these designations. So I ask what is the intent of this proposal if the county is not requiring this.

Now you are probably thinking this is a private property issue. Yes, he can fly to his private property whenever he would like, the caveat is that when he starts flying the clients onto his private land and they are compensating him and it is a commercial activity, then he is guiding and his clients are spilling over onto public land which I hold the permit for recreating on. My special use permit is property as well because it is a permit that I paid for and Ruby 360 is attempting to take it away by circumventing several laws within the county, the forest service, and the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

As far as laws for licensing and permitting there is a system in place regarding licensing through the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Forest Service and the reason for this is so they don’t overlap; thus avoiding conflict. I am the only guide legally permitted in this assigned territory by the Forest K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 14

Service to conduct guiding for hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching, photography trips etc. The Humboldt Toiyabe Forest Plan sustains that the Forest Service is required to conduct a Needs Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Analysis (NEPA).

Additionally, in 2010 the Forest Service conducted an Environmental Analysis (EA) in the Ruby Mtn. District and the prospectus found that the guides in the area were adequately meeting the summer and fall recreational demands and opportunities for the public.

Continuing with existing hunting laws NRS 504.390, (which you have a copy of) addresses licensing of guides and I would refer you to #1 subsection (a) which addresses compensation and transporting. Next I would refer you to #1 subsection (b) the meaning of “Guide”. Also I would like to refer you to #2 and #3 and subsection (a). A person is a guide because he is being compensated for a service and he is transporting with or without a destination or course of travel. One also has to be a subguide for 3 years before becoming a licensed master guide. Nevada law also states that a person shall not knowingly compensate a person who holds himself or herself out as providing guide service or engaging in business as a master guide or subguide, or acting in any other capacity for which a master guide license or subguide license is required. With all that said, it seems to me that if Ruby 360 is applying for a conditional use and is offering a guide service; then no hunting or fishing commercial operation should be allowed under this permit. It is possible that if you allow this you could be permitting him for illegal commercial hunting and fishing operations because of the existing hunting and forest service laws.

In conclusion the Heli ski business is an existing business that is permitted for over the snow from Nov. 1 to May 31, not 365 days a year. The newly proposed heliports will be in conflict with our outfitting business. As I have pointed out there are numerous laws that this new proposal would be in clear violation of. Commercial flying activity for recreation 365 days a year is unprecedented, unfair and unethical. May I remind you that a proposal of this nature has been rejected previously, because of the impacts to the wildlife, the environment, and the public users. See attached Forest Service letter

You may decide to reduce this proposal’s request to no commercial hunting or fishing. This may be a win win for everyone and solution we can all work within. My guide business brings clients to this county; these tourism dollars are proven and continuous. This is a business issue to me and my family and it is very reasonable to think this is going to have a negative financial impact. I have put my heart and soul into my business. I have worked hard and I will not get a second chance.

For the plethora of reasons I have brought up here, I think this board should consider this carefully. You may think you are allowing expansion and more opportunity. But in reality you will be allowing a proposal that will hamstring Ruby 360 with existing state laws, hence setting them up for failure because of the negative impacts and conflicts it will have on the resources, not to mention decreasing opportunity for my current sustainable guiding business. Remember you will not be taking anything away you will just not be giving it to them. By denying or amending this application you will not be reducing his business but you will be reducing my business.”

Commissioner Hartley commented that most of the opposition is coming from guide and outfitters, if he is transporting people from one property to another, why would he need a guide license to do that if he is not guiding hunters.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 15

Mr. Buzzetti stated the Attorney General is probably the one to ask, he can’t answer that question. There will be impacts offsite the public lands are very close. The only way this venture works is if they spill off his private property.

Reese Keener (Elko City Resident) commented he feels the applicant expressed their intent and addressed the concerns sufficiently. The Royer’s have demonstrated they are good neighbors in the past, they have done the right thing in the past. I think this is disingenuous of the Guide Lobby, this is public land for everyone’s enjoyment, the guides don’t own the land, yes, they have a permit to use that area, but this is in fact a property rights issue. I support the Royer’s application.

