Council’s decision angers northwest residents

Thursday, Nov. 8, 2001 | 9:43 a.m.

Property owners of the Las Vegas Valley's northwest say they are in the worst of all possible situations.

A decision Wednesday by the Las Vegas City Council means that property in Clark County's Lone Mountain area can be annexed by the city. The decision also means that the county can approve high-density residential or commercial projects adjacent to rural homes and ranches.

The council voted to reject a proposed city-county agreement that would have resolved both issues, a day after the Clark County Commission approved the agreement. The decision came as a surprise and disappointment to area residents.

Councilman Larry Brown, who represents the city's territory in the northwest, said he couldn't support the agreement because it would eliminate the city's newly acquired ability to unilaterally annex property.

Assembly Bill 179, passed by the Legislature this past spring, allows Las Vegas to annex vacant county property that is at least 75 percent surrounded by the city. By law, the only appeal a property owner could make would be to take the issue to court.

Although council members and city staff said it is an unlikely prospect, under the law the city could annex thousands of acres of county land virtually overnight.

The law was designed to eliminate zoning and service-delivery problems that plague the patchwork mix of county and city jurisdictions throughout the 33,000 acres of the northwest. The issues have led to the city-county conflict.

"What started this process is that the county had a tremendous record of approving non-conforming land uses," rezoning areas planned for rural residences to allow commercial projects, Brown said.

He said the county is allowing "7-11s on every corner."

AB179, Brown said, "will clean up what needs to be cleaned up, these small 2- to 5-acre parcels that have been consistently zoned for non-conforming uses."

Councilman Michael Mack, who also represents the area, agreed.

Mack said the law is important to prevent the county from approving land uses that will destroy the rural character of the area's neighborhoods.

Mack and Brown directed city staff to continue working with their counterparts at the county to draft an agreement acceptable to both the city and county boards.

It could be a tough job. The county commission approved the agreement by just one vote Tuesday, despite the strong support of Commissioner Chip Maxfield, who represents the area.

County Commissioners Erin Kenny, Myrna Williams and Mary Kincaid-Chauncy have consistently opposed the city-county agreement, citing among other issues the agreement's prohibition of zoning changes outside the regional master plans.

County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates swung her vote to support the agreement, but one of her reasons for supporting the pact was that it rolled back AB179 -- the same issue that sparked the opposition from the city council.

Brown and Mack saluted Maxfield for trying to work out the agreement. Brown said "90 percent or more" of the agreement works, but he could not support a rollback of AB179.

The council's decision is only the latest pitfall for the agreement. The county commission last month rejected an earlier draft, prompting harsh words from the City Council.

Brown, Mack and Maxfield said they still believe an agreement is possible. Brown and Mack said they will meet with Maxfield today to discuss a compromise.

"I believe this interlocal agreement is critical to the northwest," Maxfield said. He said land-use and annexation issues are the two biggest concerns for many of his constituents.

Maxfield said he doesn't think wholesale annexation is likely. Voters would likely recoil from such a move, and some have promised to tie up any such annexation in court.

The city "could choose to go ahead and do what the law prescribes, but I don't think it would be good public policy," he said.

County residents said the council's decision will hurt their neighborhoods.

"I am very disappointed that they didn't approve it after all this," said Linda Fionda, a Lone Mountain homeowner and secretary of the Northwest Citizens Association.

"I think we've been blindsided on this," she said. "I think the thing that bothers me the most is that in the past, the city has been extremely supportive of protecting our rural neighborhoods. (But) I truly believe that it should be the property owners' choice to be annexed, not the city's."

Gladys Feinn, another association member and a 24-year resident of Lone Mountain, said both the city and the county deserve criticism for the present situation.

"I think it stinks," she said. "We moved out here for the rural desert. We're trying to preserve what little we have left."