Land Use Hearing Officer Meeting – 10-29-2025

- The hearing addressed appeals by John Berryhill and others challenging Cache County’s approval of a reasonable accommodation for Finding Hope and the related zoning clearance for a residential living facility. The hearing officer said the key issue was whether the record supported allowing 16 residents. - Appellants argued the county’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence because it did not tie the requested 16-person occupancy to a disability-related necessity at this specific property. They said the record showed general benefits of group living and therapy, but not why 16 was required instead of a smaller number. - A major dispute centered on whether the county properly analyzed “necessity” and “reasonableness.” Appellants contended the county relied on the home’s size and capacity rather than evidence that the accommodation was needed to remove a housing barrier, and they warned the 16-person use would fundamentally alter the rural neighborhood. - The county defended the decision by pointing to the application materials and exhibits, including studies suggesting therapeutic benefits from larger groups and a “critical mass” for recovery residences. County counsel argued the hearing officer should defer to the county’s interpretation unless the decision was arbitrary or illegal. - Finding Hope argued that the studies and materials supporting group therapy and recovery housing apply to residential facilities generally because the therapeutic environment is inherent in this model. They also said the county could rely on the applicant’s submitted documentation and that the approval was properly conditioned. - Another major issue was sequencing and licensing. Appellants argued the zoning clearance was issued before required licenses and approvals were in place, contrary to the code’s “prior to issuance” language. The county and Finding Hope responded that the zoning clearance was conditionally approved and that the licensing steps create a practical “catch-22” unless handled as conditions. - Parking, traffic, septic, and fire-code concerns were also discussed. Appellants said the county failed to show the proposal would not increase impacts on neighbors, while Finding Hope said the county engineer found no unusual traffic impact and that septic requirements had been satisfied with updated permits. - The authority of the interim director was briefly raised, with appellants questioning whether her actions were valid if she had not been properly appointed. County counsel said the county council later confirmed the appointment retroactively, making the issue moot. - The hearing officer did not rule from the bench and said a written decision would be issued within 15 days. He noted that any adversely affected party could appeal further to district court.