Mike Royer stated that I have had the privilege of growing up in the town of Lamoille, during the past 25 years I have witnessed and seen firsthand how his parent operate and the way in which they do business. I hope this commission takes into consideration the history, character and responsibility that my family has operated in the Ruby Mountains for nearly 40 years. This proposal will draw people into Elko County and help contribute to the local economy. This summertime addition to our business will be limited flights and straight line flight patterns to already existing natural locations on our private land. Mr. Buzzetti mentioned that he is passionate about this issue, well we are also very passionate about it. We are in the ski business, which requires snow, as all of you know that the last few years it has been very, very marginal. This summer business we are trying to establish has just as much meaning to us as his hunting to him. Thank you for your time, I am in support of Ruby 360.

Susan Kennedy stated her cattle ranch has been directly under the flight path from Red’s Ranch for the duration of the time that Ruby has operated out of Red’s Ranch. My cows don’t even look up. I have a grass fed beef business and it is very important that my cows stay quiet and it is absolutely no problem at all. Commissioner Genseal asked if there are any wildlife on your property. Ms. Kennedy stated there is abundant wildlife on my property. The cattle and the wildlife are not affected by the noise from the helicopters.

Lynnette Reyes commented she is here to support Ruby 360. There has been a lot of commentary here tonight that is putting the cart in front of the horse. Everyone can predict what they are going to do, but they haven’t even been given the opportunity. The Royer’s are willing to compromise to allow hunters to still go through their land and to keep those trails open. There hasn’t been much said about how the Royer’s are willing to work with hunters and guides to compromise. They are not just looking out for their interests, they are looking out for everyone’s. Some people feel their interests are contradicting their own. I respect the gentleman that is concerned with his livelihood, but honestly, that is business. How much did Kmart hate that Walmart came in, it can affect everyone’s business. That is what being in business means you have to compete with competitors. He has every right to want to use the land, to experience it and give other people the right to experience it. He is not trying to monopolize that are, he has been trying to work with everyone. Hunting is not going to die when the helicopter comes in, Elko County is a vast area this is not the only place to hunt. If you do the math, 10 trips, 2 trips back and forth, 20 trips times 3 minutes that would be about 60 minutes a day out of 24 hours. People need to realize he is trying to do something good for the area, trying to bring something more for Lamoille that people can do; an experience you can’t get everywhere. It is a remote

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 16

area, it is not affecting tens of thousands of people. He came her to seek a permit because he is trying to do it the right way. People need to realize he has integrity, if these stipulations are in place than his permit can be revoked. We need to be fair and give him an opportunity to prove himself.

Jose Noriega (acting district ranger for the Forest Service Ruby Mountain/Jarbidge/Mountain City districts) explained his normal job is the District Ranger down in Ely where he was born and raised. There has been a lot of discussion about the Forest Service stuff in this hearing. He has spoken to Joe Royer, Mitch Buzzetti, Henry Krenka and other interests that that may be affected as well as multiple employees with the Nevada Department of Wildlife including their director, Tony Wasley. My staff and I have looked at the proposal, and talked to the Forest Supervisor Bill Dunkelberger, there is no part of this proposal that involve landing sites or activities on the National Forest. There is no proposal in place that regarding any outfitter guide activity, nor at this time are we looking to entertain any new outfitter guide activity within the Ruby Mountains. The prospectus and needs assessments are done, there is no more need related to hunting, fishing or outfitter guiding. Based on that information, and the discussions with the parties involved, there is no decision space for the United States Forest Service in this action. We are not going to amend his current permit, or issue a new special use permit. It is a private land issue at this point. We acknowledge and recognize there is likely going to be some impacts on adjacent National Forest System Lands, including to other recreational users, and possibly to outfitters & guides that operate on those areas. There is also the potential that there may be impact associated with the noise to impact wildlife species in the area. It is our intent going forward to work with not only the Royer’s but also other parties that are involved, cooperatively to mitigate any potential impacts that occur on the adjacent National Forest System Lands. If we were to receive a proposal that would involve activities directly on National Forest System Lands, we would go through a NEPA analysis and make a determination as to whether or not to issue a special use permit at that time. There is no proposal at this time.

Commissioner Genseal asked if it is not illegal for Mr. Royer to take a person up to the helipads and that person goes off the property onto the Forest Service land, correct. Mr. Noriega stated that is correct. Where the line gets crossed according to the Forest Service regulations is if he were to take a client or a person up there, but he cannot take payment to take that client out to conduct an activity the National Forest lands. If that client leaves his property after he dropped him off at the yurt, and goes out and recreates on the forest, it is no different from someone leaving the other private lands surrounding the Ruby Mountains. We don’t require them to get a permit, and in this situation, we cannot. The other thing that I am not willing to attempt to stretch my authority to regulate airspace over this area.

