Sandy City Board of Adjustment Meeting - December 11, 2025

The Board of Adjustment convened to review a variance application from the Thompsons regarding setback deviations on a corner lot in the R18 zone, while also addressing administrative updates to Board procedures and officer elections. Throughout the meeting, Board members and staff analyzed whether the applicant's lot possessed unique conditions sufficient to meet the five statutory criteria for granting a variance, ultimately concluding that the hardships were not unreasonable or unique enough under state code. The Board also voted on procedural rule changes to align with recent state legislation and moved to maintain the current leadership structure.

Consent Calendar

• No specific consent items were listed; the meeting proceeded directly to hearing the variance application and subsequent agenda items.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Applicant (Mr. Thompson): Expressed full support for his own application, arguing that the lot possesses unique attributes (narrowing south side, angled boundary, and a 30x30 foot drainage easement) that create an unreasonable hardship not faced by other properties. He admitted to relying heavily on a contractor during a period of personal medical hardship (brain tumor surgery) and taking the contractor at face value regarding permit status, but emphasized his 20-year construction background and family's awareness of city codes.
• Wendy Jensen (8291 Drive A Circle): Asked for clarification on funding, specifically requesting to know if tax dollars would cover utility moves if the variance were granted.
• Richard and Mrs. Steele (1330 Anything South): Clarified that the city purchased the land for a retaining wall directly from the property owners ten years ago, asserting that this transaction means the wall should not be an issue for the current variance request. They noted that the city has owned the land where the wall sits.

Discussion Items

• Variance Application (Thompson):

  • Applicant's Position: The applicant argued that the lot's unique shape (a 5-foot jog on the east side resulting in 25-foot vs. 30-foot setbacks) and the presence of a city drainage easement created a hardship that forced him to deviate from standard setbacks. He stated that without the variance, he would have to tear out walls to meet the 20-foot setback requirement on the south side.
  • Staff Position (Ms. Anderson): Staff maintained that the applicant did not meet all five criteria for a variance. They stated that the hardship appears self-imposed (due to the contractor's failure to follow code) and economic in nature. Staff noted that while a drainage easement exists, the appropriate remedy is a plat amendment to vacate the easement, not a variance to override setbacks.
  • Board Discussion:
    • Jim Everts: Questioned the uniqueness of the lot shape compared to other corner lots in the R18 zone, noting similar configurations exist elsewhere. He raised the issue of the sound barrier wall across the street and whether an easement existed there, discussing how the city may have acquired the land for the wall.
    • Tyler Brown: Argued that the narrowing geometry of the lot on the south side and the easement could constitute a "unique condition," potentially meeting the special circumstances criteria if combined with the shape. He questioned whether failing to grant the variance robbed the owner of a substantial property right.
    • Bruce Bjorner: Acknowledged the applicant's difficult personal history but emphasized that the Board must strictly follow the five criteria, noting that the Board has seen hundreds of variances in the neighborhood. He argued that the lot is not unique enough and that the variance is not essential to property enjoyment.
    • Consensus: The Board generally agreed that while the lot has some irregularities, the self-imposed nature of the hardship (due to the contractor's actions) and the availability of alternative solutions (moving walls) meant the criteria for "unreasonable hardship" and "special circumstances" were not fully met.

• Amendment to Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure:

  • Staff proposed changes to align with Utah House Bill 368, replacing references to "public hearing" with "public meeting" for variances and appeals. The Board discussed and confirmed that public input could still be allowed at public meetings, distinguishing them from legislative hearings. The Board also clarified the effective date of decisions based on the approval of minutes.

• Election of Chair and Vice Chair:

  • Staff noted that alternates cannot hold the Chair or Vice Chair positions. The proposal to swap roles was deferred, and the Board moved to maintain the status quo for another year.

Key Outcomes

• Variance Denial: The Board unanimously voted to deny the variance request for the Thompson property. The motion carried with 4 votes in favor (Brian Jones, Brett Breiner, Matt Hill, Ryan Johnson) and 1 vote against (Jim Everts). The Board cited that the applicant failed to prove unreasonable hardship and that special circumstances were not unique enough to override the zoning code.
• Rule Approval: The Board approved the proposed amendments to the Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure by a voice vote (all in favor), making the changes effective upon the approval of minutes via email.
• Leadership Status: The Board voted to maintain the current Chair and Vice Chair for the coming year to avoid procedural delays, with a plan to revisit elections next year.
• Next Steps: Staff notified the applicant that they must modify their construction plans to conform to existing setbacks unless they choose to appeal the decision. Staff will also explore options with the property owner and utility departments regarding the potential vacatur of the drainage easement via a plat amendment.