Tougher neighborhood casino zoning proposed

Adrienne Packer

Tuesday, March 21, 2000 | 9:48 a.m.

Spring Valley homeowners might be relieved that a state law restricting neighborhood casinos spared them from an eight-story hotel, but at least two Clark County commissioners are not quite satisfied.

The state-appointed Gaming Policy Committee ruled Friday that a Spring Valley casino approved by Clark County commissioners in January would adversely affect nearby residents and, therefore, violates Senate Bill 208.

The review committee overturned the commission's January decision.

Despite the panel's enforcement of the law, Commissioners Yvonne Atkinson Gates and Bruce Woodbury reiterated Monday that the bill adopted in 1997 simply doesn't do enough to protect neighborhoods.

"I don't think it goes as far as I'd like to see it go in terms of concerns expressed in reference to boundaries," Atkinson Gates said. "This will only strengthen what 208 is doing."

The state law requires casinos to be at least 500 feet from existing neighborhoods and forces developers to prove their gaming projects will not negatively affect homeowners.

The proposed ordinance scheduled to be considered by the Clark County Commission on Wednesday increases the existing distance requirements to 2,500 feet. Not only would it apply to developed neighborhoods but vacant land zoned for residential.

In addition, the county ordinance would require the proposed casino site to be at least 50 acres.

If a developer has a site 2,500 feet from homes, but the land is not zoned for gaming in the master plan, then two-thirds of the commission would have to approve the amendment and the zone change.

Atkinson Gates said the county ordinance cannot be superseded by state law because it is more restrictive than SB208.

"The state law is the minimum requirement," Atkinson Gates said. "We can, as a county, adopt our own ordinance that is stronger than state law. That is what this does; it lets us go beyond the state law."

Woodbury said not only does he take issue with distance requirements in the Senate bill, but he believes the law is too subjective. For example, some Spring Valley residents thought the latest proposal would damage their neighborhood, but others believed it would be an asset.

In the end, the Gaming Policy Committee had to determine the effect on homeowners.

"There is too much subjectivity in the existing statute," Woodbury said. "We need to say where these things are allowed and where they are not allowed."

Both Woodbury and Atkinson Gates abstained from the Spring Valley casino vote, citing potential conflicts of interest.

Woodbury said Monday that he had concerns about the commission's approval of the project. After the gaming committee's ruling Friday, the battle likely will be taken up in court.

"I couldn't vote on it, but I can now put forward my point of view in the form of a legislative policy on how to handle this situation in the future," Woodbury said.

In addition to the two commissioners' proposal, fellow commission member Lance Malone is expected to propose a moratorium on new neighborhood casinos until the county ordinance is implemented.

Malone has been heavily criticized for voting in favor of Triple Five Development's Spring Valley casino. The commissioner had assured competing casino developers he would vote against the Triple Five project but changed his mind at the last minute.

Commissioners Erin Kenny, Mary Kincaid and Malone approved the project; Commissioner Dario Herrera voted against it.

Adrienne Packer covers county government for the Sun. She can be reached at (702) 259-2310 or by e-mail at adrienne@lasvegassun.com