NYE COUNTY AGENDA INFORMATION FORM TEM #J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NYE COUNTY AGENDA INFORMATION FORM 1 Action II Presentation II Presentation & Action Department: Planning Agenda Date: Category: Timed Agenda Item — 1:30 June 17, 2008 Continued Contact: Jack Lohman Phone: 775-751-4033 from meeting of: ( Return to: Jack Lohman Location: Pahrump Planning Phone: 775-751-4033 Action requested: (Include what, with whom, when, where, why, how much ($) and terms) Discussion, deliberation, and possible decision or direction to staff concerning the Comprehensive Rezoning Task Force Final Report for the Pahrump Regional Planning District. Complete description of requested action: (Include, if applicable, background, impact, long-term commitment, existing county policy, future goals, obtained by competitive bid, accountability measures) Any information provided after the agenda is published or during the meeting of the Commissioners will require you to provide 20 copies: one for each Commissioner, one for the Clerk, one for the District Attorney, one for the Public and two for the County Manager. Contracts or documents renuirine sienature must be submitted with three orieinal conies. Expenditure Impact by FY(s): (Provide detail on Financial Form) lxi No financial impact Routing & Approval (Sign & Date) 1. Dept Date 6. Date 2. Date 7 HR Date 3 Date 8. Legal Date 4 Date 9. Finance Date 5 Date 10. County Agenda Mana A’Place on ( Board of County Commissioners Action [El Approved U Disapproved U Amended as follows: Clerk of the Board Date TEM #j_ NYE COUNTY BOAR]) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PLANMNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: June 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEMS Comprehensive Rezonin Task Force: Discussion, deliberation and possible decision or direction to staff concerning the Comprehensive Rezoning Task Force Final Report for the Pahrump Regional Planning District. GENERAL INFORMATION SUMMARY The Comprehensive Rezoning Task Force was appointed by the Nye County Board of County commissioners (BOCC) to review the zoning classifications for the remaining parcels of land within the Pabrump Regional Planning District which were not included in the comprehensive Rezoning approved by the BOCC June 20, 2007. RPC MINUTES Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Recommended BOCC Motion: “I motion to direct staff to proceed with the rezoning process for the remaining properties indicated in the Comprehensive Rezoning Task Force report.” PAIIRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE REZONING MAP TASK FORCE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 25,2007 MEETING Call to Order and Roll Call The meeting was called to order in Room B of the Bob Ruud Community Center in Pahrump, Nevada at 2:03 p.m. Members in Attendance: Peter Liakopoulos Carrick “Bat” Masterson Dave Richards Tim McCall Members Absent: Donna Lamm Planning Staff: Jack Lohman Bob King Shiloh F. Schmidt Pledae of Alleaiance Approval of Minutes None Public Comment — 2:06 p.m. Jim Patell stated he had been involved with the initial development of the Master Plan Development with hopes that the properties would be zoned as they were being utilized. And he hopes the committee works towards that same goal today. Public Comment Closed — 2:08p.m. Discussion, deliberation direction and possible recommendation of zoning classifications for the remaining parcels of land within the Pahrump Regional Planning District which were not included in the Comprehensive Rezoning approved by the BOCC June 20, 2007. Board of County Commissioner Peter Liakopoulos turned the meeting over to Pahrump Regional Planning Commissioner Carrick “Bat” Masterson who briefed his findings on the North Calvada study areas. Commissioner Masterson reviewed his findings documented on the Quadrant 1 handouts. (Handouts were distributed to the members and the public in attendance. Copies are available in the Planning Department for review). Commissioner Masterson motioned to accept the Calvada Study area as marked/submitted on the maps provided Tim McCall secondeL Jack Lohman asked if the research was done or if they reflected the property as they were original sold as per the CC&Rs. Commissioner Masterson stated the lots would remain as they were originaL sold, Multi-family. However some of the property owners did buy with the intent on using them as commercial lots. Dave Richards stated some of the lots state commercial, what would be the proper designation? Were the comments from the property owners reviewed? Commissioner Masterson stated the lots listed as commercial would be designated as Neighborhood Commercial. Comments were received and reviewed he did not understand the opposition because the area is designated as Multi family. All the parcels are currently vacant; there are no single family homes present. Roil call vole: Liakopoulos, yes; McCall, yes; Richards, yes: