Clerk/Auditor
Minutes
Duchesne County
Commission Meeting

Duchesne County
Commission Meeting

The following document has been re-formatted from the original for Internet accessibility.  County Commission Minutes, in their original format, are available through the Office of the County Clerk/Auditor.

MINUTES FOR REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING HELD
APRIL 5, 2004 BEGINNING AT 1:00 P.M.
IN THE COMMISSION BOARD ROOM
IN DUCHESNE, UTAH

Present:  Commission Chairman Larry S. Ross, Commissioner Lorna Stradinger, Commissioner Kent R. Peatross, Ed Bench and Darrell Gillman of the Duchesne County Soil Conservation District, County Clerk/Auditor Diane Freston, Tyson Hancock, Beau Hancock, Kevan Stevens, Brad Hancock, Earlene Page, Lisa Duncan, Amber McMullin, G. Candi Child, Gary Child, Lezlee Whiting, Jean Liddell, Troy Cooper and Andrea Arnold taking minutes.

Prayer: Commissioner Peatross
Pledge of Allegiance:  All wishing to participate.

Decision Relating to Uintah Mountain Residential Treatment Center Appeals for Conditional Use Permit
Commissioner Ross stated the county commission has made a decision regarding the two appeals received by the commission to the Duchesne County Planning Commission’s issuance of a conditional use permit to operate a residential treatment center in the Hancock Cove area of Roosevelt. He stated the commission has prepared a response that addresses both appeals and he read the introduction and conclusion of the response to the group in attendance. The response is as follows:

BEFORE THE DUCHESNE COUNTY COMMISSION

IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF UINTAH MOUNTAIN RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER

DECISION ON APPEAL

     This matter came before the Duchesne County Commission on March 9th, 2004, for hearing on appeals from a decision of the Duchesne County Planning Commission granting Uintah Mountain Residential Treatment Center a conditional use permit to allow a residential treatment center in an area zoned A-5, an agricultural-residential area, with the conditions that it follow the plan proposed, it was limited to the structure proposed, and it was not to exceed a capacity of ten (10) clients. The neighbors appealed the decision as not supported by the evidence, and the Hancock’s, proponents of the residential treatment center, appealed the decision on the basis that the establishment of a limit of ten (10) clients was arbitrary and capricious. We are now asked to determine if the Planning Commission was in error in its consideration of the request, and, if so, in what way was the Planning Commission in error.

THE LAW

     Duchesne County has adopted a zoning ordinance designating certain uses in certain areas. This was done to promote harmony and compatibility between neighbors by limiting uses of ones property to uses that are compatible with the surrounding area. The area in question is zoned A-5. The A-5 zone has a 5 acre minimum, and is provided and designed to protect and encourage the continued use of land for agricultural purposes and to discourage the preemption of agricultural land for other uses. Other purposes of this district include the protection of the economic base of the county for such uses as forestry, oil and gas drilling, pipelines, petroleum storage and distribution and the protection of significant natural features of land, creeks, lakes, wetlands, air and the preservation of open areas for wildlife habitat, and range livestock. This district is characterized by production farms and ranches including smaller hobby farms. ...Representative of the uses within this district is family dwellings, barns, corrals, crops, livestock raising, farm dwellings, dude ranches, produce retail sales, and petroleum drilling and storage. The proposed use of the property by the Hancock’s as a “residential treatment center” is not a permitted use in this area. The Duchesne County zoning ordinance does allow for certain conditional uses within this zone.
     The Duchesne County Zoning ordinance does not directly address “residential treatment centers”, but the Planning Office found “residential treatment centers” to be very similar to the use as a group home. Our zoning ordinance does allow a group home in an A-5 zone as a conditional use under certain conditions. See Duchesne County Code Section 17.52.030.
     All applications for a group home must contain the following information, and no application will be considered complete which does not contain the following:
     (1) Name and Address of the applicant.
     (2) Statement of ownership of the subject property executed by the owner or owner’s agent.
     (3) Description of the property, including a legal description and address, and common means of identification.
     (4) A map of the boundaries of the parcel and each separate lot or parcel within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries thereof, together with a list of the names and addresses of the last know owners of public record of each parcel.
     (5) A statement indicating the precise manner of compliance with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance.
     (6) A statement from the appropriate regulatory agency concerning availability of public utilities including culinary and irrigation water (including appropriate fire protection),power sewage disposal and refuse disposal.
     (7) A detailed written description of the anticipated ages and total number of occupants of the facility, together with a diagram of the facility including all separate rooms and the intended use of each room.
     (8) A detailed description of number of intended staff and job descriptions for such staff.
     (9) A statement demonstrating the capability of the applicant, through insurance or other means, to insure timely restitution to any member of the public suffering damage as a result of intentional or negligent conduct by members of the staff or residents of the facility.
     (10) A statement demonstrating compliance with all required state and federal licensing requirements as required.
     (11) Police check demonstrating all criminal convictions or pleas of nolo contendere except those which have been expunged, for five years prior to the date of application.
     Section 17.52.050 of the Duchesne County Code states, “The Planning Commission may grant a conditional use permit in compliance with the zoning ordinance if, from the application and the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds:
     (1) The proposed use at the proposed location will not be unduly detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
     (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in compliance with the goals and policies of the Duchesne County General Plan and the purposes of this ordinance.
     (3) That the property for which the use, building or other structure is proposed is of adequate size and dimensions to permit the conduct of the use in such a manner that will not be materially detrimental to adjoining and surrounding properties.”
     The Planning Commission also needed to address special minimum conditions for a group home, as set forth in Section 17.52.052 of the Duchesne County Code. Those special minimum conditions are as follows:
     (1) The location of the proposed use is compatible to other land uses in the general neighborhood.
     (2) The site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use together with all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping as required by the ordinance.
     (3) The site shall be served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the traffic generated by the proposed use.
     (4) The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the general welfare of the county.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD

