Carson Valley Meats files for judicial review against Supervisor’s denial of meat processing facility

Carson Valley Meats has petitioned the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in Carson City for judicial review against the Carson City Board of Supervisors following its decision to uphold an appeal of the Planning Division’s approval of the Carson Valley Meats proposed facility.

The Planning Commission approved the facility during two separate votes, which would allow a meat packing and meat processing facility to be built in a General Industrial area off Highway 50 in Carson City.

The project would process 60 animals per week on one day of the week, with live animals on site within an indoor corral for no longer than 24 hours. This could be expanded to a maximum of 120 animals three times a year in order to serve special events such as county or FFA fairs.

All processing would be under the supervision of a USDA representative.

However, a group of residents filed appeals against the decision, which then went before the Board of Supervisors.

The Board chose to uphold the appeals, revoking the approval by the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote.

Three appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision were filed with the Board of Supervisors: one from Doreen Mack, one from Jennifer Verive and Richard Buttner, and one from Kathleen Franco Simmons.

The petition for judicial review is arguing there were several issues involved with the appeals process.

The petition states the appeal by Mack “did not specify which, if any, of the findings made by the Planning Commission violate the provisions” of the municipal code.

The petition states that the two additional appeals by Verive, Buttner and Simmons each claimed that the Planning Commission erred in making each finding required by municipal codes.

According to the petition, the District Attorney’s Office found that Mack did not appear to have legal standing to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision.

The DA memo also stated that the remaining appellants fall outside of the mandatory noticing area, wherein notice is required to property owners and tenants of mobile home parks within 600 feet of the project.

The DA memo suggested that Verive, Buttner and Simmons may have standing, because they allege concerns about odor and noise, despite being nearly twice as far away from the project.

According to the petition, the DA memo advised the Board of Supervisors to only examine the issue under an abuse of discretion standard of review, and determine whether the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the petitioner’s application was “arbitrary and capricious, or not based on substantial evidence.”

This means that what the Board of Supervisor were meant to vote on was whether or not the Planning Commission erred in its approval, not on the merits of the project itself. The Board was meant to look at information that had been presented before the Planning Commission; no new information was to be provided other than what had gone before the Planning Commission.

The petition noted several issues during the appeals process.

Appellants Verive/Buttner “repeatedly stressed that the Planning Commission should have required a ‘feasibility study’ before approving the application,” the petition states. “This issue was not raised before the Planning Commission. Moreover, a ‘feasibility study’ is not something required under existing CCMC or state law.”

The petition states that Supervisors Stacey Giomi and Lisa Schuette noted that the Planning Commission should have included a feasibility study, which the petition repeatedly notes is not required by any code or state statute applicable to the project.

The petition also states that Supervisor Stan Jones quoted a Nevada Supreme Court opinion on “a project proposed by petitioner in a different county, under a different county code, and which denied the appeal based upon an applied abuse of discretion standard. Supervisor Jones voted to grant the appeals, indicating his belief that the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled on this issue.”

Supervisor Maurice White and Mayor Lori Bagwell voted against the appeals.

According to the petition, Supervisor White found issue that the standing of appellants was not addressed properly, and “found no error on the part of the Planning Commission in making the required findings.”

Similarly, Mayor Bagwell stated she found no error on the part of the Planning Commission, and voted to deny the appeals.

The petition argues that the Board of Supervisors erred in their decision based on information provided by the appellants that “relied on unsupported, inaccurate, and irrelevant material.”

“Statements by interested parties or their representatives, and the opinions of council members, unsupported by proof, do not justify the denial of a special use permit,” the petition states. “The Board’s reliance on unsupported, inaccurate, and irrelevant material does not meet the ‘substantial evidence’ requirement supporting such a decision.”

Within the petition for a judicial review, the petitioners are asking that the court finds that the appellants lacked legal standing to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision, and that the city be ordered to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission.

The petition was filed on March 4, 2022. It is unknown at this time when the matter will be set before the court.