Unmute the unmute the room testing one too.

Or the neighborhood.

Still able to fit full-size vehicles in the driveway as we were before.

I just look at this as a minor variance adjustment.

I could read through my proposal here if you would like, but I think you guys have a copy of that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Thompson?

Well, we've got him here.

I have one.

So we're as the board, we don't have a lot of ability to apply our a lot of our judgment.

We just have to follow what the code says us, tells us to do, right?

So typically when I uh consider one of these, I look for some uniqueness that's that comes with the property.

Um help help me out.

I'm having a hard time getting here with your property.

It's it looks pretty square like most of the other properties.

I didn't see a lot of slope or anything, you know, on it that that when we went and visited earlier.

So help just help me with that.

Help me find the the um you know the uniqueness in the property that would that would uh create the hardship.

On the east side of the property, when you go towards the far north corner, we meet the minimum setback at that 30 feet from the property line, and then it jogs in once you hit the south side of the property on the east side again, it jogs inwards about five feet once you get to that far corner.

So you've got a five-foot difference.

So it's just that that slight curve that happens, okay.

Correct.

Yep.

And that once you hit that, like again, that far north corner, we are 30 feet on the setback from the property line.

It's when you get towards the south side of the corner, we're 25 feet, 26 feet, uh 26 foot one, I believe is what it was.

Um, and that's that's kind of where we're seeking that variance, and then along the whole east side, um the boundary line, depending on where you measure that boundary line, it's it's again not a straight line, it's angled, so that's where we seek a three-foot variance on that corner.

Um if if it were to follow the fence line that was there when we purchased the home, um, and I'm assuming that's what my contractor based it upon was the fence line that was there, and um, yes, it is a straight line, the fence is straight.

However, the property line is not, it has that jog again, like the east side does.

Um that is the main reason for seeking a variance, the awkward property lines, if you will.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant while we've got him here?

I do thank you.

Are you the original homeowner?

No.

Any time was that retention pond present with the house on the property?

We were not made aware of it until we brought your Sandy City inspector out, and he made us aware.

We called in to Sandy City.

I hired a contractor that kind of didn't do his due diligence.

We paid him to pull the permits out, we paid him to do architectural set of drawings, we paid him to build this addition that we were seeking.

Uh I paid him quite quite a penny to do so, and under the impression that he was following city and and local codes.

However, that's not at all what transpired.

Back in 2023, this is when this all transpired.

Um he has gone out of business, he's no longer in business.

The company's closed doors.

We've tried illegally to go after him, but there's nothing that we can do with him not being in business.

Um we were not made aware of the retention pond until he excavated the back corner, and at that point, I brought a Sandy City inspector out, and that's when I started raising questions to the inspector if they were involved with any of this process, and he made me aware at that time he was not, and that uh he was not aware of any permits or anything that had been done with the city, any approved drawings or any of that.

So that's when I started picking the contractor as to why he was doing what he was doing without permits and without an approved set of drawings.

Um during the process, I I picked him quite a few times about uh says stamped engineer drawings, so I can see that an engineer was working on this, and never once could he produce them, which was another red flag for me.

So by by at this point, um, this is when Sandy City showed up and put a stop work order shortly after that on the property, and I agree with that based on the contractor not doing his due diligence.

Uh, once I found out the retention pond was there, um one of your inspectors came out, asked me how I wanted to move forward with the situation, and obviously I left it up to him.

You know, it it's not up to me.

If the retention pond needs to stay in its place, great, we'll rearrange and you know, stop this build based on his approval of filling the retention pond with flowable fill, is what he called it, that we could proceed and move forward.

Um at that point, that's when we proceeded with the footings and foundation and then got in contact with Sandy City to see what we could do about getting the drawings.

I hired an architect and an engineer at that point in the stage out of my pocket again and started working on the drawings to get something in front of Sandy to see if we could get this process approved.

Were you aware of the stop work order before the foundation report?

No.

But your contractor was he almost had to have been, sir.

Yeah.

Did you uh design the new home plan with the new outline?

Uh yes, with the um the engineer trying to remember that team.

I have it in my iPad here.

I I don't remember the name of them, uh, but yes, we did do the design of it.

Well, did you think to check the setbacks before you started that or I worked with Mike Wilcox on that as far as getting the setbacks from him?

Um I physically did not go out and pull a tape measure and physically verified what the contractor had pulled.

I had gone through a brain tumor and had it removed, so the contractor kind of knew this process on me and took advantage of the situation.

I wasn't in a position to do a lot of it.

Um I spent a year under the weather, if you will, uh recuperating from the tumor.

Um I think the contractor knew that, so he took advantage of the situation.

Um I then started getting involved heavily once I started filling better, and that's when I emailed back and forth with Mike to get some uh setbacks and what the requirements were.

Um at that point, I then went out and started doing measurements and realizing that we impeded on the setbacks, and then that's when we started the conversations again with the city.

What does that look like?

What do I need to do at this point?

And is there potential opportunity to move forward with it?

