Monarch Milk special-use permit review set for one year as applicant completes regulatory approvals
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Planning commissioners agreed to review SUP1102 for Monarch Milk in one year after the applicant reported state and federal equipment and plant approvals remain pending; staff said building and site conditions tied to the permit are the primary compliance matters.
The Churchill County Public Works and Planning Commission voted to review the special-use permit SUP1102 for Monarch Milk in one year after an update from the applicant on regulatory approvals.
SUP1102 covers property at 4624 Cox Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number 008-123-17). The permit, originally granted Oct. 9, 2024, includes annual reviews until the planning commission determines otherwise.
“Part of the project getting sewer approved, water approved, those processes are complete with the state,” the applicant identified on the record as Ted Kristoff, owner/operator of Monarch Milk, told the commission. Kristoff said the primary delay was coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Nevada Department of Agriculture on plant-level PMO standards for equipment and piping. “They have a lot of questions very specifically about different valves, different piping. Does this all meet their PMO standards?” he said. Kristoff added he had a follow-up meeting scheduled for Oct. 21 and did not want to pull building permits until regulators were satisfied.
Planning staff clarified that the special-use permit’s compliance requirements relate primarily to the building and site construction rather than immediate product processing and sales. Kristoff said that once construction begins he anticipated four to five months for the plant build but noted additional time would be needed to run test batches and complete the approvals required to sell product legally.
Commissioners discussed whether to set another annual review. Commissioner Jeff Goings and other commissioners indicated it was reasonable to wait and reassess near the end of the year; one motion to review in one year was offered and passed unanimously.
No public comment was offered during the hearing. The commission’s action keeps the annual-review condition in place and does not change existing permit conditions; staff will monitor progress and the matter will return for review per the commission’s motion.