Recording in progress.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'd like to call the March 5th, 2026, Washoe County Board of Adjustment meeting to order.

May we uh please have the determination of quorum.

Peter Gershawn.

Present.

Rob Pierce.

Present.

Kathy Julian.

Present.

Patrick Caldwell appears to be absent.

Leo Harishni.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

If you would all please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

Individual with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

May we please have the ethics law announcement.

Board members are reminded that if, with respect to any matter or any person coming before the board today, you have received a gift or a loan.

You have a pecuniary interest, you have a commitment in a private capacity, such as a family, such as a family employment or b business or similar relationship, or you provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year on a matter being considered.

You must disclose that gift loan interest commitment or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered.

And you must furthermore abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it is clear that that gift loan interest commitment or prior representation would materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person.

Board members are also reminded that under the board of adjustment rules, if you had any contact outside this meeting with any persons interested in a matter coming before the board today, you should disclose the nature of that contact at this meeting.

Thank you.

Uh the appeal procedure, please, Mr.

Lloyd.

Most decisions rendered by the Board of Adjustment are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners.

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Adjustment and qualify as an aggrieved person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that the decision being appealed is reduced to writing, filed with the Secretary of the Board of Adjustment and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code.

Please call the planning staff immediately at 775 328 610 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you.

Do we have any general public comment?

There is no general public comment in chambers or via Zoom.

And let the record show that Patrick Caldwell member has joined us at 133.

Pat, if you could please test your audio.

Yes, I am here.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good to have you, Pat.

Yeah, welcome.

Okay, uh now to today's agenda.

There has been one change uh by mutual agreement.

Uh the county and an applicant for item 8B have agreed to postpone this matter.

With that, do I have a uh motion for today's agenda?

This is Rob, I make a motion to approve the amended agenda.

Thank you.

I approved second.

Okay, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any ayes?

Any opposed say nay?

Okay, motion passive.

Now uh as to the February 5th, 2026 draft minutes.

Has everyone read those?

Any comments, changes, concerns?

Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

Does Rob I move to approve is written?

Okay.

Okay, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Okay, motion passes.

We'll now move on to uh the public hearing.

First item 8A variance case number WPVAR 25-006.

Mr.

Lloyd.

Yes, uh, for uh hearing discussion and possible action to approve a variance for uh side yard setback from eight feet to one foot five inches for the installation of a funicular track at 552 Gonewabi Road in Crystal Bay.

Representing Washoe County in this matter is planner Julio Lander.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Good afternoon, Julio Lander for the record.

So as uh Mr.

Lloyd said, this is uh a variance to um asked uh reduce the side yard set back set back from eight feet to one foot and five inches.

Sorry.

So um here on the um on the left, you see sort of in like blue where the parcel is located, and then on the right, just a little closer view.

And then here's the overall side plan of where the track is going to be located, and sort of the um western side of the property, and then here's a closer view of that of that track.

And then here's a closer view of that of that track.

And here's some visuals also of showing the house and where the track is going from basically Ganawavi Road all the way down to the lake front.

So the applicant is seeking this variance to reduce that side setback.

And the setback is set up by the Washoe County Code that is it's based on the square footage of the property.

So any parcels between 1200 square feet and 34,000 999, the setbacks are 20 feet in the front and eight on the sides.

The applicant states the majority of the track will be less than 30 inches above the grade, however, approximately 9.9 feet and eight inches from the top down, there will be it will be over 30 inches in height.

And portions of the tracks will exceed the 18 inches above grade, and that's what calculates it as a structure.

So we've sort of looped the track the track under what deck the deck requirements are, and if a deck is over 18 inches in height per code, then it is considered a structure.

So where this track is over 18 inches in height, it is considered a structure.

The proposed track will extend from the main living area down to the shoreline, like I said earlier.

And the applicant did look at some alternative locations.

However, the site is limited with slope and the location of the existing two-story 2,224 square foot resident residence, and then the 554 square foot garage.

The proposed location of the track will limit the impacts minimally by only elevating the track above ground and only grading certain portions.

So it limits the grading and it limits the elevation requirement because of the location.

And here are some other locations.

So the orange is where they are proposing to put it, but they did look at some other locations.

The cart height will be below the elevation of the neighboring property's windows, preserving their views and privacy, and will only be visible from the lake when the cart is parked down there.

And then like a normal conversation is typically 60 to 65 decibels.

The tram will generate less noise than created according to the applicant.

And here's some visuals of what the cart will look like.

So to grant a variance, as many of you know is a little cumbersome.

Nevada state redvised state statutes has specific requirements for variances, and they include exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, or specific piece of the property.

Two is by reason of exceptional topography conditions, or three is exceptional extraordinary or exceptional situations.

So looking at the property, it doesn't really meet the narrowness.

The requirement is that it's 60 feet wide, and this parcel is about 92 to 94 feet wide.

However, it does have exceptional topography.

According to the applicant, from the garage driveway level to the rear of the garage, the grade goes from 631 degree to 62 50 degrees, and then in a span of approximately 25 feet with a resulting slope of 76%.

From the rear of the garage to the end of the funicular run, the slope drops from 63 01% or degrees to 6,250 degrees, which in approximately 150 feet, resulting in a 44% slope for the majority of the run.

I know I didn't read that very well, and it's a little complicated, but you get understand that they have quite a bit of slope there.

So under the extraordinary exceptional situations, the applicant contends that there is extraordinary and exceptional situations.

And the path of the shoreline is difficult.

And according to the applicant, the steepness and length of the path is impractical for regular use.

The application also indicates that the owners are aging and the path is not safe, and the funicular will provide safe and easy access to the lake.

Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated the subject proper property exhibits one or more of the criteria needed to make the first findings for special circumstances as required by NRS and recommends approval of the variants.

38 parcels were notice.

Various agencies have reviewed the application, and their comments are included in exhibit A, and those with conditions are included in the conditions of approval.

I should say that's gonna their comments are in condition exhibit B.

So these are the requirements for a variance, special circumstances, no detriment, no special privileges, and use is authorized.

Oops.

So here's a possible motion.

The applicant's representative, I believe, is available on the phone, and and I do think they have a presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Any uh questions for staff at this time.

Julie, if I could ask, why no neighborhood meeting required for this?

I I can't.

I'll let Mr.

Lloyd exam that.

Yeah, the uh if you look at the uh the direction, the requirements for a neighborhood meeting variances are left out.

Typically, it involves one or two neighbors.

It's not something that would generally impact an entire neighborhood, and for that reason we don't require a neighborhood meeting.

Kathy Julian for the record, another query would be of staff would be um PPRA, TRPA was not required for review of this, or were they?

I'm not familiar with TRPA's requirements for uh a track.

I would think they would have some voice at least at the building permit stage.

They were not involved in this variance though, and I never I did not get comments back from them.

And uh my understanding is that this will also be required, uh it will require approval from TRPA.

Okay.

I have nothing further from staff.

Is the uh applicant present and do they wish to make a presentation?

I don't have anything to add.

Please state your name for the record.

Oh, I'm sorry, David Marcott.

