County, Las Vegas zone pact is tabled

Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2001 | 9:49 a.m.

Rural neighborhoods will not get protection from intensive development promised by a proposed pact involving Las Vegas and Clark County.

At least for now.

The Clark County Commission, in a contentious 4-3 vote, tabled the proposed zoning and annexation pact between the county and the city. The agreement would affect neighborhoods in the Las Vegas Valley's northwest, which now fall under a patchwork of city and county jurisdictions.

The Las Vegas City Council is scheduled to discuss the agreement today during the council's regular meeting. Even if the council approves it, the agreement has no effect without the county commission's OK.

Commissioner Erin Kenny, whose motion sent the agreement back to county planning staff for additional study, also directed the District Attorney's office to study the feasibility of a court challenge to a new law that helped prompt talks on the agreement between the city and county.

Assembly Bill 179 allows Las Vegas to annex undeveloped land that is at least 75 percent adjacent to city limits. With strong backing by the city, the measure passed during the last legislative session and became effective Monday.

Residents of the area fear that the law will allow Las Vegas to annex and zone in intensive commercial or high-density residential uses in areas that are now county rural zones.

Commissioner Chip Maxfield, who worked with city officials to draft the proposed interlocal agreement, said the pact would protect the rural lifestyles of people in his district from intensive development that could come if the city annexed those undeveloped areas in the northwest.

"AB179 prompted action, but even without AB179 an interlocal agreement is needed in the northwest because you have mixed boundaries," Maxfield said after the vote. "The interlocal covers a lot of common issues in the northwest -- land use, roads, zoning drainage, all the common issues that exist.

"The interlocal also provides a level of protection for people in unincorporated Clark County to not be annexed if they do not want to be," he said.

Also backing the pact were Commission Chairman Dario Herrera and Commissioner Bruce Woodbury.

Herrera said he voted for the measure to protect Rural Neighborhood Preservation areas and to indicate a willingness to cooperate with the city on annexation and land use issues.

Woodbury said he believes sending the pact back to planning staff is an attempt "to stall this off as long as possible, and probably kill it."

But Commissioners Kenny, Mary Kincaid-Chauncey, Myrna Williams and Yvonne Atkinson Gates said they could not support the pact. They cited one provision of the pact that would mute opposition to city annexations in the northwest valley.

The commissioners who voted to table the pact cited the city's recent effort to annex an 80-square-mile chunk of federal land in the county -- a move made without consultation with the county. They said they fear the city could use the pact to annex land without consultation.

Kenny said a primary problem with the pact is that it would lock in the existing master plan for the northwest, at least until a long-sought but never realized "seamless" development plan for the area is developed jointly between the city and county.

"It doesn't allow for flexibility," Kenny said.

On paper, the county's master plan for the area largely restricts commercial development. But commissioners have in the past overruled those restrictions to allow for commercial development, and some have said more commercial uses are inevitable in the area.

Kenny said she also fears that the county would have to provide sewer service to both residential and commercial land-users in the 8,200-acre area.

The northwest has been a flashpoint on city-county relations for several years. The region is one of the fastest growing in the valley, but one in which existing residents are trying to hold on to the rural characteristics that attracted them there in the first place.

The county passed a rural designation for much of the Lone Mountain area Sept. 5.

Residents and members of the Northwest Citizens Association said Tuesday that they oppose AB179, but have mixed feelings about the proposed county-city pact.

Linda Fionda, a Lone Mountain resident and activist with the association, said she believed the agreement could help protect the rural lifestyle that she and her neighbors want to keep.

"If the county and city can work out an arrangement, I think it would be wonderful," Fionda said.

She said Maxfield and Las Vegas Councilmen Larry Brown and Michael Mack, all of whom represent residents in the northwest, have worked to protect the rural character of her area. But they need support from their fellow board members.

Fionda said other board members should support the representatives elected from the area.

"It's their area," she said. "They should know what's right for their area."

But Carroll Varner, a past association president, said not everybody in the northwest supports the agreement.

He said residents already fear the impact of AB179, and the pact might make things worse by encouraging city annexation and commercial or high-density residential development.

"This thing might open a door to bad things," Varner said. "It might be a fear of the unknown, kinda."

He likes the idea of restricting amendments to the area's master plan, though.

"It might be that we would have an even greater protection than we have now, but we'd like the laws that are presently enforced to stay here," Varner said.

Maxfield said residents can get a better look at the proposed agreement later this month during a town hall-style meeting. He said with community support, he can get a majority of commissioners to support the agreement.

"I'm optimistic and committed to getting an interlocal agreement," he said. "I believe the majority of the board believes it is needed."