County council scraps Madore’s land use plan

Clark County councilors have rejected the three major components of David Madore's Alternative 4 land use plan, instead preferring to write a plan that contains components of alternatives developed and vetted by the county's professional land use planning staff and the Clark County Planning Commission. The action came in the fourth hour of today's meeting, which adjourned at about 2 p.m. It appears that the council will address smaller rural parcel sizes by adopting part of Alternative 2 as it strives to come up with a 20-year land use plan that will pass state muster. Councilors must hurry to decide on their final strategy, as Clark County is in serious jeopardy of missing the state's deadline later this spring. When adopted, the growth plan is supposed to spell out how Clark County's cities and unincorporated areas will accommodate anticipated future population growth. Where should the homes and businesses be built, and what lands should remain rural in character? Today's meeting capped many months of politicking and debate, sometimes emotional, over the future of rural lands. Madore’s Alternative 4 would have permitted subdivision of rural lots beyond what is currently allowed. Proponents of the plan said it’s a victory for rural property rights, while critics said it could pose risks to farming, habitat and may violate the state’s Growth Management Act. The evidence does point to significant environmental impacts in rural areas. A draft environmental impact statement analyzing an earlier version of Alternative 4 — the current version has not been studied — estimates it could create about 5,300 additional lots in Clark County, putting a strain on natural and environmental resources. In some cases, the additional development allowed under Alternative 4 could be cost-prohibitive to Clark County, according to the environmental report. The council heard five hours of public testimony last week and continued deliberation for its preferred alternative this morning.