I'm the owner of the subject property.

Um I've written some here, but I just thought it would fill in the gaps and do uh you know, kind of a summary of the uh request.

Uh but it was done so well that I I have nothing further to add.

So I'm finished, but my uh architect is available and uh he could probably answer those questions about GRPA because we we did contact them and we did have some review with them and discussions uh the details of those discussions, he would know better.

Okay.

Is the architect present and wish to make a presentation?

It's a lease.

At least that sent you a um okay.

If the applicant representative or engineer is online, if you would please raise your hand at this time.

They sent you a problem.

Okay.

Presentation is coming up.

I see a Kelly with the hand raised.

Are you with the applicant?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

If you'll please first and last name once the presentation starts.

You want me to sit down?

My name is Kelly Martinson.

I'm the representative for at least fentanyl associates.

And we did the submittal for Mr.

Marcott to answer the question about TRPA.

We did have a pre-design meeting with them, and their main concerns up front were just that we would be able to account for the coverage, uh, which is standard for most TRPA projects.

Then we will need a visual review where they have us do certain calculations from views from the lake and how it impacts the view there.

So we will have that.

Um was there any follow-up questions for TRPA on that?

Uh Kathy Julian for the record.

So the main concern of TRPA would be on the issue of coverage, and on the issue of the visual impact on from the lake, correct?

Correct.

Okay, and they will look at this after a decision by the Walsho by the Board of Adjustment.

Correct, yes.

Standard with most of the projects we've done, we'll need to whether or not the variance is granted and we can move forward, we'll prepare the plans as needed for the TRPA review.

And then we get the approval from TRPA prior to the Washoe County Building Department permit review process.

Okay.

And if you're an appropriate person to ask on this, what is the um amount of I I guess coverage of foliage and uh and uh along that stretch where it will run because I think the pictures that we've seen may be dated in terms of the Google pictures, because um, according to one of the neighbors, some some foliage has been cut and removed for fire reasons.

So is this a bare stretch of the um going down the slope, or is the are there trees and bushes along there?

We are not planning for any trees to be removed removed.

Mr.

Marcot might have a little bit more input on what he actually can see currently when he's there at his residence, but it's more low-lying vegetation.

Um, and as far as the TRPA coverage, what they look for primarily is um hard surfaces as far as um like the actual footprint of the residents or paving for the Ganawabi road that goes through or driveway.

Um there is the vegetation concern, and that comes more into the visual, which we do plan on screening as much as possible to not uh cause any problems, obviously, with the function of the lift, but also to make sure we're within the defensible space clearing, which that was one of the items that has been mentioned a few times is just how you do have to have defensible space for all of the residences for the safety of the neighborhood.

Okay.

Thank you.

And do you have a presentation as well?

Um, yes, it has been um, it looks like up on the screen.

We've been kind of using it a little bit as we went along with that discussion.

Um, but yes, just wanted to kind of touch on some of the concerns that um some of the neighbors may have.

And also to thank Julie for her presentation, similar to Mr.

Marcott did, just she was pretty in-depth on this one.

Um, but the reason we're looking for the funicular is for the steepness of the lot and some of the concerns from the homeowners as they age.

Um, some of the concerns that the neighbor had that we wanted to address though, would be the visibility of this.

And if you go to the next slide, you can see from the roadway, it's actually going to load back behind the existing bare bin for trash, the gas meter enclosure, and then that lower wall with the railing.

So it'll kind of already be hidden as cars drive by.

And the Ganawabi, if you're not familiar, is a one-way road.

So you come basically you'd be looking out the passenger window right now as you go up the road.

So that existing tree there on the right, closer to the camera would block a lot of this.

So you kind of have to almost be looking a little more over your shoulder as you went by to even see this from the road.

And then the neighbor directly out of his windows would have you know a little more visual of this, but you can kind of see, I believe it's in the next slide, that um as the cart goes down, there's kind of our 3D drawing there on the right, and then on the left is the actual view from the owner's property, Mr.

Marcot looking at the neighbor's residence.

But on the right, you can see where the cart would start, kind of on the right up high there, and then it'll drop down considerably steep slope and be about five feet um from where a occupant's eye level would be under these windows that are more of concern.

So you they would get a little bit of a visual, depending on where they are looking out the windows or the occupant of the cart looking at the house, but it drops quickly down below, and the angle isn't exactly the best for you know, I guess staring in somebody's window or however the concern would be there.

Um, also the cart moves um per the manufacturer at approximately 60 feet per minute.

So it's going to be a very short time frame that this would be even in the area of the residents before it gets further down the hill and a lot much lower than the residents.

Um the next item that was concerned was over the noise, which Julie covered for the manufacturer at about 15 feet, you're only at 45 decibels, give or take.

And an average conversation is considered 60 to 65 decibels.

So where the occupants would be loading is close to the driveway and where people can stand right now.

So we don't feel that there would be much of a change as far as any noise and the neighbors' windows are fixed, at least they appear to be fixed, so they can't necessarily even be open to allow more noise to come in.

So they can't necessarily even be open to allow more noise to come in.

Um then the other thing was whether or not there was any alternate locations, which again truly covered for us.

Um some of the alternate locations that we looked at were off the opposite side of the residence, but you can see in this picture of the structure, there's some horizontal beams that limit drastically the clearance of being able to come out from underneath those.

And if we started looking at any excavation, which then gets into TRPA concerns, um and also foundations for these columns where there could be some large issues on whether or not we could even excavate.

So there's a lot of structural limitations.

The primary alternate location was more on the left there, closer to the neighbor's residence, but down further.

And the big concern with that, other than the structure previously mentioned, is there are about 30 existing stairs to get down to those landings.

There's kind of some cross walkways that go back and forth, and then these stairs.

So it really would limit the useful distance of the funicular by about 40%, just based on how much you would have to move down the hillside, plus adding all of these new stairs and additional pathways.

So that kind of limited our alternate locations, meaning useful.

Um that pretty much covers most of the concerns.

This is another view, a couple more views of those pathways underneath the house that are existing that would still have to be traversed to use an alternate location.

Okay, is that conclude your presentation?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um any questions for the applicant?

Um, yes, this is Pat.

Sorry, Rob, go ahead.

No, it's it was Leo.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Oh, Leo.

Go ahead.

You're good.

Okay, thank you.

This is Pat Caldwell for the record.

Uh, I have a couple questions.

What is the distance between the funicular cart and the neighboring property?

Um, the property line, it's roughly about a foot from the funicular cart to the property line.

But the actual physical residence?

Um, the physical residence.

Let me just see real quick.

I have the drawings.

It looks like at the closest point, we are about nine feet at the very top where the cart would sit.

But then it angles away, the residence has an angle away from the property line.

It's not parallel with the property line.

Okay, and one uh this Pat Caldo for the record.

One additional question would be that um are you going to limit the hours of operation to daytime or early evening, or how will that work?

I believe that would be more of a question for the owner there that's in attendance.

If you had any thoughts on when they would be using this for um it's kind of uh in fact, we're gonna hardly use this.

Um we we are putting in a pure joint with with the neighboring property.

