El Dorado-Valley View v. Co. of Clark ( 2015 )

 and had a land use planning expert testify that the request conformed to
the County's codes and the Enterprise master plan. The Enterprise Town
Advisory Board, other neighboring property owners, and the Southwest
Action Network, a community organization, opposed El Dorado's request,
arguing that the project was too intense for the surrounding Rural
Neighborhood Preservation area. After the public hearing, the Board
denied El Dorado's zone change request and design review. El Dorado
filed a petition for judicial review, which the district court denied, and this
appeal followed.
This court reviews the Board's grant or denial of a rezoning
request for an abuse of discretion and will affirm the Board's factual
determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence. City of Reno
v. Citizens for Cold Springs, 126 Nev. , 236 P.3d 10, 15-16 (2010).
The Enterprise master plan sets forth competing goals for growth and
development that guide rezoning decisions, including protecting low-
density rural living as a lifestyle choice and providing opportunities for
research and business park development. Thus, the master plan does not
guarantee that a particular zoning district, density, or intensity of land
use will be approved by the Board.
Although the zone change request conformed to the master
plan and El Dorado presented evidence that supported its request, the
Board also heard and considered evidence in opposition to the request.
Because a zoning decision is discretionary, there is a "general reluctance
to judicially intervene in zoning determination absent clear necessity."
Nova Horizon, Inc. v. City Council of Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96-97, 769 P.2d
721, 724 (1989). While the record may contain evidence contrary to the
finding of the Board, this court will not reweigh the evidence or replace
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
the Board's judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views. See
NRS 233B.135(2); Nellis Motors v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 124 Nev.
1263, 1269-70, 197 P.3d 1061, 1066 (2008).
The Enterprise Town Advisory Board's concerns in opposition
to the project, as well as the issues raised by neighboring property owners
and the Southwest Action Network, constitute substantial evidence that
supports the Board's decision to deny El Dorado's zone change request and
design review. See Stratosphere Gaming Corp. v. City of Las Vegas, 120
Nev. 523, 529-30, 96 P.3d 756, 760-61 (2004) (explaining that substantial
and specific public opposition may constitute substantial evidence . to
support a zoning decision); see also City of Reno, 126 Nev. at , 236 P.3d
at 15 (defining substantial evidence as "that which a reasonable mind
could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion"). And despite
appellant's assertion otherwise, the Board's decision does not conflict with
the master plan, which sets forth the goals and policies for zoning
decision-making and allows for a range of possible zoning districts on
appellant's property. Accordingly, because the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the zone change request and design review, we
affirm the district court's order denying judicial review.
It is so ORDERED.
J.
Saitta
' J.
Gibbons
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A effe544
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Nathaniel J. Reed, Settlement Judge
Kaempfer Crowell/Las Vegas
Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e