1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. legislative

Storey County Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Thursday, November 13, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
District Courtroom
26 South “B” Street, Virginia City, Nevada
Bret Tyler – Chairman
Virgil Bucchianeri – Planning Commissioner
Jim Hindle –Planning Commissioner
Pamela Smith – Planning Commissioner
Laura Kekule – Vice-Chairwoman
John Herrington– Planning Commissioner
Larry Prater – Planning Commissioner
All items include discussion and possible action to approve, modify, deny, or continue unless
marked otherwise.
1. Call to Order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Agenda for November 13, 2014
5. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2014
6. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Meeting Minutes for August 21, 2014
7. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Meeting Minutes for September 4, 2014
8. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2014
9. Discussion/Possible Action: Application No. 2014-020 by the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, LLC to
amend the text of Storey County Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) by adding Chapter 17.39 I-C
Industrial-Commercial Zone. The intent of the proposed I-C Zone is to provide for certain mixed-use
industrial and commercial uses where found appropriate by the board with recommendation by the
planning commission. Additional information including, but not limited to, reports and the draft zone text
may be obtained from the Planning Department at 775.847.1144 or [email protected].
10. Discussion/Possible Action: Application No. 2014-021 by the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, LLC., and
Storey County on behalf of The Nature Conservancy, LLC and the Union Pacific Railroad Company to
amend the Official Storey County Zoning Map. The amendments will apply regulatory zones to
approximately 600 acres of land located in McCarran, Nevada (River District near the Tahoe-Reno
Industrial Center) which was in July of 2014 transferred from Washoe County to Storey County by means
of boundary line adjustment. The subject area is described approximately as portions of: Section 31 and 32,
Township 20 North, Range 22 East; Section 6, Township 19 North, Range 22 East; Section 36, Township
20 North, Range 21 East; Sections 2 and 11, Township 19 North, Range 21 East; and Section 1, Township
19 North, Range 21 East, all in the Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian (MDB&M). The specific zones
and subject properties will be as follows: (a) F Forestry zoning will be applied to land located at Assessor’s
Parcel Number (APN) 004.161.98; (b) N-R Natural-Resources zoning will be applied to land located at
APNs 004.161.85, 004.161.86, 004.161.88, and 004.161.96; (c) I-C Industrial-Commercial zoning will be
applied to land located at APNs 004.161.99, 004.162.01, 005.121.01, 005.121.02, 005.121.03, 005.121.04,
005.121.05, and 004.162.02; and (d) P Public will be applied to land located at 004.161.87, 004.161.89,
1
004.161.90, 004.161.91, 004.161.92, 004.161.93, 004.161.94, 004.161.95, and 004.161.97, all within the
approximate subject area described above. The purpose of the zone map amendment is to apply zoning to
newly acquired land in Storey County that is consistent with surrounding uses and the Storey County
Master Plan. Prior to their transfer into Storey County, the properties were zoned in Washoe County as
Agriculture, Medium Density Rural, Industrial, and Public Infrastructure. Additional information
including, but not limited to, reports and maps may be obtained from the Planning Department at
775.847.1144 or [email protected].
11. Discussion/Possible Action: Determination of next Planning Commission meeting
12. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Claims
13. Correspondence (no action)
14. Public Comment (no action)
15. Staff (no action)
16. Board Comments (no action)
17. Adjournment
Notes:




Note: All hard-copy and electronic correspondence related to this agenda must be received by 5:00pm
the Friday preceding the meeting date.
Note: Additional information pertaining to any item on this agenda may be requested from the
Planning Department (775-847-1144).
Note: There may be a quorum of Storey County Commissioners in attendance, but no action or
discussion will be taken by the Commissioners.
Note: Public comment will be allowed after each item on the agenda (this comment should be limited
to the item on the agenda). Public comment will also be allowed at the end of each meeting (this
comment should be limited to matters not on the agenda).
Certification of Posting
I, Lyndi Renaud, on behalf of the Storey County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that I posted, or
caused to be posted, a copy of this Agenda at the following locations on or before November 4, 2014: Virginia
City Post Office; Storey County Courthouse; Virginia City Fire Station 71; Virginia City RV Park; Mark Twain
Community Center; Rainbow Bend Clubhouse; Lockwood Community Center, Virginia City Highlands Fire
Station; and the Lockwood Fire Station.
By Lyndi Renaud, Secretary
2
STOREY COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2014 at 6:00pm
DISTRICT COURTROOM
26 SOUTH B STREET, VIRGINIA CITY, NEVADA
MINUTES
VICE-CHAIRWOMAN: Laura Kekule
CHAIRMAN: Bret Tyler
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Virgil Bucchianeri, John Herrington, Larry Prater, Pamela Smith, Jim Hindle
1. CALL TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Tyler at 6:01 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Virgil Bucchianeri, John Herrington, Laura Kekule, Larry Prater, Bret Tyler, Jim Hindle.
Absent: Pamela Smith
OTHERS PRESENT: District Attorney Bill Maddox, Senior Planner Austin Osborne, Planner Dessie Redmond
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Tyler led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Agenda for August 7, 2014.
Austin Osborne, Senior Planner: Staff is working on the addendum to this item pursuant to the last meeting. Staff
recommends continuation of items 7 and 8 pertaining to Comstock Mining, LLC’s request for amendments to
special use permits 2000-222-A-3 and 2011-016.
Motion: Approve agenda for August 7, 2014, with continuation of items #7 & 8 to the August 21st meeting
at 6:00 pm at this location (courthouse) Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Prater Seconded by
Commissioner Herrington Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=6)
5. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Minutes for June 5, 2014
Motion: Approval of minutes for June 5, 2014 Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Hindle Seconded
by Commissioner Prater Vote: Motion carried (summary: Yes=5; Abstain=1, Laura Kekule)
6. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit 2014-013: By Mickey Hazelwood for The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) on a portion of APN 004-111-33 (approximately 4.08 acres) located on a portion of
Sections 10, 11 and 15 Township 19 North, Range 21 East, and on a portion of APN 004-111-34
(approximately 1.28 acres) located at a portion of Section 11, Township 19 North, Range 21 East, in Storey
1
County, Nevada. These properties are owned by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The
applicant requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) to restore and improve portions of the Truckee River and
surrounding riparian area near Mustang, Hafed, and McCarran Ranch, Storey County, Nevada. The project will
include lowering the existing (abandoned) floodplain, constructing riffles, and grading control structures in
and adjacent to the active river channel, lowering an abandoned diversion structure, and sequestering spoils
along the floodplain margins in and around the Truckee River.
Planner Redmond introduced Special Use Permit Application 2014-013:
 The Applicant is The Nature Conservancy.
 The property owner is BLM.
 Located in West McCarran Ranch/Mustang Ranch.
 The subject properties are zoned A Agricultural.
 Planner Redmond presented a vicinity map and zoning map, and reviewed abutting land uses.
 Planner Redmond explained the Storey County code requirements and regulations.
 Planner Redmond explained The Nature Conservancy and BLM relationship and their Cooperative
Agreement which covers projects in the subject area.
 No public comment was received.
Commissioner Prater asked about the description of the location of the SUP. In the past they used to specify
that it was the Mount Diablo Basin and Meridian (MDBM).
District Attorney Maddox responded that the description provided suffices for the purposes of
demonstrating the location of the proposal. Senior Planner Austin Osborne said that he reviewed the
description and found it to be accurate, and that he would be sure MDBM is placed on future descriptions.
The Applicant, Mickey Hazelwood on behalf of The Nature Conservancy:
 The Applicant presented a power point presentation which detailed the location of the project and showed
pictures of site.
 The Applicant explained that the existing depressed water table sets up conditions for invasive species of
vegetation and make it difficult for native species to grow.
 The project’s intentions are to restore the Truckee River and its riparian area to a more natural condition
through modifications to the flood plain.
 The project will also construct a series of channels to receive water during high flood events allowing
native vegetation to grow there again.
 The Applicant explained history and showed images of similar projects they’ve completed. The Applicant
stated this project is smaller in scale than projects in the past in the same general area.
 The Applicant explained erosion control and the eradication of noxious weeds such as Tall White-top.
 The Applicant also explained wildlife habitat, flood storage capacity, water quality through natural
filtration, recreation.
 Explanation of other permits, authorizations, and easements was given by the Applicant.
Chairman Tyler asked about the re-vegetation in Lockwood for a previous project where it seemed a few
trees that were put in immediately died.
The Applicant explained that Washoe County had a requirement for some ornamental vegetation that did
not survive. They have since replaced them with native species.
Commissioner Herrington asked about the project’s budget.
The Applicant said the budget is about $1 million which includes everything from design work to
construction.
Commissioner Herrington asked if they came in under budget on the Tracy restoration project.
The Applicant responded that they came in right on budget, maybe slightly under.
Vice-Chairwoman Kekule asked about the use of boats on the river.
The Applicant said yes, non-motorized boats such as canoes and kayaks are very popular on the river.
Commissioner Prater asked if they were going to be anything different from what has been done before.
The Applicant responded that they have learned things from each project, but this shouldn’t have anything
different from the most recent projects.
2



Public Comment
Ron Cox, Gold Hill resident: Will there be protection for the petroglyphs?
The Applicant said that with each of these projects they go through the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process which requires a cultural resource survey. Whenever they are identified, they must plan
around them.
Planner Redmond explained that there is a condition that speaks to that in the staff report. She then
introduced an addendum to the addendum:
Planner Redmond explained in Condition 13, it explains the Applicant shall submit a No-Rise certification
to the Storey County Building Department, prior to obtaining any other permits. However, Planner
Redmond explained that the Applicant would not receive the certification until the project is built. Planner
Redmond presented an addendum that would require the Applicant to submit the No-Rise certification
when they receive it after the project is built.
Planner Redmond suggested that proposed Condition 20 be amended to: The use will not affect any
easements, including but not limited to, irrigation and other easements, existing on the subject properties.
The use may cause to be altered or realigned, but will not cause the elimination of, or the inability to use for
irrigation and other water conveyance, any existing irrigation ditch or irrigation canal existing on the
subject properties within the jurisdiction of the county.
Planner Redmond suggested striking original proposed Condition 20.
Senior Planner Osborne gave further explanation on the project.
Vice-Chairwoman Kekule asked when the project will start.
The Applicant answered: early September.
Vice-Chairwoman Kekule: How long will it take?
The Applicant stated no more than two months.
Vice-Chairwoman Kekule: Will access to the highway be affected?
The Applicant answered no.
Chairman Tyler asked the date for public access?
The Applicant said it is currently open to the public and will only be closed for construction.
Planner Redmond read the Findings into the record:
The following Findings are evident with regard to the requested SUP when the recommended conditions of
approval in Section 7 - Recommended Conditions of Approval of this Staff Report are applied:
6.1.1 The proposed SUP complies with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the
County master plan, this Title 17, and any other plan, program, map, or ordinance adopted, or under
consideration pursuant to official notice by the county.
6.1.2 The proposed SUP will be compatible with existing adjacent land uses and will not cause substantial
negative impact on adjacent land uses or other properties in the vicinity.
6.1.3 The proposed use in the proposed area will be adequately served by and will impose no undue
burden or any of the improvements, facilities, utilities, or services provided by the county or other
governmental agency having jurisdiction in the county.
6.1.4 The proposed SUP will not impose substantial adverse impacts or safety hazards on the abutting
properties.
6.1.5 The Conditions of Approval of the SUP require compliance with the applicable codes.
6.1.6 The Conditions of Approval of the SUP do not conflict with the minimum requirements in SCC Chapter
17.24 Agricultural or Chapter 17.03.150 Special Use Permits.
6.1.7 The proposed SUP will not cause uses that will negatively impact existing or planned public services
or facilities and will not adversely impact the public health, safety and welfare.
6.1.8 The proposed SUP will not create any non-conforming conditions, such as non-conforming setback
distances or minimum parcel area and width requirements.
6.1.9 The proposed SUP is in substantial compliance with and supports the goals, objectives and
recommendations of the Master Plan.
6.1.10 The proposed SUP conforms to the purpose and intent, as well as the letter and spirit, of the Storey
County Zoning Ordinance (Title 17), and conforms with consistent past practices of the Planning
3
Commission and the Board with regard to requiring an SUP for river restoration projects and other land
use proposals that substantially alter the Truckee River in Storey County.
Commissioner Prater asked for an explanation for the 9.3 alternative motion on page 17 of the Staff Report.
Planner Redmond explained that the proposed use is not expressly stated in Storey County Code (SCC) Title
17 that an SUP is required for the proposed use. She explained that the county has for years required an
SUP for river restoration projects and that requiring such this time would follow the precedent. Therefore,
Staff determined it appropriate to require the Applicant secure a SUP for the proposed project. However,
Staff provided the Planning Commission with an alternative motion if the Planning Commission determined
the proposal did not need a SUP because it is not expressly required in the SCC.
Staff recommends action 9.1, a recommended motion for the Planning Commission to recommend approval
with an SUP and its conditions of approval.
Senior Planner Osborne reiterated Planner Redmond’s statement about the SUP requirement. He said that
this use is seen more as a restoration of land rather than a particular use. Therefore, he stated that he
believed that the SUP requirement would be appropriate under the circumstances. He reminded the
Planning Commission that there are other options from which to choose if it were to disagree.
Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by Staff, the Findings under Section 6.1 of the Staff Report
and/or other Findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and in compliance with all
Conditions of Approval, the Storey County Planning Commission hereby recommends approval for Special
Use Permit Number 2014-013. Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Hindle Seconded by ViceChairwoman Kekule Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=6)
7. CONTINUED UNDER ITEM 4 - DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit Amendment 2000-
222-A-4-2014. By Comstock Mining, LLC., in American Flat and Gold Hill, Storey County, Nevada.
Amendment to Special Use Permit No. 2000-222-A-3 to modify and expand applicable land area and allowable
uses. The amendment applies to mining, mine definition and exploration, processing, and ancillary uses on
the land subject to the request in American Flat and Gold Hill, as illustrated in Project Area Map attached
hereto, and located approximately in Township 16 North, Range 20 East, Sections 1 and 12; and Township 16
North, Range 21 East, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, all in the Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian (MDB&M).
8. CONTINUED UNDER ITEM 4 - DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit Amendment 2011-
016. By Comstock Mining, LLC., in American Flat and Gold Hill, Storey County, Nevada. The amendment will
close and nullify existing Special Use Permit No. 2011-016 (“Exploration SUP”). This SUP request is subject to
approval of preceding SUP No. 2000-222-A-4-2014 by Comstock Mining, Inc. This SUP amendment request
shall not be subject to hearing or modification if said preceding SUP is not approved
9. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: DETERMINATION OF NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Motion: Move that the next meeting be here in the courthouse at 5:00 pm, Thursday, August 21st, Action:
Approve Moved by Commissioner Prater Seconded by Commissioner Hindle Vote: Motion carried by
unanimous vote (summary: Yes=6)
10. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS – none
11. CORRESPONDENCE (No Action) – none
12. PUBLIC COMMENT (No Action) – none
13. STAFF (No Action) –
Dessie Redmond, Planner:
 Next meeting we have Vista Towers, a Variance in the Highlands for a reduced rear setback, and one other
file on the docket.
4
 CBDG grant writing workshop today in Fallon was attended with Cherie Nevin.
Austin Osborne, Senior Planner:
 Tesla is not done or final. He thanked the team for their work on it.
 Zulily is moving into their new 750,000 square-foot building soon and hiring nearly 1,000 employees.
 The yellow house to the south of the Courthouse should be moving this Sunday to the Comstock Mining
business complex.
 A lot of correspondence has been forwarded to us from the Planning Commissioners regarding Comstock
Mining. He thanked everyone for forwarding the correspondence to planning staff.
14. BOARD COMMENTS (No Action) - none
The meeting was adjourned at 6:48pm
Respectfully Submitted,
By
Lyndi Renaud
5
STOREY COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY – AUG 21, 2014 – 5:00pm
DISTRICT COURTROOM
26 SOUTH B STREET, VIRGINIA CITY, NEVADA
MEETING MINUTES
CHAIRMAN: Bret Tyler
VICE-CHAIRWOMAN: Laura Kekule
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Virgil Bucchianeri, John Herrington, Larry Prater, Pamela Smith, Jim Hindle
1. CALL TO ORDER AT 5:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 5:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Virgil Bucchianeri, John Herrington, Laura Kekule, Larry Prater, Pamela Smith, Bret Tyler, Jim
Hindle.
OTHERS PRESENT: Senior Planner Austin Osborne, Planner Dessie Redmond, District Attorney Bill Maddox,
Contract Attorney Bob Morris, Commissioner Lance Gilman, Commissioner Bill Sjovangen, Commissioner
Marshall McBride.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Chair led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Agenda for August 21, 2014.
Dessie Redmond, Planner: Staff recommends continuing item number 7 to the September 4th Planning
Commission meeting to be held at 6 P.M. here in the courthouse. Chairman Bret Tyler stated he would like to
continue that item when they get to it on the agenda.
Motion: Approve agenda for August 21, 2014 Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by
Commissioner Smith, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7)
5. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Minutes for June 19, 2014
Motion: Approval of minutes for June 19, 2014 Action: Approve Moved by Vice-Chairwoman Kekule
Seconded by Commissioner Smith Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=6, Abstain=1
by John Herrington)
6. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Variance 2014-014. By Mark Stevens in the Virginia City Highlands 1 Acre
Estates (E1 VCH) located at 2010 Silverado Road, Storey County, Nevada (APN: 003-081-38). A Variance for a
reduced rear-yard setback of 20 feet from the required 40 feet rear-yard setback for the placement of a
proposed single-family residence.
1
Dessie Redmond, Planner:
 The Applicant, Mark Stevens, is present tonight.
 The property is located at 2010 Silverado Road in the Virginia City Highlands (VCH), Storey County,
Nevada and is zoned VCH one acre estates (E1 VCH).
 Planner Redmond presented a vicinity map, zoning map and reviewed abutting land uses.
 Planner Redmond reviewed the proposed building and explained the two parts of the proposed Variance.
o The first part of the Variance is for a reduced rear-yard setback for 20 feet from the required 40
feet rear-yard setback per the regulations in the Storey County Code (SCC).
o The second part of the Variance is for the allowance of a detached accessory building to be less
than 50 percent of the depth of the lot from the front property line. This part of the Variance is
required because SCC 17.12.048 requires detached accessory buildings in the E1 VCH zone not be
closer than 50 percent of the depth of the lot from the front property line.
 Planner Redmond explained that because the lot is narrow in width the requirements of SCC create an
undue hardship on the owner of this property (the Applicant).
 No public comment was received by Staff.
Commissioner Prater asked if changing the street address to an Alpine Road address would enable them to avoid
the Variance. Planner Redmond said she would not want to answer that without researching it and asking the
Applicant if that is what the Applicant would want.
Senior Planner Osborne explained that when considering addressing, fire and emergency accesses are most
important. He pointed out that a Variance would be required either way due to the location of the well-house.
Planner Redmond agreed and there was some discussion of the grandfather clause on the existing structures as it
was possibly built before the new SCC Title 17 2012 Zoning Ordinance was adopted.
The Applicant, Mr. Stevens, approached the podium and explained he is requesting this Variance because he did
not want to take down any more trees on the lot because of the privacy the trees provide. Also, the suggestion by
Commissioner Prater would require additional driving distance to get into the lot and the removal of several of the
existing trees. He explained the proposed Variance will allow him to create a circular driveway and that an existing
buffer zone will remain for dust coming off Silverado Road. This way he can keep the front porch away from the
road which will help to block some of the dust. He would prefer this Variance rather than change all the
architectural plans and apply for an address change and a different Variance.
Commissioner Herrington asked if any neighbors were affected and/or contacted regarding this Variance.
Planner Redmond explained that Staff followed the standard procedures required by the SCC. Staff sent a
notification of the proposed Variance to at least 30 unique property owners nearest to the subject site. Planner
Redmond also stated that Staff had not received public comment from anyone regarding this file. Further, as
outlined in the staff report, it states the proposed use is consistent with the surrounding parcels.
Planner Redmond read the findings of fact into the record:
6.1.1 That there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including the configuration of the
subject property. Therefore, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or under identical zone classification; and
6.1.2 That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights of the Applicant (property owner); and
6.1.3 That the granting of the Variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, adversely affect
to a material degree the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject
property and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property; and
6.1.4 The proposed Variance is in compliance with all Federal, Nevada State, and Storey County regulations;
and
2
6.1.5 The proposed Variance is in compliance with Storey County Code 17.03.140 Variances, 17.12.48
Accessory Buildings and 17.40 Estates when all Conditions of Approval are met; and
6.1.6 The proposed Variance is in compliance with and supports the goals, objectives and recommendations of
the Storey County Master Plan.
Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by Staff, the findings of fact under Section 6.1 of the staff
report and/or other findings of fact deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and in compliance with
all conditions of approval, the Storey County Planning Commission approves Variance Number 2014-014 for a
Variance for a reduced rear yard setback of 20 feet from the required 40 feet rear yard setback for the
placement of a proposed single-family residence. Also, for the approval of a Variance for the allowance of a
detached accessory building to be located 40 feet from the front property line from the required 60 feet.
Action: Approve Moved by Vice-Chairwoman Kekule Seconded by Commissioner Smith, Vote: Motion
carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7)
7. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit Extension & Amendment 2012-014-A-1-2014. By
Robert MacLachlan on behalf of Vista Towers, for a property located at 21485 Saddleback Road, Virginia City
Highlands, Storey County, Nevada (APN: 003-101-66). The Applicant requests an amendment to Special Use
Permit 2012-014 in order to modify a condition of the existing permit requiring a contract with one or more
cellular carriers before construction of the “mono-pine” wireless communications tower may commence. The
Applicant is also requesting an extension to Special Use Permit 2012-014 which, due to inactivity, will expire.
Dessie Redmond, Planner: Staff recommends continuing item number 7 to the September 4th Planning
Commission meeting to be held at 6 P.M. here in the courthouse. Staff just received the completed application and
therefore, there was insufficient time to gather all necessary data or to write the staff report.
Motion: Continue item number 7 to the September 4th Planning Commission meeting to be held at 6 P.M. here in
the Storey County Courthouse Action: Continued Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner
Hindle, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7)
8. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Parcel Map 2014-012. By Vincent Griffith on behalf of Western
102/Western 102 LTD c/o Annette Mansfield, for a property located at 2633 Waltham Way, McCarran, Storey
County, Nevada (APN: 004-092-76). A Parcel Map to create two separate parcels of land from one existing
parcel of land.
Dessie Redmond, Planner:
 The Applicant is Vincent Griffith and the property owner is Western 102/Western 102 LTD.
 Jim Bailey, representing the Applicant, is present.
 The property location is 2633 Waltham Way and is zoned Heavy Industrial (I-2).
 The Applicant requests a parcel map dividing one parcel into two parcels.
 Planner Redmond presented the vicinity map and discussed zoning and abutting uses.
 Planner Redmond stated that the SCC does not specifically require an application for a parcel map;
however, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) does require a parcel map to go through the public process.
 The proposed parcel map was presented along with site photos and the background and analysis of the
project.
 No public comment was received by Staff.
Senior Planner Osborne explained that the Tahoe-Reno Industrial (TRI) Center development agreement does not
require that these types of maps go through the Planning Commission or County Commission and those are
normally done internally through Staff (when located within the TRI Center). He further explained that this subject
property is not within the TRI Center but is close to TRI. Senior Planner Osborne explained that there are
properties in McCarran that are intermingled with the TRI Center but are not technically within the TRI Center, and
this is an example of one of those properties. This subject parcel is not within TRI Center and therefore, is not
subject to the TRI Center development agreement.
3
Jim Bailey noted his presence on behalf of the Applicant Vince Griffith.
Planner Redmond read the findings of fact into the record:
5.1.1 The Parcel Map must comply with NRS 278.461 through 278.469 relating to the division of land into 4 or
less parcels; and
5.1.2 The Parcel Map complies with all Federal, Nevada State, and County regulations pertaining to Parcel
Maps and permitted land uses; and
5.1.3 The Parcel Map will not impose substantial adverse impacts or safety hazards on the abutting properties
or the surrounding vicinity; and
5.1.4 The conditions under this Parcel Map do not conflict with the minimum requirements in SCC Chapters
17.35 I-2 Heavy Industrial Zone or any other Federal, Nevada State, or County regulations.
Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by Staff, the findings of fact under section 5.1 of the Staff Report
and other Findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and compliance with all Conditions of
Approval, the Storey County Planning Commission hereby approves with Conditions Parcel Map Application
Number 2014-012 for the division of one existing parcel into two new parcels. Action: Approve Moved by
Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Prater, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary:
Yes=7)
Senior Planner Osborne requested that item numbers 9 and 10 be heard beginning at 6:00 P.M. as the public was
informed that these would be heard no earlier than this time. He asked that in the meantime that housekeeping
items be moved to be heard now.
Motion: Agenda adjustment to move item number 11: the determination of the next Planning Commission
meeting and item number 15: Staff comments, up to be discussed next. Action: Approve Moved by
Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner Smith, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote
(summary: Yes=7)
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Determination of next Planning Commission meeting.
Austin Osborne, Senior Planner:
 Senior Planner Osborne explained that Vista Towers will be discussed at the next meeting as it was
continued today. The application was just received by Staff and is complete. It was posted today due to
an application deadline requirement. It is an application to extend the closure period of the Special Use
Permit (SUP) and to amend the SUP to edit a condition that the Applicant secures a contract with
carriers before building the tower.
 Staff is also expecting SUP applications for two murals in Virginia City.
Motion: To hold the next Planning Commission Meeting on September 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm at the Storey County
Courthouse. Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Prater, Vote: Motion
carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7)
STAFF COMMENTS (No Action)
Austin Osborne, Senior Planner:
 Senior Planner Osborne discussed where the houses to the south side of the courthouse were being
moved. The white house was donated to the Comstock Cemetery Foundation and was moved to the
cemetery. The yellow house was bought by Comstock Mining and moved to their property. It will be part
of their office complex. The green house was also purchased by Comstock Mining and will be moved to
American Flat. It will need to be cut in half in order to move it.

Chairman Tyler asked when the houses were built.
4


Senior Planner Osborne responded that they were all built around 1920, except for the white house which
they believe was built in the 1890s. The red house was also built around 1920 and moved from American
Flat in 1930. It was purchased by Molly, who owns the local flower shop. The County stipulated that all the
four houses had to remain on the Comstock and they all will.
Public Works is working on grading the site where the houses were located. Farr West Engineering is
working on the engineering of the wall with the cooperation of Cal-Trans. Cal-Trans has worked on similar
structures of concrete walls that are made to look like an authentic rock surface. There will be a
substantial cost savings because similar wall’s engineering can be used as a prototype. Planner Redmond
has a degree in landscape architecture and is working on a design for the parking lot. It will add
approximately 75 spaces for staff, tourism, court and event parking, as well as farmers markets and other
similar events.

Commissioner Prater asked if there would be any zone change files since the use of the property is
changing.

Senior Planner Osborne explained that it is currently commercial-residential (CR) and no change would be
required as public parking is included in the CR zone.

Commissioner Herrington asked if the old-time light post would stretch down to the Eagle’s Hall past
Piper’s Opera House.

Senior Planner Osborne said that it is not part of the immediate plan, but if the Eagle’s wanted to work
with the County, he would be glad to bring that up with the team to tie in the whole area.
Commissioner Herrington suggested going all the way to Sutton. Senior Planner Osborne complimented
the suggestion, and suggested the whole downtown area be covered by these lights.
The County has accepted bids on the courthouse roof repair and decided with the Building Department
and Shannon Gardner not to accept any of them and instead to re-bid it for replacement. It is about a
$100k project and approximately $20-30k is being paid for through Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) grants.
Senior Planner Osborne gave a tour of the Marlette system yesterday to the Carson Water SubConservancy District. Their purpose is to funnel grant, federal, state, and county monies into projects to
protect watersheds. He discussed the upgrade project to the reservoir in that area. It will go out to bid in
September.


Dessie Redmond, Planner:
 At the August 5th County Commission meeting the sign Variance for Comstock Corner Café was approved
with a few added/revised conditions.
 The Nature Conservancy SUP was approved with conditions by the Board at on August 19th meeting.
 We have had a lot of development applications coming through our office and Staff has been devoting the
majority of our time to those files. We are also working on the Master Plan update, nuisance files, the
parking lot design and some other ordinances.
 Planner Redmond will be attending a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Environmental and
Historic Preservation Workshop next week in Carson City with Cherie Nevin.
 Staff is working on ironing out details on the parking lot like soil investigations and engineering costs for
the wall.
 We have had about 275 people fill the Community Survey which will help inform the update to the Master
Plan. This survey can be found on the Storey County homepage website or a paper copy can be requested
from the Planning Department.
 Staff is working on the housing chapter of the Master Plan. We have a ton of data from the Assessor’s
office to sift through, organize and compare. This will help us understand housing trends throughout the
County as we continue to update to the Master Plan every five years.
5
Commissioner Prater asked Senior Planner Osborne if the Comstock Mining zone change that they approved at the
last meeting would affect the tax rate for those properties.
Senior Planner Osborne replied that he spoke with the Assessor and she indicated that it was the use that would
cause the greatest impact to taxes, not specifically the zone change.
The meeting recessed from 5:47pm until 6pm
The meeting was reconvened at 6:05pm
9. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit Amendment 2000-222-A-4-2014. By Comstock
Mining, LLC, in American Flat and Gold Hill, Storey County, Nevada. Amendment to Special Use Permit No.
2000-222-A-3 to modify and expand applicable land area and allowable uses. The amendment applies to
mining, mine definition and exploration, processing, and ancillary uses on the land subject to the request in
American Flat and Gold Hill, as illustrated in Project Area Map attached hereto, and located approximately in
Township 16 North, Range 20 East, Sections 1 and 12; and Township 16 North, Range 21 East, Sections 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, and 9, all in the Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian (MDB&M).
Austin Osborne, Senior Planner:
Senior Planner Osborne summarized the application and stated that this is a continued agenda item from the
August 7th Planning Commission meeting. He thanked the public for their input and the opportunity to go back and
work with the Applicant and the residents to address concerns regarding this file. At the last meeting we discussed
the existing SUP elements, the new proposed SUP, and the concerns and questions of the public, the Planning
Commissioners, and the affected property owners. Senior Planner Osborne explained that what we have now just
needs adjustments with things like dealing with oversight, distances to residences, air monitoring, use of State
Route (SR) 342, and the Silver City water line. In the addendum that has been provided to the Planning
Commissioners are the adjustments that Staff recommends to the original conditions of approval. Regular, black
text is the original addendum. Additional materials were provided by the Applicant to address some of the public’s
concerns.
Corrado DeGasperis, Comstock Mining President and CEO:
Mr. DeGasperis stated that there is no new material to present other than what has been provided in the additional
addendum and supporting information.
Daniel Bowers, Gold Hill resident:
Mr. Bowers stated that he likes what the mine is doing. He spoke to the mine representatives about putting some of
the mine’s unwanted waste soil on his property to level it. However, the recommended SUP boundary map does
not allow any mining activity within 500 feet of his residence or his neighbors’ residences. He asked that Comstock
Mining be able to work within the 500 feet area for the purpose of filling low areas on his property with their waste
soil. He was okay with the boundary being in place for true mining purposes.
Senior Planner Osborne presented a map to illustrate the area in question and the 500 foot barrier.
It was asked if it affected anyone but the parties in question.
Mr. Bowers said that it affected him as well as his neighbor, Dale Turney.
Commissioner Prater asked Mr. Bowers if he had discussed with the mine possible access up the ravine to the
southwest.
Mr. Bowers responded that he had and that there was an existing road that he had tried to put in but had problems
with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) when trying to implement this road.
Cali Thompson Czech, Gold Hill resident:
6
Ms. Thompson Czech is Mr. Bowers’ daughter and lives near the area in question. She pointed out her property on
the map. She also stated that like Mr. Bowers, she also would like Comstock Mining to come in with the mine’s
unwanted soil and level their land. She said that the 500 foot boundary will prohibit that from occurring.
Commissioner Hindle asked if the issue was allowing Comstock Mining to come in, or is it allowing the mine use of
nearby roads.
Mr. Bowers responded that the roads are not the problem and he just wants the mining company to be able to
come within 500 foot barrier to give him some unwanted soil so he can level off his property.
Ron Cox, Gold Hill resident:
Mr. Cox stated that he has been working with Comstock Mining on the 500 foot boundary line issue as he also lives
in the area in question. The 500 feet is not just for him, but for all residences unless they sign a waiver allowing the
mine to bring in fill material within the 500’ area. It will be three to five years away before the mining company is
ready to explore the subject area. He is mainly concerned with dust.
Commissioner Hindle clarified that Mr. Cox just wants to maintain the 500 feet within the SUP. The other issue is
some of the residents living within the area in question would like the trucks to be able to come through the 500
feet boundary to gain access to their property.
Chairman Bret Tyler asked if they could sign a waiver for the grading work.
Commissioner Hindle asked Staff if the addendum under section 4.2, does give the property owners the ability to
vary from the 500 foot boundary in the SUP if they agree to it.
Senior Planner Osborne stated that is correct. He stated that he does not want to take a position on this agreement.
He wants the parties to work the agreement out. He stated that this is a localized matter between three property
owners and Comstock Mining; it is not a matter of the county. He said that he would like the Applicant to address
this.
The Applicant, Mr. DeGasperis, said that discussions with the parties have gone smoothly. They started with the
500 foot mine boundary line where all surface disturbances would be prohibited. However, because of some of
residents’ concerns, we expanded the boundary for Mr. and Mrs. Cox in terms of space and language. We then came
to an agreement. What some of the parties want to do with “fill” will benefit the landscape, but there is a conflict
with the area within the boundaries. He feels the 500 feet exclusion mine boundary line should be sacred, and only
waived by individual residents if desired. If a waiver was signed, then it would be a one-time variance to have “fill”
dirt brought to their property, but not to allow full mining activity. Mr. DeGasperis stated that it will be a period of
time before this could be done.
District Attorney Bill Maddox asked if this could be discussed later when it is applicable so they can move along
with this SUP now. A number of the Planning Commissioners stated their agreement.
Commissioner Prater asked how this SUP might affect a third party, such as Granite Construction, who wants to
bring in fill dirt.
Senior Planner Osborne said that the SUP condition only pertains to Comstock Mining and not any other party.
Commissioner Prater asked if that could be viewed as discriminatory against Comstock Mining.
Senior Planner Osborne agreed that it could be discriminatory against Comstock Mining by excluding only
Comstock Mining from bringing in fill to these residences.
Mr. DeGasperis stated that Comstock Mining is supportive of accommodating the Bowers’ request while still
respecting all the other rights.
7
Steven Saylor, Dayton resident read a letter into record:
“Dear Commissioners,
I wanted to take this opportunity on behalf of my wife and myself to encourage the approval of the special use
permit for Comstock Mining that is before you this day. It is our understanding that this SUP, as amended, exceeds
all State and Federal standards. Further it limits disturbance areas, limits and controls development, and enables
expedited reclamation. The new boundary is in the area that was mapped out by the Storey County Mining
Ordinance. It is outside of the view shed limits and takes Comstock Mining’s neighbors into consideration.
Additionally, it enhances financial guarantees to the County and sustains the current benefits of Comstock Mining
such as the preservation and restoration activities. This SUP adheres to Storey County’s mining ordinance,
enhances and streamlines local permitting and oversight. This SUP is an impressive document indeed which
protects current and future mining, while preserving and protecting historic structures. All parties should be
proud of the modified SUP for the wise collaboration that went into building such a resilient document.”
Mr. Saylor also extended thanks and compliments to Senior Planner Osborne.
Larry Wahrenbrock, Silver City resident read a letter into record:
“I would like to commend the Planning Commission on their service to the people of Storey County. I believe you
have accepted a public trust which burdens you with great responsibility and accountability.
The issuance of a SUP is a privilege and is required for certain land use activities that are perceived as unique and
in need of special regulatory consideration prior to taking place. Typically they are project specific and issued with
findings and conditions relevant to the Applicant’s special request. More often than not, SUPs apply to land uses
which require significant demands on infrastructure, have significant environmental consequences, or have the
potential to create adverse effects on neighboring properties. Public hearings like this one tonight are held to
allow citizen input. When SUPs are approved they essentially form a contract; mutually agreed upon between
Applicant, the public and the County which outlines the activities that are permitted and stipulates the conditions
within which those activities can occur.
There is a responsibility on the part of Applicants and the County to follow Storey County Code relating to SUPs. If
an Applicant fails to provide all the information required in the ordinance; the application should not be accepted
and certainly should not be forwarded to the Commission for action at a public hearing.
It must be very frustrating for you; I assure you it is for me, to be compelled to attend 3 or 4 meetings on the same
application. Not because the application is complex, although it is, but because the Applicant failed in their
responsibility to file all the required information. Storey County also failed by accepting an incomplete application
in the first place.
So here we are again and many of the same failings exist. For example:
1. There is no “drawn to scale” phasing plan as required.
2. The site plan fails to identify the utility poles along SR 342 in Gold Canyon. This is particularly important as the
power line runs through the proposed pit area on the east side of the Hwy.
3. The scaled site plan included in the application regarding transportation routes is of such a large scale that
critical evaluation of impacts is impossible.
4. There is no scaled drawing as required for the “location and placement of existing and proposed manmade
landforms and surface alterations, such as open pits, … heap leaches, tailings, dumps and overburden
placement, etc.: The Applicant include a computer generated graphic representation of the proposed pit
however this does not meet the requirement in the ordinance and is labeled as “…what the area MIGHT look
like during operation”. On page 22 of 36 of the application, the topographic map of the east side proposed pit
does not include a contour interval measurement. This makes evaluation of the design impossible and
meaningful public input void. The application proposes expansion of the heap leach facility in American Flat
but includes no information regarding expanded heap leach pads. Additionally there is no information
regarding dumps and/or over burden placement.
8
5. The Applicant provided additional information regarding water rights and use, however, there is no
information regarding the proposed expanded heap leach.
There are additional failings in the application which have been previously enumerated and should not be
necessary to repeat.
In the latest revised staff report, under item 6.1 “Means and modes of transport”, paragraph d. makes reference to a
“…July, 14 Administrative Draft Environmental Assessment…” no such document exists. It is not a public document
and is not posted on the BLM web site regarding the Lucerne/American Flat right-of-way. Even if such a document
were to exist, by its very nature of being a draft it would be subject to change, and would certainly not be a credible
reference.
In closing I believe we can all read and understand the English Language. The Planning Commission is obligated to
protect and uphold the laws and regulations of the County. The public depends on you for this. You hold a public
trust that can be fragile and once breached, difficult to repair. It seems that it should be easy to read the applicable
Storey County ordinance(s) and determine what is compliant, what is lacking, what is acceptable and what is not.
The application before you is incomplete. The proposed project is massive in scale and will generate significant
environmental consequences. Those consequences need to be delineated with specificity and evaluated with care
and precision. Any approval for this SUP application would be premature at this time. You simply do not have the
information necessary to make an informed decision.”
Senior Planner Osborne said that he has previously addressed some of the points in Mr. Wahrenbrock’s statement
several times. Mr. Wahrenbrock referred to BLM Environmental Assessment (EA) documents and said that these
documents do not exist; however, they do exist but are confidential. They were supplied to Senior Planner Osborne
and used to inform the staff report. I spoke to Brian Buttazoni from BLM who stated that the document we were
referencing was not ready for public posting at the time per BLM regulations. Senior Planner Osborne stated that
he does have an amendment to the addendum that will nullify and exclude any reference to that BLM EA.
Commissioner Prater asked if this was in response to the BLM letter received today.
Austin responded that “yes” it was.
Commissioner Herrington referred to the BLM letter where it states that BLM is evaluating a reasonable
alternative that involves Comstock Mining’s use of SR 342. He then asked, “How do they come to evaluate east SR
342?”
Senior Planner Osborne explained the process with an EA and that it includes alternatives. In this case with lot 51
being treated as BLM land it has to include four alternatives.
Commissioner Herrington asked if the BLM is within days of deciding if Lot 51 will be available for the haul road.
Senior Planner Osborne stated that at this point, he is not comfortable answering questions of the BLM’s EA. He
explained that the BLM is the most appropriate agency to answer specifics of the EA.
Mr. DeGasperis explained that previously there was some ambiguous wording in the conditions regarding use of SR
342. However, with the addendum, the use of SR 342 is prohibited, but still preserves the non-federal alternative
that is in the BLM EA. That alternative does not need to be permitted. It just needs to be feasible and not in conflict
with the conditions of the SUP.
Commissioner Herrington asked that what Mr. DeGasperis just specified regarding use of SR 342, be added to in
Section 6.1 of the Staff Report.
Mr. DeGasperis feels they have addressed that in another section. He deferred to Senior Planner Osborne.
9
Commissioner Herrington does not see where the “federal alternative” is mentioned in the SUP.
Senior Planner Osborne directed the Planning Commission to the amendment of Section 6.1. in the most recent
addendum, Subsection “d” where they refer to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) alternative
requirements, page three of the addendum dated August 21, 2014. It states, “Notwithstanding the foregoing in this
section, [6.1] and for the purpose of clarity, nothing herein in this section or in this SUP eliminates alternatives
contemplated in the Environmental Assessment (EA) by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding the
Permit Holder’s application for right-of-way amendment.”
Commissioner Herrington asked District Attorney Bill Maddox for confirmation of Senior Planner Osborne’s
statements. District Attorney Bill Maddox confirmed the statement.
Senior Planner Osborne explained the process of the Planning Commissioners voting on each changed item on the
addendum.
District Attorney Bill Maddox clarified that it would be a poll vote from the Planning Commission on each
addendum item and then public comment at the end of all the polling.
Commissioner Prater was concerned on anticipating actions by the BLM.
Senior Planner Osborne explained that BLM has reviewed the staff report and there is no conflict, but flexibility
that allows for BLM regulations. NEPA will always trump this document explained Senior Planner Osborne.
Mr. DeGasperis explained again the temporary right-of-way, and the extension regarding the road. He also stated
that there are many federal lands within the SUP area. When mining the federal land becomes foreseeable, they
would apply for permits under NEPA.
Commissioner Prater asked item number one on Mr. Wahrenbrock’s letter be addressed concerning a phasing plan.
Mr. DeGasperis responded that expansion with concurrent reclamation goes through a process of permitting that is
already in place. They are feverishly mine-planning and will be doing that forever. The plans have to be submitted
and permitted by all state, federal, and local agencies before proceeding. The totalities of the controls that are being
put in place are unique.
Senior Planner Osborne proposed modifications to the addendum and read through them. (The text in italicized in
bold is additional text and strikethrough text is text proposed to be deleted.)
 Section 1.3 Annual compliance reivew1.3 Annual compliance review
At a regularly scheduled public hearing between the months of March and July of each year beginning in the
year of 2015, the Permit Holder shall provide to the Planning Commission a public presentation report
featuring the extent to which it has or has not complied with the conditions of the SUP and applicable
federal, state, and county regulations. the following elements of the active project:
a.
The extent to which it has or has not complied with the conditions of the SUP and applicable
federal, state, and county regulations.
b.
The status of plans and actions related to the primary Silver City water line, including plan
updates and modifications, current use encroachments thereupon, repairs and replacement of all or
portions thereof, and interruptions to service provided thereby as a result of the foregoing.
c.
The status of plans and actions related to the use, modification, and impacts to State Route 342
between Devil’s Gate and Petaluma Street (current terminus of American Flat Road at its existing
alignment), as related to uses under this SUP.
10
d.
A summary report of dust, groundwater, noise, and seismic monitoring data collected
pursuant to this SUP and the NDEP requirements throughout the year leading to the public report.
The presentation shall disclose valid evidence of known failure to comply with those requirements. If a
violation is found to have occurred, the presentation shall explain what measures, and to what degrees of
expediency and success, the Permit Holder employed to remedy the violation. The Permit Holder shall
furnish to the Planning Department documents, reports, notices, and other correspondence within 30 days
of receipt.



1.5 Transfer of rights
This SUP will inure to the record owner(s) of the subject property and to the Permit Holder (Comstock
Mining, Inc.) and will run with the land. Any and all transfers of this SUP to other persons, agencies,
corporations, or entities must be advised in-person or in-writing by Certified Mail to the Planning
Department at least 90 days prior to assignee taking over the project. The notice must contain the
name(s), phone number(s), mailing address, and other contact information for the assignee. The new
owners/managers must sign and accept all conditions and requirements of this SUP and submit
documentation of their acceptance shall be submitted by the Permit Holder to the Building and
Planning Departments at least 90 days prior to the transfer.
Section 4.2 Separation requirements
Separation from residences. No new surface disturbances - He would like to get rid of the word “new”
including, mining, mine definition, exploration, and ancillary uses in “Area A” (Exhibit A in the addendum)
may occur, or otherwise be caused to occur by the Permit Holder, within 500’ of an occupied dwelling
unit existing at the time of this SUP approval, or within the distance illustrated in Exhibit D (in the
addendum) herein to the dwelling unit existing at APN 002-141-13. The following are exempt from these
requirements:
o Activities occurring within the boundaries of Special Use Permit No. 2000-222-A-3, existing
prior to the approval of this SUP.
o
Dwellings that are owned by the Permit Holder;
o
Dwellings for which affidavits were submitted as part of the application for this SUP, and
accordingly are located entirely within the boundaries of the subject property;
o
When a the affected property owner(s) in Storey County submit to the Planning Department a
signed statement that uses associated with the SUP may occur within the distance limitation.
o
With regard to buffering to the dwelling unit existing at APN 002-141-13, the Cox’s house
exploration activities may occur within the “Limited Drill Area” illustrated in Exhibit D (in the
addendum) herein when such activity does not exceed the hours and days limitations. That
means Monday-Friday 8-5 no weekends or holidays. He showed the area on the map.
Hours and days limitations. Surface activities located within 1,000’ of a C, CR, E, P, or R zone, or any
permitted occupied dwelling use in other zones may only occur between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and
Mondays through Fridays. No activity may occur on weekends, and national and state holidays. The
following are exempt from these requirements:
o Uses existing at the time of approval of this SUP may occur over 24-hours per day and 365 days per
year. Uses include, but are not limited to, mining, mine definition and exploration, processing, and
ancillary uses, and may include, for example, the Lucerne, Hartford, and Justice Pits, and the
Lucerne Haul Road.
o Dwellings that are owned by the Permit Holder.
11
o Dwellings for which affidavits were submitted as part of the application for this SUP, and,
accordingly, are located entirely within the boundaries of the subject property.
o When the affected property owner(s) in Storey County submit to the Planning Department a signed
statement that uses associated with the SUP may occur within the distance limitation. The
submitted waiver may extend the hours of operation limit for mine definition and exploration up to
two days in a 30 day period, provided that the operating times do not occur between 6:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m., and on Sundays. The waiver shall be non-transferrable and will become null and void
immediately upon the affected property owner(s) written request to the Planning Department.

Section 4.4 Air monitoring and reporting
Air emissions, including dust and other airborne materials, shall conform to NDEP air permit standards.
Copies of annual reports of environmental quality, necessary to comply with the requirements of the
permit(s) issued by the NDEP Bureau of Air Pollution Control, shall be submitted to the Building and
Planning Departments within 30 days of receipt. Air monitoring conducted by the Permit Holder shall be
inclusive and considerate of potentially impacted residents within 1,000’ of active mining areas within
the subject property, including from Storey County and Silver City, Lyon County. In the event that there
is an air discharge in excess of the standards approved by the NDEP under construction phase or operation
phase permit(s), the Permit Holder shall provide the Building and Planning Departments a copy of any
notice within 24 hours of Permit Holder’s receipt. If the Permit Holder is required by the NDEP to prepare a
report on the event, the Permit Holder shall submit a copy of the report to the Building and Planning
Departments at the same time it is submitted to the NDEP. There shall be no obnoxious odors released into
the air that are a nuisance to abutting surrounding properties.

6.1 Means and Modes of transport
Ore, overburden, and other excavated material may be transported throughout the subject property and
from the permitted mining area to the processing site by any type of on- and off-highway vehicles, haul
trucks, tractors and heavy equipment, railroad, conveyor systems, and other on-site conveyance systems. in
compliance with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) and the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA), as applicable. Sky Lane, Keystone Circle, Slippery Gulch Road, and the power
line access road immediately adjacent to Slippery Gulch Road shall not be used for these purposes.
State Route 342 shall not be used for these purposes, except under such unusual circumstances, as
demonstrated to the Planning Department by the Permit Holder, that it is prohibited from
transporting said materials between Area A and Area B within the subject property (see Exhibit A in
the addendum). In such case, the elements required in Subsections (a) through (c) below shall be
presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Board of Commissioners with
recommendation by the Planning Commission shall determine whether the requirements in this
section have been satisfied before the Permit Holder may commence use of said roadway for said
purposes. The Permit Holder shall demonstrate to the body:
a. The circumstances prohibiting its transport of ore between Area A and Area B within the subject
property; valid evidence of the current state of the conditions prohibiting its use of said land; and
that it is exercising a continued good faith effort in remedying the circumstances prohibiting its use
of said land.
b. A written plan submitted to the Planning Department explaining the estimated timeframe that State
Route 342 will be used for said purposes; the number of units (trucks) that will be using the road;
days and hours that the road will be used; type of vehicles (including truck and trailer type) that will
be used on the road; estimated timeframe for repair and replacement of portions of the road
damaged by said use; and methods by which said portions of the road will be repaired or replaced.
c. Planning, communications, and other correspondence between it and the Nevada Department of
Transportation (NDOT) and Storey County Planning and Public Works Departments with regard to
the subsections herein.
12
d. Notwithstanding the foregoing in this section, and for the purpose of clarity, nothing herein in this
section or in this SUP eliminates alternatives contemplated on pages 16 to 18 in the July, 2014
Administrative Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
regarding the Permit Holder’s application for right-of-way amendment.
The use of State Route 342 pursuant to this section shall be limited to Mondays through Fridays,
excluding national and state holidays, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The use of State
Route 342 otherwise will be subject to the requirements of the NDOT. The Permit Holder shall be
responsible to repair damages to any state, county, or private road, utility, or other infrastructure caused
by activities associated with the uses under this SUP. The repairs must be completed to the satisfaction of
Storey County and the NDOT, as applicable. The county reserves the right to restrict or prohibit the use of
trucks and heavy equipment on county-owned right-of-ways. Use and repair of state roads or right-of-ways
will be subject to NDOT requirements.
7.3 Silver City water line protection
As stated earlier in these conditions, the Permit Holder shall develop a comprehensive plan by which it will
protect the Silver City water main from accidental damage and service disruption caused by surface and
underground activity. and from ground vibrations or other movement caused thereby. The plan shall also
include a detailed description of how accidental damage to the line, or events causing disruption to service as a
result of activity associated with the SUP, will be treated and remedied immediately and without disruption to
service provided to Silver City. At a minimum:
a. The plan shall include Geographic Information Systems (GIS) aerial imagery illustrating the
estimated alignment of the water line within the subject property; type(s) and dimensions of the
existing piping, fittings, valve types, etc., in order to plan for unanticipated immediate response
situations; existing roads and other surface disturbances; and surrounding topography.
b. The plan shall include GIS aerial imagery showing the location of existing and proposed roads, drill
pads, pits, and other surface disturbances within 500’ of the water line.
c. The plan shall provide a detailed explanation of the methods by which the water line will be
protected from light and heavy vehicle and equipment uses within 500’ thereof. The plan shall
address protecting the water line at all vehicle crossing points; monitoring vibration; and protecting
the water line from vibration caused by uses within 500’ thereof, and from blasting within 1,000’
thereof.
d. The plan shall explain procedures by which the Permit Holder will immediately notify the Planning
and Public Works Departments, the County Manager’s Office, and the Storey County and Central Lyon
County Fire Protection Districts of damage to the water line, or disruption to service.
e. The plan shall explain methods, procedures, estimated timeframe, and other processes by which
damage to the water line caused by the Permit Holder will be repaired immediately after such
damage and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
f.
The plan shall indicate the Silver City municipal water tank storage capacity; estimated customer
usage (in gallons) during the months of January and July; estimated timeframe of capacity based on
storage capacity and usage; and the alternative source of safe drinking water and specific methods
by which it will be supplied to the Silver City municipal water system if the duration of service
disruption exceeds system storage capacity. The plan shall describe the source of and methods by
which sufficient water flows will be provided to Silver City during a structure fire event that occurs
during the service disruption.
g. The plan shall explain the circumstances that will necessitate all or portions of the water line located
13
within the subject property to be replaced by the Permit Holder prior to damage, and what
agreements may be made between the Storey County Water System (Public Works Director) and the
Permit Holder for the methods, procedures, and cost of its replacement.
h. The plan shall be updated concurrently with active mining and the updated plan shall be submitted
to the Storey County Public Works Department and Central Lyon County Fire Protection District for
approval, and the Storey County Planning Department and Storey County Fire Protection District for
filing.
The Permit Holder shall demonstrate active engagement with the Storey County Public Works Director and the
Central Lyon County Fire Protection District Chief in developing the plan. The plan must be approved by the
Storey County Public Works Director and the Central Lyon County Fire Protection District Chief, and
submitted to the Storey County Planning and Public Works Departments and Storey County Fire
Protection District for filing before mining, mine definition, exploration, and other such activities may occur
on land east of State Route 342 in its current alignment, or within one year of approval of the SUP, whichever
is sooner. Before commencing operations east of the road, the Public Works Director with concurrence by the
County Manager may require the Permit Holder at its expense to replace portions all or a portion of the water
line that runs through the subject property that are believed by the Storey County Public Works Director to
be susceptible to damage caused by activities associated with the SUP in the area adjacent to the water line.
The Permit Holder will be fully responsible for financial costs associated with such needed required repairs or
replacement of the water line. if substantial evidence suggests that the damage was caused by uses under the
SUP or otherwise by the Permit Holder. All repairs and replacement shall be to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director.
7.4 Survey monument protection
No government line survey monument may be moved or disturbed (as prohibited by federal or state law). To
the extent practicable, all monument witness corners, reference monuments, bearing trees and line trees shall
be protected against undue destruction, obliteration, or damage. If in the course of operations any survey
monument is destroyed, obliterated, or damaged, the Permit Holder shall immediately report the matter to the
Planning Department and the Bureau of Land Management. The notice shall describe the monument and its
geo-coordinates before disturbance, how it was disturbed and to what extent, and the plan for immediate
corrective action. The Permit Holder shall be financially responsible for the immediate and appropriate
corrective action.
8.3 Cemetery protection
The uses under this SUP shall not cause any cemetery or structures therein, including but not limited to
headstones, monuments, fences, enclosures, etc., to be disturbed, altered, moved, or destroyed. At a minimum,
state laws protecting cemeteries shall not be violated. The terms of this condition shall be fulfilled by
compliance with the following limitations.

Limitations and mitigation. Activities and disturbances shall not take place within 300’ of a cemetery
boundary as defined by NRS 452.0075 and as determined by the Comstock Cemetery Foundation (CCF).
These limitations shall not apply to general vehicular and heavy equipment traffic taking place on the
established county roads and right-of-ways, including American Flat Road, or the improvement or
widening of American Flat Road as allowed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) pursuant to its
Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA. These limitations also shall not apply to mineral exploration
activities approved by the CCF within the established cemetery buffer area, but not within any cemetery
boundary or public right-of-way. Written approval by the CCF shall be submitted to Planning Department
prior to commencement of activities within the scope of these regulations.

Cooperation. Activities and disturbances may be permitted between 300’ and 500’ surrounding each
cemetery boundary as described above when the Permit Holder initiates and maintains continuous
communication and collaboration with the CCF in protecting said cemetery resources. A surface vibration
14
monitoring program shall be developed and implemented as determined by the CCF. The program will
monitor surface vibrations at selected sites to assess potential vibrations from drilling and excavating
operations, heavy machinery, and vehicles. The monitoring program, upon approval of the CCF, will be at
the expense and oversight of the CCF and at the expense of the Permit Holder, unless agreed otherwise
between the parties.
8.5 Historic area preservation
The Permit Holder shall agrees to contribute at least one percent of annual Net-Smelter-Revenue
Return (the gross payment on the sale of Dore less the cost of refining and related shipping) toward
historic preservation and/or restoration projects within Virginia City, Gold Hill, American Flat, and/or
Silver City. This condition shall apply only when the mine associated with this SUP is in active status. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall be developed between the Permit Holder and Storey
County, as approved by the District Attorney’s Office, for this purpose. (Note: The Permit Holder has in
the past contributed financial and other resources to, and has otherwise been actively engaged in,
historical preservation and restoration projects and efforts throughout the Comstock over the past
several years, including in Virginia City, Gold Hill, Silver City (Lyon County), and American Flat.
Accordingly, the Permit Holder collaborated with Storey County in developing and accepting this SUP
condition. This SUP condition requiring partial Net-Smelter Revenues contribution is intended to be
inclusive of, and not add to, the “1 percent royalties” pledged in the past by the Permit Holder for this
purpose).

The SUP boundary map shown below (Exhibit A of the staff report) is proposed by the Planning
Department to be amended in accordance with discussions that occurred between the applicant, a property
owner, and the planning commission during the June 26 and July 17, 2014 planning commission hearings.
The amendment will create approximately 500’ of separation between the SUP boundary, and a
separation distance shown in Exhibit D (in the addendum) to the residence located at APN 002-141-13.
The map will be incorporated into the SUP conditions as Exhibit A in the addendum (Boundaries and Uses
of SUP No. 2000-222-A-4) and Exhibit D in the addendum (magnified distance separation between said
residence and surface uses).

