OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Draper, Utah/Meeting Portal
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Draper City Variance Appeal Hearing Summary – March 31, 2026

Meeting Portal — Tuesday, March 31, 2026
BodyDraper, Utah
SessionMeeting Portal
DateTuesday, March 31, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 49:35

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:17

Tim, can you make sure to turn your microphone on?

0:20

Yeah.

0:22

There we go.

0:25

We are on the record.

0:26

This is the uh appeals and variance hearing.

0:29

My name is Tim Pack.

0:30

I'm the variance here appeals and variance uh hearing officer.

0:34

Today is March 31, 2026.

0:38

Um approval of the minutes from our last hearing, January 9, 2026.

0:46

Uh I've reviewed those and those meeting minutes are approved.

0:50

Um next item on the agenda is the Chris Gardner variance application.

0:55

Uh before we begin, let's get everyone's appearance who would like to make an appearance, starting with the city.

1:04

Um Jennifer Destremsky Todd Draper.

1:11

Spencer De Sain, um counsel for the city.

1:16

And Matt Symes, building official for the city.

1:19

Lori Stout, executive assistant.

1:22

Thank you.

1:22

And now for the applicant.

1:24

Chad Hutchings, counsel for Mr.

1:27

Gardner.

1:28

Chris Gardner.

1:31

Great.

1:31

Welcome.

1:32

Um is it Hutchins or Hutchinson?

1:36

Hutchings, all right.

1:37

Uh and are you going to be speaking on behalf of the applicant today?

1:39

Yes.

1:40

Okay.

1:40

Well, feel free to take the podium and uh let's begin.

1:57

I mean, is this hot?

1:59

Is this microphone on?

2:01

Yes.

2:02

Okay.

2:03

Um so uh we have kind of stepped into this case.

2:10

Uh, our firm somewhat last minute as Mr.

2:14

Uh Gardner's prior counsel is now a judge.

2:18

So we have taken over this case from him.

2:22

So uh I will be obviously dealing with uh the documents that were prepared by Mr.

2:27

Whiting on Mr.

2:28

Gardner's behalf, but I have not prepared any documents myself.

2:34

To begin with, um I would start with the assumption that you have read all of the documents that have been prepared by Mr.

2:43

Whiting and by the city, so you understand each side's relative position in this.

2:49

So I'm not going to belabor points or spend a lot of time reiterating everything that's here.

2:55

Uh you're correct.

2:56

I I've read everything that's been submitted.

2:58

Thank you.

2:59

So what I would like to uh to address are some of the important things uh that I see in this, especially from Mr.

3:08

Gardner's perspective, and I would like to address, of course, the arguments that are made directly in the briefing from the city.

3:18

Um I've made a few notes about that.

3:22

What we uh are looking at is a request on Mr.

3:28

Gardner's behalf to have the city allow him a variance on his building that the uh the city says does not comply with its uh its ordinance governing governing setbacks.

3:41

Um the first thing I would like to say about that is of course Mr.

3:46

Gardner not being a contractor or an attorney or anything like that, hired somebody to do the construction for him and relied on that individual's knowledge and expertise as they were holding themselves out as a contractor to know what permits needed to be obtained and to know what building ordinances and and uh regulations applied to the specifics of what wanted to be done.

4:13

So, you know, it talks about this as being something that was done in ignorance of the law and brought his, you know, shall we say brought his misery upon himself, but the reality is the uh the misery, if it were misery, were brought upon him by uh what turned out to be an unlicensed contractor, he did not know that, who did not follow the law again.

4:38

He was relying upon the contractor to know his business and follow it.

4:42

Um ultimately to uh his his detriment, even if it's only just having to deal with this hearing and these applications.

4:52

Uh what we are dealing with is not an ignorance of the law situation, but a mistake of fact.

5:00

As attorneys here will know if I'm going 45 miles an hour in a 40-mile zone, I get pulled over for speeding.

5:07

I can't say, oh, I didn't know it was against the lot of speed, but I can say, oh, I thought this was a 45 mile an hour zone.

