Sandy City Board of Adjustment Upholds Planning Commission Decision on Falls Creek Estate Subdivision - February 12, 2026
Sandy City Board of Adjustment Meeting - February 12, 2026
The Board of Adjustment heard an appeal from Garrett and Samantha Lisi (represented by Clyde Snow & Sessions) challenging the Sandy City Planning Commission's decision to deem the preliminary subdivision review for the Falls Creek Estate Subdivision (2873 and 2851 East Wasatch Boulevard) substantially complete. The appellant argued that the planning commission erred in interpreting city code regarding the classification of the proposed access road (private lane vs. private street), failed to consider existing easement rights, and did not adequately address safety and buildability concerns. After presentations from the appellant, city staff, and the affected party (Ivory Development LLC), the board voted 4-1 to deny the appeal, finding no legal error or arbitrary action by the planning commission.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were made.
Discussion Items
- Appeal by Garrett and Samantha Lisi: Attorney James Anderson argued that the proposed road exceeds 150 feet and serves three lots (including the appellants' lot via a shared easement), making it a "private street" requiring 27-foot width and a turnaround, not a "private lane" (20-foot width). He also contended that the subdivision interfered with the Lisies' access easement and that the city failed to consider safety and slope issues.
- Staff Presentation: City planner Melissa stated that the road is a shared driveway, not a private lane or street, because both proposed lots have frontage on Wasatch Boulevard and the shared portion is less than 150 feet. She asserted that the planning commission had a reasonable basis for its decision and that easement disputes are beyond the board's jurisdiction.
- Affected Party (Ivory Development): Attorney Annalisa Quinn Wilson emphasized that the standard for overturning a planning commission decision is high — the appellant must show the decision was illegal, arbitrary, or capricious. She argued that the commission had sufficient evidence and that any driveway length issues would be addressed at the building permit stage. She also noted the city engineer found no safety or traffic concerns.
- Appellant Rebuttal: James Anderson and Garrett Lisi countered that the road measurement must start from Wasatch Boulevard, placing its length at over 150 feet (at least 158 feet to the property line). Mr. Lisi asserted that the shared driveway partially crosses his property, and no easement exists for the new lot, creating trespass. He also claimed the planning commission overlooked the road's actual length due to small print on the plat.
- Board Discussion: The board first confirmed the Lisies had standing. Commissioner Burke expressed that the planning commission acted reasonably based on the record; the chairman noted that no egregious or intentional error was shown. A motion was made to find that the planning commission did not err, that the lots have access, and that the code's private drive requirements were not applicable. The motion passed 4-1 (Chairman Jones, Commissioners Saker and Briner in favor; Commissioner Hill opposed).
Key Outcomes
- Motion to Find Planning Commission Did Not Err (4-1): The board denied the appeal, upholding the planning commission's decision that the preliminary subdivision review for Falls Creek Estate Subdivision was substantially complete. The board found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the planning commission's decision was illegal, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the record supported a reasonable basis for the decision.
- Standing Granted: The board unanimously agreed that the appellants had standing to appeal.
- Meeting Adjourned: The meeting concluded after the vote.
Meeting Transcript
Recording in progress. This might expect you to ensure that it's just next hour. Okay. Welcome to the Sandy City Board of Adjustment meeting. Tonight we have one issue on our agenda. I think everybody here knows what it is, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it. We will in a minute. But let me read, even though I've been doing this for 20 years, I'll read the script just so I don't miss anything. I'm the current chair of the Board of Adjustment. My name is Brian Jones. I'm joined by my fellow board members. We're also joined by city staff members who will introduce themselves when they speak. As you know, the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body. A quasi-judicial means we're like a court, but we aren't judges. The Board of Adjustment is empowered under state law and Sandy Sandy City ordinances to hear motions for variances and appeals of alleged errors, which is why we're here tonight. We're not employees, but rather we're citizens who live in city in Sandy City who have been appointed to this board by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council. We meet at the call of the chairman, normally on the second Thursday of the month at 6 30 p.m. here in the city council chambers. Our meetings are normally preceded by field trip and often by training by our staff and legal counsel, which uh the public may attend. The training and regular portion of the meetings can be attended virtually or through Zoom webinar as well. Although we may be sympathetic to the desire and need of an applicant or appellant, we are bound by to follow the law as we all are. We don't legislate or make laws, that's done by the state legislature and the city council. We may not agree with the law, but we as the board must follow the laws as they are written. This means that all requirements of an ordinance must be met before the board can approve a matter brought before us and the uh applicant carries the burden of proof or showing that he or she meets the requirements of the law. Okay, with that out of the way, let's uh have the Pledge of Allegiance. Bruce, would you lead us in that? Absolutely. If it's to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which is one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice are all. Introduce the matter and why we're here today. Yes, thank you very much. Can you uh put that full screen? Oh, perfect. So, yeah, we're uh we have a request for an appeal of an alleged error of the planning commission decision related to the Falls Creek Estate Subdivision. Uh that's at 2873 and 2851 East Wasach Boulevard. Uh the original applicant for the Falls Creek Estate Subdivision is Ivory Development LLC. Uh the request is to review an alleged error by the planning commission and their decision to determine preliminary subdivision review was complete for that application. Uh the appellate is Garrett and Samantha Lisi, who are represented by Clyde Snow and Sessions. And so it was to reorient an exit existing parcel line as illustrated here in the red line that shows how it would reorient that so that would provide uh for both of these lots to have have frontage and create through the subdivision process the um uh remnant parcel into a legally platted lot and the appellants are shown in this slide in the house just on the left next to the the boundary there. This also was in the packet is just another illustration of how the property line was adjusted to change from just one uh platted lot to um two platted lots through the subdivision process and with uh one shared uh street access from Wasch Boulevard. So this is uh part of the just staff introduction so that we're oriented about the nature of uh this case and the appeal. And so one of the key things we need to do uh first off with the board of adjustment is determine if the record is complete or not. Um after that, we'll have a presentation by the appellant, and then staff will uh offer a presentation of uh on the appeal, and then a response presentation by the affected party party, which is ivory development, is allowed to provide testimony, and then finally a concluding response by the appellate. After that, then the board would have questions discussion uh before making motions in a final decision. Um this case is uh based on the existing uh record, and so no new information is allowed to come into the record. So the first order of business is for uh the board of adjustment to determine if you believe that the record is complete and not deficient as demonstrated by the the minutes reports, findings, recordings, etc. from the planning commission meeting, and thus could be reviewed on the record this evening. Is there any dispute that the record is complete or not? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to determine completeness of the record. Is there's that just to us? Yes, anybody on discussing it?
openpublica.com