Officials and developers debated a proposed 35-lot subdivision's eligibility for high-density compact lot standards, with staff recommending denial due to a recent boundary line adjustment and the applicant arguing the lot remains legally exempt under state law. Neighbors strongly opposed the plat, citing inadequate parking, traffic congestion, and a proposed road stub that threatened private property rights and existing tree-protection agreements. Additionally, a separate 100-lot subdivision application that initially failed traffic concurrency requirements is being reevaluated after the developer volunteered to provide infrastructure mitigation at a failing nearby intersection.
Building_development
Clark County Land Use Hearings · Apr 23, 2026 · 56:58–57:13 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: plat concurrency subdivision density infrastructure Concurrency
What was said
55:56 the written agreement protecting the trees along our boundary. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Do we have more raised hands? Yes, we do. Jim Hamlic. Jim, I am, you should be able to unmute yourself now, Jim. All right. Can you hear me? Yep. All right. My name is Jim Hamlic. I live at five two two Northeast, 114th street. And, uh, good evening examiner. My name is Jim Hamlic co-owner of tax lot 35 adjacent parcels immediately East of this proposed development. I have submitted a written testimony and I am a party of record. Our family owns tax lot 35 assessors file number three two four
56:52 eight one eight eight and adjacent parcels directly East of the proposed development. Those parcels appear on the plat map submitted with this application. Their Eastern boundary was established in part through the same boundary line adjustment recorded February, 2025 that created the parcel configuration. The applicant is now trying to use to claim compact lot eligibility before this application was filed beach development signed a written agreement with our family purchase and sale it agreement addendum dated October 1st, 2024 paragraph 11 of that addendum contains an express guarantee by beach that there will be no logging on Taylor parcel on any lots of Jason our property paragraph six of that same addendum contains additional protection for trees and vegetation along the boundary shared between the Taylor parcel and our property. This is not a big promise.
57:51 It is signed written contractual guarantee made by each development in direct contemplation of this subdivision. If this project is approved, those trees, which beach promised us would be protected are at risk, both from construction and from the road stub aimed at our property. We're asking this examiner to require beach to place that agreement in the
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 56:58–57:13 plat, concurrency, subdivision, density, infrastructure, Concurrency
pment. I have submitted a written testimony and I am a party of record. Our family owns tax lot 35 assessors file number three two four eight one eight eight and adjacent parcels directly East of the proposed development. Those parcels appear on the plat map submitted with this application. Their Eastern boundary was established in part through the same boundary line adjustment recorded February, 2025 that created the parcel configuration. The applicant is now trying to use to claim compact lot