Elko County Planning Commission ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 Elko County Planning Commission 540 COURT STREET, SUITE 104, ELKO, NV PH. (775) , FAX (775) ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5:15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2011 Chairman Judd called the meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission to order at 5:15 p.m. on, in Suite 102, of the Nannini Administration Building, Elko, Nevada. Members Present: Absent : Others Present: Mike Judd, Chairman Dena Hartley, Vice Chairman Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Richard Genseal Wilde Brough John Kingwell, Associate Planner Eleanor O Donnell, Planning & Zoning Administrator Kristin McQueary, District Attorney s Office I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance was pledged. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 15, 2011 Regular Meeting MOTION: Commissioner Larason moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Hartley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

2 Page 2 VOTE: AYE: NAY: Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Richard Genseal Wilde Brough None ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: III. III. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: Kristin McQueary heard on the radio yesterday a story about the 4H kids learning about wind turbines. Ms. McQueary contacted Jill Tingey 4H educator about having the 4H kids come to the next meeting to tell us about what they have learned about wind turbines. CONSENT AGENDA: These are items that Staff recommends for approval or to proceed to a public hearing. The Board reserves the right to move any consent agenda item to the public hearing segment of the agenda should issues arise that need to be addressed. NONE IV. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS: , Jordanelle Third Mortgage, LLC. A preliminary hearing for a change of zoning from Open Space to Agricultural/Residential for the residential development of single family lots with a minimum parcel size of 1.0 acre. The S1/2 NE1/4, SE1/4 of Section 28, Township 34 North, Range 55 East, M.D.B.&M. The general location is Elko Hamilton Stage Rd. The applicant and owner is Jordanelle Third Mortgage, LLC. Mr. Kingwell indicated the application is in order and ready to be moved forward to a public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Hartley moved to set the hearing for Jordanelle Third Mortgage, LLC, for the November meeting Commissioner Larason seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

3 Page 3 VOTE: AYE: NAY: Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Richard Genseal Wilde Brough None ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: , Spring Creek Utilities Company. A preliminary hearing for a change of zoning from Agricultural/Residential to Commercial-1 for water infrastructure including a water storage tanks, a 1400 sq. ft. building and related equipment. Spring Creek Subdivision Tract 103, Lot 33, Block 3. Physical address is 391 Blakeland Drive, Spring Creek, NV. The applicant and owner is Spring Creek Utilities Co. MCO. Mr. Kingwell indicated the application is in order and ready to be moved forward to a public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to set the hearing for Spring Creek Utilities Company, for the November meeting, Commissioner Hartley seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. VOTE: AYE: Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Richard Genseal Wilde Brough NAY: None ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS:

4 Page 4 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: , Lynn R. or Penny Forsberg. A public hearing for a change of zoning from Commercial-2 to Residential-2 for a family residence and in-home office for the following described property: A 1.53 acre parcel of land located in a portion of Section 19, Township 33 North, Range 58 East, M.D.B.&M., Elko County, Nevada. The general location is the northeast corner of the intersection of SR 227 (Lamoille Hwy.) and North Canyon Road. The physical address is 2146 N. Canyon Road, Spring Creek, Nevada. The applicants and owners are Lynn R. & Penny K. Forsberg. Mr. Kingwell- this application has been reviewed and the staff report written and read into the record by Ed Wynes, AICP Northern Nevada Land Use Planner, under private contract. Commissioner Larason declared he has had previous business dealings with the applicants but did not have any current business with them and didn t think it would pose a problem. Mr. Wynes representing Elko County as a special consultant on this matter.

