Uintah Mountain RTC, LLC v. Duchesne County

The Hancock family (plaintiff) owned a farm in Duchesne County (defendant) and formed Uintah Mountain RTC, LLC (Uintah) (plaintiff) for the purpose of operating a residential treatment center for young men with various mental-health issues. Uintah would not accept applicants with a history of violence, a history of sexual offenses, or a significant criminal background. The land owned by the Hancock family was zoned A-5, which was in the agricultural-residential zoning category. The Duchesne County zoning code permitted group homes as a conditional use in the A-5 zone. Notably, a residential treatment already existed in Duchesne County and had been operating since the planning commission had granted it a conditional-use permit in 1997. In 2003, Uintah applied for a conditional-use permit and presented documentary and testimonial evidence as required to support its application. The Duchesne County Planning Commission (planning commission) determined that Uintah’s application complied with the zoning code. The planning commission found that Uintah would not be unduly detrimental to nearby property or to the public, that Uintah would comply with the purposes of the county’s zoning ordinance and its general plan for land use, and that the land and building where Uintah would operate were of adequate size to avoid material harm to nearby properties. The planning commission approved Uintah’s application with conditions including that the number of residents in the facility would be limited to 10, that an alarm system would be installed, and that Uintah would show proof of liability insurance. Neighbors of the Hancock farm appealed the grant of the permit to the county board. Uintah cross-appealed regarding the limit on the number of residents. The county board affirmed the 10-resident limit, but it also overturned the planning commission’s decision and denied the conditional-use permit because Uintah had indicated that it would eventually need to accommodate 16 to 50 residents to be financially viable. Uintah appealed, arguing that the permit was denied based on public clamor, not evidence. The district court affirmed the county board’s decision, finding that the planning commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Uintah appealed.