As its April 30 deadline to submit its Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update to the state looms ever closer, the Clark County council once again delayed a decision on the zoning component of its 20-year growth plan.

The council set out Tuesday morning to reconsider the preferred alternative to its growth plan, which will set zoning policy throughout unincorporated Clark County. But after hearing five hours of public testimony — in which many of the same, familiar faces reiterated what they’ve been saying for over a year — the council moved to continue the hearing to next week.

The packed audience was divided on the most controversial proposal at hand: Republican Councilor David Madore’s Alternative 4, which was twice rejected by the county Planning Commission but approved by the council as a part of its preferred alternative.

The zoning proposal, hailed by some rural residents as restoring rural property rights limited under the Growth Management Act, would shrink the minimum allowed lot sizes in rural areas. A draft environmental impact statement analyzing an older version of Alternative 4 estimates it could create about 5,300 additional lots in Clark County, putting a strain on natural and environmental resources. In some cases, the additional development allowed under Alternative 4 could be cost-prohibitive to Clark County, according to the environmental report.

Though Madore has continued to fight for his alternative, aided by Republican Councilor Tom Mielke, his fellow councilors have signaled that they want to reconsider that proposal. Councilors Jeanne Stewart and Julie Olson, Republicans, and Chair Marc Boldt, no party preference, have questioned whether that proposal is viable.