Enterprise TAB denies Lennar subdivision requests after neighbors raise wall, drainage and trail concerns

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board denied three related land-use requests from Lennar on March 26 for a proposed single-family subdivision on roughly 22.5 acres near Wigwam Avenue and Cimarron Road in Enterprise.

Board members voted to deny the vacation of easements (VS250156), waivers to development standards including increased retaining-wall and fill heights (WS250207), and the tentative map for a 41‑lot subdivision (TM25500035). The motions to deny carried after public comment and applicant responses.

Neighbors objected during public comment to wall heights and proximity of new lots to existing homes. “This corner and this piece here is about 12 feet. My neighbor to the west is about 11 feet,” said resident Mark Johnson, who lives adjacent to the southeast corner of the proposed site. He argued that reductions in setbacks and smaller lot sizes would place new homes closer to existing residences.

Resident Steve Small asked for civil‑engineering details about how a natural wash that runs through the property would be handled and how flows would affect Cougar Wash east of his property. Applicant representatives said drainage would be handled in coordination with Clark County Public Works and that offsite improvements would address flows.

Lennar representatives said the current submittal is slightly less dense than a prior entitlement (42 lots previously approved) and that the “worst‑case” retaining wall assumptions were conservative. “We don't really need the 6 feet anymore,” said a Lennar representative, describing revised wall sections that generally range from under 1 foot to roughly 3 feet, with a small corner up to about 3.8 feet in the current design. The applicant said conditions from earlier approvals limiting exposed wall heights to 10 feet would be honored.

Board members cited unresolved concerns about a 35‑foot run where rear pad elevations would create the largest retained exposures, the length of the highest wall segment (about 35 feet), the effect on neighbor sightlines, and whether previously required trail relocations and offsite conditions were being satisfied. A neighbor and board members also pressed the applicant about whether detached sidewalks and updated right‑of‑way dedications would be consistent with current county standards.

After discussion, the board moved to deny the three items; each motion passed with the board stating “Aye” at roll call. The motions to deny did not show named roll‑call votes in the transcript; the minutes record the motions as carried.

The applicant may revise plans and return in a future hearing. The transcript shows the discussion of these three items began when staff introduced items 1–3 and ended when the board voted on those items.