Walt Gardner expressed a concern with NRS 503.010 section 5. Joe Royer reached out to me and explained what he wanted to do, at that time he did express interest in doing hunts. Since then he has changed his mind. Last night he said, he was going to amend it, I haven’t seen an amendment so it is hard for me to say I am in favor of it, as it is I am not. He cannot fly a chopper there and be within the intent of the law. There has been a question if this board has the right to regulate that, I would say yes. I trap in the wintertime, I can’t just go out on my private ground and trap how I want, and I still have to obey the law of the State of Nevada when I trap on private ground. Just because it is private doesn’t mean don’t have to obey the law. To burn

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 17

the dead willows along the creek banks, we need to call the county to get a permit, this sets a precedents that I have to follow the law whether it is private or public ground.

Sara Benoit commented the Royer’s have rallied a lot of support it is easy for them to do that because they are great people to work with and they support this community, they play by the rules. As citizens of this community, we have an obligation to stand up and support local business. I am happy to stand up here and support them and local business.

Gill Hernandez commented most of you know me by my other hat the Veterans of Foreign Wars, before that I spent many years with wildlife issues, thirty years with Elko Bighorns Unlimited, twenty years with the Rocky Mountain Elko Foundation, a county advisory board manager, and the manage wildlife chairman for many years. The outfitters and guides came to them to get a number of tags for their livelihood. The issue of the outfitters and guides is not really an issue for me, I support what he wants to do, but at the same time, I caution this board. Yu same private landowners have rights and yet you are going to limit one or the other the ability to do their business. You have a right to do that. As a property owner in Elko, I still have to abide by laws in the community that govern me. I would ask you to take into consideration if you allow the Royer’s to do this to, revisit this after a year of operation and how it affects the businesses. My main concern is with the effect on the wildlife. Along the same concerns that NDOW had with the flying during the birthing season for certain animals. Even though the flights are not very long, it only takes a second to lose an animal, if you worked all day to get into position to take an animal and then a helicopter or an outfitter or guide riding by. What impacts there will be, we don’t really know. Proceed cautiously and maybe look at it again at some time to see what impact it will have on both businesses.

John Bailey expressed a complaint I was the item prior to this on the agenda, two items were skipped and he has been here for over 4 hours, please move forward.

Marva Smith commented I live on the edge of Spring Creek at the base of the mountains. We have actually skied with Joe on the Heli-ski operation. I had a lot of things to say but they have all been said. We support the Royer operation and would really like to see this turn into a year round operation.

Mr. Whitehead stated nothing drives such a debate as the use of public and private property and especially when they join next to each other. Mr. Royer has agreed that he will not transport hunter and fishermen, NRS 503 should be a non-issue now. Elko County Code provides and what the Nevada Supreme Court has stated as far as individuals seeding use of their private property. The staff report was a very well thought out analysis and report that points out why this is an appropriate conditional use. For thirty-six years, this property has been used for heli- pads. The question of why he would come and do this, he doesn’t want to be facing legal problems later on. He wants to exercise his rights on the private property without a later dispute and battle, he has concede not hunting to be in the conditional use permit. When this commission looks at this they look a Section 4-9-6 of the Elko County Code, is it necessary and desirable, and will it be related to other uses, yes. Then does it affect adversely the health or safety of persons living or working in the vicinity, third is it materially detrimental to the public welfare. The Nevada Supreme Court instructs “when private property is denied the use per

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 18

which it can be zoned any such denial must be based upon meaningful, reasonably complete factual information.” There must be substantial evidence in record to uphold a decision. Mr. Whitehead reviewed some of the comments presented and countered the oppositions: the issue of the hunters is no longer an issue because he has conceded, the noise the longest flight is 3.4 miles the longest flight time will be 6 minutes. Royer’s want to provide access to individuals who do not have the ability to have that primitive experience that somebody else can. The NDOW letter was received this morning. The letter states as it is proposed it is difficult to know whether it impacts, but it may impact the wildlife. If they needed more time to assess the proposal they should have raised the issue that they needed more time. This is a unique business, that few states have, a heli-skiing operation and a proposed summertime operation. That is important, there are multiple benefits to the community to allow this. There is no evidence that this will affect Buzzetti’s permit. They are both private property issues and should be treated equally. In this room, the Royer’s are the one that is trying to appease, get along with everyone and try to do something so that everyone can access public land and use their private property. Strongly submit that this application should be granted.

