WINNEMUCCA — As the revoked extension to Jungo Land & Investment’s conditional use permit (CUP) winds its way through federal court, the issuance of the original CUP is making its way through the 6^th Judicial District Court on appeal.

Judge Robert Estes recently set an evidentiary hearing for Sept. 10, which came at the request of Robert Dolan and Massey Mayo. Estes was assigned to the case after the recusals of Judges Richard Wagner and Michael Montero.

Dolan and Mayo are appealing the decision of the Humboldt County Board of Commissioners to uphold the Regional Planning Commission’s decision not to hold a hearing on the possible revocation of Jungo’s CUP.

During the appeal process the judge may only consider facts already on the record. At the evidentiary hearing, Dolan and Mayo will attempt to have additional facts placed into evidence.

In paperwork filed with the court, the two argued there were procedural irregularities with the CUP application filed by Jungo Land & Investments. For example, it was alleged that Jungo did not state in its CUP application that solid waste would be accepted at the landfill. That information was stated on the cover sheet, but not the application itself.

Dolan and Mayo also argued Jungo was untruthful on the application – claiming the landfill would have no effect on abutting properties, which the two claim cannot possibly be true. You can’t, they have argued repeatedly, construct a large landfill without impacting adjoining properties.

For these reasons and others, Dolan and Mayo argued it would have been appropriate for the RPC to have had -- at the very least -- a hearing on the issues.

Representatives from both Jungo and the Humboldt County DA’s Office (representing the commission) filed objections to the evidentiary hearing.

In the response they claim Dolan and Mayo’s objection to the decisions made by the planning commission and commissioners does not rise to the level of procedural irregularities.

They claim there has been no finding of procedural irregularities that occurred outside of the record and further claim that Dolan and Mayo never claimed irregularities occurred outside of the record when they filed their opening brief or in the original petition for appeal.

They stated, “All petitioners alleged is that they do not like the vote of the RPC not to schedule a revocation hearing on its agenda, as affirmed by the Board of County Commissioners. Under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for this court to hear additional evidence.”

Judge Estes apparently disagreed and set the date for the evidentiary hearing without comment.

However, Judge Richard Wagner previously ruled an evidentiary hearing in the matter would be appropriate.

Additional posts on this topic:  

Landfill appeal heads to district court

Commission upholds RPC decision on a split vote

Heated dispute erupts at RPC meeting

RPC denies hearing on proposed Jungo Rd. landfill