Who was your contractor?

Do it all construction.

What was that again?

Do it all construction.

Do you have any type of relationship with that person?

Not not at all.

What it was is we uh put it out to bed, and I wouldn't say he was the cheapest, he was the middle price guy.

TC was his name.

He seemed like an honest great individual.

Yes, I should have done my due diligence and pulled up their permit and made sure they were a valid legit contractor.

He did show me a license number, however, I didn't verify that.

No, um we took him for face value.

If the setback is denied on the south side of your property where you have to remain 20 feet, and not 17.

Can you still put a double car garage on that side with the set 20 foot with a 17 foot 20 set book?

It'd be a little bit of adjustments to the footings and foundation.

I I do have an alternative plan if needed, most definitely.

Um it's not the end of the world.

It just, in my opinion, makes it easier if I could move forward with the variance request.

However, yes, there's always alternative solutions to meet the minimum setbacks that are necessary if needed.

You don't have to throw out that one wall then, and you could put another foundation in and still do a good double car garage within the space you'd have.

No, I'd have to tear out the wall that the two walls, the north and south walls of the garage, and then the very far east wall, and adjust those three walls if if this was not granted.

Yes.

But that's uh you know my for my negligence of not following through with this contractor.

But that's you know for my negligence of not following through with this contractor if that's what it takes.

That's what will happen.

What's your profession?

Um in construction, been doing it for over 20 years.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Ms.

Anderson, did you have a staff presentation as well?

Okay.

Okay.

So I'll move on to the next illustration is this was showing the existing requirement of the setbacks on the front yards for a corner lot and uh the request to deviate from that by three and four feet, respectively.

This slide just shows utility easements and also overlays, setbacks on not just the front but the rear and the side as well.

So this was included in the packet in the staff report, but this illustrates in the dashed lines where there is an existing seven foot public utility and drainage easement on the let's see, west side, which is the rear area of the setback.

Uh that seven foot public utility easement runs all along the properties along that side, so it's not just on this property.

And it doesn't affect the buildable area because the setback should be 15 feet anyway, which is larger than seven foot.

Um the applicant has provided information that there is electrical uh power to the street lights that runs on the north property line, right on the property line.

Um I did not see an easement on that uh, but that the physical location of the the power line is there, as well as a gas line on the front of the property on the east side, uh which is within the front yard setback.

Um and then lastly, within uh what could be considered a buildable area, there is a drainage easement, and that's on the southwest corner, 30 by 30 feet.

That's a city easement, um, and that does extend beyond uh the standard setbacks and can affect uh uh the buildable area of a permanent structure, and uh but to remove that off the property, it is possible to do so.

The city public utilities department has verified with staff that they are willing to support any application to vacate that off the property, and in the staff report the uh cited the appropriate avenue for doing so is to amend the subdivision plat to vacate the public utility easement.

Um that is listed in our code as well as uh Utah Code that that's the appropriate avenue, and so um staff wanted to recognize that that can affect the buildable area, but that a variance process is not the appropriate process to uh remove that encumbrance off the property, and plus the city is willing and in favor of uh removing that, but there uh unfortunately there there is a separate and appropriate process to do so.

So the the summary uh some of the findings that staff has uh found is that you know this is really based just on the criteria of uh you know, do you meet the criteria for the variance?

And you have to meet all of them.

And so it talks about an unreasonable hardship, um, but the unreasonable hardship cannot be self-imposed and it cannot be economic in nature.

Uh the the Utah code is very specific in that that those are not valid reasons that for a variance in practicality, you know, these are you know uh difficulties, but for a variance that you cannot count in anything that may you know to avoid it just because it may cost some more.

Um practicality, you know, these are you know uh difficulties, but for a variance that you cannot count in anything that may you know to avoid it just because it may cost some more.

Now, another uh finding was that on a corner lot, the front yard setbacks, um, those setbacks apply equally to other corner lots that are in the same neighborhood, as well as the residential R18 zone.

So those setbacks are not unique to the property, and other properties have to adhere to them.

Um the rear yard public utilities easement and other utilities are not necessarily unique to this property or or the neighborhood, because you know, other properties have similar situations, um, and so there's no special circumstances that staff has found that would generally apply uh that do not apply to other properties in the same zone or the same neighborhood.

Um staff did identify the 30 by 30 foot drainage easement, it is a city's easement.

Um it can potentially affect the buildable envelope outside of those uh standard setbacks, but the appropriate process to remove that is to do a plat amendment to vacate the utility easement, and so um that's generally the the the summary of of our of our findings in looking at the the situation, the facts of the case, um, and staff based on that staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny the request because all the criteria have not been met, and they do all of them have to be met to warrant um uh a variance, and so staff recommends the board deny the the variance uh to the front yard setbacks on corner lots in the R18 zone.

I have a question.

Can you hear me?

Yes, um you mentioned that the corner lot here is similar to corner lots, the the setbacks are similar requirements as other corner lots would be in the R18 zone.