Lamm, absent. Motion to approve passes 4-0. Commissioner Masterson opened the floor to discuss leaving the remaining properties to the north of Calvada, which is currently an Industrial area, as residential to avoid imposing taxes on those individuals who simple have homes on the property with no intentions of developing a commercial project at this time. Mr. Patell made a brief comment about living in the area and about two fellow neighbors who were zoned Multi family. Jack Lohman gave a brief description on the differences between the Land Use and Zoning maps. Mr. Lohman explained one of the many goals of the committee is to avoid creating additional non-conforming uses within the valley and to avoid unnecessarily imposing commercial taxes on those properties not intending to develop a commercial use. The area is currently zoned Open Use. Mr. Patch voiced some concerns about the zoning of his property and the Assessor’s records. Commissioner Masterson stated the Assessor’s office assigns codes to properties however; it has nothing to do with zoning. Commissioner Masterson and Mr. Lohman also responded to some questions Mr. Patell had concerning water rights and grandfathered uses. Mr. Lohman refocused the group by stating that the subject of the committee is to deal with the areas that remain on the list, which most of them are Mixed Use designated areas. Most of the individuals objected to the Mixed Use designation because they did not understand the definition of the zone. The committee does not want the area to remain Open Use because the only thing this would allow you to do would be to place a single-family home on the property. Commissioner Masterson agreed with Mr. Lohman, he stated most people are not planning on using their property as commercial. They are hoping to have an opportunity to turn it around for a profit. Many of the properly in the north is 10 to 15 years away from being developed as Light Industrial, so why would they want to change it and pay more taxes unless you were going to use it? Phil Hayes made comments concerning the past allowable uses under the Open Use designation, and the designation of grandfathered uses. He bought in the area to run his business because of the uses in the area. The property owners in the area would like to see the zoning remain Open Use but would like the Light Industrial option to remain open to them in the future depending on the growth of the Nevada Test Site. Property taxes is the issue, why pay higher taxes Commissioner Masterson recommends the properties remain as they are. Mr. Lohman reminded the members that their decision must be consistent with the Land Use Map; the appropriate decision may be to zone the area Light Industrial. However, the problem is the property taxes. Mr. Richards asked Mr. Patell if he were asked to be zoned anything less intense than Light Industrial which zone would he pick? Mr. Patell stated he would stick with Open Use, why pay high taxes now? Mr. Richards stated the Open Use designation is what inspired the Assessor to go in and put their zoning designation on it, whether it was being used commercial or not. Mr. Richards stated it is his concern that it would still be their option to place any zoning or use designation they wanted. He feels if they were to assign a zone on it, it would be best to assign the lowest possible compatible to the Master Plan. He asked what would be the lowest possible zone they could assign to a Light Industrial site. Mr. Lohman stated Light Industrial because it doesn’t have the flexible like Mixed Use does. Mixed Use can either go to Neighborhood Commercial, Multi-family or Single-family use. With Light Industrial there is no other option. Comprehensive Rezoning Task Force September 25, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 Mr. Lohman stated he feels the issue is simple, to be consistent the area should be zoned Light Industrial, if they cannot or feel they cannot do that then they area should remain Open Use. It is not an ideal situation but at least the committee is not imposing a zone that is going to make something that isn’t consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Richards confirmed that the committee had 2 choices in the matter, either zone the area Light Industrial and the current property owners pay increased property taxes for property not being used as industrial or decide to leave the area as is, Open Use. Mr. Lohman stated that is correct, it is a financial issue and something the BOCC will have to deal with. A member from the public asked if the area could remain as Open Use with the final zoning based on submitted plans. Mr. Lohman stated you could do that, which is why this concept of a Task Force was adopted, because some people within the Mixed Use category were fine with the recommendations received from the consultants but others objected. Rather than force them into something it was left Open Use so they could come in with an application.