Moab • The Grand County Land Use Appeals Hearing Officer ruled in favor of the Kane Springs Improvement District (KSID), approving a conditional use permit (CUP) that allows the construction of a wastewater treatment plant and water storage facility for the controversial Kane Creek development.
The decision, issued Monday by Hearing Officer Craig M. Call, follows months of legal back-and-forth over whether the project aligns with the county’s general plan.
“We’re grateful for all the hard work and diligence of everyone involved, from the county staff to their outside of their outside attorney to their hearing officer and our legal team,” said Trent Arnold, one of the partners of Kane Creek Preservation and Development. “… We appreciate the thoroughness of [the process] and the clarification of the code. Obviously, we’re satisfied with the outcome.”
The appeal centered on the 5-2 vote in May to deny the permit by the Grand County Commission, which argued that extending sewer and water services outside the designated Urban Service Area conflicted with the county’s 2030 General Plan.
Under the plan, utilities are generally not to be extended beyond these boundaries unless part of a broader urban growth strategy or for public safety reasons.
However, KSID and its attorney, Bruce Baird, appealed the decision, arguing the property is zoned for Highway Commercial use, which they contended should include the right to develop the necessary infrastructure.
“I’m definitely disappointed in the decision — I think that the use didn’t agree with our general plan,” Commission Chair Jacques Hadler said. “We’ll have to discuss future plans but it’s still too early to go into that.”
Call wrote in his decision that this CUP is “approved for a public utility providing water and sewer services within the KSID service area with the following conditions, reviewed and approved by stipulation by the parties to this appeal,” before listing 10 conditions.
Those conditions include compliance with state environmental regulations, contracting with the Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency for utility operations and implementing odor control measures for the wastewater facility. Additionally, KSID must post a reclamation bond and ensure fire safety measures are in place before beginning operations.
The Kane Creek development, which aims to build a 586-unit mixed-use subdivision on 176 acres along Kane Creek Boulevard, has been a source of public and legal contention since it was introduced.
The project includes residential and overnight-accommodation units along with up to 72,000 square feet of commercial space, all of which will require its own wastewater and culinary water system.
Residents in Moab as well as organizations oppose the development. Concerns include preserving the environment the development is in and the character of Moab.
Arnold declined to provide any updates to the timeline of the construction of the project.
Explaining the ruling
The core issue in the appeal centered around whether the proposed utilities were in line with Grand County’s General Plan and Land Use Code (LUC).
The county’s LUC requires CUPs to meet certain criteria, including compliance with both the LUC and the General Plan. During the appeal, both parties stipulated that the project met the criteria in the LUC regarding its specific zoning as Highway Commercial.
The remaining question was whether the project conformed to the General Plan, which discourages extending utilities outside of the Urban Service Area unless part of a broader urban growth strategy.
In his decision, Call emphasized that the General Plan, while typically used as a guide, had been elevated to the status of regulation by the county’s ordinances, meaning the project had to comply with it.
However, he found that the plan specifically designates the area for intensive Highway Mixed Use, which would typically require utilities like the proposed wastewater plant and water storage tank.
Call argued that the General Plan intended for this kind of infrastructure in such areas, as they are zoned for high-density development.
He also noted the county has already acknowledged the need for these utilities when former county attorney Christina Sloan advised the developers in 2020 to “design your wastewater and drinking water systems for full build-out.”
This directive, combined with the land’s designation for mixed-use development, he argued, supported his decision to approve the CUP.
Call also explained that although the General Plan discourages extending utilities beyond certain service areas, he felt this restriction did not seem to apply in this case, as the property was already intended for intensive use under the plan’s framework.
Call said that with the right conditions in place, the detrimental effects of the utility could be mitigated.
The project remains controversial, with opponents worried about the potential impacts on the Colorado River corridor and protected lands nearby.
The wastewater treatment plant’s location outside existing utility service areas also remains a point of contention for environmental advocates and some community members.
There were previously water rights challenges related to the development.
Earlier this year, Kane Creek Preservation and Development filed a change application with the Utah Division of Water Rights to convert several irrigation and livestock water rights to municipal use, intending to draw more water from wells above Kane Creek Boulevard rather than the Colorado River.
The Bureau of Land Management and several organizations then filed protests against the application. But the application never went through the whole process because the development withdrew it back in May or early June, according to Arnold.
The CUP decision also comes shortly after the commission passed a major utility overlay amendment on Oct. 1, which aims to address challenges like those posed by the Kane Creek project in the future.
The new regulations give the county more control by requiring developers to apply for a rezone and development agreement for major utilities.
Note to readers: his story has been updated to include comments from Trent Arnold, one of the partners of Kane Creek Preservation and Development, and to clarify that water right challenges related too the development are not ongoing.
