Land Use Hearing Officer Meeting – 10-29-2025

'25. We're hearing the matter of the appeal from John Berryhill and others regarding a land use application approved by Cache County. We also have the applicant here as well, Finding Hope. By way of introduction, my name is Rob Patterson. I am an attorney. I, have been hired and appointed by Cache County to serve as their land use hearing officer. So I get to hear these appeals and weigh everyone's argument to make a decision ultimately. We're not quite as formal as a judicial proceeding, but we will somewhat proceed in that manner. We will, by state law, due to recent change, these types of hearings are hearings open to the public, but they are not public hearings. So we will have arguments from the attorneys from all the parties, but we won't have it open to the public to comment on it. So I won't make on it. So I won't make that time open to you. I'm sorry if you don't like that, you can talk to the state legislature. In terms of process, we'll just begin normal appellate procedure. We'll have the appellants begin. We'll hear from the county and then from the applicant, and then let the, appellants have the final word. I will interrupt you and ask questions. I like to get clarification on things and make sure I understand your arguments and positions. There are two related decisions at issue in this appeal, the zoning clearance and the reasonable accommodation granted for the residential facility. Just say by kind of setting the stage, I've read all the briefing. I've read the decisions, multiple times. I'm, you know, formulating my thoughts. I have not come to a final decision. I'm excited and eager to hear everyone's arguments and presentations today. As I understand, I you're welcome to make the argument to which I will kinda highlight. There's a few areas that I see as really crucial, and you're welcome to point me in directions you think I'm missing. But it seems like one of the primary issues is the number of residents, the the number of 16. It seems like we have some evidence about, you know, larger numbers are good, but how did we get to that exact number? Are there sufficient findings? Are there evidence for that? And so that was central in the briefing. So that's obviously an issue I'd want everyone to address. The other issue I I mean, now I'll just I have some other questions, but they'll just come up as we have the argument. So I know that's gonna be a key issue, so I just wanna make sure everyone Please hit on that because I need to understand everyone's position on that. So with that, I'll turn it over. Let me ask everyone to kind of introduce themselves and state who you're representing, and then we'll turn it over to the appellant. Thank you all. And mister Jones?

I'll be over here. Please. Hey. Thanks for taking the time to accommodate us today. As you as you stated, we're here on the to appeal the county's decision on the reasonable accommodation, granting that request for 16 people to live in the home and the approval of the zoning clearance. I'd like to first address the accommodation request and then we'll we'll get into the zoning clearance a little bit in just a few minutes. The appeal authority's task is to decide whether the county's decisions, were illegal, arbitrary, or capricious, and the code defines that also as, well, capricious at least, as unsupported by substantial evidence. Under a Cache County code seventeen sixteen fifty c, any accommodation must be based on evidence of record showing among other things that without the accommodation, persons with disability would be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy housing and the granting it achieves equal results between the disabled pers disabled individuals and non disabled persons. The county's decision here does not meet that standard. It cites house size, bedroom count, and lot size, but it never ties those factors to a disability related barrier at this address and never explains why 16 residents are necessary to overcome such a barrier. There's no finding and no evidence of record showing that a smaller number, whether that be five or 10 or 15, would deny equal opportunity or effective number to remove a barrier. On that basis alone, it is the appellant's position that the that the appeal should be granted. Rather than addressing those evidentiary deficiencies, the county in Finding Hope attempt to reframe the issue. They argue that discrimination is wrong, which is true, that the house is large, which is also true, and the peer support AIDS recovery, which is again true. But from those general truths, they make an unsupported leap, asserting that discrimination will occur unless 16 residents are allowed. They make that claim without any supporting evidence.

Just to clarify that, that, I think they did point to a couple pieces of evidence. So I'd like your take on it. Sure. There is one piece of documentation they both pointed to that talks about, you know, for most effective treatment, we need at least groups of 15 or language, but no more than 20. And there's another one that talks about, you know, because you when you have a transitional population, you want to aim slightly above, you know, one or two people above the minimum so you can maintain the minimum kind of critical number at all times. Sure. Do those address that issue? You know, if if say the number is 15, because that's what one of the pieces of evidence talked about. They say, okay. We need 16 so we can have at least one more so it you know, as people transition in and out,

we get 15 at least. Sure. Yeah. There there's a couple problems with that argument. First, the the document they cite doesn't deal with housing at all. It just deals with therapy groups. Therapy therapy in this situation at least in for for a high percentage of any therapy that it's occurring is occurring off-site, not in the home. So therapy doesn't have any application to the housing. Also, if I if I remember correctly, the that that one document stated 15 or less. 15 or less definitely doesn't show that 16 is necessary or is the minimum number they need. 15 or less could include, I mean, five or 10. It's there's nothing that says that they that they need 16, and their responsibility is to show that 16 is is what they need to avoid discrimination. And that just that just hasn't been done. Okay. So on on that to that point a little bit more, the county is required to base its decision on record evidence of an actual disability related necessity for 16 people at at this address. It did not. It instead applied the wrong test treating the home's, capacity as necessity and approved the maximum headcount without the individualized proof, related to this this actual, property. This approach does not equalize opportunity between disabled and non disabled individuals and instead creates preferential treatment in violation, of of the law. Necessary necessity and reasonableness issues in a little bit more detail. Both the Fair Housing Act and the County Code demand an individualized showing that the requested accommodation is necessary to afford equal opportune equal housing opportunity, not simply desirable or consistent with the provider's preferred model. The analysis there begins with a neutral baseline. The neutral baseline here is that four unrelated individuals are permitted to reside, in a home. That's persons with disabilities face a disability related barrier at the baseline, so at that four unrelated person baseline? And if so, what's the smallest effective increase needed to remove the barrier at this property?

So I have a couple questions on that. Sure. I think, do we need a specific finding that says the foreign related person standard, which is common basically everywhere in Utah and in The United States is a barrier when we have some I mean, it seems like almost at this point, these types of facilities have operated and generally always seek some kind of remedy. Do we need a specific kind that says, you know, despite the dozens and dozens of federal court cases that litigate, you know, how many people can we have in a facility like this? We need to specifically say, n fours is a barrier to that. When can we just assume that? We know that, or do we need to specifically spell that out? I think the law requires us to spell it out. It it it requires us to

it it requires the county to show by evidence how there's this how there's a disability and how the requested accommodation will remove that that barrier. K. And I don't think that the county never does that in its in its finding. It it jumps straight to 16 residents based based on broad statements like isolation is the enemy of recovery and the house has many bedrooms. But the law requires site specific evidence showing that smaller numbers would fail to provide equal opportunity. Well, that's the the other question I I have. You mentioned

it seemed like some kind of standard, but I didn't see a a citation for it. The kind of least impactful change necessary to accomplish the the removal of the barrier. Where does that come from? How does that where does that standard come from? How do I find that and apply it?

