WINNEMUCCA — Brushing aside the advice of legal counsel, the Humboldt County Commission voted 3-2 on Monday (March 1) to hear an appeal on the Regional Planning Commission’s decision to extend the conditional use permit issued to Jungo Land & Investment for the development of a class 1 landfill.  The extension was for five years and did not include any additional conditions concerning environmental protection, which was requested by some members of the public.

The appeal hearing was set for March 15.

Humboldt County Deputy DA Angie Elquist advised the commission that after further study it appeared as though Robert Dolan and Massey Mayo, who sought the appeal, did not have the legal standing necessary to do so. Elquist's legal findings were outlined for the commissioners in a memo (see page 2).

Commissioner Tom Fransway was the only person to mention the legal opinion being forwarded by Elquist, but that was merely to point out that Elquist was not the actual district attorney and the memo did not have Russell Smith’s name on it.

The commission seemed ready to use the appeal to hold the hearing for the sake of the public who have demanded one.  Commission Chairman Chuck Giordano commented they owed it not to Dolan and Mayo, but to the public.

Commissioners Dan Cassinelli and Mike Bell dissented. Cassinelli said while he believed Dolan and Mayo probably did not have the required legal standing, the issue should be decided by a judge who had better understanding of the legal system.

“A judge is more apt to be able to define this than a commissioner such as I who’s just a rancher,” he said. “This is getting pretty complicated, who has standing and who doesn’t.”

Elquist, Dolan and Mayo sparred over the statutes and ordinances defining who has legal standing to appeal and the varying definitions of interested party versus aggrieved party.  Elquist argued the appeal process was designed for those who were actually impacted by decisions made by RPC -- such as those seeking approval on large parcel maps, etc.

“Those are interested parties,” she said. “They have a property right at stake.  The people who appeal have to show a higher standard than just a generalized interest.”

While Dolan and Mayo argued they have appealed before, that they were recognized as interested parties in the case previously, Elquist countered there was a change in the legal conclusion by the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office based on additional research.

Mayo countered that Elquist’s research was based on what would be considered by the courts; whereas, the law gives people the right to appeal decisions made by governing bodies.

Dolan further argued because the property abutting the land being proposed for a class 1 landfill is managed by the BLM, and therefore public property,  that gives him them the standing necessary to appeal the decision.

“I’m a member of the public,” he said. “We have asserted, Massey and I, that we have used that land. We have every right to use that land. It’s a personal right to use public land. That’s guaranteed to me under the law of the United States and state of Nevada. I’m saying my right to use that land has been abridged, violated, unless you’re calling me a liar, which I don’t think you are, I have standing to say this action is objectionable and I would like you to review it.”

Representatives for Jungo Land & Investments did not address the board on the issue.  However, an objection to the appeal hearing was filed with the county. In that document, John Frankovich, attorney for Jungo Land & Investments argued the RPC had sole jurisdiction for extensions of conditional use permits. Quoting from Humboldt County ordinances, Frankovich pointed out the RPC had exclusive jurisdiction to grant the extension if the RPC found there was good cause for the delay.

Decisions that may be appealed to the county commission are limited to the grant or denial of a CUP.  "In other words (the Humboldt County ordinance) gives the Board of County Commissioners no authority over the grant of an extension of a CUP by the Planning Commission," Frankovich noted.

In addition, Frankovich once again argued that Dolan and Mayo did not have standing under the legal definitions of interested or aggrieved parties because their property rights are not impacted by the project.

The objection may be read in its entirety on page 3.

Additional Information:

Page 2:  Angie Elquist's Memo to County Commission

Page 3:  Jungo Land & Investment's Objection to appeal

Page 4:  Dolan and Mayo request appeal hearing

Previous news on the topic: 

Dolan appeals landfill extension to the county commission

RPC extends landfill CUP for five years