The Enterprise Town Advisory Board on June 25 recommended denial of a suite of applications for a proposed 54‑lot single‑family subdivision on 7.04 acres west of Pioneer Way and south of Agate Avenue in Enterprise.

The applicant sought a plan amendment to change the land‑use designation from Low‑Intensity Suburban Neighborhood to Mid‑Intensity Suburban Neighborhood, a zone change from RS‑20 to RS‑3.3, vacation of interior patent easements and right‑of‑way, multiple development‑standard waivers and approval of a tentative map for 54 detached single‑family lots. Applicant representative Mark Mulhall described the project as “approximately 7.04 acres” with 54 lots and a resulting density of about “7.67 dwelling units per acre,” and said the design places higher‑density lots on the south side to transition to existing multifamily and commercial uses to the south.

Why it mattered: Board members said the proposal failed to meet local adjacency and public‑safety expectations. A TAB member argued that “the 30 foot right of way is insufficient as a buffer” between the proposed neighborhood and the Rural Neighborhood Preservation (RNP/RMP) area to the north, and multiple members raised concerns that the tentative map’s single access on Pioneer Avenue created an unacceptable public‑safety and traffic risk. One board member said the commission has repeatedly required second exits for similar subdivisions for emergency access, adding, “we need to put a second exit in for public safety.”

Key details from the application and staff review
- Site area: 7.04 acres.
- Proposed lots: 54 single‑family detached lots; lot sizes ranged in the presentation from about 3,324 to 5,134 square feet (applicant gave an average of roughly 3,733 sq ft).
- Land‑use change requested: Low‑Intensity Suburban Neighborhood → Mid‑Intensity Suburban Neighborhood (mid intensity allows up to 8 units/acre; applicant calculated ≈7.67 units/acre).
- Zoning requested: RS‑20 → RS‑3.3.
- Waivers requested (summary): reduce rear setback for lots 46–50 (to 13 ft from 15 ft), allow an 8‑ft screen wall and a 4‑ft retaining wall where 6 ft and 3 ft are typical, permit lots smaller than 10,000 sq ft adjacent to the RMP, reduce driveway separation to 15 ft from 20 ft, and several internal connectivity exceptions.
- Tentative map exception: the plan provides only one vehicular access point (Pioneer Avenue); staff noted connectivity standards were not met.

Discussion vs. outcome
- Discussion: Applicant described design, buffers, landscaping, a detached sidewalk and block wall along Agate, and argued the project would be compatible with nearby RS‑3.3 pockets and commercial development to the south. Board members pressed on the reduced lot sizes adjacent to RMP, grading and wall heights, architecture and, importantly, emergency access and connectivity.
- Formal action: TAB members moved to deny each application in the group (PA25700027, ZC250427, ZS250428, WS250429, TM25500101). The motions passed by voice vote; the record shows the chair calling for “All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.” No roll‑call tallies were recorded in the transcript.

What the board said: Board members repeatedly emphasized that residential adjacency standards and second‑exit requirements are not optional and were created to protect existing neighborhoods. One member described the proposed grading and lot sizes as creating a “snowball” of compounding issues that made the design inappropriate for the site. Another noted precedent where emergency responders had to cut into a dead‑end subdivision and used that example to justify the board’s insistence on secondary access in similar projects.

Next steps: The denial is a recommendation from the TAB; planning and zoning matters are forwarded to the Clark County Zoning Commission or Board of County Commissioners for final action. The applicant may revise the proposal and return to the TAB or pursue the project through hearings at higher levels.

Ending: The board’s vote on June 25 halts this iteration of the Pioneer Way subdivision proposals at the TAB level and leaves open possible redesigns addressing adjacency, connectivity and public‑safety concerns.