a. "The court recognizes the fact that the matter of zoning
has received the attention of commissions and experts whose reports bear every
evidence of painstaking consideration, and that they concur in the view that the
segregation of residential, business and industrial buildings 'will increase the
safety and security of home life, greatly tend to prevent street accidents, especially
to children, by reducing the traffic and resulting confusion in residential sections,
decrease noise and other conditions which produce or intensify nervous disorders,
preserve a more favorable environment in which to rear children, etc.'"
State v. Coleman, 67 Nev. 636, 641,
224 P.2d 309 (1950). No. 2.
b. "Regulation of land use through zoning has become desirable
in urban communities in order that a reasonable and orderly segregation of residential,
commercial and industrial areas be had. Such regulation is primarily concerned
with uniformity of land use and stability of community growth. It is general and
comprehensive in scope and the considerations which govern it are, accordingly,
general and comprehensive."
Primm v. City of Reno, 70 Nev. 7, 15,
252 P.2d 835 (1953). No. 3.
c. "To say, then, as the land use ordinance says, that it is
desirable in the public interest that such gambling establishments as may be licensed
should (together with other businesses) be segregated within a specified commercial
zone, does not mean that all property within that zone may, in the public interest,
be devoted to gambling. To say that all property within that zone is generally
adaptable to gambling use gives it no vested right to such use." at 18.
d. "In essence an application for a use permit or a variance
implies a challenge to the legality of the zoning ordinance as it applies to a
specific piece of property. (citations omitted) In other words, a challenge to
the validity of a zoning ordinance is a natural and foreseeable outgrowth of a
request for a special use permit or variance."
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84
Nev. 250, 439 P.2d 219, 255 (1968). No. 10.
e. "Zoning is a tool in the hands of governmental bodies which
enables them to more effectively meet the demands of evolving and growing communities.
It must not, and cannot, be used by those officials as an instrument by which
they may shirk their responsibilities. Zoning is a means by which a government
body and its citizens can plan and build for the future -- it may not, however,
be used as a means to deny the future." Id. at 255.
f. "The oft repeated, although ill defined, limitation upon
the exercise of the zoning power, requires that zoning ordinances be enacted for
the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. (citation omitted)
Such ordinances must bear a substantial relationship to those police power purposes.
(citation omitted) And if the ordinance does, in its application to specific properties,
impose an 'unnecessary hardship,' it cannot be termed a reasonable or constitutional
exercise of the police power. To preserve the validity of the zoning ordinance
in its application to the community in general, the use permit and variance provisions
of the ordinance function as an 'escape valve,' so that when regulations which
apply to all are unnecessarily burdensome to a few because of certain unique circumstances,
a means of relief from the mandate is provided." Id. at 256.
g. "Zoning laws are passed in the interest of the public welfare
and the benefit accrues not only to the municipality but also to the neighboring
land owners." Id. at 257.
h. "Aside from the individual property owner's interest
in relying on the zoning regulation of the area, there is a legitimate public
interest involved in density zoning which affects the 'health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the community." Id. at 257.
i. "It is to be remembered that there are two basic devices
for urban planning and development; community zoning and restrictive covenants
among private individuals. The beneficial results of private land-use controls
are readily apparent throughout the country and are not merely confined to residential
subdivisions. Use of restrictions are encouraged by most planning agencies. Indeed,
restrictive covenants are held to be superior to zoning laws which rest on police
Meredith v. Washoe Co. Sch. Dist.,
84 Nev. 15, 19, 435 P.2d 750 (1968). No. 9.
j. "Zoning is a legislative matter [McKenzie v. Shelly,
77 Nev. 237, 362 P.2d 268 (1961)], and the legislature has acted."
Eagle Thrifty v. Hunter Lake P.T.A.,
85 Nev. 162, 164, 451 P.2d 713 (1969). [ Rehearing] No. 11.
k. Although some may believe that the procedural provisions
of the city code do not afford sufficient protection to affected property owners
near the area of the proposed zone change in the circumstances presented by this
record, any correction must come from the City Council. It is not our business
to write a new city ordinance." Id. at 165.
l. "Zoning is a legislative mater and the legislature has acted.
Eagle Thrifty v. Hunter Lake P.T.A., 85 Nev. 162, 451 P.2d 713 (1969)....
As a general proposition, the zoning power should not be subjected to judicial
interference unless clearly necessary. Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie,
84 Nev. 250, 439 P.2d 219 (1968)."
Board of Comm'rs v. Dayton Dev. Co.,
91 Nev. 71, 75, 530 P.2d 1187 (1975). No. 18.
m. "Zoning is an instrument by which governmental bodies can
more effectively accommodate the needs and demands of our growing society. Coronet
Homes v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250, 255, 439 P.2d 219, 223 (1968). Nevertheless,
the zoning restrictions must be balanced against the right of a property owner
to develop his property to his own economic advantage. It is for this reason that
zoning plans, no matter how sophisticated they may be, generally contain, as here,
some procedures for granting variances, amendments, special use permits, or exemptions
for specific uses of specific parcels of property."
Clark Co. Bd. Comm'rs v. Taggart Constr.,
96 Nev. 732, 736, 615 P.2d 965 (1980). No. 24.
n. "Numerous cases support the premise that zoning boards may
not unreasonably or arbitrarily deprive property owners of legitimate, advantageous
Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105
Nev. 92, 95, 769 P.2d 721 (1989). No. 36.
o. "(I)t is clear that compatible zoning does not, ipso
facto, divest a municipal government of the right to deny certain uses based
upon considerations of public interest. See Nevada Contractors v. Washoe County,
106 Nev. 310, 792 P.2d 31 (1990)."
Tighe v. Von Goerken, 108 Nev. 440, 443,
833 P.2d 1135 (1992). No. 40.