Are there other lots that have that unique shape on the front that are corner lots like this one is oh yeah, with the um if we were able to access the planner map and show the aerial?

Um I I did see other, you know, um on our map that has um it's well actually across the street is one.

Um I'm not sure if we can uh zoom in, but 8250.

It is, yeah, actually across the boulevard and to the south across the street, those lots also have just an angle um uh at the corner.

Um not all lots have that 30 by 30 foot um kind of square-shaped easement, although I did see on this plat one other lot that had kind of a rectangular shape at the corner affecting their property.

So this is not the only property with that, but I think the primary issue with that is that uh the appropriate process is a vacating the utility easement off the plat as opposed to a variance of when looking at just that one easement.

I have a follow-up question on that.

That the R18 is it large?

Are we talking about the city?

Yeah, most of the uh residential properties in Sandy are zoned R18.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for go ahead, Jim?

Isn't this a little different though than other corner lots in the plat?

Because they are on inner the around, I can call interstate 13.

They're on 13th east and they are on a corner lot and they lose part of their property there with the retaining wall that cuts across the sound barrier, the sound wall.

Is this one unique because of the wall?

Yeah, it doesn't it doesn't square off in that uh southwest corner.

Right in there's across there.

There's other other properties, similar properties.

Um just on the vicinity map it showed.

Um there's other ones too, but just on this vicinity map, if you go to the west, that one it would affect 8250, but it would not affect 8251, which is a corner lot, it would not affect 1327, which is a corner lot.

And that way, that lot that corner, the all corner lots are not the same.

You made the point that all corner lots of this plat are the same.

Um my point is they're not, or are they not?

Because they have that at that 45 degree where the retaining wall goes.

Okay, sounds like well, in terms of being the same in the um in terms of the corner lots having a front yard setback of 20 and 30 feet respectively, are that is the same.

That is standard across the R18 zone.

Um, and this neighborhood is all zoned R18.

Um, and most of the city is zoned R18.

So that's that's a setback standard in terms of the shape of the lot.

Now there you're correct in that there are some properties that don't have that angle, but there are some that do there this uh illustration up here in the vicinity map does show uh three properties that do have the corner, you know, shaved off.

There you go.

Um to the south, to the southwest, and across to the west.

There are also other ones.

If if we were able to zoom out on uh a GIS map with the planner map, we could look at the aerial photos to see so in that sense.

This is not um you know complete in all, but there are some uh that have that similar type of configuration in terms of shape.

And what kind of easement is necessary for that configuration?

I mean, this was put in after the fact, yeah.

And what kind of easement does there have to be an easement for that, or is it part of the utility easement?

No, I don't think it I think that um or you can just go in and say we're putting a we're putting a sound barrier on this part of your property because it it's an easy it's in an easement area.

Oh I guess the wall you're talking about that the wall is within their setback, is what you're saying?

Yeah, how how do you get permission to put the wall in?

I mean, is there does there an easement cover that wall?

I think the wall was always on the outside of the property.

I don't know that that was ever part of the property.

I'm not uh I I'd have to have a a survey in like that to be able to say I mean from appearances, it appears to be on the property line.

It appears to have been built by the development or you dog on this one, it appears not to be.

So the the wall that's along 13th East was installed.

Well, the the wall that cuts in from 13th East.

Okay.

Yes when they reconstructed 13th East.

It it was but was there an easement that the neighbor had to give up there or correct because that hasn't been discussed here and yet it affects the property.

Yeah, so there on this corner, there was while it doesn't look like they ever acquired this uh the property for whatever reason, but it does look like um there was an access easement provided to place that structure there, and it's been there in place for over 10 years, and it's also in place within the 30 by 30 easement for the drainage for the drainage easement.

Correct.

So Sandy just went and built within their own easement without removing it from the platform road improvement.

Any other questions for whoops?

Any other questions for Ms.

Anderson?

Great, thank you.

Uh now's the time for the public uh comment period.

I see two members of the public here.

Are either of you interested in commenting on this one?

Nope.

All right, we'll close the public comment portion of the meeting.

Yes, we do have attendees via Zoom.

Oh, Zoom.

Oh, yes.

Any attendees online that wish to uh comment?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature and we'll address you one at a time.

Oh, there's one we have one hand raised.

Um just lowered his hand.

Oh, let's back up.

Uh Mr.

Jensen or Mrs.

Jensen, uh, you may unmute yourself.

Um just if it was granted and the city did come in to move the utilities and everything.

Who pays for that?

Is it the tax dollars that pay for that?

I'm I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?

Yes.

So the the lady that was speaking said that there is a variance.

If it was granted, the city could come in and potentially move some of the utilities in order to grant this.

Is that correct?

Or am I a misunderstanding?

You know what what I was trying to communicate, ma'am, was that the city would support vacating an easement, which is not that we would fit be physically removing anything, it's just on the plat on the documentation where that easement is recorded as uh on the property that that through a an amendment to the subdivision plat could be accomplished with the city would support do uh doing that, but it doesn't mean removing physically anything.

Okay, so they would support it.