Hartley left the meeting 9:35p Hartley returned to the meeting 9:41pm

Commissioner Hough asked if the Royer’s could access the property by another vehicular means using a right of way. Mr. Royer answered not through Forest Service land. The Forest Service has to grant access to the property. The primary access is foot traffic, a motorize vehicle is not realty acceptable except for the helicopter.

Commissioner Hartley commented that going through this process Mr. Royer did stipulate he would not transport hunters, and expressed a concern with adding the requirement of not transporting hunters or fisherman to hi private property in the conditional use permit. Commissioner Galyen mentioned that within staff’s comments it states that Mr. Royer must abide by NDOW, Forest Service, FAA rules, that ought to cover the NRS 503 condition as long as he follows these rules.

14:17:15 MOTION: Commissioner Hough made a motion to approve the conditional use for Application No. 15-4000-0004, Ruby 360 LLC/Joe Royer with staff’s recommendations, finding and conditions, and the additional conditions as stated: A) Applicant will not transport hunters, hunting gear, fishermen, or provide game transport or scouting. B) Applicant will seek advice from NDOW to establish flight paths to the heliports C) Applicant will consider not conducting flights between May 23rd to June 14th in order to not disturb wildlife during their birthing season. D) Applicant will consider including other stipulations regarding the flight paths contained within the Ruby Mountain Heli-ski Environmental Assessment (2004). E) Applicant will make an effort to minimize impacts on wildlife. F) Applicant will abide by N.R.S., N.A.C. & Elko County Code in conducting their operations. Seconded by Commissioner Judd. Motion carried.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 19

Discussion from the board.

Commissioner Hartley expressed concerns with all of the restrictions. It is up to the individual to know what the law is and to follow the law. Commissioner Hough stated there is no restriction anywhere in the motion to carrying passengers. Commissioner Judd commented if the hunter has, a licensed guide wouldn’t the licensed guide be the one hiring Royer to take them up there that would preclude him from doing anything wrong. Ms. McQueary addressed Commissioner Hartley’s concern, on a conditional use permit the commission can impose additional conditions. Commissioner Hartley expressed she has concerns with imposing those conditions because it is private property.

Public comment: None

VOTE: AYE: David A. Galyen Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson David Hough Mike Judd Jack D. Larason Dena Hartley

NAY:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

15-4000-0003, Spring Creek Association

A public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a parking lot to accommodate overflow parking for the Spring Creek Association Golf Course and proposed Fairway Community Center.

Location: A 1.37 acre parcel of land located within the Spring Creek Subdivision, Tract 106B, Block 6, Lot 6, as shown on File No. 67522 as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Elko County. Portions of Section 18 & 19, Township 33 North, Range 57 East, M.D.B. &M. Physical address is 405 Fairway Circle Spring Creek, Nevada.

Applicant/ Owner: Spring Creek Association

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 20

Commissioner Wilson abstained from this issue due to the fact she is an adjacent property owner.

Mr. Kingwell did not read the staff report because it is the same staff report from last month. He explained there is an issue with the building permit concerning a waterline easement, it is on hold, at this time there is not a use for the parking lot associated with the building. If we approve the parking lot, it needs to be connected with that use of the new building being constructed. The layout of the parking lot, will be a single tier lot with 19 spaces. Dirt has been moved and construction has begun on the pad in preparation of the new building and the parking lot. This should not affect whether this application should move forward or not.

Comments: John Bailey (working on behalf of Spring Creek Association, SCA) stated all of the new plans have been submitted to the County. The proposed parking lot is very small, the surrounding properties cannot even see it. The project is not on hold, we encountered a waterline, the County has issued a grading permit, the project is moving forward, and there is an easement issue that will be resolved within the next few weeks. Last time there were some questions from the neighbors about the parking lot, we are here to answer those questions that were unresolved.

