Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies major amendment for Devere accessory building, leaves original CUP intact
Summary
The commission voted 5–0 to deny a major amendment to an earlier conditional use permit for a 26‑foot accessory building at 7914 North Greenfield Drive, citing incompatibility with neighborhood character and human-scale design; the original CUP remains in effect.
The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission on Aug. 13 denied a proposal to amend an existing conditional use permit for a major accessory building at 7914 North Greenfield Drive, concluding the amendment as proposed was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioners voiced concerns about the building’s height, facade scale and siting, arguing the newly proposed location and elevation would erode privacy for adjacent properties and fail the special site-design criteria in the Snyderville Basin Development Code. Commissioner Hawley moved to deny the amendment; Commissioner Carmichael seconded. The motion passed 5–0.
Owner Cyrus (Mr.) Devere addressed the commission during the meeting and said returning the structure to its original location was not feasible: "Putting the building in the original location is not an option anymore. We tore it down," he said, adding that the enclosure of a previous carport was chosen to reduce neighbor impacts.
Staff told the commission the original CUP has not expired and therefore remains in effect; if the applicant wants to pursue the project in a different form they may apply for a new CUP or a fresh amendment. Commissioners discussed whether the approval could have been split (keeping increased square footage but requiring the original siting) and noted the major-amendment process can bundle multiple changes.
The motion to deny the amendment included findings that the amendment would be "not compatible with the existing neighborhood character" and would "adversely affect surrounding land uses," citing the special site design and privacy protections in code. With the amendment denied, the applicant’s currently active original CUP governs the site unless the applicant pursues a new approval pathway or files an appeal.
