Before you know, county says ‘yes’

Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2006 | 7:35 a.m.

Be careful about going out of town if you're a Clark County resident. While you're gone, a group home could pop up next door.

That's just what happened to Spring Valley resident John Copeland, who returned from a three-week trip in April to find that his neighbor, Walter Conner, had rammed a deal through Clark County government allowing him to turn his residence into a group home for the elderly.

A dismayed Copeland decided to do something about it, but it was too late. Even the appeal deadline had already passed.

"This is just stuff your average homeowner doesn't realize can happen," Copeland said. "It's really unfair."

In a mere 22 days, the county sent notice to neighbors, the Spring Valley Town Board and the Clark County Planning Commission approved the permit, and the five business days during which an appeal could be filed passed.

Copeland's complaints are the kind not heard often. Government usually is faulted for its sluggish pace, not the opposite.

"I haven't had that complaint before," County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury said. "Most of the complaints I hear are about how slow the process is."

But Copeland is not alone in his distaste for the rapid pace of the process.

The county sent about 45 notices to residents of the neighborhood. The postcard notices mentioned the meeting dates, explained what changes the use permit would allow, and included "I support" and "I oppose" boxes for residents to check.

Of the roughly 45 homes notified, 14 residents replied, all of whom opposed the group home.

With nearly a third of the community against the change and no one for it - at least, no one who took the time to return the postcard - neighbors expected planning commissioners to vote against it, or at least slow down the process.

But that's not how it works, they learned.

"Generally speaking, if they are really opposed to something, they are going to respond," County Planning Manager Chuck Pulsipher said. "If they didn't bother to respond, they probably don't have too much of a problem with it."

Pulsipher said state law requires only 17 days between when residents are notified and the expiration of the appeal period. Conner's case, which took 22 days, is typical, Pulsipher said.

For example, of the 13 use permits considered at the planning commission's July 20 meeting, five took 21 days and three were completed in 23 days.

"It is very possible for someone to go on vacation and to come home, get the postcard and find the appeal period has already gone," Pulsipher said.

The process gives a whole new meaning to Las Vegas' reputation for playing it fast and loose.

Nicolas Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said the county's 17-day process struck him as extraordinarily quick.

"In most situations the notion of due process and neighborhood involvement require a longer period," he said. "It's hard to imagine that process taking less than 30 days."

William Thompson, a public administration professor at UNLV, agreed.

"I think we should have some 90-day guidelines for changes like you mentioned - especially in summertime when many residents leave for a month or so," he said.

But like the community's constantly transforming skyline and ever-growing population, head-spinning changes are as much a part of Clark County as casinos.

"That's part of the challenge we are facing," Woodbury said. "Change is a fact of life in this community."

But when government procedures move at such a thunderous pace, it leaves the average resident baffled and makes it easy for developers and others to take advantage of neighborhoods, said Paul Villaret, who lives across the street from the group home in Spring Valley.

"They are ruining the neighborhoods, and they are taking advantage of the process," he said. Like his neighbor Copeland, Villaret was out of town for the planning commission meeting. Now, he can look out his front window and see the home across the street expanding to accommodate new elderly residents.

"When somebody applies, they have all the information," he said. "When it comes to the vote, we get this little notice. We are not savvy about all the rules. That's a flaw."

The group home will house 10 people. Conner is renovating the home, turning the garage into additional bedrooms. It is just 380 feet from another group home.

To get the group home approved, Conner had to get planning commissioners to OK an increase in the number of residents allowed from six to 10. He also had to obtain a permit allowing the separation between group homes to be reduced from the 1,500-foot minimum requirement to 380 feet.

Conner said that from his perspective, government usually moves too slowly. As for his neighbors' complaints, he noted that although Copeland was out of town, his wife was home and even attended one of the meetings where his permit was considered.

"They could have gone to the board and appealed it," he said.

Pulsipher said the county is required to allow exceptions such as those Conner sought because of federal fair housing laws, which demand that the county allow such variances unless a health or safety hazard is demonstrated. The same rules apply for halfway houses for recovering drug addicts and alcoholics, he said.

As for the quick pace of county government, he said, he has heard only three such complaints in his nearly 25 years with Clark County.

But Copeland was concerned that the seemingly rushed process does not allow time for a full vetting of the issues. For example, in a letter that was part of his application, Conner said, "For the past 15 years, I have been involved in the assisted living occupational field."

Pulsipher admits the county did nothing to verify that.

"We don't normally do that," he said. "We usually let the letter speak for itself. Not too many people are going to lie when they know they have to make representations before the planning commission and possibly board of county commissioners."

When the Sun questioned Conner about his statement, he said, "I've been helping the elderly for quite some time. A lot have been in my own family."

When pressed for specific examples, he said, "I've got the experience. I'm not going to explain anything."

Thompson said the county should not simply trust applicants.

"If information is asked for, there should be some interest in verification," he said. "For group homes, if the person is involved in ownership or operations, a background check is every bit as necessary as it is for a casino worker."

archive