Commission switch angers residents

Jeff Schweers

Wednesday, Jan. 22, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

Homeowners in a southwest Las Vegas Valley neighborhood are stunned by a County Commission decision to chop off a third of the land they wanted preserved as a rural residential area and horse land.

The group came to Tuesday's commission meeting expecting approval of a 2,268-acre rural preservation area that stretched from Rainbow Boulevard to the entrance to Red Rock Canyon.

Instead, commissioners conspired with a major developer's advisers to cut about 800 acres out of the rural preservation area, over the objections of homeowners who spent the last nine months with county planners on the area map.

"It just makes me sick," said Kevin Kenstler, who at one point during the two-hour proceeding saw his home and property removed from the protected area. "There was no reason not to do it."

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury was the sole vote against the revised preservation zone, a 55 percent to 45 percent mix of federal and private properties.

The dozens of residents who came Tuesday to support the preservation zone sat helplessly as commissioners changed the zone's boundaries after closing the public-comment section. Commission Chairwoman Yvonne Atkinson Gates refused to reopen the hearing after one man, Bob Verkota, said he didn't get up to speak because he thought the board was going to approve the original map boundaries.

"I didn't speak up because I thought it was fine," Verkota said. "But after the public speaking ended, they changed the plan."

A majority of the property owners who responded to a county survey favored the preservation area.

Gates had voted against the amendment to the map, which was crafted by Commissioners Erin Kenny, Myrna Williams, Lorraine Hunt and Mary Kincaid. But she voted with the majority once the change was made.

Williams said she didn't think the zone should go as far as Windmill Lane because rural estate zoning -- no more than two homes per acre -- seemed inappropriate for a section line road that had the potential to become a six-lane highway. She also said it was premature to decide now on the area directly below the Rhodes Ranch development west of Durango Drive.

Hunt said the homeowners were doing a disservice to their children by locking into low-density zoning and possibly hurting property values. She also noted that several out-of-state property owners were not involved in the planning process.

Richard Holmes, Clark County's comprehensive planning director, said attempts were made to notify all property owners. At least two-thirds of the property owners in a proposed preservation zone had to approve of the designation, a condition that was met several months ago.

The board's amendments removed what homeowners wanted in the first place -- a buffer between their rural estates and Rhodes Ranch -- a 9,000-home master-planned community being developed by Jim Rhodes. Residents said they had agreed not to block the 1,400-acre project if the county helped them create their preservation area.

"We got hosed," said homeowner Bruce Patton. "We just went through nine months of farce. They promised to give us the buffer zone if we supported Rhodes Ranch. Now that everything is passed, they have taken a final shot on the rural neighborhood preservation."

The changes recommended by Rhodes attorney Chris Kaempfer and zoning consultant Greg Borgel were not brought up during the nine months of public hearings and meetings with county staff, Patton said.

Karie Newton said the neighborhood group would probably take their cause back to the Clark County Planning Commission, which after several delays approved a more acceptable boundary last month.

"What happened to the substantial buffer zone they were going to give us?" said Robin Olson. "All the talk about a park system and a trail system was a farce. They are giving us the shaft, and Mr. Rhodes got what he wanted. The whole thing, his agenda."

The group of homeowners already has a District Court case challenging the county's approval of a gravel pit mining operation on the Rhodes Ranch property and has a federal case against the Bureau of Land Management exchange that enabled Rhodes to obtain 950 acres for his project.

Rhodes owns or has an option on several properties that were excluded from the rural preservation zone and is negotiating with the BLM for more land that would allow him to extend his property to Blue Diamond Road.

The homeowners said they may also challenge the board's action as a violation of the open meeting law, an issue that has been disputed many times. A district attorney who once handled zoning issues for the county said they could have a case if substantial changes were made to the proposal after the public hearing was closed for comment.