that is a table of a lot of the different codes and laws that we reference. Under Section 8-13-4, the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use only upon findings from the application and the facts presented at the public hearing, and may impose conditions related to location, site planning, traffic control, dust control, noise, operation, and other impacts as necessary to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. Findings for the Nine Mile LLC data center were made without site-specific surveys or empirical baseline information necessary to evaluate those factors.

Despite approving a project covering 4 parcels totaling 960.32 acres and a stated operational footprint of approximately 475 acres for this initial complex, which they stated at the original public hearing that they may apply to expand up to 960 acres in the future. This will include permanent security fencing, 24-hour operation, and a planned lifespan of at least 50 years. The record contains no wildlife surveys, no EIS statement, no migration corridor or fencing impact analysis, no baseline noise measurements, no lighting impact assessment, and no site-specific analysis of operational error and while the applicant describes the use as occurring on private land and seeks approval through CUP rather than a subdivision review, County Code again, Section 8-13-4 does not relax evidentiary standards for conditional uses and requires affirmative findings based on fact in the record for the findings report. By relying on generalized assurances, the absence of known impact, and future agency compliance rather than requiring surveys or studies to establish whether impacts exist on the approved acreage, the Commission departed from the procedures required by its own ordinance and approved the use without the factual foundation necessary to support its findings, rendering the original decision procedurally defective and unsupported by substantial evidence. The project is located in the A-5 Agricultural District, whose express purpose is to protect agricultural land, preserve open space, safeguard wildlife habitat, and prevent land-use conflicts.

Yet the findings contain no explanation of how converting 475 acres to up to 960 acres into a permanent, lighted, 24-hour industrial data and energy complex is consistent with those purposes. Instead, the findings report relies almost entirely on generalized references to economic development, stating that the General Plan supports economic development and supporting industries for energy development. Utah courts are clear that economic benefits do not substitute for the required findings of land use compatibility or mitigation. Without an analysis of how this use aligns with the purpose of the A-5 District, the approval is unsupported by any substantial evidence. Second, the Commission failed to apply the general plan policy protecting wildlife habitat and migration corridors.

The project applicant narrative itself acknowledges that the site lies within the range of bald and golden eagles, western yellow-billed cuckoo, monarch butterflies, and sensitive habitats. The findings nevertheless conclude impacts are negligible because there are no known individuals or habitats immediately within the development footprint on the privately owned land. That reasoning is legally defective. Utah law requires analysis of reasonably anticipated impacts to adjacent and surrounding land, not just the absence of documented sightings.

The findings do not evaluate corridor fragmentation, cumulative impacts from fencing and lighting, long-term displacement, pollution, or connectivity loss. Migration corridors are defined by landscape function and movement, not by whether a habitat polygon appears on a map; that is what the reported polygons are when there's a sighting in the area. You can look it up on the GIS data. But so that's what a habitat polygon is. Third, the findings are legally insufficient with respect to traffic, access, and recreation impacts, particularly regarding Gate Canyon access and portions of Wells Draw Road.

Although Gate Canyon access is labeled an auxiliary route, the Site Access Plan identifies it as a designated route for construction and operations, including use during peak construction involving heavy trucks. Labeling a road secondary does not eliminate the obligation to analyze its actual use and impact. Gate Canyon Access is not an industrial haul road. It is a public access route providing entry to Nine Mile Canyon, a nationally recognized cultural recreational landscape. Yet the findings contain no analysis of road safety, conflicts with recreation, capacity, wear, noise, dust, or what happens when traffic shifts to this route during congestion, emergencies, or maintenance on the primary route.

Under Utah law and the General Plan, these are reasonably anticipated impacts that must be addressed with findings, not avoided through mere terminology; the county cannot avoid