5 Page 5

6 Page 6

7 Page 7

8 Page 8

9 Page 9

10 Page 10

11 Page 11

12 Page 12

13 Page 13 Commissioner Hough asked is this parcel on which the existing structures are located on. Mr. Wynes - yes Commissioner Hough asked do the owners have a plan for developing this property. Mr. Wynes - there are no firm plans. To his knowledge it is just to bring it into compliance. It is residential not commercial anymore. Commissioner Hough- is the little store no longer there. Mr. Wynes suggested asking the applicant for clarification on this. Commissioner Galyen asked if this property and the property to the south on the same side of the street is the only commercial in the area. Mr. Wynes - correct. Commissioner Larason- this is the NE corner; the NW corner is not commercial? Mr. Wynes- answered the only property that is zoned commercial are the 2 lots on the Lamoille side of North Canyon Road and on the north side of Lamoille highway. Commissioner Larason- asked in the event that someone should put in some sort of a commercial operation could this constrict the type of business because it would be so close to a residence. Mr. Wynes- that would depend on the county codes. Commissioner Larason - if this change is granted what type of business could be prevented by this change. Mr. Kingwell mentioned a list of possible businesses that could go into the available commercial lot. The parcel size would have more of an affect. Commissioner Larason- would we be forcing the property owner of the other commercial parcel to have to change their parcel too. Commissioner Galyen- what we are asking is if the property owner of the other lot bought the property knowing that both parcels were commercial what affect will this have on the other parcel because this parcel is no longer commercial but now residential. Commissioner Hartley- if there is a restriction from one parcel to the next; if there is a residential next to a commercial; are there any restrictions for use based upon the distance required between the commercial lot and the proposed residential. Mr. Kingwell- as a general answer it would depend on the type of use; there are some types that would require a buffer for noise and the size of the parcel will affect the type of commercial operation due to parking. Commissioner Hartley-that would create a restriction to some types of uses. Mr. Kingwell- any use of any of these properties will restrict to some degree what an adjoining neighbor could do to some degree. Commissioner Larason- but in the event that this will affect the other piece of commercial property, they could come before this board and perhaps get a variance to compensate for this change. Ms. McQueary- the other corner is zoned commercial. They don t have to come in and do anything with the county as long as they stay within the permitted use. They don t need additional permission unless they want to do something outside the permitted zoning. Then it would become an issue for the building code if they have the proper number of parking spaces for the type of business. Commissioner Hough- changing the zoning on this property should not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties? Ms. McQueary- zoning is very fluid and depending on the circumstances you can request changes in zoning. Commissioner Hough- the issue is we don t want the neighbors to have an unreasonable impact because of the change in zoning. Ms. McQueary- there is a multiplying factor, having multiple businesses in an area tend to attract

14 Page 14 other businesses, but that is not something we can address now. Commissioner Hartley- is the store currently closed? Mr. Wynes- that is a question to ask of the applicant. To his knowledge the store is closed or they wouldn t be asking for a change in zoning if it was still a commercial operation. Public Comment Chairman Judd opened the floor up for public comment. Lynn Forsberg (applicant) - clarified the parcel is acres instead of 1.53acres. There is a commercial well and septic tank on the property and there is a public water system that is sanctioned by the State of Nevada. They want to keep those is good standing as approved commercial water rights. A commercial septic system and a fire system are also located on the property. At this time there aren t any plans to put a duplex on the parcel. They want to be in compliance with what they are doing. They are living on the property and he is running a consulting business. Commissioner Hough- asked about the status of the store? Mr. Forsberg- the store has been closed for 3 years and there is no intention to reopen it. Commissioner Galyen does your fire suppression system currently have water in it? Mr. Forsberg- stated the pond currently has 55,000 gallons of water in it with a drafting system. Commissioner Galyen if we change the zoning will you have any further restrictions to fence the pond since it will be a residential area? Mr. Forsberg- it is already fenced with field fence but we might have to do something more secure for insurance purposes. Chairman closed the public comment period. Staff Comments Mr. Kingwell- clarified that the zoning they are asking for is R2 which is multi-family which allows more than 2 residences. R1 is 1-2 family residential and R2 is multi-family which is limited only in number by the size of the property and what they can fit on it. Commissioner Galyen- how many families can fit on a 1.05 acre parcel? Mr. Kingwell- it would depend on the design. There is already one dwelling on it so it would depend on what would fit on the property and height limitations. Commissioner Hartley- what are the height limitations on the property? Mr. Kingwell- height restriction and size of no more than 2 ½ stories or a height of excess of 35 feet. Commissioner Hartley- asked Mr. Forsberg why they are asking for a R2 zoning instead of a R1 zoning? Mr. Forsberg- R2 is the standard needed to keep the commercial water use. Any time you supply water to more than 1 family it becomes a quasi-municipal use. In this case with a commercial use they are above the quasi-municipal use and would like to keep that. It took a lot of time and money to develop up to commercial safe drinking rules. They might be able to sell the water to adjacent lots. For example, the commercial lot to the south would not have to drill a well they could purchase the water from us if they chose. The water has been tested and is well below the current standards for arsenic levels. Commissioner Brough- questioned on page 3 states does not conform with the Spring Creek- Lamoille Master Plan for the area. Ms. McQueary- the master plan is supposed to be reviewed every 5 years and is on the cusp to be placed on the agenda to start the review process. This is a different situation since this is a down zone. That area is planned and zoned for commercial. This board has several options: deny zone

