45. Spot zoning
    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. "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."
Enterprise Citizens v. Clark Co. Comm'rs, 112 Nev. 649, 660-661, 918 P.2d 305 (1996).No. 48.
    c. "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 p. 660, n. 7.