Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to relocated barn; planning commission orders site visit and health‑department review
Summary
An owner sought a major amendment after an accessory building was constructed in a different location and with added square footage. Neighbors said the moved footprint and elevation changes block views and lower property values; the commission continued the amendment, ordered a site visit and asked the health department to evaluate septic/leach‑field feasibility for the originally approved site.
A major amendment to a conditional use permit for a large accessory building on North Greenfield Drive dominated public comment at the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission meeting July 9. The commission continued the item to a date uncertain, ordered a site visit and asked county health staff to evaluate whether the original approved location could have met leach‑field setbacks.
Staff said the amendment was triggered after the constructed building ended up about 600 square feet larger than the approved schematic (by enclosing a lean‑to) and moved location on the lot. Jennifer Strader explained service‑provider review initially had not shown the septic/leach‑field location on the site plan; when staff certified elevations and inspected the property, the building’s finished grade measured higher than the approved plan. The special‑exception application to address the height was denied by the council, prompting the present amendment request.
Owner Cyrus Devere told the commission he believes the elevation discrepancy was much smaller than the certificate of elevation reported — he said his survey measured an 8‑inch difference while other reports referenced 2.5 feet — and described the construction sequence and why he moved the building: to avoid more excavation around an existing leach field and to shorten a driveway. Neighbors Owen and Terry Bowers and others countered that the built structure and the relocated footprint block sweeping mountain views, shade mature landscaping and could reduce their property values. They said the barn’s framing and the import of fill changed site contours.
Commissioners probed the technical record: the staff report shows the proposed structure measures about 25 feet 5 inches from existing grade and 26 feet from finished grade (the code’s maximum), leaving little margin. Commissioners also asked whether the original approved location would have required health‑department mitigation and whether the amendment should be treated as a new CUP; staff said the standards and public‑hearing process are the same but the amendment path preserves the original CUP if the request is denied. After public comment and deliberation, the commission voted 6–1 to continue the item to a date uncertain, requiring a site visit (scheduled for July 23 at 05:00 as a work‑session site visit) and an evaluation from the health department regarding the previously approved site and leach‑field setbacks.
Why it matters: The case highlights how deviations between approved plans and field construction — grading, imported fill and location changes — can trigger administrative and neighbor disputes, complicate permitting and require technical follow‑up from health and planning staff. Commissioners emphasized they are seeking factual information to determine whether the amended location complies with conditional‑use standards, especially the requirement that a conditional use not adversely affect surrounding land uses.
Next steps: Staff will coordinate the site visit and request health‑department analysis of leach‑field setbacks and the feasibility of re‑establishing the originally approved location. The commission will reconvene for deliberation after those technical items are returned to the record.
