Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County counsel says Clark County has filed motion for reconsideration of Growth Board order setting July compliance deadline
Summary
County counsel Rebecca Ward Palmerton told the planning commission the Growth Management Hearings Board issued an order requiring compliance by July 31; the county filed a motion for reconsideration on April 13 seeking a later, tighter schedule (staff cited October completion) and opposing counsel requested extra time to respond. The council will hear the Planning Commission's recommendation on April 27 (and possibly April 28).
Rebecca Ward Palmerton, the county's newly announced planning attorney, updated the Planning Commission on April 16 about the county's response to a Growth Management Hearings Board order tied to the comprehensive-plan periodic update.
What the order requires and the county's response: Palmerton said the Growth Board issued an order on April 2 requiring the county to come into compliance by July 31. The county's office filed a motion for reconsideration on April 13, asking the board to adopt a revised schedule that would allow completion of the periodic update by Oct. 23. "We filed that motion for reconsideration on April 13," Palmerton said, noting opposing counsel requested additional time to respond and the board's decision on reconsideration could come in late April or early May.
Why the county seeks reconsideration: Staff and counsel told the commission that the original July schedule is unworkable given notice requirements, public-engagement needs and the time required to complete the transportation modeling, capital facilities plan and other elements once a preferred land-use alternative is selected. Oliver Ojako urged patience while the county seeks a realistic schedule and said staff were preparing the package for council consideration.
Next steps and hearings: Staff announced the County Council will hold hearings on the Planning Commission's recommendation for the preferred alternative on April 27 (starting at 4 p.m.) and possibly continue April 28 at 10 a.m. Palmerton said staff would provide guidance to commissioners about testifying or providing further comment once the Growth Board rules on the motion for reconsideration.
Procedural notes: Palmerton referenced the civil rules and administrative code governing reconsideration deadlines; she also noted that the county's supplemental briefing filed April 1 (an updated plan and calendar) had not been considered by the Growth Board in the original order and that formed part of the basis for seeking reconsideration.
Status: The motion for reconsideration is pending; the final schedule will depend on the Growth Board's response and any subsequent procedural rulings.
