Good morning.

This is the Wednesday, December 17th meeting of the Clark County Commission zoning meeting.

Turn it over to Director Riel.

Good morning, Commissioners.

The first item on the agenda is public comment.

This is the first period for public comment.

Anyone wishing to speak on any item on the agenda can come forward now.

Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Real.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Director Riel.

And ma'am, just for information, uh, if it's an item on the agenda, you can speak at that time, or you can speak now.

Okay, yeah, that's that's usually better if you're an item.

Is it what what even I'm sorry?

What what item are you?

Um those are being pulled off.

Yeah, we were gonna pull those off of routine.

Okay.

Yeah, please.

It should just be a second.

All right, now now Directory.

The second item is the approval of the agenda after considering any additions or deletions of items.

Staff has the following requests, which may require renotification fees in accordance with Title 30.

Hold to the January 21st, 2026 zoning meeting, item 36, ZC250771, item 37, WS 25072, item 38, ZC 25076, and item 39, UC 25077, and then hold to the February 18th, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item 22, ZC 250715, item 23, VS 250717, and item 24, UC 250716.

The above public hearing items are going to be open as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the dates as previously previously stated.

With these deletions, which are items 22, 23, 24, and 36 through 39.

The agenda stands ready for your approval.

I think we have a comment.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

We would like to hold items uh 13, 14, 15, and 16 to the January 7th hearing.

Is that okay?

That is that's fine with me if it's okay with you.

It's done.

Thank you.

All right, with the recommended changes written to the record, I move approval of the agenda.

That's motion to approve the agenda.

Cast your vote.

That motion passes.

The third item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes.

The minutes of the November 19th, 2025 zoning meeting are ready for your approval.

Move approval of the minutes.

That motion passes.

Next to the routine action items, which consists of items four through 30, except items previously deleted and items 7, 8, 9, and 25, which will be polled and heard separately.

These items may be considered together in one motion and are subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item.

In addition, staff has the following requests.

Item 16, TM 25500, 140, add public works conditions, no street lights on Viking Road, and applicant to install poll box and conduit along Viking Road.

Item 17, PA 2570042, delete the only public works condition.

Item 20, DR250691, add a comprehensive planning condition, detach sidewalk and landscaping along Blue Diamond Road per revised plans on file data 121525.

And add a public works condition applicant to coordinate with in dot and Clark County Public Works for offside improvements along Blue Diamond Road.

If there are no objections, the public hearing is now open and the routine action portion of the agenda stands ready for approval.

Move approval routine action items.

So item 33, WS 250750.

Waivers of Development Standards for the following.

Full offsite improvements in conjunction with the single family residential development on 2.04 acres and an RS40 residential single family 40 zone, generally located south of Jake's place and west of Benita Street within Lone Mountain.

My name is Susan Florian from Tanney Engineering 6030 South Jones Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant.

What we have here is a 2.04 uh gross acres uh located on Jake's place and Bonita Vista.

Uh we're asking for a parcel.

Uh we're just asking to parcel out the map.

Uh what we're asking for is off site improvements on lot uh two.

Uh there's already partial paving there, um, and that's basically what we're asking for.

We're not asking for any modifications to the zoning or land use.

Uh, with that, I conclude my presentation, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone here wishing to speak on that?

See no one will close the public hearing.

Turn it over to Mr.

Kirk Patrick.

Uh thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chairman.

So um we agree there's no other off sites in the area, but I just want to be clear that the minimum requirements of paving that you'll have to do, it's not waivable.

Um, so we get a lot of people that come back and say, Oh, I didn't know that meant me, so I want to make sure that you know it does mean you.

Okay.

So you'll have to meet public works' minimal paving requirement.

Okay, with that, I'll make a motion for approval.

There's a motion cast to vote.

That motion passes.

Thank you, County Commissioners.

Have a good day.

I think that's a record for Commissioner Kirkpatrick as far as next are companion items seven through nine.

Item 7 VS 250749, vacant abandoned easements of interest, Clark County located between Windmill Lane and Mistral Avenue alignment and Cimarron Road and Gagnir Boulevard within Enterprise.

Item 8, UC 250748 use permit for a mini warehouse, waivers of development standards for the following.

Reduce buffering and screening, reduce parking, modify residential adjacency standards, and alternative driveway geometrics.

Design review for proposed commercial complex on five acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located south of Windmill Lane and west of Cimarron Road within Enterprise, and then item nine, TM25500 and 182.

