a. "The test of spot zoning is whether the amendment was made
with the purpose of furthering a comprehensive zoning scheme or whether it was
designed merely to relieve the land of a restriction which was particularly harsh
upon that particular land."
McKenzie v. Shelly, 77 Nev. 237, 243, 362 P.2d
268 (1961). No. 6.
b. "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
American West Dev. v. City of Henderson, 111
Nev. 804, 808-809, 898 P.2d 110 (1995). No. 46.
c. "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.