The hearings examiner detailed the procedures for providing public testimony, noting that speakers would be limited to three minutes each and strongly encouraging attendees to submit their detailed comments in writing. He explained that the public record for the 58th Avenue subdivision would remain open for an additional week to accept written comments, emphasizing that individuals must participate on the record to preserve their right to appeal. Finally, the examiner advised residents intending to testify about the Hartwood North subdivision to withhold their public comments until its continued hearing date in September, as the development proposal could change before then.
Cross_cutting
Clark County Land Use Hearings · Jun 11, 2026 · 3:07–3:37 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: public hearing public comment public testimony
What was said
2:01 So once we review all these, we review also the local code criteria. Those are the standards that control the outcome of each of these items. Those are the standards that were in the county's unified development code on the day each one of these applications was submitted. And that freezes in time the standards, the criteria that have to be met in order for an applicant to gain approval. We can't be more stringent nor more lenient than those standards allow, but yet we have to fairly interpret them, look at the record, determine if there is sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate that each of those standards is met or can be met through conditions of approval. And if that evidence exists, then we are obligated by state law and the local code to approve these development proposals. But there is a long way between
2:59 here and there before that happens. And so part of that evaluation process is to convene a public hearing such as this and take public testimony on the applications. And then once everyone has had full opportunity to evaluate the proposal, make comments, respond to comments, only after that will I close the public record and then I take it under consideration and I will decide the matter. So in deciding these things, as I mentioned, we're obligated to be independent and unbiased. And I believe that I am with regard to both of these items. I don't have any personal or business or familial connections with the applicants or any of the parties who have weighed in on these items to date. What I know about each one is what I have read from the record. I've had my record for
3:54 approximately two weeks on each of these. And so if anyone has any questions or wishes to challenge my impartiality or ability to decide these, feel free to do so. Feel free to ask questions or challenge my participation during the public testimony portion of tonight's hearing. Here's the basic schedule of events for each of these. Once we get rolling, I'll begin with a staff report. And that is a verbal rendition of the written report that was issued prior to tonight's hearing. As I mentioned, these items are controlled by the approval criteria in the code. The staff report goes through in somewhat painful detail an analysis of those standards, what they
Evidence (1 match)
cross_cutting keyword 3:07–3:37 public hearing, public comment, public testimony
we are obligated by state law and the local code to approve these development proposals. But there is a long way between here and there before that happens. And so part of that evaluation process is to convene a public hearing such as this and take public testimony on the applications. And then once everyone has had full opportunity to evaluate the proposal, make comments, respond to comments, only after that will I close the public record and then I take it under consideration and I will decid