NRS
278.3195 Governing body to adopt ordinance allowing appeal to governing
body concerning certain decisions regarding use of land; required contents of
ordinance; appeal of decision of governing body to district court.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 278.310, each governing body shall
adopt an ordinance providing that any person who is aggrieved by a decision of:
(a) The planning commission, if the governing
body has created a planning commission pursuant to NRS 278.030;
(b) The board of adjustment, if the governing
body has created a board of adjustment pursuant to NRS 278.270;
(c) A hearing examiner, if the governing body has
appointed a hearing examiner pursuant to NRS
278.262; or
(d) Any other person appointed or employed by the
governing body who is authorized to make administrative decisions regarding the
use of land,
Ê may appeal
the decision to the governing body. In a county whose population is 700,000 or
more, a person shall be deemed to be aggrieved under an ordinance adopted
pursuant to this subsection if the person appeared, either in person, through
an authorized representative or in writing, before a person or entity described
in paragraphs (a) to (d), inclusive, on the matter which is the subject of the
decision.
2. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 278.310, an ordinance adopted pursuant
to subsection 1 must set forth, without limitation:
(a) The period within which an appeal must be
filed with the governing body.
(b) The procedures pursuant to which the
governing body will hear the appeal.
(c) That the governing body may affirm, modify or
reverse a decision.
(d) The period within which the governing body
must render its decision except that:
(1) In a county whose population is
700,000 or more, that period must not exceed 45 days.
(2) In a county whose population is less
than 700,000, that period must not exceed 60 days.
(e) That the decision of the governing body is a
final decision for the purpose of judicial review.
(f) That, in reviewing a decision, the governing
body will be guided by the statement of purpose underlying the regulation of
the improvement of land expressed in NRS
278.020.
(g) That the governing body may charge the
appellant a fee for the filing of an appeal.
3. In addition to the requirements set
forth in subsection 2, in a county whose population is 700,000 or more, an
ordinance adopted pursuant to subsection 1 must:
(a) Set forth procedures for the consolidation of
appeals; and
(b) Prohibit the governing body from granting to
an aggrieved person more than two continuances on the same matter, unless the
governing body determines, upon good cause shown, that the granting of
additional continuances is warranted.
4. Any person who:
(a) Has appealed a decision to the governing body
in accordance with an ordinance adopted pursuant to subsection 1; and
(b) Is aggrieved by the decision of the governing
body,
Ê may appeal
that decision to the district court of the proper county by filing a petition
for judicial review within 25 days after the date of filing of notice of the
decision with the clerk or secretary of the governing body, as set forth in NRS 278.0235.
5. As used in this section, “person”
includes the Armed Forces of the United States or an official component or
representative thereof.
(Added to NRS by 2001,
2803; A 2003,
1734; 2007,
354; 2011,
1193)
DIVISIONS OF LAND
Subdivision of Land: General Provisions
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case:
Kay v. Nunez, 146 P.3d 801 (Nev. 2006).
Kay v. Nunez, 146 P.3d 801 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 19× “As the petition for judicial review was the proper mechanism, under NRS 278.3195, to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction to examine the administrative decision, Kay’s writ peti *1106 tion was inappropriate.”
Mesagate Homeowners' Ass'n v. City of Fernley, 194 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 12× “” In our view, the approval of the building permit at issue in this case did not constitute a “final ac *1094 tion, decision or order’ ’ when considered in light of a second provision, NRS 278.3195. NRS 278.3195(1) requires a governing body to adopt an ordinance providing any…”
City of Reno v. Citizens for Cold Springs, 236 P.3d 10 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The court arrived at this conclusion based on the express language in NRS 278.3195(4), which sets forth that a person who administratively appeals a zoning decision under the applicable ordinance to the governing board and is aggrieved by the board’s decision may appeal by…”
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 2× “49504/49682/50251 (Order of Affirmance, July 21, 2009), where we held that the Lazy 8 vote represented a land use decision reviewable, if at all, by a petition for judicial review under NRS 278.3195(4). Although policy-setting land use planning ordinances qualify as legislative,…”
Demartini v. City Of Reno (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 8× “NRS 278.3195 only defines the term “aggrieved” for counties with populations over 700,000.”
Demartini v. City Of Reno (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 8× “NRS 278.3195 only defines the term "aggrieved" for counties with populations over 700,000.”
Mcsweeney-Wilson v. Storey Cty. Comm'Rs (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 6× “Under the plain language of NRS 278.3195, Wilson lacked standing to seek judicial review of the County Commissioners decision because she did not attend or participate in any of the planning commission or County Commission meetings considering Stericycle's application and she…”
Scenic Nevada, Inc. Vs. City Of Reno (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 3× “860; NRS 278.3195. Nothing in the record provides any indication that Scenic Nevada availed itself of these remedies before seeking relief from the district court.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.3195(1) — 9 cases
Kay v. Nunez, 146 P.3d 801 (Nev. 2006).
“As the petition for judicial review was the proper mechanism, under NRS 278.3195, to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction to examine the administrative decision, Kay’s writ peti *1106 tion was inappropriate.”
Mesagate Homeowners' Ass'n v. City of Fernley, 194 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2008).
“” In our view, the approval of the building permit at issue in this case did not constitute a “final ac *1094 tion, decision or order’ ’ when considered in light of a second provision, NRS 278.3195. NRS 278.3195(1) requires a governing body to adopt an ordinance providing any…”
Demartini v. City Of Reno (Nev. 2022).
“NRS 278.3195 only defines the term “aggrieved” for counties with populations over 700,000.”
Demartini v. City Of Reno (Nev. 2022).
“NRS 278.3195 only defines the term "aggrieved" for counties with populations over 700,000.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.3195(1)(a) — 2 cases
Demartini v. City Of Reno (Nev. 2022).
“NRS 278.3195 only defines the term “aggrieved” for counties with populations over 700,000.”
Demartini v. City Of Reno (Nev. 2022).
“NRS 278.3195 only defines the term "aggrieved" for counties with populations over 700,000.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.3195(3)(a) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.3195(4) — 10 cases
Kay v. Nunez, 146 P.3d 801 (Nev. 2006).
“As the petition for judicial review was the proper mechanism, under NRS 278.3195, to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction to examine the administrative decision, Kay’s writ peti *1106 tion was inappropriate.”
Mesagate Homeowners' Ass'n v. City of Fernley, 194 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2008).
“” In our view, the approval of the building permit at issue in this case did not constitute a “final ac *1094 tion, decision or order’ ’ when considered in light of a second provision, NRS 278.3195. NRS 278.3195(1) requires a governing body to adopt an ordinance providing any…”
City of Reno v. Citizens for Cold Springs, 236 P.3d 10 (Nev. 2010).
“The court arrived at this conclusion based on the express language in NRS 278.3195(4), which sets forth that a person who administratively appeals a zoning decision under the applicable ordinance to the governing board and is aggrieved by the board’s decision may appeal by…”
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
“49504/49682/50251 (Order of Affirmance, July 21, 2009), where we held that the Lazy 8 vote represented a land use decision reviewable, if at all, by a petition for judicial review under NRS 278.3195(4). Although policy-setting land use planning ordinances qualify as legislative,…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278.3195(l) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.