Tentative map consisting of one commercial lot on five acres and a CG commercial general zone, generally located south of Windmill Lane and west of Cimarron Road within Enterprise.

Good morning.

And this is my architect Sergio to answer any technical questions on the one that just talks a lot.

So in any case, uh we are here to answer any questions that you might have on the project.

The uh we concur with all of staff's recommendations, which essentially was approval, but I know there's someone from the neighborhood here, which we can listen to her questions, answer anything that you might need.

Partial property.

All right, that completes your presentation.

Well uh turn it over.

It's a public hearing.

So, ma'am, if you want to come forward and let us know what you think.

Good morning, commissioners.

My name is Misty Bower.

I live at 8211 Rainy Mountain Court, 89113, directly across from this proposed um mini warehouse development.

Um, I'm here representing the names on all these petitions against the waivers.

They want reduced buffering, reduced parking, modify residential agency, alternative driveway geometries, and waiver waivers of standards for parking.

The mini warehouses, they're going to be two of them, 36 foot tall, 68,100 square foot, and the other one 57,000 square foot.

It'll be directly in front of the RNP preservation neighborhood simmer and highlands, as well as in the heart of the R2 residential communities.

If waivers are granted, there'll be no transition between the RP and the warehouses.

This is a commercial encroachment.

Developer only wants an eight-foot buffer and less trees.

There should be a logical progression, not a decrease in the buffering and screening.

RP standards are put in place to manage manage noise and visual impact.

What is being presented does not meet these standards.

The RP will have a 36 fact.

Two tall buildings with only an eight-foot wall as a separation.

Other developers, Richmond America, Lenar, and Toll, Storybrooke honored the buffering in their communities adjacent to this development.

What is proposed is not honoring the RP.

The parking waiver is also an issue.

They want to decrease it from 145 to 94.

Where are the employees as well as the large trucks for loading and unloading supposed to park?

The EV spaces will also occupy space from the proposed thereby, thereby decreasing the parking spaces along with EV charging.

It will draw Uber and Grubhub and others.

EV vehicles will utilize the spaces for longer durations as well as bring in more traffic to the community.

I didn't see any loading and unloading zones that were mentioned.

And in reference to the tavern and the two QSRs, pending what type of QSRs will be needed for two 2500 square foot businesses.

Low signage and low lighting would be conducive.

This development will have a negative impact, increased traffic along Cimarron and Windmill, which are a two-lane road.

This may also impact emergency vehicle response times with increased density.

Moving trucks, U-Halls, delivery trucks, boats, trailers, and RVs entering and exiting could be an hazard, especially with the decreased approach waiver and proximity to the park.

The project along with the two LENAR projects will have an effect and increase the density all on this two-lane road.

All of this will affect and change the dynamics of a bedroom community.

Plans for Cimarron to continue to die.

For your time.

Thank you so much.

I didn't read fast enough.

Yeah, did you have a petition or anything with signatures you wanted to put in the record?

I included it in the back of yours.

I have the original if you need the originals.

No, that's that's good.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else wishing to speak on this item?

Seeing no one real close to the public hearing turnover.

Mr.

Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And I appreciate uh the neighbor.

I had a chance to meet with her on on Monday.

Um, and the very thoughtful uh consideration here.

I I do think there's been some misperceptions of what the waiver requests were.

Um and also just just to be so that you're aware, ma'am.

The parcel to the to the west of that was airport parcel, and it was subject to the auction from I don't know, Sammy.

Do you recall that was last meeting, two meetings ago?

Uh recently, uh subject to the auction, and that that'll be coming in for residential development um uh higher than what it is currently.

So uh can Sammy, do you want to just clarify or or Mr.

Wash Krug if you want to clarify where the uh requested um change in in buffering is and that it's not along where the R and P is the section you need to identify yourself, sir?

Item is Sergio Comparan with SEA the sign.

Can you hold the personal microphone?

It's there right is their microphone on the desk there.

Yeah, use that use that sorry.

Uh my name is Sergio Comparan with SCA the sign.

And the buffer request is occurring along the west side of the property where it's undeveloped residential.

Very good.

So there's no request for for a reduction in the buffering um uh along the residential on the south side along the RMP.

Correct.

We meet the requirements there.

Okay.

Uh, with regards to parking, uh, Ms.

Real, can you just comment on the request for a reduction in parking, whether it's appropriate?