     The proposed location of the Hancock facility is in an area known as Hancock Cove. It is Zoned A-5, an agricultural and residential zone. The subdivisions in the area all have restrictive covenants promoting single family residences with large acreage and a rural, pastoral lifestyle. It has single family residences with large lots, which provides open space. It has no commercial facilities except a few home occupations. There are also large tracts of agricultural land with single family residences. It is one of the fastest growing areas in the county for single family residences on large lots. It still retains its agricultural character, and is populated by many families with young children. It is serviced by a culinary water system through Roosevelt City, but has no sewer system. Sewer services are by means of septic systems. It is clearly a residential-agricultural area.

THE PROPOSED USE

     The proposal under consideration is a request for a conditional use permit to operate a residential treatment center on five (5) acres owned by the Hancocks. The treatment center will house young men between the ages of 12 to 17 for periods of time up to twenty four (24) months. The young men will reside on the property, will be educated through a home school program conducted on the property, and will be under 24 hour/ 7 day per week supervision by “house parents”. The services to be provided are therapy, education, skills development; and recreation; all to take place on the premises. Uintah Mountain Residential Treatment Center is designed to provide treatment for the following issues:

     1. Low self esteem;
     2. Obesity;
     3. Depression;
     4. Drop in Academic performance;
     5. ADHD;
     6. Experimental drug and/or alcohol use; and
     7. Breakdown in family relationships
     Uintah Mountain will not accept applicants who have a history of violence, who are sexual offenders and/or who have a significant criminal background. The application had attached to it a drawing of an existing single family structure that was remodeled to fit the purposes of a residential treatment center. No number was submitted with the application or the subsequent plan as to the capacity of the residential treatment center. The use is a residential treatment center located on five (5) acres, and operated as a business, by private individuals, that will house young men in need of treatment and therapy for personal issues.

PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION

     The Duchesne County Planning Commission held two (2) hearings on this mater, one November 5th 2003 the other December 3rd, 2003.At these meetings both the neighbors and the Hancocks were able to present evidence as to their respective positions. At the conclusion of the December 3rd meeting the Planning Commission made its findings and granted the Hancocks a conditional use permit for one structure on five acres with a limitation on capacity of not to exceed ten (10) young men or, if less, the maximum allowed by the State of Utah for the one structure.

