evidence of a lawful water source, analysis of operational water use, and evaluation of cumulative demand. Because the findings report establishes none of these elements in the administrative record, the Commission's reliance on future commitments and generalized assurances did not satisfy the substantial evidence standard required by the Duchenne County Code or Utah law. Finally, the Commission failed to apply conditional use standards and instead treated this project as though it were effectively permitted. Conditional uses are not presumed compatible under Utah law.

Approval requires affirmative findings identifying reasonably anticipated detrimental effects and explaining how those effects will be substantially mitigated through enforceable conditions. Here, the findings largely recycle ordinance language and rely on future compliance without identifying the impacts or mitigation. That is legally insufficient. For the record, regarding procedural preservation, we respectfully request that the Commission issue a single final decision with complete written findings rather than deferring unresolved issues to later permits or later proceedings. Under Utah Code Section 17-27A-801 and County Code Section 8-16-4, the county may not require duplicate or successive appeals as a condition of exhaustion.

Because the Planning Commission failed to apply the Duchenne County General Plan, failed to make findings required by ordinance and statute, failed to analyze reasonably anticipated accumulated impact, and failed to apply the conditional use standard. The April 2nd approvals are illegal and supported by substantial evidence within the meaning of Utah Code Section 17-27A-801(3)(b)-c. The approvals are illegal because they are based on an incorrect application of the Duchenne County zoning code, conflict with the authority granted to the commission under Title 17, and are contrary to the law. They are arbitrary and capricious because findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. The approvals further violate Duchesne County zoning code Section 8-13-4, again, which requires that CUPs be granted only upon findings made from the application and the facts presented at the public hearing. Demonstrating that the proposed use will not be detrimental to public health, safety, welfare, and surrounding properties, and that it complies with the purposes of the zoning district and the general plan.

By approving an industrial-scale data center development in the A-5 Agricultural District without site-specific evidence, without findings addressing reasonably anticipated impacts, and without enforceable mitigation conditions, the commission failed to follow its own ordinance and exceeded the discretion granted to it by its county laws. This appeal, uh, constitutes the exhaustion of all administrative remedies available under Duchesne County Code. County Code Section 8164 expressly provides that an adversely affected party may seek judicial review within 30 days of a final decision, and that the county may not require duplicate or successive appeals before the same or separate appeal authorities as a condition of exhaustion. Accordingly, if the commission declines to reverse or amend the conditional use permit approvals in response to this appeal and issues a final written decision, administrative remedies shall be deemed fully exhausted as a matter of law. Any attempt to require additional or repetitive appeals of the same land use decision, particularly where each appeal carries a substantial filing fee of $500, would directly conflict with County Code Section 8-16-4.

Utah Code Section 17-27 became fatal and would unlawfully burden the statutory right to judicial review. Upon issuance of a final decision on this appeal, the appellants are therefore entitled to seek direct court review without further administrative proceedings. In conclusion, the April 2nd approvals must be vacated and reversed, or at a minimum, remanded for a unified review. In the alternative to the permit being vacated and reversed, should the Commission determine that outright reversal is not appropriate, we request that the approvals be remanded for a unified review, including a cumulative impact analysis and the preparation of legally sufficient written findings supported by evidence in the administrative record that are consistent with Duchesne County Code and Utah law. Pending completion of such review and issuance of findings that comply with applicable standards, we further request that no site development, ground disturbance, or construction activity proceed under the challenged conditional use permit so that the county's land use decision is not implemented in advance of a lawful and supportable approval.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this first appeal regarding the 9 Mile Data LLC.