Well, I I think if if if that wasn't the standard, the or the appellees could request any number. They could request a 100, a thousand. I mean, the the county is required to remove the barrier, not to remove the barrier plus provide additional

Well, theoretically, you couldn't get a 100. I mean, you have there's two tests. There's reasonableness. Sure. Theoretically, a 100 people living in a single family home, you can't really equate that to be reasonable. You know, it doesn't it it starts violating the the spirit and the intent of the zoning ordinances and all that those provisions there. Sure. But on necessity, is there something inherent in that necessity element that says find the the least change,

but no more than that. I think that's the very definition of necessity. If they if they need 16, then that's that's necessary. If if they don't need 16, then it's not. If if they could do if they could remove the barrier with six individuals living there, then seven is not a necessity anymore. Eight is not a necessity anymore, and 16 definitely isn't. So they have to show what the what what they need to do to remove the barrier. And once once that occurs, there's no more necessity.

I guess my question is, could they say there is a range? It's 14 to 18 people we know will accomplish this, and that's the range that is necessary, and so we're gonna pick something in the middle. I'm not saying they've shown that, but could an applicant show that? You know, they they have studies that say, you know, we have larger groups. We know six doesn't work. That's not good. Sure. Eight to 10 works, and so they want nine. Sure. Do they have to show it's exactly nine and that's we have documentation of that, or can they get by by saying, there's some critical mass in this range?

Well, I I think the response is, if eight to 10 can remove the barrier if if eight can remove the barrier, then that's where you stop. You don't go to nine just because it's in a range. If if eight can remove it, then then your your analysis is done. You don't keep moving up the up the chain. K. So it's well, it's important to know that the county's decision does not actually address these issues. Finding Hope's own material confirmed the gap. The as as we discussed a second ago, the overwhelming majority of the documents attached to their request discussed therapy group dynamics and not housing occupancy. One source one source mentions mentions potential benefits around eight residents, but none proves that 16 are necessary at this address or the smaller numbers would file would fail at this site. So while the county's cited capacity, it never established necessity. This is the critical flaw as the courts as courts have consistently held and we cited several cases. Accommodation must be necessary to achieve equal housing opportunity. It cannot simply be helpful, convenient, or economically preferable. So in in in summary, I guess capacity does not equal necessity and the record contains no proof. The county doesn't rely rely on any evidence to the contrary. And because it it its decision failed to do so, it's our assertion that its approval was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious, and must be overturned. And we it's just we make the our our analysis of the reasonableness issue is somewhat similar. Under seventeen sixty fifty c three of the county code, an accommodation must be reasonable in light of legitimate zoning purposes. This means it must afford equal opportunity without fundamentally altering the character of the neighborhood. Here, the proposal would change the nature and scale of this small, small rural subdivision. I mean, currently, there are only 19 residents that reside along this narrow dirt road, adding 16 residents plus staff, plus deliveries, plus whatever else they need to run this place would more than double the adult population using the road.

What evidence is there in the record of the supposed change in impact that there's going to be a, you know, a change in character of this neighborhood?

I I get I suppose that's one of our issues and it kinda cuts both directions is we were never made aware of this until these decisions were issued or at least everything was submitted. We didn't have an opportunity to add things to the record. But to that point, there's nothing in the record that shows how this will not impact the nearby residences. I mean, I I know that there's there's some assertions that there won't be additional cars using the the road and those those types of things, but there's no evidence besides these unsupported unsupported claims. There's nothing in the evidence to actually rely on.

So that does raise an interesting point. The applicant has, at some level, a burden of proof with any land use application to present the information to justify approval. But the county and every other land use authority, by state law, is since you're required to approve any land use application as long as it complies with code. So I I don't think there's a code requirement that says, demonstrate there is no impact. I guess it you're you're kinda arguing, I guess, would be then, it's inherent in the reasonableness. They have to demonstrate that.

Yeah. And

Perhaps it maybe I'm not stating that correctly. What are your thoughts on that?

I think I just need to look at the actual seventeen sixteen fifty. It says section c, the land use authority shall render a decision on each application for reasonable accommodation within ninety days. Decision shall be based on evidence of record demonstrating all of the following. And there's the three issues that basically follow the reasonableness and, necessity requirements. So I I we're just saying that there's nothing there's no evidence that we that's relied on, and this county is required to rely on actual evidence showing that this is reasonable.

I think So the the findings the interim director does find, the request accommodation will not undermine the legitimate purposes of the existing a 10 zone and has several bullet points talking about it's off a, you know it allows for this with a zero zoning clearance. The structure this was kind of your capacity discussion. It's a large structure, 8,400 square feet, 10 bedrooms, six bathrooms, on almost three and a half acres. There's ample parking. Majority of residents won't even have their own vehicle. I think at some point, talk about the county engineer looked at it and said it wouldn't have a significant traffic impact. Is that not evidence that this would not undermine the, integrity or intent or purpose, spirit of the a 10 zone?

That shows that information, I guess, you could say is is evidence or at least an assertion. I don't know where the actual evidence is, but an an an assertion that it would fit on the property. It addresses the capacity issue, but it doesn't it doesn't address at all how it will impact the the neighbors, how it will impact how having all these additional people living in this property will impact the number of people that use the roads, the number of people that just live in this rural community. So I I I think the problem is it just the county repeatedly addresses capacity, but not reasonableness.

But isn't capacity I guess, you know, we're arguing a little bit over words, but isn't capacity related to reasonableness? There is one of the cases I think you cited where it was like a a small small structure that had eight residents in a in a residential facility, and they're trying to go to 16, and the the court denied it, and it got upheld. The denial was upheld, because it said, you already have traffic problems, you already have congestion, there's no place for you to expand because you don't have the capacity to add these residents in without significant impacts. So it seems like this is related to that kind of analysis of saying, we've looked at the roads, roads, and there's space for those people without having them encroach on property that isn't part of this facility.

Or am I wrong on that? Well, I I think it can be part of the decision, part of the analysis. I think where it's lacking is it it just doesn't it just doesn't address the impact this undoubtedly will have on nearby property owners. And and there's no evidence stating that showing that there there won't be increased traffic. There's, again, an assertion, but where's where's the testimony? I maybe we're maybe maybe I'm focusing too much on what actual evidence is in a courtroom, but I I think I mean, maybe that is the distinct because

I see here, you know, the county engineer reviewed this and determined that the trip generation would be similar to that of residential single family home of 10 trips per day. Parking study isn't required. There will not be increased generated traffic generated for the proposed use. Some level I mean, there's evidence and there's evidence. There's courtroom evidence, and sure, an assertion wouldn't meet that. But in the land use realm, can the county not rely on county staff and their expertise to make a determination on that?