Senior Planner Osborne reviewed the added Exhibits and their purpose.
Senior Planner Osborne reiterated the request for a poll vote on each addendum by the Planning Commission
followed by public comment and a full vote on the entire SUP.
Commissioner Herrington asked if the wording regarding hauling ore from Storey County and Lyon County was
eliminated.
Senior Planner Osborne responded affirmatively and explained how these changes will override the original items.
The Planning Commission conducted the poll-voting on the addendum:
 Item 1.3 Vote – all agree. Commissioner Hindle asked about how violations would be addressed. Senior
Planner Osborne explained the “show-cause” condition which is a new item and in the original staff report
in section 1.4
 Item 1.5 Vote – all agree – Commissioner Hindle clarified the “show-cause” process again and District
Attorney Bill Maddox elaborated. Commissioner Prater asked about the 90 day timeframe for a sale and
wondered if it should be shortened. It was agreed that the timeframe was fine as stated and standard
language.
 Item 4.2 Vote – all agree
 Item 4.4 Vote – all agree, Commissioner Prater and Chairman Bret Tyler asked about location of monitoring
devices and confirmed that they would be in Storey County.
 Item 6.1 Vote – all agree
 Item 7.3 Vote – all agree
15








Item 7.4 Vote – all agree
Item 8.3 Vote – all agree
Item 8.5 Vote – all agree
Section B language of preamble – Vote – all agree
Exhibit A Vote – all agree
Exhibit D Vote – all agree
Exhibit E Vote – all agree
Exhibit E second page Vote – all agree
No more public comment was heard on the Addendum.
Commissioner Hindle asked Senior Planner Osborne read the Findings of Fact into the record:
8.1.1 Requirement by code
All land within the amended SUP boundary is zoned SPR Special Planning Review and F Forestry. Accordingly, the
application for amended SUP was submitted pursuant to SCC Sections 17.32.020(M-N), and 17.44.030(A) which list
“mining” and “milling and processing related to mining” as allowed in each zone with an SUP approved by the
Board of County Commissioners with recommendation by the Planning Commission.
8.1.2 SCC 17.92 findings incorporated
SCC Section 17.92.030 lists findings of fact related to mining; mining uses and rights; rights and protections of nonmining uses potentially impacted by mining; and protecting the historical value and integrity of the Virginia City
National Historic Landmark. Those findings in their entirety are hereby incorporated into the approval of the
amended SUP, and it is hereby recognized that the amended SUP conforms to the purpose and intent of the
findings.
8.1.3 Requirement by code
The conditions of the amended SUP are not in conflict with the purpose, intent, and other specific requirements of
the F Forestry Zone and SPR Special Planning Review Zone in which the subject use will be located.
8.1.4 Use compatibility
The conditions of approval under the amended SUP impose sufficient regulations on the proposed use to
reasonably mitigate associated impacts on the surrounding environment and existing adjacent land uses.
8.1.5 Regulation compatibility
The conditions under the amended SUP are at least as stringent as and not in conflict with the applicable federal,
state, and county regulations. The minimum requirements under SCC Chapter 17.03 (Administrative Provisions)
and SCC 17.92 (mining) for issuance of an SUP are incorporated into the conditions of the amended SUP.
8.1.6 Conformance with prior SUP
The amended conditions and the remaining unchanged conditions the amended SUP comply with the land use
requirements of the underlying regulatory zones and are as stringent and not in conflict with federal, state, and
county regulations pertaining to the uses allowed by the amended SUP.
Motion: Based on Findings of Fact shown in Subsection 8.1 and conditions of approval shown in Section 9 of the
staff report and all of the addendums that this board has just discussed and approved tonight including changes
made in this meeting, and compliance with federal, state, and county regulations, and the recommendation for
approval by staff, this Planning Commission motions to approve SUP Application No. 2000-222-A-4, amending SUP
No. 2000-222-A-3 to expand the subject land area and amend uses as provided in the staff recommendation for
mining, processing, mine definition and exploration, and ancillary uses. Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner
Prater Seconded by Commissioner Bucchianeri, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7)
10. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit Amendment 2011-016. By Comstock Mining, Inc., in
American Flat and Gold Hill, Storey County, Nevada. The amendment will close and nullify existing Special Use
16
Permit No. 2011-016 (“Exploration SUP”). This SUP request is subject to approval of preceding SUP No. 2000222-A-4-2014 by Comstock Mining, Inc. This SUP amendment request shall not be subject to hearing or
modification if said preceding SUP is not approved.
Senior Planner Osborne explained that this SUP is now in conflict with the new SUP permit that was just approved
and staff recommends closing and nullifying it.
No public comment was received.
Motion: Close and nullify existing Special Use Permit 2011-016 (“Exploration SUP”). Action: Approve Moved by
Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Vice-Chairwoman Kekule, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary:
Yes=7)
11. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Determination of next Planning Commission meeting discussed after
item 8.
12. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Claims –none
13. CORRESPONDENCE (No Action) – none
14. PUBLIC COMMENT (No Action) – none
15. STAFF (No Action) – discussed after item 11
District Attorney Bill Maddox expanded on the name issue with Comstock Mining and the LLC. The names
have changed but they are all within LLC. This will require them to post a new bond to Storey County and will
make no difference if LLC goes out of business, we won’t be looking to their assets because we will have the
bond.
16. BOARD COMMENTS (No Action) - none
The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 pm
Respectfully Submitted,
By
Lyndi Renaud, Secretary
17
STOREY COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY – September 4, 2014 – 6:00pm
DISTRICT COURTROOM
26 SOUTH B STREET, VIRGINIA CITY, NEVADA
MEETING MINUTES
CHAIRMAN: Bret Tyler
VICE-CHAIRWOMAN: Laura Kekule
COMMISSIONERS:
Virgil Bucchianeri, John Herrington, Larry Prater, Pamela Smith, Jim Hindle
1. CALL TO ORDER AT 6:00pm. The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 6:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Bret Tyler, Virgil Bucchianeri, Larry Prater, Pamela Smith, Jim Hindle. Absent: Laura Kekule,
John Herrington.
Others Present: Planner Dessie Redmond and Commissioner Bill Sjovangen.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Chair led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Agenda for September 4, 2014.
Motion: Approve agenda for September 4, 2014 Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Smith Seconded by
Commissioner Hindle, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=5)
5. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Minutes for June 26, 2014, July 17, 2014
Motion: Continue to October 2nd meeting, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by
Commissioner Smith, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=5)
6. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit 2014-016. By Jim Minar on behalf of Supergraphics
located at 1 South C Street, Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada at a business commonly known as the Bucket
of Blood (APN: 001-085-11). The applicant requests a Special Use Permit for the placement of a mural on the
exterior portion of the building.
Dessie Redmond, Planner:
Planner Redmond presented a Power Point regarding the file.
 The Applicant is Jim Minar with Supergraphics who was teleconferenced in to the meeting.
 Wayne Edwards with Wells Fargo, who is working with the Applicant, was present at the meeting.
 The property owner is Marshall McBride.
 The property location is 1 South C Street, commonly known as the Bucket of Blood Saloon and is zoned
Commercial-Residential.
 A vicinity map and site photos were presented.
1



The proposed mural’s dimensions are 80 inches x 102 inches (approximately 56 square feet). The graphic
is printed on a high pressure 1.5” thick laminate material with a matte finish. It is then mounted to the wall
with two French cleats on the back. The edges are finished with a black matte aluminum. The proposal
contains no reflective material.
Definition and code requirements are outlined in the staff report.
Staff did not receive any public comment on this file.
Commissioner Prater commented that he noticed a mural going in catty-corner to the Bucket of Blood Saloon and
asked how that was different as he doesn’t recall anyone coming before the Planning Commission for a Special Use
Permit (SUP) for that mural.
Planner Redmond said that it is not different and that Staff is in the process of trying to get the people painting that
mural to come in and apply for the required SUP. They are fully aware they need a SUP; however, a completed
application has not been submitted to Staff.
Chairman Tyler asked if it will have a corrugated or smooth surface.
Mr. Edwards responded that the face of the mural is a smooth surface.
Chairman Tyler asked if the siding it is being mounted on would show through. Mr. Edwards responded no, it will
be mounted on a board.
Planner Redmond presented a miniature version for the Planning Commissioners to examine.
Mr. Edwards explained that the material is graffiti resistant.
Chairman Tyler complimented the off-white in comparison to some others that are out there using stark white that
is not appropriate in general and more so not in the Comstock Historic District.
Commissioner Prater asked if the proposal was to draw attention to the ATM.
Mr. Edwards said that it is really meant to celebrate the community and that is why the graphic is made-up of
historical buildings and events relative to the area.
Chairman Tyler would like to see the stark white color eliminated on C Street in regard to the ATM machine that
exists. Historically it should be off-white.
Planner Redmond read the findings:
6.1.1 The proposed SUP complies with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the county
master plan, this title, and any other plan, program, map, or ordinance adopted, or under consideration
pursuant to official notice by the county.
6.1.2 The proposed SUP will be compatible with existing adjacent land uses and will not cause substantial
negative impact on adjacent land uses or other properties in the vicinity. The proposed mural will enhance the
immediate surrounding area with regard to tourism, promoting commerce and highlighting history of the
community in which it is located.
6.1.3 The Conditions of Approval of the proposed SUP require compliance with the applicable codes;
6.1.4 The proposed SUP will not impose substantial adverse impacts or safety hazards on the abutting
properties;
6.1.5 The proposed SUP is in compliance with Storey County Code 17.84 Signs and Billboards;
6.1.6 The Conditions of Approval require compliance with the regulations of the Comstock Historic District
Commission.
Commissioner Prater asked for verification that the brass historical plaque that is in this location now is going to
be moved to an appropriate location with the approval of the Historical District.
2
Planner Redmond confirmed this.
Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by Staff, the Findings under Section 6.1 of the Staff Report and/or
other Findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and in compliance with all Conditions of
Approval, I Pamela Smith hereby recommend approval for Special Use Permit Number 2014-016 for the placement
of a mural on the exterior portion of the building at APN: 001-085-11. Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner
Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Prater, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=5)
7. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit Extension & Amendment 2012-014-A-1-2014. By
Robert MacLachlan on behalf of Vista Towers, for a property located at 21485 Saddleback Road, Virginia City
Highlands, Storey County, Nevada (APN: 003-101-66). The applicant requests an amendment to Special Use
Permit 2012-014 in order to modify a condition of the existing permit requiring a contract with one or more
cellular carriers before construction of the “mono-pine” wireless communications tower may commence. The
Applicant is also requesting an extension to Special Use Permit 2012-014 which, due to inactivity, will expire.
Dessie Redmond, Planner:
Planner Redmond presented a Power Point regarding the file.
 The applicant is represented by Daniel Davis and is present tonight.
 The property is located in the Virginia City Highland (VCH) one acres and is zoned VCH One Acres (E1
VCH).
 A vicinity map and site photos were presented.
 In April 2012 the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions for SUP 2012-014 and in
June 2012, the Board of County Commissioners gave final approval for the SUP. On June 13, 2014 the
Applicant submitted a letter requesting an extension of the SUP.
 The amended conditions of approval were explained, and are as follows:
 Requirements. Prior to issuance of a SUP No. 2012-014 and any Building Permit, the Applicant must
submit to the Community Development Department proof of a binding contract with at least one
commercial wireless carrier to be located on the tower. The Permit Holder shall apply for all required
permits and licenses, including building and fire permits, for the project within twenty four (24) months
from the date of final approval of SUP No. 2012-014 as amended in SUP 2012-014-A- 1-2014, and
continuously maintain the validity of those permits/licenses, or this approval shall be null and void. This
SUP shall remain valid as long as the Permit Holder remains in compliance with the terms of this SUP and
Storey County, Nevada State, and federal regulations. No construction or permitting for construction shall
commence prior to issuance of the SUP and a valid Storey County Building Permit.
 Closure/Abandonment. In the event that the tower and facility becomes decommissioned or is absent of
any permitted wireless carriers and antennae for a period of any three consecutive years commencing after
the first five years from completion of construction three consecutive years, Storey County shall reserve the
right to deem the facility abandoned and mandate the monopine tower and facility to be removed within
180 days thereof at the Permit Holder’s expense. The applicant shall reserve the right to appeal the
decision of abandonment. The process for the appeal shall be as pursuant to Chapter 17.60 and 17.62 of
the Storey County Code. Removal and reclamation shall include complete removal of the entire facility
including the monopine, monopole tower, antennae, electrical wiring and connections, accessory buildings
and structures, foundations and pads up to two feet below grade, and all other appurtenances. Reclamation
of the site to a condition reasonably existing prior to development shall be completed to the satisfaction of
Storey County. Under no circumstances shall Storey County, its officers, and representatives bare any cost
or responsibility for the removal of said facilities or reclamation of the site. (Appendix 2-April 5, 2012 SC
Planning Commission Staff Report, which states the original Conditions of Approval)

No formal public comment was received, but inquiries continue to be submitted as to when the tower will
be completed.
Commissioner Prater asked if the tower would look different from the one that was approved in 2012.
3
Mr. Davis confirmed that it will look 100% the same. The same structural drawings are being used as proposed in
2012.
Commissioner Smith asked if there were plans for development on abutting properties.
Planner Redmond said that some small amount of grading on one parcel in the surrounding area had been done.
No public comment was received and surrounding property owners were notified per standards in the SCC Title 17
Zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Prater asked how soon construction will commence.
Mr. Davis said within a year of the SUP approval.
Commissioner Hindle asked if they would be a “capacity” site once the tower is built.
Mr. Davis said that they would be a “coverage” site. It will help with capacity with surrounding sites, but from the
perspective of the residents, it would be a coverage site.
Mr. Davis explained some of the recent developments in the industry regarding companies and technology. The
permit and groundbreaking does give them a leg up in negotiations.
Planner Redmond read the findings:
4.1.1 The proposed commercial wireless communications facility is in accordance with the stated goals and
objectives of the Storey County Master Plan by providing wireless telephone and internet to this populated
region to better “protect the public safety and welfare of residents” (Goal 6.5, p. 7) by enhancing emergency
communications, including “Emergency 9-1-1” services, and response times for emergency personnel;
increasing education opportunities by facilitating efficient and reliable access to the internet (Goal 6.1 and 6.6,
pp. 6 - 7); fulfilling a long recognized need and desire for consistent and reliable communications in the
residential area (Goal 6. 2, Objective 2.1, p. 7); and “[maintaining] a healthy environment for all residents of the
county (Goal 9.1, Objective 1.1, p.9) by fulfilling the above and by implementing substantial measures to
mitigate visual impacts that otherwise would cause substantial adverse impact to the surrounding
environment.
4.1.2 A special use permit in accordance with Section 17.12.044 and Chapter 17.62 of the County Code is
required for the proposed wireless commercial communications antenna support tower as proposed by SUP
Application No. 2012-014.
4.1.3 The proposed facility is in accordance with the conditions of SUP No. 2012-014 will not conflict with the
purpose, intent, and other specific requirements set forth in the E-1-VCH (Estate Zone), in which the
commercial wireless communication facility is proposed be located.
4.1.4 The conditions and stipulations under SUP No. 2012-014 are in accordance with the minimum
requirements set forth by Chapter 17.62 of the Storey County Code and are at least as stringent as and not in
conflict the applicable federal and Nevada State and Storey County regulations, including the applicable rules of
the FCC and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, pertaining to the construction and placement of
structures and the construction and operation of commercial wireless communications towers.
4.1.5 The conditions of approval under SUP No. 2012-014 impose sufficient regulations on the wireless
commercial communications facility to reasonably mitigate associated impacts on adjacent and surrounding
residences and land uses.
4.1.6 Growth in the commercial wireless telecommunications industry has resulted in increased applications
to municipalities for installation of wireless signal facilities. As consumer demand increases, so does the need
for the industry to expand the number of antennae receiving and transmitting signals. As stated in the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996, since more than one antenna can be co-located on a tower structure,
communities, including Storey County, should encourage and require co-location wherever feasible, thereby
reducing the amount of new towers being constructed on the landscape.
4
4.1.7 The approval of the commercial wireless communications facility will result in personal wireless
communications capability including, but not limited to, cellular telephone, internet, and broadband in an
existing populated area currently underserved or not served such services.
4.1.8 The approval of the commercial wireless communications facility will promote the safety of life and
property for the area served by enhancing emergency telecommunications services, including “Emergency 9-11”, for area residents and local emergency response authorities.
4.1.9 In accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the proposed facility will fill an existing gap in
the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network. In this context, the relevant gap is a gap in
the service currently available to remote local users, and the area being served is not already adequately
served by another provider.
4.1.10 The provider applicant has demonstrated that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap
in service is the least intrusive on the values…and has demonstrated a good faith effort to identify and evaluate
the least intrusive alternatives, e.g., that the provider has considered less sensitive sites, alternative system
designs, alternative tower designs and placement of antennae, etc.
4.1.11 In accordance with 47 (U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Federal Code, the decision to approval,
deny, or regulate the placement, construction, and modification of the commercial wireless communications
facility is not based on electronic interference or the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.
Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by Staff, the Findings under section 4.1 of the Staff Report and
other Findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and compliance with all Conditions of Approval, I
Pamela Smith hereby recommend approval for Special Use Permit Application Number 2012-014-A-1-2014 for an
amendment and extension to Special Use Permit 2012-014 and the extension of SUP pursuant to SCC 17.03.150
(G). Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Prater, Vote: Motion carried by
unanimous vote (summary: Yes=5)
8. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Determination of next Planning Commission meeting
Motion: Move that the next meeting be on Thursday October 2, 2014 at the Storey County Courthouse at 6pm,
Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner Smith, Vote: Motion carried by
unanimous vote (summary: Yes=5)
9. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of claims – None
10. CORRESPONDENCE (No Action) – None
11. PUBLIC COMMENT (No Action)
Storey County Commissioner Bill Sjovangen:
 Complimented staff’s work and the Planning Commission’s work on the Comstock Mining files.
 He also commented on Tesla’s decision and announcement to build their battery factory in the TahoeReno Industrial (TRI) Center in Storey County. Sales tax and other peripheral business will be great for the
County.
12. STAFF (No Action)
Planner, Dessie Redmond:
 Attended a three day Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) workshop with Cherie Nevin on
environmental and historic preservation. The workshop was informational on environmental and historic
preservation and for helpful for grant writing for FEMA grants. They learned specifics on the NHPA
(National Historic Preservation Act) and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) that will help them
write grant applications for the County.
 The next meeting will have Fulcrum Sierra Biofuels on the agenda. This is a company that proposes to turn
trash from the Lockwood landfill into biofuel for jets. It is located in the TRI Center. She explained their
need for an SUP due to hazardous materials.
 Staff is working on drafting medical marijuana establishment (MMEs) recommendations. At the beginning
of November the State will announce who submitted the top MME applications and those applicants will
5