Uh so to get to our uh, you know, to get to the water and canoes and boat, um, we'll be using it during the day.

But um so I would say that uh the hours are just going to be inherent of reasonable.

Um there was one comment by my neighbor that we uh have a lot of people over uh in this house.

Uh we don't use that much.

Not that that's an argument to get the variance, uh which it isn't.

Um, but to answer your question on the hours, I think that it's just uh it's not like this is uh gonna be used by the public, and we're hand buses of people coming out.

Um basically it's just my wife and I and and my son.

Uh I did want to ask uh add one comment, two comments actually.

Uh, in regards to my neighbor's uh house, it's it's built out of CMU, which is uh, you know, a filled concrete block.

So with that, and then the interior side of the drywall, that's about a nine and a half inch uh wall.

Um so just uh clarification, a little bit of added information on that.

The other thing is that um uh my wife uh uh, and this is what makes it even more important for us is she has scoliosis of the spine, curvature of the spine.

It's a not an uncommon condition, but it is a condition, and she also has a chronic feet problems.

Uh so uh this is more of a motivation for us to to put the uh cart in a in a place that we don't have to use stairs, and uh and we can uh access the shoreline.

The other thing is that um uh my wife uh uh and this is makes it even more important for us is she has scoliosis of the spine curvature of the spine it's a not an uncommon condition but it is a condition and she also has uh chronic feet problems uh so uh this is more of a motivation for us to to put the uh cart in a in a place that we don't have to use stairs and uh and we can uh access the shoreline any questions or thank you uh yeah this is Pat Coldwell for the record I have one more question will there and thank you for that information I appreciate it will there be any lights on the structure down through the track or that will uh no there's no plans for that and I I don't even think that that would be um acceptable to the RPA with their visual guidelines then again I could be wrong on that but uh we have no intention to put lights uh on that track okay thank you you're welcome good any further questions uh Leo Habreshini um I have a question for the owner and that's fine and if we could come if we could go back to the presentation from the um architect and that one picture of the location with the bear box at the top thank you just a reminder to state your name for the record before you speak oh David Mark on thank you that's it so that is the um garage that we're looking at so my inner I just want to be clear that um I appreciate the fact with your wife's physical limitations that the access point from the stairs below the house is not considered ideal but my under so as you're putting this there the plan is that you and anyone using it will be going in and out through the garage at the top down that's correct uh behind the garage is the house and uh there's a laundry room from the garage and then there's the kitchen in the main living area so it uh in all practicality aside from uh this the stairs issue uh it's the perfect place to put it because we walk right out of the kitchen through the uh laundry room out to the garage all right all right that's it thank you yeah you're welcome anyone else okay do we have uh any public comment i have stephen krull in chambers thank you thank you my name is stephen crow and i appreciate the opportunity to express my deep concern with this it would be a profound uh problem for me if this goes in you will have noticed the closeness of our two buildings if this goes from a setback of eight feet which your uh the legislatures have set as being the fair and proper amount and which you are here and we are here to enforce basically um if if this goes uh if this is allowed to go it takes up uh instead of eight feet one and a half inches and even that is is not correct it it actually is a little more which means that the entire setback is is removed uh the setback uh protections and I invoke those setback protections uh and and hope that the uh this body will appreciate that if this uh is allowed to go through the visibility uh take a look at those photographs the visibility is complete uh that there is no protection there I was forced to cut down the trees and the bushes that I had next to my house because I wouldn't have been able to get insurance otherwise so consequently there is no uh way to protect the visibility of this uh of this track and as far as the sound is concerned you know these are people uh who I I appreciate knowing that it's basically only the family but they do have friends and we're very close in terms of the uh locations of our two houses and I would point out that if this is allowed uh that basically erases my ability to take advantage of this of my side of the setback the effect of granting this which would be the full eight foot setback erased is to erase my ability should I want to put uh uh which won't happen but I'm just giving you an example of the use here um uh I have lived in this house for almost 50 years it's my dream house I'm a solo person except for my dog and I treasure my quiet my privacy which would be a

The effect of granting this, which would be the full eight foot setback erased, is to erase my ability, should I want to put a uh uh which won't happen, but I'm just giving you an example of the use here.

Um I have lived in this house for almost 50 years.

It's my dream house.

I'm a solo person, except for my dog, and I treasure my quiet, my privacy, which would be erased by this, because I have two windows and a main bedroom right next to this, and it takes away the very thing that I've appreciated for the all these years.

I mean, I have to in in 10 days I'll be 86 years old.

And so these are my final years, and I intend to die in this house.

This is my uh I've been a venturer.

You are out of time.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Any additional public comment?

That concludes public comment in chambers, and there are no hands ready to be as okay.

Let's uh bring it back to the board for thoughts.

Any Julie, this is Rob for record.

I got a question.

So can't can you hear me just on?

It's hard to see.

Um I think so.

Sorry about that.

All right, I just can't see the light.

There we go.

So on this setback, right?

Is it going to take up the whole entire thing?

I mean, are we looking at like a building to take up the whole entire setback, or are we just looking at a post?

It's kind of a support mechanism.

Um Julia Land for the record.

I mean, I can my understanding is the track.

You could talk to the applicant representative.

Maybe Kelly could give you further information.

My understanding is it's just the track.

And I I was I I think that the cart doesn't extend doesn't go very far off of the track, it may be an inch or two.

Okay.

But that's my understanding.

But the applicant's representative could be.

And then and then the the cart is going to be 30 feet in the air.

No, it the track.

The track will be 30 feet in the air, that and the cart will sit on top.

Yeah, the track, there's a few places where it exceeds the 30 inches of height.

So um, so that's uh at least that the application expressed that.

So for about 10 feet, it's gonna be higher than 30 feet.

But as the applicant representative indicated, you know, that's a pretty steep hill.

So when it's going down, I'm not sure what exactly how much how high it would be with this the slope involved.

You would you really see it or how it would be visually um you know uh aware, how you could see it.

I'm just trying to picture in my mind how much of that space between the neighbors is actually gonna be used 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Just trying to picture it in my mind.

Um it seems to me like there's going to be some support pillars, and then there's gonna be a track, and there's gonna be a cart sitting on top.

So although the the space between the houses may be used, it's only being used in a in a small fashion.

Right.

It you know, we would allow them to put a six-foot fence along there if it wasn't um on it on the on the property line that would be allowed, so they could have a six-foot fence there.

Obviously, that slope is too steep, and there's no need for a fence either, so they wouldn't be able to have that.

So you can maybe I don't know if they're gonna be above six feet with that cart on top of it, maybe with people standing on it, um standing in the cart, it might be over six feet in height.

Okay, but I would ask Kelly to explain further if you have any further.

And then for a point of reference, you and I talking right now, it's probably about sixty-five decibels.

So it's right.

Now, people can be loud, and so that can be challenging, you know.

People uh no, I these I my understanding is the the residents are not full time, they don't live there full time, so it's used on as a as a uh home.

That's what he mentioned.

Yeah, he's only there part time.

Yeah, okay.

Kathy Julian, for the record, can I get clarification on you've got the property line?