Well, I guess I'd say the county staff has to make a determination based on actual evidence and not just assertions of the applicant. And we we believe that having 16 people at this place with staff, with whatever else they need at the property is much more likely to increase the use of the of the the roads than than the than finding hope is claiming. I guess our our point is it's not we don't believe it's reasonable to go from the baseline of four to 16, a 400% increase, without there being a lot more evidence as to how that's going to impact the nearby residents. I mean, what's what's the point of having these these the the four person requirement if we're not gonna have it's it's not gonna be difficult to increase it by 400%.

It's a big increase. Let's say there was some very clear evidence, you know, whether there is or not. Let's say there was, you know, a study that says in rural counties, if a residential facility must have at least 16 residents in order to be successful in terms of, you know, patient outcomes and all those things. We had that evidence in here, so necessity was taken out of the picture. It was clear, like, yes, we can get past necessity. K. And I'm not saying word. I'm just I kinda take this as a hypothetical. K. Would they need to then show more for reasonableness just other than to say, and the property can support it. We have room for it. They're not gonna

do more than that. Definitely. Yeah. Yeah. You have to show how how it's there there needs to be evidence that it's not going to negatively impact the nearby property owners, the subdivision that the the very purpose of the of the zoning.

Seems like it's not really impact on property owners. It's undermine the purpose and spirit of the zone, and I don't know that those two are synonymous. Or are they?

If they're not, they're pretty close. I I guess they're not synonymous. But the purpose of the zone is I mean, the purpose of the zoning, standards, I would argue at least, is to protect the people that live there. And if if you're ignoring those or disregarding those those requirements in a way that ends up negatively impacting the people that live there, I I think it's problematic for multiple reasons.

Thank you. I think I I think I've gotten your point. Okay.

So just just to close-up the reasonableness argument, it's I realize that Finding Hope is acting asking for they'd like to use this for residential purposes. But it's our belief that a 16 person staff operated rated facility introduces in institutional intensity that's not residential in nature, and that cumulative impact fundamentally alters, what the zone is intended to be. So there there does need to be a a balance, between how you help these individuals and what's actually reasonable, and it's our assertion that a 400% increase is not reasonable. A final point on the reasonable accommodation issue comparator. Finding hope urges the county to use the wrong comparator, comparing disabled residents to a high hypothetical 16 person family rather than to unrelated occupants subject to the same four person person cap. Equal result means removing barriers imposed by the unrelated person rule, not guaranteeing parity with an unrelated family size that the code treats differently. Using the wrong comparator inflates the analysis and converts equal opportunity improperly to preferred treatment again, which we believe is the wrong wrong way to do it. So I do you have any more questions on that? I'm gonna I'll plan to move on to the zoning clearance right now. There are a few issues I'll discuss at the end that I think impact both the zoning clearance and the reasonable application issue. No. That sounds great. Thank you. Okay. So be because a reasonable accommodation approval is defective, the zoning clearance necessity fails as well. But even standing alone, there there there are multiple reasons why the the application fails. The first is sequencing. The code specifically requires that a reasonable accommodation determine determination be made and supported by evidence before any zoning zoning clearance or occupancy authorization is granted. This ensures the county exercises zoning authority only after an accommodation exists. Here, the county issued the clearance before approving the accommodation, which is a problem in and of itself. But also, if you go down to well, you go to county code seventeen sixteen forty, It specifically states that a facility of this type must have, before zoning clearance is approved, a valid residential license and a site specific business license for this specific address. These are prerequisites and not just approval paperwork. The code explicitly requires that they be obtained prior to the issuance. That's a quote. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance, by Cache County. Finding Hope still does not hold either licenses is my understanding. In its opposition it is it asserts quote that the county does not require a completed license as a condition precedent to reviewing or conditionally approving a zoning clearance. That statement just isn't true. The ordinance is plain language impose imposes a clear prerequisite requirement. The county tries to get around this by adding a condition, by adding a condition to the zoning clearance that certain fire and septic related issues be resolved prior to business license approval, but that condition does not satisfy the requirement that the license and licenses licenses themselves exist before the zoning clearance is issued. The licenses are not just clerical in nature. They are a mechanism by which the county verifies that a facility meets all state and local health, safety and operational standards before occupancy is authorized. And by skipping that, the the county eliminated eliminated the procedural safeguard meant to ensure compliance. I don't I don't think it's appropriate for the county to just say multiple times here that, well, maybe we didn't follow the code, but but what's the harm? I mean, the code exists to protect all individuals and it it really needs to be followed.

So kind of on that point, is is there not like a it's like a harmless error type? Say the zoning clearance, it it was issued prior to the reasonable accommodation. If we had just started where we were at the beginning with just the zoning clearance and I say, yeah, you can issue that because you don't have a reasonable accommodation and I deny it, then they'd go back and make a reasonable accommodation determination and then Sure. We'd still it seems like we'd be in the exact same place.

And maybe you would if it was just if that was the only issue. But the fact that you don't have licenses, those those still don't exist. The law is very clear that they're required before the approval.

Can the county issue a zoning clearance that says something along the lines of, you know, know, this is conditioned or won't be effective until, you know, it'll has conditions where those things would be met. Because I know sometimes, just as practical, getting timing of licenses is hard when sometimes the state wants the local government to approve before they issue and sometimes that sequencing gets difficult. Would a conditional approval work?

I'm not an expert on the the sequencing. I mean, arguably, it could work, but I don't think it complies with the law. But that that situation isn't what occurred here. The approval did not say you're approved once you get licensing. It just approved it and says that you need to do certain things before licensing, but it's not conditioned upon actually obtaining the licenses.

Those were my questions on that. Yeah. It looks like we have a few licenses that are required. So certified copy of the license or an application for Department of Health and Human Services, so registered with the state. And then an affidavit about the the threats and, you know, people will meet the standards. An affidavit that all current residents qualify, future residents will qualify, and then a business license if required. It sounds like a business license is required in this. But your argument is, even if it essentially, the the zone clearance didn't condition itself on you can't have this approval until you go get a license and do these other things. They just said, go do those other things now. Is that

summarized correctly? Correct. I mean, that that is a correct summary. I also think it's important to have the the license before approval so the county can be sure before approval that all these other issues, some of which it addressed in its approval, are are satisfied. I mean, make sure that you're actually taking care of issues related to the health and safety of of nearby residents when you have this many people living in a property.

K.

So a a few issues that I think address or are related at least to the reasonable accommodation and the zoning clearance. One one is the parking analysis. I mean, Finding Hope correctly points out that you only need a parking analysis if a zone if if more than five spaces are required. And the code states that for single family homes only I mean, there's not more than five required. But I think we have a an issue here in that we're going above what's actually if if we're going above what's permitted, which which is the four unrelated people, if we're going if we're increasing that by 400%, we can't just ignore the parking issue. We can't just ignore the fact that when that many cars or that many people are living there, parking analysis is typically required.