Okay.

All right, that makes sense.

Thank you.

And for the record, could you state your uh name and address?

Uh Wendy Jensen, eighty-two ninety-one during a circle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Great.

Uh thank you.

Oh, we just got one that popped up.

If it's all right.

Uh Mr.

Steele, you may unmute yourself.

Please state your name and address for the record, please.

Go ahead, Mr.

Steele.

Richard.

We are unable to hear you.

If you can, um it sounds like we're having technical uh difficulties with Mr.

Steele.

Oh can you hear us?

We can now.

Go ahead.

Oh, good.

Oh, good.

Um, we just noticed that it wasn't pointed out when the law was put in ten years ago.

Um the property owners, they purchased the land for that wall from each property owner.

So um regarding an easement being involved, the owner actually sold the land.

And so that shouldn't be an issue so far as the current ease easement now.

That land was bought and paid for by the city.

Does that make any difference?

Thank you, Ms.

Mrs.

Steele.

Do you have any of further comment?

No, we just we just thought that um that shouldn't that walk to have any um play in the variance request currently at hand.

Thank you, Mrs.

Steele.

Mike.

We need an address and stuff for the steals.

Sorry, my laptop just shut down.

Can we just pause for one second?

It completely just shut off.

I've got like the blue screen of death.

Okay.

And we're having this is gremlins tonight.

We'll pause the meeting for a moment.

Recording stopped.

Stop.

No, it has plenty of power.

Can you go to your slide?

One second.

Hey, Jim, before you go, let me close the public comment part of it, and then we can discuss.

I think you sand is trying to explain that the sanity project explained from that.

That's why I was like back in business over there.

I have a weird red thing that says extend.

Um by 30 minutes, I don't think.

Go ahead.

Can't hurt.

Is that a zoom notification?

No, it's the Granite Software.

Is it showing recording on Granica's?

Yeah, it's going out.

So I think back on.

All right.

Okay.

We'll continue.

Did we need to get uh Mrs.

Steele's address for the record?

Okay, Mr.

If you're still there, could you state your address for the record, please?

Yes, sir.

Anyone mind you think south?

1330 is perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

That's all those that uh have their hands raised.

Great.

Uh thanks, Mike.

That'll uh close the public uh portion of comments for the meeting.

And now the applicant can come and uh speak more or address some of those public comments or anything you'd like uh one last time.

I'd just like to say a few comments.

Um other properties in this zone don't adhere to the setbacks.

There's multiple properties two doors down that's up against 13th East with an addition built onto their house, and they're only two to three feet away from 13th East, where I'm maintaining a fifth 22 foot setback from the back of the property, which clears that seven feet for the utilities and 15 feet required from the property, giving it a 22-foot setback.

Um there's multiple properties that have built up against the road to where you cannot fit a full-size car in the driveway, and they've impeded on that 20 foot or 30 foot setback up in the front, which would be the east side of my property.

There's multiple properties in the neighborhood that don't have this unique lot shape to where I'm 30 feet from the front of the property on one corner and 25 feet on the other corner.

It makes it quite different of a lot.

It's unique in shape and size.

A lot of the other properties don't have this you know, issue or or setback potential issue.

Um, and there's quite a few, quite a few that have done additions without permits.

Uh we sat down with Mike Wilcox here, and he admitted that there were quite a few additions when we did the aerial that did not have permits.

Um again, I was not aware of the process in the beginning.

And I was under the impression the contractor, I took his face value for it.

The contractor was doing all the permits, doing all the inspections, and doing the architectural and engineering set of full drawings.

And once I found out that was not true, that's when I stepped in and took over.

With my background in construction for over 20 years, I was never tolerated this.

This was not something that was acceptable.

This was something that I jumped on as soon as I found out about it.

But with my condition, that's what put me in a position to not be involved in the very beginning and to rely on a contractor.

Um my whole family is in construction.

We're all well aware of uh city expectations, cities codes.

Not every city is the same, they're all a little bit different, but there are some standards within the cities, yes.

Um I relied on the contractor heavily, and I take full responsibility for that.

And I think also for the step back where it's you know a little bit wider at the what is that, the north side versus the south?

It's like we also want to keep our home in a consistent shape, you know.

We don't want to have different build-outs and stuff and have our garage set that farther than our home, or is even before it was always consistent.

So as far as like the face of the home.

So we'd like to also you know have that as a consideration too.

I don't want you guys to feel like we're just willy-nillying this that this is something we're blown out of our rear end in hopes of getting it past you guys.

No, we've always maintained that law.

It's always been.

I mean, right now it's like a little construction site with dirt, but it's always been natural.

Well maintained, nice landscaping, well taken care of.

And to answer your question, I have lived there for 14 years, but prior to this, I did not know that the back lot was purchased by the city.

That wall was up before my time of purchasing this home.

And when the seller sold it, I bought it from a bank.

It was it was a um a repo.

Yes, foreclosure.

They didn't disclose any of these items to me.

