Planning commission upholds denial of garage encroachment into utility easement; appellant may appeal to city council

The Grantsville Planning Commission on an appeal consideration upheld a staff denial of a permit for a garage that would encroach 2.5 feet into a 7.5-foot public utility easement at approximately 212 North Hatchet Ranch. The commission concluded the structure would be a permanent encroachment into a utility easement and denied the appeal by split vote, meaning the denial stands under the commission’s code.

The issue came forward after Planning Department staff denied the encroachment permit because the proposed building exceeds 200 square feet and would be a fixed structure in the easement, according to the staff report read at the meeting. Appellant Mike Wallen told the commission he recently bought the house and sought a shop sized to accommodate his truck; he said utility companies except Public Works had signed off on the encroachment.

Commissioners raised safety and long-term access concerns. “I’ll just say I’m not a fan of going into easements. It’s a Pandora’s box,” Planning Commissioner Trent (first name only in the record) said at the hearing, noting that future utility work could damage a structure and that multiple utilities may complicate repairs. Another commissioner said that even if utilities were currently absent behind the house, future development could require lines there.

Wallen’s builder told the commission reducing the garage footprint would increase structural costs; Wallen said the building’s electrical would be fed from the main house and the structure would not include plumbing or gas. Commissioners suggested alternatives such as shifting the building closer to the house, leaving the portion over the easement as temporary surfacing (gravel) rather than concrete, or revising the driveway approach to keep required clearances.

When the commission took a roll call on a motion to reverse the staff denial, two members voted in favor and at least one named member voted against, producing a split decision that by code results in denial. The record includes an “aye” from Derek Dalton and an “aye” from Sarah Marnie; the minutes record a “nay” from a member identified verbally as Transferly during the roll call. The commission’s chair advised Wallen that he may appeal the decision to Grantsville City Council within 15 days.

The commission also discussed practical limits, including required separation distances, footing depths (WallEN reported footings would be about 30 inches down), fire-rating and building-code implications of moving the structure closer to the house, and driveway width and approach rules. Staff suggested the building department’s review prompted the need for an access deviation; commissioners reiterated a general reluctance to permit permanent structures in easements.

Wallen said he would consider options such as shifting the building or leaving gravel rather than concrete over the easement; the commission closed the item after advising him of appeal rights.