Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves land‑use change near Lone Mountain to single‑family homes after residents raise privacy and soil concerns

North Las Vegas City Council · December 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On Dec. 17 the council approved AMP 10 20 25 to change a parcel on East Lone Mountain Road from neighborhood commercial to single‑family residential (R‑1). Nearby residents spoke about soil/foundation issues, traffic safety and loss of backyard privacy; the applicant said homes would be single‑story and a soils report was provided.

The City Council voted to approve AMP 10 20 25 on Dec. 17, changing the comprehensive plan designation for a parcel near East Lone Mountain Road and North 5th Street from neighborhood commercial (C‑1) to single‑family low density (R‑1). Jennifer Verlazovich, representing the applicant, said the proposal shows single‑story R‑1 lots and that the project would “get fully improved” the portion of Lone Mountain that has not been fully developed.

Two nearby homeowners spoke at the public hearing opposing the change. Linda Merkel said the local clay soil has “caused a lot of problems with foundations,” describing cracks in her two‑story house and past costly repairs, and asked the council to deny the request. Justin Carroll said the plan — as presented to the council — would bring multi‑story buildings with windows overlooking his backyard and “a direct and unavoidable loss of privacy” for his family. Jennifer Verlazovich replied that the application shows single‑story homes, that the developer provided a soils report and that lot sizes and minimum rear yards are intended to match surrounding R‑1 standards. Councilmember (speaker 8) moved to approve AMP 10 20 25; the motion passed. Vote tallies were not read into the transcript.