So the track itself, irrespective of the cart, and it appeared to me the cart would extend more than how wide is the track.

I don't know exactly on the width of the track.

They're asking for uh, you know, one foot, how many inches, somebody so many inches for the for that?

So that track line, the track itself should be that one foot in.

So it would be right.

One and a half foot is one right in there.

Is that is that the case, and perhaps the applicants representative, but that's my understanding.

The track is gonna be located there.

And the um, I guess a query would be why why didn't they decide to move the track just I don't know, three feet in and split the difference a little bit a ways in the middle of the um if if we could have a response from the applicants for the I think they would be better.

I I I asked them to they're on the line so they can answer.

Kelly, you are unmuted.

So if you would just go ahead and respond.

Um yes, this is Kelly with the least fat and associates again.

The track itself to go back to that question is approximately three feet wide.

So it's kind of like a heavy-duty ladder laying on the ground.

It's got some C channels on the sides that help guide the rollers, and then it's got some supports that run in between to help maintain the integrity of the rails, and they will have supports going down the hill, some columns that will go into the soil that'll be concreted or driven in, depending on what turns out to be the best as far as structural engineering.

Um, but again, it will essentially be a large ladder, you could say for a visual lane on the ground or about 30 inches above the ground for the most part.

Um, so two and a half feet.

Um the cart itself is about four feet wide, so it does overhang about six inches on each side.

So to get the clearance going down the hill in more of a straight, a straight run down, we had to still space it away from the house a little bit as far as also safety for anybody that you know as they go down past the house.

Okay, so that Kathy Julian for the record.

So with six inches from the edge of the track, understood why it's where it is.

So you're saying that there will still be one and a half feet from the property line after the um cart after the cart space or not.

How many feet from the property line or inches will the cart itself be from the property line?

This is Kelly again.

The cart itself from the property line is just under a foot.

Okay, thank you.

This is Rob for the record.

I just um I I just want everybody to know that I support this project.

I think I don't think it's going to, in my mind, um, in my opinion, create any um any issues.

It's a temporary thing, it's gonna be moving up and down, and most of the time it's gonna be sitting still.

Um so, anyways, the way it's written, I support it.

Thank you.

No, yeah, no, no useful.

Uh this Pat Calder for the record.

I I have a question actually.

Um what's the distance between the cart and the actual uh the owner of the cart's home?

Um this is Kelly again.

The distance is approximately a foot and a half, so it's about a foot and a half from the property line and foot and a half from the home roughly the edge of the carts.

Yes.

This is Peter Gishon for the record.

So does that mean to say that the house already encroaches within the setback?

Yeah, correct.

It does, and I believe there were different the math tells us that we're already encroaching into the setback.

Yes, just pack card.

Well, thank you, Peter.

That's what I was wondering.

This is Kelly again.

Yes, the existing house does encroach on the setback, and I I honestly do not know.

Maybe Trevor might have some more guidance of the setbacks back for residence was built.

Well, this pack hold for the record.

I guess the question would be was there a variance back then or uh an approval for a setback?

Um, this is Julia O'Lander for the record.

Um, so this is Ganowabi.

Um, if you look at the houses, they're all a little off.

So I would not, you know, the the front setbacks are not always right on on any of the other side.

So if you look at this property, can you bring up that um um vicinity map again?

Yeah, yeah.

So this Peter Gishon, Trevor, the house was built in 1982.

Did that eight foot setback exist back then?

Do we know it's not only the setbacks at on Ghanawabi, I think it's also that they weren't required to do a uh certification on the setbacks.

So they went off of what property lines were set up at that point.

So uh it doesn't even matter if the setbacks were eight, but it's also how those lots were divided at the time, is my understanding.

So if you look, oh, this doesn't show very well.

I don't know if we can't zoom in very closer, but I know it's just hard to see visually.

But I mean, a lot of these houses are very close to the street too.

Ganwabi.

So even that is so the variance.

No, this pro anything on Gannowabi, it's very unusual if Ganwabi has any properties that meet their setbacks.

I don't have that deal detailed information in front of me.

Um Julie's right.

We the county has issued significant number of variances along Ghanawabi.

It's a highly constrained um number of properties uh up and down Ganawabi.

It's very likely that that took place back in the early 80s, but we would have to do a full records request to track that information down.

Okay.

Yeah, this is Peter Kishan for the record.

I again, I mean, the you know, when we have to look at the findings, special circumstances, yes.

Uh there is narrowness and topography.

Um, no detriment.

Uh again, empathetic to Mr.

Kroll's concerns, but I think this does not create a substantial detriment to the public good.

Uh there's not a special privilege because uh of the topography, someone else with a similar circumstance could request the same.

Uh the use um is authorized, and there's obviously no effect on a military installation.

So ultimately I would be supportive, especially given how wonky the property lines are in this ghanawabi area.

Pat called it for the record.

Uh, I have another question.

So the current access down and looking at some of the photos is via stairs down to the water line.

Um, yeah, this is Julia Lander for the record.

Yes, that's my understanding is the way that most of these properties access the water and get down to the shoreline is through stairs.

So I this Pat Calder for the record.

I I mean I can appreciate that the fact that the applicant may have some limiting medical issues to access the property, but is the real solution really to put a funicular so that they can have access and that it potentially impedes on a gentleman who lives there for full time for 45 years.

That's okay.

This is Peter Gishon.

Do we have any idea how many funiculars are in Washoe County?

There you go.

I know there's several already, right?

Yeah.

Uh yeah, I know we've uh we've approved uh a handful.

I I don't know how many, but uh there are there are several in the county.

And Julia Lander for the record, yeah, we have, and a lot of them I've not had any, and maybe Mr.

Lloyd knows of others that we had due to variance.

They've had the space to do it.

Ghanawabi, like I say, is a very challenging street, and the lots there are not um set up a lot more, don't have the setbacks of the space because of the steepness of that slope.

Yeah.

Kathy Julian, for the record, my query to begin with was on, and that's why I asked about TRPA.

If I when I looked at the Google map, I noticed that most of the properties along that stretch of Crystal Bay have walkways down to lounging areas down on the shore.

And that's essentially how the people along that street enjoy the shore.

Um, and many of them have piers.

And I would only assume that TRPA would have some visual requirement and would be monitoring for it would obviously be a problem if everyone in Crystal Bay decided that they were going to turn their coastline into Disneyland with funiculars coming down every 50 feet or so.

Um, but I would look at TRPA to be managing that aspect of it.

Well said.

Anyone else?

Um, this is Leo Horishny.

I guess I will make my comment is um given the extreme situation, the partial use and um practicality of the device, and the idea that technically, even though the houses are, especially since the house is already in encroaching on the setbacks, technically the homeowner could put up a six-foot fence all the way down to the and that would be that would be acceptable.

I find a partial partial use.

Um visual distraction, I can't uh temporary visual distraction to be not um anywhere near on the lines of a huge six-foot board fence going down there.

So that's how I view it.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Pat, are you good?

I'm good.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, if there's no further questions, I'll entertain a motion.

This is Rob, I'll make a motion.