DISCUSSION

     Both sides in this mater, the neighbors and the Hancock’s, have appealed this matter to the County Commission; each taking issue with the decision of the Planning Commission. We have held a public hearing on this matter March 9th, 2004, and have had an opportunity to review the record including all submissions and the transcripts of the hearings before the Planning Commission. There are several concerns by the neighbors and the Hancocks. We will address each in turn.

PUBLIC CLAMOR

     This proposal has a lot of interest in the neighborhood, as is evidenced by the attendance at the public hearings. The neighbors have been very vocal in their opposition to the Hancocks’ proposal. The Hancocks characterize this as merely public clamor, which by law cannot be the sole basis for the decision. We have listened to and have reviewed the comments of the neighbors provided either in the public hearings or in submissions during the process. To the extent that these comments are based on mere speculation, we give them minimal value, for this is public clamor as we know it. The neighbors comments, however, will be given greater value where they establish the character of the neighborhood, and raise legitimate concerns about safety, traffic and the effect on the neighborhood., and where they are supported by other evidence.

THE APPLICATION

     We have reviewed the application of the Hancocks and have concerns about the application being incomplete, particularly subsections (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) of Section 17.40.020 of the Duchesne County Code. These requirements were either not provided or were provided only for the single structure on five (5) acres. Subsection (7) of Section 17.40.020 of the Duchesne County Code specifically requires “a detailed written description of the anticipated ages and total number of occupants of the facility, together with a diagram of the facility including all separate rooms and the intended use of each room”. No diagram was submitted for any number greater than ten (10). It is obvious from the record that many things in the application were not complete, as questions had to be asked, and comments were made by the planning commission members, as to what was actually being proposed. It is clear that the Planning Commission granted the conditional use permit based on what they had in front of them at the time, and what the Hancocks stated was the maximum number of young men that could be housed in the existing structure. Even though there was mention, in the record, of building another building on the five acre parcel, there was no diagram submitted for that structure or any future structures. The Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to fully evaluate anything other that the single structure on five acres, as that was all thatwas presented to them in the application. We are troubled by the lack of a detailed plan outlining the complete project, including a detailed description of the staff, numbers, evidence of compliance with required state and federal regulations, and statements from the appropriate regulatory agencies concerning availability of public utilities including culinary and irrigation water (including appropriate fire protection), power, sewage disposal and refuse disposal.

LIMIT OF TEN

     The Hancocks’ appeal claims that the Planning Commission’s decision setting the maximum number of young men who could be housed at the facility at ten (10) was arbitrary and capricious. No where in the written application was there a number provided, even though it was required. It was only in the hearings that numbers were discussed, and those numbers ranged from 5 to 50. Of relevance here is the numbers ten (10) and sixteen (16) that were discussed in the hearings. The Hancocks stated that ten (10) was the maximum number that the single structure could house, and that sixteen (16) was the number that was required to be financially viable. As was stated earlier, the application and the plans submitted did not address anything but the single structure. The Planning Commission’s limitation to ten (10) clients was not arbitrary nor capricious. We are concerned that the number ten (10) would not be sufficient to make the project financially feasible. In our opinion to approve a project that is not financially feasible is not good planning.

THE FINDINGS

     Before a conditional use permit can be issued Sections 17.52.050 and 17.52.053 of the Duchesne County Code require certain findings and conditions, including special minimum conditions that must be met. We have reviewed the record and are prepared to address the findings.
     We set forth the special minimum conditions required above in the section entitled “The Law”. We have concerns about number (1) and (4) and to some extent (2) and (3). There is sufficient evidence in the record to support condition (2) regarding sufficient size and condition (3) regarding streets sufficient to carry the traffic generated by the use as it is presently granted, ie., a single residence structure on five acres with a maximum of 10 young men. We, however, cannot find in the record any evidence that would support such findings for a larger operation. The concerns of the neighbors about increased traffic are valid, especially in light of the fact that the State of Utah requires 1 staff member for each 4 clients at all times. There is no evidence in the plans submitted regarding adequate parking or roads or any mention about addressing the issue of increased traffic. Our review of this matter is hampered by the lack of a complete plan for the use requested.
     We now look to conditions (1) and (4), location is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood, and the proposed use with conditions will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity or the general welfare of the county. It is clear from the submissions of the neighbors that the use in this area is single family dwellings on large lots with much open space. Developers in the Hancock Cove area have kept to this standard in the past twenty years and the zoning has been to encourage this type of use. The Planning Commission approved the modified single family residence on the five acres for the conditional use. This, we think, was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We are troubled, however, that even with this structure will the use be compatible with other uses. This facility will need fences, parking, and attendant sheds and structures to house so many young men. The neighbors have also raised the issues of safety. No matter how you characterize it this is a facility for troubled youth, and troubled youth have their problems. There is evidence in the record that these types of facilities do have escapees and sometimes the escapees cause injury to persons and property. We see no evidence in the record that these issues have been addressed in a manner that will be compatible with the permitted uses in this area, or will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
     The issues that must be addressed in the special minimum conditions also bring into question the finding of Section 17.52.050 (1) That the proposed use at the proposed location will not be unduly detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The issues of safety, traffic and compatibility of either the single structure or the larger project were not adequately addressed.