15 Page 15 change, approve with reasons or hold this until the master plan is reviewed. NRS allows for minor deviations of land use without opening a master plan. It is cleaner if done within the master plan review, otherwise include reasons for why you are doing this. This could be considered a minor deviation from the master plan. Commissioner Brough- how long does the review of the master plan take? Commissioner Galyen- commented that the last time the master plan was reviewed it took at least 4-5 months to change the master plan. Mr. Forsberg- worked on the original master plan and it took 3 years to get the master plan in place and the reviews take 6 8 months. He would like to have this resolved quicker than that. Mr. Kingwell- corrected the R2 building heights no more than 4 stories with an excess of 50 feet. Commissioner Hartley- County Code deals with zone change requests where it benefits the applicant only vs. the rest of neighborhood Commissioner Genseal- if there is something detrimental to waiting for the review in the master plan? Mr. Forsberg- doesn t know of anything, we have no firm plans as to what to do. Commissioner Hartley- can we put restrictions on the approval as to the density or building height? Ms. McQueary- the building density and height are going to be limited by the size of the property. Mr. Forsberg- the State building codes and requirements for the well and septic restrictions will limit that a lot. Commissioner Hartley- how many gallons is the septic system? Mr. Forsberg- that the septic is 1500 gallons in order to expand it would need a pretreatment or aeration basin and possibly expanding the leach field, also a good portion of that acreage is taken up by the existing fire pond. Public Comment Chairman Judd opened it up to the general public for comments. There were no comments. MOTION: Commissioner Hough moved to approve application # , Lynn R. or Penny Forsberg, delete paragraph A and substitute the following wording: subject to exceptions and provisions of NRS Retain paragraph B the property shall be limited to a single duplex or 2 dwelling units. Reasons for recommending approval: 1. Historically the property has been zoned agriculture residential or open space before it was rezoned to commercial. 2. This is a down zone. 3. Reduction of zoning creates no conflicts with other commercially zoned properties in the area. 4. Down zoning has a limited affect on land uses in this area. Seconded by Commissioner Hartley Chairman Judd opened the motion up for discussion. Commissioner Hartley taking out paragraph A Commissioner Hough- clarified taking out paragraph A as written in the staff report and subject to exceptions and provisions of NRS Commissioner Brough- why the limit to the single duplex or 2 dwelling unit? Mr. Wynes- it was added to keep the density down to the level of the surrounding property.

16 Page 16 Motion passed unanimously. VOTE: AYE: Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Richard Genseal Wilde Brough NAY: None ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: , Scott D. Baker & Sheri M. Baker, Trustees of the Scott D. and Sheri M. Baker Family Revocable Trust. A request for a conditional use permit to allow the placement and operation of a grid connected 10kW wind machine and lattice tower as per ECC Said lattice wind machine tower is supported by guy wires, has a total height of fifty one and one quarter feet (51.25 ) which includes the rotor assembly and will be utilized for permitted uses within the Agricultural / Residential zoning district. Located at 3483 Sundance Drive, Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map with File No being a portion of the NW1/4 of Section 17, Township 34 North, Range 55 East, M.D.B.&M. Applicants and Owners are Scott D. Baker & Sheri M. Baker, Trustees of the Scott D. and Sheri M. Baker Family Revocable Trust.. Permanently withdrawn by the applicant , Complete Wireless for Verizon Wireless. A public hearing for a conditional use permit for an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility which includes a 195 telecommunication tower, a 12 x 16 equipment shelter, a standby generator and a 210 gallon diesel fuel storage tank on a fenced 40 x 50 leased site in an Open Space zoned district. Said leased site is a portion of a acre parcel of land located in the E ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 31, Township 36 North, Range 58 East M.D.B.&M. The general location is the northwest corner of State Route 229 (Halleck interchange) and I-80. Applicant is Complete Wireless consulting for Verizon Wireless. Property Owner is Lloyd L. Smith.

