The vacant lot at 1625 Vista Lane slated for a new substance abuse treatment center. A golf course and houses appear in the background on Oct. 30, 2024.
Photo by Scott Neuffer.
A petition for judicial review of a substance abuse treatment facility planned for north Carson City has been denied.
A June 2 court order signed by First Judicial District Court Senior Judge James Wilson denied the Jan. 3 petition brought by several parties after the Carson City Board of Supervisors upheld the project.
Filed against the city, the Board of Supervisors and Vitality Unlimited, the Jan. 3 petition was brought on behalf of Emerald Farms LLC, LTE1525 Vista LLC and Edward and Roxy Benoit. According to court documents, these petitioners had ownership interest in 1525 Vista Lane, the business complex east of the project site at 1625 Vista Lane.
BSW Holdings LLC, which owns 1675 Vista Lane west of the project, and Bauerle Syndergaard Wilcox Periodontics and Oral Surgery PLLC, the business in that location, voluntarily dismissed themselves from the lawsuit in February, according to the Carson City District Attorney’s Office.
“Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Board of Supervisors in this matter and its decision is not an abuse of discretion,” the June 2 order says.
The 36-bed, 9,200-square-foot residential substance abuse treatment center would be part of a medical park south of the Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center and north of the Silver Oak subdivision and golf course fairway.
The property is zoned retail commercial.
Vitality Unlimited operates a 25-bed residential treatment center in the Carson City Health and Human Services building off Long Street but must relocate due to the city’s facility needs.
The Carson City Planning Commission approved the project by a 6-0 vote on Oct. 30, 2024, granting a special use permit (SUP) with several conditions of approval. That public hearing saw many neighbors in Silver Oak and neighboring business owners opposed to the project, while employees of the nonprofit spoke to the need for such a center.
The October SUP was then appealed to the Board of Supervisors by a resident of Silver Oak and property owners and businesses directly west and east of the project parcel. The appeals included charges that planning commissioners abused their discretion, lacked evidence and based their decision on classifying the facility as a congregate care housing facility instead of a “halfway house.”
Vitality has maintained the facility is not a halfway house and that applicants to the program (running 30 to 45 days) are screened for prior incidents of violence or sexual offenses. The treatment center would be a closed campus, alarmed but not locked down.
The court agreed with Vitality, definitively stating the facility is not a halfway house. Even if it were, the court found, it would still be permitted in the retail commercial zone.
“Regardless of how Vitality’s use is characterized, Vitality was required to obtain a special use permit for its use in the retail commercial use district,” the order says. “Therefore, Emerald Farms’ argument that Vitality’s use is more appropriately treated as a halfway house than a congregate care facility is moot and is denied on that basis.”
The court further found that although city zoning code did not address such treatment facilities, the city was not wrong in determining the use was like congregate care housing and thus appropriate in the retail commercial zone.
“The Board of Supervisors has authorized a hospital, hotel residence and congregate care housing as conditional uses in the general commercial and retail commercial use districts,” the June 2 order says. “Vitality’s use will be an in-patient treatment facility, like a hospital; will host stays of less than 180 days, like a hotel, residence; and will provide meals, living sleeping facilities, counseling and transportation for medical needs, like congregate care housing.”
The court concluded the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors acknowledged public concerns but “found that the evidence contradicted the public’s concerns and, therefore, granted Vitality the special use permit.”
The order also noted supervisors added a condition that no civil protective custody clients use the facility.
On the issue of an alleged Open Meeting Law violation, the court said the argument was “improperly brought” in a petition for judicial review. However, the court still addressed the merits of the charge.
On Dec. 5, Mayor Lori Bagwell informed the audience at the beginning of the evening hearing that public comment would not be taken due to the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings. Each appellant and the applicant were given time to make their respective cases.
Supervisors had convened in the morning of Dec. 5 for other agenda items.
“The Board of Supervisors December 5, 2024, agenda explicitly stated that public comment would be permitted at the beginning of the meeting and at the end of the meeting,” says the court order. “This procedure complies with NRS 241.021(1)(a).”
The petitioners asked for a hearing on the case, while the respondents requested “this matter be decided on the briefs,” according to the order.
The court found a hearing was not warranted.
Vitality expects to begin construction on the facility this fall, according to project spokesperson Sarah Adler.
“We are moving this project forward,” she told the Appeal on Friday.
Adler said Nevada was one of two states that saw a rise in opioid-related deaths in 2024.
“The sooner we can create this facility with additional treatment beds, the better we can do for our state,” she said.