Thursday, Jan. 5, 2006 | 8:21 a.m.
The question of whether a half-dozen buildings at Mount Charleston are family homes or condominiums went before the Clark County Commission on Wednesday, and commissioners promised another meeting on the issue next month.
At the Feb. 8 meeting, the commission could rescind permits needed by a developer to build homes at Mount Charleston, but it kept open the possibility of an agreement that would allow the work to go forward.
Barbara Orcutt and her lawyer, Carl Lovell, argued that they had always intended to build the single-family homes the commission had permitted in 2003.
"There's only going to be six buildings up there," Lovell told the commission. "There's going to be six single-family residences."
Orcutt said she and her family plan to live in one of the buildings, and her family would have separate entrances to what would be a shared house. Other families were likely to want the same plan, she said.
There was a "huge demand" for rental properties for large families on Mount Charleston, she said, but the buildings within a 1.2-acre gated community would not be rentals.
"I really appreciate having my home in a gated community," Orcutt said. "I'm just really astonished it was even criticized."
Lovell said that a Web site for Orcutt's Mount Charleston Lodge, which described 36 condominiums for sale, did not refer to the buildings under construction. He said the references were to an unrelated development that has not materialized.
Marketing materials as well as Orcutt and her representatives, however, have previously indicated that individual units were being sold within the buildings under construction. Rob Warhola, counsel to the commission, noted that the Web site refers to 36 housing units for sale, four upstairs and two downstairs, in each of six buildings.
The building plans submitted by Forest Development LLC for the construction project show six buildings with four separate units upstairs, two downstairs.
Commissioner Chip Maxfield, who represents Mount Charleston, said the construction effort concerned his constituents on the mountain. He said that while he hoped the construction would lead to six single-family homes as permitted, Orcutt's Web site and plans and marketing materials for the development suggested otherwise.
"If it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck," Maxfield said.
Condominiums would be "a huge violation" of the county's development rules, he added, and would be "contrary to what this board approved."
Commission Chairman Rory Reid said if Lovell and the county reached an agreement on a legal restriction that would satisfy the county's concerns, both sides could present that at the Feb. 8 meeting.
Launce Rake can be reached at 259-4127 or at [email protected].
archive