So the reduction in parking, um, when we did the rewrite for Title 30, we included a much higher parking requirement for uh mini warehouse facilities, and we've seen a lot of waivers since and some justification as to uh why the new parking ratio is or may not be appropriate, so we've been directed to reduce that, and we're working on that right now.

So I think that's the bulk of the uh reduction in parking is related to the mini warehouse.

Understood.

And then so even though there might not be as many parking stalls, speaking from experience, I know this has been raised by uh by many in these uh prior mini warehouses, there will be at least temporary spaces in in front of the the buildings for people to park while they're offloading their stuff and and loading into uh warehouses.

Is that okay?

That's correct.

Okay, so even though that's not reflected in the parking count, that is additional space where they can park.

Correct.

Okay.

Um all right, with that.

Uh I certainly understand your concerns.

Um, I think that the reason that uh staff had recommended approval is because it is consistent with with the area there uh and with the um higher density residential that's gonna be coming in just to the west of that.

And uh so with that, I'll go ahead and move for approval of agenda items seven, eight, and nine.

Uh there's a motion, Cash.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 25, ZC250758.

Zone changes for the following.

Reclassify 2.5 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an IP industrial park zone and remove the neighborhood protection RP overlay.

Generally located west of Mohawk Street and south of Saab Avenue alignment within Spring Valley.

Samantha Ryan Storm Development Services, 9811 West Charleston Boulevard, Suite 2.

That microphone doesn't seem to work well, so either use that one or hold them.

Is that better?

There, okay.

Do you want me to start over?

Hello, Samantha Ryan Storm Development Services, 9811 West Charleston Boulevard Suite 2.

Um, I'm here on behalf of the applicant today, Mohawk Capital Management.

Um I'm also a member of that entity.

I'm one of the owners of this property.

We are simply asking for a conforming zone change to IP and the vacation of the patent easements, which was already approved on consent agenda.

Um this is the underlying land use here.

Previously did a plan amendment in 2024 that changed most of this west side of Mohawk to an underlying BE land use.

Um we're now simply coming in and cleaning up the zoning from RS20 to IP.

We do not have any project in mind at this time.

We're just doing what we can to get everything in line so that we can market it to users as being zoned for something that we know is gonna eventually go there.

So I'm not sure why this is a controversial thing or why it was pulled off, but that's really what we're doing.

All right, if that completes your presentation, there's a public hearing.

Anyone here wishing to speak on the item?

See, no one real close to public hearing.

Turn over to Commissioner Nav.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh uh I think it's been explained to you a couple times now in in writing, verbally, every other which way.

Uh it's not that it's controversial, it's that uh I don't approve zone changes without plans.

That's been very clear uh since Title 30 update.

Um I don't want to belabor the point, but I know that's been made very clear to you.

So I uh am willing to offer you what we've explained before.

It can be withdrawn if you want without prejudice, and when you have plans to submit along with it, I'm happy to encourage you to do that.

Uh otherwise I'm prepared to move for a denial.

Okay.

Um I think my confusion on that is is in the Clark County zoning guidelines.

It says the applicant is not required to show plans when a conforming zone change is requested.

However, a subsequent design review of the project may be required before development can begin.

We're fully aware that we're gonna have to come back in and do a DR whenever, if and when we have a project to build there.

We have no idea what we're doing at this time.

And so when you do, you're welcome to come back in with the zone change.

Mr.

Warhol, is there anything you wanted to add?

No, the uh the denial or withdrawal would be without prejudice, so I can come in any time.

So it's entirely proper to deny it.

Okay.

So it sounds like there's no interest in withdrawing.

So when I asked the the question, it my issue is I spent the time doing the application process, got through pre-ops very easily with staff, was approved, recommended for approval, put on consent agenda.

When I asked about what happens if we withdraw, I'm told I I don't get my application money back.

My only option is to hold the project indefinitely.

Again, I don't know if we are going to be developing the property, or I can accept the denial and also not get my fees back.

So those are the three options.

You can hold indefinitely, which I think is really six months.

Um you can withdraw without prejudice, is what I'm willing to offer, or you can accept the denial.

Okay.

And just so everybody in the room understands this has been made very clear prior to this morning.

Uh so you got it one more second to decide which of those three choices you want, or I'll make the decision for you.

Okay, you can make the decision.

Okay, I'll move to deny uh item 25.

There's a motion, yes, and just for the record, it's without prejudice.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Next is item 31.

