By Vernon Robison

Moapa Valley Progress

A new ordinance, designed to ease restrictions in the county code for agricultural land uses and home-based occupations, caused confusion among both commissioners and rural county residents at a public hearing held on Wednesday, October 5 in Las Vegas.

In the end the commissioners delayed the hearing for 45 days to give time for feedback from residents, necessary amendments to be made and for commissioners to be fully briefed on the final draft before voting.

The ordinance was originally meant to simplify the code and bring it in line with what, in many cases, is already being done in outlying areas, explained Commissioner Tom Collins at the hearing.

“This is not meant to put an added burden on folks,” Collins said. “Rather it tremendously lessens the burden on certain parts of the county.”

The ordinance changes land use requirements to allow primary agricultural uses on certain residentially zoned property. Currently R-U (2 acre) zoned lots don’t include agricultural uses without a primary residence on the property. But many rural properties, traditionally used for agriculture, are currently zoned R-U, Collins explained.

“People think that because they are on R-U they have the same rights as if they are on RA, which is as small as one acre,” Collins said. “Rather than tell a whole bunch of farmers throughout the county that somehow this has slipped in and they can’t do what they are doing, this would build those uses into R-U and, in certain cases, even R-E for some folks that are under an acre.”

Collins also explained that the ordinance would allow people to sell produce and livestock on the property where these goods were raised without being required a commercial zoning.

“There is an ol’ boy up in Riverside who produces truckloads of melon,” Collins said. “Right now he can take them to the markets and sell them wholesale all up and down the state because state law says he can. But if he tries to retail them on his property then that is an issue. So what we are trying to address here is that if you are selling eggs, you can now put a little sign up in the front of your driveway that says I’m selling eggs. And that is the end of it.”

Collins explained that health district, business license and animal care codes would still apply.

“If you are selling goats or chickens or rabbits or pot belly pigs or dogs or cats, you have a Title 10 code to meet still,” he said. “This issue is only restricted to zoning. In other words if you are growing a lemon tree and you want to put a lemonade stand out there, you can sell lemonade without a license or a lot of hoopla.”

Rural residents from Sandy Valley said that they liked the direction of the ordinance in general. But they were concerned about some of the particulars. They raised questions about what they perceived as unclear language dealing with the number of animals one could keep on a property. The ordinance eliminates the limit to animals that can be kept on five acre or more, Collins said. But the residents were concerned that the limits became more restrictive on smaller parcels of 2 acres or less.

Questions were also raised about perceived changes in requirements for livestock shade structures. Pamela Smith of Sandy Valley doubted there was a need for a specific shade requirement in the code.

“If we have a law, it should just be for the care of animals; to have animals cared for in a manner to keep them healthy,” she said. “In the case of livestock, shade is not really necessary for the animals but its more for us to feel better about it. It is not necessarily for the health of the animals because they don’t use the shade.”

Collins explained that the shade requirements were already in the code. The proposed ordinance would only reduce these shade requirements and also allow alternatives like trees and vegetation to satisfy the requirement, he said.

Other Sandy Valley residents expressed general confusion about effects that the ordinance would have on home-based businesses such as home auto mechanics and other occupations.

“We have been awaiting these kinds of changes for a long time,” said one Sandy Valley woman. “But the wording of this (ordinance) and the fact that we have not seen it previously, has caused a lot of confusion for us. We really need someone to wade through all the legal-ese of this for us.”

Commissioner Steve Sisolak expressed similar confusion.

“I am so lost on this,” he said. “It seems like we are making all kinds of regulations and I don’t know what we are doing here. We’ve gone from automobile repair to lemonade stands to horses. It is all over the place. I don’t know if all this can be done in one ordinance. I’m not trying to criticise whoever wrote it but someone has to explain it to me.”

Commissioner Susan Brager recommended that the ordinance be held over for an additional 45 days. In that time she said that she would go out and visit with her constituents in Sandy Valley and gather their recommendations and requests for the ordinance.