Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance Harbor Cove topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council upholds HOA appeal, blocks Harbor Cove homeowner'9s boundary wall
Summary
After hours of testimony from neighbors, an attorney and the homeowner, the Las Vegas City Council granted an appeal by the Harbor Cove homeowners association and denied a variance that would have allowed Alan Harvey to build a nonconforming wall adjacent to the sidewalk.
The Las Vegas City Council on June 18 upheld an appeal from the Harbor Cove Homeowners Association and denied a variance requested by homeowner Alan Harvey to construct a front-yard wall that would encroach toward the public sidewalk.
The appeal decision came after multiple residents, the HOA—s attorney and the homeowner testified during a public hearing that drew prolonged public comment and repeated references to the association—s covenants and prior board actions. Councilwoman Allen Polinski moved to approve the HOA—s appeal; the motion carried, removing the city—s earlier variance approval and preventing construction of the proposed wall.
The council—s action followed competing accounts at the hearing. David Brown, attorney for the HOA, told the council that the HOA had attempted to reach a settlement and had even offered to pay for privacy landscaping, but that the homeowner "was completely unwilling to compromise in any way." Robert Krimmer, a member of the HOA and a nearby homeowner, said the HOA had offered to install and pay for landscaping and that 75 residents filed written opposition.
Homeowner Alan Harvey said his ARC (architectural review committee) application had been approved through the management company and posted on the HOA—s management portal. He said he sought to move the wall outward to gain privacy but did not seek to increase its height. "There is hardly any difference between where the wall is now and moving it forward," Harvey said, adding he and his wife did not want to add plants because of water use.
Board members and neighbors offered different accounts of whether the HOA had voted to approve the wall. Several residents said they believed the board had misled the community about the proposed wall and complained about the board—s spending on outside counsel. Others on the board or familiar with earlier votes said an ARC approval had been recorded and that one board member had signed off earlier.
City staff recommended approval of the variance based on the parcel—s irregular shape and Nevada Revised Statutes standards for variances, and they noted the planning commission had approved the request. Nevertheless, councilmembers weighed private CC&R enforcement and neighborhood cohesion in their deliberations. Councilwoman Seaman said the item felt like an HOA enforcement matter and expressed discomfort acting as a court for HOA disputes; Councilwoman Polanski said she was not satisfied that meaningful negotiations had occurred.
Polanski moved to approve the HOA—s appeal, removing the variance approval. Following a roll call, the motion passed and council confirmed "no wall to be built" under the city variance. Council members urged the parties to continue local negotiation and noted the HOA and homeowner retain private remedies and obligations under the community—s governing documents.
The council—s action addressed only the land-use variance before the city; private CC&R and potential civil litigation remain separate. The decision also leaves in place the city—s authority to review future applications and requires any future requests to conform to both city development standards and the HOA—s private covenants.
