Judge set to rule on police union facility

Adrienne Packer

Tuesday, Sept. 21, 1999 | 11:47 a.m.

Homeowners fighting to preserve their rural community should learn Thursday whether an unwelcome neighbor is permitted to move in when a Clark County district judge submits his written ruling on a controversial zone change.

Lawyers for Clark County and the Metro Police union told Judge Mark Gibbons on Monday why they believe a 10-acre parcel in the southwest is an ideal location for a new union office complex.

And attorneys hired by nearly 400 residents explained why such a project would destroy a ranch-style neighborhood where only one home is permitted on every half-acre.

Both sides have vowed to appeal Gibbons' decision if they lose.

The lawsuit filed by the residents stems from the Clark County Commission's decision in March to change the zoning on the Police Protective Association's piece of property from rural neighborhood preserve to commercial.

The zone change did not comply with the Enterprise land use plan, which had been approved only months earlier. Residents' attorneys also have argued that the complex will generate too much traffic and there is no efficient ingress or egress for officers.

"This is one of the most isolated traffic areas in the county," attorney Tom Pitaro told Gibbons. "So when you're talking about great access you're right smack dab in the middle of a rural neighborhood preservation area."

Pitaro has accused county officials of working a backroom deal with the police union -- which supports many of the commissioners during their campaigns -- and of "snookering" residents.

The office complex, which would include four buildings, was rejected by the Enterprise Town Board and the Clark County Planning Commission before the County Commission approved it 5-1 in March.

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, the sole board member to oppose the zone change and office building plans, said the neighborhood preserves should be protected.

Other commissioners, however, approved the project because the union's parcel is located on the corner of Valley View Boulevard and Warm Springs Road -- two streets that while currently quiet, will become thoroughfares as the county continues to grow.

The board has had many debates about how to handle rural roads that are bound to become busy streets. Some believe the roads -- and zoning -- should be left alone until the area is actually developed and becomes congested; others believe that philosophy puts residents in bad situations.

Board member Erin Kenny has repeatedly cited the developments on Desert Inn Road where residents bought homes years ago and are now struggling to sell them because Desert Inn is becoming a superhighway.

But on Monday Pitaro wondered aloud why the union would buy residential land in the first place if it planned to build an office complex.

"The PPA bought the property knowing it was a commercial piece of property; they speculated they could get a zone change," Pitaro said. "The PPA can't say they've been snookered by the residents or the county because they knew what it was when they bought it."

The union purchased the property in 1996 because residential land is much more affordable than commercial parcels, union officials said in June. They were aware the county planned to widen both Valley View and Warm Springs to 100 feet.

The union's lawyer, John Harper, said Monday that the parcel is perfectly located because it will someday be on two busy roads. In addition, he said noise from the airport would prevent a developer from building homes on the property.

"The Board of County Commissioners is trying to have a plan to make sure there aren't any traffic problems; they're trying to look to the future," Harper said.

Deputy District Attorney Rob Warhola, who counsels the Clark County Commission and who is representing the county in the lawsuit, said planners believe the offices along main streets will provide residents buffers from the street noise.

He and Harper said the county board was within its rights to amend the master plan.

But whether the county has the authority to allow two-story office buildings in a rural neighborhood it is supposed to protect will be decided by Gibbons.