County revives outdoor ad issue

Monday, Dec. 31, 2001 | 9:49 a.m.

On Dec. 5 the Clark County Commission passed what was supposed to be the ultimate word on billboards.

On Thursday the commission will tackle the subject once again.

Doubts about the legality of passing the earlier billboard ordinance along with concerns about ambiguous or missing restrictions prompted Commissioner Bruce Woodbury and two of his colleagues to request that the issue return to the commission.

The commission is expected to consider introduction of a "cleanup" ordinance that could clear up some ambiguities from the Dec. 5 law and include greater restrictions on placement of billboards.

Woodbury and Commissioners Chip Maxfield and Myrna Williams voted against the Dec. 5 ordinance, largely written by the billboard industry. At the zoning meeting Woodbury pleaded with the commission to hold the issue for further review.

The billboard industry, backed by Commissioner Erin Kenny, put its own version of an ordinance governing where billboards can go and how far they must be from homes. That version, with several key amendments designed to deflect criticism of the industry ordinance, passed.

Commissioners Yvonne Atkinson Gates, Mary Kincaid-Chauncey, Kenny and Chairman Dario Herrera -- a key swing vote -- supported the ordinance. The four rejected a far more restrictive proposal drafted by county staff and a separate compromise ordinance worked out over weeks with the county staff, county town advisory board members, community members and billboard industry representatives.

John Hiatt, chairman of the Enterprise Town Advisory Board, is one of those who worked on the rejected compromise and opposed the commission's Dec. 5 decision.

"I think it's entirely appropriate that it be brought back," Hiatt said.

Hiatt is concerned with what is in and what was left out of the Dec. 5 ordinance.

"The separation requirements are a big deal," he said.

The Dec. 5 billboard ordinance essentially doesn't refer to separation of billboards. State law requires them to be at least 500 feet apart, which Kenny said will be sufficient -- especially because the county commissioners would have to approve any new billboards anywhere in the unincorporated county.

But the billboard companies, in the rejected compromise ordinance, agreed to at least a 750-foot separation, Hiatt said.

He also opposes a provision of the accepted ordinance that allows billboards to go all the way to Sloan on Las Vegas Boulevard. Again, the compromise ordinance was more restrictive, cutting off the southward spread of billboards at Silverado Ranch Boulevard, about 6 miles north of Sloan.

"There are a bunch of details like that that need to be worked out, and that just didn't happen in the rush to pass it last time," Hiatt said. "You just can't make law in a panic situation like we saw Dec. 5.

"Hopefully we'll have some opportunity to do that," he said.

Richard Holmes, assistant county manager, said the district attorney's office has concluded that the industry's substitute ordinance, which the public never saw in its entirety before the Dec. 5 zoning meeting, was legally introduced and passed.

Woodbury, an attorney who works in land-use law, said he doesn't believe it was a valid approval. As of Thursday, he was still waiting to see the written version -- although the commission passed the law, staff still had to write it out in its complete form.

"We should see the ordinance in its full written form and be allowed to discuss it and possibly offer amendments to it," Woodbury said.

Woodbury, a former commission chairman who has frequently been at odds with the majority on land-use issues over the last year, fears that the new law will lead to too many billboards in areas where they formerly have not been approved, and "too many, too close together."

He said the legal issues are complicated by the political issues.

Residents who fear that new billboards will crowd out their vistas of mountains agree. Some have said that Herrera, who abstained from voting on the issue last summer because his wife works for a billboard company, should have kept out of the Dec. 5 vote as well.

Herrera's vote was the critical fourth needed to pass the industry-backed ordinance. At the time of the vote, his wife was sitting with other industry representatives in a block in the commission chambers.

Rob Warhola, attorney for the commission, said at the time that the relationship did not represent a conflict of interest because the ordinance would potentially benefit the entire billboard industry, not just a single company.

Leo van der Harst, a resident whose home could soon see billboards nearby, called the reasoning "ethics light."

"I think that's kind of ridiculous," he said.

Repeated phone calls last week failed to reach the commission chairman.

Mark Fiorentino, a land-use attorney and industry point man on the debate, also couldn't be reached but has said billboard companies did not try to sneak anything by the public on the issue.

Fiorentino argued that two elements of the industry-backed ordinance protect the public: The first restricts any new billboard to special "billboard overlay districts," generally located along state highways and interstates in the unincorporated county.

The second requires most new billboards to get a public vetting by the commission.