Cache County’s appeal authority heard arguments Oct. 31 over the county’s approval of a reasonable accommodation and zoning clearance that would allow Finding Hope to operate a 16‑resident recovery residence in a rural subdivision.

Rob Patterson, the land use hearing officer appointed by Cache County, said he had read the written record and would issue a written ruling within 15 business days. "I have 15 business days to issue a written decision," Patterson said at the hearing.

Taylor Jones, counsel for neighbors who appealed, argued the county’s decision was "illegal, arbitrary, and capricious" because the record lacks site‑specific evidence showing 16 residents were necessary to remove a disability‑related housing barrier. Jones told Patterson the county relied on general references to therapy group size and building capacity but "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."

Jones framed the legal question around Cache County Code 17.16.50(c) and the Fair Housing Act, saying the analysis must begin from the neutral baseline allowed under code—four unrelated occupants—and then identify the smallest effective increase needed to remove any disability‑related barrier. "Capacity does not equal necessity," Jones said, and the county did not present evidence showing a smaller number (for example five, ten or 15) would not have provided equal housing opportunity.

County counsel responded that the record is paper‑based and substantial—"the interim director references the exhibits" and more than 700 pages of application materials were before the authority. The county urged deference to the interim director’s findings under the substantial‑evidence standard and noted the county council later ratified the interim director’s appointment, which the county said mooted challenges to her authority.

Counsel for Finding Hope said the submitted materials include studies and documents applicable to residential recovery settings and pointed to at least one source in the record that discusses benefits for group sizes of about eight or more. Finding Hope’s counsel argued the documents and the application provided a rational basis for the director’s finding that the request was reasonable and necessary for the program the applicant proposed.

Appellants also argued the county granted the zoning clearance out of sequence and before required licenses. Jones cited County Code 17.16.40 and related provisions, saying a valid state residential license and a site‑specific business license must be obtained prior to zoning clearance and that the county improperly issued the clearance before those prerequisites existed. County counsel and Finding Hope’s attorney replied that the clearance was issued with conditions—county staff commonly condition approval on licensing when state and local sequencing creates practical timing difficulties—and that the applicant will not occupy the structure until required licenses are in place.

Other factual and regulatory issues at the hearing included parking, traffic and fire‑safety standards. Appellants said a four‑person baseline rising to 16 residents would more than double the adult population using a narrow dirt road and could require a parking analysis and fire‑safety review; Finding Hope and the county said county staff reviewed capacity, septic and trip generation and conditioned approval where appropriate. The Bear River Health Department’s updated septic permit was offered by Finding Hope as evidence addressing wastewater capacity.

Appellants also raised a narrow procedural claim about whether the interim director who issued the decisions had been properly appointed; county counsel said the council ratified the appointment retroactively at its most recent meeting.

No decision was issued at the hearing. Patterson said he will issue a written decision within 15 business days; the decision will explain appeal rights to district court for any party "adversely affected" by the outcome.

The hearing record before Patterson included the written application, more than 700 pages of exhibits, and the county’s written findings; counsel for both sides asked the hearing officer either to uphold the director’s decision (county and applicant) or to overturn it (appellants) or, in the alternative, remand for clearer findings of fact.