Two weeks after the Hearing Examiner shared her decision—sending the developer back to do more study on drainage water and shadow impacts on the P-Patch—there was a new development. The City filed a “Motion for Reconsideration,” asking the Examiner to reverse her decision regarding the P-Patch (that is, to not require the developer to study and possibly mitigate shadow impacts on the P-Patch).

The City introduced a new document to argue that the P-Patch didn’t deserve the protection the Examiner had given it, and tried to change the boundaries of the P-Patch.

This forced Save Madison Valley attorneys to respond to the motion, and make the case supporting the Examiner’s original decision. You can read an excerpt from our attorneys’ conclusion below:

As representatives of Save Madison Valley testified at the hearing, this appeal has required tremendous community resources. Save Madison Valley has been diligent in its presentation of issues, evidence, and testimony. The same cannot be said of SDCI’s motion. There is simply no excuse for SDCI’s waiting until after the record closed, and after the Examiner issued her decision, to present its new evidence at this late date. It is also frustrating for members of Save Madison Valley to have to expend additional resources combating the frivolous argument that the panhandle plots are not actually part of the P-Patch— when the city itself recognized part of the panhandle in 2001, and the rest of it in 2006. Instead of relying on the city’s Geocortex map, the veracity of which is unknown, Mr. Mills could have simply inquired about that issue with the Department of Neighborhoods. He would have discovered that those plots have been formally recognized (and rented) for a long time. For all of the reasons above, the Examiner should deny SDCI’s motion for reconsideration.

The Hearing Examiner agreed with our attorneys and denied the request. Her original remand stands.