So maybe so a single family home doesn't require a parking analysis. And I don't is there a code a county code that requires specific number of parking spaces for a residential facility? Is there some code standard for that?

I don't know.

I wasn't aware of one. So if someone could point one out to me, you're welcome to do so. I don't think I I couldn't find one. So my question then is, should then if we don't have a requirement that says, you must provide x spaces per y residence, you know, one space for every three residents or some standard like that. Seems like instead of, you know, requiring analysis, the county just needs to look at it under the reasonableness standard of will this have a drastic impact on the neighborhood. And we did have a finding that seems like related to that. But the county engineer says, we're not gonna generate unusual parking. We have 15 spots. We don't need more.

I guess my point is that if a parking analysis I mean, it's most likely undisputed. I I don't know if it is, I guess. But if if in any other situation where you're not requesting a reasonable accommodation, if you're having 16 adults live somewhere, you would need more than five parking spaces and you would need a parking study.

Yes. Because it would be a different it'd be some kind of multifamily use, I would presume. That's the only way you'd get that many people living in the place or some kind of commercial institution, and presumably there would be a parking standard for that, I would say. You know, x spaces per y resident or per square footage or something like that.

A parking analysis would be required in that situation. And we believe that because this is, in essence, the same thing as that, I mean, it's kind of an end around to get to the same thing that a parking analysis is also required under the code.

Yeah. I think that's that's it's a good point. And I'm I'm just trying to work it through in my head because part of the issue is also the county cannot require of a land use applicant something that's not in the code. And so I'm trying to reconcile those two factors. I think it makes sense kind of intuitively. You have 16 people plus staff coming in. We should make sure there's enough parking for that. On the other hand, the code very set specifically says, shall be required for when a use has has at least five I forgot whether that's standard, but it was at least requires at least five parking spaces. And there's no tie between those two. Like, there's no requirement specifically that says, when you do a residential facility, you must provide at least five that would then trigger the the analysis. That's where I'm I'm struggling there. I I think I look at it. I I negotiate

development agreements quite often with counties. And if someone's looking for some type of conditional approval, the county often puts additional requirements on that aren't in the code because you're asking for something that's not typically allowed. Here, where they're asking for 16 people accommodation, I I think it would be reasonable and necessary to say, well, you know, typically when we have 16 adults live somewhere, the law requires us to have a parking analysis. You need to do that here because you're asking for 16 people to live there.

I think I take your argument. Thank you. And I think my argument is,

I mean, almost identical with the international fire code requirements. So I don't know if I need to go into that. They correctly point out you typically don't have to go through that process again unless there's a new structure. This isn't a new structure, but we're using in a way for which it was not approved. And doubling the the adults using the road, I think, will create some congestion on this narrow narrow dirt road that need to be that need to be addressed, that need to satisfy the international fire code requirements before we can move forward. And my last real point just has to do with the authority of the director. We pointed out that we've been able to unable to find any minutes that confirm that the interim director was approved by the city council as required by the code. It's our position that if if she was never approved, then the actions that she's taken are are are not binding. I know that both the county and finding help point to the Olms case. I don't know if I'm saying that right. That case specifically has an exception for the person making the claim. So they get the the fruits of their labors, I think it calls it. And it's our it's our we're not claiming that necessarily everything she's done is invalid, but we're claiming that if she's made these approvals here and hasn't been approved by the city council as required by the code, then it would be not enforceable.

Help me square that with kind of the the notion of equity. The land a land use applicant finding help or any other probably wouldn't delve into minutes to see whether an appointment has been made. They say, this is the person the county tells me to talk to and submit an application to. I've done that. I've gotten an approval, and I've gone months down a process. And turns out I have to start again and potentially wait for the county council to make an appointment that might take a month or two and then, you know, delay a project by six months more. How does I think that's why the ex officio officer doctrine exists, is to avoid that kind of inequity. So help me square that. I mean, I I get the point of we've made an argument. We're we're raising this issue and it's potentially a very salient and proper issue to raise. But finding help is somewhat innocent and they didn't cause that misunderstanding or lack of appointment.

And I guess my response is you gotta look at the fairness from both sides. I mean, every person who lives in Cache County should be at least to be entitled to rely on the code as it's written and to be I mean, they should be be able to believe that the county will enforce the code as it's written. And if if that's not happening, it's it's not fair to them to be able to say, well, this person who wasn't approved properly made a decision and it's gonna impact you guys, and you're stuck with it even though it wasn't done properly.

I mean and it seems like I could make the same argument the opposite way of everyone in the county needs to talk to someone about land use and development, and the county says, here they are. And is it fair to say, you don't get have any kind of code application or interpretation until the, you know, county leadership decides at some point to make the right appointment. I think that's why the the Olms case, the the court recognized the

officer doctrine, but then it it made a an exception for the person bringing the claim because there doesn't need to be some way for somebody to make sure that the proper codes are followed. I mean, if if there were no way to do that, then why would the county ever do what it was required? Because they could just say, well, it doesn't matter because everyone was relying on what we were doing, and there just be no no possible way to enforce it. So, yeah, that's why we're that's why we're not saying that everything that she's done is improper. But if she wasn't properly approved, then the person bringing the claim is entitled to the the fruit of their labors. I don't know if I'm using that right term. Fruit of their something. That was the that was the something like that from the case.

K. That's a point is taken. Well taken.

So, I mean, based on those arguments, we're asking we're asking you to overturn both the reasonable accommodation request and and the zoning clearance.

Kind of a final question. You also suggested remand as well. And I believe there is a is it the Moab case? You talked about where there's not findings of fact, which you've argued there's not findings of fact sufficient, that the remedy is to send it back down for findings of fact. Is that appropriate here?

You know, I I don't I don't know. Honestly, I I I did look into that and there's not a whole lot out there. There's not. So, I mean, our our position is that it should just be overturned because it wasn't done properly. And if they if they need to go file something new, I guess we'll deal with it then. But

So your your preference would be the relief you're seeking is overturn the decision, and then if there's a new application made, then it's a it's a new application. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Mister Crane?