UC 250756.

Use permit for outdoor dining and drinking.

Waivers and development standards for the following.

Eliminate street landscaping, reduce parking, modify residential adjacency standards, allow an attached sidewalk, and allow a commercial pan driveway.

Design review for proposed restaurant buildings and drive-throughs with within an existing commercial complex on 1.1 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located north of Flamingo Road and west of Pinecrest Street within Paradise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Lebanony 520 South 4th Street, representing the applicant to orient you to the site.

The site is located north of Flamingo Road and West of Pinecrest Street, which is a cul de sac further up.

The request is for two.

It's for two fast food restaurants, a Dodge Bros, and a Zach's Beast.

The Zach's Beast is a chicken restaurant that is a new chain to the valley from the Midwest.

This would be the second location in the county.

The previous one is on Blue Diamond Road.

Two of we which we are going to withdraw with this request.

So the first one we're going to redraw is the one for an attached sidewalk.

We are proposing a detached sidewalk, and we'll come back in later to do a vacation.

So I wanted to deal with the public works waivers first for a commercial pan driveway because there is existing equipment and other things in the way.

And so we will draw that without prejudice as well.

The other waivers will remain.

So they don't have any call boxes.

The ZAXBs, on the other hand, does have a call box, and to mitigate that, we proposed additional landscaping along the northern boundary and also an acoustic wall along the drive-through lane.

Although they um this drive-thru is farther south from this proposed one.

We did propose that acoustic wall, and staff is okay with that.

But because it's 20 feet of landscaping, uh the fear is since there's a lot of homeless in that area, they would hide between the two walls.

That's why we didn't propose that as well.

Um we've been working frantically with staff on both the pan driveway issue and the setback issues, and I've created all these um mitigations to allow the project to go forward.

And with that, um, we would appreciate approval for the board as my Christmas, your Christmas gift to me.

Um that completes your presentation.

See no one we'll close the public hearing and um ask Antonio if you can clarify the driveway.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um, because they are withdrawing um waiver of standards number four, which is to keep the attached sidewalk.

I just want to make sure and it's on the record that they need to come back uh with a vacation.

And with the detached sidewalk, uh, we typically like to see a commercial curb return driveway.

It's safer for the public, it's safer uh for uh ingress egress with vehicles.

They may not have the room in this area, so I think it's a good idea to keep that waiver and just continue to work with public works for the driveway on uh Pinecrest Street.

All right.

And my understanding is the Dutch boys was not gonna have a call box.

Don't have to worry about that.

The other location will have a call box, but there will be a barrier so that the sound doesn't go into the neighborhood.

Yes, there'll be that double barrier.

There is um, I think it's so over the land speaker.

So that barrier, it's around here, and then we did propose three additional trees, uh additional buffer, and then we're adding more trees into the northern battery, all to mitigate that requirement.

All right, can we just make it clear that the the Dutch boys will not have call box?

Is that in the we put that in the record?

So it's not shown on their plans, but if you'd like to condition that so that stays with that um that building, uh then you can propose that.

Yeah, I'd like to propose that.

But otherwise, I appreciate you're working with staff, and I would appreciate staff working with you, but this problem there's been a huge homeless problem in that corner there with that old bank building.

So this is gonna be a major, major improvement.

So thank you so much.

Yeah, and and just to clarify to Miss Real, we did put on the plan that the menu boards do not have coal boxes.

All right, thank you.

All right, with that, I'll make a motion to approve.

On behalf of Mr.

Rojas, this is a great project.

Thank you, Commissioners, and happy Hanukkah, happy holidays.

Merry Christmas to you all right, Christmas.

Thank you so much.

Next is item 32, UC 250762 use permit for cannabis establishment dispensary in conjunction with the previously approved cannabis consumption lounge on 1.6 acres in a CG commercial general zone within the airport environments AE60 overlay and the Maryland Parkway overlay.

Generally located north of Desert End Road and west of Maryland Parkway within Winchester.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chairman.

Good morning, commissioners.

Uh Michael Cristalli appearing on behalf of Sky High LLC.

This is a use permit request uh to change location for the Jade Cannabis uh dispensary to its adjacent property that has just recently been approved uh for its um its rec its lounge.

Uh just so that the commission is aware the desert in uh jade dispensary and previously Bloom has been at that location probably 10 years now, and uh there's been no issues.

The um the um the business contributes to the community in a number of different ways, and we believe has been a good community partner.

