Rural residents sue over zone change

Adrienne Packer and Bill Gang

Tuesday, June 22, 1999 | 11:30 a.m.

Theresa Bunker is confident she accurately interpreted the message Clark County commissioners sent when they approved a heavily protested zone change to allow a Metro Police union building in her quiet neighborhood.

"The way I understand it is if you have enough juice, you can get whatever you want," said Bunker, a member of the Enterprise Residents Association. "And I'm juiceless."

Attorney Chuck Gardner, who appeared Monday in District Court on behalf of Enterprise residents suing the county, commissioners and the Police Protective Association Metro Inc., was hardly perplexed by the commission's decision.

The commission's action only confirmed what Gardner says he has proclaimed for years: In Clark County, well-connected developers receive preferential treatment over homeowners.

"I truly believe through what I've seen, there is no respect by either the Planning Commission or the Clark County Commission for the concept of building a city by the code," Gardner said.

Gardner represents a collection of 393 homeowners who call themselves Enterprise Residents II in their lawsuit filed April 13.

The lawsuit asks a District Court judge to force the county to rescind the commission's 5-1 March decision to change the zoning from rural neighborhood preservation -- a designation that only allows one home per half-acre -- to commercial.

The court challenge alleges the zone change, which does not conform to the area's master plan, may have been greased through backroom deals.

The petition for judicial review, heard on Monday, contends the County Commission flip-flopped in March only after meeting privately with PPA officials in violation of ethical rules.

Gardner said that six of the seven commissioners met in private with the PPA and the police union "encouraged them to change their minds" on the zoning of the 10-acre parcel on the northeast corner of Warm Springs Road and Valley View Boulevard.

"Because it was secret, because it was back door, the people of Enterprise Township were snookered," fellow attorney Tom Pitaro said, calling a public hearing in December "a sham hearing" that was the result of "the real hearing behind closed doors."

During Monday's hearing, PPA lawyer John Harper argued before District Judge Mark Gibbons that any information that is not part of the public record can't be considered by the court.

Pitaro countered that any governmental action should be open to scrutiny, and he asked permission to take depositions from commissioners and, presumably, PPA officials.

"We want to look under the rocks and see the snakes," Pitaro said.

Gibbons denied the request and postponed the case until next month so that transcripts of the County Commission meetings can be filed. The delay is expected to give the Enterprise Township lawyers time to file the court motions that would open the door to formal questioning of the individuals involved.

Cheaper land

The police union has owned the 10-acre property in the rural neighborhood for three years. Saxton Inc. is designing four office buildings for the site; two will be single-story, 20,000-square-foot buildings and two will be two-story, 40,000-square-foot buildings.

In one of the buildings will be a "debriefing room," which is essentially a tavern where police officers can unwind.

Union members intend to move their administrative offices to the location and lease the remaining space to other businesses, such as insurance companies.

Andy Anderson, president of the union, said the Valley View property is the only land owned by the association. It purchased the land in 1996 because residential property is much more affordable than commercial parcels.

Anderson said union members were aware the county planned to widen Valley View and Warm Springs to at least 100 feet. The property is in a high airport noise zone, where the county prefers to restrict housing.

And, Anderson said, the location is ideal.

"We could have bought property in Jean, but that wouldn't have been convenient for our members," he said. "The feeling was this property would eventually be on a couple main roads, so we thought it would eventually go commercial."

Short-lived master plan

The commission's decision angered Enterprise residents, especially those who had volunteered to participate in the creation of the land-use plan -- a document that maps out future development of the township.

Residents and planners worked together for about 13 months piecing together a map that shows which zoning designation best suits portions of the township. Changes were made as the master plan bounced back and forth between the county and planning commissions until it was finally approved in December.

The zone change was the second amendment to the plan in three months.

Bunker said claims that Enterprise residents are outraged simply because they object to growth are wrong. Most homeowners, she said, accept the fact that development is crawling toward the southwest region of the valley.

But she and her neighbors expected Clark County commissioners to side with their planning staff, the Enterprise Town Board and the county Planning Commission, who all agreed the union buildings were incompatible with their surroundings.

The township's commissioner, Bruce Woodbury, was equally miffed. The union campaigned for Commissioner Erin Kenny, and board member Lance Malone is a former Metro officer. Woodbury didn't dismiss the possibility that the zone change was granted because the developer was the union.

"It may have had something to do with it," he said. "It was something that was unexpected. Residents were shocked, staff was shocked and so was I."

Residents' trust in the county has crumbled, but it wasn't just from the approval of the union building. Clark County has a long history of granting variances and approving zone changes that don't conform with master plans, they say.

Assistant Planning Director Phil Rosenquist winces at the thought that residents' faith is waning. After all, he said, his department has worked diligently to include residents in the planning process.

"We're going to any extent we can to involve residents," Rosenquist said. "They're the ones who live there, they're the local experts and they have to live with the plan."

During the master plan process, zoning along major arterials was left alone because the commission is split over how growth corridors should be developed.

Commissioner Erin Kenny, who voted for the union building, said she believes offices should be built on what will become major thoroughfares, because they will provide buffers from noise and traffic for rural homes.

"There is so much history to this," Kenny said of the decision to approve the union complex. "It's not as simple as these people feeling jilted."

Kenny said negative consequences of allowing homes to be built on future thoroughfares can be seen on popular commuter routes like Desert Inn Road and Rainbow Boulevard.

The once-quiet streets are packed with stop-and-go traffic all day, every day.

"Those people are miserable because they can no longer live with 50,000 cars passing by their houses a day," Kenny said.

Anderson said the police union redesigned its offices to better suit the neighborhood. The association also shifted building locations so they would not block homeowners' views.

"We have tried to cooperate," Anderson said. "But when they are diehard adamant against commercial, there is nothing we can do to suit them."

Woodbury disagreed with Kenny's assessment and said rural neighborhood preservation areas should be left alone.

"If you're going to say you're going to have commercial on every section line road, there is no such thing as a rural neighborhood preserve," Woodbury said. "There is very little traffic out there now. In future years that could change and we could change the master plan, but we should change the plan before we change the zoning."

Residents said they feel insecure because there is no set policy. Gardner doesn't blame his clients. In December, he filed a lawsuit related to an earlier zone change in the same area, but it was later dropped because residents believed it was hopeless.

"That has been the tragedy of the valley," he said. "Homeowners are treated so badly. They're intimidated, and they give up because they feel like they've wasted enough time and money already."

As he was with the last lawsuit, Gardner is confident he can persuade a judge that the union building does not fit in a rural neighborhood.

"I have researched the question and discovered that in other jurisdictions most lawsuits are filed on behalf of developers who have had their applications denied," Gardner said. "An extraordinary small amount of lawsuits are filed by developers in Clark County."

archive