I hear it.

Either of those sections.

Can you work?

I can work from another one.

Oh, thank you.

It's not as good.

It doesn't hold as much as a good thing.

It all depends on the project.

Do I have to register after this paper?

I was asked to join by the same thing.

This is a long time ago.

I don't know if I actually do taxing shorts in the other.

Is it just a couple of your own?

Well, it is uh 15 minutes after the hour, and I'd like to welcome everybody to the Sandy City Planning Commission.

Um my name is David Hart, and I am the chairman.

We'll go around starting with uh Jennifer.

Blank, sorry, Jennifer.

And we're working this way.

Please introduce yourself.

I'm Jennifer George.

Danny Schoenfeld.

And Lenny Stavbenport.

Cameron Duncan.

Dave Bromley.

Okay, great.

Um James, do you want to introduce your staff?

Yes, my name is uh James Schwanson.

I'm the community development director.

Um over here we have Darien Alcorn, who's a senior city attorney, Mike Wilcox, planning director, and then I'll introduce several staff that will be um presenting with us tonight or uh helping the planning commission.

Thomas Irvin, who's a senior planner, Brittany Ward is uh public works assistant director, um Ivan Hooper, transportation engineers here's with us tonight.

Sarah Stringham, who's a planner, um Doug Wilwright, Development Services Manager, and Melissa Anderson over here is a zoning administrator.

And then we have uh Jennifer Gillen is uh filling in for the famous Aisha tonight, and she is going to work all of the systems perfectly for us tonight.

That's great.

Okay, well, thank you.

We're glad everybody's here.

We're going to we have uh two items for public hearings.

We'll go ahead and jump in.

Oh, sorry.

Let's have a pledge of allegiance.

So everybody stand and repeat after me.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under the individual with liberty and justice for all.

Whoever put that up, I appreciate that.

I'm sorry, I forgot that.

That will not be the first or last embarrassing thing I do tonight.

So let's go into our public hearing.

We have two items.

Let's start to the amendments to Title 21 of the land development code.

Um, okay, we're ready.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I have um two agenda items, and they are both related to amending the land development code to bring it in line with uh state law.

Um most of it is related to uh new legislation that was passed this last um session at the legislature.

Um okay already okay um so I I have um two agenda items and they are both related to amending the land development code to bring it in line with uh state law uh most of it is related to uh new legislation that was passed this last um session at the legislature so the first one um under House Bill 368 it prohibited the city from acquiring public hearings uh for a variance or land use appeal and so the amendments are were intended to bring it in line with Utah code and uh so we reviewed the appeals and variances uh section of the code in that review we did not see any language that specifically mandated a public hearing and however in our board of adjustments rules and procedures it does specify public hearings now uh the rules and procedures document is not codified, it is a separate document that the Board of Adjustment would uh review and update um per majority of the of the board.

So we will bring that back to the board at their next scheduled meeting with updates to remove uh public hearings and replace it with public meeting.

Um we did notice that there's um a couple of items that needed clarification and uh that would clarify and remove any ambiguity and provide consistency with the state law and under Utah Code 109A 306, it does require that we use the local community plain language in land use regulations in in general.

So that's one of our justifications to go ahead and make these changes because when we bring these uh forward to bring them in line with state law, we like to keep them strictly limited to that and to exclude discretionary or policy changes, keep those separate so that these are more mandatory type type changes, or at least the intent to bring it into state law.

So we noticed that there was a reference to a de novo review, and that would allow the board of adjustment if they found the record was not complete to review something de novo, which means that you can submit new information.

That's contrary to other sections in that same section of the code that says you can't submit new information, um, and um so we've adjusted that so that we remove de novo option, but if the board of adjustment does find that the record um is not complete, they can either remand it back, for example, remand the decision back to the planning commission to develop the record or to uh continue it if there was a piece of evidence or information from the previous hearing or previous meetings that that would be then submitted so they had the full record and then they would proceed with their review uh on an appeal.

Uh the other one was we needed to clarify that the effective and final date uh was when an appeal authority uh made a written decision or when the minutes um are formally approved by that body.

There was some ambiguity in that, and that was really important because if someone is going to appeal that uh local decision uh to the courts, they have 30 days from the date the decision's final, so clarity on when that was final was important.