1.) Consider the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Washington School House Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Minor Hotel, Located at 543 Park Avenue
(A) Public Hearing (B) Action
In an effort to stifle the neighbors living around the Washington School House bed and breakfast, WSH has grossly overstated the holdings in the cases of Ralph L. Wadsworth Const. v. West Jordan City and Davis Cty. v. Clearfield. WSH effectively argues that the cases require planning commissions to entirely ignore all public comment unless city staff independently investigates and substantiates each and every statement. Such an interpretation would place an impossible burden on local government and the public, and that is not what the cases hold. Such an interpretation would deny the voting public any voice and would eviscerate the critical public comment and information gathering process, essentially requiring residents to submit notarized affidavits before their input could be considered. That is clearly not the law. Actually, the cited cases simply state that mere “vague reservations” expressed by the public are insufficient evidence to support a denial. That is not the nature of these neighbors’ comments. The public comment on the WSH CUP application consisted of substantial and substantive input and evidence based on first-hand experience of neighbors who know the actual impact of living in close proximity to WSH as it currently operates—even without the double capacity and expansive uses that it now seeks. The Staff Report evidences that the neighbors’ comments constitute substantial, compelling evidence that have more than adequately supported the Planning Commission’s denial of the application. WSH did not rebut any of those comments during the application process or even in its submission to the Ombudsman. Instead, WSH made bald statements that there was no evidence in the record and wrongly dismissed the entire public participation process by conveniently labeling everything it didn’t like with the label of “public clamor”.
Public Comment
In an effort to stifle the neighbors living around the Washington School House bed and breakfast, WSH has grossly overstated the holdings in the cases of Ralph L. Wadsworth Const. v. West Jordan City and Davis Cty. v. Clearfield. WSH effectively argues that the cases require planning commissions to entirely ignore all public comment unless city staff independently investigates and substantiates each and every statement. Such an interpretation would place an impossible burden on local government and the public, and that is not what the cases hold. Such an interpretation would deny the voting public any voice and would eviscerate the critical public comment and information gathering process, essentially requiring residents to submit notarized affidavits before their input could be considered. That is clearly not the law. Actually, the cited cases simply state that mere “vague reservations” expressed by the public are insufficient evidence to support a denial. That is not the nature of these neighbors’ comments. The public comment on the WSH CUP application consisted of substantial and substantive input and evidence based on first-hand experience of neighbors who know the actual impact of living in close proximity to WSH as it currently operates—even without the double capacity and expansive uses that it now seeks. The Staff Report evidences that the neighbors’ comments constitute substantial, compelling evidence that have more than adequately supported the Planning Commission’s denial of the application. WSH did not rebut any of those comments during the application process or even in its submission to the Ombudsman. Instead, WSH made bald statements that there was no evidence in the record and wrongly dismissed the entire public participation process by conveniently labeling everything it didn’t like with the label of “public clamor”.