New law blocks vote on Red Rock request

Thursday, June 19, 2003 | 11:22 a.m.

The Clark County Commission heard an unusual request Wednesday -- a developer pleading with the commission to deny a zoning request.

The move was the latest wrinkle in the long, contentious battle over zoning outside the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. Developer Jim Rhodes has battled new state and county laws that restrict his ability to build more than 5,000 homes on top of Blue Diamond Hill, now an active gypsum mine.

Attorney Paul Larsen, representing Rhodes, brought a request to the commission to rezone 96 acres on a portion of the property as an industrial park. The commission, without protest, held the issue during the morning zoning meeting. A few minutes later Larsen asked the commission to overturn the hold and hear debate on the issue -- despite admitting that the commission was almost certain to deny the application.

Larsen explained after his bid failed that he needed the likely denial of the request -- the county staff had argued strongly for denial, and Rhodes' efforts so far have been entirely unsuccessful -- to help build the expected legal challenge to the state and local restrictions that have so far stopped the proposed development.

Another new state law, however, requires the commission to have a majority to act on any issue. Two commissioners, Mark James and Bruce Woodbury, were absent, and two others, Rory Reid and Chip Maxfield, said they would probably have to abstain because they or their companies have done work for the developer in the past.

As a result, the commission could not take action, argued county counsel Rob Warhola.

"I don't see how they can even vote on it," Warhola said. The automatic hold pushes the hearing on the rezoning request to July 2.

For Rhodes, however, the problem is that a new state law -- which the developer vigorously, if unsuccessfully, opposed -- goes into effect July 1. After that date, the county is prohibited by law from approving any zoning changes such as the one sought by the developer.

Larsen joined some county commissioners in attacking the state law that prevented a vote on the request.

"The real problem is that the Legislature does not understand local government, period, and they won't let us conduct our business," Commissioner Myrna Williams said.

"It is idiotic," Larsen agreed. "It deprives you of any ability to go forward. ... The bill is asinine. It dictates exactly the kind of result you saw today."

Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, defended the new law, which he proposed. The law's intent is to make sure elected officials participate in the process unless they have a written explanation why they can't, he said.

"What's ridiculous and asinine is when an elected body can conduct business with one person and six people abstain," Care said, citing a vote by the Las Vegas City Council several years ago.

Taking positions on sometimes contentious issues is "what they are elected to do," he said. "People are quick to cite a conflict when the reality is they just don't want to vote."

For Rhodes and Larsen, the end result is an already complex legal question has been further muddied.

Larsen said he does not know when the anticipated lawsuit would be filed, but he said the 96-acre industrial zoning would almost certainly be upheld by the courts, because the underlying long-range master plans for that area call for industrial zoning.

County planning staff, however, cited a number of contrary factors when it recommended denying the zoning, arguing that industrial zoning would negatively affect public services and facilities in the area and is not compatible with the recently passed county ordinance restricting development in the area.

When the issue came before the Red Rock Citizens Advisory Council Tuesday night, the town board voted unanimously against the zoning request. "That ... zoning he is going for has an incredible range -- everything from (strip) bars to auto sales, most of which would not look at good at the mouth of Red Rock Canyon," Evan Blythin, the town board chairman, said.

An opponent of the development proposals for the land, which Rhodes purchased in March for $54 million, said the outcome was a good one.

"I think it's a good thing," said Spring Valley community activist Carolyn Edwards, one of thousands who had opposed the residential development Rhodes' slated for the area.