Judge to decide Stallion Mountain fate

Friday, Jan. 23, 2004 | 9:47 a.m.

A District Court judge is scheduled to decide on Monday whether developer Billy Walters will be able to replace two golf courses at the Stallion Mountain Estates with 1,560 homes.

District Judge Gene Porter will hear residents' arguments that the Clark County Commission's approval for Walters' Golf Club of Nevada to eliminate the courses should be reversed.

Walters and his attorneys argue that an untenable financial situation means that the new homes have to be built to support one remaining golf course. If Golf Club of Nevada declares bankruptcy, none of the three golf courses now in the gated community would survive, they say.

Walters, who purchased the golf courses in 1997, has said he has until February to pay $35 million due to Wells Fargo Bank. Failure to make the payment would mean foreclosure on the golf courses -- and possible development by another buyer who may have fewer resources to ensure any remaining golfing courses, Walters and his representatives argue.

The argument won supporters from among residents of the 730 existing homes, but the two sides were sharply divided at an Oct. 8 County Commission meeting in which the commission approved the plan 6-0.

The note's February due date is the reason for the relatively rapid turnaround on the case, which was filed Dec. 29. Walters' attorneys, including Frank Schreck, asked the court for an expedited hearing to accommodate the rapidly approaching deadline. The plaintiffs, led by attorney Garry Hayes, agreed to the schedule.

Hayes, representing three named and 30 "John Doe" Stallion Mountain residents, is arguing that the county did not follow the law on several points: failing to send notices out about a revised development plan, failing to require an adequate traffic plan and failing to follow the master plan or give "compelling justification" for a change.

He said the case could affect future application and challenges to the county's recently amended laws governing land-use and master plans.

"The laws are on the books and the Supreme Court says once they're on the books, you have an obligation to follow them," Hayes said.

Rob Warhola, deputy district attorney and counsel for the commission, argued that the decision was within the framework of the law. Among the points that Warhola has argued is that the recently strengthened master-plan rules do not require a renotification of affected residents unless a substantial change has been made, which the county argues did not happen.

Warhola's written brief to the court also notes that Walters' plans received substantial support from many of the residents and says that a traffic study will be conducted later.

Walters said he is confident that the court will uphold the commission's decision.

"The bottom line is he represents three people out of 730," Walters said. "I feel very confident of this. There is no merit to his claim."

On the sidelines is a related lawsuit. Walters said Hayes tried to extort money for his clients in order to drop the original suit.

"This is all about money," Walters said.

Hayes responded that he only told Walters' attorneys that his clients are unhappy and would be willing to drop the suit if they could relocate to another community.

"We think it's purely an intimidation tactic," he said of the countersuit.