A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Commission adopts development agreement for Old Port property with 60‑unit cap and contingencies

September 22, 2026 | Kane County Commission, Kane County Boards and Commissions, Kane County, Utah


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Commission adopts development agreement for Old Port property with 60‑unit cap and contingencies
The Kane County Commission on Sept. 22 voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 2026‑04, approving a development agreement that allows certain commercial uses — including a hotel, restaurant and short‑term rentals — on portions of the Old Port property while retaining agricultural zoning for the larger parcel. The board made final approval contingent on the applicant owning the property and the county first responding in writing to Kanab City’s objections.

County attorney Jeff Stott explained the procedural safeguards before the vote, saying the motion should be made “contingent upon applicant owning the property as well as the county responding to the city's letter.” Developer Greg (S11) told commissioners the project includes a hard cap of 60 revenue‑generating units and that a traffic study supports the proposal: “we did not believe that this was a development that caused gridlock in Kanab that would materially alter the character of the community, and we believe that the traffic study bears that claim out.”

Discussion centered on who would maintain roads and whether public access promised in the agreement required county ownership. Commissioners sought clearer language on unit counts (hotel rooms versus residences) and on whether a labeled “public park” would be county‑operated or privately maintained; the developer said mountain‑bike trails and a publicly accessible network were included in Exhibit E and that maintenance was his intent. The board also noted safeguards that would revert the land to standard agricultural zoning if the development agreement is not implemented or if the developer sells the property without county approval.

The motion to adopt the ordinance, amended to correct a clerical ordinance number and to require the two contingencies flagged by legal staff, passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee