Two development projects were evaluated for conditional use permits on R5-zoned parcels, with transportation concurrency reviewed for both applications. The first proposal is a 165-foot cell tower, where the applicant addressed neighborhood opposition and noted that Clark PUD regulations prevent attaching macro facilities to existing utility poles outside of commercial or industrial zones. The second proposal involves adding 3,489 cemetery plots and a maintenance shed to an existing church property, prompting discussions about wetland buffers and setback requirements for headstones.
Building_development
Clark County Land Use Hearings · Mar 26, 2026 · 46:09–46:35 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: concurrency zoning PUD
What was said
45:08 for wireless communication services, and then the code's criteria represent the overall balance of competing policy objectives. Other than the argument based on citing preferences, we don't see that commenters have identified a code criterion upon which this project should be denied. In a prior county approval, and this is the Verizon Tower we've just spoken of, another examiner considered an argument very like this and said that by allowing these facilities in virtually every zone, the Board of Commissioners already made the determination that some aesthetic impacts are acceptable costs of providing wireless service. We request, based on T-Mobile's significant gap in service, easily meeting the requirement
46:04 of the applicant showing for need under the code, and its fair consideration of preferred alternatives, and again, that its proposed facility meets all county zoning requirements, we respectfully request your approval of the application. I'd be happy to answer your questions now, or we can wait until later during rebuttal, and I did want to clarify at some point the timing for final argument. Given that I understand there's an automatic seven-day period for the record to be open, we want to understand that we would have an opportunity to make a final argument. Yes, I will provide that. If anybody wants to submit new evidence, I'll give the opportunity to respond to that. So if it's just argument, I'll give the applicant a week, excuse me, the public a week and the applicant a week. If it's new evidence, it'll be a week and a week and a week, so a week for new evidence,
47:01 week for response, and then a week for the applicant alone, final argument without new evidence. Okay. Well, and just to clarify, the notice of hearing says that the record is automatically left open for seven days. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I will do that. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll give the applicant the opportunity to submit a final argument after that week. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. The only question I have is what staff raised is why it couldn't be moved further to the east on this site.
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 46:09–46:35 concurrency, zoning, PUD
We request, based on T-Mobile's significant gap in service, easily meeting the requirement of the applicant showing for need under the code, and its fair consideration of preferred alternatives, and again, that its proposed facility meets all county zoning requirements, we respectfully request your approval of the application. I'd be happy to answer your questions now, or we can wait until later during rebuttal, and I did want to clarify at some point the timing for final argument. Given that I