Enterprise rezoning plan upheld by judge

Bill Gang

Friday, Sept. 24, 1999 | 11:10 a.m.

The sedate and exclusively rural lifestyle in the neighborhood around Warm Springs Road and Valley View Boulevard is coming to an end.

But a district judge, who approved the rezoning of 10 acres and an impending business development, said it was inevitable.

District Judge Mark Gibbons on Thursday upheld the County Commission's rezoning of 10 acres in southwest Las Vegas where the Metropolitan Police Protective Association has planned to build office and union facilities.

Irate neighbors had filed a lawsuit contending the rezoning violated the county's master plan and was contrary to the character of the area, where only one ranch-style home is permitted on each half-acre lot.

There were charges that the politically powerful PPA was given special treatment and residents simply were "snookered."

But in his six-page decision, Gibbons concluded the County Commission had "substantial evidence" on which to base its decision to ignore the master plan, and because of that the courts cannot overturn the rezoning.

That evidence, the judge noted, includes information the location is becoming a major intersection where perhaps 50,000 cars will travel each day and the county already has adopted a policy to prohibit rural development on major arterial streets.

He added that the 10 acres are only two blocks west of a business park and the area is crossed by power lines.

"There was substantial evidence for a reasonable mind to accept that the 10 acres were better suited for office and professional development rather than rural development," Gibbons concluded.

He admitted that if he had been a county commissioner facing the issue, he might have voted differently.

"However, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the commission," the judge stated. "This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the commission."

And since the rezoning is "a discretionary act," there must be substantial evidence under the law to show the commission's decision was unfounded or improper, Gibbons explained.

He said a simple showing that the commission sidestepped the master plan was insufficient.

After a court hearing on the issue last week, both sides vowed to appeal whatever ruling the judge made.

In his order, Gibbons noted that the Nevada Supreme Court has already ruled in a similar case that "requiring strict compliance with a master plan would result in a plan so unworkable that it would have to be constantly changed."

The zone change, however, also did not comply with the Enterprise land-use plan, which had been approved only months earlier. Residents' attorneys additionally argued to Gibbons that the complex will generate too much traffic.

"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 should be protected.

Other commissioners, however, approved the project because the union's parcel is located at an intersection whose streets will become thoroughfares as the county continues to grow.