Mr. Kingwell stated the parking lot was never part of the permit that was approved for grading. However, that is not the issue before this board. One of the issues is there was six hours of staff time looking for something that we weren’t told, that was known by Spring Creek Association and the builder having to do with the waterline. It was never brought up or shown during the application process that will present a delay.

Mr. Bailey commented that the waterline is not really an issue with the conditional use permit for the parking area. Mr. Kingwell mentioned you cannot have a conditional use for something that doesn’t exist. Mr. Bailey stated the request could be for parking the existing facilities that are there. They are asking for a conditional use permit to have overflow parking for the golf course. Mr. Kingwell agreed on the point.

Zee Gilbert (president/general manager of SCA) added there was no intention of withholding information on the waterline. They investigated the waterline easement and could not find one. They have spoken with Utilities Inc. on this issue and they are moving forward on resolving the issue soon. Mr. Kingwell staff sees no reason to delay the conditional use permit.

Ms. McQueary mentioned one of the items the board asked for last time was a drawing for the parking lot. Mr. Bailey presented a map of the proposed parking lot.

Mr. Kingwell commented the new building really isn’t connected with the propose parking lot. The proposed is a 19 space parking lot and it is a good place to put it. Ms. Gilbert stated even if the new building is not constructed, there is a parking problem. This parking lot will still be needed for the overflow parking of the gold course.

Commissioner Galyen asked if there would be lighting

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 21

Mr. Bailey stated the lighting would be addressed in the building plan review process. If they request the lighting, the infrastructure is there if required. Mr. Kingwell mentioned there was one other issue to be brought up. The proposed motion conditional use subject to restrictions with additional conditions. John read the proposed motion: Overflow parking lot design is one level providing 1 access point and providing 19 spaces. Graveled surface is proposed and is acceptable. Applicant shall be responsible for dust control of the site which may include a dust suppression component such as lignum / magnesium chloride or like agent. Lighting is not provided at this point. Lack of lighting would be a safety concern for pedestrians and a security concern. Lighting should be down lighting and required at dusk and shut off at closing of the office, restaurant, bar etc. Drainage requirements will be addressed at plan submittal. Stabilization of back slopes by use of vegetation is required. Applicant proposes use of crested wheat due to lack of irrigation. Parking lot needs to be kept clear of rubbish to prevent littering of other properties. Garbage cans need to be required in the overflow lot. Parking for the future offices is not to be addressed by this application but rather is addressed at permit submittal for the new golf course building construction project.

PROPOSED MOTION IF APPROVED: A. Conditional Use is subject to restrictions and conditions as outlined in Elko County Code 4-9-6. B. Overflow parking lot design is one level providing 1 access point and providing 19 spaces. C. Stabilization of back slopes by use of vegetation is required. Applicant proposes use of crested wheat due to lack of irrigation. D. Parking lot needs to be kept clear of rubbish to prevent littering of other properties. E. Garbage cans need to be required in the overflow lot. F. Lighting should be down lighting and required at dusk and shut off at closing of the office, restaurant, bar etc. G. Applicant shall be responsible for dust control of the site which may include a dust suppression component such as lignum / magnesium chloride or like agent. H. Graveled surface is proposed and is acceptable with proper drainage and back slope development.

Mr. Bailey state there should be no problems with any of those conditions. Commissioner Hartley asked about chip sealing or paving. Ms. Gilbert stated that wouldn’t be ruled out but this is a special event parking area. It will not be used all of the time. Gravel would be sufficient at this time. Mr. Bailey there are different types of treatments within the conditions that could be used to control the dust.

Public comments: none

Commissioner Hartley asked if there would be a need for landscaping to provide a barrier between any homes that might be impacted. Mr. Bailey stated there is a landscape plan that is submitted with the building and approved through the building process. The neighbor will not be able to view the parking.

MOTION: Commissioner Judd made a motion to approve conditional use Application 15- 4000-0003 Spring Creek Association staff’s recommendations, conditions and findings: Commissioner Hough seconded. Motion passed.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 22

Public comments- no comments

VOTE: AYE: David A. Galyen Richard Genseal Dena Hartley David Hough Mike Judd Jack D. Larason NAY:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS: Norlene Wilson

15-2000-0004, Spencer Egbert A preliminary hearing regarding a request for a change of zoning from Open Space (OS) to Agricultural Residential (AR) for the creation of a parcel to transfer to a family member.

