Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners uphold Pahrump staff decision: Highway 160 billboard must be removed
Summary
The Nye County Board of County Commissioners affirmed the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission's denial of a request to retain an off‑premise billboard at 5511 S. Highway 160, ruling 3–2 to require removal and comply with the master plan.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Nye County Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 on May 20 to uphold a Pahrump Regional Planning Commission decision requiring removal of an off‑premise advertising structure located at 5511 South Highway 160. The appeal was submitted by D T Land Development LLC (Blackjack Fireworks) and sought to keep the billboard despite a special condition of approval tied to a related conditional‑use permit.
Planning staff told the board the billboard conflicts with the Pahrump Regional Planning District master plan, which calls for mitigation of the cumulative visual effects of billboards and removal of off‑premise advertising structures as conditions of approval for new development on the same parcel. Attorney for the appellant, Brian Hardy, argued the sign is an active, maintained commercial structure in a commercial zone and proposed mitigating conditions (LED lighting, landscaping, repainting) that he said would satisfy plan goals.
After public comments for and against the sign, commissioners said they were balancing the master plan’s visual‑quality goals against property‑owner revenue interests. The board ultimately affirmed the PRPC finding and required removal under the commission’s adopted plan and code. The decision does not prevent the appellant from pursuing other remedies allowed by county code.
What's next: Planning staff and code enforcement will set a compliance schedule and report back to the board. The decision requires the property owner to remove the off‑premise superstructure per the special condition attached to the development application.
Evidence: The item was introduced by planning staff and argued by counsel for the appellant; public comment included local residents urging removal. The BOCC vote occurred at the conclusion of the hearing and carried 3–2.
