Planning Commission's April 2nd, 2026 decision complies with Duchenne County Code and Utah's Land Use Development and Management Act. Under C, a land use decision must apply the governing ordinance correctly and must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Decisions that rely on legal error, incomplete review, or unsupported findings are arbitrary, capricious, and do not stand.
The Wells Draw Solar Facility was approved as a standalone conditional use permit in the A-5 Agricultural Zone. That approval is legally flawed because it rests on improper project segmentation. The applicant has expressly stated that this solar facility exists solely to supply electricity to the adjacent 9-megawatt data centers and has no independent utility or market. Utah law requires the land use authority to evaluate the proposal based on its actual operational realities, not on how it is actually divided. Where facilities are functionally and operationally interdependent, they must be reviewed as an integrated land use.
By approving the solar facility in isolation, the Commission failed to evaluate the true nature and intensity of its use. This was not a minor informational omission. It goes to the core of the conditional use analysis required by Duchesne County Code Section 8-13-4, including compatibility with the zone, impacts to surrounding land uses, and protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Utah courts have repeatedly held that segmentation to avoid full land use review constitutes legal error. The findings report also relies on conditional approval to defer review of essential components of this project.
The record acknowledges that transmission infrastructure, substations, and electrical interconnections were not disclosed or analyzed and were instead deferred to future proceedings. Duchesne County Code Section 8-9-15 requires disclosure of those connection routes and related infrastructure as part of a conditional use application. Utah law does not permit land use authorities to approve a conditional use permit based on incomplete information and postpone mandatory review to a later date. A conditional use permit is a final discretionary approval, not a placeholder. Once issued, it confers vested rights and limits the county's ability to reconsider impacts that should have been evaluated at the outset.
Deferral of the required analysis is a procedural defect that renders the approval unlawful. The findings further fail the substantial evidence standard. Utah courts require findings to be specific and to demonstrate reasoned decision-making tied to evidence on the record. Here, the findings repeatedly conclude that the project is not functionally detrimental, is of adequate size, and complies with the code if conditions are met, without analyzing the facility's exclusive role empowering an industrial data center, the cumulative impacts of associated infrastructure, or the long-term operational consequences of the use. Conclusory statements are not substantial evidence, and conditions cannot substitute for the required findings.
The Commission also relied heavily on the distance from the nearest residents to justify approving. That is not the legal standard under the Duchesne County Code for considering adverse effects on surrounding lands, agricultural operations, transportation corridors, emergency access, and the rural character of the area. The use does not become compatible simply because it is located far enough from the dwelling. When a land use authority applies the wrong legal framework, defers required review, and issues findings unsupported by substantial evidence, the resulting decision is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. This is the circumstance presented here. For these reasons, the Planning Commission reversed the conditional use permit for Wells Draw Energy LLC's solar power facility. In the alternative, the application must be remanded with instructions that the solar facility be reviewed as a part of the integrated project it was proposed to serve, that all required infrastructure be disclosed and noticed, and that new findings be issued based on complete information and substantial evidence. This appeal respectfully asks the commission to correct legal error and apply its own ordinances as written. That correction is necessary to protect the integrity of the county's land-use process and to comply with the law requirements.
ReWater LLC, Appellant Diana Meacham Davies
Speaking on behalf of Diana Meacham Davis is Andrea Glade (Annie). She said; Members of the Commission, again, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I want to address an additional and critically important legal deficiency in the April 2nd approval of the