So we'd ask the commission to approve uh the use request.

All right, this is a public hearing.

Anyone here wishing to speak?

Seeing no one, um I'll close the public hearing and just for edification, Marilyn.

Uh this is not actually a lounge.

The lounge has already been approved, so this is just moving the dispensary, which is next door as part of the lounge.

So it's it's not something you necessarily have to do.

It's okay, it's a lounge.

You don't hate me for voting against it.

I'm consistent.

It's okay.

All right, but anyway, this is a dispensary.

So it is let's talk to me later about your use permit.

We have an issue.

Is it a dispensary or is it a lounge?

I don't mind supporting dispensaries.

I just philosophically disagree with the lounges.

They were previously before us earlier this year with a use permit.

I think maybe it was an extension of time for the for the lounge.

So they currently have a valid use permit for the consumption lounge.

So this is adding a dispensary to this location.

Okay.

I'll vote for it then for heaven's sakes.

All right, this is my last one, so thank you so much.

All right, thank you so much.

What is the vote?

I I move to approve cast your vote.

That motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Happy holidays.

Next are companion items 34 and 35.

Item 34, ZC 250626.

Zone change to reclassify 2.09 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone and a CG commercial general zone to an IL industrial light zone.

Generally located south of Glenn Avenue and east of Stratford Avenue within Sunrise Manor.

Item 35, WS 250672, waivers and development standards for the following.

Modify buffering and screening standards, eliminate street landscaping, modify residential adjacency standards, and waive full off site improvements.

Design review for a proposed outdoor storage facility on 2.09 acres in an IL industrial light zone.

Generally located south of Glenn Avenue and east of Stratford Avenue within Sunrise Manor.

Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners.

And Chairman.

This is in the chairman's district.

And we have followed his guidance to the extent that we were able.

With regard to the zone change request, this is in conformance with the master plan and what has otherwise been approved in the area.

It is an area that's uh under redevelopment.

Uh and therefore uh the applicant has been uh conscientious about maintaining the property in general with regard to the variances.

We think they're adequately justified on the record.

Uh and uh we would ask that the uh items both items be approved uh with the if approved conditions requested by the various staffs.

Thank you so much.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone here wishing to speak on the item?

Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and Sammy.

Can you just clarify what the we agreed on?

Correct.

So because there is a future uh or there is an SID for Glenn Um Glenn Avenue.

The recommendation that we have is instead of waiving the street landscaping at this time, if we can defer it until after the improvements are done.

Um and so what I recommend is for a five-year review of the waiver of the street landscaping to line up with the five-year review for the full off sites with public works conditions.

And Antonio, we're gonna put the SID language in there.

So the idea this is gonna be an SID.

It's already there as a condition, Commissioner.

All right, and Greg, I don't think you gave us your name for the record.

I thought I was famous, but what do you know?

Uh Greg Borgell, 3747 Heritage Avenue.

And uh we further accept the clarification being offered here by staff, which we understand involves uh a deferral of certain improvements uh which maybe aren't uh technically uh variant uh waivers as the code calls for.

All right, with that I make a motion.

Motion for approval.

I'm not sure if you're famous or infamous.

Well, or infamous.

It all depends.

All right, that motion passes.

Next is item 40, WS 250557.

Holdover appeal, waivers of development standards to increase wall height in conjunction with an existing single-family residence on 0.49 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RP overlay.

Generally located south of Darby Avenue and west of Rolling Acres Circle within Spring Valley.

Commissioners, uh, for your information.

This project was approved by the planning commission and then appealed by a neighbor who disagrees with the planning commission's decision.

All right.

Come on forward.

So are you the applicant or are you the appellant?

Uh not applicant.

Uh Mr.

Brown's actually representing the applicant.

We're the we're the neighbors.

We were here last month.

So Andy Sparks 3236 Cliff Sealer Court.

Um, we've been working with Mr.

Brown.

Thank you for you know the recommendations last month, everything we've we've been able to figure everything out between the two neighbors, and I guess if I can hand it over to Mr.

Brown just to provide an update and recommendations.

Good.

Good job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

David Brown, 520 South 4th Street.

With your permission, we were able to meet in the last month.

Thank you for giving us that opportunity.

We would ask just to add two conditions.

Uh one to complete the the framing of the wall all the way across.

I don't know if you recall it was only about a third of the way.

And second, just the work be done with the biolicensed contractor.

And with that, we're in complete agreement.

