I get where you are coming from there and I do think that the preponderance of evidence will show that not only were they informed, but, members of the counsel actually participated in the advancement of the proposal. I think it would come down to the issue of when the counsel is required , by law, to accommodate the new federal regulations, and participated in concert with the parties, FITX, and either misinformed, or misinterpreted what was specifically required, and at what stages, and, if FITX, was, and is in full compliance, with all requested required documents, was allowed to build the facility, and at the end are told , 'OH WAIT....THERE'S MORE.' that is not a valid reason to stop H / C from granting License.
As far as the complaint's of the residents, I find nothing that would support the issue of 'holding the license back'. No valid claims or grounds for that at all. At the end of the day, it is an eye sore, according to what the primary complaint says to be the only valid issue. That can be worked out, and is a local issue and not a federal one. It will be turned back to the counsel to work that out with the residents. The counsel wants to wait until after elections so their seats are fixed, before making the decision.
Right down the street is a cop shop that had the exact same issue's when they wanted to build it. Yet, there it is, up and running.
FITX needs to contribute something to the community like a park, or school, or SOMETHING to offset the anger there. Maybe a clinic of some sort. I don't know.
But, the documentation.....yes, I do think they are in order, other than the counsel changing the requirements at the end of the game to try to do what ever it is to gain something in the deal. JMO GLTA