Location: A 1.133 acre portion of a 1,120.00 acre parcel of land located along the Clover Valley Road (SR232) in Section 36, Township 36 North, Range 61 East, M.D.B. &M.

Applicant: Spencer Egbert Owner: F. Scott & Laurel Egbert

Mr. Kingwell presented the staff report.

Public comments: No comments

MOTION: Commissioner Judd made a motion to approve the zone change Application No. 15-2000-0004, Spencer Egbert with staffs recommendations, finding and conditions, seconded by Commissioner Galyen. Motion passed.

VOTE: AYE: David A. Galyen Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson David Hough Mike Judd Jack D. Larason Dena Hartley

NAY:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 23

Mr. Egbert commented that his application took 4 minutes and he has sat here for 5 hours.

15-4000-0005, Kraus Enterprises LLC A public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit for a tank farm for petroleum products. The construction of a propane sales, distribution and storage facility within a General Industrial zoned district. The tank farm will consist of two (2) 30,000-gallon propane storage tanks and a possible third 30,000-gallon tank in the future.

Location: Two parcels totaling 44,095 square feet within the Ruby Mountain Industrial Park. Parcel 1 is a .464-acre parcel Block A, Lot 1 as shown on File No. 336189. Parcel 2 is a .525-acre parcel Block A, Parcel D, as shown on Parcel Map 549494 as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Elko County. Located in Section 14, Township 33 North, Range 55 East, M.D.B.& M. Applicant: Kraus Enterprises LLC Owner: Ruby Mountain Industrial Park Inc.

Mr. Kingwell presented the staff report and commented that there is a correction there will not be any sales from this location. It will be for service and distribution only.

Paul Kraus (Kraus Enterprises) explained they are putting in a remote storage for propane. Julie Kraus (Kraus Enterprises) asked for clarification on the alternate compliance concerning the requirements for Sunshine Lane. Mr. Kingwell explained Elko County Code does not give the Elko County Planning Commission the leeway to change the things that are required by code for the development of roads. The Elko County Commissioners do have the authority to listen to an alternate compliance request. There are already businesses out there using those roads. That road was not improved at the time they were put in, they may have received alternate compliance. Staff would not have a problem with making sure that the roadways there at the width they are, graveled to the gravel standard. Ms. Kraus questioned the procedure for requesting an alternate compliance. Mr. Kingwell explained to go to the administration office and state that you had a hearing with the ECPC, it was approved, you would like to request an alternate compliance to the road requirements, and they will help you with that.

Public Comments:

Kathryn Moriarty (owner of the Aspen Veterinary Clinic) she was not here in opposition or support of the application, but had some questions and concerns, since Aspen Veterinary Clinic will now be between AmeriGas and this new propane facility. The two main concerns are 1) the infrastructure, the roads and 2) the safety, with the combustible material on either side of my property. First, with the roads, there seems to be some effort to make amend to the road quality there. There is currently a road fund within the industrial park that we have paid into faithfully for about eight years. As of last year the road seal failed to be put in front of her property on Silver State Drive, they did not improve or maintain the road last year. There is some concern that the road quality will degradate with more traffic from the semi-trucks. It was not clear if Sunshine Lane is required to be paved or just graveled, but on Landmark Lane that, is the alternate route into the industrial park there is a left hand turn lane designated off Lamoille

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 24

Highway. Is there any recourse that we have if these heavy trucks are going down Landmark Lane rather than the proposed Sunshine Lane?