And then if I would have known they would have bought back half of the house for that retaining wall or or the wall for 13 fees, that would that would have taken been taken into consideration.

But I was not aware of any of these items.

Thank you.

Uh okay.

I'm gonna combine that.

I have a question before we leave.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, so I have a question for I appreciate what you're saying that your contractor, you seem to be casting all the responsibility on your contractor, not knowing anything, but it's almost like the cobbler's kids are the ones without the shoes.

Could you say you're in construction?

Your old man you said is in construction.

I take responsibility for it all for sure.

How does someone in construction not verify the permits?

I was wrapped inheriting no excuse whatsoever, but I was in the hospital for 21 days due to what range you were.

Okay, I had operation surgery.

I couldn't be that bad.

No excuse.

I'm not I'm not looking for excuse, I'm just trying to understand how old man passed away at the same time.

So it was it was quite a rough time.

Sorry for your loss.

We're just trying, I think I'm trying to understand how you had a stop work order, and then the and then the foundation report, anyways.

That that's kind of like again, I was not a hundred percent fully aware of some of these items, and I believe that the contractor took advantage of that and wanted his money, and so he proceeded with the work so he could get paid.

And once you finish that portion of the job, I paid him his money.

And I think that's really what it boiled down to is taking advantage of the situation, the condition I was in.

No excuse for it whatsoever.

You're right.

I appreciate I'm just trying to figure out how we got this far down the road.

It's rough.

I'll let you know that it's a rough situation.

I take full responsibility for it.

It's nobody's fault but my own homeownership, right?

I take full responsibility for it.

Okay.

Uh any other discussion among the board, any other questions for staff or the applicant.

I'd like to look at one additional slide.

Okay.

The slide with the reasons why we can't grant a variance.

Well, um, the staff report is more thorough.

This is just a summary of some points.

Uh, but um the next slide.

Thank you.

So did you have certain questions, Jim?

Or you just want to see it again and read it, or what?

What is considered unreasonable hardship?

Well, uh, we we get to decide that okay, so variants and this is a law state.

Anything about what it is.

This was uh um in the packet, and so because our code directly references variants uh uh of the state law uh you you may grant a variance, uh the board of adjustment may, only if literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the land use uh ordinance, and then later it says that um in determining whether or not enforcement of the land use ordinance would cause unreasonable hardship, the appeal authority or the board may not find um an unreasonable hardship if the hardship is self-imposed or economic, and so that that's um the criteria.

I I think I summarize that in one in the staff report.

Um also uh just underneath that um special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone.

So you know, there's there's other um I would I I would say it's kind of couched in what it's not.

Thank you.

Any other discussion or questions, comments uh from board members about this application or anything?

I I'd like to just make a quick quick note.

So really, I mean, ultimately with a variance, it's uh it's it's really a pretty simple analysis, which is you know is there a unique condition or set of conditions that make the applicable setbacks in this case unreasonable that make them an unreasonable hardship.

There are a couple of unique conditions to the property, and I think you did a great job explaining them.

One of them is the narrowing on the south side, right?

The south is narrower than the north.

So we have some curvature, and it actually is demonstrated perfectly, not just by the foundations uh that have been poured, but it's also demonstrated by the gas line.

It shows that same narrowing, right?

So I'd say that is a unique condition.

It doesn't have to be a completely unique condition, it just has to be a condition that's not generally applicable.

And I actually think we could argue that that narrowing isn't necessarily a generally applicable thing.

So uh, you know, that's that would be your argument here, is at least for the setback on the front.

We have we have a unique curve that's not generally applicable.

I think that's a valid argument.

As far as the south side goes, there's uh an additional variance request for that side, and so we have to find another reason that makes that somehow needed.

Um and in this case, we could point to this, we could point to this 30-foot drainage easement as a unique condition.

One of the problems though, is this drainage easement uh it could easily be vacated, and you'd still need the variance.

So the the existence of the drainage easement isn't actually the problem here, whether it's there or not, you know, it's it's we still kind of have the problem.

Uh you still need the variance, even if that drainage easement didn't exist, you'd still need the variance to accommodate the the bigger footprint that's been poured.

And so, you know, that's now we have to decide is the drainage easement, which does exist today, does that count as a condition that's you know creating a hardship for that south side?

And I think if these the combination of these unique conditions, you could also argue that the the slant on the north slope or on the north border could also create a sort of unique condition.

If the combination of of those unique shapes and that easement create an unreasonable hardship, um we could we could actually grant these based on those unique findings.

The question is does it actually rob them of a substantial right of their land use?

And that's what I'm I'm interested in getting.

You mean does does failing to grant it rob them of right?

Yeah, right.

And that's I I'm very interested in kind of just getting perspectives on that from the board and discussion format rather than kind of open floor format.

I think that's an excellent point.

That though there are some unique uh features to this lot that we could discuss, and if we decide that that is sufficient cause to uh consider the lot different or unique enough that it you know the variance could be potentially um granted, but I I also agree, especially on the especially on the east side, that is a odd slope.

