Oakley hearing officer signals he will uphold city’s minor amendment to Chateau Recovery Center’s conditional use permit

At an administrative hearing in Oakley, appeal authority Doug Clyde said he intends to uphold Oakley City’s staff-approved minor amendment to a conditional use permit (CUP) for parcel RVW-5-AM/Lot 9, filed by Chateau Recovery Center LLC, and said a formal written decision would follow within the city’s statutory window.

The hearing centered on whether the staff-level minor amendment process was appropriate after the property’s original CUP (issued in 1999 for Serenity Ranch/Elk Meadows) was revised to allow a residential treatment facility. Neighbors Nicole Brown and Dallas Brown appealed, arguing the change in permitted use and a 1999 CUP condition requiring planning commission and city council approval for future amendments meant a full public hearing was required; the city and the applicant argued the current Oakley Land Management Code permits staff to approve minor amendments when density, intensity and square footage do not increase.

Clyde, the appeal authority appointed by the mayor and council, said state law limits his review to the record and gives a presumption that the land use authority’s final decision is valid, placing the burden on appellants to prove error. He reviewed the record and told the room he concluded the amendment met the three statutory findings for a minor amendment. "I believe that the conditional use permit was properly amended and is legal and is a legally binding document. And that's the way I'm going to rule," Clyde said, adding that his ruling would not be final until written and issued (he stated the city’s deadline for issuing a written decision may be up to 30 days).

Key factual and code points discussed at the hearing: - Original CUP metrics: cite in the record that the 1999 permit identified 42 units with an approximation of two persons per unit (an earlier permit calculation that equated to 84 occupants). Clyde said the revised CUP limits occupancy to 56, which he characterized as a reduction in density compared with the original CUP. - Minor-amendment standard: Oakley staff and Chateau counsel quoted Oakley code language that "a minor amendment may be approved by the city planner; no public hearing is required," and referenced section 13.5.7(g)(1) (minor amendment defined as not increasing square footage, density or intensity of a previously approved CUP). Town code section 13 was noted as adopted in 2021. - Use-category distinction: The appellants argued the property’s previous permit covered a "residential care facility," while Chateau’s application sought approval as a "residential treatment center," a different conditional use on the code’s use table and therefore, they asserted, not properly handled as a minor amendment. Clyde responded that both uses are listed as conditional uses in the commercial zone and that the staff’s findings showed no increase in building footprint, parking or typical external activity (deliveries, vehicle trips) that would raise intensity or density beyond the prior approval. - Reasonable accommodation/ADA and occupancy rules: Clyde and staff reviewed the applicant’s reliance on reasonable-accommodation language and occupancy references in the code (an in-record citation that the applicant had read as limiting two people per bedroom). Clyde said the applicant had likely cited the wrong line of code (a record reference to C13918 that Clyde said should be 13916) and that the 13916 language did not operate as the appellant claimed; he called a strict bedroom-count reading ‘‘absurd’’ in context and said it did not control the outcome.

Appellants’ position: Dallas Brown and Nicole Brown argued the 1999 CUP contained language that any future amendment "shall" be approved by the town council and planning commission and that Chateau Recovery’s use is a different line in the use table, so the change should not have been processed as a staff-approved minor amendment. "Our appeal is on the basis ... this conditional use permit is a completely different line item on the chart of uses, which would not signify a minor amendment," Dallas Brown said.

Applicant and city position: Chateau Recovery representatives and their counsel said the application materials, including written operational plans and the clinical director’s testimony, showed the facility would operate with 24/7 supervision, accreditation and procedures to limit off-site wandering and external impacts. Counsel for Chateau Recovery quoted code language confirming a minor amendment can be approved by the planner when square footage, density and intensity do not increase.

Hearing officer view and next steps: Clyde repeatedly emphasized the limited scope of his review (the record-based standard under Utah Title 10, Chapter 9a, Part 7) and that the presumption favors the landowner/applicant. He told appellants they had the burden to present persuasive, record-based evidence that the amendment increased intensity or density; he found no such evidence in the record sufficient to overturn the city’s decision. Clyde said he would prepare a written decision setting out his findings; the decision would become effective when issued in writing (he suggested it could take up to 10 days but acknowledged the statutory maximum of 30 days).

The administrative hearing closed after public comment and questions. No formal vote was taken at the hearing; the matter is pending issuance of the written decision by the appeal authority.

Ending: The appeal authority said his written ruling would be issued to the parties and the city once finalized; until that writing is issued, the matter remains administratively open.