Residents press Nye County to allow off‑grid, small‑footprint housing on utility‑challenged lots

Pahrump, Nev. — Several residents urged the Nye County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 3 to permit modern, low‑infrastructure housing on long‑unsold “utility‑challenged” parcels, arguing current zoning and utility requirements effectively bar owners from using their land.

The appeals came during general public comment from property owners and residents who said the county signed off on subdivisions decades ago and has a duty to help solve infrastructure failures. “When a government helps create a problem, it has a duty to help solve it,” resident Lorraine Gilbert told commissioners.

Why it matters: Thousands of small parcels remain undeveloped, speakers said, while housing costs and homelessness rise. Petitioners urged the county to adopt a zoning overlay or ordinance that would allow permitted off‑grid solutions — for example small footprint dwellings, composting toilets, water hauling and solar power — and to pursue grants or federal partners to extend sewer or other utilities where feasible.

Speakers described two separate but related problems. Some property owners lack utility connections because subdivisions were approved before infrastructure was built; others face utility company rules or tariffs that effectively block affordable onsite systems. “The only thing that needs to be done is a sign. Yes. A sign listing hours of operation,” said Tina Bond Kuglin in a separate public‑safety remark about park enforcement; Patricia Robb argued similarly about fairness for lot owners, saying, “If the county believes these parcels are truly unbuildable, then buy them back.”

Property owner Spencer Adams described a concrete example: he said Great Basin Water Company quoted roughly $660,000 (two‑thirds of a million dollars) to extend pipes to his VR‑20 parcel, an expense he said he cannot shoulder. Adams said code enforcement later issued a violation after he erected accessory structures on the lot in violation of the county’s requirement that a primary residence be built first.

County response and limits: County staff and the county manager told the board they have limited authority to force utility providers to extend service. The manager said owners should press Great Basin Water Company and pursue grants — but also warned that constructing infrastructure county‑wide would impose large costs on taxpayers. “I would honestly put some pressure on the folks who stand in your way, which is not us,” the county manager said, referring to the role of the water provider in approving service extensions.

Speakers requested specific next steps: pursue federal or state grants for short sewer/water extensions; ask the Army Corps or congressional representatives for help; adopt a zoning amendment or pilot program to allow permitted off‑grid systems in identified areas; and, for parcels deemed permanently unserviceable, consider a county buyback or other remedy.

Dissent and political context: Several public commenters linked frustration with perceived inaction to local politics and called for changes in county leadership or a return to an empowered town board. Commenters emphasized equity — that owners who pay property taxes deserve options — and raised concerns that county building rules have not kept pace with housing innovation used elsewhere in rural states.

What commissioners said: The county manager recommended petitioners also present their complaints and ideas directly to Great Basin Water Company because the utility often controls whether service extensions proceed. Commissioners did not adopt an ordinance or take immediate action on the record; staff were asked to continue coordination and to accept any draft ordinance offered by residents for review.

Next steps: Residents said they have a draft ordinance ready to submit; commissioners and staff encouraged continued engagement and repeated the limits of county authority where a private or regulated utility controls distribution and tariffs.

Ending: The issue drew multiple speakers and lasted through the public‑comment period, with residents asking for a combination of policy changes, grant‑seeking and utility engagement rather than immediate county subsidies. The matter remains an open request to staff and the utility rather than a new county policy on the meeting record.