Yes, there's other lots that have it, but this one does affect uh you know the um like uh like Ms.

Thompson said that you you know the house would have to change its shape to follow the shape of the of the slope of the lot, but but the south side like you said, Tyler, that if you take away that easement, we still have a variance issue uh with the setback there, and uh and the even the and and Jim, even the 45 degree angle, you know, that's chopped out of the corner, the southwest corner there, that doesn't really affect the setback, so I don't really consider that an issue, but yeah, I just don't know that that's enough of uh of a irregularity to grant the the variance request, especially on the south side.

Mr.

Chair, have we have we closed for public comment?

Can we do that?

And but that but the applicants and the staff are not public, so if you just want to ask them a question, feel free.

No, I'm not I'm just wondering if we we've gotten off track steps.

I'm wondering if we are ready to close any more comment and talk amongst our steps.

That's what that's what we're doing right now.

Okay, yeah, Mr.

Chairman.

This may or may not be relevant to your discussion, but from the from this application, it appears that the applicant is really requesting two separate very variances, right?

So you can treat it all as one, or you could say yes to one and no to the other, or no to both, or yes to both.

It's not necessarily an all or nothing package.

Oh thank you.

Good point.

So with the oh, go ahead.

Oh no, Bruce, I would never dream of interrupting.

Well, I just want to address the Thompson's.

I I uh you know, we all have medical things, and we're sorry about that.

We're also gonna talk about a few things that just feel very you're it's very personal for you, and we're gonna make it non-personal in a minute, and it's gonna feel that way, whatever that decision is that we come up with.

So I just I'm just telling you, based on our experience, it's very personal for you, but it's we're trying not to make a personal because there's five criteria that you've got to meet all of them, not a two or three.

It's gotta you gotta meet all of them.

And uh so with that being said, one of the things that I I'm I like this picture, I can see it, I feel uh, but I don't really see I I recognize that just a history lesson.

Well, one night, one of the people that was looking for a variance went and took a picture of every one of our homes or neighbors' homes that had a variance, and ever since then I've been aware of hundreds of variances.

So I I understand the frustration when you look down the street of neighbors that do have clear evidence of a problem.

Um and anyway, that is just one of the things that I think I've heard Sandy staff in the past, they just drive through Cindy now.

You know, they're not looking because they they see the problems everywhere.

The other thing that when you say variance, you don't mean uh uh a granted variance, you mean a exact thing that's not in the right and is just messy.

I I also I I see your law and I am certain that I could go find a dozen more very similar, similar problems, maybe not exact, but very close, that that makes your corner lot, you know, very similar to very many others.

And so it's hard for me to walk through like is yours unique enough and should it be able to receive a variance because of its so different than others.

And I I would argue that there's probably lots of other lots, corner lots that are very similar that have similar kind of challenges to yours.

Um so anyway, I just wanted to throw those things out.

I've looked at what I'm kind of thinking about, but I would love to hear from the other board members on any thoughts before we make a motion.

It seems like we're looking at a consent, but we're getting comfortable with the variants on the east side.

It's the south it's the south side we're having challenges with.

I don't know if I would say that.

Okay, well.

Can we vote separately or do we okay?

That's what you were saying.

Yeah, we could throw out any kind of suggestions or move up, make a motion to for either side, both sides, whatever we wanted to do.

The 20-foot feet there, and they want to go to 17.

I I could see where that's compensation for that whacking off that corner of their yard where they put in the sound barrier.

I don't I don't think that's relevant to a variance request.

Um that'd be a some sort of it it would make it an unusual situation.

That's that's the that's the point there.

I I don't think the corner being cut off impacts any any of the proposed variance requests.

It doesn't go find the other 50 other lots that have their corner cut off.

It doesn't affect the setback amount.

Uh um, you know, I I think I mean a mental exercise that I think would help me to settle in would be to say let's say that there was no foundations port at all, and this was a blank slate, and someone came to us and said, here's our lot, here's the unique features of our lot.

Here are the setbacks that are determined you know by the code, and here's what we here's what we would propose.

We'd propose moving the setbacks in in these in these ways, which are you know they're they're measured, they're not extra extremely we're not talking huge amounts.

Um maybe maybe the city would disagree with with that statement.

Um and so the question would be, you know, would we grant a variance?

Uh I I think you know the code asks us to expressly not considered financial hardships, self-imposed hardships, things like that.

So the existence of a foundation should not factor into our decision at all, um, which sounds cold hearted and mean, uh, but it is the law that we're asked to follow.

But if someone came to us and said, here's a unique shape, we've got this easement thing going on uh in the corner.

Uh it kind of forces the building envelope footprint just kind of like up and into the right.

Uh we we've got this anyway.

We think that just doing this and this would allow us to have a home that is comparable to homes and on the same street and to enjoy our property rights in the same way as everyone else.

What do you think is this reasonable request?

And if the answer is, well, yeah, sure.

I actually think you know, then we should grant it, uh, both of them.

But if it's like, well, no, just stick just stick to the code, you'll be fine.

