TRUCKEE, Calif. — After hearing hours of testimony from residents, environmental advocates and project representatives, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors voted June 2 to deny an appeal challenging permits for a wedding and event venue in Truckee.

The appeal centered on Austin Ridge Events, a boutique venue for weddings and private gatherings located in Martis Valley. The venue has become the subject of an ongoing dispute between neighboring residents and property owners.

“They are here for a celebration; we are here for the consequences,” resident Nicole Teed told the board.

Teed and other speakers raised concerns about increased traffic on local roads, wildfire risks posed by visitors unfamiliar with the area, the potential for impaired driving after events, safety and environmental impacts.

The hearing followed Nevada County’s April 29 approval of an Administrative Permit allowing up to eight paid wedding events within a 12-month period, along with a Petition for Exceptions to Subdivision and Road Standards that granted waivers for certain roadway and infrastructure requirements.

However, Project representative Josh Escovedo urged supervisors to uphold the county’s decision, arguing that the application met all legal requirements and applicable county standards.

“As long as this project is not inconsistent with the law and checks off all the boxes, the permit should be granted,” Escovedo said during the hearing.

County staff and project representatives noted that many of the safety concerns raised by residents had been addressed through conditions of approval. Cal Fire approved the project with conditions intended to ensure adequate emergency access.

Sophia Heidrich, advocacy director for Mountain Area Preservation, also supported the appeal, citing concerns about development in the Martis Valley area, impacts to dark skies and the precedent the project could set for future commercial uses in the region.

In response, Escovedo argued that the board’s role was to determine whether the project complied with existing regulations rather than revisit the policies themselves.

“If you don’t like the law, your remedy is to lobby the people who make that law,” Esquivel said. “It is not to appeal and ask the board to step outside the bounds of the applicable law.”

During deliberations, several supervisors acknowledged residents’ concerns while expressing support for allowing the project to move forward under its temporary permit.

District 5 Supervisor Hardy Bullock said he was inclined to deny the appeal but suggested additional measures, including better notification of all events, limits on exterior lighting to protect dark skies and improved communication between venue operators and neighbors.

District 3 Supervisor Lisa Swarthout said she understood residents’ concerns and recognized that change can be difficult, but noted that property owners are entitled to use their land within the bounds of the law.

District 2 Supervisor Rob Tucker also raised concerns about lighting impacts but said the permit’s temporary nature would allow the county to evaluate how the venue operates in practice.

“This is a one-year temporary approval,” Tucker said. “I’m more inclined to deny the appeal knowing that we will have the chance to see exactly what happens in a year, seeing if the concerns, or the alleviation of concerns, have come to fruition.”

Because the permit is valid for one year, county officials said future concerns regarding compliance, operational impacts or permit requirements could be revisited if another appeal arises.

The Board of Supervisors ultimately voted to deny the appeal, allowing the venue to continue operating under the conditions outlined in its originally approved permit.