North Las Vegas: Billboard ban sparks protests

Diana Sahagun

Thursday, Sept. 23, 1999 | 9:42 a.m.

The threat of a lawsuit did not prevent the North Las Vegas Planning Commission from approving a billboard ordinance Wednesday night.

Members of the Planning Commission appeared to look nervous as attorney Mark Fiorentino, representing the Nevada Outdoor Media Association, told them during a public hearing that if they passed the ordinance, "You are going to get sued. It's guaranteed."

The amendment passed with three members voting against the measure, and four in favor, but not without a lengthy, and at times, heated debate.

The new ordinance will only allow billboards within 100 feet of Interstate 15. Billboards are currently allowed in all industrial zones and commercial zones as special use permits. The ordinance mirrors that of the city of Henderson, where billboards are only allowed along Boulder Highway and U.S. 95.

After 10 years all nonconforming billboards in the city would have be removed at the owner's expense.

That last provision is what caused the most controversy at the meeting. Fiorentino insisted that the billboard industry was not opposing the ordinance because it would limit the industry's growth. During his presentation, he explained that it is against federal law to make someone take their sign down without compensation.

"There are federal laws that govern billboards," he said, adding that the ordinance would affect nearly 32 billboards. "If you require someone to take down their billboards, you have to pay compensation."

Because the clause does not provide compensation, the city would be the subject of a lawsuit, he said. He warned that thousands of dollars in taxpayer money would be spent in the courts. He also said that the city could possibly lose federal highway funds if it requires the billboards to be removed.

Several planning commissioners argued that their role is dealing with land-use issues, not with legal issues.

"This board deals with land-use issues and we have to make educated decisions," Planning Commissioner Nelson Stone said. "I don't see this as a one-way door we're walking through. If we go through this door and come through with legal issues, we'll flush them out before the 10 years."

Planning Commissioners Christopher Montanez, Harry Shull and Chairman Tom Lisiewski spoke out loudly against the ordinance, saying they felt pressure to approve it. Lisiewski said he was concerned about where the city would find the money to settle a possible lawsuit when it is already struggling to find funds for things such as parks and a fire station.

Planning Commissioner Tom Langford tried to convince the board not to back down because of the word "lawsuit," even as other commissioners expressed doubt.

"People come before us all the time and say they will sue us," Langford said. "We should not weigh that so heavily. When someone says the word 'sue,' that should not be a reason to run the other way."

Fiorentino asked the commissioners to consider sitting down with the industry and drafting a new ordinance that would suit both sides. He was not able to meet with the city Sept. 8 when the Planning Commission had a special workshop so both sides could be heard. The lack of representation was another heated concern among all the commissioners.

After the ordinance approval, Fiorentino walked away saying he was disappointed with the decision but that there would be another debate when the item is placed on the City Council agenda for final approval.

"The city is making a mistake and I wish we could sit down and discuss the ordinance," he said.