Davis County Commission grants appeal of in‑home daycare denial, remands case to Planning Commission

The Davis County Commission on an appeal hearing granted an appeal by applicant Heather Brown and remanded the Planning Commission’s denial of a conditional‑use permit for an in‑home daycare so the lower body can consider mitigation and conditions.

The decision followed arguments that the Planning Commission misapplied county code when it cited private covenants and conditions in denying the permit. Lynn Kingston, counsel for Brown, told the commission the Planning Commission “misinterpreted and misapplied” the county code and said treating a neighboring home differently amounted to unequal treatment: “There’s no reason to continue to deny my client's rights to have the same privileges and same rights as her next door neighbor.”

County counsel and staff disputed the characterization that the denial amounted to a constitutional violation. County counsel told commissioners the charge of a Fourteenth Amendment violation was “brand new stuff” and “an overstatement that should be disregarded,” while noting the Planning Commission was instructed that private covenants are not county‑enforceable. Staff presented the June 6 Planning Commission minutes and emphasized the body’s concerns about potential detrimental effects to health, safety and neighborhood character that the Planning Commission had considered.

Staff also outlined mitigation items recommended for permitting but not included in the Planning Commission motion: state childcare licensing, Davis County business license, health‑department food‑service sign‑off, a final fire department inspection and completion of fencing. Staff reported the applicant had already obtained state childcare licensing and completed health and fire inspections and that the applicant had agreed to limit outside children as a mitigation measure.

Commission discussion centered on the proper legal standard for the appeal—whether the Planning Commission abused its discretion or erred in applying Title 15 and Utah law—and on whether the record supported the appellant’s burden of proof. County counsel advised the commission it could either remand the matter to the Planning Commission to impose conditions to mitigate identified detrimental effects or decide conditions itself for efficiency.

A commissioner moved to grant the appeal and remand the matter to the Planning Commission to address mitigation and conditions; the motion was seconded and the chair called a roll call. Commissioners recorded at least two recorded 'Aye' votes (Commissioner Kaulig and Commissioner Elliott) and the chair stated the vote was unanimous. The commission provided direction that the Planning Commission consider any additional mitigation necessary before the application proceeds.

With the remand, the next procedural step is for the Planning Commission to reconvene or act under direction from the county commission to set or confirm any conditions that will mitigate detrimental effects. Commissioners thanked participants and moved on to the next agenda item.

Note: The commission’s review was appellate in scope; it did not conduct a de novo hearing but limited its review to whether the Planning Commission abused its discretion or erred in applying county code or state law.