## Facts

- The Hancock family owned farm property in Duchesne County, Utah, and formed Uintah Mountain RTC, LLC (Uintah) to operate a residential treatment center (RTC) for young men with mental-health and behavioral issues.
- Uintah stated it would not accept applicants with a history of violence, sexual offenses, or a major criminal background.
- The property was zoned A-5 (agricultural-residential). Under the county zoning code, “group homes” were allowed in the A-5 zone as a conditional use.
- A similar residential treatment facility (Cedar Ridge RTC) had been operating in Duchesne County under a conditional-use permit granted in 1997.
- In 2003, Uintah applied for a conditional-use permit and submitted documentary and testimonial materials addressing the proposed operation.
- The Duchesne County Planning Commission found the application met the zoning code and that the proposed use would not be unduly detrimental to nearby property or the public, would fit the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the county’s general plan, and that the site was large enough to avoid material harm to nearby properties.
- The Planning Commission granted the conditional-use permit subject to conditions, including: (1) a limit of 10 residents, (2) installation of an alarm system, and (3) proof of liability insurance.
- Neighboring landowners appealed the approval to the Duchesne County governing body (County Commission/County Board). Uintah cross-appealed the 10-resident limit, arguing the facility would eventually need roughly 16 to 50 residents to be financially viable.
- The County Board affirmed the 10-resident limit but reversed the permit approval and denied the conditional-use permit, relying in part on Uintah’s stated long-term need for more residents and concerns raised by neighbors about compatibility and safety.
- Uintah sought judicial review; the district court affirmed the County Board’s denial.
- Uintah appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, arguing the denial rested on public opposition rather than record evidence and that the 10-resident cap was unlawful.

## Issues

1. Whether the County Board’s denial of the conditional-use permit was arbitrary and capricious because it was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
2. Whether the County acted illegally by imposing and retaining a condition limiting the RTC to 10 residents.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the district court in part and held that denying the conditional-use permit outright was arbitrary and capricious because the denial was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The court affirmed in part and held the 10-resident limitation was not illegal on this record.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion, effectively requiring the County to allow the conditional use as approved with the 10-resident cap and other conditions.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of a land-use decision is limited to whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.
- A land-use decision is arbitrary and capricious when it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
- Substantial evidence is the quantity and quality of relevant evidence adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support the decision reached.
- A land-use decision is illegal when it violates a statute, ordinance, or other existing law.
- Public participation may be considered, but generalized neighborhood opposition cannot substitute for evidence; neighboring landowners’ consent cannot be treated as a requirement for issuance of a conditional-use permit.
- A local land-use authority may impose reasonable conditions on a conditional-use permit when tied to the application and the governing code; limiting the approved use to the scale shown in the submitted materials may be permissible.
- A regulatory-taking claim generally requires the landowner to pursue available administrative steps so the extent of the restriction is known before a taking is found.

## Conclusion

The Utah Court of Appeals held that Duchesne County could not deny Uintah’s conditional-use permit based on unsupported fears or community pressure where the record, particularly with a 10-resident limit, did not provide substantial evidence for a complete denial; however, the court upheld the 10-resident cap as lawful on the application and record presented and remanded for action consistent with granting the permit subject to conditions.


Uintah Mountain RTC, LLC v. Duchesne County, 127 P.3d 1270 (2005)