Churchill County planning commission approves variance to waive septic soil report for nine-lot parceling

The Churchill County Planning Commission on Jan. 2, 2025 approved a variance allowing a tentative parceling plan for nine large parcels owned by Mick and Claudia Casey to proceed without the county’s standard septic soils report.

Staff said the proposed lots — nine parcels sized roughly 20 to 40 acres each — are large enough that a pre‑subdivision soils report would add little value; detailed soils testing would occur at the building permit stage. Dean Patterson, Public Works and Planning staff, told the commission, “This is just for the variance from the soil report.”

The commission approved the variance subject to the three conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Joe Frey moved to approve the application, citing conformance with county code; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Staff noted there is a 10‑day appeal period on the decision.

The proposal uses the county’s tentative parceling plan process — a serial parcel map method that can implement multiple lots without a formal subdivision. Patterson said the application before the commission was specifically a variance from the septic soil report requirement; separate hearings on the tentative parcel map and implementing parcel maps will follow.

Applicant Mick Casey, who spoke at the meeting, described the current plan as creating “large parcels, of all bigger than 20 acres,” and said he has not decided final uses for the lots. Casey gave a mailing address on the record as 399 Reagan Place, Fallon, Nevada.

Randy Hines, Churchill County Public Works, addressed concerns about unsuitable soils and alternate approvals, saying, “If there was an encounter of, you know, unsuitable material, they can get an engineered septic done, which, again, has to get engineered, go to the state. But there are options if you can’t get a standard septic; you can always go the engineered route if necessary.” Patterson and Hines also said the soils check required for septic compliance would be completed when a building permit is sought.

The staff report noted the application proposes very large lot sizes compared with typical tentative parceling proposals (often used for 1–5 acre lots). The report recommended approval, citing that the large lot areas reduce the practical value of a pre‑subdivision septic soils report. The approval is conditioned on the three items listed in the staff report (the staff report text did not appear verbatim in the meeting record and is referenced as “listed in the staff report”).

The commission’s action allows the applicant to proceed toward preparing tentative parcel maps and later implementing maps; those maps and any building permits will trigger the required site‑specific septic testing and any engineered septic designs if needed. The commission recorded the approval as unanimous; staff reminded attendees of the 10‑day appeal window.