Thank you, mister Patterson. I guess from the county's perspective, I'll just, kinda highlight that, this this case may be a little different than previous ones we've interacted with and that it's pretty much a paper record. I mean, that applicant finding help submitted their applications, kinda reviewed them, render a written decision. We have copies of what was submitted, what those decisions were. It's not like you've had to go back and watch numerous hours of other hearings. So really everything's laid out before you and the counties and both sides have presented their respective briefs and their respective arguments. So I don't know if I have a whole lot more to expand on than what's already been presented. I guess I'll just highlight the fact that, as you're well aware, the standard review in this matter is on the appellants at this point. The burden is on them to show that the decision by the interim director in this case was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal. And obviously, a substantial evidence is the standard there and it's defined as evidence is beyond a centillion. The reasonable mind would would accept as adequate to to support a conclusion. And as you've already mentioned before as well, in your job here that as the appeal authority, you're gonna you are to determine the correctness of the land use authority's interpretation and application of the plain meaning of the land use regulations and interpret and apply a land use regulation to favor land use application unless the land use regulation plainly restricts that application. I think it's been discussed numerous times here, the relevant county code at play is 17 Dot 16 Dot 050 Charlie. And we've I'm not gonna read that all right now as well, right, but it talks to those different factors that need to be met. I want to be there. And in the decision that was issued by the interim director, she goes through each of those factors and cites to the evidence there and to support those determinations. And she specifically refers to the document, the reasonable accommodation application submitted by Finding Hope and references the exhibits that were also attached to that, the, 700 plus pages that were referenced there. So from the county's perspective, just keep it trying to keep it as simple as possible, essentially. Hey. We have the here's what the code says. Here's what the applicant needs to provide. Here's what they, they did provide that application. They asked for a reasonable accommodation for 16 individuals at this location. The county worked through that and was, I think, can rely on the application the information submitted by them and making this determination. I think everything was done properly in that regard. And again, we're just relying on evidence that was submitted as part of the brief and everything else along those guard in those regards. As far as some of the other issues at play, Again, I think I've made the response in the respective briefs. I don't know if you have any other specific questions. I guess one thing I would highlight, at least the last point that's brought up when it comes to, the interim director's authority. I know there's been arguments one way or another about whether or not that was proper, who should land or whatever. And I realize it's not part of the record today. But to just clarify everything, last night at the county council meeting, it was brought up. There was a specific vote taken to confirm Angie as the interim director, and that was backdated to the original February date, of when she was initially presented to the count, to the county council by, executive Zook at the time. So that has been, I guess, for all intents, my my opinion would be that's an essential moot point for a purpose of the table when it comes to that argument. One, I think we'll rely on that. Yeah. She's acting as an officer de facto for reasons you've discussed. But two, out of an abundance of caution, she has been vote on consent has officially been given. So that's where I leave that.

I did have a couple questions. You outlined the the standard well there and, you know, county is just applying the code. So on the code requirements, there is a kind of a submittal requirement for the application or a license issued by the Department of Human Services or Department of Health, some affidavits, and then a business license that says those should be submitted prior to the approval of the zoning clearance. So how do you what what's kind of the county's response about whether those things were taken care of or how they were taken care of? From the county's perspective, it was taken care of through the conditional approval process. The way I would read the

approval for, say, the zoning clearance, everything else was, hey. This is conditioned upon you getting the base license. There's language in there that, in my opinion, would support that. And so I would say that it is certainly proper to grant approval with conditions. One of those conditions being okay. You gotta go get your business license. And then once you get that business license, then you're ready ready to rock and roll, essentially. As long as you meet all the other conditions or whatever else, you know, the situation may determine.

Are you aware of any parking requirement standard for residential facilities?

Based on what was discussed earlier, I'm not aware of any specific standard articulating code. No.

I think I have some other I think I have some other questions, but they'll probably be better directed towards finding hopes. So, anything else you wanna share with me or have me consider? Unless you have any other questions, that that's essentially, like I said, the summary of Let's double check my notes, see if I have anything I wanted to I would like to get your take on the the issue I raised at the very beginning, the the number. Mhmm. And what I'm I'm not sure. I I was double checking here. I don't think I actually see the the the request is approved. But is there a specific finding related to that specific number?

The 16 residents. So in the I have to go back and double check. But my understanding would be from the actual zoning clearance approval. I would say, no, there was not a specific request approving the six it was the zoning clearance granted approval for residential living facility. Right. Did not get dive into specific numbers of what was approved, not approved. That was the purpose for the reasonable accommodation request, and that's specifically granted approval for for the 16 people. I can

I'm looking at I'm not seeing a specific finding or discussion of that 16 number. It's kind of a general discussion of, there are benefits and they need to do this. They need to have multiple residents in order to provide, you know, effect an effective facility and effective treatment. They are disabled. The the house can kind of hold them. This is an they will provide a recovery residence to disabled individuals. And based on the size, you know, it would work. And then it just says talks about it's approved for a 16 bed residential living facility. Right at the beginning. Correct. So is is there a discussion of

what supports that number anywhere? Or or what's what's your take on that? I guess my take on that would be is, like, I mean, the document speaks for itself essentially. Right? So but there is the reference. She does reference the supporting documentation submitted, and she specifically references the exhibits in the there as well. So I think, ultimately, when we come down to say the request for 16, looking at that, is that reasonable? Is that necessary? And it's it's approved, and the reliance is upon the documents that are submitted. I gave you an example in the brief as well from that one Yes. Study as well. So

k. So I don't think I have any questions for you, but but thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Mister Adolf.

Well, thank you, mister Patterson. Excited to be here. There's there's a lot that I could go into and talk about. I think probably the most effective way for me to use my time is just to maybe first ask you what questions. I can dive into the number 16. Is there any other questions that are burning?

Yes. And it relates to that number. But there's a one of the arguments raised by, the appellants is a lot of the studies or the the documentation supports, you know, critical mass of of residents for therapy purposes, but doesn't really tie that to residential facilities, living, you know, that type of facility. So can you look at something that says, yeah, you need at least, you know, about 15 people and then apply that to a residential facility. Like, how are those equating to each other?

Yeah. Thank you. Finding Hope's response to that is simply, there is a document that does specifically talk about residential living facilities and says eight or more. So that, I don't think that's argued. I think that's clear. The number of studies that have been conducted usually are not isolated to group therapy in the residential living facility realm. And I think the biggest purpose that is, I think, being missed here is why do these reasonable accommodations exist in the first place? It's so that these disabled individuals can live together, and it creates a therapeutic environment. And so when we're talking about group therapy, it really doesn't matter if we're sitting in a circle, if we're in an inpatient residential, inpatient rehab facility, or whether it's a sober living. The whole purpose and the reason that these facilities, are granted reasonable accommodations is because it's it's a therapeutic environment. And just by living together, it is group therapy, and it creates a cohesive group. And so when you look at all of the studies and all of the documents, some do specifically reference, you know, inpatient treatment or sober living or just going to, say, an outpatient group therapy setting. Most of them don't. Most of them, it's just group therapy, because that's what all of them are. And so when you're talking about, okay, how are we going to create a therapeutic environment that is actually going to meet the therapeutic needs of these individuals, well, then we have to look at, okay, how do you receive the necessary therapeutic benefit with group therapy? Well, you have to have a group size that is sufficient enough. So I don't think that the exhibits need to expressly spell out, okay, in this type of group therapy, it's this number. The whole point is it's group therapy.

