10. Due Process/Hearing/Notice.
    a. "All persons wanting to speak for or against the requested amendment were given an opportunity to do so."
McKenzie v. Shelly, 77 Nev. 237, 240, 362 P.2d 268 (1961). No. 6.
    b. "The law requires that zoning ordinances observe state and federal constitutional provisions and requirements including that of due process. State v. Hill, 59 Nev. 231, 90 P.2d 217 (1939). The governing body of a city has the power to change // land use classifications, but no such regulation may become effective until after notice and public hearing at which interested parties and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard."
Forman v. Eagle Thrifty Drugs & Markets, 89 Nev. 533, 538-539, 516 P.2d 1234 (1973). No. 16.
    c. "When a statute requires notice and hearing as to the possible effect of a zoning law upon property rights the action becomes quasi judicial in character, and the statutory notice and hearing then becomes (sic) necessary in order to satisfy the requirments of due process and may not be dispensed with." Id. at 539.

      d. "Before the granting of a special use permit, NRS 278.315 requires a board of commissioners to hold a hearing. This statute also provides that the applicant and each owner of property within 300 feet must receive notice of the hearing by mail. Therefore, the county must personally notify interested parties before granting a special use permit."
Bing Construction v. Douglas County, 107 Nev. 262, 265, 810 P.2d 768 (1991). No. 39.
    e. "However, we are not convinced that just because the legislature let individual counties determine their own procedure to alter zoning // in derogation of a special use permit, counties are free to make changes without personally notifying the citizens who will be directly affected. Due process concerns require that a property owner must be notified when its rights are changed, even if those rights are not vested." Id. at 265-266.
    f. "Other states have held that upon a zoning change, the failure to provide personal notice to an interested party is a violation of due process." Id. at 266.

    g. "[W]e conclude that a county may not choose to revoke special uses without a valid reason, and therefore must provide personal notice and a hearing to all parties who will be directly affected by the zoning change or permit revocation." Id. at 266.
    h. "Notice by publication could be sufficient to those who are indirectly affected...." Id. 266, n. 4.