Residents urge denial of 235-acre rezoning near Hells Revenge, raise scenic and water concerns

A crowded public hearing Monday night on a proposed zoning map amendment for 235 acres above Moab turned into an extended expression of local opposition, with residents, recreation stewards and nearby landowners urging the Grand County Commission to reject the developer’s request or limit it to a more restrictive category.

The rezoning application from Mini Lee Ventures LLC would change property currently zoned Range and Grazing to Resort Commercial to formalize and expand uses tied to Raven’s Rim zipline operations. Planning staff told the commission the planning commission recommended approval (5–2) after a public process; the county process will remain open through the public-comment period.

“We are asking for your approval of this zoning change request because it recognizes both the long standing and current commercial use of our property and will allow for future legal commercial activities on this land,” said Ashley Steen, the property owner, who described Raven’s Rim as an existing tourism operation and asked the county to align zoning with current uses.

But the hearing record was dominated by speakers who said a full Resort Commercial designation is too broad for the unique landscape. Andrea Brancheer, reading the Sam Platts Recreation Area Stewardship Committee’s recommendation, said the committee voted to recommend denial because Resort Commercial would allow dense development near nationally recognized recreation trails and the Slickrock Bike Trail. “Rezoning this property would allow approximately 1,175 residential units,” Brancheer said, repeating the planning-commission calculus that generated alarm among participants.

Multiple commenters said more-limited options — including a Resort Special zone or a conditional-use permit tailored to the applicant’s stated business plan — would achieve the applicant’s goals (food truck, guided recreation, limited amenities) without creating a long-term entitlement that could be sold and redeveloped in the future. “If you zone it, they will build,” public speaker Tory Hill said. Several speakers referenced past rezonings that they said led to unexpected large-scale projects.

Speakers also raised infrastructure and natural-resource concerns. McKay Edwards and other nearby property owners said they were not given advance notice and asked the commission to delay action to allow neighboring parcels and utilities to be assessed. Molot Springs Ranch Resort, a directly adjacent property, asked the commission to extend the comment period and urged delay to ensure neighboring landowners could review impacts to Skakel Springs, a key local water source. “A large development sited on porous sandstone directly over the Skakel Springs aquifer is a risk the community should be aware of,” said McKay Edwards.

Several technical and planning objections also were raised. Residents pointed to a “do no harm” map in the county’s general plan, urged that the county complete a promised land-use-code update before granting broad new entitlements, and asked for stronger guarantees (deed restrictions, conservation easements or purchase options) if commissioners decide to allow commercial uses.

Andrew Jackson, Grand County’s planning director, reviewed the planning commission’s process and said the applicant had provided a recent title report and responded to requests for additional information. Jackson noted that state law does not require annexation for commercial projects under a certain threshold and that the application did not trigger municipal review under current code because it did not propose residential dwellings or improvements above the $750,000 threshold.

The county commission did not act June 7; the public hearing remains open and commissioners asked for additional written comments and staff follow-up on notice and procedural questions. The commission’s next steps will include staff analysis of the public record, potential code-based conditions and whether a narrower zoning tool (for example, a site-specific conditional-use or Resort Special designation) could meet the applicant’s stated needs without creating the broad long-term entitlement urged by opponents.