So if I'm taking your argument correctly, it's essentially all residential facilities of this nature inherently involve therapy. So anything that does discuss therapy

relates to this. For sure. Is that simplifying it down too much? No. That's totally fine. It it is therapy. And and I've seen some confusion in the briefing of, oh, hold on a minute. Finding hope said there isn't going to be, you know, therapy here or or things of that nature. What we're specifically talking about is, okay, that's being transported over to the outpatient center for those that choose to be involved with that. And they can go and participate and say, sit down group talk therapy. But there's absolutely just a therapeutic environment. That's the whole reason for all of these facilities. It's the reason these cases get litigated. It's the reason for the Fair Housing Act as it applies to these. It's because it curbs isolation. It creates the therapeutic environment.

Is there some document that that makes that tie? Or is it more just kind of a general, like, it's understood that this is what this facility is for?

It's just understood. The whole reason for this facility is because the group creates a therapeutic environment. Just living together with that support system, with the accountability, with how these homes run, it is group therapy.

So on the on the number more specifically, I mean, I think it seems like no one would argue that a number of eight is clearly a reasonable accommodation. And we have that eight or more there's some I think both of you pointed out, but you and the county pointed to the discussion of, like, at least 15 or in that area. One of the cases that was cited talked about a similar facility, and basically, the they had demonstrated the facility demonstrated that six residents wasn't sufficient for operations, for therapy, for financial reasons, all of those reasons. But the court said the court still denied their accommodation or upheld the denial, because they said, sure, you showed that six wasn't enough, but you didn't show that 12 was enough and held it on that. So what's your response to that?

Well, so what that case says, pardon me, is that they didn't provide any evidence that it was therapeutically meaningful. And in this case, that is just not even remotely the case. We have provided evidence that it's therapeutically meaningful. And And just to back up just a second, the problem with that case, we are in a different realm here. So every one of the cases that you're gonna go and find is between the municipality and the applicant. Yes. And when that is the the posture, when that is the dynamic on appeal, the question really is, is it necessary? Is it reasonable? Here, that's actually not the question. The question is, was the county's decision that it was reasonable and necessary, is that arbitrary, capricious, or illegal? And to be arbitrary or capricious, there has to be no evidence at all. It's a very high bar. There can't be any rational basis for the county or the municipality's actions. That's definitely not the case here. We're talking about a document that says eight or more. We're talking about another document that says about 15, but not more than 20. That shows it wasn't arbitrary or capricious.

So

let me take maybe I'll take it on hypothetical. It's if I'm understanding you correctly, it's perhaps if the county was looking at this, you know, if we were dealing with the director's decision and she was looking at whether you would actually provide enough evidence to hit that 16 number. Maybe there's an argument there that you didn't provide that evidence. You know, you would argue obviously that you did, but that would be the question there of, like, did you show that you can get from eight to 16? And that would be more in that lower room. But in the posture in here now where it's an appeal, the question isn't really, did you demonstrate that? More of, did you demonstrate enough that her decision isn't you know, has some basis? I think the substantial evidence standard is more than a scintilla of evidence to support. Is that

You you you got it nail on the head. I mean, if if we were the appellants and it was us against the county here in this proceeding right now, then that's a very different discussion. And every one of those cases are relevant. And it really is diving deep into, hold on a minute. Did we meet our burden? Did we show it was reasonable or necessary? That's just not the posture that we're hearing. The posture that we're hearing is, was the county deciding that the application demonstrated reasonableness and necessity? Is that arbitrary, capricious, or illegal? And it's it is just absolutely unequivocally no. I do think that it's also worth pointing out. There's been a lot of talk of, well, how did you get to 16? I mean, for heaven's sakes, we could have asked for 30. That's what Utah code allows as far as capacity. We're obviously we're way below that. That's finding hope looking at this and saying, okay. We have a 10 bedroom house. Most of the residents need to have individuals that they share bedrooms with. A few of them are going to be far enough along in their recovery and their, you know, with their lengths of sobriety, and their recoveries will be in a place where they are capable of living in a room by themselves at this point. Not moving out of the house, but living, you know, in a room by themselves. Well, there will be some that are at that point. There will be many that are not and that need to have a roommate. So how do we effectively curb isolation when we have a revolving door group? And I think I don't need to explain what a revolving door group is. I'm sure people hear that and say, oh my gosh. We're gonna have a transient center in our neighborhood, and it's gonna be different people every week. That's not what that means. It simply means that as someone is graduating, someone else comes in. And sometimes, you know, finding hope, they have facilities all over. I've done many of these for them. We have a we have one in Draper that or Sandy that has six. Why does it only have six? Because it's a tiny house, and that's all that can reasonably be fit. We have one in Boise that has over 20 because it's actually, believe it or not, even bigger than this house. And so it is property by property. It is case specific. We have one in Logan City. It's 12. We're we're it just that's what that property should have. And so that is finding hope, looking at it, and saying, okay. With a revolving door group, what is the minimum maximum, if you follow me there, that that we can have and still have that critical mass to be able to actually deliver the therapeutic environment that these individuals require. But I do think it's very telling that Utah code would have allowed us to ask for 30,

and we're we're a long ways off. Did you I don't recall, so please give me guidance if I've missed it. Did you present that kind of that notion of, you know, pairing up people, sharing bedrooms, the therapeutic benefits, was that presented to the county? It's in the reasonable accommodation application. Okay. Yeah. We talk a lot about isolation.

We the whole way that the county determined for and actually, let me this is a really good segue into that as well. When we're talking about evidence, the applicant's assertions to the county, no question, is that is evidence. We're we're not in a courtroom here. A municipality is allowed to say, okay. This is what has been represented to us, and we're gonna hold you to it. And that is what the approval of the reasonable accommodation says. It says, you have to run this facility as you've represented to us that you will. And if you're gonna step outside that, you're gonna have to come back and ask for another reasonable accommodation. So when we're talking about, well, what evidence is being, you know, submitted and and what aspects of it? Yes. I mean, for heaven's sakes. There's a big difference in that type of assertion and courtroom evidence. A county and municipality is allowed to rely on that. Another thing I think is important to point out is with a lot of the as far as reasonableness is concerned, a lot of the allegations are asking the county to they're asking the county to supplant conditions and requirements on the applicant that are just not required. I mean, take the take the International Fire Code, for example. It clearly says it doesn't apply unless there's a new structure being built or a structure is being relocated into the boundaries. Well, that obviously hasn't happened here. So it doesn't even apply. We did interestingly point out that it the main appellant, certainly would apply to him because there's a recent structure that was just built on his property. I don't think the county required any widening or different material to be put down on the road. So if the county were, for example, to enforce something like that against the applicant, it would be discrimination. It would totally be enforcing provisions in a selective way. So I do think that's important to point out, that when you look at all these different aspects, they they just don't apply. When when you look at the parking analysis, I think I don't need to spend a lot of time on that, but it says this use doesn't require five or more parking spaces. Just because we have more than five doesn't make make a parking analysis required.