I move that after given recent consideration and information continues, staff report information received during the public hearing.

Wash County Board of Adjustments approved.

Variance case number WPVAR 25-0006 for a day and Margaret Mark Cody, uh family trust with the conditions of approval included in exhibit A of this matter, having made all five findings in accordance with Washington County Code Development.

Section 110.804.25.

Thank you.

We have a second.

Uh Leo Horishny.

Um I second.

Okay, we have a motion and second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Nay.

Okay.

Four to one motion carries.

Thank you.

And uh just a follow-up as uh you were make as uh board member uh Pierce was making the motion.

I did find a uh a variance was approved.

It looks like back in 19 uh 79.

So okay, thank you.

Um and if if I could uh read the appeal procedure, please.

All right, most decisions rendered by the board of adjustment are appealable to the board of county commissioners.

If you disagree with the decision of the board of adjustment and qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date the decision being appealed is reduced to writing, filed with the secretary of the board of adjustment, and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County code.

Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-610 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you.

Okay, uh moving on.

Item 8C.

This is case number W V I O P L A 24-0100, Belford 300 PARA Springs.

Mr.

Lloyd?

Yeah, for possible action hearing and discussion to affirm, modify, reverse, or remand an administrative hearing officer's hearing order affirming a code enforcement violation of Washer County Code Section 110 30635 sub B outdoor storage of an RV on a vacant parcel without the required uh existing principal use.

And representing Washoe County in this matter is planning manager Chad Geisinger.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Board of Adjustment members.

Chad Giesinger, planning manager for the record.

Did you already address the matter of the continuance request?

That wasn't at the beginning of the meeting.

We have not.

Okay.

I'm sorry, what was the question, Chad?

Do we need to address the matter of the continuance request?

Oh that's right.

And so uh before the uh the board is also a request by the uh the appellant to uh to postpone or continue this item to a future hearing.

And so it's up to the board whether or not they choose to make that uh uh to adhere to that request.

Okay, should we engage in a discussion or your thoughts from staff?

Chad uh sorry, Jack using your buying manager of the record.

My recommendation would be to move forward with this item.

It's it's been ongoing for quite some time and many records have been produced, and I think there's adequate information to hear this item today.

Okay.

Anyone have any questions or comments for staff as to the continuance?

Do we take a vote, Trevor, on the continuance?

It my understanding, and I'll defer to our legal staff, but I believe it requires a vote.

Okay, full board.

Um an item can be removed, moved um at any time.

The chair has the ability to do so, I guess.

Um unless it's in, I mean, unless it's in the board rules that it requires a vote, but I mean, on for open meeting law purposes, that is that is the call of the chair to remove an item or move an item.

Um if you want to postpone, that would be if you want to call for everyone to vote on it, you could, but I believe the chair has the discretion to do so on this.

Okay.

The rule set I feel uh comfortable under the circumstances to get everyone's opinion.

Rob, this is Rob, I'd like to hear it personally, so we just get it over with once and for all.

Leo either way.

I'd like to hear it.

Okay, Pat.

I would like to hear it.

Okay.

Uh consensus is that we will move forward today.

Okay, thank you very much.

Go ahead with the presentation.

Thank you.

Adriana.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

So, yes, this is uh uh code enforcement violation case, WVIO PLA 24-011010, which isn't an appeal of administrative hearing decision.

Uh, this is actually the second appeal on this item.

There was a previous order, which I'll get into here in a second.

First, for some background for some of those you may not remember, it was about a year ago uh today that uh the first appeal on this violation case was sorted by the Board of Adjustment after hearing order.

But appeals of code enforcement penalties issued for violations are heard by a third party hearing office um run by volunteer uh judges or um lawyers.

Um and at those hearings, the the hearing office either affirms, modifies, or dismisses the violation and fines, and at the end of the hearing issues what's called an administrative hearing order.

So the item before the BOA today is an appeal of a hearing order that was confirmed on January 9th, the second penalty notice uh in this violation case.

And per Washa County Code 120 chapter 125, administrative hearing um orders can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment, and that is why we are here today, because uh the respondent Mr.

Belfort did appeal.

Background on the property, it's located in warm springs at 300 Pyros Springs Road in the foothills of the Parrott Mountain Range in a pretty remote area.

The power is of the mountain range that kind of separate Pyramid Lake area from the Warm Springs area.

Uh it is zoned general rural agricultural, which allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres.

It's a very large parcel, 104 acre uh undeveloped parcel with um a lot of topography, very steep hillsides.

There is no utilities or infrastructure on or near the property.

Uh, and access to the property is via an unimproved dirt road uh that is not dedicated nor maintained by Washoe County, and that road stems off of Wilcox Ranch Road.

Um, and just as a note, uh on the dwelling unit thing, a recreational vehicle is not a legal permanent dwelling, and the violation does concern uh the placement of an RB and living in an RB.

Here's a visual representation of where the property is located.

You can see way back there in Warm Springs Valley, southeast corner there.

We started getting complaints about this property beginning way back in early January 2018, and uh and also recently complaints about um what would be done moving forward since it's still ongoing.

Uh the complaints alleged the owner was living in an RV and it also placed several cargo containers, and there is no well, septic, or garbage collection or a dwelling on the property, and the property therefore does not have an established principal use and is considered vacant under the development code.

And storage on a vacant parcel is not allowed uh pursuant to 110 306 35B.

Here's some visuals of the property over the last three years.

Uh the top left one was in May of 23.

You can see a photography, what's been placed in the property, then in uh 24 uh photos there showing the RVs, and then recently in November of 25, uh the RV there uh in the red circle.

As I alluded to, the BVA BOA did previously hear an appeal on this code enforcement violation case, and that was regarding the first penalty, and that was almost a year ago to the day, March 6, 2025.

I did include as an attachment uh to the staff report for this item the background or I mean the staff report from that previous item, and it has a very extensive background history if you if you uh feel you need to refer to that.

Uh at that hearing last year, the BOA voted unanimously to uphold the violation and ordered the respondent to remove the materials within 25 days.

Uh the respondent did not do that.

Instead, they responded, they uh filed a series of motions with the second judicial court, um, which were all ultimately uh dismissed.

Uh and then the respondent still has not complied with the BOA action order following that dismissal.

So given the continued noncompliance, um staff deliberate what to do next about this violation case.

And under the code, we essentially had these five options that I'm showing here.

Um disobeying a hearing order is a criminal misdemeanor offense.

So that would be the natural thing to do.

So that's that's that's number one there, issue a misdemeanor criminal citation.

Second option, issue additional penalty notices.

Uh third would be to record us and record a notice of violation, and what that is is it basically memorializes the violation um at the recorder's office and it attaches it to the deed until it's until it's uh resolved, and then code enforcement has to um um agree to remove that that type of lien.

Uh another option is to simply send them paid fines to the collections office, and then the final option there uh conduct embatement, which basically would mean forcefully uh removing uh forcefully you know resolving the the violation.

And I did want to point out all of those actions can pursue concurrently and they may be cumulative.

So we could we could do all of those, we could do one of those, we can do it all at the same time.