17 Page 17

18 Page 18

19 Page 19

20 Page 20

21 Page 21

22 Page 22

23 Page 23

24 Page 24

25 Page 25

26 Page 26

27 Page 27

28 Page 28

29 Page 29 Misprint in the staff report page 5 of 12 Item H (eight six) Commissioner Hough- is the fence 6 feet or 8 feet? Mr. Kingwell- it is a 6 foot fence with 2-3 strands of barbed wire at the top to about 8 feet. Some of them vary a little bit with strands and height, but that is generally what they have been doing. Public Comments Lana Shearer (Complete Wireless on behalf of Verizon Wireless)- Verizon Wireless is undertaking a large expansion project in the area. This is a proposed tower intra connected with the larger project in the area. Commissioner Larason- if they had any problem with light requested by air ambulance. Ms. Shearer- there is no problem with the requested light. She asked what type of light red or blinking. Mr. Kingwell- suggested the same type that Verizon is currently using along I-80 is fine. Commissioner Genseal- how the tower will improve 911 since it is not yet available in this area. Ms. Shearer- they are trying to bring the service into rural areas along with expanding wireless and data service. Public Comment: None MOTION: Commissioner Hartley moved to approve Application # , Complete Wireless for Verizon Wireless with staff s recommendations. Commissioner Larason seconded, motion passed unanimously. VOTE: AYE: NAY: Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Richard Genseal Wilde Brough None ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: , Michael J. and Deborah McFarlane. A public hearing for a Variance from the required fifty foot (50 ) front yard setback within an Agricultural/Residential zoned district to a reduced setback of thirty feet (30 ) for the construction of a detached residential garage. A 2.01 acre parcel of land located within Tract 109, Block 8, Lot 3 of the Spring Creek Subdivision.

30 Page 30 Physical address is 268 Cliff Place in Spring Creek. Located within portions of Sections 15 & 16, Township 33 North, Range 57 East, M.D.B.& M. Property Owners and applicants are Michael J. and Deborah McFarlane. Commissioner Hartley made disclosure that she served on the Spring Creek Association Board of Directors for many years with Mr. McFarlane in the past and doesn t feel it will impact her decision.

31 Page 31

32 Page 32

33 Page 33

34 Page 34

35 Page 35

36 Page 36

37 Page 37

38 Page 38

39 Page 39

40 Page 40

41 Page 41 Correction to staff report should read front yard not side yard on page 2 of 10 Item 5A. Commissioner Galyen- asked variances are property hardship vs. personal hardship; is this more of a personal than property hardship? Mr. Kingwell- described the topography of the property and explained the detriments vs. benefits. Discussion followed on the property topography and setbacks and how that it qualifies as a hardship because of the steepness of the grade to the rear and the additional costs that would be incurred. The hose is set back to 30 feet. Public Comment Mike McFarlane- is in complete agreement with the staff recommendations and is here to answer any questions. He described the property and described the difficulties he had when building the house. Commissioner Larason- asked about the location of the septic system? Mr. McFarlane showed where the septic system and green house is on the map. MOTION: Commissioner Hartley moved to approve Application # , Michael J. and Deborah McFarlane reduced 50 foot setback with staff recommendations Commissioner Larason seconded and the motion passed unanimously. VOTE: AYE: Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Richard Genseal Wilde Brough NAY: None ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: , A Request by Elko County Commission for review of the minimum parcel size for wind machine installations. Alternative parcel sizes are to be looked at and a recommendation forwarded to the Elko County Commissioners. Letter read into the record follows:

42 Page 42

43 Page 43 6:50:45 PM Commissioner Galyen departed from the meeting. 6:53:07 PM Commissioner Galyen returned to the meeting. The Elko County Commissioners October 5&6 meeting asked the Planning Commission review the minimum parcel size for the wind turbines. They thought our (required tower) setbacks (1 ½ times) for Agricultural Residential might be too lenient. Public Comment Katie McConnell (Copenhaver & McConnell law firm) spoke on behalf of several concerned citizens. She gave a background on the wind turbine issue. She stated that the Elko County Commissioners stated that they did not envision wind turbines installed on parcels this small (2 acres). What they are here for today is to have this commission look at the minimum parcel size especially on Agriculture Residential districts places where housing is higher density and the code subsections D & E are inconsistent. They would like a change in the code relating to increasing the minimum parcel size. Ms. McConnell stated Spring Creek has a height restriction that would restrict the development of wind turbines. Ms. McQueary- stated wind turbines are addressed in several statutes: NRS (1,2&3), Chapter of the Statutes of Nevada 2005 not included in the NRS, and NRS via AB122 Ms. McConnell- the main concerns are safety. Safety if it failed, shadow flicker, and noise. She state adding in some space for safety concerns on perhaps 5 acres where a wind turbine would not be right next to a house or apartment building would be preferable. Ms. McQueary- a general observation is if you have a large parcel but it is a long skinny parcel, the set- backs go the narrowest par., if there is a square smaller parcel it could be theoretically possible you could have a bigger wind turbine on a smaller parcel based upon the setbacks. Commissioner Galyen- asked Ms. McConnell to clarify the safety concerns and research information related to safety beyond the setbacks in reference to rotor failure or other mechanical failure. Ms. McConnell- the NRS 278 deals with the health, safety and welfare that all zoning should be guided upon. The concerns about shadow flicker, noise, height, parcel size, danger to kids in their back yards should be addressed. A setback of 100ft on a 2 acre residential parcel is just not enough for safety. Commissioner Galyen asked her to share her research on the danger of parts flying off and dangers outside the setbacks. Ms. McConnell mentioned it was brought forth during the County Commission meeting by Mr. Sur. Chairman Judd asked for information other than the inferior models made in China, of which we do have restrictions on. Is the unsightliness also a concern? Ms. McConnell- absolutely. Adjacent property views are a part of their property value. It was discussed during the County Commission meeting the right to use your private property vs. affect on neighbors. They have a right that something over 40 feet wasn t going to go in right behind them. Commissioner Genseal- you can t use that point, the Verizon Tower in Spring Creek is an example. Ms. McConnell- that is why they come as a case by case basis. It came on as an individual case not as a conditional use permits, not a blanket permit for these wind turbines. Commissioner Genseal- why wouldn t we approach wind turbines as a case by case basis? Ms. McConnell- because they are conditional use permits. It is set up that way, every wind turbine over 40 feet will come before the planning commission. That is how the ordinance is set up and that is how it was designed it is an accessory use, not a primary use, unless it is under the height and

44 Page 44 kilowatt it will come before the commission every time. That is why we are here because this is one of the first ones. Commissioner Larason- did you bring any documents or any no new evidence on any injuries with you? We spent 9 months trying to find it. Ms McConnell answered no. Commissioner Larason stated the information he found was on commercial units. He has found no sound evidence demonstrating how dangerous smaller units are. He feels there is no new evidence to review this ordinance. He explained how they spent a great deal of time on setting the setbacks and noise restrictions. He is not prepared to deny somebody access to wind energy solely based on the size of their property. There is no problem if they don t meet the set back or sound barrier requirements that were set in the ordinance. At this time unless there is new evidence he see no reason to review this ordinance. Ms. McConnell- is encouraging the commission to change the ordinance due to inconsistencies and clarify the law by increasing the parcel size to 5 10 acres minimum parcels size. Ms McConnell- a year ago this would not have been a possibility to have a 60 foot tall tower in their back yard before the wind ordinance was enacted. Things change and evolve but we can t disregard the property rights of those that were here before. Commissioner Larason stated he didn t think they did disregard the rights. They diligently tried to keep everyone happy. They have come up with setbacks with different scenarios. He would like to refer back to the legal counsel for the county, if someone thinks there is a problem with the ordinance then challenge it on that basis. If legal counsel says yes we have a problem then yes we have to address this, but we can have one opinion and someone else may not share it with you. Ms McConnell- asking legal counsel is how we got here. Commissioner Hartley is in favor of reviewing the minimum parcel size in the ordinance. View denigration is a big thing. These can be reviewed on a case by case basis that would allow larger parcel sizes to divide into a smaller parcel with the capability to install a wind turbine. Not only do we have a responsibility to the neighbors but we have a responsibility to listen to the county commissioners as to what their original intent for the wind ordinance was. Commissioner Brough asked if the Bakers had 10 acres would it have it been an issue? Ms. McConnell- it would have been much less of an issue. Chairman Judd asked why would it be less of an issue. It would still be right in the view. Ms. McConnell- it would be less of an issue on our arguments we had against it because of this code. One of the biggest arguments was that it didn t fit within the code. It would be less of an issue because there would be less legal issues to argue about. There would be more land to put it on with 10 acres there would be no grey area in the code. Chairman Judd- so we have to regulate so that it bothers absolutely nobody. Ms. McConnell- that is not what she meant at all. Chairman Judd- if it is on 10 acres or 2 acres it depends on where it is placed and basically matters if the neighbors liking the placement of where it is going to be. Ms. McConnell- that is zoning in general. There are a lot fewer 5 10 acres parcels close to higher density areas than there are 1-2 acre parcels. Nobody is going to always agree and that makes the commission s job very difficult. They are not looking for the commission to make a specific case decision; they are just asking to have them look at the law again. Commissioner Hartley- the law states where wind is available. We actually don t have that much wind here and we found that we have to go so high to have it effective the key phrase is where wind is available. Commissioner Larason- that the National Weather Advisory does print out what winds are available