Mr. Kingwell stated NDOT has not yet provided comments. They will provide the comments and direction that we need to give to the applicant that will actually be their requirements. Whether they will need turn lanes, egress lanes, that type of thing between the beginning of Sunshine Lane and the highway or the beginning of the other road if they are planning to use that. The Elko County Code requires that we require for that particular use a 34’ rural paved collector standard road. That standard has not been followed on that road and is common being that far out of town to have an alternate compliance granted. It doesn’t help to have a portion a paved road between gravel surfaces. An industrial gravel road would hold up better and be less expensive. As far as the road maintenance agreements and paying into those funds, that is between you and the homeowners association. Ms. Moriarty commented secondly as far a safety, has Western States had any safety violations for the company, has the County checked into that. Are there any violations with any regulatory boards as far as the safety? Chairman Larason commented the Planning Commission would not have any of this information. Ms. Moriarty asked where she would be able to find this information. Mr. Kingwell explained we don’t have that information they are regulated by the Liquid Petroleum Code NFPA-58. The Elko County Fire Department as already gone down and checked the fire flowed the fire water in the area and found it was adequate. Ms. Moriarty stated she is not worried about that but has the County looked into if they have had any safety violations and their record prior to approving their expansion. Mr. Kingwell stated no I have not. The applicant may be able to provide that information. Ms. Moriarty questioned so this board would approve this not knowing if they could have safety violations on a major combustible storage tanks. Mr. Kingwell stated obviously if they have serious violations they would be shut down. Ms. Moriarty stated she would like to know before this board approves this if you could have that kind of information. The other thing, is if their liability and hazard insurance consists of, what their limitations and max & minimums are. There are concerns of if they have adequate coverage for replacement costs that might arise for her company if there were an incident that could destroyed her facility, medical equipment and possible lawsuits by her clients if animals were involved. There needs to be more information for the safety and infrastructure before you approve this, there are no facts. There are other concerns within the Industrial park, there is an open burn barrel a couple times a month at Elko Truss that is right across the street from the proposed, the lot next to Elko Truss toward the proposed propane facility has several vacant cars that may have leaking oil or gas, questions on what might be stored in semi-truck in the area. Based on the discussion from the last four hours I realize you can’t regulate what people are storing on their private property, but there are some concerns in the area.

Ms. Kraus explained they are happy to address the safety concerns. We are a highly regulated industry, by many entities, the main regulator is the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board for the State. Annual inspections are required, by the State Fire Marshal, the city or NDF (NV Division of Forestry) (currently the Elko County Fire District), and the Gas board, we do have an impeccable safety record, there are no safety violations at our current facility. We have been in business for 22 years in the community. On the insurance requirements, we are required by the

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 25

State Gas Board to hold certain limits of insurance, although I don’t believe the limits should be public knowledge. The real estate agent informed them that the abandoned cars are supposed to be cleaned up as part of our purchase agreement. The burn barrels, there will be notices on our fences that state the proper clearance and distances. We will talk to NDF and make sure that concern is addressed. This is the purpose of the industrial park, there is another facility there.

Commission Galyen asked staff about the thirty-four foot (34’) paved road requirement for Sunshine Lane, is that all of Sunshine Lane or just through to their ingress and egress. Mr. Kingwell stated to the full length of the property side.

MOTION: Commissioner Galyen made a motion to approve the conditional use Application No. 15-4000-0005 for Kraus Enterprises with staff's recommendations, findings and conditions; seconded by Commissioner Genseal. Motion carried.

Public Comments: none

VOTE: AYE: David A. Galyen Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson David Hough Mike Judd Jack D. Larason Dena Hartley

NAY:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

15- 4000-0006, Maverik Inc A public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit for a gasoline service station and convenience store. Location: A 2.39 acre parcel of land shown as parcel 3A on File No. 398420 as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Elko County. Located in the North ½ of Section 3 Township 33 North, Range 56 East, M.D.B. &M. Parcel is zoned Light Industrial. Applicant: Maverik Inc. Owner: Fred & Cindy Wahl ET AL

Mr. Kingwell presented the staff report. Mr. Kingwell mentioned that NDOT is going through changes, they are getting a new traffic engineer. We have had some trouble getting comments back from them. However, staff feels comfortable with these recommendations, where we are requiring them to build according with what NDOT wants. With the clause, that traffic counts will be required and if requirements are needed along Boyd-Kennedy Road they will be taken care of too, possibly a turn lane.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 26

Commissioner Galyen left the meeting 10:42pm Commissioner Galyen returned to the meeting 10:45pm

Mr. Kingwell read a letter of support from the Elko County School District.

Mr. Kingwell read the letter from the Nevada Department of Transportation.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 27

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 28

Applicant comments: Fred Wahl owner of the property. I have owned the property since 2005 and developed the property next to it with the ministorage complex. Regarding traffic out there, over the years there hasn’t been many changes. Maverik would be a benefit and more development in the area would increase the safety and security for the adjacent area.