Both parties will do what they want and pay for what they want on their side of the wall.

All right.

I'm not sure.

Is this a public hearing too?

Or is it so there's a public hearing?

Anyone here wishing to speak?

See no one, we'll close the public hearing turn over to Mr.

Jones.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Commission uh Chair.

Uh Mr.

How do I frame?

So this will just be a motion to approve with the additional conditions.

Yes, okay.

All right, then I will go ahead and uh first off, thank you very much.

Uh both the neighbors and other was a lot of strong feelings, and certainly all got to live together uh uh back to back.

So I appreciate both sides working together and coming up with the solution that everybody can live with.

So uh with that, I'll go ahead and move for approval of agenda item number 40 with the two additional stated conditions.

There's a motion cast your vote.

That motion passes, and thank you so much.

All right, thank you, everyone.

Happy holidays.

Next is item 41, WS250693.

Appeal waiver of development standards to increase wall height in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.16 acres and an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone, generally located west of De Forest Street and south of Garden Grove Avenue within Spring Valley.

Commissioners, for your information, the planning commission denied this application, and the uh or sorry, the applicant filed the appeal again, disagreeing with the planning commission's decision.

Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Uh Amanda Knolder, I am a representative for the applicant, uh, the Zani family at 4381 DeForest Street.

Uh this is an application for a self-supported privacy structure.

Umjacent to the existing retaining wall.

And uh this one has been up here quite a bit.

I don't want to go into any of the details of the necessity of the wall.

It is uh an ongoing neighborhood dispute.

Um, but we are here to answer any questions and open to any um modifications or suggested modifications of what we had proposed.

All right, this is a public hearing.

Anyone here wishing to speak.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Robin Maxie.

I live next to the Zani family at 4389 D4th Street.

We're here today because my neighbor has erected a non-permitted fence.

It's been up there for 17 months since August of 24, and a redundant fence uh fence.

The decision of the planning commission was to tear down the poorly constructed fence.

If you allow them to build, there will be no control of what goes up.

It would have to be a licensed contractor.

We oppose erecting a redundant fence.

It will be an eye sore.

We would like it to go back as it was when we bought the house.

Our backyard is our only sanctuary.

Out front, we are always met with harassment, fireworks, horns, vulgar yelling, screaming.

I know everyone has their own taste, but most of our neighborhood thinks that the front yard next door to me is trash.

That's their front yard.

Oh that's part of the fence.

Part of the fence.

This is what they've done.

So the block wall, the redundant fence.

That's our backyard.

This is our yard.

It's really not fine.

Are we laughing at the witch or the or this is their front yard?

This is their front yard.

This is their fence.

Somehow our dog got injured.

The only thing we can figure is this rebar pole.

This was two days ago, their front yard.

Please hold the microphone just a little bit closer to your face.

I'm sorry.

This is two days ago.

Their front yard.

So it's not just me that thinks it's a pig's dye.

I oppose.

So my understanding was the the planning commission has supported you, and and now there's an appeal from the planning commission.

I didn't appeal it.

Right.

They appealed.

Yes.

All right.

If that concludes your your opposition, anyone else here wishing to speak.

Seeing no one, we'll close the I'm sorry.

I don't my name is Janice Liston.

I don't live in the neighborhood.

I'm her girlfriend.

Okay.

Um the item says to increase the wall height.

I I don't think Robin would disagree with increasing the block wall in accordance with your permitting accurately.

Um that's fine.

If you build the block wall with a licensed contractor, but if he wants to build a fence inside his property, he's gonna put up witches and hor horrible stuff just to harass them.

And it's been going on for years and years, and I've witnessed it.

Thank you.

All right, that concludes the public hearing.

Um turn over to Commissioner Nath.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I'm sorry, did you want to speak also?

I apologize.

Oh, anyone else want to speak?

Please come forward.

Uh thank you, group.

My name is Lee Zaychik.

I live across the street at 4374 to force.

Um I talked to um Robin Zanny.

Um Robin Maxie about three and a half years ago on July 8th, and she's and they saw me talking to her, they said they will retaliate.

That following morning, I had five BBs shot at the house.

It woke me up.

The dog was ready to attack.

I went to Metro.

They said you should have called 911.

Since then, for three and a half years, I've been harassed.

I've built two walls at great expense with security cameras.

Um because I talked to her, they were mad at me.

I just want to oppose this wall, and uh please do not do this wall.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I was recently transported by my own.