5:14

And as a mistake of fact, I'm probably not going to get a ticket from the police because they're gonna go, oh well, we probably can't win the oops.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Regulation█████████████████████████████████████████████53%
Mental Health Awareness████████████████19%
Procedural██████████12%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████11%
Water And Wastewater Management████5%
Summary of Proceedings

Draper City Variance Appeal Hearing – March 31, 2026

A variance hearing was held on March 31, 2026, before Variance Hearing Officer Tim Pack to consider an application by property owner Chris Gardner for a variance from the city’s setback requirements for an accessory building constructed on his property. The building, approximately 400 square feet, was built by an unlicensed contractor without permits, encroaching on required setbacks. The applicant argued for the variance based on personal hardship, including PTSD, and benefits to the neighborhood, while the city maintained that the statutory criteria for a variance were not met and that the remedy should be to move or demolish the structure.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes from January 9, 2026, meeting: Approved by Hearing Officer Pack, who reviewed them in advance.

Discussion Items

  • Variance Application – Chris Gardner (Applicant): The applicant, represented by attorney Chad Hutchings, sought a variance for a pre-existing accessory building that violated setback requirements. Hutchings argued that Mr. Gardner relied on a contractor who failed to obtain permits and follow code, and that requiring removal would cause significant economic and emotional hardship, particularly given Mr. Gardner’s PTSD. He noted the building mitigates flooding, is not visible from the street, and neighbors support it. The city, represented by Spencer De Sain, argued that variances are extraordinary and must be based on property characteristics, not personal circumstances. He stated the city enforces setbacks uniformly and that the building fails all five statutory criteria, especially since it exceeds 200 square feet (where relaxed setback rules apply). De Sain emphasized that future buyers might object, and that the city’s failure to enforce elsewhere does not bar current enforcement. Mr. Gardner personally addressed the board, describing his mental health struggles and his desire to maintain the building for family and neighborhood use.

Key Outcomes

  • No decision announced: Hearing Officer Tim Pack indicated he would consider the arguments and documents and issue a written decision within the next week, to be distributed via city staff. The hearing was then closed.

Meeting Transcript

Tim, can you make sure to turn your microphone on? Yeah. There we go. We are on the record. This is the uh appeals and variance hearing. My name is Tim Pack. I'm the variance here appeals and variance uh hearing officer. Today is March 31, 2026. Um approval of the minutes from our last hearing, January 9, 2026. Uh I've reviewed those and those meeting minutes are approved. Um next item on the agenda is the Chris Gardner variance application. Uh before we begin, let's get everyone's appearance who would like to make an appearance, starting with the city. Um Jennifer Destremsky Todd Draper. Spencer De Sain, um counsel for the city. And Matt Symes, building official for the city. Lori Stout, executive assistant. Thank you. And now for the applicant. Chad Hutchings, counsel for Mr. Gardner. Chris Gardner. Great. Welcome. Um is it Hutchins or Hutchinson? Hutchings, all right. Uh and are you going to be speaking on behalf of the applicant today? Yes. Okay. Well, feel free to take the podium and uh let's begin. I mean, is this hot? Is this microphone on? Yes. Okay. Um so uh we have kind of stepped into this case. Uh, our firm somewhat last minute as Mr. Uh Gardner's prior counsel is now a judge. So we have taken over this case from him. So uh I will be obviously dealing with uh the documents that were prepared by Mr. Whiting on Mr. Gardner's behalf, but I have not prepared any documents myself. To begin with, um I would start with the assumption that you have read all of the documents that have been prepared by Mr. Whiting and by the city, so you understand each side's relative position in this. So I'm not going to belabor points or spend a lot of time reiterating everything that's here. Uh you're correct. I I've read everything that's been submitted. Thank you. So what I would like to uh to address are some of the important things uh that I see in this, especially from Mr. Gardner's perspective, and I would like to address, of course, the arguments that are made directly in the briefing from the city. Um I've made a few notes about that. What we uh are looking at is a request on Mr.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com