Commission clears redevelopment of Paradise Spa site; resident raises demolition and asbestos concerns

The Clark County Commission voted Aug. 20 to approve a planned unit development, zone change, right-of-way vacations and a tentative map to redevelop the former Paradise Spa property into a 275-unit residential project, with the applicant and county staff negotiating deletions of duplicate conditions and specific public-works adjustments. Nut graf: Taylor Morrison and its consultant presented a multi-product residential plan for roughly 28 acres formerly occupied by Paradise Spa; the board approved the applications with conditions and removed duplicate public-works bullet points; a resident later addressed the meeting to report health concerns connected to recent demolition activity on the site. What the applicants described: Bob Groenauer, representing Taylor Morrison, said the firm seeks to redevelop about 28 acres east of Las Vegas Boulevard South into 275 attached and detached homes across multiple product lines, with dispersed open space and modified development standards handled through a planned unit development. Groenauer told the commission that road and curb-return issues had been negotiated with public works and that deletions of certain public-works conditions (duplicate items) were appropriate before approval. Resident comment on demolition: Randolph Frye, a Paradise Spa homeowner, spoke during public comment and said demolition of eight buildings occurred earlier in the month. He told the board he experienced respiratory symptoms that he attributed to dust from the demolition and that he believed asbestos removal should have preceded building collapse. "I do feel a resultant phlegm from that weekend forward," Frye said on the record; commissioners and staff said county departments had overseen demolition and that the county had worked with the building department and Department of Environment and Sustainability to ensure the demolition complied with code. Commissioner remarks acknowledged Frye's concerns and advised him the clerk's office could provide a copy of his recorded comments. Board action and conditions: Commissioner Naft moved approval, reflecting public-works deletions and clarifications read into the record; the motion passed. The record shows the board asked staff to delete duplicative public-works conditions and to limit the number of lots affected by a back-of-curb return waiver to two specifically identified lots (Lot 30 and Lot 164). County staff emphasized the project still must comply with permitting and any required environmental or safety controls during construction. Distinguishing discussion and decision: The board noted this approval remains subject to court partition processes connected to the property's sale, development-agreement and permitting steps, and that demolition and construction safety activities are overseen by county building and environment departments. Ending: With the approvals recorded, the applicant and county staff will proceed to finalize any outstanding public-works conditions, complete court closing steps and follow normal permitting for grading and building. The resident's written comments and health concerns are on the meeting record and were directed to appropriate county offices for follow up.