Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Las Vegas council approves three easement vacations for development projects
Summary
At its Oct. 1 meeting the North Las Vegas City Council approved three vacations of drainage and utility easements tied to planned developments after staff recommended approval and no members of the public spoke; applicants said the vacations are needed to complete site development.
The North Las Vegas City Council on Oct. 1 approved three separate motions to vacate easements so developers can proceed with planned projects, with staff recommending approval and no public opposition.
In the first case, Yang Nguyen, representing DHI Communities, asked the council to vacate a “very small portion” of a stone drainage easement on a parcel at the southeast corner of Tule Springs Parkway and Evelyn Brooks Street so the parcel can be fully developed. Staff recommended approval, there were no public comments, and the council moved to approve VAC-03-2025 (motion passed). "I'm here representing the applicant... we would like to vacate a very small portion of that easement in order to develop our parcel fully," Yang said when presenting the request.
The council then approved a request from DHL Supply Chain’s representative Camden Robinson of GCW to vacate a blanket drainage easement on a parcel approximately 2,400 feet west of the intersection of Wesley D. Adams Avenue and John J. Lee Avenue. Robinson described the application and answered council questions; staff also recommended approval and the council passed the motion to approve VAC04-2025.
Finally, Susan Florian of Taney Engineering representing Pecos Apartments LP requested vacation of public utility and roadway easements at the southwest corner of North Pecos Road and Rome Boulevard. Florian told the council the easements are no longer needed after a new developer and site plan were approved, and the council moved to approve VAC05-2025 after confirming with staff that conditions were met.
All three public hearings had no members of the public sign up to speak. Council discussion, as recorded, focused on staff recommendations and basic clarification of the site plans; recorded roll-call vote tallies were not provided in the meeting transcript. Each motion passed as announced by the mayor.
The approvals clear the way for developers to complete site-level work, including final engineering and construction permitting, subject to any remaining staff conditions or permit reviews. The meeting also introduced three unrelated ordinances for first reading and set future hearing dates; those ordinances will return for further readings and votes at subsequent meetings.
