Denial of treatment center haunts Duchesne
Labor Commission finds discriminatory practices
The division's decision, released last week, assessed a $10,000 penalty against the county, ordered the payment of $56,700 in attorney's fees and payment of up to $15.9 million in damages to the complainant, John D. Hancock, of Las Vegas.
The division further backed Hancock's assertion that punitive damages — as high as $43.6 million — are warranted because of the county's "arbitrary and capricious actions" against the proposed Uintah Mountain Residential Treatment Center. The commercial venture would have housed disabled teens. Hancock will have to file an action in civil court for possible payment of any punitive damages.
Hancock called it "unfortunate" that years of wrangling over the location of the planned residential treatment center "ever had to reach this point."
"We did everything we could to resolve this matter with the county without resorting to a formal action," he said. "The county's potential exposure far exceeds the limits of its insurance coverage. We have no desire to hurt the county and would like to get this resolved on terms fair to both parties."
Hancock, along with other family members, initially petitioned the county in 2003 for a conditional use permit for Uintah Mountain Residential Treatment Center on family-owned property in Hancock Cove.
The list of potential clients included teen boys who would be treated for depression, obesity, poor performance in school, troubled family relationships, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and low self-esteem. The request was approved for an operation with 10 clients, but later rejected when the Hancocks sought to increase the number to 16, according to the division's findings.
Neighbors in the Hancock Cove area west of Roosevelt — who live in residential areas zoned primarily for 5-acre ranchette-style developments — vigorously opposed the placement of a treatment center for troubled youths in the neighborhood.
Concerns of an increase in crime and property devaluation expressed by landowners were not supported by "any statistical evidence," according to the division's investigation of Hancock's complaint.
In 2004 and 2005, the case was heard at the District Court level and later by the Utah Court of Appeals with different outcomes, although neither supported the parameters the Hancock family sought for the business.
You can be the first to comment on this story.