2018 2:00:00 PM

Monday, October 8, 2018 2:00 PM
Council Chambers, Legislative Bldg, 745 4th St., Sparks, NV

General Business: 9.3

Title: FIRST READING of Bill No.2745, amending Section 20.05.013 of the Sparks Municipal Code to define an aggrieved person for purposes of planning and zoning appeals and conform appeal timelines to Nevada law, and providing other matters properly related thereto.

Petitioner/Presenter: Chester H. Adams, Sparks City Attorney/Alyson L. McCormick, Assistant City Attorney

Recommendation: That the City Council instruct the City Clerk to read the FIRST READING of the Bill by title on October 8, 2018, and thereafter publish notice of a SECOND READING and public hearing of the Bill for its adoption and possible approval on October 22, 2018.

Financial Impact: None.

Business Impact (Per NRS 237):
A Business Impact Statement is not required because this is not a rule.

Agenda Item Brief:

SMC 20.05.013 allows a “person aggrieved” by a planning or zoning decision to appeal to the City Council. The proposed amendment would add a definition of “aggrieved person” to SMC 20.05.013. The proposed amendment would also eliminate a 30-day deadline to hold a hearing on an appeal, which is not required by Nevada law.

Background:

SMC 20.05.013 governs the procedures for appeals from planning and zoning decisions in the City of Sparks. This section currently provides “any person aggrieved” by a planning or zoning decision the right to appeal to the City Council, but the section does not define who qualifies as an aggrieved person. The proposed amendment would add a definition of “aggrieved person” to SMC 20.05.013. In addition, the proposed amendment would remove the requirement that a public hearing on an appeal be held within 30 days.

Analysis:

Without a definition of “aggrieved person,” SMC 20.05.013 leaves the door open to a dispute about whether a particular person has a right to appeal from a planning or zoning decision. While the proposed definition is broad enough that such a dispute could still arise under certain circumstances, the proposed definition will still provide some clarity regarding who may appeal. A person’s rights must be “adversely and substantially affected by” a particular decision in order for the person to have a right to appeal; disagreeing with the decisionmaker is insufficient. To provide this clarity, the City Attorney’s Office recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to SMC 20.05.013.

NRS 278.3195(2)(d)(2) requires that the City Council render a decision on a planning or zoning appeal within 60 days. The existing version of SMC 20.05.013 adopts this requirement, but also requires that a public hearing “be held within 30 days after a complete appeal is filed.” This additional deadline is not required by Nevada law. In addition, this requirement sets up the City for failure: by the time a staff report regarding an appeal is written, noticing requirements are satisfied, and a City Council agenda is set, City staff may well be brushing against the 30-day deadline for a public hearing. As a result, the City Attorney’s Office recommends removing the 30-day deadline from SMC 20.05.013(E)(1), bringing the appeal timeframes into conformance with NRS 278.3195(2)(d)(2).

Alternatives:

City Council could reject the proposed amendment.

Recommended Motion:

This is the First Reading only; no motion is required.

Attached Files:

Aggrieved Ordinance.pdf

Previous Item

Next Item

Return To Meeting