then submit their applications to the local jurisdictions. The County needs to have their regulations in place
so they can properly handle these applications if the County decides to allow MMEs in the County.
Staff is also working on a utility corridor ordinance that by state law needs to be implemented by the end of
the year.
She thanked Commissioner Sjovangen for making the Tesla announcement.
Commissioner Prater asked if Tesla might be coming before them for an SUP regarding hazardous materials.
Planner Redmond said not to her knowledge and that she has not heard anything about a SUP for Tesla.
13. BOARD COMMENTS (No Action)
Commissioner Prater: Thanked the Commissioners for approving the tower.
Chairman Tyler: Would like to revisit the sign ordinance and he will talk to the Comstock Commission Historic
District first.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45
Respectfully Submitted,
By _____________________
Lyndi Renaud
6
STOREY COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY – October 2, 2014 – 6:00pm
DISTRICT COURTROOM
26 SOUTH B STREET, VIRGINIA CITY, NEVADA
MEETING MINUTES
CHAIRMAN: Bret Tyler
VICE-CHAIRWOMAN: Laura Kekule
COMMISSIONERS:
Virgil Bucchianeri, John Herrington, Larry Prater, Pamela Smith, Jim Hindle
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 6:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Bret Tyler, Virgil Bucchianeri, Larry Prater, Pamela Smith, Jim Hindle, Laura Kekule and John
Herrington.
Also Present: Planning Director Austin Osborne, Planner Dessie Redmond, and District Attorney Bill Maddox.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Chair led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Agenda for October 2, 2014.
Motion: Approve agenda for October 2, 2014 Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by
Vice-Chairwoman Kekule, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7).
5. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Minutes for June 26, 2014 and July 17, 2014.
Motion: Approve minutes for June 26, 2014 Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by
Commissioner Hindle, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7).
Motion: Approve minutes for July 17, 2014 Action: Approve, Moved by Vice-Chairwoman Kekule,
Seconded by Commissioner Smith, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7)
6. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Special Use Permit 2009-034-A-1-2014. By Fulcrum Sierra Biofuels, LLC
and a property at 3600 Peru Drive in the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, Storey County, Nevada. The Applicant
requests an amendment to existing Special Use Permit 2009-034 to construct and operate a biofuels facility to
include current design and technologies utilized in a waste-to-fuels facility. Further, the Applicant requests an
amendment to reflect the recent acquisition of an additional 2.59 acres of real property.
Planner Redmond presented the file orally due to a burnt out light bulb in the power point projector.
1
Planner Redmond:
 The applicant is Fulcrum Sierra BioFuels, LLC represented by Jeanne Benedetti who was present.
 The subject property is located in the northern portion of the County. Lockwood is about 14 miles to the
west. It is within the Tahoe Reno Industrial (TRI) Center and is zoned Heavy Industrial (I-2).
 The TRI Center operates under Storey County Code (SCC) 1999 Title 17 Zoning ordinance, the remaining
portion of the County operates under the updated SCC 2012 Title 17 Zoning Ordinance. When considering
this file, the Planning Commissioners should use SCC 1999 Title 17 Zoning Code because the proposal is
located within TRI Center.
Commissioner Herrington asked if this location is near the G Diesel plant.
Planner Redmond responded no, and directed the Commissioners to page three of the staff report for the
Vicinity Map to see the location of the proposed property.
Commissioner Herrington clarified that it is in the general vicinity, but not “by” it.
Planning Director Austin Osborne stated that it is about six miles away from the G Diesel plant.
Planner Redmond continued:
 (Sections 1.1-1.3 of the staff report). She reviewed the site location and characteristics, the relationship
between the TRI Center and SCC 1999 Title 17 Zoning ordinance and the background of the project.
 The Applicant is now requesting an amendment to an existing SUP 2009-034 to include current design and
technologies utilized in a waste-to-fuels facility and also to include an additional 2.59 acres that was
acquired from a BLA. The proposed facility will be using municipal water and sewer by the TRI General
Improvement District (GID).
 (Section 1.4 of the staff report) The purpose and intent of the I-2 zone is for development and operation of
industrial and manufacturing uses that may be incompatible with other types of land use activities.
 (Section 1.5 of the staff report) The uses subject to a SUP in the I-2 zone include uses such as recovery or
reside of hazardous materials or wastes, petroleum refining, reclaiming plants, recycling facilities and other
similar uses.
 (Section 1.6 of the staff report) A summary of the proposed project was explained.
o
The proposed facility will use steam-reforming gasification, Fischer-Tropsch (FT) and fuels
upgrading technologies to produce renewable transportation fuel (e.g. jet fuel, diesel) from
processed feedstock.
o
The feedstock will be comprised of municipal solid waste (MSW), prepared off-site at Sierra
BioFuels’ Feedstock Processing Facility located close to the Lockwood Regional Landfill.
o
Sierra BioFuels will construct, own, and operate the Feedstock Processing Facility, which
will be permitted separately.
o
The prepared feedstock will be packaged into approximately 1.5 ton polyethylene wrapped
bales and transported to the proposed facility (3600 Peru Drive) on flatbed trucks.
o
The feedstock bales will be temporarily stored at the proposed facility before being fed into
the gasification system.
o
The MSW bales will then be fed to the steam reforming gasifier feeder system using a
system of conveyors and shredders. The shredders are designed to shred the baled MSW to a onecubic-inch and smaller size to meet the requirements of the gasification process. A magnet removes
ferrous metal from the feedstock as it drops into the feedstock receiving hopper.
o
The facility will then convert the feedstock into renewable fuel using a four-step process
comprised of feedstock preparation, steam reforming gasification, FT liquids synthesis and
hydroprocessing upgrading technologies.
o
The estimated hours of operation are 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
o
Fulcrum estimates the biorefinery will produce more than ten million gallons per year of
advanced biofuels while diverting over 200,000 tons of garbage from landfills.
o
A six foot high fence is proposed around the entire biorefinery plant, excluding the parking
lot.
2
Chairman Tyler asked if the feed stock was going to be transported from Lockwood landfill to Exit 32 (the
Mustang exit).
Planner Redmond responded yes and continued her oral presentation.
 (Section 1.7 of the staff report) The abutting land uses to the subject property are mostly vacant except for
the property to the north which is under construction for MDM Marketing for a battery storage building.
The proposed use does not appear to conflict with the battery storage building or the other existing
abutting uses.
 (Section 1.8 of the staff report) All of the abutting zones are also zoned I-2.
 (Section 1.9 of the staff report) Fulcrum was awarded Federal Grants by United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) for $105,000,000 and Fulcrum would receive a Department of Defense (DOD) grant
award for phase two of their project.
 (Section 1.10 of the staff report) The Air Force prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and
determined a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). These documents are available for review in the
Planning Department until October 10, 2014.
 Staff did not receive any public comment on this file.
Commissioner Herrington asked if the biofuel is a diesel.
Applicant, Jeanne Benedetti, Vice President of Fulcrum Sierra BioFuels, LLC responded it depends on
what the market demands but both bio-jet and bio-diesel can be made.
Commissioner Hindle asked if it was a “Jet-A” product or one with higher volatility.
Ms. Benedetti responded that Jet-A fuels are more volatile.
Commissioner Hindle asked Planner Redmond (page six, last paragraph before Section 1.7 of the staff report)
“These Key Issues include air emissions, noise and drainage and hazardous material spills.” Will these be
addressed later?
Planner Redmond referred to the original SUP appendix three, page 36 of the staff report highlights them and
the process they must meet for Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and Storey County.
Ms. Benedetti added that the reason for this SUP is an upgrade to the facility from ethanol to focus on military
diesel and jet fuel due to the governmental funding mechanism for the project.
Commissioner Prater raised the question regarding wording on page ten where methanol was crossed out
and ethanol was left in.
Ms. Benedetti said that may be an oversight as they will not be making methanol or ethanol.
Commissioner Prater specified page ten of the staff report, Section seven Recommended Conditions of
Approval, subsection A, number 1 for the correction.
Planning Director Austin Osborne - Always in SUPs, particularly those in TRI Center, and those like this that
are heavily regulated by state and federal agencies, he advocates trying not to exclude uses as much as possible.
He would ask to leave methanol in the SUP approval and keep ethanol, and maybe even add language to say
“and similar type fuels”. He would like to create a condition that allows the company to move forward if things
change or get amended, or technology or fuel changes, or military contracts change, and not have to have them
come back for special use permit re-approvals for things like that. This Board is really looking at the use, and
as long as the use stays the same and does not change substantially, he thinks this board should be fine with
that occurring, and not be over-regulatory.
3
Chairman Tyler clarified that they will leave in both methanol and ethanol and add language about similar
types of fuels.
Commissioner Smith asked about the process for trucking out the fuel.
Ms. Benedetti explained that the facility will have two storage tanks for fuel. They estimate about 6 truckloads a day. There is a rail line but that is not economical for such a small amount.
Commissioner Hindle asked about the polypropylene wrap on the bales coming in.
Ms. Benedetti clarified that it is wrapped completely in plastic. She explained the process of shredding,
separating out the metals and food waste, and baling of the feedstock.
Commissioner Herrington asked if Fulcrum currently has a plant.
Ms. Benedetti said they have a process demonstration unit in Durham, NC that has been creating a “recipe.”
Commissioner Hindle asked if there is waste from the gasification process.
Ms. Benedetti explained that there is some “char” particulate that can go back to Lockwood and may be used
for alternate daily cover.
Commissioner Prater referred to the two previously approved applications for SUPs where gasification was
referred to plasma enhanced milder. He asked if this is a different technology.
Ms. Benedetti said that the previous gasification system was proprietary and was owned by the previous
owner of the project, IMS Nevada. It was a good system for ethanol. When they changed fuels, they went with
a new gasification system that doesn’t use plasma. It also lowered the energy load and the operating expense.
Commissioner Smith finds this so exciting and is very proud of Storey County for being involved.
Ms. Benedetti complimented the process with the County in its being business friendly.
Planning Director Osborne clarified item number 24 on page 12: “Buildings shall be equipped with an Early
Suppression Fast Response (ESFR) type sprinkler system, as required by the SCFD. “ Typically, a use would
plumb the entire facility with a sprinkler system and pump fire foam through it for a petroleum fueled fire. Our
fire district finds those systems oftentimes expensive and ineffective. Instead, we have a foam consortium and
keep the foam out at TRI and truck it to the fire when and where it is needed. He would like to the existing
condition that says “…unless the SCFD determines otherwise” in order to avoid a non-conformance with the
SUP should the SCFD determine an alternative method of fire suppression to be appropriate.
Amended condition reads as follows: Buildings shall be equipped with an Early Suppression Fast Response
(ESFR) type sprinkler system, unless required otherwise by the SCFD.
Planner Redmond read the findings:
6.1.1 The proposed SUP amendment complies with all Federal, Nevada State, and Storey County
regulations; and
6.1.2 The proposed SUP amendment will not be incompatible with or detrimental to the existing abutting
uses and surrounding area; and
6.1.3 The Conditions of Approval of the SUP amendment do not conflict with the minimum requirements in
the 1999 Official Zoning Ordinance of Storey County (as applicable to the TRI Center pursuant to the
Development Agreement), Section 17.12.018 Uses Permitted Subject to a Special Use Permit, Section 17.37
I-2 Heavy Industrial Zone, Section 17.62 Special Uses or Section 17.60 Variances; and
4
6.1.4 The proposed SUP amendment will further the diversification of the local economy and is in
substantial compliance with and supports the goals, objectives and recommendations of the Master Plan;
and
6.1.5 The proposed SUP amendment will not cause uses that will negatively impact existing or planned
public services or facilities and will not adversely impact the public health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding area; and
6.1.6 The proposed SUP amendment will not create any non-conforming conditions, except whereas
allowed by the Conditions of Approval for this SUP amendment.
Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by Staff, the Findings under Section 6.1 of the Staff Report
and/or other Findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and in compliance with all
Conditions of Approval, I [Planning Commissioner] hereby recommend approval for Special Use Permit
amendment 2009-034-A-1-2014 to construct and operate a biofuels facility to include current design and
technologies utilized in a waste-to-fuels facility. The amendment also reflects the recent acquisition of an
additional 2.59 acres of real property for a total subject property of approximately 19.4 acres (APN: 005-07129) and including amendment 1, (Clarified by Planning Director Osborne – allowing all similar types of fuels,
adding methanol which was crossed out) and 24 (Clarified by Planning Director Osborne – unless otherwise
required by the Storey County Fire District) Action: Approved, Moved by Commissioner Smith, Seconded
by Commissioner Prater, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote: (summary: Yes=7).
7. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Determination of next Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Director Austin Osborne: Next meeting will have two items. Zoning of approximately 600 acres of
land acquired from Washoe County will be addressed. Also, Fulcrum has a potential waste intake facility
around the Lockwood/Mustang area that may need a zone change.
He noted that there would be no meeting on November 20th, but they are planning on holding a meeting on
December 4th. December 18th would be the Planning Christmas get-together.
Motion: Move that the next meeting be on Thursday November 6, 2014 at the Storey County Courthouse at
6pm, Action: Approve, Moved by Chairman Tyler, Seconded by Commissioner Hindle, Vote: Motion carried
by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7).
8. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of claims – None
9. CORRESPONDENCE (No Action) – None
10. PUBLIC COMMENT (No Action)
11. STAFF (No Action):
Planner Dessie Redmond:
 Planner Redmond mentioned a nuisance in Mark Twain she is working on with the District Attorney. A
certified letter was rejected and the letter will now be served by a deputy to the property owner.
 She has been working with Douglas County GIS to make the official zone map amendments from the
Comstock Mining file. Now we are just waiting on them to make the amendments on GIS so we can get the
maps printed and signed.
 She is working with Cherie Nevin, Community Services, on CBDG funding and will potentially apply for a
grant to help assist Staff on updating some of the chapters of the Master Plan. We would be utilizing
someone, like a private firm or UNR students, to assist us with the update. We would obviously be an
integral part of that process.
 The County Commissioners did approve a one year moratorium to prohibit medical marijuana
establishments in the entire County.
5

The SUP for the Vista Towers was approved by the County Commissioners as well as the mural on the
Wells Fargo ATM.
Planning Director Austin Osborne:
 Seeing tremendous influx of activity in the County. We are tight with under 2 staff members, but we are
making it work. It is exciting to see it happening. The Tesla announcement is bringing in a lot of other
companies who are now interested in our area.
 Medical Marijuana Establishments MMEs - Dessie is taking the lead on related ordinances.
 Comstock Mining regarding the Silver City water line protections, we had a meeting a couple weeks ago
on Ron Cox’s property with the Lyon County and Storey County Public Works Departments, me, Dessie,
and our team, along with the Central Lyon Fire District and Comstock Mining to assess the line and
determining what is going to be done as far as its replacement. We are still working on details. We will
probably see more replacement than repairs.
 Mining SUP – Thank you for everyone’s hard work. The County Commission asked this board be told of
their appreciation.
 Divide Reservoir and Five Mile Reservoir – A & K Earth Mover’s has been granted the bid.
 Passing of Noble Brookens.
12. BOARD COMMENTS (No Action)
13. ADJOURNMENT (No Action) - The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
By _____________________
Lyndi Renaud
6
Storey County
Planning Commission
Staff Report – Zone Text Amendment
To:
Storey County Planning Commission
From:
Storey County Planning Department
Meeting Dates:
November 13, 2014
Meeting Location:
Storey County Courthouse
26 South “B” Street, Virginia City, Nevada
Case Number:
2014-020
Request:
The applicant requests a text amendment to Storey County Code
Title 17 Storey County Zoning Ordinance that will add Chapter
17.39 I-C Industrial-Commercial Zone.
Applicant:
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, LLC
Property Owner:
Not applicable
Staff Contact:
Austin Osborne, Planning Director
Guiding Documents:
Storey County Code (SCC) 17.03 Administrative Provisions; SCC
17.28 Commercial Zone; SCC 17.34 Light Industrial Zone; 17.35
Heavy Industrial Zone; SCC 17.84 Signs and Billboards; Storey
County Master Plan, River District, Industry, and Economic plans.
Property Location:
Not applicable
1.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
1.1
Request summary
The applicant requests an amendment to the text of Storey County Code Title 17, also known as
the Storey County Zoning Ordinance (zoning ordinance), that will create Chapter 17.39 I-C
Industrial-Commercial Zone. There is no particular parcel or property associated with this
request. However, the applicant of the text amendment submitted a zone map amendment
application (see Application No. 2014-021) to apply the proposed I-C Zone, if approved by the
board, to land located adjacent to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center at McCarran.
1.2
Purpose and intent of the proposed zone
The proposed I-C Zone combines certain commercial, light industrial, and heavy industrial uses
now allowed pursuant to SCC Chapters 17.28 Commercial Zone, 17.34 I-1 Light Industrial
Zone, and 17.35 I-2 Heavy Industrial Zone. Unlike the existing Commercial zone that provides
for general neighborhood and regional commercial uses, and the Heavy Industrial zone that
provides for heavy manufacturing and other high-intensity uses, the I-C zone is intended to
facilitate a heavy commercial and light industrial mixed-use environment that may be well-suited
for heavy arterial traffic corridors, such as Interstate 80 or USA Parkway, that interface and serve
large industrial developments.
1.3
Land use compatibility
1.3.1
Compatibility with surrounding uses
The subject application for zone text amendment does not apply to any parcel of land. However,
the potential application of this zoning designation to land in the future should be considered.
Table 1.1 – Use Comparisons, demonstrates allowed uses in the proposed I-C zone and compares
them with those allowed in the Commercial, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial zones, from
which each listed I-C use originated. The Purpose and Intent of the proposed I-C zone
(17.39.015, proposed) states that:
The purpose of the I-C Industrial-Commercial zone is to provide areas with the county
where certain industrial and commercial uses and activities may be established and
maintained together to promote efficiency, ensure compatibility, and provide for
mixed non-residential uses. It facilitates a heavy commercial and light industrial
mixed-use environment that may be well-suited near principal traffic arterials, such as
the Interstate 80 corridor, and industrial development with which the allowed use are
compatible.
I-C zoning is intended to be applied to land that is in close proximity to principal traffic arterial
routes and existing industrial type uses with which allowed uses in the I-C zone are compatible.
It is not considered an appropriate zone for residential areas or general neighborhood commercial
areas, such as Gold Hill, Virginia City, and Lockwood where C Commercial or CR CommercialResidential zoning may be more appropriate.
1.3.2
Compatibility with mixed-uses within the zone
Table 1.1 shows allowed uses in the I-C zone. Because the I-C zone provides for a mixed-use
commercial-industrial environment, it should be assumed that the listed uses may occur together
on a single property (e.g., such as in a strip-mall or cluster development) or in a group of
independent but closely situated properties.
To ensure compatibility between the allowed uses, setback distance requirements in the I-C zone
(17.39.070, proposed) are particular to the use category, that being commercial, light industrial,
or heavy industrial (see setbacks, height, and area requirements in Table 1.2 – Comparison of
Use Allowances). Planning staff finds that that the required setback distances facilitate a mixeduse environment with necessary separation and other considerations between allowed uses.
A special use permit is required for certain heavy intensity uses in the I-C zone that may be
incompatible with each other, or may be incompatible with allowed uses in zones likely to occur
adjacent to the I-C zone (see Section 3.1.1). Board and planning commission approvals are
required for special use permits. It is, therefore, found that these uses have the necessary case-bycase governing body oversight to assure that their application will cause no zoning or use
conflicts with other conditions that may apply.
Use categories
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Retail (principle)
Retail (super regional)
Commercial offices
Personal services
Hotels and boarding
Tourism and visitor
Recreation facilities
Public infrastructure
Schools and higher ed.
Equipment repair
Indoor firearms use
Outdoor firearms use
Automotive services
Truck stops
Agriculture
Billboards
Automotive paint
Casinos (large-scale)
Fortune tellers
RV parks
Mini-storage
Hospitals / urgent care
Crisis care, permanent
Open-air markets
Table 1.1
Use Comparison
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
Light Industrial
X
X
X
X*
X
X*
X
X*
Heavy
Industrial
X
X*
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
Industrial
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
21
22
23
24
24
25
Fairgrounds
Amusement parks
Film and movie sets
Race tracks
Education boarding
Light manufacturing
Heavy manufacturing
Warehouses
Chemical/oil storage
Chemical manufacture
Laboratory testing
Non-renewable energy
Renewable energy
Solid waste recycling
Solid waste landfill
Solid waste collection
Natural resources
Concreate plant (perm)
Adult retail
Mining
Mine processing
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X¹
X*
X*
X*
X*
X
X*
X*
X*
X
X
X
X
X*
X¹
X*
X*
X
X*
X
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X
X*
X*
X
X
X¹
X
X
X*
X*
X*
Uses shown above are categorized into general use categories; see Storey County Code
Chapters 17.24, 17.32, 17.35, 17.76, and 17.84 for specific uses in each zone.
*Asterisks indicate uses requiring a special use permit.
¹The use of live animals in laboratory testing is prohibited.
1.
2.
3.
Table 1.2
Comparison of Use Allowances
Regulations per SCC Title 17
Height
C – 45’ or 3 stories
I-1 – 35’ or 3 stories
I-2 – 75’ or 6 stories
I-C – 120’ or 10 stories
Setback distances
C – zero front and sides; 10’ rear
I-1 – 20’
I-2 – 50’
I-C - heavy industry, 50’; light industry, 20’; commercial, 20’ front, 10’ rear
Minimum parcel area / use density
C – 15,000 sq.’
I-1 – 1 acre
I-2 – 3 acres
I-C – heavy industry, 3 acres; light industry, ½ acre; commercial, 10,000 square-feet
2.
General Compliance with Guiding Documents
2.1
Master Plan
Chapter 3.2 of the Storey County Master Plan (1994) states that considerable development has
occurred in the River District over the years and that development is expected to continue. It
recommends that planning officials “give serious consideration to development and zoning for an
industrial park in the [River District] area” (pp. 19-20). Attracting additional businesses;
diversification to the county’s economy; broadening the county’s tax base; enhancing efficiency
of water, sewer, and other utility service; and managing growth are described benefits to
improving and consolidating industrial development in the county. Specific goals and objectives
listed in the master plan in this regard include:

Chapter 3 Economy – Goal 1, enhance diversification of economic opportunities within
the county; Goal 1, Objective 1.1: develop and adopt standards for industrial park
development before a large project is proposed.

Chapter 5 Conservation and Natural Resources – Goal 2, protect the quality of present
and future water resources; Goal 4, regulate the use of open-range and watershed areas to
minimize fire danger and prevent degradation; Goal 4, Objective 4.1, assist property
owners and interested groups in controlling grazing and public use of critical watershed
and riparian areas.

Chapter 9 Land Use – Goal 1: maintain a healthy environment for all residents of the
county; Goal 1, Objective 1.1: ensure that land use permit decisions are compatible with
the zoning map, master plan, and previous planning decisions; Goal 4: preserve existing
agricultural areas; Goal 4, objective 4.1: through zoning regulations, direct nonagricultural development to non-agricultural areas.

