"It is shocking how passively they have accepted everything the Hancocks have submitted," he said.

According to Stearmer, the county has nothing on file to indicate the state had contacted the county attorney's office to investigate how the Uintah Mountain zoning issue was handled by commissioners or the county's planning and zoning board.

"I have nothing in my file that they have sent in three years," he said.

Stearmer points out that in 2003, the county's planning and zoning board did give Uintah Mountain a conditional use permit so they could begin operations with 10 clients as the Hancocks had initially requested. At the time, county code allowed a "group home" in an A-5 zone as a conditional use.

However, the county rejected a subsequent request from the Hancocks for between 16 to 50 clients. The denial came because the planned facility — a single-family home — was not adequate to handle the larger number of clients, according to commissioners at the time.

The Hancocks appealed, but an 8th District Court judge and the Utah Court of Appeals agreed 10 clients was the appropriate number for the proposed treatment center.

The appellate court record states "the county did not act illegally in limiting the facility to 10 residents," due to a lack of information on how the increased number of clients could be accommodated on the property.

"The county has always said you get 10 (clients). If the Hancocks had ... really wanted their treatment center, they could have been up and running," Stearmer said.

However, the Hancocks and state investigators contend that Uintah Mountain has never been given permission to operate the group home with 10 residents based on the "applications at issue."

"That CUP (conditional use permit) is ... discriminatory," said John Hancock. "It places conditions on group homes ... that nonhandicapped county residents are not subject to."

Stearmer said he does agree with the Hancock family on one thing — the whole conflict has been an "unfortunate event."

"This should have been resolved in the 100 days the regulations give the (anti-discrimination) commission to act," Stearmer said. "This has been a disservice to everybody. Obviously Duchesne County and the Hancocks have a different view on this, but it's unfortunate this wasn't settled in 2005."

---

E-mail: lezleewhiting@hotmail.com