Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ET24400121 Hold topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission pauses extension for Sandy Valley training range, orders code-enforcement check
Summary
Commissioners continued a request for a third extension of time for a proposed outdoor training/shooting facility in Sandy Valley and asked county code enforcement and building staff to inspect alleged on-site grading and storage-container placement before the applicant returns; the commission set a target date for reconsideration and noted re-notification could be required.
The Clark County Planning Commission on Sept. 16 continued consideration of a third extension of time for a proposed outdoor training facility (item ET24400121) west of SR-161 and south of Sandy Valley Road, directing county staff to investigate potential unpermitted site activity and reopening code enforcement review before the commission decides.
Applicant David Wexler told commissioners he owns the 123.97-acre Vallejo property and that, aside from moving some materials and placing a few containers, ‘‘we have not done anything without permits’’ and that the site work was limited to grooming and dust-control activity. Staff reported the project had shown no significant permitting progress in seven years and that aerial photos suggested the placement of storage containers and grooming for RV or recreational vehicle parking — activities that typically require grading and building permits.
Commissioner Reitman and other members pressed staff and the applicant to reconcile differing accounts over whether grading, container placement or other activity had occurred without the proper permits. Staff advised that containers and grading require permits and that building or code-enforcement follow-up would be appropriate given the remoteness of the site.
The commission voted to hold the item for further review and requested that code enforcement inspect the site; commissioners targeted the Nov. 18 planning commission meeting for reconsideration (staff said re-notification may be required and would be confirmed). Commissioners noted the applicant indicated willingness to coordinate with county building, grading, and code-enforcement staff in the interim.
No final development approvals were granted at the Sept. 16 hearing; the hold preserves the applicant’s opportunity to cure permitting questions while giving staff time to verify on-the-ground conditions.