Section River District – Goal 4, Objective 4.1: coordinate land uses on the south side
[Storey County] of the Truckee River with developments on the north side [Washoe
County] of the river and visa-versa; Goal 5: design zoning districts to allow for a mix in
land use development; Goal 5, Objective 5.1: consider zoning the Tracy-Clark and the
surrounding area for industrial use.
As stated in Section 1.3, the subject text amendment application does not apply to any particular
land. However, planning staff and the applicant have identified potential land adjacent to the
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center that may be ideal for an I-C zoning designation. Aligned with the
purpose and intent of the I-C zone, this land abuts or is in immediate proximity to Interstate 80,
interfaces heavy industrial uses at the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, and is near existing
infrastructure that would support the listed uses. There are other areas in the county near the
interstate or industrial development that too may be considered for this zoning designation.
With the expressed purpose and intent of the proposed I-C zone corresponding to such land
application, planning staff find that the I-C zone conforms to the goals and objectives of the
county master plan.
2.2
Zoning Ordinance (SCC Title 17)
2.2.1
Conformance with zoning
Storey County is divided into zoning districts of such number and character as necessary to
achieve compatibility of land uses within each district, and to implement the master plan and
related official plans as needed to meet the purpose and intent of the Storey County Zoning
Ordinance. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to serve the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience, and general welfare; to provide the economic and social advantages resulting from
an orderly planned use of economic, natural, and community resources; to encourage, guide, and
provide for the future growth and development of the county; and to implement the goals,
objectives, policies, and procedures of the master plan (SCC 17.02.020).
As stated in Sections 1.3 and 2.1 above, planning staff finds that the purpose and intent, and the
uses allowed in the I-C zone conform to the elements of the master plan, as well as the
regulations and provisions of the county zoning ordinance.
2.2.2
Application for zone text amendment
SCC 17.03.220 states that amendments to Title 17 (zoning ordinance) may be initiated by the
board, planning commission, or an owner of a lot or parcel, by applying with the Planning
Director a signed and completed application. The Planning Director must consider whether or
not information provided by the applicant substantiates findings for approval. The applicant will
then proceed with its presentation of such to the planning commission and board for
consideration. The subject application was initiated by the land owner and is hereby presented to
the planning commission and board with discussion, findings, and recommendations.
2.2.3 Zone map amendment, applicability
While not subject to this request, a property owner who desires to apply the I-C zone (if
adopted), or any other zone to a piece of land, is required to apply for a zone map amendment
that will be considered in public hearing by the board with recommendation by the planning
commission. The board and planning must consider: (a) how the proposal will impact the
immediate vicinity; (b) how the proposal supports the goals, objectives, and recommendations of
the master plan concerning land use and related policies for the neighborhood where the subject
parcel is situated; (c) if the proposed amendment will impact properties within the use district;
and (d) any impacts on public services and facilities, and availability of water resources.
Notwithstanding approval of the I-C zone, any proposal to apply it to land will require further
review by the board and planning commission.
3.
Public Comment
3.1
Public comments regarding proposal
Staff has received no public comment for this application request.
4.
Findings
4.1
Motion for approval
The following are found regarding the zone text amendment under the recommended conditions
of approval shown in Section 5. A motion for approval should include at a minimum these
findings and may include other findings deemed appropriate and factual by the body.
4.1.1 The zone text amendment complies with federal, Nevada State, and Storey County
regulations.
4.1.2 The zone text amendment substantially conforms to and supports the goals, objectives,
and recommendations of the Storey County Master Plan concerning land use and related
policies.
4.1.3 The zone text amendment considers uses that pursuant to the master plan and zoning
ordinance occur on abutting lands, and it reasonably mitigates potential adverse impacts that
may be caused by its uses.
4.1.4 The zone text amendment does not conflict with the minimum requirements of Title 17
zoning ordinance or SCC Chapter 17.03 Administrative Provisions for zone text amendments.
4.1.5 The proposed zone map amendment will not cause uses that will likely negatively
impact existing or planned public facilities, and it will not adversely impact the public health,
safety, and welfare.
4.1.6 The proposed zone map amendment will not create any non-conforming conditions,
such as non-conforming setback distances or minimum parcel area and width requirements.
4.2
Motion for denial
Should a motion be made to deny the zone text amendment application, the following findings
with an explanation of the motion for denial should be included in that motion.
4.2.1 Substantial evidence suggests that the zone text amendment does not conform to federal,
Nevada State, and Storey County regulations.
4.2.2 Substantial evidence suggests that the zone text amendment does not conform to and
support the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Storey County Master Plan
concerning land use and related policies.
4.2.3 Substantial evidence suggests that the zone text amendment does not sufficiently
consider uses that may pursuant to the master plan and zoning ordinance occur on abutting
lands, and it does not reasonably mitigate potential adverse impacts that may be caused by its
allowed uses.
4.2.4 Substantial evidence suggests that the zone text amendment may cause uses that will
negatively impact existing or planned public facilities, may adversely impact the public
health, safety, and welfare, and may create non-conforming conditions.
5.
Conditions of Approval
All of the following conditions must be met to the satisfaction of the applicable County
Department, unless otherwise stated.
5.1
Official zoning text requirements
The official Storey County Code, Title 17 Storey County Zoning Ordinance, must be amended to
include Chapter “17.39 I-C Industrial Commercial Zone”, and existing Chapter 17.08 Zones
Generally and other applicable zoning chapters must be amended to appropriately reference the
subject zone.
5.2
Official zoning map requirements
The Official Storey County Zoning Map must be amended to depict the subject zone designation
that is added to Storey County Code, Title 17 Storey County Zoning Ordinance. The Official
Storey County Zoning Map must be identified by the signature of the chairman of the Board
attested by the Storey County Clerk under the following words: “This is to certified that this is
the Official Zoning Map of Storey County referred to in Section 17.08.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance of Storey County, Nevada” together with the date of adoption.
5.3
Changes made promptly
The changes approved by the board with recommendation by the planning commission must be
entered by the Planning Department on the Official Storey County Zoning Map (and the
applicable area zoning maps) promptly as reasonable after the amendment has been approved,
with the entry indicating the ordinance number and date adopted. Regardless of the existence of
the purported copies of the Official Storey County Zoning Map and the applicable Area Zoning
Map which may periodically be made or published, the Official Storey County Zoning Map and
Area Zoning Maps shall be kept in the Office of the Storey County Clerk and Recorder. The
Storey County Recorder shall be the final authority as to the current zoning status of the land and
water area, buildings, and other structures in the county.
5.4
Copies of official zoning text and map
Signed and sealed copies of the Official Storey County Zoning Map and Area Zoning Maps, and
official Storey County Code, Title 17 Storey County Zoning Ordinance, must be available for
public viewing at the Offices of the Storey County Clerk and Storey County Recorder.
5.5
General requirements
The zone text amendment and related map amendment must comply with and remain in
conformance with all provisions set forth by this zone map amendment and all applicable
federal, Nevada State, and Storey County codes and regulations.
6.
Power of the Board and Planning Commission
The Board of County Commissioners has the power to make planning and zoning decisions for
Storey County and has created the planning commission to advise the Board as provided in Title
2 of the Storey County Code (“SCC”) and NRS 278 and 278A. The Planning Commission must
perform all duties and functions delegated to a county planning commission by the terms of NRS
278.010 to 278.630, inclusive, and SCC Chapter 2.12 (Planning Commission). The planning
commission is advisory to the Board. The Planning Commission must hear applications on
special use permits, variances, and appeals of administrative decisions, changes to the county
master plan, zoning districts, amendments to SCC Title 18, and all other appropriate subjects and
make recommendations to the Board. After considering the Planning Commission’s
recommendation, the Board by majority vote may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
application, or return the recommendation to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
7.
Proposed Motions
This section contains two motions from which to choose. Motion 1 for approval is
recommended by staff in accordance with findings under Subsection 4.1; those findings should
be made part of that motion. Motion 2 for denial may be made and that motion should cite one
or more of the findings shown in Subsection 4.2. Other findings of fact determined appropriate
by the body should be made part of their motion.
Motion 1 – Recommended motion (approval)
Based on findings of fact shown in Subsection 4.1 and the conditions of approval shown in
Section 5 of this report, and conformance with federal, state, and county regulations, and the
master plan, and the recommendation for approval by staff, I (planning commissioner) motion to
approve Storey County Zone Text Amendment Application No. 2014-020 to include “Chapter
17.39 I-C Industrial Commercial Zone” to Storey County Code, Title 17 Storey County Zoning
Ordinance.
Summary: Approve zone text amendment as proposed
Motion 2 – Alternative motion (denial)
Based on findings of fact shown in Subsection 4.2 and the conditions of approval shown in
Section 5 of this report, or other findings found appropriate, and against the recommendation for
approval by staff, I (planning commissioner) motion to a deny Storey County Zone Text
Amendment Application No. 2014-020 to include “Chapter 17.39 I-C Industrial Commercial
Zone” to Storey County Code, Title 17 Storey County Zoning Ordinance.
Summary: Deny text amendment
Prepared by Austin Osborne, Planning Director
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Proposed Chapter 17.39 I-C Industrial-Commercial Zone
Exhibit B: Application No. 2014-020
Exhibit A: Proposed Chapter 17.39 I-C Industrial-Commercial Zone
Chapter 17.39
Sections:
17.39.010
17.39.015
17.39.020
17.39.030
17.39.040
17.39.050
17.39.070
17.39.080
I-C Industrial-Commercial Zone
Applicability.
Purpose and Intent
Allowed Uses
Uses Subject to Special Use Permit
Height and Width of Buildings and Structure
Minimum Parcel Area
Loading Area
Setback Requirements
17.39.010 Applicability
The provisions of this chapter apply to the I-C Industrial-Commercial Zone. Uses in the C Commercial
Zone are regulated by chapter 17.28 C Commercial Zone and uses in the CR Commercial-Residential
zone are regulated by chapter 17.30 Commercial-Residential zone.
17.39.015 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the I-C Industrial-Commercial zone is to provide areas with the county where certain
industrial and commercial uses and activities may be established and maintained together to promote
efficiency, ensure compatibility, and provide for mixed non-residential uses. It facilitates a heavy
commercial and light industrial mixed-use environment that may be well-suited near principal traffic
arterials, such as the Interstate 80 corridor, and industrial development with which the allowed uses are
compatible. It is not intended for residential areas or general neighborhood commercial areas, such as
Gold Hill, Virginia City, Lockwood, or other such residential communities where C Commercial or CR
Commercial Residential zoning may be more appropriate.
17.39.020 Allowed Uses
The commercial, light industrial, and heavy industrial uses listed in this section are allowed in the I-C
Industrial-Commercial Zone.
A. Commercial uses including:
1. Retail sales and shopping centers including:
a. General stores, shopping centers, convenience stores, principal grocery stores,
neighborhood stores and shopping centers, regional stores and shopping centers, and super
regional stores and shopping centers.
b. Seasonal holiday sales and uses.
c. Seasonal farmers markets.
2. Commercial offices and financial institutions:
a. Real-estate permanent office, banks and credit unions, accountants, insurance,
employment agencies, consulting firms, manufacturer representatives, newspapers,
secretarial services, associations and other similar office uses and activities.
Page 10 of 25
b. Building maintenance and services.
c. Business and professional offices and buildings.
d. Convention and meeting facilities.
3. Personal services:
a. Barbers, hair stylists, beauticians, manicurists/pedicurists, spas, salons, tailors, massage
establishments, and similar type uses.
b. Wedding chapels and travel agencies.
c. Childcare of any number of children.
d. Laundromats, personal dry cleaning, and laundry services.
4. Boarding accommodations including hotels, motels, hostels, bed and breakfast inns, timeshares,
and vacation rentals.
5. Tourist and visitor services:
a. Eating and drinking establishments such as restaurants, cafes, drive-in diners, fast-food,
coffee shops and coffee houses, soda-fountains, saloons and taverns, and micro-breweries
with on-site and off-site sales.
b. Entertainment and casual education services such as docents, guided tours on foot, gold
panning, and museums.
c. Equestrian facilities and uses including riding arenas, stables, horse and pony rides, and
carriage and stagecoach rides.
d. Theaters.
6. Recreation. Bowling lanes, billiard parlors and pool halls, arcades, gaming (when incidental to a
primary use and limited to no more than 15 slot and/or video machines), golf driving ranges,
miniature golf, country clubs, health clubs and personal fitness gyms, swimming pools and
saunas, tennis courts, permanent indoor and seasonal outdoor roller and ice skating rinks and
facilities, seasonal or temporary outdoor theatres, and other similar recreational uses and
activities.
7. Civic uses:
a. Public facilities and offices for fire, emergency services, and sheriff.
b. Helipads and heliports for use only by medical evacuation transport services.
c. Crisis care use uses and facilities, permanent.
d. Libraries and cultural services, governmental offices, post offices, community centers, and
courts of law.
e. Education including elementary, middle, and high (K-12) schools and academies, colleges
and higher education, technical and vocational education, apprentice training, whether
public, private, or parochial. A special use permit is required for education institutions and
academies that include student residential accommodations.
f.
Highway rest areas, picnicking areas, parks and playgrounds, dog parks, walking and
bicycle trails, interpretive trails, restroom facilities, and information kiosks.
g. Parking lots and structures, park-and-rides and carpool transfer centers, multi-modal
transit hubs, parking garages and storage, railroad and light rail infrastructures, train
tunnels, and railroad switchyards and turntables.
h. Indoor and outdoor veterinarian services and shelters for large and small animals.
8. General services:
a. Catering, equipment and appliance repair, gun repair, general contractors offices, heavy
and light equipment rental, feed and tack stores, manufactured home sales and service,
pawn brokers, pet sales and grooming, print shops, upholstery shops, video rentals, and
other similar general services uses and activities.
b. Uses involving indoor archery and indoor discharge of firearms.
9. Congregational establishments including religious institutions, fraternal lodges, recreational and
social clubs, labor halls, service clubs and facilities for other private clubs.
10. Agricultural and horticultural uses for domestic purposes and incidental to the permitted uses.
Uses also include community gardens.
11. Casinos and gaming establishments of more than 5,000 square feet of total floor area where slots
and/or video machines are located, where there are more than 15 slots and/or video machines,
and where other forms of gambling such as poker, craps, blackjack, keno, sports book and other
similar activities may take place.
12. Public utility service yards, buildings, electric substations, gas transmission substations, and
ancillary uses.
13. Recreational vehicle (RV) parks.
14. Mini-warehouses and storage facilities for rent including recreational vehicle, boat, utility trailer,
horse trailer, and similar equipment storage.
15. Open-air markets, flea-markets, farmers markets, and the display, sale, barter, or trade of items
associated with a business outside of a permanent building.
16. Race tracks and arenas involving the use of automobiles, trucks, tractors, and other motorized
vehicles.
17. Radio-controlled (RC) cars, vehicles, watercraft, and aircraft facilities and uses.
18. Signs as regulated by chapter 17.84 Signs and billboards.
19. Automobile paint shops and body repair shops.
20. Accessory use, buildings and structures if they are clearly incidental to a permitted use, placed
upon the same lot or parcel with a permitted use, and in conformance with section 17.12.048.
21. Other uses similar to the above which are determined by the board to be consistent with the uses
permitted within the zone.
B. Light industrial uses including the following:
1. Limited indoor manufacturing and assembly involving the production process that uses already
manufactured components to assemble, print, or package a product such as cloth, paper, plastic,
leather, wood, glass, stones, or computer and electronic parts.
2. Contractor services, including general contractor offices, contractor service shops, carpet
cleaning, pest control, printing and publishing, and similar uses.
3. Agricultural use types including general agricultural uses, agricultural animal production, custom
animal processing, agricultural research, agricultural supplies sales, and agricultural
entertainment and commercial uses.
4. Trade and craftsman industries, including furniture and carpentry manufacturing and refining,
upholstery shops, monument works, and similar uses.
5. Outdoor storage and maintenance of building materials, vehicles, trailers, and heavy equipment
associated with a commercial building contractor or business when not directly associated with a
construction project on the premises.
6. Manufactured home and modular home sales lots.
7. Propane sales and storage.
8. Firewood sales and storage.
9. Temporary real-estate tract offices not located within a permanent structure.
10. Laboratories and testing services. The use of live animals in laboratory, testing, and
experimentation is prohibited.
11. Building material manufacturing.
12. Breweries, distilleries, wineries.
13. Warehouses, warehouse complexes, distribution operations, and wholesale distribution.
14. Laundromats and personal dry cleaning.
15. Automotive, truck, and heavy equipment services including washing and detailing (manual
hand-washing, coin-operated, and production line methods), service and fueling stations, repair
(including painting and body repair), sales, and rental.
16. Truck stops.
17. Solid waste recycling collection center.
18. Solid waste recycling center.
19. Brick, tile or terra cotta products manufacturing.
20. Hunting, fishing, and skiing facilities and lodges, wildlife refuges, and game farms.
21. Sewage treatment plants and facilities and other sewage or sludge processing, treatment, or
storage.
22. Watchman’s dwelling, whether permanent or temporary.
23. Outdoor storage or maintenance of building materials, vehicles, trailers, and heavy equipment
associated with a commercial building contractor or business when not directly associated with a
construction project on the premises.
24. Other uses similar to the above which are determined by the board to be consistent with the uses
permitted within the zone.
C. Heavy industrial uses including the following:
1. Manufacturing and assembly involving the production process which uses already manufactured
components to assemble, print, or package a product such as cloth, paper, plastic, leather, wood,
glass, stones, or computer and electronic parts and manufacturing operations involving primary
production of commodity of raw materials, except those listed in section 17.39.030 as requiring
a special use permit.