Craig Romrell (Maverik) described the site plan and how it will developed as needed. There are forty-seven parking stalls on this site. The plan shows initially twelve pumps, but anticipate just building out five pumps in the line and the additional two RV’s at this time. Install the other five as demand justifies the remainder in the future. Drought resistant landscaping will be implemented and limited access off Boyd-Kennedy right in, right out. A full movement access off Ann Way onto Boyd-Kennedy. Maverik has commissioned a traffic engineer to pursue a traffic study as required.

Commissioner Hough suggested putting in a RV dump station and charging for that service. There is no RV dump out in Spring Creek. Mr. Romrell commented we have talked to several people today about that fact and will consider the option.

Commissioner Galyen asked if propane will be sold and are you considering a walk up window for students.

Mr. Romrell stated no we will not be selling propane and with the new footprint for the store, it is large inside, 5,000 square feet. There will be a lot more build to order options of food that is made fresh in the store. The nearby school is a closed campus.

Public Comments:

Brent Taylor expressed a concern regarding Trescartes Avenue, and not with Maverik. The traffic is a big concern, there is no traffic control and it is a short cut, since Dottie’s moved in it has got worse, everyone from the trailer section can make the late night beer run and never hit the highway. Trescartes and Valley Vista are county roads but not maintained. Valley Vista had a flood and is basically impassable.

Commissioner Galyen questioned if the fence on Trescartes is still in. Mr. Taylor explained Trescartes is still blocked off, Valley Vista should be blocked off, and there is really no need to have that road open. That cut across road is not used by anyone in our community. It is only used by people as a race track and short cut from the trailer section to Dottie’s and the highway.

Bruno Karr explained he was early resident on Valley Vista. He feels Maverik would be an asset to our community. Expressed concerns with the traffic in the area. There have been several complaints to the County and NDOT on the traffic in the area. He supports Maverik in this proposal.

Todd Myers (Maverik) clarified that there will be propane sales for the small containers. The RV dump, if there are not any septic problems they will pursue the RV dump.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 29

Mr. Kingwell recommended having a longer period than the six month to establish the conditional use, to take in consideration the required traffic study, possibly one year.

MOTION: Commissioner Galyen made a motion to approve the conditional use Application No. 15-4000-0006, Maverik Inc. with staff's recommendations, findings and conditions and adding:

h) Applicant will make improvements to Ann Way including construction to a thirty-four foot rural paved collector standard with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the western side of Ann Way throughout the frontage of the parcel.

i) This conditional use will stay in effect for one (1) year from the passage of the conditional use to begin construction. Seconded by Commissioner Hartley. Motion carried.

VOTE: AYE: David A. Galyen Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson David Hough Mike Judd Jack D. Larason Dena Hartley

NAY:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

15-1500-0002, Public Workshop, ECC 4-2-4: A, AGRICULTURAL-RECREATION DISTRICT

A Public Workshop Hearing for a change to the minimum lot width within the Agricultural- Recreation District from 350’ to 330’ and a change to the minimum parcel size to 1/128th of a cadastral survey section or five (5) acres.

Mr. Kingwell read the staff report Commissioner Hough stated as a registered land surveyor this is a good idea.

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2015 Page 30

MOTION: Commissioner Hough made a motion amend Title 4, Chapter 2, Section 4, Subsection (B) of the Elko County Code, to make changes to Subsection C., minimum parcel width and parcel size to read: (C) Minimum Parcel Size: The minimum land parcel size for any permitted use shall be 1/128th of a cadastral survey section or five (5) acres. No parcel shall have an average width of less than three hundred thirty feet (330'). Seconded by Commissioner Hartley. Motion carried.

VOTE: AYE: David A. Galyen Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson David Hough Mike Judd Jack D. Larason Dena Hartley

NAY:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

OTHER BUSINESS- both items were tabled the next month’s meeting as non-action items.

Cell Tower Aircraft Avoidance Lighting Discussion on the County requirement for aircraft avoidance lighting on cell towers.

Construction Survey Requirement Discussion on the possible requirement of construction surveys.

STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS None

COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC None

ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:20 pm

Minutes Clerk: Eleanor O’Donnell Date Approved: July 16, 2015 .

(Staff Reports are available on the Elko County website at: http://www.elkocountynv.net/meetings/board_of_commissioners/index.html)

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2015 YEAR\ECPC June 18, 2015 Minutes.docx