The Nevada Supreme Court has denied a lawsuit against the city of Fernley by a homeowners association disputing the construction of an arsenic water treatment plant at the end of Mesa Drive.

The court, though, did leave open the option for the homeowners association to seek an appeal from district court to stop construction on the plant.

The Mesagate Homeowners Association, David and Sandra Mathewson, Shirley Fraser, and Jack and Mary Knowles filed a complaint with the Third Judicial District Court on Nov. 2 claiming the city unlawfully issued the commercial building permit for the water treatment plant.

"Our big contention is that the city violated all zoning ordinances, their master plan and transportation elements of their master plan in regards to this project, blatantly," said Sandra Mathewson.

District Court Judge Robert E. Estes held a hearing on the petition Dec. 20 and issued his decision Jan. 16. Estes concluded the homeowners association "failed to present sufficient facts necessary to demonstrate the necessary harm for granting the amended petition."

Estes wrote that he recognized the city's responsibility to meet federal drinking water standards in a timely fashion, and he also considered the homeowners' worry about loss of property value. He stated harm could come to thousands of Fernley residents without the treatment plant or one to four homeowners who oppose the plant.

The Mesagate group argued that Mesa Drive does not provide adequate access to the plant because the city did not provide a 60-foot-wide right of way access, only a 50-foot-wide, dedicated right of way easement.

City Manager Gary Bacock said a planned commercial development on the corner of Main Street and Mesa Drive, for which a building permit was just issued, will bring the right of way up to 60 feet on the east end of Mesa. The middle section of the roadway meets the 60-foot requirement currently, and the city has a verbal agreement from a property owner to purchase the needed 10-foot easement near the entrance of the plant at the west end of the road.

"It's required to be done before the certificate of occupancy is issued. That means 20 months down the road," Bacock said. "We will have a 60-foot right of way all the way."

He said after construction ends, the road will be reconstructed 100 percent because it will be completely torn up. The city will install several water lines in the roadway to carry water into and out of the treatment plant.

Mathewson also took issue with the fact the city does not have a legal secondary access to the plant, something Bacock agrees with. However, there are two ditch roads on the boundary of the property which have been historically used by emergency responders when needed, Bacock said.

Mathewson also argued the state fire marshal needed to sign off on a permit because there was no legal secondary access or sprinklers designed in the plans. But Bacock said the group did not review the latest plans that show all buildings at the plant will have a sprinkler system.

The homeowners association alleges the zoning of the property does not allow for construction of an industrial plant in a residential neighborhood. Although the zoning there is RR-2, the Fernley Development Code allows for a water treatment facility in that zone.

Mathewson said she and her neighbors will continue to fight against the water treatment plant.

"This has been financially and emotionally draining, but we're pursuing on this because we are right," Mathewson said. "This is our neighborhood."

She was buoyed by the supreme court's suggestion to appeal the district court's written decision and to enjoin the construction of the plant with the supreme court's expedited review of the case.

Fernley City Attorney Jeff McGowan said he received word Wednesday of the group's appeal.