Go to main contentsGo to search barGo to main menu
Saturday, June 21, 2025 at 10:44 PM
Ad

Wood Pellet Proposal Tabled, Planning Commission Sets June Zoning Workshop

After a lengthy discussion and disagreement over how or whether the operation could be reasonably regulated, commissioners voted unanimously to table the SUP until the June meeting!!!
Wood Pellet Proposal Tabled, Planning Commission Sets June Zoning Workshop

A controversial proposal to convert a vacant grain facility on McLean Road into a wood pellet processing plant was tabled by the Churchill County Planning Commission during the regular May meeting, following extensive public opposition and concern over zoning compatibility, environmental impacts, and neighborhood disruption. 

Local entrepreneur Alex Peden had applied for a special use permit (SUP) and a similar-use determination to operate what he described as a one-man, low-volume operation using existing infrastructure at the site. Peden plans to use wood chips and sawdust to create heating pellets in a highly automated facility, arguing that the small-scale nature of the business closely mirrors crop processing already allowed in agricultural zones. 

Planning staff presented a lengthy report noting that the proposed use straddles the line between timber and crop processing. The decision to allow the facility as a temporary “similar use” could provide a path for Peden to prove the concept with limited impact, but would require tight restrictions—no additional employees, no increase in processing capacity, and annual reviews. 

Residents from the surrounding agricultural and residential neighborhoods raised sharp concerns during public comment. Speakers pointed to potential declines in air quality, property values, and quality of life. Several argued that the proposed 24/7 operations, even with insulated equipment, would introduce unacceptable noise and industrial activity into a rural, quiet area. Others questioned the validity of comparing wood pellet production to crop processing, urging the commission to hold firm on existing zoning. 

After a lengthy discussion and disagreement over how or whether the operation could be reasonably regulated, commissioners voted unanimously to table the SUP until the June meeting. Commissioner Tammy Edgmon made the motion, emphasizing the need for more time and clarity before moving forward. 

The planning commission also announced a joint workshop with the Churchill County Commission, scheduled for June 24, to review proposed changes to the county’s industrial zoning categories and use tables. Planning Director Randy Hines said the revisions will help create clearer distinctions between industrial uses like light manufacturing, logistics, and heavy industry and help prevent future zoning conflicts like the wood pellet proposal. 

The updated code will include three industrial zones (I-1, I-2, I-3) and clarified definitions and placement guidelines for each. Notification letters will be sent to all industrial property owners, and the public is invited to participate in the workshop process. 

In other business, the commission unanimously approved a special use permit for IRG Realty Advisors to expand their transloading and warehouse facility at the Port of Nevada off Reno Highway. The project includes a new 238,680 square-foot warehouse and associated parking, designed to accommodate large-scale freight and logistics operations. 

Representatives from IRG emphasized their track record with similar intermodal facilities nationwide and noted that this expansion would serve as a speculative build to attract potential tenants. The facility is part of the broader Inland Port project on the Churchill/Lyon county line just west of Hazen, which has been steadily building out infrastructure since its initial approval. 

 

 

 

 


Share
Rate

Comment

Comments

June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 1
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 2
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 3
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 4
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 5
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 6
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 7
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 8
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 9
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 10
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 11
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 12
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 13
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 14
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 15
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 16
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 1Page no. 1
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 2Page no. 2
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 3Page no. 3
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 4Page no. 4
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 5Page no. 5
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 6Page no. 6
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 7Page no. 7
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 8Page no. 8
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 9Page no. 9
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 10Page no. 10
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 11Page no. 11
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 12Page no. 12
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 13Page no. 13
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 14Page no. 14
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 15Page no. 15
June 20, 2025 - Planning Commission denies Wood Pe - page 16Page no. 16
SUPPORT OUR WORK