THE PROCESS

     We have been troubled at the outset of this matter with the lack of a definite plan for the proposed use of the five acres for a residential treatment center. It appears from the record that the Planning Commission had similar troubles and addressed them with questions at the time of the public hearings. Zoning is established to ensure compatible uses of properties in a defined district. Conditional use permits allow uses that are not normally compatible, but can be if certain conditions are met. By its nature this process requires a full and complete disclosure of the use both present and anticipated future uses to allow for a full and complete examination of the use and an accurate determination that the use can be compatible with the enumerated conditions. Neither the Planning Commission nor the County Commission can determine what is has not been properly put before it. That is why, by ordinance, we have established the criteria for an application for a conditional use permit. The Hancocks have argued that they needed the conditional use permit before they could obtain the licensing from the State of Utah, and submit a complete plan. We disagree with this approach. A complete plan could have been submitted to both the State of Utah and to the Planning Commission, and the State could have given tentative approval for the plan sufficient to satisfy our county ordinances. Through out the record and at the appeal hearing the Hancocks requested no limitations. It appears that they approached this matter in a piecemeal manner. They suggested several times that they would take a little now and come back later. This is like letting the camel get his nose in the tent. The next thing you know the whole camel is in the tent with you. We do not agree with this approach because it is not conducive to good planning. The process would have been better served if the entire plan had been disclosed and the application process had been complete in its entirety.

CONCLUSION

     We have reviewed the record and considered all submissions, and have discussed all of the issues of concern. In regards to the Hancock appeal, claiming that the Planning Commission’s limitation on the capacity of the treatment center was arbitrary and capricious, we find that the Planning Commission granted the Hancocks what they asked for and what could be substantiated from the application. The limit of ten (10) was also the maximum allowed for the single structure. No other evidence was presented to support a larger facility to accommodate 16 or 50 young men. We find no evidence that the Planning Commission’s limitation was arbitrary or capricious, and therefore we deny the appeal of the Hancocks.
     In regards to the appeal of the neighbors, that the Planning Commission’s desision was not supported by the evidence, we find that there was insufficient evidence provided to address the issues of safety, traffic and compatibility of the use to justify making the findings necessary to grant the conditional use. The area is clearly residential and agricultural, and from all that was presented we find that the Hancocks proposals are a commercial venture and not compatible with the area. The Planning Commission found that the single structure on five acres could be compatible with the area, if they met certain conditions. We agree that a single structure on five acres could be compatible to the area, but we disagree that this project could be compatible. It is clear that the single structure on five acres is inadequate for the Hancocks’ needs and that a larger project will be needed to be a viable venture. There has been nothing presented in the application, the two hearings before the Planning Commission, or the hearing before us, the County Commission, to convince us that the Uintah Mountain Residential Treatment Center, is a viable project, nor could it be a compatible use in this area. We, therefore, overturn the decision of the planning commission and deny the conditional use permit issued for the Uintah Mountain Residential Treatment Center in the Hancock Cove area.

Commissioner Ross stated the commission does not wish to review any further comment regarding this issue at this time.

