Resident sues over condo project

Tuesday, July 29, 2003 | 11:02 a.m.

A resident opposed to a planned condominium development has sued Clark County, the proposed developer and the county commissioner who cast the deciding vote on the issue earlier this month.

Bruce Waggoner, a homeowner in a designated "rural neighborhood preservation" district, has asked the state District Court to overturn the Clark County Commission's 4-3 approval July 3 of a contentious residential development. The proposed development is near Pebble Road and Eastern Avenue, just north of Interstate 215.

Waggoner and his attorney, Scott Smith, argue that Commissioner Chip Maxfield, often a swing vote on land-use issues before the county board, should have abstained on the vote because of his relationship with one of the developers.

Waggoner also argues that the court should set aside the approval because it conflicts with the master plan and both county and state laws protecting rural preservation districts from encroachment by dense commercial or residential projects.

The issue affects one of a handful of rural enclaves in the otherwise heavily developed township of Paradise in the unincorporated county. The developers argue that construction of the Las Vegas Beltway nearby, along with other county approvals of high-density residential, commercial and school projects invalidates the rural preservation designation of the area.

Rural preservation designations, like master-plan guides, provide broad but extremely porous protections from unwanted zone changes. The Clark County Commission has often voted to overturn rural-preservation designations.

Observers and opponents of the project said the court's decision on the issue could set important precedent in the sticky legal and political combat that often accompanies county land-use decisions.

M.J. Harvey, chairwoman of the Paradise Town Advisory Board, opposed the project when it came before her board. Although the majority of the County Commission rejected the board's advice, Harvey said the project would have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood.

"This is an important case," she said. "It was entirely disruptive to people who want to live a certain way.

"The only thing we have to go by is the land-use guide," Harvey said. "If it's on the plan, you have a reasonable right to expect that is what it will continue to be."

Recent changes to the county's land-use planning process did not make a big difference because some of those reforms, which make it tougher to go against the master plans, do not kick in until a major rewrite of the specific area plan. Harvey said one change, requiring neighborhood meetings, did affect the process.

Neighbors were able to trim about 50 units off the proposed project, but that is still too many for a neighborhood already overburdened with traffic, she said.

"The whole thing was unacceptable becasue of where it was," Harvey said.

Smith, who is one of a handful of attorneys who represent such land-use challenges to county decisions, said the case is important because it could set a precedent for future land-use decisions by the county -- and it would help define what represents a conflict of interest for the commissioners.

The conflict issue is a thorny one, with an independent ethics panel meeting this summer to draft new rules governing behavior by sitting and former county commissioners.

Smith noted that Maxfield disclosed the relationship with developer Jay Bingham, of Juliet Properties. Bingham's daughter is married to Maxfield's son.

"We're not saying he was trying to hide anything," Smith said. But Maxfield's vote was critical for passing the zone change for the 14.4-acre property, which increased the density from two homes to almost 14 homes per acre.

Clark County Counsel Mary Miller, echoing advice provided during the July 3 meeting to Maxfield, said there is no conflict.

"You don't go back up through your in-laws family," Miller said. "Had the son-in-law had an interest in the property, it would have been a completely different situation."

Waggoner, who moved into the then-rural area more than a decade ago, said this may be the last battle to stop the county commissioners from making zoning decisions that change the character of his neighborhood.

"They're certainly not preserving the rural atmosphere that we have here, as required by law," he said. "If the condos come in, then I'm selling my property to be condos, too.

"It's unfair to put people such as myself next door to high-intensity urban uses."

The developer, however, said the neighborhood has already changed to the point where it can no longer be considered a rural area.

"It is an RNP (rural neighborhood preservation zone) in name only," said Fred Ahlstrom, a principal in Juliet Properties. Among the uses already approved by the county for the neighborhoods are schools, commercial uses and high-density residential, he said.

And some of Waggoner's neighbors are eager to sell their land and move out, Ahlstrom said.

"We are talking with several homeowners in that same area, and have talked with them throughout this process, who said they agree with us," he said. "They have called us and said they agree with us all along."

Ahlstrom said that since the July 3 approval, his company has "spent a lot of money" on the development.

"We're not just going to roll over," he said.

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, who represents the neighborhood on the County Commission, voted against the project. He often counts on Maxfield to support his go-slow approach to land-use decisions.

"I certainly wish we had Commissioner Maxfield on board with this one, because he was the swing vote," he said. "I just wish there was something we could do to protect that particular neighborhood. I believed and still believe it was a very viable rural neighborhood."

He said the zoning decision is likely to drive would-be homebuilders and buyers from investing in the area.

Although Woodbury disagreed with Maxfield's vote, he said that a legal conflict probably can't be proved.

"I doubt there is a legally defined conflict of interest, unless the person feels that he or she would be biased because of that relationship," Woodbury said.