What would be your response? There was a discussion from the appellant regarding the kind of evidence of impact on adjacent properties, and whether that was even addressed as part of your application to the county.

Well, I think that it's sufficient for us to talk about most of the residents don't have vehicles. Most of them are shuttled in and out. You know, we certainly made representations that it's not going to increase the effect on the neighbors. The septic tank, I've heard that argument brought up. That's one of the conditions that we had to deal with. I can represent. We've already done that. We have the updated permit. It's the We've already done that. We have the updated permit. It's the Bear River Health Department has totally decided that this house and this sewage system can accommodate that, and we've provided that to the county just recently, as far as satisfying our conditions on the zoning clearance. So I think it's enough for us to make those representations of this is how this program will operate, and the county can rely on that. While you're looking at your notes, if I could make one more comment. The the the appellant, appellants, when when he was up here just before, one statement that was made, I was striking to me. I wrote it down. It says, it needs to be difficult to increase capacity by this amount. I think that's the whole point of a reasonable accommodation application. You know, when you want to pile on all of these procedural mechanisms that don't even apply and say, well, hold on a minute. That's too easy for them. That's too easy for them. They need to do a parking analysis code. Doesn't require it, but they need to do one because it would make us feel better. Or, you know, the road needs to be widened. The International Fire Code section doesn't apply here, but that needs to happen. Because the barriers to entry need to be higher. That argument, that flavor, that's discrimination. You can't do that. You cannot impose additional hurdles on the applicant that are not required. You you just can't do that.

I have a question. It's not related to what you just said. So I do That's okay. I appreciate your argument too. The regarding the code requirements, kind of segueing off of that. The the requirements of those other licenses, there's at least two others or an application or a license and then a business license. Yes. And the requirement of those being placed code says shall provide or have those in place prior to granting a zoning clearance. How do you respond to that?

That is a catch 22. And I think you hit the nail on the head earlier when because I've I've done this a lot of times. The state wants the city license before it will get into the process. It just it won't do it. I can represent we called the clerk's office about the about the business license, And we were told, you can't get that. It has to go in this way. It's a catch 22. The the county wants the zoning clearance and the reasonable accommodation before they'll give the business license. The state wants all of that before it will do its part. I think that, again, going back to equity and harmless error, it's if it were strictly applied, it would be an impossible burden. We we would not be able to follow that. A And so putting them in as conditions, I've seen municipality after municipality do it that way. We're we're obviously fine with it. We're happy to pay the fee. At the end of the day, a business license is is well, I can tell you, when I called Lola, here at the clerk's office, that's what she told me. She said, if I have the fire code people and they say yes, and I have the land development department writing. It's an impossible burden for us to meet. So attaching it as app as a as a condition makes total sense.

And your position would be that the county did make that a condition of your zoning clearance. Absolutely.

Yeah. We certainly see it that way. We didn't run out and move people in, And we won't until we get a business license and a state license, for that matter. As as an interesting segue, we just had one of these, one of these homes approved in Logan. The hearing in front of the Logan Land Use Board was I want it was several weeks ago. I can tell you it took that long after that process was approved to get the state license. Those individuals have just barely started moving in. Because now we have our city license, approvals, now we are good to move in. This is no different.

Let me see if I had any other questions I wanted to ask. One question I do wanna ask, and I probably should ask the county this as well. But let's say I I find I'm more just curious of procedurally. Let's say I find there is some essential finding of fact that wasn't made to support the decision. What should I do? Should I overturn it? Should I remand it? What's

obvious preference is I uphold the decision. But if I'm going to do something that's not that No question our our our preference is that it's upheld. If not, it's it's absolutely a remand for the director to add additional findings of fact. I would say based on where we are at right now, well, I mean, I'll just point to the approval. After reviewing the reasonable accommodation request with supporting documentation And down below, it directly references the over 700 pages of exhibits. In my mind, that is sufficient enough. I know that's not what you're asking me. That is sufficient enough. If for some reason you find that it's not, then remand is appropriate. To save on I mean, I do think there's certainly an argument to save on taxpayer resources, to minimize the the burden on the system will be right in the same exact place. It's, again, one of those harmless error standards if you were even to find that it's an error. We don't think it is. But if you were to find that it is, it's a harmless error standard, or it should be because the county now all the assertions, the direct evidence. I mean, what would it look like if she goes back and says, hey. Exhibit w, page this, says this. Exhibit m or p or whatever says this. And that's that's good enough to show this. I I mean, it just seems like totally unnecessary. I think that by citing the record, by citing the exhibits in general and saying that supports this, I think that's good enough.

Anything else you want me to hear or take into consideration?

No. Just that arbitrary, capricious, or illegal is a very high bar. Thank you. Very high bar. Thank you.

Mister Jones?

I have a few points I'd like to hit. Do you want me to jump into it? Or Please do. Regarding the the burden, I wanna go to seventeen two sixty b of the code. It says the appellant has the burden of showing the evidence and proving that the decision of the land use land use authority is arbitrary, capricious, parenthesis, unsupported by evidence or facts of record, or illegal. It's it's it's our position that we've easily satisfied several of those, including the capricious because there's there's no evidence, I mean, no evidence showing that 16 is necessary that 16 residents are necessary at this property to deny an equal housing opportunity. There's there's nothing out there at all. There's one we have we have one document that says benefits start to accrue at eight people. First of all, that's that's not 16. Second of all, I'd I continue to question whether or not that counts as evidence that shows in this situation, we need eight people to live in this house. I mean, that we the evidence needs to apply to the house, not just to anyone in the country. And I think we need more evidence than somebody at some time at some point wrote that eight people was necessary. I mean, that's just it's not evidence that I think can be applied to the situation

very What would that evidence look like for this facility? Because they're not in operations. They don't have any data they can show. So what evidence would that be to support

what they're wanting? It would need to be evidence showing that in the type of operation that they're running or the type of groups that they're running, the type of therapy that they have, you need to have at least x amount of people live in a house to remove a housing barrier. And I don't think they've done that. They admit that there's a house in Draper that has six people. Well, why is six people why is why does six people remove a housing barrier at that situation, but not in this situation? I I have no idea. It just doesn't address that at all. Instead, we just have these these kind of studies that don't apply to the situation at all and no evidence that supports the actual house that we're looking at. How do you respond to the

finding hopes council's argument that the the studies that do talk about, you know, the benefits of therapy and and group size and therapy apply to essentially any group, residential facility because those are, by nature, therapeutic.

