Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Business
Oct. 20, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Ruling favors casino

Residents see case going to high court

By HUBBLE SMITH
REVIEW-JOURNAL

District Court Judge Michael Villani ruled in favor of Fontainebleau Las Vegas Friday, saying a 23-story convention center and parking lot being built next to the exclusive Turnberry Place high-rise condos was legally approved by the Clark County Commission.

A group of residents sued the developer for allegedly violating Title 30, a county land use application that requires buildings adjacent to residential properties to have a three-foot setback for every foot of vertical construction.

Turnberry is building the Fontainebleau resort on the site of the former El Rancho hotel. Turnberry President Jeff Soffer said development of the parking structure is allowed under the area's zoning, which is H-1 (hotel and gaming).

"The interpretation favored by the county and Fontainebleau is consistent with the spirit of the code," Villani said in his ruling.

Most Popular Stories
  • VANISHING AT WARP SPEED
  • Video maker sued by LV hotel
  • INSIDE GAMING: Adelson journey proves fruitless
  • Gambling stocks tumble on economic woes
  • DOWNTOWN LV: Land-value raise may lift Lady Luck
  • WORKPLACE STUDY: WORKING WONDERS
  • RENEWABLE ENERGY: Sunny days for Las Vegas
  • North LV retail center a shell of what it will be
  • Negreanu shines beyond table
  • Ex-commissioner accused of misusing investor cash



    • Attorney J.T. Moran, representing a group of residents, said Villani is relatively new to the bench and may not have clearly understood Title 30.

    "It's just getting to the right channels," he said. "This is more of a formality in getting our arguments to the Supreme Court of Nevada. The Supreme Court is going to take a look at this because there are blatant violations of law."

    Moran said Title 30 requires a 3-to-1 setback regardless of zoning. Furthermore, he said, the county violated the development agreement by failing to publish an amendment notifying property owners the structure's height was being raised from 175 feet to 250 feet.

    Residents have scheduled a meeting with their lawyer to review the case. They said the "wheels have been turning" and they knew the next step would be going to the Supreme Court.

    "I guess we lost the battle, but not the war ... yet," said Julie Stapleton, a third-floor resident at Turnberry's tower one who's about 90 feet from the garage.

    Residents, most of whom paid upward of $500,000 for their condos, say it's not about blocking their views of the Strip, but quality-of-life issues that will have to be addressed in other areas of the valley if developers skirt the law.

    Villani said the interpretation proposed by petitioners could place an "ureasonable burden" upon development within H-1 zoning.

    Turnberry Place is a multifamily dwelling, not a single-family dwelling, he wrote.

    "Accordingly, pursuant to the plain language of the Clark County Code, there is no 3:1 height setback requirement for improvements adjacent to Turnberry Place," he said.

    Contact reporter Hubble Smith at hsmith@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0491.



    Leave Your Comment 5 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    douglas wrote on October 20, 2007 01:30 PM: at the huge cost per acre of strip property, i'd expect all developments to be packed together. packed closely side by side, and as high as the faa/mccarran flight patterns will allow.

    those who bought "view" condos facing other than directly toward the strip, should have known that north and south views [up and down the strip] would someday be obstructed. even those "better" views might be compromised if the buildings aren't right on the strip because more structures will no doubt be sited between them and strip sidewalk. notice caesar's expansion toward the strip [replacing that fountain area]. same oughta happen with the "wasted" space in front of bally's.

    in my rural area, i'd bought the adjacent property as a buffer so that no structure could interfere with this view. along with that, a discussion with the clark county assessor for this area revealed that "view" was not a factor in the assessed valuation. that policy might play into any legal complaints by the now "blinded" condo owners on that strip property.


    candy wrote on October 20, 2007 11:08 AM: Ruling favors casino. How shocking LOL.


    joe wrote on October 20, 2007 10:45 AM: And who does this surprise?????


    nancy wrote on October 20, 2007 10:43 AM: Well, Turnberry residents, look into who the investors are and connect the dots. This formula always works in Nevada.


    Carlos wrote on October 20, 2007 08:34 AM: Wow even rich people are screwed by developers & clark county commission! Builders & casino's run this town no matter how much you pay for your house. is erin kenny in jail yet?