The Gaslight Village development remains on hold after the filing of a lawsuit that challenges the city's handling of a protest petition and a related referendum petition.

City Attorney Huff told the commission that a lawsuit filed Nov. 19 alleges two counts: one concerning the protest petition and another alleging the referendum petition was improperly handled. Huff said the city disagrees with the plaintiffs' assertions, will not comment further on pending litigation, and will not return the project to the commission agenda while the case is active unless a court orders otherwise.

Public commenters at the meeting said the city's scheduling of contentious items and the clerk's decisions had effectively limited participation and disenfranchised residents. Sarah Buck and Jerry Anderson urged the commission to uphold the petition and called for more inclusive engagement.

Christopher Zdarski, counsel for Gaslight Village Responsible Development and petitioners, argued the PUD amendment is a "major change" under the city's zoning rules and therefore legislative in nature, meaning a protest petition is the appropriate vehicle. He told the commission that, on its face, the petition complied with statutory requirements and that the clerk and city should have accepted it.

Pat Lennon, counsel for the project applicant, disagreed. He said the commission's action was administrative (site-plan amendment limited to a single parcel and not a rezone) and argued the petition failed to supply required information (acreage within 100 feet, evidence of title for surrounding parcels, and calculations showing the signers satisfied the 20% ownership threshold).

No commission action was taken on the Gaslight Village matter; the city attorney said any further city deliberation on the project will occur in court until the litigation is resolved.