Well, with all due respect to him, I think my argument would be that's that's him trying to introduce his own testimony as evidence. There's nothing in the documents that have been provided that that state that. And the other response is therapeutic benefit is not the standard here. We don't need to prove simply proving that something is therapeutically beneficial is not enough to prove that something is necessary. Finding hope has to prove that that fewer than 16 people fewer than 16 residents would deny an equal housing opportunity. Just because something might be therapeutically beneficial, that's that that's that's not the same. And also that that that document they're trying to rely rely on states that I don't know exactly what it says. It says around 15 people. It certainly doesn't show that 16 is necessary or the 15 is necessary for that matter. But

Using the substantial evidence standard, which is very deferential to the county's decision, how do you what's your position on that? So potential evidence just says they can't have as long as they had some evidence, you know, more than a scintilla that a reasonable mind would accept to support a conclusion, that's enough to support the decision. We have documents that say, yes, there are benefits for this type of facility to have, you know, minimum of eight and fifteen to 20, and you want a range of that. Is how is that not substantial evidence to say, okay, all of those you know, we kinda have a network of different studies that point to this number. Is that not substantial evidence for this allowance?

No. It's not. Because the law clearly says they have to show that the amount they're requesting is necessary, and there's zero evidence that says 16 is necessary. The fact that they have some some ranges out there that show that 16 might be beneficial in therapy settings, I mean, that that doesn't show that 16 is necessary to afford them an equal housing opportunity.

And I guess I'm I'm I'm trying to make this distinction in my mind is or maybe there isn't, but do they have to say that if they provide enough for the county to accept that 16 is a reasonable amount? Like, if they have enough documents to say, you know, a little fuzzy circle of numbers, that is the range that this facility needs to be at to operate, you know, for the benefit of its disabled residents to afford to allow them to enjoy the same, you know, living conditions as non disabled persons. It's in that range, and the county looks at that and says, okay, you get a number in that range. And then it the the appeal standard seems to be, can't the county do that? But on a challenge is, they don't need to have an exact number, like sorry. I'm I'm not expressing this question well. I'm I'm trying to tease out the two standard. It's their application. I could see maybe the county denying it saying, you didn't tell us show us where you got 16. You don't do that, we're gonna deny it. I've seen those cases, but now that we're past that decision point, is it enough for the county to say, they had enough for me to justify my decision even if it wasn't perfect?

Well, let's just read the code. 17 sixteen fifty. The decision shall be based on evidence of record demonstrating that, number two is probably the most applicable, the but for the accommodation, one or more person will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy housing within the community. They have there's there's nothing zero that's out there showing that above four sixteen people, someone will be denied, an equal opportunity. There's there's simply nothing there. And so when we go back to what our what our burden is to show that something is capricious or unsupported by evidence of facts, we say, well, let's look at this. There's zero evidence showing that 16 is necessary. So, therefore, it has to be overturned.

How do you respond to, Council of Finding Hope, you know, stated essentially county can I'm paraphrasing this, so I apologize. But the county can rely on the submissions from a land use applicant, and take those into consideration in making a land use decision.

I guess

my were you done? Sorry. No. Go ahead.

There's there's, again, nothing to support the argument that bare assertions are evidence. I mean, I don't know of anything that supports that. Just just because they're claiming it doesn't mean it's evidence or true for that matter.

I don't know if you had a a next point you wanted to hit, but I had some questions. I've got a few, but go go for it. I was just curious, your response to the county's statement about the kind of the ratification vote on the interim director or the the appointment vote.

It's hard for me to respond to that without actually looking at the minutes. But, I mean, if she was approved, then I then she would have authority to make decisions in the future, but not in the past. Okay.

And I guess, another question. Their argument, finding hope in the counties is that the decision was properly conditioned on meeting those other license requirements, those other submittal requirements. I know we kind of talked about that, but just having heard their arguments, what's your response to that?

Well, I it's it's a similar argument to the arguments the the arguments that there's there's proof. I mean, they say they say, for example, there's there's proof showing that it's necessary. They say they say here that the the county's decision, I mean, addresses that issue, for example. Then you go look at it and it doesn't. There's nothing in the in the county's, approval that says you have to go get a a license. There there just there just isn't. I think those are my questions at the moment. So if you have more, please share. Just a couple things I'll go through quickly. This claim that Utah code would have allowed for 30 residents, I'd that's simply just not true. That the code they're relying on says how how many the minimum square footage you have to have to have somebody live there, and they're extrapolating that to say this is a maximum that's allowed, and that's that's a red herring that doesn't apply. Regarding regarding the therapy thing, the group therapy is a is a clinical activity that's typically led by a licensed therapist just claiming that something is therapy because we say it is. Again, there's there's no basis for that and nothing in the evidence to support that claim. And we also obviously disagree with the fact that we're trying to make things more difficult. We're we're not. We want we we agree that people with disabilities are entitled to to certain accommodations, but that doesn't mean you get whatever you want. I mean, it means you have to comply with the law, and we're saying that the law has not been complied with. And that's that's all we're asking for. And then the claim that that that it's an impossible standard to require licensing before the zoning clearance, I don't think that's true. I mean, in their in their opposition, finding hope made the assertion that it's impossible because you can't get they they made it sound as if you're required to get the oh, how do I say this? Do you try to get a license before the reasonable accommodation answer? And that's that's not true. That this the order should be you get the reasonable accommodation decision from the county, then you go and get your zoning clearance. Excuse me. Then you go and get your license, and then you go and get your zoning clearance. I think that's that's perfectly doable. And I think I had one more point. I guess the last point I'll I'll make again is that by making this approval, you're doubling the number of people that live on this road and in this small neighborhood. You're going from four what's allowed by the county to 16, which is a 400% increase and also doubling the number of individuals that use this road and that live in the neighborhood. We just don't think from a reasonable perspective that that is reasonable as it will clearly have a negative impact on the people living in the neighborhood and and using the nearby amenities. So

maybe I'll just ask one last question kind of on that that point. Sure. The I mean, even aside from the Fair Housing Act and ADA, the county code says you can have these types of facilities in any residential unit in the county. Yeah. And then also provides a a clear process for an accommodation. Mhmm. And it's almost anticipated that there would be a request for something along these lines. So it I guess, I'm a little struggling. The number of the increase, aside from whether there's evidence for it, but it seems like the impact is the county anticipates this will happen. Is is that not how the county code reads?

They do anticipate this will happen. I'd I would probably disagree if you said that they anticipated it would happen to the scale of a 400% increase. If you need a one or two or three person increase to to give someone the same housing opportunities that others have, that's that's a different question than a 400% increase. Okay.

Okay. Anything else you would like to share? I think that'll do it. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you to all of the, participants, council. I I appreciate it very much. Just by way of, you know, where we go from here, per county code, I have 15 to issue a written decision. I'll try to get it a little bit sooner than that. It depends on how life goes, and I'm sorry if I'd hit the fifteen days. So I I will not be issuing a decision today. I'll issue a written decision at a later point. And then depending on how I rule, whoever is adversely affected by that, you have a chance to appeal to district court. So and that will be spelled out in the appeal decision as well. Thank you all for coming, and I will declare this hearing conclude.