Homeowners resist change

By Mike Trask (contact)

Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006 | 7:31 a.m.

Nicole McGeary nearly shed tears as she stood in her dusty back yard speculating about what will happen to the spectacular view.

Not to mention the value of her home in Sunridge Estates.

McGeary bought the home in Henderson in 2005 and paid a $150,000 lot premium for one reason: It backed up to land zoned for public or semipublic use. Anticipating that the land might one day be used for a park, soccer field or some other use typified by more greenery than mortar, McGeary thought that she would never have to worry about being boxed in by housing on all sides.

In forming that assumption, McGeary, a real estate agent, did her homework. She checked land-use maps. She pored over zoning codes. And she was told by city officials that homes would never be built across from the wash about 100 feet behind her property so long as the land-use plans and zoning codes did not change,

But only weeks after moving into her one-story home, McGeary received a notice from Henderson that the planning commission was considering recommending that the zoning on the land be changed to very low-density residential, which would allow for two homes per acre. The notice suggested that a 52-lot residential subdivision was planned for the area.

More than 200 residents signed a petition against the change. And in summer 2005 the planning commission voted against the recommendation. Despite that, the City Council approved the zoning change.

The dispute, council members and city administrators contend, stems from a simple mistake that caused the property to be improperly labeled for public use in the city's master plan. The parcel near McGeary's back yard, they said, should have been colored a different shade of green on the city's land-use maps.

That explanation has McGeary and other residents seeing red.

After discovering the mistake, the city unsuccessfully tried to buy the land for $2 million from its owner, Land W LLC. Little is known about the company, other than the fact that Land W's manager is Frank McCullough, according to Nevada secretary of state records.

"They're making all of us homeowners pay for their mistake," said David Carter, who also owns a home with its back yard facing the land in question, said of city officials. "It's bull."

But Henderson officials said public-use zoning does not guarantee that a site will never be developed. Land-use and zoning codes, they note, can be changed often.

"Their case is pretty weak," Councilman Andy Hafen said about the residents' complaints. "The public/semipublic land use allows for parks and recreation. But also for churches, hospitals and schools. It also allows for assisted living."

In other words, instead of other homes blocking the existing residents' views, it could have been a 10-story hospital. Or a church steeple.

For McGeary and her neighbors, the saga continues. Land W LLC has submitted an application to change the land-use policy again, this time to allow low-density residential development of four homes per acre. Although the company to date has not submitted any development proposal, the zoning change being sought is viewed by some as a precursor to such a plan.

The proposed zoning change is scheduled to be discussed at Thursday's planning commission meeting. Residents intend to be there to voice their objections. Whatever the planning panel does, the final decision likely will be made by the City Council.

McGeary has become the unofficial leader of the disgruntled residents in the neighborhood of $450,000-plus homes. (That price does not include the $100,000-plus lot premiums paid.) She's fighting for money, principles and her own comfort.

Construction about 100 feet from where her dogs play would cause her property's value to plummet, she fears. And McGeary likes to sit in her yard and listen to the crickets, enjoying a stunning view of Mandalay Bay, Luxor and the mountains. Sometimes she can even see coyotes wandering on the hillside.

"We spent months looking for land like this," she said. "If you can't trust the word of our city fathers, then who can you trust?"

Council members say the residents are being overly dramatic. Land use changes. So do plans. Especially in a fast-growing city. It was an honest mistake, one that in the scheme of things affected very little land and relatively few people, they insist.

Yet even some council members concede that the residents have a reason to complain.

"They did all their homework," Councilwoman Amanda Cyphers said. "And they were sold a dream. I would be jaded, too."