2. Storage and distribution of paints, shellac, turpentine, varnishes, and other similar chemicals
within a warehouse facility.
3. Storage and distribution of petroleum and liquid petroleum products within a warehouse facility.
4. Manufacturing of paints, shellac, turpentine, varnishes, and other such chemicals. Manufacturing,
reclaiming, refining, storage, and distribution of cyanide, hazardous materials, and liquid
petroleum products are prohibited.
5. Paper manufacturing.
6. Bottling plants.
7. Other uses similar to the above which are determined by the board to be consistent with the uses
permitted within the zone.
17.39.030
Uses Subject to Special Use Permit
Unless stated otherwise, the following uses may be permitted subject to securing a special use permit
pursuant to chapter 17.03 Administrative provisions.
1. Fortune tellers, astrology parlors, clairvoyance and palmistry. Additionally, uses under this
subsection must comply with the regulations under Title 5 Business licenses, and be located no
closer than 1,000 feet from a public or private school, religious institution, public building or
facility, or another permitted fortune teller, astrology parlor, clairvoyance and palmistry use, and
300 feet from any E, R, or SPR zone.
2. Permanent outdoor skateboard parks and related facilities.
3. Fairgrounds, rodeo arenas, horse and other animal competition tracks and arenas, and similar
uses.
4. Amusement parks involving various devices for entertainment such as thrill and theme rides,
roller-coasters, water slides, and games and concession booths.
5. Facilities and uses that include outdoor sets and props for the development and production of
movies, film, television, and similar visual media.
6. Education facilities that include student residential and boarding accommodations.
7. Permanent outdoor theatres.
8. Billboards as regulated by chapter 17.68 Signs and billboards.
9. Zoos, animal theme and amusement parks, and other maintenance, display, or possession of one
or more wild animals.
10. Healthcare facilities including hospital services, medical services, urgent care, clinics,
convalescent services, civic convalescent and group care service, continuum of care facilities for
seniors, and group care services.
11. Tattoo, permanent cosmetics, and invasive body piercing facilities. These uses are only allowed
within the boundaries of the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center which is zoned I-2 Heavy Industrial,
I-C Industrial-Commercial, or C Commercial. They are prohibited within 1,500 feet of a public
or private school or religious institution.
12. Retail establishments featuring the display, lease, or rental of “adult material” books,
merchandise, periodicals, video tapes, video disks including DVDs and other recorded video
devices, computer disks, instruments, devices or paraphernalia “adult” material. The
merchandise shall only be available for sale or lease for private use by the purchaser or lessee off
the premises of the business.
13. Temporary (less than 1 year) concrete and asphalt batch plants when not incidental to an on-site
construction project or when located within 2,500 feet from a CR, E, R, or SPR zone.
14. Milling and processing related to mining and extraction.
15. Natural resources including river and waterway restoration, wetland creation, water restoration
and recycling.
16. The keeping of 7 or more dogs or potbelly pigs more than 12 weeks of age. A minimum of 10
acres is required.
17. Commercial kennel. A minimum of 10 acres is required.
18. Other uses similar to the above that are determined by the board with action by the planning
commission to be consistent with the uses requiring a special use permit within the zone.
17.39.040
Height and Width of Buildings and Structures
A building, manufactured building, or structure may not exceed a height of ten stories or 120 feet,
whichever is higher, except as may be allowed by a variance. The requirements of this section do not
apply to church spires, belfries, cupolas, domes, chimneys and smoke-stacks, grain silos, water towers,
flagpoles, and commercial and amateur wireless communication towers and antennas. Wind energy
turbine support structures are regulated by chapter 17.12.044, Height of buildings and structures.
17.39.050
Minimum Parcel Area
Parcel area requirements shall be as follows: (A) commercial uses may be located on a parcel of no less
than 10,000 square-feet; (B) light-industrial uses may be located on a parcel no less than one-half acre;
and (C) heavy-industrial uses may be located on a parcel no less than 3 acres. The minimum area
requirement for uses requiring a special use permit shall be determined by the special use permit, except
that the area shall be no less than 10,000 square-feet.
17.39.060
Loading Area
Loading area must have adequate room for vehicular circulation and staging. All truck parking and
docking area must be designed so that right-of-ways and travelled ways are not adversely impacted.
17.39.070
Setback Requirements
Setback requirements shall be as follows: (A) heavy-industrial uses may be located no closer than 50 feet
from any property line; (B) light-industrial uses may be located no closer than 20 feet from any property
line; and (C) commercial uses shall have a minimum 10 foot rear and side setback and a 20 foot front
setback. Uses requiring a special use permit shall have setback distances established by the granted
special use permit, except that the minimum allowable setback distances shall be no less than 10 feet from
any property line.
Exhibit B: Application No. 2014-020 (Zone Text Amendment)
The following application includes a request for both a zone text and zone map amendments. For
zone map amendment applicability, refer to Application and Staff Report No. 2014-021.
_________________________
‘
Page 20 of 25
(Proposed text amendment attached to application is located in Exhibit A above.)
Storey County
Planning Commission
Staff Report – Zone Map Amendment
To:
Storey County Planning Commission
From:
Storey County Planning Department
Meeting Date:
November 13, 2014
Meeting Location:
Storey County Courthouse
26 South “B” Street, Virginia City, Nevada
Case Number:
2014-021
Request:
Request for amendment to the Official Storey County Zoning Map
to apply Forestry, Natural Resources, Public, and Industrial zoning
to parcels all located within approximately 600 acres of land
recently transferred from Washoe County to Storey County by
boundary line adjustment.
Applicants:
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, LLC; and Storey County on behalf
of The Nature Conservancy, LLC and Union Pacific Railroad
Company.
Property Owners:
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, LLC; The Nature Conservancy,
LLC; and Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Staff Contact:
Austin Osborne, Planning Director
Guiding Documents:
Storey County Code 17.03 Administrative Provisions; SCC 17.24
Agriculture Zone; 17.32 Forestry Zone; 17.35 Heavy Industrial
Zone; 17.76 Natural Resources Zone; 17.84 Signs and Billboards;
17.92 Mineral Exploration and Mining; Storey County Master
Plan, River District plan and Industrial development plan; Washoe
County Master Plan, Truckee Canyon Area Plan.
Property Location:
The subject area is described approximately as portions of: Section
31 and 32, Township 20 North, Range 22 East; Section 6,
Township 19 North, Range 22 East; Section 36, Township 20
North, Range 21 East; Sections 2 and 11, Township 19 North,
Range 21 East; and Section 1, Township 19 North, Range 21 East,
all in the Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian (MDB&M).
Specific subject properties are listed in Table 1.1 and Exhibit C.
Page 1 of 32
1.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
1.1
Site location and characteristics
The properties subject to this request for zone map amendment are located on approximately 580
acres along the Truckee River and Interstate 80 between Mustang and McCarran, Nevada. The
approximate location and placement of each subject parcel is illustrated in Figures 1.1 and 1.2.
McCarran is approximately 12 miles east of Sparks and about halfway between it and Fernley.
In 2003 the Nevada State Legislature enacted Senate Bill 272 which authorized a boundary line
adjustment between Storey County and Washoe County by resolution approved by each county’s
board of commissioners. On June 17, 2014, the Board of Storey County Commissioners passed
Resolution 14-403 approving the adjustment. On the same date, the Board of Washoe County
Commissioners approved a resolution on the adjustment. The result of these actions was the
transfer 22 parcels and approximately 580 acres from Washoe County to Storey County. The
area of land transfer is described in Table 1.1 and illustrated in Figures 1.1 and 1.2.
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
APN
004-161-98
004-161-99
004-162-01
005-121-01
005-121-02
005-121-03
005-121-04
005-121-05
004-162-02
004-161-85
004-161-86
004-161-88
004-161-96
004-161-87
004-161-89
004-161-90
004-161-91
004-161-92
004-161-93
004-161-94
004-161-95
004-161-97
Table 1.1 – Ownership and Zoning
(Numbers 1-22 correspond to Figure 1.1)
Owner
Acres Former Zone
(Washoe
Ʃ=575
County)
(+/-)
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad
10
6
26
36
104
65
3
17
55
3
.23
47
59
30
48
11
1
7
5
27
5
10
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Requested
Zone
Forestry
Forestry
Forestry
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
Forestry
Nat Resource
Nat Resource
Nat Resource
Nat Resource
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Note: “IC” – Industrial-Commercial (Storey); “Rural” – Medium Density Rural (Washoe)
Figure 1.1 – Land ownership and reference to prior and proposed zoning (see close-up images in Figures 1.1.1 and 1.1.2)
Page 3 of 32
Figure 1.1.1 – Zoom left (central and west) of Figure 1.1 image
Figure 1.1.2 – Zoom right (central and east) of Figure 1.1 image
Figure 1.2 – The subject area highlighted green indicates land transferred from Washoe to Storey County. Information is approximate.
1.2
Zoning and master plan considerations
The properties in Washoe County were zoned Industrial, Agricultural, Medium Density Rural,
and Public Infrastructure prior to their transfer into Storey County (Washoe County, Truckee
Canyon Regulatory Zone Map, 2013). The properties, now in Storey County, have not yet been
assigned zoning designations. There are three principal owners involved in the subject
properties: The Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, LLC (TRI-Center); The Nature Conservancy,
LLC (Nature Conservancy); and the Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific).
1.3
Application background and requested zoning designations
Planning staff consulted with TRI-Center and the Nature Conservancy in determining
appropriate zoning designations for their subject parcels. Planning staff also contacted
representatives of Union Pacific by telephone and USPS mail. Union Pacific did not express
interest in applying for any zoning designation for its land. However, the company representative
informed staff that it would accept Public zoning for their land, a Storey County zone that is
similar to its prior Washoe County Public Infrastructure zoning. The following describe existing
land uses in and around the subject properties, and zone map amendment proposals for each
group of subject properties.
1.3.1
Land owned by TRI-Center
Parcels 1-9 shown in Table 1.1 – Ownership and Zoning, are owned by TRI-Center. Five of
those parcels were zoned Industrial in Washoe County, three were zoned Agriculture, and one
was zoned Medium Density Rural. TRI Center requested that the five parcels previously zoned
Industrial be classified similarly in Storey County, and that its four remaining parcels previously
zoned Agriculture and Medium Density Rural be zoned Forestry.
Preceding its request for zone map amendment, TRI-Center applied for an amendment to Storey
County Zoning Ordinance text to create an “I-C Industrial-Commercial Zone”. The I-C zone
allows mixed commercial, light industrial, and heavy industrial uses where deemed appropriate
by the board with recommendation by the planning commission. For the purpose of this report, it
is assumed that the I-C zone is adopted prior to this zone map amendment request.
TRI-Center described to planning staff its subject property along portions of the Interstate 80
corridor as ideal for mixed-use commercial-industrial zoning. Planning staff finds this interstate
frontage appropriate for I-C zoning. It also finds the I-C zone to be consistent with the prior
zoning designation and area uses in both Storey and Washoe Counties (see compatibility in
Section 1.4). Staff recommends that the remaining four parcels mentioned above remain rural
type zoning similar to their previous Agriculture and Medium Density Rural zoning. However,
because there is no known agricultural activity occurring on that land, staff and the property
owner recommend that these parcels are zoned Forestry, Storey County’s closest equivalent and
appropriate zoning classification.
1.3.2
Land owned by Nature Conservancy
Parcels 10-13 shown in Table 1.1 are owned by the Nature Conservancy. The subject land is
located within the floodway and riparian area of the Truckee River. The property owner manages
Page 7 of 32
the land for the purpose of restoring riparian habitats and improving natural flood storage
capacity of the river. Planning staff and the property owner agree that N-R Natural Resources
zoning designation would be the most appropriate classification for this land. The N-R Zone is
established to promote the preservation of land to conserve and enhance natural and scenic
resources, archeological, and cultural sites, primitive areas, watersheds, and flood-prone areas
from unreasonable impairment. Staff on behalf of the property owner is applying for this zoning
designation.
1.3.3
Land owned by Union Pacific
Parcels 14-22 shown in Table 1.1 are owned by Union Pacific. These parcels make up a narrow
strip of land through entire stretch of the subject area that facilitates the existing Union Pacific
transcontinental railroad. The land was zoned Public Infrastructure in Washoe County.
Storey County’s Public zone is the most equivalent zone to Washoe County’s Public
Infrastructure zone. Its purpose is to accommodate a wide-range of public uses including, but not
limited to, “railroads and light rail infrastructure”, and similar uses (SCC 17.15.020.A.12).
Planning staff finds this zoning designation most appropriate for the subject properties. Staff on
behalf of the property owner is applying for this zoning designation.
1.4
Land use compatibility
Table 1.2 Compatibility with Surrounding Land, and Table 1.3 Comparison of Uses, demonstrate
master plan and zoning designations, and allowed uses for each land use zone proposed in the
subject land and surrounding area. Uses shown in the tables are relatively consistent with those
allowed in the previous Washoe County zones, and the current zoning in the surrounding Storey
and Washoe County land. Uses in the proposed zones, particularly the I-C zone, that may be
found to be incompatible with existing conditions are only allowed with a special use permit. A
special use permit is required for certain heavy intensity uses in the I-C zone that could be
incompatible with each, or incompatible with other uses in the abutting zones. Board and
planning commission approvals are required for special use permits. It is, therefore, found that
these uses have the necessary case-by-case governing body oversight to assure that their
application will cause no zoning or use conflicts with anticipated abutting uses or zones.
Land
Applicant's Land
(TRI-Center; Nature
Conservancy; and
Union Pacific land)
Land to
Southwest
Land to
South
Land to
central southwest
Land to
central northwest
Land to
Northwest
Land to
North
Table 1.2: Compatibility with Surrounding Land
Land Use
Vacant; one historic singlefamily structure used as work
space for river restoration
project; railroad.
Vacant; Truckee River.
Vacant; several single-family
residential uses; light and heavy
industrial uses; Truckee River.
Vacant; Truckee River
Washoe County; Interstate 80;
light industrial uses.
Washoe County; Interstate 80;
vacant.
Washoe County; Interstate 80;
light industrial uses; mining.
Master Plan Designation
Light and heavy industrial; riparian
restoration; agricultural uses.
Light and heavy industrial; riparian
restoration; agricultural uses.
Light and heavy industrial; riparian
restoration; agricultural uses.
Light and heavy industrial; riparian
restoration; agricultural uses.
Industrial, commercial, residential,
and rural uses.
Industrial, commercial, residential,
and rural uses.
Industrial, commercial, residential,
and rural uses.
Zoning
Formerly rural, industrial,
agricultural, and public.
Currently no Storey County
zoning designation.
F Forestry
I-2 Heavy Industrial; F
Forestry; and A Agriculture
A Agriculture
Industrial; Commercial;
Agriculture; Rural
Industrial; Commercial;
Agriculture; Rural
Industrial; Commercial;
Agriculture; Rural
Land to
Northeast
Land to
East
Washoe County; Interstate 80;
vacant; light industrial uses.
Light and heavy industrial uses
(Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center)
Industrial, commercial, residential,
and rural uses.
Light and heavy industrial uses.
Industrial; Commercial;
Agriculture; Rural
I-2 Heavy Industrial
Figure 1.3: Current Storey County zoning designations (excluding the subject land).
Figure 1.4: The previous Washoe County zoning designations and land use patterns are
consistent with the proposed zoning. Red outlines the subject land.
Use categories
1
2
3
4
Table 1.3
Comparison of Allowed Uses
Public
Natural
Resources
Agri.
Forestry
Heavy
Industrial
Industrial
Commercial
River/riparian restoration
X*
X*
X*
Agriculture
X
X*
X
X*
Residential
X*
X
X*
Home occupation
X
X*
business
5 Retail
X
6 Commercial offices
X
7 Personal services
X
8 Boarding (motels, hotels)
X
X*
9 Tourism/visitor
X
X*
X
10 Government uses
X
X*
X
11 Automotive related
X
12 Transit infrastructure
X
X*
X
13 Mining
X*
X*
14 Mine processing
X*
X
15 Non-renewable energy
X*
X*
16 Renewable energy
X*
X*
17 Permanent concrete plant
X*
X*
18 Schools and higher ed.
X
X*
X
19 Education institution
X*
X*
20 Heavy manufacturing
X
21 Craftsman industry
X
22 Laboratory/research
X*
X*
X
23 Warehousing
X
24 Chemical manufacturing
X*
25 Petroleum uses
X*
26 Truck stop
X
27 Solid waste recycling
X*
X
28 Solid waste landfill
X*
29 Explosives and hazmat
X*
30 Saw mills
X*
31 Hazardous recycling
X
32 Tattoo parlors
X*
33 Billboards
X*
X*
X*
34 RV Parks
X*
35 Agriculture youth rehab
X*
37 Sewage treatment
X
X*
38 Public infrastructure
X
X*
X
X*
X
Uses shown above are categorized into general use categories; see Storey County
Chapters 17.24, 17.32, 17.35, 17.76, and 17.84 for specific uses in each zone.
*Asterisks indicate uses requiring a special use permit.
Page 10 of 32
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X*
X
X
Code
1
2
3
Table 1.4
Comparison of Use Allowances
Regulations per SCC Title 17
Height
A – 35’ or 3 stories
F – 35’ or 3 stories
P – 45’ or 3 stories
I-2 – 50’ or 6 stories
I-C – 120’ or 10 stories
Setback distances
A – Same as abutting zone, but not less than 10’ for residential and 20’ for boarding
F – 30’ front, 40’ rear, 15’ side
P – same as abutting zones (F= 40’; A= 50’; I-2= 50’; P= n/a; I-C= 50’)
I-2 – 50’
I-C - heavy industry, 50’; light industry, 20’; commercial, 20’ front, 10’ rear
Minimum parcel area / use density
A – 3 acres
F – 40 acres
P – no minimum
I-2 – 3 acres
I-C – heavy industry, 3 acres; light industry, ½ acre; commercial, 10,000 square-feet
2.
General Compliance with Guiding Documents
2.1
Master Plan
Chapter 3.2 of the Storey County Master Plan (1994) states that considerable development has
occurred in the River District over the years and that development is expected to continue. It
recommends that planning official “give serious consideration to development and zoning for an
industrial park in the [River District] area” (pp. 19-20). Attracting additional businesses;
diversification to the county’s economy; broadening the county’s tax base; enhancing efficiency
of water, sewer, and other utility service; and managing growth are described benefits to
developing and improving a consolidated industrial development. The master plan also states
that protecting the Truckee River and its riparian area should be a priority when considering uses
in the River District.
A significant portion of the area subject to this request for zoning map amendment abuts existing
Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center land and is, therefore, contiguous to I-2 Heavy Industrial Zoning.
It also abuts or is in immediate proximity to existing infrastructure including, but not limited to,
Interstate 80; the Patrick interchange that connects Interstate 80 to TRI-Center’s second primary
arterial route, Waltham Way; the Union Pacific transcontinental railroad; municipal sewer and
water services; power generation and distribution systems; and high-pressure natural gas. The
southern portion of the subject area abuts the Truckee River and its riparian area.
Staff finds that the proposed I-C zone is ideal for this location because it allows a mixture of
certain commercial and industrial uses that are tailor-fitted to a transportation orientated
environment such as the interstate corridor. Staff also finds that alignment of the proposed F and
N-R zones provides sufficient natural buffering between uses allowed in the I-C zone and the
adjacent Truckee River and its riparian area. As such, the proposed zoning designation conforms
to the following goals and objectives of the county master plan:
2.2

