Northern Monticello Alliance v. San Juan County, the courts upheld that a failure to make required findings is not a harmless error. It is a fatal defect. And in the case of Nine Mile LLC data center applications and conditional use permits, or CUP, which I'll be referring to as such the rest of this hearing, the Duchesne County Planning Commission approvals suffer from several interrelated legal deficiencies. First, the findings report fails to apply the general plan's rural character, resource protection, land use compatibility, and land use compatibility policies.

Policies. The approval also failed to comply with the procedural and evidentiary requirements of the Duchesne County zoning ordinance governing conditional uses under County Code Section 8-13-4, which, if you guys would like, I can offer you kind of this chart that I made, um, that is a table of a lot of the different codes and laws that we reference. Thank you. Um, but under Section 813.4, 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 60 acres in the future. Um, and this will be permanent security fencing, 24-hour operation, and the planned minimum 50-year lifespan. 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 813.4 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 conflict.

Yet the findings contain no explanation of how converting 475 to up to 960 acres into a permanent fence, lighted, 24-hour industrial data and energy complex is