45 Page 45 at what altitudes and attitudes for the Elko area. Ms McConnell- the rebates have made it available that people can try it without having to put a bunch of money into it. Ms. McQueary- there are microclimates and the wind will depend on ambient ground temperature and other factors, so a bare map of wind availability may not tell the whole picture of wind in any one location. Commissioner Hartley- understands that some members of the commission feel very strongly about people being able to do what they want on their property but she also feels very strongly about the neighbors being able to enjoy their property for the purposes they bought it, that includes no view degradation, noise from adjacent properties, basically without nuisance. They have a right to not allow something to go in down the street that will degrade their property values. Commissioner Hough- NRS & states that state legislature has enacted this statute, that we as planning commission or county commission shall not adopt an ordinance or action that prohibits or unreasonably restricts a property owner. However, in paragraph 2 provisions of subsection 1, do not prohibit a reasonable restriction. The ordinance takes into consideration height and noise as a reasonable restriction. The cost benefit ratio, height and lot sizes were discussed, the setbacks will restrict, how tall and where a tower can be placed because of the radius of the fall. We could fine tune ordinance: microsystem defined as less or equal to 10 kilowatts; not connected to mains private system defined as equal or less than 100 kilowatts connected to mains limited to one machine commercial system equal or greater than 100 kilowatts connected to mains with multiple machines Other than that Commissioner Hough would not like to make any changes to the ordinance. pg 5(d&e) of the ordinance light industrial or general industrial districts limits to 10 acres. Never the less, conditional use permits are required so that extenuating circumstance can be brought before the planning commission to be decided at that time. We have to be careful not to be arbitrary in our decisions. Discussion on the ordinance sections d & e being inconsistent. Mr. Kingwell will review both the sections. Jason Hill- there never was the intent to have a wind farm situation next to a residential neighborhood there is nothing to stop everyone in a row to put up a wind turbine. In other words there could be a dozen one right after another in a row. Paul Bottari (public policy chairman with Elko County Association of Realtors)- recommended a 5 acre minimum parcel but leave provisions for the opportunity for a variance or something in order for smaller parcels to put up a tower. The property rights include other things other than the right to put up a tower; the right to enjoy your property including the views that you selected your property for and where you placed your house, should be taken into consideration. Ms. McQueary- pointed out that Washoe County is undergoing some budget problems because the assessor s office assessed lots in Lake Tahoe based partially upon their view and that was found to be in error and they are having to refund taxes to those people. Commissioner Hough- Microsystems as long as the tower is under 40 feet do not require conditional use permits. Commissioner Hartley- this commission and the county commissioners do take in account