So as I mentioned, it is a serious matter uh when you've provided due process and an order is not followed, and it and and it does warrant the issuance of a criminal citation.

But that is at the discretion of co-enforcement, and under this circumstance, um we felt that that was um just as a practical matter, probably not the best way to move forward.

First of all, we'd probably have to get a warrant to enter the property to issue the citation because that's to be issued in person.

Um, and even if we were successful at prosecuting that case, it would result in a fine.

Um potentially jail time, that's very unlikely, um, but it wouldn't necessarily result in um solving the violation.

And I did want to point out because this comes up in other cases we have with RV living, uh, the code enforcement has a new ability to evict people from from the property.

Um so if we were to conduct embatement, which was that fifth option, um it could result in the removal of some of the car containers and all the other items.

We wouldn't be able to remove the RV with somebody living in it because that would require reviction.

So what we did decide to do is issue a second penalty notice and also the notice of intent to record um the violation.

Uh you have to provide in writing a notice of intent to do that.

And so when we issued the second penalty and included that notice of intent, and so we were able to then after 14 days uh record a notice of violation, and that has occurred.

However, the downside of issuing additional penalties is that it reopens the due process um all over again.

So basically the next circle in the process.

Uh so the owner did appeal that second penalty notice, and then another administrative hearing uh was held.

And after a quite lengthy hearing, this um the hearing officer uh did rule against uh the respondent and ordered the respondent to remove all the items within 30 days and pay a 250 dollar fine.

The respondent then appealed that order uh to the board of adjudgment board of adjustment, which is um the subject of this agenda item.

So just to give you the full language of the the section of code that's being violated, it's 11030635 B, and you can see there um no outdoor storage without an existing principal use.

Um, accessory items cannot be placed on the property until a principal use is established.

Um, there is an exception, which has already been utilized by the by this owner.

If there's an active building permit for a dwelling, and that was the situation for many years, um, but the time period for being able to do that has now passed.

Um, so uh simply obtaining another building permit for another dwelling would not be a viable compliance remedy because they've already exceeded the 37 months that's allowed, and that 37 is actually even after an 18 month extension.

Typically it's it's 18 months out of the gate uh to construct the home, and then you get you could get another 18.

In this case, it's been there at least since 2019.

Uh, and then code enforcement also has the ability to withhold approvals for any land use and structure use permits, um, and that has been provided in writing in the penalty notices.

And so we do intend to do that.

So if if the if more permits were were to be pursued on this property, we would require uh that the property be cleaned up first and before issuance of those permits due to the length of time that this has been going on.

Right, public notice it's not required as part of an administrative enforcement proceeding.

Um the only noticeing is to the parties involved, and that has occurred.

I sent certified mail the notice of this uh hearing to the respondent uh and and all the due process uh uh required has been provided.

There are no specific findings that the BOA is required to make on an appeal of a hearing order.

However, the code, chapter 125 does state that decisions of a hearing officer are presumed to be reasonable and lawful and is the burden of the appellant to say the to persuade the board otherwise.

Um I would ask if the board does it deny the respondents' appeal that uh the BOA include a compliance plan similar to last time, uh 25 days uh to remove all the items, and then uh the last part of the process is a written order is prepared and served upon the appellant.

Staff is recommending that the respondent's appeal be denied and that he be ordered to remove all the items within 25 days.

And a possible motion is found on page two of your staff report.

If you would like to refer to that, and with that, I will open it up to any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any questions for staff at this time.

Chair, if I may, Chad Lehman for the record.

I just want to clarify something about the continuance, and I just want to make sure that it we're we have a clear record here.

Um so a request for continue continuance can happen anytime before any action is taken place.

So there so it's still not too late for a continuance.

Um according to the rules, um, policies and procedures of the board.

Um I'm gonna read it verbatim so that you guys have an understanding.

It says the board may vote to grant a continuance on an agendized item upon request of a member, the applicant or applicant's representative if the board decides to continue an item that the chair should ask if anyone in the audience wishes to testify on the matter, even though it may be continued to another date, time location and certain.

So we're not too late for a continuance.

However, the rules do call for a vote.

So I just want to be clear and make sure that we're we're good on the record there.

Okay.

Should we pause and take a vote there?

That's up to you.

I like I said, any time before action is taken, the continuance could be granted.

So we could we could vote and get it clear.

Okay.

So uh the uh uh appellant has uh requested a continuance.

We've discussed this.

Um let's take a vote.

Do I have a motion to continue or deny the continuance?

This is Rob.

I'll make a motion to hear the item that we are discussing right now.

Um and move forward with it.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Leo, uh Leo Horishny I second.

Okay, all those in favor of nine.

Uh sorry, this is pack called for the record.

Can I ask one question?

I mean, Chad said that if there was anybody that could present as a witness before the boat.

Is there anybody in the audience that or via Zoom that has any information that might be pertinent?

Or I think we're voting to hear the item.

We're not continuing it.

Do I get anybody in this?

Can I stand for clarification what Chad said?

No, this is sorry, I think you mean Chad.

Uh Chaz.

There just needs to be a vote on the continuance before or after the act or before the action item occurs.

I believe we have a motion and a second on the uh thing uh for it for vote now.

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood.

Yeah, this is Pat Calder for the record.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Thanks.

Okay.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Okay.

Motion carries.

We will continue.

Uh questions for staff.

So uh the Peter Gashamp for the record.

Uh tell me again, um, we are only pursuing one potential remedy at this point, even though you could have chosen five at to pursue it one time.

That's correct.

Yes, essentially, you uh what the board is considering today is whether or not to uphold the violation the second penalty notice that was issued and the notice of intent.

Yeah, well, just the penalty notice, yeah, that part of it.

Okay.

Yep.

And uh Peter Gashana for the record, one more question.

Um, I think you clarified it in your presentation, but he would be uh eligible for a building permit, notwithstanding the 30 cent seven-month period, but you would condition that on removing everything.

We can't reinstate a permit after its natural expiration.

That's correct.

Okay.

So this is Rob, I got a question following up on that.

You said it needed to be cleaned up before that can happen.

When you say cleaned up, can you please explain that?

Remove all the items that are illegally stored on the property.

So the RV, the car containers, any building materials basically restore it back to its natural state that it was before they started placing all those items, then we would allow the issuance of a new building permit.

Does that mean he needs to reseed for stage brush?

Well, no, just all the items that are stored.

Yeah, the outdoor storage is the violation.

Yeah, yeah.

I understand.

Okay.

Yeah, we don't have a grading violation or anything like that, and it's just the storage.

Okay, Kathy Jillian for the record.

Um does the uh staff have any concept of any damage done to the land in terms of septic disposal or burning or any other things that might uh happen with uh living out of the RV and having storage there.

Well, that is definitely a concern.

Yeah, that uh so that's why the code does have requirements um to establish the dwelling and have you know services provided to the property, so there's no garbage service, there's no septic system, there's no well, so they must be bringing in water.

I don't know what they're doing with sewage, they must be taking it out or I don't know.

Uh, but we don't we don't we haven't been able to get on the property because there's no trespassing.

