Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Community Ambulance headquarters in West Henderson; one abstention cited
Summary
After a public hearing, the council approved a seven-part land-use package for a Community Ambulance headquarters in West Henderson with operational conditions (restricted outdoor activity hours and lower light poles). Councilwoman Cox abstained due to a disclosed family employment tie to the applicant.
The Henderson City Council voted to approve a multi-part land-use application to build a new Community Ambulance Dispatch Center on 5.5 acres in West Henderson.
Planning staff described a seven-part request that included comprehensive plan and zone changes, conditional use permits for a public-safety facility and above-ground fuel storage, and a design review. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval.
Applicant Michael Tassy, representing Community Ambulance, told the council the site consolidates several parcels and includes a headquarters building at the front of the property with apparatus space behind. Tassy said the team accepted several conditions requested by staff, including a restriction that "no outdoor activity" — listed to include training, gas-powered pressure washing, and siren use — occur outside the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. He also said parking was over-provided on the plan (278 spaces proposed vs. 119 required) and that the project lowered parking-lot lighting next to residences from 20 feet to 15 feet to reduce impacts on neighbors.
Before the vote, a council member disclosed that her son-in-law and daughter are employed by Community Ambulance and said that employment "could be perceived" as a conflict of interest; she said she would abstain from deliberation and voting on the items. The clerk later announced that, "with the exception of Councilwoman Cox, who abstained, all members voted in favor" and the motion carried (motion made by Councilwoman Larson).
The action includes approval of the land-use changes and accompanying resolution to amend the land-use policy for the property. Council did not receive public testimony on the item (the public-comment queue for that hearing was empty).
The council approved the package with conditions recommended in staff reports; the applicant and staff said the conditions are intended to limit noise and lighting impacts on nearby residents. The council's final vote adopted the resolution and the supporting entitlements.
