By Vernon Robison

Moapa Valley Progress

A new county ordinance designed to ease restrictions on agricultural land uses and home-based occupations was approved by the Clark County Board of Commissioners (BCC) at a meeting held Wednesday, November 16. The ordinance, which had originally been introduced to the BCC in September, was a wide-ranging document meant to bring practices, commonly already being done in outlying areas, into full compliance.

In a broad geographic area labelled Community District 5 (CD5), which includes all of the rural outlying areas of the county, the ordinance changes the code to allow agriculture as a principal use on residentially zoned land. Currently the code only permits agriculture on residential property if a principal residence is on the property.

The new ordinance also opens the door to allow produce or livestock to be sold at the point of production. Currently the county code doesn’t allow small roadside produce stands to operate unless located on commercially zoned property.

In addition, the ordinance broadens the ability for home occupational uses in residential areas. Specifically, it allows a home auto repair shop to operate in CD5 with a maximum of two cars serviced on the property at a time.

The ordinance also allows home occupations in CD5 to have customers and employees come to the home to conduct business without a special use permit.

Home occupations are still subject to all business licensing and health code requirements.

Finally, in the urban areas of the county, the ordinance allows for a new land use for Community Gardens; a use which had not been in existence in the code.

The ordinance had been heard previously at the BCC in October, but had gotten bogged down because commissioners, and some members of the public, were uncertain on some of the details. Likewise, much of the discussion last week centered around the subtleties and finer points of the ordinance.

One point of discussion dealt with the limits being imposed on the number of animals on properties. The original language of the ordinance had removed the limits for large livestock on lots of 2 acres or more.

But, in neighborhood meetings with Commissioner Susan Brager, residents of Sandy Valley had recommended that there ought to be some general limits imposed. They suggested that the limit ought to allow no more than 200 large animals on parcels of 2 acres or more up to 4 acres. At four acres or more, the limit should then be capped at 400 large animals, they suggested.

But Commissioner Tom Collins felt that the limit on larger properties needed to be more open ended.

“What do you do for a guy like Cliven Bundy who has 9,000 acres and has 2,000 cows on it?” Collins asked. “What are you going to do about the Hafens in Bunkerville that have 500 cows on 300 acres? They have more than 400. That is why we are doing this ordinance to begin with.”

County staff suggested that if the limits were adopted in the ordinance, specific livestock owners who wanted to exceed the limits could apply for a special use permit.

“With all due respect,” Collins said, “a guy that has been running cows for a hundred years ain’t gonna come down to Clark County and ask for a permit!”

The final motion that was approved was to limit large livestock to 200 animals on 2 acres. That limit would double to 400 on 4 acres. And there would be no limit on anything above five acres.

Another point of discussion dealt with shade structures for animals. Sandy Valley residents insisted that requirements for shade were unnecessary.

“These animals actually don’t need shade at all,” said Sandy Valley resident Greg Neff. “They are adaptable and will acclimate to just about anything. The more harsh the environment, the more hardy they are. If an animal is distressed from heat, don’t look at the shade, look at the water trough. That is more likely the reason.”

Commissioner Brager agreed. “I don’t feel like government needs to dictate shade for animals,” she said. “Shade is a moving thing. Unless you build a barn and force the animals into it, you really can’t control it. I feel very adamant about the fact that we can’t really regulate shade. None of these people are going to mistreat their animals. If they do, we have animal control to regulate it.”

Collins stated that regulations governing shade were already in place through other sections of the code.

“Shade requirements for animals are based on the environments of different areas,” Collins said. “That is why we have expert animal control officers who look at the individual animal and conditions and can make a determination.”

Collins said that the new ordinance wasn’t meant to change the shade requirements already in place. But it allows for a more flexible interpretation of shade structures.

“I don’t think that we should avoid the shade regulations,” Collins said. “But trees on the side of a barn, would be less regulation than requiring man-made shade structures to have to buy and build. The intent here is to allow for passive shade like trees and vegetation to be acceptable over the required man-made structures.”

Collins suggested that the ordinance merely refer to the already existing codes in reference to shade requirements.

All other elements of the ordinance dealing with home occupations were approved as proposed.

Collins expressed appreciation to staff and commission for their painstaking work on the ordinance.

“In this ordinance, we have recognized that we have folks in town that want to have a community garden,” Collins said. “We also have folks out in the outlying areas that don’t want to be told how they can handle their eggs or other produce that they grow in their yards. They won’t have to go through all the bureaucracy to make the 50 bucks a year on whatever it is.”