Yeah, bring it back a couple feet, you'll be okay.

Uh you know, you're enjoying the rights just the same as everyone else without this variance, then we should deny.

Uh does anyone disagree with that?

No, I think that's a great analysis.

Okay.

Well, the first question asks us, is it an unreasonable hardship?

Yeah.

Is it an unreasonable hardship?

No, it's not.

Could we say describe why we would make a variance?

Yes, we could go there.

But then when you look at the are there special circumstances, that's where we're now kind of in a gray area.

But I would say it's generally applied across all properties in that neighborhood or broader sandy.

And then when you think about granting the variants, is it essential to the enjoyment of their property rights?

No.

I would say no, it's not essential.

They got a home.

I know that it's under construction kind of process, but um that would be my argument that it's it's not essential.

Um again, and then again, this the fourth question is very similar.

Uh the variance is it substantially affect the general plan and contrary to public interest.

Those two are those two questions, three and four, are very similar.

But that's what I would like if someone were to have a proposal that is different than declining both requests.

I would like I'd be open to hear it.

Because I'm just trying to follow the five steps.

We need to meet all of them.

And I'm not there.

So uh I'm not either.

Do you want to make a motion?

Well, I would I would make a motion that we deny the variance, and I'm sorry that to tell that, say that to the Thompsons.

I would like to be able to help them.

The little enforcement of the zoning ordinance will not cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant.

Uh it is in the it's necessary to, it's not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the zoning ordinance.

So it's just not reasonable, and I would also agree with this the staff's recommendation comments on that.

Number two, there are not special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same uh zone district.

And I would acknowledge that they do have kind of a unique deal there as described.

Some of them don't really matter to what we're trying to decide here, they're kind of noise on the outside.

But I would say, generally speaking, uh their circumstances are it's it's it's just generally applied to this property and others.

Number three, granting the variance is not essential to the enjoyment of the substantial property rights possessed by other property owners, property owners in the same area in in Sandy in their local area, but also Sandy.

Number four, the variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest.

And the last one, the spirit of the zoning law, is observed here in a substantially with and substantial justice.

It will not you know do harm for the property owner.

So I would I would recommend that we deny the variance request as presented.

Thanks, Bruce.

Uh Jennifer, you want to call for a vote?

Or do you or did Mr.

Wilcox do that?

See if there's a second.

Oh okay.

Sorry, is there a second to uh Mr.

Brynner's motion?

So we are in agreement that we're gonna vote on the motion is to deny it for the reasons that he stated, but but to deny it as one variance request.

The whole thing.

The whole thing.

Okay, yeah, I'll second Bruce's motion.

The the request for variances be denied.

Yes.

Tyler Brown?

Yes, Jim Everts?

No.

Matt Hill.

Yes.

Ryan Johnson?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Board.

Thank you.

Uh Thompson's.

Uh sorry it didn't work out how you'd hoped, but uh again, you can appeal the decision.

And uh thanks.

Thanks to the staff for the the preparation of the materials.

Uh we'll close the public.

Do I close a part of this meeting now to do the business?

Uh around the code and everything.

I have one slide for the next item.

All right, we just have uh one order of business, I think, today, and that is to approve a proposed amendment to an ordinance.

Uh right, Melissa.

Yes, we have uh two actually.

Um we have uh proposed amendments to the Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure, and then we also have um election of chair and vice chair.

So in your packet, I included the um a red line version of proposed changes to the Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedures, because earlier this year, this legislative session, House Bill 368 was passed by the legislature, which states that we may not uh require a public hearing for a request for a variance or land use appeal, and so this uh Rosen procedure proposing to replace um all references to public hearing with the public meeting uh for consistency with the Utah Code that was recently changed.

There's also two other corrections that were made uh just for consistency with our city code, for example, removed special exceptions because the board doesn't make those decisions, just appeals and variances.

I'm not sure how that got in there, but anyway, that's maybe it's changed over time and just have never been changed.

And also it was lawyers the uh effective date uh that when the decision is final.

Uh we clarified that in our city code, and so I want to make sure that language was the same in the Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures because that was referenced in your rules of procedures.

So I just adjusted that for consistency.

I have a question for you.

Do any of the red changes cause you heartburner concern?

You as a staff, Sandy staff.

No, um because I didn't I'm looking for something I couldn't see it.

Well they seemed straightforward and clean.

Oh, yes, yes, indeed.

Yeah.

Um I think um the the public hearing really should only be for legislative uh decisions when we have rezons and code amendments, those go to city council.

And so um I think the public meeting, the chair can decide um uh on whether to allow for public input, uh, but particularly on appeals.

Um there is a problem with uh um adding to the record by allowing uh comments.

So anyway, that's the kind of the impetus behind some of these changes at the state level, and but no, none of these changes were out of line.

It's more more housekeeping.

I think it makes sense the change, but I do have one question.

Just when it changes it to say may not require a public hearing for request for variance of land use appeal.