So I couldn't tell you if there's any you know open sewage on the property or not.

So is there an Kathy Julian for the record?

So is there an underground aquifer or is it possible that this uh this occupant is in fact um polluting the aquifer and the groundwater affecting his neighbors?

I could not speak to that.

I mean, it's up on a hillside, so I would I would assume that's not the case, but it could be that would be an environmental health issue, yeah.

So there is no um there's no permits issued on this land at the present time for pretty much anything, right?

Correct.

Pat, anything to staff.

Uh no, sorry, I have nothing.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um is the uh appellant present wish to make a presentation before I begin.

I don't say he can still need to uh expose before I start my time.

Seated right back here, Carl Allen Shrek.

He's got a um cease and desist order formally served on him, and I feel very uncomfortable and unsafe with him behind me at this proceeding.

It's to stay at least a hundred yards away from me.

So I I want to I want that on the record for sure, and then the other members of the Shrek family trust here.

Okay, thank you.

Time beginning.

This is to Chair Gishon, members of the board.

My name is Jonathan Belfort.

I'm placing several procedural and jurisdictional matters clearly on the record.

These are structural concerns, they go to the integrity of the process itself.

Written notice to postpone was not addressed until we came here today.

I don't believe that any of this was substantially reviewed before this hearing.

I am previous I previously served this board with written notice requesting postponement.

That request was not acknowledged on the record.

Procedural fairness requires that formal written submissions receive response or acknowledgement.

I am preserving that issue.

Filing irregularities.

Now this is this is referring to the previous appeal a year ago, almost to the day.

Approximately 30 days later, I was contacted and informed of the county.

The county had filed its own appeal.

The copy presented to me, contained no file stamp, contained no notarized acknowledgement, was not accompanied by a complete evidence packet.

Procedural requirements must apply equally to all parties.

At the administrative hearing before officer buyer, I raised formal challenges to subject matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is a is foundational.

That challenge was not substantially addressed on the record.

Addition, during the hearing, the proceeding was described in a manner suggesting court-like authority.

Administrative hearings are not courts generally, general jurisdiction.

And I might also add it was not visible on the county, the county video, but officer Bayer stood in front of a six foot diameter seal of the great state of Nevada and wore a robe and was in a court chambers.

So that's what you call simulated process.

Administrative hearings are not courts of general jurisdiction.

They operate within the limited delegated authority.

Clarity regarding the scope of authority matters when jurisdictional jurisdiction is challenged.

I also disclosed on the record that related litigation had been filed, naming certain involved officials, namely Chad Geisinger, Brian Farmer, and Officer Byer.

I did so not to intimidate or disrupt, but to ensure full disclosure of overlapping matters that could affect procedural posture.

Despite those disclosures, the jurisdictional challenge was not ruled upon.

Jurisdiction cannot be preserved or presumed.

It must be established.

My exhibits were not addressed.

I submitted exhibits at the hearing.

And also I'd like to make a point here that my exhibits one through thirteen are not on the official county record that's available online.

One through thirteen, and I believe it was exhibit thirteen was the picture of approximately at the cost of thirty three thousand dollars and hundreds of hours of my labor, a engineered septic system that was constructed on my property with valid permits.

However, they were not substantially substantively discussed.

No clear rulings were issues issued on objections.

The jurisdictional challenge remained unresolved, which is where we are today.

When exhibits and jurisdictional objections are submitted, they require acknowledgement and ruling.

Silence is not resolution.

Reliance on permit extensions and COVID disruption.

I obtained permits in November 2019.

I was informed I had two extensions available.

Shortly thereafter, state of COVID emergency orders disrupted construction timelines and administrative operations for nearly three years.

And I'm also going to add that I contracted a very severe case of COVID at a weekly meeting of Truckee Meadows Fire Rescue while volunteering as an operational firefighter.

And this is what I get from Washoe County after giving three years of my time.

That period cannot reasonably be ignored in evaluating compliance.

This brings us to the end of the COVID.

COVID also the stay of statute of limitations that was granted by Governor Sisilac.

That was almost three years.

There was also a stay on evictions.

So I just sat tight while recovering from a severe case of COVID that I acquired at a county meeting, a county function, title issues and recorded liens.

During that time, I discovered recorded liens involving Wilcox Ranch Property Owners Association and filing filings recorded by attorney Gail Agnes Kern.

As a result, my title is clouded.

And Mr.

Gishon, you should know as a realtor how important clear title is.

This is all just one big extenuating circumstance.

Resuming construction while title and access issues, there's no there hasn't been any road maintenance where I live, despite representations on my title to that effect.

Thank you.

Let me read that again.

Resuming construction while title and access issues are unresolved is financially and legally imprudent.

This is not defiant.

It's responsible conduct.

Enforcement while appeal and litigation are pending.

An appeal is pending.

Jurisdiction has not been formally ruled upon record integrity questions remain.

Related litigation is pending, and as you know, there's at least three active lawsuits involving this matter, some of which directly involve Washoe County and its and its officers.

Enforcement under these circumstances rendered renders the appeal ineffective.

An appeal without pause is not meaningful review.

I am formally requesting a stay of enforcement pending resolution of this appeal, formal ruling on jurisdiction, confirmation of filing integrity.

You'd have to ask Mr.

Geisinger about that part.

Clarification of overlapping litigants, public safety and consistency.

In January 9th, order requires removal of large structures.

Access roads are not graded for heavy equipment.

A process server recently became stuck attempting to access public safety standards, must apply consistently.

It must be uniformly evaluated across all developments in the same region, zero PARA Springs, directly adjacent to me, including recently approved subdivision activity near zero PARA Springs, consistency is the issue, uniform application of standards.

The district attorney's office structural neutrality.

Cross-questioning.

I requested the response on the record with the subject matter jurisdiction formally ruled upon at the hearing.

Was the subject matter jurisdiction formally ruled upon at the hearing?

Does a file stamped county appeal exist?

And that does not mean go whip one up.

Because we've received it twice without any file stamps or verification.

My due process has been violated.

Does a notarized acknowledgement exist?

Are my submitted exhibits part of the deliberative record?

Is enforcement stayed pending this appeal?

Are fire access standards applied uniformly on the in the Para Springs region?

Closing.

Members of the board.

I have filed appeals, submitted exhibits, raised jurisdictional objections, requested records, relied on representations, halted construction in good faith, and I did have building permits.

I am asking equal application of procedure, formal jurisdictional ruling.

Transparency in filing, a stay of enforcement pending appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone have any questions for the appellant?

Sorry, this back hold of the record.

I have no questions.

Pardon me.

I have Jim Shrek in Chambers.

Board members, thank you for your time.

I wanted to thank the county for their time dealing with this matter also.

Please state your name for the record.

Pardon?

Please state your name for the record.

Okay.

You can put it on.

Sure.

Okay.

We're here one month from the ninth anniversary of John Belfort's declaration of homestead, in which he's.

Sir, would you mind stating your name for the record?

Oh, James Shrek.

Okay.

Thank you.

We're one month from the ninth anniversary of John Belfort's declaration of Homestead, in which he swore under notary seal that 300 Paul Ross Spring Road was his primary resident.

