[See also Neighbors]
a. "The City Council's argument that the lay witness' remarks
concerning the location of the hotel-casino near a high school constituted a basis
for its decision is considerably weakened by the council's approval, since the
decision below, of two hotel-casino operations that are the same distance from
City Council, Reno v. Travelers Hotel, 100
Nev. 436, 439, n. 4, 683 P.2d 960 (1984). No. 30.
b. "In addition, the City's reliance on public testimony is
not dispositive of the fact that the City abused its discretion. Although testimony
from a few individuals that an area is overwhelmingly residential may not be enough
to deny a request for a special use permit, see Tighe v. Von Goerken, 108
Nev. 440, 444, 833 P.2d 1135, 1137 (1992), the testimony here reflected the opinion
of over 200 individuals. Therefore, because we conclude that the lay objections
were substantial and specific, the case at bar may be distinguished from Travelers
Hotel, 100 Nev. at 439, 683 P.2d at 961, in which this court found that one
lay opinion that a proposed casino was too close to a high school was an insufficient
ground for denial of a request for a special use permit. See Clark Co. Liquor
& Gaming v. Simon & Tucker, 106 Nev. 96, 98, 787 P.2d 782, 783 (1990)
(using the same reasoning to distinguish Travelers Hotel)."
City of Las Vegas v. Laughlin, 111 Nev. 557,
559, 893 P.d 383 (1995). No. 44.
c. "We conclude that the concerns expressed by the public,
specifically those over increased traffic where children walk to school // and
preserving the residential nature of the neighborhood, establish a valid basis
for the denial of Laughlin's request for a special use permit. See Tighe,
108 Nev. at 443, 833 P.2d at 1137; Clark Co. Liquor & Gaming, 106 Nev.
at 98, 787 P.2d at 783. Accordingly, we conclude that the City's decision was
based on substantial evidence and the City did not manifestly abuse its discretion
in denying Laughlin's request for a special use permit."
Id. at 559-560.
d. Distinguishes City Council, Reno v. Travelers
Hotel, on ground that the lay evidence - that the traffic of a gaming establishment
would be dangerous to children in the area - was substantial evidence in support
of denial of a county liquor and gaming license
Clark Co. Liquor & Gaming v. Simon & Tucker,
106 Nev. 96, 787 P.2d 782 (1990). No. 38.