46 Page 46 surrounding property owners views, that is why they send letters out to surrounding property owners sometimes are motions and decisions are based on public input and the wishes of the surrounding property owners. That is still an important part of what we do and our decisions and it shouldn t be just discarded. Commissioner Brough- is that view a right or is it something that the property owner should take responsibility that he will continue to have that view. Mr. Bottari- part of his responsibility is to come here and tell you don t put a tower in front of my window to protect the view. There is no question that a disruption of a view will have a negative value on a property. In these hearings you have to take into consideration how it is going to affect the neighbors and their private property rights as well. Whether it is 5 or 10 acre parcels there may still be some conflicts but, there will be less conflict if the parcels size was larger rather than smaller. Discussion followed on being arbitrary and the obstruction of views by trees, two story houses as well as increasing the value of homes by making them cheaper to live in, energy wise. Kelli Milligan- looking at sections d, e & f of the code. You can put 1 tower on 40 acres, 1 on 10 acres, and 1 on 1 acre. We could have 40 towers on 40 acres. (40-1 acres lots could each have tower) The code says it can, that is the problem. Is that the intent, because you can create a wind farm, 1 on each acre; that is the visual look of your code. Why don t you just simplify it and say this is the acreage, this is the parcel size and if it can t fit on it, than that is it? Make it easy to understand. She is asking for the commission to consider that 1 acre is too small. Commissioner Hough- when we write these laws we have to be consistent with NRS state law. Discussion followed on what would prohibit or restrict the owner of real property from using a system for obtaining wind energy. Commissioner Genseal- asked Ms. Milligan what would you prefer as a parcel size? Ms. Milligan- 10 acre minimum would allow a choice as to where on the property the tower could be placed. Discussion followed as to what is a reasonable restriction. What is reasonable for one may not be reasonable for other areas. Ms McQueary- the code addresses a lot of zoning of non conforming lot sizes in the various districts and that is why this process has been put in for a conditional use permit to take a look at each individual application. The limiting factor in our ordinance is the setbacks requirements which limit the tower height based upon the lot size and fall area to buildings, including your own, which are based upon safety reasons. That is why it is a conditional use so that it can be analyzed for every neighborhood. Commissioner Brough left the meeting at 8:08:07 PM. Commissioner Larason- pointed out that 40-1 acre parcels would have 40 applications under review and would depend on where the home and out buildings are located on the parcel for the setback restrictions. Bob Milligan- the reason they are here is that they have been affected by this. They have been affected financially by the commission s decisions. He stated we didn t know about this, they were blindsided. They did not know about this until the conditional use permit came up. The code had already been written by the commission. Had he known he would have been at the meetings. He would like to see 10 acre minimum parcels.

47 Page 47 Discussion followed on the issue being posted in the paper. The commission does have to advertise whenever a new ordinance is being created by law. There are periods during the workshops where public comments are encouraged. The commission spent 9 months working on this ordinance. The intent of the ordinance, the process of creating it, the state laws and what is reasonable were further discussed. Commissioner Hartley- the county commissioners are asking us to revisit our decision on minimum parcel sizes. Commissioner Hough- can we get together with the county commissioners to discuss this? Discussion followed on the possibility of a joint session. MOTION: Commissioner Larason made a motion to have a joint session with the County Commissioners to review this issue. And asked that prior to the joint session being held that we be provided with specifically on what they want to address to where we can respond to it appropriately. Discussion followed about the agenda item addressing the commissioner s request. The motion was tabled to allow for more public comments by the chairman. Thomas Johnson- supports minimum parcel size of 10 acres. He owns a little over 1 acre of land but his land lays within the city boundary. The city would not allow a 100 foot tower. His opinion is that what the State was trying to say was that you have to be reasonable when you set a restriction. It doesn t say to give them free run. Thomas agrees that either way we go we might end up in court. He encourages setting a reasonable restriction, to protect everyone involved. He feels there is a problem with this ordinance. He recommends 10 acres as a minimum parcel. Harry Botsford- moved here in 2007 and met with the county and power company and bought his property according to the laws in He came in during the creating of this wind ordinance and feels it is as good as you can get in order to be fair. He appreciates the commission s work on this issue. Kevin Sur- is in favor of a 10 acre minimum parcel. He feels that is a reasonable restriction and the law allows for reasonable restrictions. Kris Jones- asked could the minimum acreage be tied to surrounding population size. Commissioner Hough- believes that it is because every zoning size already has restrictions, that link already exists. Ms. McQueary- agreed the parcel size is based upon zoning. Public comment was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Larason made a motion to have a joint session with the County Commissioners to review this issue the motion was seconded by Commissioner Hough.

48 Page 48 VOTE: AYE: NAY: ABSENT: Mike Judd Dena Hartley David Hough Richard Genseal Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen Wilde Brough ABSTENTIONS: Motion carries. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: VII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: Spring Creek - Lamoille Master Plan review to be scheduled. Mr. Kingwell discussed opening of the Spring Creek Lamoille master plan during the November meeting. VIII. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: There were no comments. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:39:56 PM Minutes Clerk: Eleanor O Donnell Date Approved: December 15, 2011