Hearing officer sets Sept. 18 Zoom hearing for Cane Springs CUP appeal after parties dispute public comment and standard of review

Grand County land use hearing officer Craig Kaul convened a procedural session June 27 to set deadlines and a hearing date in the Cane Springs Improvement District's appeal of the county commission's denial of a conditional use permit.

Kaul opened the meeting by describing the session as procedural and by warning that recent Utah Supreme Court rulings on standing make strict adherence to the ordinance important. "This is a matter of some significance because of recent rulings by the Utah Supreme Court," Kaul said as he asked the parties for their positions on whether members of the public should be allowed to participate.

Bruce Beard, counsel for the appellant, objected to public participation in the hearing. "We object to any public participation," Beard said, arguing the county's land use code does not provide for a public hearing on a conditional use permit and that interested members of the public had prior opportunities to comment before the county commission.

A county representative said the county generally does not oppose public comment in public meetings and indicated it would not object if a de novo proceeding allowed public comment. Steven Stocks, appearing for the county, encouraged third parties to deliver documents to the county attorney's office and the hearing officer rather than addressing the officer directly in this procedural setting: "I would just encourage the public... to contact the county attorney's office, myself or Miss Hoffine in my office," he said, so the documents can be provided to the parties.

The parties also disputed whether the appeal was a purely legal interpretation or whether factual issues remained. Beard said the dispute presented "a purely legal issue" and proposed briefing rather than factual testimony, citing provisions and case law constraining third-party standing. County representatives responded they intend to defend the commission's finding and will tender the administrative record, including the staff recommendation, minutes and the decision letter.

To move the matter forward Kaul and the parties agreed on a schedule: the administrative record will be delivered electronically by June 28; the appellant's brief is due by end of business July 17; the county's response is due Aug. 2; and a reply brief is due Aug. 16. The parties also agreed to a one-week window (July 5) to raise any objections to the adequacy of the transmitted record. The hearing was set for Sept. 18, 2024, at 10 a.m. via Zoom, with space available in the county chambers for public attendance; Kaul estimated two hours for the hearing.

Kaul closed the session after confirming the schedule and that the county and appellant would exchange records and briefs as discussed. "I think we have concluded what we needed to do today and look forward to the information that we provided in a thorough and fair review," he said. The hearing officer adjourned the meeting at 12:34 p.m.

What happens next: the hearing officer will receive the administrative record by June 28 and decide whether further factual development is necessary after the parties submit briefs according to the agreed schedule. If the record or parties' filings raise factual disputes, Kaul said he would consider permitting limited additional factual evidence; otherwise the matter will proceed on the briefs and the administrative record at the Sept. 18 hearing.