Editorial: Unpleasant surprises

Friday, Aug. 12, 2005 | 9:11 a.m.

As growth in the Las Vegas Valley accelerated in the 1990s and early this decade, Clark County commissioners increasingly heard from homeowners distressed about unexpected development taking place all around them. This comment in particular was predictable when the homeowners began speaking: "I checked the master plan before buying my home." They would then angrily point out that the Clark County master (land-use) plan for their area had shown their neighborhood protected from the type of development springing up near their homes.

The complaints were partly the result of an incomplete understanding of how master plans were regarded -- many homeowners believed they were set in stone. But master plans then were regarded merely as guides ripe for change. Developers would put forth dozens of requests each month to the County Commission, seeking approval to build projects that did not conform with a master plan's stated uses. Because of growth pressures, approvals were routinely granted. This meant that people could buy in an area zoned for single-family homes, and before long see an office complex, apartment building or even an industrial development taking shape in a nearby vacant lot.

In February 2003, following a year in which many master-plan changes drew particularly caustic and high-profile criticisms, the County Commission responded with greater protections for neighborhoods. It passed an ordinance stating that master plans, once adopted, cannot be changed for two years. It also stated that proposed nonconforming changes after the two-year wait would only be considered four times a year, and that approvals for such requests would not be granted unless two-thirds, rather than a simple majority, of the seven-member board approved.

The ordinance was upheld by a District Court judge but the Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association appealed the two-thirds requirement to the Nevada Supreme Court. On Thursday the court overturned the provision, ruling that the Nevada Legislature has never expressly granted local governments the power to impose it. The court was clear that it had no intrinsic objection to a two-thirds requirement as long as it was specifically outlined in law.

We believe Clark County should ask the 2007 Legislature to amend the law that gives it authority over zoning matters. Language should be added that would specifically permit the county to require a two-thirds vote for changes to master plans. This amendment would be added protection against the surprising, incompatible developments that neighborhood residents have been enduring over the years.