Duchesne County Soil Conservation District (DCSCD) Annual Report
Mr. Ed Bench presented a summary of the highlights of the projects and programs that the DCSCD were involved with in 2003 (see attached documentation). Commissioner Ross asked what the average federal participation was. Mr. Darrell Gillman stated it was a 75/25 match. Mr. Bench stated they had recieved an eighty-five thousand dollar ($85,000) grant for the 319 Water Quality Projects. He stated for 2004 they would be receiving approximately three million, two hundred thousand dollars ($3,200,000) for equipment funding and one million, four hundred thousand dollars ($1,400,000) for Parallel Bureau of Reclamation funds. Mr. Bench stated they have a new member, Garth Sorenson, who was elected to take the place of Corey Dye. Commissioner Peatross asked what type of wildlife projects the district assists with. Mr. Bench stated they assist with most projects depending on what is proposed. Commissioner Peatross asked if the Division of Wildlife Resources qualified for funds. Mr. Bench stated they do not but the district does cooperate with the division on projects. Commissioner Ross asked about the ARDL funding. Mr. Bench stated it was funds used to make loans to farmers for agriculture. He stated in 2003 the district loaned farmers in Duchesne County approximately five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) with a three percent (3%) rate. Mr. Bench stated the district awarded 2003’s Farmer of the Year to Gerald Dye and Lifetime Achievement Awards to the following individuals: Richard Olsen, Ralph Giles and Clyde Killian. Commissioner Peatross stated he feels the district has done a great job with the programs and assisting the community. Commissioner Ross stated he feels that the coordination of NRCS and DCSCD have had a lot of progress and work well together.

Accept Representation for District Court Case that Conflicts with Attorney Allen
commissioner Peatross motioned to accept representation on the defense council for the Lloyd Harry District Court case from Attorney Julie George. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion. Both commissioners voted aye and the motion passed.

Auditor Tax Adjustments
Clerk/Auditor Freston presented the following:

Account#/ Serial #	YR	+Debit/ -Credit	Comments
00-001-6299	2003	-1745.79	Property Exempt
00-001-6240	2003	-37.05	Property Exempt

Commissioner Peatross motioned to accept the tax adjustments. Commissioner Stradinger seconded the motion. All commissioners voted aye and the motion passed.

Account#/ Serial #	YR	+Debit/ -Credit	Comments
00-016-7126	1999 2000 2001 2002 2003	-42.11  -41.09  –40.57  –41.36  –63.44	Put on as Primary Residence.
HT-22-0074		-168.99	Refund for 2004 and 2002, double assessed on real property and personal property.
HT-22-0039		-122.95	Refund for 2003 to 2000, double assessed on real property and personal property.

 Commissioner Peatross motioned to accept the tax adjustments. Commissioner Stradinger seconded the motion. All commissioners voted aye and the motion passed.

Commissioner Stradinger motioned to deny the request by Mr. Foyster Bell to waive the late penalties on his property tax based on the morning discussion (see minutes). Commissioner Peatross seconded the motion. All commissioners voted aye and the motion passed.

Commissioner Peatross motioned to allow Ms. Deloris Walton to receive circuit breaker tax abatement for 2003 based on the morning discussion (see minutes). Commissioner Stradinger seconded the motion. All commissioners voted aye and the motion passed.

Minutes of Meeting Held March 29, 2004
Commissioner Peatross motioned to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion. Both commissioners voted aye and the motion passed.

Vouchers
Clerk/Auditor Freston presented vouchers #87447 through #87538 in the amount of two hundred eleven thousand, seventy-four dollars and fifty-seven cents ($211,074.57). Commissioner Peatross motioned to approve payment of the vouchers. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion. Both commissioners voted aye and the motion passed.

Adjournment
The commission adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.

 

TOP

Back to Minutes and Agenda Main Page

Auditor's Office Information

|| Staff || County Budget, Independent Audit, Other Financial ||
|| Tax Relief-Abatement ||
|| Property Valuations - Taxing Entities Information ||
|| Board of Equalization - Exempt Applications ||
|| Delinquent Tax Sale Information & Surplus Property Sale ||

Clerk's Office Information

|| Commission Meeting Minutes and Agendas/Records ||
|| Passport Information || Business & Beer Licenses ||
|| Marriage License  || Voter Registration - Election ||
|| Elementary School Packet ||