Kane County commissioners review Fort Ranch development agreement, press developer to narrow county obligations

The Kane County Commission on April 28 informally signaled support for a proposed development agreement for the Fort Ranch property while asking the developer to revise contract language on county service obligations, ownership transfers and dispute resolution.

Applicant Greg Wyatt presented the proposal, telling commissioners the plan would authorize up to 60 revenue-generating units on two parcels totaling roughly 900 acres, with a concentrated commercial parcel for a hotel of about 5 acres inside a referenced 100-acre planning area. "This document is essentially the legalization of a proposal... for development of 60, commercial units on the old Fort Branch property just west of Canal," Greg Wyatt said as he described hotel amenities, guest-only EV charging, accessory buildings, and residential units that the applicant said would be offered as long leases for second-home use rather than primary residences.

County counsel Jeff objected to newly added clause 3.10, calling it "a bit ambiguous" and warning it could bind the county to help secure roads, water or fire services in ways that may be unpredictable. Jeff also flagged transfer language in subsection 4.2 that would permit transfers to affiliates or third parties after certificates of occupancy without county consent and raised concern about section 10.6, which limits the county's ability to pass resolutions recommending annexation. "I don't like it because it's a bit ambiguous, and I don't know how to interpret it," Jeff said of 3.10.

Commissioners discussed possible compromises: striking or narrowing 3.10 for now, requiring the developer to notify the county of any ownership change (a 60-day notice was suggested), and limiting unconsented transfers until after defined completion milestones such as final occupancy of the hotel. Several commissioners emphasized the county should not be contractually liable for mediation costs unless both parties agree to mediation.

Greg Wyatt said he was willing to refine the language and suggested the developer could retain controlling interest while taking on investors, and that a reasonable post-completion ownership period could be negotiated. He also described a mechanism to protect undeveloped land: the development agreement would convert to a deed restriction and, after final certificates of occupancy are issued, remaining undeveloped land would be placed under a permanent conservation easement rather than a time-limited restriction.

The commission took an informal indication of support and asked staff to have the developer produce a cleaned draft reflecting the agreed changes for transmission to Kanab City and the planning commission for formal review. Planning and zoning will consider any zoning modification on May 13; commissioners said they expect to consider a formal, binding vote in a later May meeting after the city and planning commission provide comments.

What’s next: The planning commission will review the revised agreement and the city has a statutory comment period; the commission emphasized today’s action was an informal expression of support, not a final binding approval.