Chapter 3 Economy – Goal 1, enhance diversification of economic opportunities within
the county; Goal 1, Objective 1.1: develop and adopt standards for industrial park
development before a large project is proposed.

Chapter 5 Conservation and Natural Resources – Goal 2, protect the quality of present
and future water resources; Goal 4, regulate the use of open-range and watershed areas to
minimize fire danger and prevent degradation; Goal 4, Objective 4.1, assist property
owners and interested groups in controlling grazing and public use of critical watershed
and riparian areas.

Chapter 9 Land Use – Goal 1: maintain a healthy environment for all residents of the
county; Goal 1, Objective 1.1: ensure that land use permit decisions are compatible with
the zoning map, master plan, and previous planning decisions; Goal 4: preserve existing
agricultural areas; Goal 4, objective 4.1: through zoning regulations, direct nonagricultural development to non-agricultural areas.

Section River District – Goal 4, Objective 4.1: coordinate land uses on the south side
(Storey County) of the Truckee River with developments on the north side (Washoe
County) of the river and visa-versa; Goal 5: design zoning districts to allow for a mix in
land use development; Goal 5, Objective 5.1: consider zoning the Tracy-Clark and the
surrounding area for industrial use.
Zoning Ordinance (SCC Title 17)
SCC Section 17.03.220 Zone Map Amendments and Zone Text Amendments states:
Before a zone map amendment may be recommended for approval, the applicant must
provide evidence to the board and the planning commission concerning the physical use
of the land and zoning currently existing in the general vicinity, and which have
occurred in the previous five-year time period, and describe: (a) how the proposal will
impact the immediate vicinity; (b) how the proposal supports the goals, objectives, and
recommendations of the master plan concerning land use and related policies for the
neighborhood where the subject parcel is situated; (c) if the proposed amendment will
impact properties within the use district; and (d) any impacts on public services and
facilities, and availability of water resources.
The collaborative efforts between staff and the property owners in determining the
appropriate zoning designations for the subject properties conforms to and exceeds the
requirements of SCC 17.03.220. The zoning designations and uses allowed therein also
conform to the master plan and do not conflict with the provisions of the zoning ordinance.
3.
Public Comment
3.1
Public comments regarding proposal
Staff has received no public comment for this application request.
4.
Findings
4.1
Motion for approval
The following are found regarding the zone map amendment under the recommended conditions
of approval shown in Section 5. A motion for approval should include at a minimum these
findings and may include other findings deemed appropriate and factual by the body.
4.1.1 The proposed zone map amendment complies with federal, Nevada State, and Storey
County regulations.
4.1.2 The proposed zone map amendment will impose no substantial adverse impacts or safety
hazards on the abutting properties.
4.1.3 The conditions of approval for the zone map amendment do not conflict with the
minimum requirements of SCC Chapters 17.03 Administrative Provisions for zone map
amendments and zone text amendments; or the purpose and intent of SCC 17.15 Public zone,
17.32 Forestry zone, 17.39 Industrial-Commercial zone, 17.76 Natural Resources zone, and
17.84 Signs and Billboards regulations, as applicable.
4.1.4 The uses allowed by the new zones do not appear to cause substantial adverse impacts to
the uses allowed in the abutting zones.
4.1.5 The proposed zone map amendment is in substantial compliance with and supports the
goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Storey County Master Plan.
4.1.6 The proposed zone map amendments will provide for land uses compatible with existing
adjacent land uses and will not have detrimental impacts to other properties in the vicinity.
4.1.7 The proposed zone map amendment will not cause uses that will negatively impact
existing or planned public facilities and will not adversely impact the public health, safety,
and welfare.
4.1.8 The proposed zone map amendment will not create any non-conforming conditions,
such as non-conforming setback distances or minimum parcel area and width requirements.
4.2
Motion for denial
Should a motion be made to deny the zone map amendment application, the following findings
with an explanation of the motion for denial should be included in that motion.
4.2.1 Substantial evidence suggests that the zone map amendment will conflict with the
minimum requirements of SCC Chapters 17.03 Administrative Provisions for zone map
amendments and zone text amendments; or the purpose and intent of SCC 17.15 Public zone,
17.32 Forestry zone, 17.39 Industrial-Commercial zone, 17.76 Natural Resources zone, and
17.84 Signs and Billboards regulations, as applicable.
4.2.2 The conditions of approval under the zone map amendment do not adequately mitigate
potential adverse impacts on surrounding uses or protect against potential safety hazards for
surrounding uses.
4.2.3 No reasonable level of conditions of approval imposed on this one map amendment
would be sufficient to reasonably mitigate visual, safety, or other potential impacts on
adjacent and surrounding residences and land uses.
4.2.4 The proposed zone map amendment will not provide for land uses compatible with
existing adjacent land uses and will have detrimental impacts to other properties in the
vicinity.
4.2.5 The proposed zone map amendment will negatively impact existing or planned public
services or facilities and will adversely impact the public health, safety, and welfare.
5.
Conditions of Approval
All of the following conditions must be met to the satisfaction of the applicable County
Department, unless otherwise stated.
5.1
Official zoning map requirements
The Official Storey County Zoning Map must be amended to depict the zone map amendment
approved by the Storey County Board of Commissioners (Board) with recommendation by the
planning commission. The Official Storey County Zoning Map must be identified by the
signature of the chairman of the Board attested by the Storey County Clerk under the following
words: “This is to certified that this is the Official Zoning Map of Storey County referred to in
Section 17.08.040 of the Zoning Ordinance of Storey County, Nevada” together with the date of
adoption.
5.2
Changes made promptly
The changes approved by the Board with recommendation by the planning commission must be
entered by the Planning Department on the Official Storey County Zoning Map (and the
applicable area zoning maps) promptly as reasonable after the amendment has been approved,
with the entry indicating the ordinance number and date adopted. Regardless of the existence of
the purported copies of the Official Storey County Zoning Map and the applicable Area Zoning
Map which may periodically be made or published, the Official Storey County Zoning Map and
Area Zoning Maps shall be kept in the Office of the Storey County Recorder. The Storey County
Recorder shall be the final authority as to the current zoning status of the land and water area,
buildings, and other structures in the county.
5.3
Copies of official zoning map
Signed and sealed copies of the Official Storey County Zoning Map and Area Zoning Maps must
be available for public viewing at the Offices of the Storey County Clerk and Storey County
Recorder.
5.4
General requirements
The zone map amendment must comply with and remain in conformance with all provisions set
forth by this zone map amendment and all applicable federal, Nevada State, and Storey County
codes and regulations.
6.
Powers of the Board and Planning Commission
The Board of County Commissioners has the power to make planning and zoning decisions for
Storey County and has created the planning commission to advise the Board as provided in Title
2 of the Storey County Code (“SCC”) and NRS 278 and 278A. The Planning Commission must
perform all duties and functions delegated to a county planning commission by the terms of NRS
278.010 to 278.630, inclusive, and SCC Chapter 2.12 (Planning Commission). The planning
commission is advisory to the Board. The Planning Commission must hear applications on
special use permits, variances, and appeals of administrative decisions, changes to the county
master plan, zoning districts, amendments to SCC Title 18, and all other appropriate subjects and
make recommendations to the Board. After considering the Planning Commission’s
recommendation, the Board by majority vote may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
application, or return the recommendation to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
7.
Proposed Motions
This section contains three motions from which to choose. Motion 1 for approval is
recommended by staff in accordance with findings under Subsection 4.1; those findings should
be made part of that motion. Motion 2 for approval, as an alternative, may be made in
accordance with findings under Subsections 4.1 and/or 4.2; those findings should be made part of
that motion. Motion 3 for denial may be made and that motion should cite one or more of the
findings shown in Subsection 4.2. Other findings of fact determined appropriate by the body
should be made part of their motion.
Motion 1 – Recommended motion (approval)
Based on findings of fact shown in Subsection 4.1 and the conditions of approval shown in
Section 5 of this report, and conformance with federal, state, and county regulations, and the
recommendation for approval by staff, I (planning commissioner) motion to approve Storey
County Zone Map Amendment Application No. 2014-021 modifying the official zoning map of
Storey County to include the Forestry, Natural Resources, Public, and Industrial-Commercial
zones as presented by staff in this report.
Summary: Approve zone map amendments as proposed
Motion 2 – Alternative motion (approval)
Based on findings of fact shown in Subsection 4.1 and/or 4.2 and the conditions of approval
shown in Section 5 of this report, and conformance with federal, state, and county regulations,
but against the recommendation for approval by staff, I (planning commissioner) motion to
approve Storey County Zone Map Amendment Application No. 2014-021 modifying the official
zoning map of Storey County to include the _______(describe zones or parcels)________ as
presented by staff, but to deny the _______(describe zones or parcels)________ as presented by
staff in this report.
Summary: Approve __x__ zones and deny _x_ zones
Motion 3 – Alternative motion (denial)
Based on findings of fact shown in Subsection 4.2 of this staff report and/or other findings
deemed appropriate by the planning commission, and against the recommendation of staff, I
(planning commissioner) motion to deny Storey County Zone Map Amendment Application No.
2014-021 modifying the official zoning map of Storey County as presented in this report. This is
a denial of all proposed zoning designations.
Summary: Deny all zone map amendments
Prepared by Austin Osborne, Planning Director
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Letter and map submitted by applicants.
Exhibit B: Legal description (posting) of the subject area and properties
Exhibit C: Uses allowed in the I-C zone
Exhibit A: Application No. 2014-021 (Zone Map Amendment)
The following application includes a request for both a zone text and zone map amendments. For
zone text amendment applicability, refer to Application and Staff Report No. 2014-020.
Exhibit B: Legal description of subject area and properties (public posting)
PUBLIC NOTICE OF MEETING FOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
Storey County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Meetings
The Storey County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on November 13, 2014, at
6:00 p.m. and the Board of Storey County Commissioners will hold a public meeting on
December 2, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. at the Storey County Courthouse, District Courtroom, 26 South
“B” Street, Virginia City, Nevada. The meetings will include discussion and possible action of
an amendment to the Official Storey County Zoning Map.
The amendments will apply regulatory zones to approximately 600 acres of land located in
McCarran, Nevada (River District near the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center) which was in July of
2014 transferred from Washoe County to Storey County by means of boundary line adjustment.
The subject area is described approximately as portions of: Section 31 and 32, Township 20
North, Range 22 East; Section 6, Township 19 North, Range 22 East; Section 36, Township 20
North, Range 21 East; Sections 2 and 11, Township 19 North, Range 21 East; and Section 1,
Township 19 North, Range 21 East, all in the Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian (MDB&M).
The specific zones and subject properties will be as follows: (a) F Forestry zoning will be applied
to land located at Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 004.161.98; (b) N-R Natural-Resources
zoning will be applied to land located at APNs 004.161.85, 004.161.86, 004.161.88, and
004.161.96; (c) I-C Industrial-Commercial zoning will be applied to land located at APNs
004.161.99, 004.162.01, 005.121.01, 005.121.02, 005.121.03, 005.121.04, 005.121.05, and
004.162.02; and (d) P Public will be applied to land located at 004.161.87, 004.161.89,
004.161.90, 004.161.91, 004.161.92, 004.161.93, 004.161.94, 004.161.95, and 004.161.97, all
within the approximate subject area described above.
The purpose of the zone map amendment is to apply zoning to newly acquired land in Storey
County that is consistent with surrounding uses and the Storey County Master Plan. Prior to their
transfer into Storey County, the properties were zoned in Washoe County as Agriculture,
Medium Density Rural, Industrial, and Public Infrastructure.
In addition to provisions of the NRS, any owner of land within or adjacent to the proposed zone
map amendment may complete and return to the board or planning commission a statement
indicating his or her approval or opposition to the proposed amendment. Additional information
including, but not limited to, reports and maps may be obtained from the Planning Department at
775.847.1144 or [email protected].
Lyndi Renaud
Sitting Secretary, Planning Commission
Storey County, Nevada
Date of publication: 10/31/14
Exhibit C: Uses allowed in the I-C zone
(see 17.39 I-C zone for full zoning chapter)
Chapter 17.39
Sections:
17.39.010
17.39.015
17.39.020
17.39.030
17.39.040
17.39.050
17.39.070
17.39.080
I-C Industrial-Commercial Zone
Applicability.
Purpose and Intent
Allowed Uses
Uses Subject to Special Use Permit
Height and Width of Buildings and Structure
Minimum Parcel Area
Loading Area
Setback Requirements
17.39.010 Applicability
The provisions of this chapter apply to the I-C Industrial-Commercial Zone. Uses in the C Commercial
Zone are regulated by chapter 17.28 C Commercial Zone and uses in the CR Commercial-Residential
zone are regulated by chapter 17.30 Commercial-Residential zone.
17.39.015 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the I-C Industrial-Commercial zone is to provide areas with the county where certain
industrial and commercial uses and activities may be established and maintained together to promote
efficiency, ensure compatibility, and provide for mixed non-residential uses. It facilitates a heavy
commercial and light industrial mixed-use environment that may be well-suited near principal traffic
arterials, such as the Interstate 80 corridor, and industrial development with which the allowed uses are
compatible. It is not intended for residential areas or general neighborhood commercial areas, such as
Gold Hill, Virginia City, Lockwood, or other such residential communities where C Commercial or CR
Commercial Residential zoning may be more appropriate.
17.39.020 Allowed Uses
The commercial, light industrial, and heavy industrial uses listed in this section are allowed in the I-C
Industrial-Commercial Zone.
A. Commercial uses including:
1. Retail sales and shopping centers including:
a. General stores, shopping centers, convenience stores, principal grocery stores,
neighborhood stores and shopping centers, regional stores and shopping centers, and super
regional stores and shopping centers.
b. Seasonal holiday sales and uses.
c. Seasonal farmers markets.
2. Commercial offices and financial institutions:
a. Real-estate permanent office, banks and credit unions, accountants, insurance,
employment agencies, consulting firms, manufacturer representatives, newspapers,
secretarial services, associations and other similar office uses and activities.
b. Building maintenance and services.
c. Business and professional offices and buildings.
d. Convention and meeting facilities.
3. Personal services:
a. Barbers, hair stylists, beauticians, manicurists/pedicurists, spas, salons, tailors, massage
establishments, and similar type uses.
b. Wedding chapels and travel agencies.
c. Childcare of any number of children.
d. Laundromats, personal dry cleaning, and laundry services.
4. Boarding accommodations including hotels, motels, hostels, bed and breakfast inns, timeshares,
and vacation rentals.
5. Tourist and visitor services:
a. Eating and drinking establishments such as restaurants, cafes, drive-in diners, fast-food,
coffee shops and coffee houses, soda-fountains, saloons and taverns, and micro-breweries
with on-site and off-site sales.
b. Entertainment and casual education services such as docents, guided tours on foot, gold
panning, and museums.
c. Equestrian facilities and uses including riding arenas, stables, horse and pony rides, and
carriage and stagecoach rides.
d. Theaters.
6. Recreation. Bowling lanes, billiard parlors and pool halls, arcades, gaming (when incidental to a
primary use and limited to no more than 15 slot and/or video machines), golf driving ranges,
miniature golf, country clubs, health clubs and personal fitness gyms, swimming pools and
saunas, tennis courts, permanent indoor and seasonal outdoor roller and ice skating rinks and
facilities, seasonal or temporary outdoor theatres, and other similar recreational uses and
activities.
7. Civic uses:
a. Public facilities and offices for fire, emergency services, and sheriff.
b. Helipads and heliports for use only by medical evacuation transport services.
c. Crisis care use uses and facilities, permanent.
d. Libraries and cultural services, governmental offices, post offices, community centers, and
courts of law.
e. Education including elementary, middle, and high (K-12) schools and academies, colleges
and higher education, technical and vocational education, apprentice training, whether
public, private, or parochial. A special use permit is required for education institutions and
academies that include student residential accommodations.
f.
Highway rest areas, picnicking areas, parks and playgrounds, dog parks, walking and
bicycle trails, interpretive trails, restroom facilities, and information kiosks.
g. Parking lots and structures, park-and-rides and carpool transfer centers, multi-modal
transit hubs, parking garages and storage, railroad and light rail infrastructures, train
tunnels, and railroad switchyards and turntables.
h. Indoor and outdoor veterinarian services and shelters for large and small animals.
8. General services:
a. Catering, equipment and appliance repair, gun repair, general contractors offices, heavy
and light equipment rental, feed and tack stores, manufactured home sales and service,
pawn brokers, pet sales and grooming, print shops, upholstery shops, video rentals, and
other similar general services uses and activities.
b. Uses involving indoor archery and indoor discharge of firearms.
9. Congregational establishments including religious institutions, fraternal lodges, recreational and
social clubs, labor halls, service clubs and facilities for other private clubs.
10. Agricultural and horticultural uses for domestic purposes and incidental to the permitted uses.
Uses also include community gardens.
11. Casinos and gaming establishments of more than 5,000 square feet of total floor area where slots
and/or video machines are located, where there are more than 15 slots and/or video machines,
and where other forms of gambling such as poker, craps, blackjack, keno, sports book and other
similar activities may take place.
12. Public utility service yards, buildings, electric substations, gas transmission substations, and
ancillary uses.
13. Recreational vehicle (RV) parks.
14. Mini-warehouses and storage facilities for rent including recreational vehicle, boat, utility trailer,
horse trailer, and similar equipment storage.
15. Open-air markets, flea-markets, farmers markets, and the display, sale, barter, or trade of items
associated with a business outside of a permanent building.
16. Race tracks and arenas involving the use of automobiles, trucks, tractors, and other motorized
vehicles.
17. Radio-controlled (RC) cars, vehicles, watercraft, and aircraft facilities and uses.
18. Signs as regulated by chapter 17.84 Signs and billboards.
19. Automobile paint shops and body repair shops.
20. Accessory use, buildings and structures if they are clearly incidental to a permitted use, placed
upon the same lot or parcel with a permitted use, and in conformance with section 17.12.048.
21. Other uses similar to the above which are determined by the board to be consistent with the uses
permitted within the zone.
B. Light industrial uses including the following:
1. Limited indoor manufacturing and assembly involving the production process that uses already
manufactured components to assemble, print, or package a product such as cloth, paper, plastic,
leather, wood, glass, stones, or computer and electronic parts.
2. Contractor services, including general contractor offices, contractor service shops, carpet
cleaning, pest control, printing and publishing, and similar uses.
3. Agricultural use types including general agricultural uses, agricultural animal production, custom
animal processing, agricultural research, agricultural supplies sales, and agricultural
entertainment and commercial uses.
4. Trade and craftsman industries, including furniture and carpentry manufacturing and refining,
upholstery shops, monument works, and similar uses.
5. Outdoor storage and maintenance of building materials, vehicles, trailers, and heavy equipment
associated with a commercial building contractor or business when not directly associated with a
construction project on the premises.
6. Manufactured home and modular home sales lots.
7. Propane sales and storage.
8. Firewood sales and storage.
9. Temporary real-estate tract offices not located within a permanent structure.
10. Laboratories and testing services. The use of live animals in laboratory, testing, and
experimentation is prohibited.
11. Building material manufacturing.
12. Breweries, distilleries, wineries.
13. Warehouses, warehouse complexes, distribution operations, and wholesale distribution.
14. Laundromats and personal dry cleaning.
15. Automotive, truck, and heavy equipment services including washing and detailing (manual
hand-washing, coin-operated, and production line methods), service and fueling stations, repair
(including painting and body repair), sales, and rental.
16. Truck stops.
17. Solid waste recycling collection center.
18. Solid waste recycling center.
19. Brick, tile or terra cotta products manufacturing.
20. Hunting, fishing, and skiing facilities and lodges, wildlife refuges, and game farms.
21. Sewage treatment plants and facilities and other sewage or sludge processing, treatment, or
storage.
22. Watchman’s dwelling, whether permanent or temporary.
23. Outdoor storage or maintenance of building materials, vehicles, trailers, and heavy equipment
associated with a commercial building contractor or business when not directly associated with a
construction project on the premises.
24. Other uses similar to the above which are determined by the board to be consistent with the uses
permitted within the zone.
C. Heavy industrial uses including the following:
1. Manufacturing and assembly involving the production process which uses already manufactured
components to assemble, print, or package a product such as cloth, paper, plastic, leather, wood,
glass, stones, or computer and electronic parts and manufacturing operations involving primary
production of commodity of raw materials, except those listed in section 17.39.030 as requiring
a special use permit.
2. Storage and distribution of paints, shellac, turpentine, varnishes, and other similar chemicals
within a warehouse facility.
3. Storage and distribution of petroleum and liquid petroleum products within a warehouse facility.
4. Manufacturing of paints, shellac, turpentine, varnishes, and other such chemicals. Manufacturing,
reclaiming, refining, storage, and distribution of cyanide, hazardous materials, and liquid
petroleum products are prohibited.
5. Paper manufacturing.
6. Bottling plants.
7. Other uses similar to the above which are determined by the board to be consistent with the uses
permitted within the zone.
17.39.030
Uses Subject to Special Use Permit
Unless stated otherwise, the following uses may be permitted subject to securing a special use permit
pursuant to chapter 17.03 Administrative provisions.
1. Fortune tellers, astrology parlors, clairvoyance and palmistry. Additionally, uses under this
subsection must comply with the regulations under Title 5 Business licenses, and be located no
closer than 1,000 feet from a public or private school, religious institution, public building or
facility, or another permitted fortune teller, astrology parlor, clairvoyance and palmistry use, and
300 feet from any E, R, or SPR zone.
2. Permanent outdoor skateboard parks and related facilities.
3. Fairgrounds, rodeo arenas, horse and other animal competition tracks and arenas, and similar
uses.
4. Amusement parks involving various devices for entertainment such as thrill and theme rides,
roller-coasters, water slides, and games and concession booths.
5. Facilities and uses that include outdoor sets and props for the development and production of
movies, film, television, and similar visual media.
6. Education facilities that include student residential and boarding accommodations.
7. Permanent outdoor theatres.
8. Billboards as regulated by chapter 17.68 Signs and billboards.
9. Zoos, animal theme and amusement parks, and other maintenance, display, or possession of one
or more wild animals.
10. Healthcare facilities including hospital services, medical services, urgent care, clinics,
convalescent services, civic convalescent and group care service, continuum of care facilities for
seniors, and group care services.
11. Tattoo, permanent cosmetics, and invasive body piercing facilities. These uses are only allowed
within the boundaries of the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center which is zoned I-2 Heavy Industrial,
I-C Industrial-Commercial, or C Commercial. They are prohibited within 1,500 feet of a public
or private school or religious institution.
12. Retail establishments featuring the display, lease, or rental of “adult material” books,
merchandise, periodicals, video tapes, video disks including DVDs and other recorded video
devices, computer disks, instruments, devices or paraphernalia “adult” material. The
merchandise shall only be available for sale or lease for private use by the purchaser or lessee off
the premises of the business.
13. Temporary (less than 1 year) concrete and asphalt batch plants when not incidental to an on-site
construction project or when located within 2,500 feet from a CR, E, R, or SPR zone.
14. Milling and processing related to mining and extraction.
15. Natural resources including river and waterway restoration, wetland creation, water restoration
and recycling.
16. The keeping of 7 or more dogs or potbelly pigs more than 12 weeks of age. A minimum of 10
acres is required.
17. Commercial kennel. A minimum of 10 acres is required.
18. Other uses similar to the above that are determined by the board with action by the planning
commission to be consistent with the uses requiring a special use permit within the zone.
17.39.040
Height and Width of Buildings and Structures
A building, manufactured building, or structure may not exceed a height of ten stories or 120 feet,
whichever is higher, except as may be allowed by a variance. The requirements of this section do not
apply to church spires, belfries, cupolas, domes, chimneys and smoke-stacks, grain silos, water towers,
flagpoles, and commercial and amateur wireless communication towers and antennas. Wind energy
turbine support structures are regulated by chapter 17.12.044, Height of buildings and structures.
17.39.050
Minimum Parcel Area
Parcel area requirements shall be as follows: (A) commercial uses may be located on a parcel of no less
than 10,000 square-feet; (B) light-industrial uses may be located on a parcel no less than one-half acre;
and (C) heavy-industrial uses may be located on a parcel no less than 3 acres. The minimum area
requirement for uses requiring a special use permit shall be determined by the special use permit, except
that the area shall be no less than 10,000 square-feet.
17.39.060
Loading Area
Loading area must have adequate room for vehicular circulation and staging. All truck parking and
docking area must be designed so that right-of-ways and travelled ways are not adversely impacted.
17.39.070
Setback Requirements
Setback requirements shall be as follows: (A) heavy-industrial uses may be located no closer than 50 feet
from any property line; (B) light-industrial uses may be located no closer than 20 feet from any property
line; and (C) commercial uses shall have a minimum 10 foot rear and side setback and a 20 foot front
setback. Uses requiring a special use permit shall have setback distances established by the granted
special use permit, except that the minimum allowable setback distances shall be no less than 10 feet from
any property line.