Sorry, could you state your name, please?

I'm a resident of 89052.

That pertains to Michael Naft.

And what's your name though?

Karen Pena.

Okay.

Is this does that make it more valid?

Oh, I'm sorry, this is a different item.

Sorry?

You're you're speaking on a different item.

Are you are you here on this item?

No, I'm here on my own item.

If you want to sit down and wait a few more minutes, I've been waiting since October of 2024, Michael.

Well, we've met since then.

But if you want to have a seat and wait till the second public comment.

Okay.

I'll wait again, Michael.

Okay.

All right.

Anyone else wish to speak on this item?

Seeing no one will close to the public hearing and turn over to Commissioner Nav.

If you guys want to come back up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh okay.

So the uh there is a lot of history on this property.

I've heard uh I've had the opportunity to meet with everybody uh on both sides of this issue in great length over many years, frankly.

There is uh as I've told both of you guys, it kind of breaks my heart that this has gone on so long because I think you're all lovely, nice people who ought to be able to figure out a way to move past it without using so many resources of your local government.

Uh almost every department related to uh issues involving this fence and involving the surrounding area is familiar with both you guys by first and last name.

Um, which leads me, all that is to say that what is before us today is a relatively simple uh request for a height increase of a wall.

You've asked for both the backyard and the front yard.

I'm not gonna consider today anything on the front yard, okay?

That's too much.

Uh I also believe that you know, perhaps good fences make good neighbors.

Maybe I don't really see how a height increase of this wall is gonna be detrimental to either the neighborhood or the relations between the both parties.

I would implore you guys, while it has nothing to do with this application to take the mean things off of your property, take them down.

You should have done that way.

You should have never put them up, but you shouldn't keep them up since you got scolded for it at the planning commission.

You and I have talked about it.

Just take it down and start again.

Rebuild this relationship.

You guys used to be friendly once upon a time.

And on the other side of this, you can't use code enforcement as a you know, to solve every problem that you have.

And you also don't let them antagonize you.

Don't build higher than your wall on your side.

I think we can all kind of move past this and hopefully in a direction.

We all have neighbors.

Often we don't even see our neighbors or know they're there.

I think that would probably be the best case scenario here.

As it relates to the wall though, what is currently there is not gonna work.

It's uh I try not to get into aesthetics because you know not everyone might like what I like.

Uh universally, I think we could agree that that's not gonna work.

Um I also am concerned, though I leave it to the building department officials to make this the determination, but that what you have is probably not gonna meet their requirements.

I don't have a problem with raising the height of either the existing wall or a redundant wall, but there it's uh one has to be done by a licensed contractor.

So that'll be a stipulation of any approval today.

Two, it's gotta be a solid.

I think white would be probably preferable, but it's gotta be if it's not adding to the cinder block wall, which would be preferential, and I would in my motion I'll approve that, uh, so it just matches what's existing.

Um if you do go with a redundant option, it should be a solid color uh and installed by a licensed contractor and in the backyard only, and I would allow up to nine feet, which is what's proposed.

Ums real, is there anything unclear about what I just said that I should clarify for the record?

No, I understand the motion.

Okay.

Does the applicant understand that you have two choices here?

With when I make my motion, it'll give you two options.

Both of those options are gonna necessitate removing what you currently have.

Okay.

It both of those options will allow you one, to either raise the existing wall if it is engineered, uh, if it has if it's feasible to do so, if the engineering allows for it, you can raise the six feet wall up to nine feet.

It will have to match on both sides of the wall, match the aesthetic perfectly.

Uh, the existing aesthetic, right?

It can't be a different color, different material.

It would have to match perfectly.

Or if you so choose to do a redundant wall or fence, it has to be a solid color.

It has to uh white would be the preference.

Um, and it has to be installed.

Either way, it has to be installed by a licensed contractor.

Okay.

And I'm begging both of you guys to just leave each other alone, okay.

That's not in my motion, that's just my preference.

Um is there any clarification needed from anyone here?

So the motion is for approval, but there are several conditions, and please know uh I will be watching closely.

This will be pulled right back as quickly uh as I can be if you don't follow uh the conditions that I've set on this application, okay.

Mr.

Chairman, I think the uh uh other side has a question here.

I don't know if you want to allow that or not.

Yes.

If you want to come up, you have a cover the microphone.

Why does there have to be a few?

I'm sorry, you need to state your name again.

