24. Master plan.
a. "While such a strict view of the invariable application of a master plan on zoning matters may lend a high degree of predictability to prospective land uses and facilitate usage planning by land owners, we do not perceive the legislative intent to be so confining and inflexible. We therefore choose to view a master plan as a standard that commands deference and a presumption of applicability, rather than a legislative straight-jacket from which no leave may be taken."
Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96, 769 P.2d 721 (1989). No. 36.
b. "Having determined that master plans are to be accorded substantial compliance under Nevada's statutory scheme, and recog // nizing anew the general reluctance to judicially intervene in zoning determinations absent clear necessity...." Id. at 96-97.
c. "It is clear on the record that no evidentiary basis exists for the Council's denial of appellants' zone change request. It is equally clear that no deference, let alone a presumptive applicability, was accorded Reno's master plan by the Council. In one instance, an expression of deference to a campaign promise was the stated basis for what was tantamount to a disregard for the master plan. The other expression offered as a specific basis for rejecting appellants' application was a pledge, presumably to constituents, to seek diversification in favor of higher employee wages. The latter point was equally untenable as a basis for zoning denial." Id. at 97.
d. ""[T]his court held, pursuant to NRS 278.250(2), that 'municipal entities must adopt zoning regulations that are in substantial agreement with the master plan.' Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96, 769 P.2d 721, 723 (1989)."
American West Dev. v. City of Henderson, 111 Nev. 804, 807, 898 P.2d 110 (1995). No. 46.
e. "AWD's contention that Henderson did not dispute development // under the revised 1989 master plan until it came time to zone the 111-acre project raises justifiable suspicion that Henderson began to advocate the necessity of a new master plan only when zoning for the multi-family designated area became an issue." Id. at 808-809.
f. "Because Henderson's denial of AWD's zoning application was based upon an error of law, the fact that the denial may have otherwise been supported by substantial evidence and unabused discretion, as the district court concluded, is not relevant." Id. at 809.
g. "We are constrained to note that even if Henderson had expressly annulled all master plans approved prior to the effective date of the new code, we would have substantial doubts concerning the validity of such an attempted circumvention of the policy dictates of NRS 278.250(2) as elucidated by this court in Nova Horizon. As we there observed, Nevada's statutory scheme mandates that municipalities adopt zoning regulations that are in substantial agreement with approved master plans. Nova Horizon, 105 Nev. at 96, 769 P.2d at 723. Assuming, therefore, that submission of a new master plan was intended as part of the zoning process under the new code, as the district court concluded, Henderson would still have been required to extend deference to the 1989 master plan in the process of approving the new plan. The guarantees afforded Nevada's developers by the Legislature may not be circumvented by municipal ordinance." Id. at 809, n. 3.
h. "There is no state law indicating that the ruling of the State Engineer preempts a county or other governmental entity from enacting zoning laws that impose limitations on water use that are more restrictive than those of the State Engineer. .... County and local governments can place more burdensome restrictions on local growth and development as long as those restrictions are consistent with the relevant long-term comprehensive plans, Nevada law, and notions of public welfare."
Serpa v. County of Washoe, 111 Nev. 1081, 1085, 901 P.2d 690 (1995). No. 47.
i. "The master plan of a community is a 'standard that commands deference and a presumption of applicability,' but should not be viewed as a 'legislative straightjacket from which no leave can be taken.' Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96, 769 P.2d 721, 723 (1989).
Enterprise Citizens v. Clark Co. Comm'rs, 112 Nev. 649, 659, 918 P.2d 305 (1996). No. 48.
j. "The Board permitted respondents to do indirectly what they could not accomplish directly, i.e., manufacture concrete and asphalt in a zoning district which expressly forbids manufacturing. Such a decision amounts to spot zoning and provides no deference to the master plan in violation of this court's ruling in Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96, 769 P.2d 721, 723 (1989). Therefore, we conclude that the Board erred in granting the variance and that the Board's decision must be overturned." Id. at 660-661.
k. "An application for rezoning requires the submission of nine separate reports addressing the impact of the rezoning on the surrounding area. Clark County Code § 29.68.025(E). Additionally, non-conforming use requested, i.e., zone changes, are required to have at least one public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Clark County Code § 29.68.030. By cloaking their request for a zone change as one for a variance in conjunction with a conditional use, respondents received three major benefits. First, they were not required to submit the nine impact reports to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, thereby lessening their burden of production. Second, they avoided having to request manufacturing zoning from the Planning Commission, which had twice before denied respondents' same request. Third, they avoided the public hearing in front of the Planning Commission which would have exposed their plan to greater scrutiny both by the Planning Commission and by citizens." Id. at 660, n. 7.
l. "We conclude that because the evidence presented
in support of and in opposition to the proposed development was roughtly equal,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board
abused its discretion by failing to give deference to the master plan and denying
the rezoning request."
[Developer wished to rezone from R-E (rural estates) to R-2 (medium density residential), where master plan designated R-2. Evidence in opposition: letters of protest, testimony of homeowners, commissioner's statement that land more suitable for single family homes, town board recommendation of denial based on traffic and neighborhood protests, and recognition that schools in area well over capacity. Evidence in support: letters in support, staff approval, conformance with master plan, and requested density "well below that already approved in the master plan." Otherwise, "the surrounding properties on two sides of the proposed development were zoned and developed at a higher density, while the surrounding properties on the other two sides were zoned and being developed at a lower density." ]
County of Clark v. Doumani, 114 Nev. 46, 52, 952 P.2d 13 (1998).