The Nevada Supreme Court was told Monday lawmakers never intended to allow counties to require a "super majority" to approve master plan changes.
The issue was raised by a developer who won a 3-2 vote for his plan from the Douglas County Commission but was denied the go-ahead because county ordinance requires a vote of at least 4-1.
Roger Falcke and Herbig Properties want to change the master plan to allow 7.5 acres of commercial development in the wetlands area near Lampe Park and they convinced the majority required on the county's Planning Commission. Their attorney Todd Russell said the Legislature set the two-thirds vote by the planning commissions around the state.
He said state law requires only a majority vote by county commissioners - not a "super majority" and that the Legislature made that decision deliberately when it created the statute.
Deputy District Attorney Thomas Perkins told the court there's nothing illegal about the county going for a higher standard than the state. He said the state has traditionally delegated that power to local government.
Perkins said the issue isn't whether it's the best ordinance, only whether the county has the right to impose that super majority, and he believes it does.
Justice Cliff Young asked whether the state statute would allow a different planning standard and voting rules in each of Nevada's 17 counties.
"Absolutely, your honor," said Perkins.
"It would be chaotic," said Young.
Russell argued the state set up the planning statute as "a basic roadmap" for local government and deliberately stated that the planning commission required a two-thirds vote but that the commission would decide by a majority vote.
"I think they intended there be uniformity among the counties," he said.
Russell also pointed out that the Douglas County statute doesn't define "super majority," saying the county rules aren't fair.
"What's truly fair is that the county follow the law," he said. "Douglas County went off on their own and didn't follow the law."
The three-judge panel of the Supreme Court will rule later on the matter.