This residence was and still is a travel trailer without a water source or septic system, not even the courtesy of a Santa hut.

Tomorrow marks a year since his appeal for the same exact code violation in which he and his unlicensed legal advisor Jeff Wilson stormed out of this room with threats of lawsuits and going federal.

Those threats were realized with multiple cases in small claims court, district court, and federal court, as well as over 200 slanderous YouTube videos and dozens of FOIA requests on anyone or anything remotely related to his claims.

As I stated in my original complaint, John Belfort is using the system to his advantage.

He claims his lack of legal knowledge as an excuse to waste the taxpayer dollar to bury the already strained court system and to defame all those who do not support his demands.

Under the guidance of Jeff Wilson, who has exhausted the California court system with many of the same obscure claims John is pursuing.

This case is simple.

All these lawsuits and hearings are merely stall tactics.

If Washoe County codes and laws exist for the public good, it is well past time for this matter to be resolved.

Thank you, folks.

Thank you.

Any further?

John Belfort and Chambers.

Jonathan Belfort and Chambers.

Jonathan Belfort.

I don't need a script for this one.

I do dispose of my waste properly.

I do pay for garbage removal.

So that's a lie.

Okay.

The definition of racketeering, two or more people engaging in illegal acts, and then followed by threats of violence or intimidation right there.

Shrek family trust.

Both of them have please address the board.

Both of them have cease and desist orders on them.

They've made the father has made James Lee Shrek has made death threats to me.

Okay.

My civil rights have been violated in this procedurally.

I'm putting you, I've I've distributed the um documents to you, file stamp documents to you, or your uh they're on the record, they've already been filed online with Washoe County.

This is again the numbers were off as far as the um as long as I've lived on the property.

2018, I was living on the property six months when these people tried to intimidate me by bulldozing my my property.

There's also a question uh of the DA's office not addressing any of our criminal allegations against these racketeers, including James Lee Shrek et al.

There's already suits filed.

I my recommendation to this board is you abstain from any rulings.

Just a suggestion until after this some of this is shaken out.

We've connected the dots, we've connected the dots, and a lot of this has you've you've got Mr.

Pierce presiding over my last hearing where my rights were violated, and he's one of the people that worked on this project next to me, where they've blocked the waterway and did countless hundreds of yards of unpermitted grading.

We've found it, we've sent it to the water board, we've sent it to Washoe County again and again and again, and they've run us around for this past year.

This is still unresolved.

That's that's located at zero parasites.

So there's some there's some irregularities going on here.

There really is.

We all went, we how soon we forget about the pandemic.

Thank you.

There is no further public comment in chambers, and on Zoom, there are no hands raised.

Okay.

And uh bring it back to the board for discussion.

Rob, anything?

Um, I'd like to ask the applicant a question.

Yes, sir.

This is Rob for the record.

You said that you do have the trash in the sewer removed.

Do you have on your possession at this present time any receipts to prove it?

No, but so I pay for trash.

Thank you.

And I remove it myself and put it in an approved septic system.

Thank you.

And it's one person and their dog living on 105 acres.

I just want my permits, I just want my permits reinstated May 28th.

And I think that these people are purposely trying to prevent me from ever building on that property for their own financial gain.

And I believe there's I believe there's county employees acting in the benefit of one self or another.

Anything else, Rob?

No, sir.

Okay.

Good.

Pat, any comments or questions?

Uh, yes.

Has the applicant applied for additional building permits?

Mr.

Belfort.

My extension.

Would you come down, please?

Yes.

Thank you.

Her hearing officer.

Um, God, I'm forgetting her name.

Um, on the first hearing, a leader, Nancy Leader.

She stated that I should obtain my building permits by February 28th uh 202.

I attempted to contact Washoe County, and uh they didn't answer me.

And then they simply came back with, oh no, you have no more extensions.

I I'm telling you, this with the stay of statutes.

I maybe, and then I completed 50 to 70,000 worth of work on my property.

There was work completed in that time, which everyone has ignored.

I don't maybe you folks aren't seeing the records.

I was instructed to construct this huge elaborate septic system at the cost of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of labor.

And and no one they just oh no, you didn't do any work.

That's that's that's been the attitude here.

And if I get this, if I can get my extensions, I will continue work on it.

I mean, I I think that the county needs to realize this has been going on almost two years now with all these appeals and the violations.

I don't think their intention was to get me in compliance.

I believe their intention was to prevent me from building because they don't want a little tiny cabin on 105 acres.

They want they want a big subdivision on my 105 acres.

And I believe this is purposely being done for the benefit of certain parties.

And I'm I'm just a victim of it here.

I would like my permits reinstated.

That's what I've that's what I've been appealing about, and the and the implied thing that I am doing something wrong by making this public and and filing lawsuits.

I'm going through legal channels on this.

I'm not taking self-help.

I'm going through legal channels.

That's what you're supposed to do.

When I grew up, that's what I was taught that I was supposed to do is do it the right way.

Okay, thank you.

You've answered Mr.

Caldwell's question.

No, I do actually, Mr.

Belfort, this is Pac Holder for the record.

I do have one question.

Did you officially reapply for permits with Washoe County?

I didn't reapply.

I was told that I was to apply.

My answer to that was I shouldn't have to pay again.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate your answer.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

Yeah, and unfortunately, this is uh an administrative board.

We are here for a uh very strict issue, and that's uh compliance with uh code section 110.306.35b.

Uh, we can't speak for the building department, the code enforcement department.

We have a strict um zoning interpretation to make, and and that that's the only power we have.

Um with that said, is is anyone else?

Anyone willing to make a motion?

Uh Leo, um I will uh I move that after giving reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during this public hearing.

The Washoe County Board of Adjustment affirms decision of the administrative hearing officer and upholds the violation of W Washoe County Code 110.306.35B.

Respondent shall have 25 days to remove the stored RVs and other items illegally stored on the vacant property.

Chair of the Board of Adjustment is authorized to prepare a written order of the decision and file it with the secretary of the board of adjustment, a copy of which shall be shared to the appellant.

Okay, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Kathy Jillian for the record.

I second.

Okay, all those in favor say aye.

I any opposed say nay.

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you.

If I could read the appeal, please.

All right.

The uh appellant has the right to appeal the written order by filing a petition for judicial review in the second judicial district court for the state of Nevada within 25 days from the date the order is mailed to the appellant per Washoe County Code section 110 910.15 sub I sub six.

When a petition for judicial review is filed, the court rules uh shall govern the proceeding.

This judicial review is in lieu of an appeal to the board of county commissioners as authorized by NRS 278-310 sub C sub B.

Okay, thank you.

That uh concludes our public hearing.

Um do we have any chair uh future agenda items?

Okay.

Any requests for information from staff?

None.

Uh Mr.

Lloyd, any previous board of adjustment items to report on?

Nothing to report on at this time.

Okay, any legal information or updates?

Not at this time.

Thank you.

Do we have any public comment?

There is no public comment in chambers or via Zoom.

Okay, thank you.

The time is now 3 06.

This meeting is adjourned.