Sorry, Robin Maxie.

Why does there have to be a redundant wall?

Well, there doesn't have to be one.

I think both of you guys will benefit from a little bit of a little bit of an increase to the height.

I said they have the option of doing the cinder block.

I don't know that that's gonna be feasible.

I don't know that the engineering of that wall is gonna allow for it.

If it does allow for it, then they can go ahead and do that.

If it doesn't allow for it, I'm willing to let them put up something that matches the aesthetic that in talking with you, I think you'd be comfortable with uh and would be parallel to the wall that exists.

And why does it why does it have to be?

It doesn't have to be, but that's my motion because I genuinely believe that having uh three feet additional height is only gonna benefit this relationship and not aggravate it.

Uh the cameras that they're talking about, I took down after the planning commission.

Thank you.

So I didn't have to.

That's correct.

I didn't have to.

And the moment that someone comes over the wall, they're going right back up.

Understood, and you're allowed to have cameras.

Uh okay.

So what I'm I'm hearing you guys are both apologizing and ready to move forward with ignoring each other.

Good.

So yeah, so it's not gonna be a nine-foot redundant wall.

It could be, it would be that would put it three feet over your what's existing.

But it would have to be done by a licensed contractor, it has to be one solid color, so none of that plywood, none of that graffiti spray painting on it, uh, none of the screening would be allowed, and all of that has to be approved by the Clark County Building Department.

They will have to go to the county building department or their contractor will to get permission to build that.

Okay.

All right, there's a motion on the floor.

Thank you.

All right, there's a motion castro.

That motion passes.

Next are ordinances for introduction.

Item 42 ORD 2590057 is to introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with PSI Aquindo LLC for a mini warehouse on 4.2 acres, generally located west of Fort Apache Road and north of Oquindo Road within Spring Valley.

And then item 43, ORD 25901025 is an introduction of an ordinance to amend the official zoning map for classifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 4th, 2022, and October 8th, 2025.

Commissioners, we request that you set the public hearing for January 7th, 2026.

Next is the last time set aside for public comment.

All right.

Oh, eight nine zero five two.

Oh, your name.

We do it for the record, just so that you're clear.

We we have to do that.

I could have said anything.

We're not gonna do it though.

89052.

So I was transported to the Henderson Detention Center very violently, and upon arrival, I did not hear my rights read to me.

So I was not aware of the flushing privileges in the jail.

And um, so I did not know that you could only flush twice.

And so when I got diarrhea, I had to live with my own shit forever.

And uh, I did go to the mayor to tell her about it, but she said she couldn't run a campaign on that, so she trespassed me.

She didn't want to hear about flushing privileges of the inmates of Henderson, 89052.

And um, and I also have a lot of evidence of my uh mistreatment by Henderson Police.

Uh however, it's in DVD format, so I'm wondering if Michael Naft can help me view the DVDs, perhaps in his office, because my computer doesn't seem to align with any of the formats that Henderson's providing me my evidence in.

Michael, could I use your computer, please?

I know you have internet, and I've told you I don't.

Do you have a DVD player, Michael?

Ma'am, this is for the documents of the area you commission that are given in DVD format.

Ma'am, we don't respond during public comments.

I asked I'm asking Michael.

I don't know if you have do you have a DVD player, Mr.

Tick.

We don't respond during public comment.

So just we if you have three minutes to make your make your comments.

Oh, he talked to the lady before me.

He had a therapy session with her about the wall.

So Michael talks when he wants to.

Michael, could I use your DVD player?

This this is a period of public comment.

He doesn't want to talk.

Excuse me?

This is a period for public comment, and during public comment, we don't respond.

Okay.

So when would you like me to tell my my concerns as a citizen of 89052 again?

So that Michael can feel compelled to answer them in the proper format.

Mr.

Tick, because Michael can't introduce the chairman, if I could how to be a correct citizen of his own area.

Go ahead, Michael.

How do I do this?

I was gonna indicate you have another minute left to say whatever you'd like for the record, and we can continue to talk.

Yeah, Michael, I also can't get access to a woman's shelter in your zip code or any other zip code in this county.

I've told this building about it.

I've approached security many times about it.

That's your three minutes are up.

Thank you so much for your public comments.

Yeah, and the response please.

If you want to have a seat, I think we have two minutes before our next meeting.

I'm happy to come say hello.

I'm sorry.

Let us adjourn the meeting and I'm happy to come talk to you again.