The Clark County Planning Commission on July 15 voted to hold for further review a final grading plan and two‑lot parcel map for a proposed single‑family development in Calico Basin after neighbors and commissioners flagged discrepancies in earthwork calculations and expressed concern about visual and drainage impacts.

The hold pauses final approval of the grading plan for a 4.91‑acre parcel where the applicant has proposed a 6,500‑square‑foot house with a casita and a roundabout turnaround for emergency access. The commission set the item to return Aug. 19 with the applicant and staff directed to reconcile technical numbers and provide updated drainage and grading information.

The item matters because the property lies inside the county's Red Rock overlay and the hillside grading ordinance, which aim to limit visual disruption and protect drainage patterns. Neighbors argued the proposal could significantly alter a ridgeline and affect water flow into the basin, while the applicant said the grading follows code and that additional technical review would occur during permitting.

At the hearing the applicant's representative, Dave Turner of Baughman and Turner, said the final grading plans conform to the hillside grading ordinance and described the proposed house, driveway and casita. Turner told the commission the application is “in full compliance with the hillside ordinance.”

Several neighbors disputed the submitted civil calculations. Michael Gardner, representing a neighbor to the south, said the civil drawings “claim[] that there's only 55 cubic yards of cut,” and said his review showed substantially larger earthwork volumes. Derek Hudson, who identified himself as a retired general contractor, said a peer review indicated a much larger excavation than the plan states and criticized the submission: “If I would have submitted something that was this wrong, the board of engineers would have pulled me in.”

Neighbor Paul Trimmer told commissioners he was worried about how “lopping off the top of this hill” might affect stormwater and the community well that serves several houses in the basin, saying the neighborhood “floods constantly” and asking for a drainage analysis before final approvals.

The project architect, Richard Luke, said the disturbed area would be limited to less than half an acre at the top of the five‑acre parcel and described the road grades and proposed landscaping and berming intended to soften the view from the street.

Applicant Michael Chong, who identified himself as the property owner, said he had attempted neighborhood outreach and that, in his view, the plan before the commission matched the materials staff had reviewed and recommended. “So far the staff, your staff has approved it and it's on the agenda,” he told the panel.

Commissioner Stone, describing himself as the commission's resident engineer, urged caution and recommended staff double‑check the cut‑and‑fill numbers and the hillside ordinance compliance, and asked for clearer cross‑sections and profiles so both the public and the commission could visualize the proposed cuts. Public Works staff confirmed a drainage study and technical review of the grading plan will be required at permit stage.

After discussion, Commissioner Mojica moved to hold the item so the applicant can work with staff to correct plan details; the motion passed. Staff noted that, under Title 30, the applicant will not be required to re‑notify owners if the matter is held to Aug. 19 unless a revised plan requires renotification, in which case additional fees may apply.

The commission’s hold is procedural: it requires the applicant to return with corrected technical exhibits and staff to verify compliance with the Red Rock overlay, the county grading code and Public Works’ drainage requirements. The commission did not approve or deny the project and made no design or permitting commitments beyond directing the additional technical review.

The item will return to the Planning Commission on Aug. 19 for further consideration; any future appeals of final action would be filed per Title 30 and heard by the Board of County Commissioners if appealed.