Um are we saying that when it's only a public meeting, they there is no exceptions to allow the public to ever speak in a public meeting, only in a public hearing, or or can we still allow the public?

We can still allow speak if they choose.

Yes, we can allow for public input at a public meeting.

Um I think that makes sense then question on the effective bank?

Yes.

When the authority issues a written decision or approval of the minutes, so we don't have to come back to approved minutes.

It's just when the minutes of this would how did that officially work where it's officially approved or published?

How does that work?

Well, when you're not approving minutes of meetings, no, we do you you do either you can do it remotely electronically, um, or if we meet frequently enough, you could do it at the next meeting.

This says what written decision or approval of the minutes.

So I mean this decision tonight will be final as soon as the minute as soon as the decision is published.

Is it published on the Sandy City website?

Where's that notice given?

It's published when you after you approve the minutes, and then we publish those minutes to the website.

So we do have to have another meeting.

No to approve the minutes for two years.

The rules and procedures that the board has allows you to approve those minutes remotely.

Okay, that's the emails we get then.

Correct.

So after it's so little, right.

Okay.

And so um otherwise we'd have to convene a special meeting just to approve minutes, and we'd rather not burden you such.

Uh so um typically, as soon as the minutes have been prepared, that draft is sent out to you for approval.

Once that has been ratified by all the members via email, then we publish those minutes to the website, and that is the written decision uh by uh formally approving those minutes that way.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh can I entertain a motion to approve the proposed changes to the ordinance?

Second so moved.

I'll take that as a motion and a second.

Brian or seconded.

Jennifer, want to call for the vote.

Brian Jones?

Yes.

Brief Breiner?

Yes.

Matt Hill?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Was that it, Melissa?

For for board business?

Unfortunately, we have one other item.

Um, yeah, the chairman and every year we're required to elect the chair and the vice chair.

I have an odd motion.

Let me ask staff if they would if we approved it this way and then get proactive downstream, because I don't think you I think you can tell you no.

I don't think you vote.

My uh recommendation is that we we um I recommend that Matt be the co-chair or the chair, and he's an alternate, and that Tyler has asked that maybe he be considered to be an alternate and you make Matt.

And you know, I know that you probably cannot approve this.

You have to go to higher powers, but if we motioned it this way, then Matt would be new chair pending a proper approval from other powers.

I so uh let me let me just attend left yeah, let me make a chairman's uh decision and just say we've had one meeting in one year.

Let's it just let us all go home early and I'll keep my job, you keep your job, we'll maintain status quo for another year and revisit it again next year.

How does that sound second?

And just to clarify Bruce's question, um alternates can't hold the position of chair or vice chair assumed that and that decision to swap roles is not in your hands as board members.

So that's why I said we're getting that approved and we've already decreed we'll pass the note along to the to the powers that can make such a change, but that is ultimately not our decision or your decision right as staff members understood or board members.

One comment before we close.

Can I suggest to the city that the city go in and vacate the easement on the plat?

Or does that have to be done by the resident?

Um we we can look at it.

Um typically when an easement is um created through a plat, such as this, the method to um release or vacate that uh easement is also through a plat.

We'll consult with legal and as to if there's any other options.

Um we can't unilaterally vacate a plat or or amend a plat without the property owner's consent.

Um but um we can look at options for that.

So that that's something that we did explore um after receiving that letter from public utilities stating that that wasn't needed for their purposes, and they would allow for um other structures in that easement area.

Um so we'll we can certainly explore that with them, and we'll be looking working with the Thompsons um in the days to come regarding how to modify their their uh proposed building plans such that they do conform to the standards and setbacks.

Um with the results of tonight's meeting, unless they appeal it, they will need to modify at least one or two of those walls uh to accommodate their um their proposed um uh goal of remodeling this house and and essentially building a new house on the property, which we do support as long as it conforms with the setbacks.

So they do have options, none of them which are easy, uh, but um there are options that we'll explore with them.

And that may involve vacating the easement.

It it just seems like the easement should have or maybe could have been vacated by the city when they put the sound wall in.

That has nothing there, those weren't related requests.

I have a motion.

I support what Brian has recommended for keep things as is.

That would be my second.

I second that motion.

We're back, we're back and listed to what all in favor.

I'll just do an all in favor for you, Jennifer.

Okay.

Anyone opposed?

Okay, I'll take that as a motion carries.

Me and me and Bruce will carry on for one more year.

Okay.

Wait, it's oh Jim, oh sorry.

It's yeah, yeah.

Sorry, it is chairman.

No, but it's you are a you are a very good-looking vice chair.

We need to keep it there.

Sorry, Jim.

I I mixed that up.

I should have known.

Um thank you guys for for your comments and your input.

Uh it was a good meeting.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Somebody want to make it?

Yes.

Motion to adjourn.

Any second?

Second.

Any any opposed?

Awesome.

Meetings done.

Thank you guys.

Thank you all.

We get to 11, we get to vote if we want to stay longer.

Eleven o'clock.

11 o'clock.

It's like wow.

Wow.

We have a potential variance application.

Uh