Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants appeal for accessory building at Silver Creek Estates with mitigation conditions
Summary
After a de novo review of an appeal over a major conditional-use-permit amendment for a large accessory building at 7914 N Greenfield Drive, Summit County Council concluded the Planning Commission erred and granted the appeal with conditions requiring the applicant to resubmit revised plans (including rotation, revised setbacks and staff review) to mitigate neighborhood privacy and human-scale impacts.
The Summit County Council heard an appeal on Nov. 6 from an applicant seeking a major amendment to a conditional use permit for a 2,600-square-foot accessory building in Silver Creek Estates and ultimately granted the appeal with mitigation conditions.
Background and procedural posture: staff told the council the original CUP authorized a structure in a different location and that the prebuilt building was framed and moved off its approved pad. A subsequent inspection showed the building exceeded height limits and the pad had shifted; a special exception was denied and the Planning Commission denied the applicant’s major-amendment request, citing adverse impacts to neighboring uses, human-scale concerns, and reduced privacy under the Snyderville Basin Development Code.
Applicant position: the owner, Cyrus DeVere, explained site constraints that led to relocation—septic/leach-field constraints, natural-grade limitations, and the prebuilt structure’s dimensions—and said he intentionally pulled the proposed building forward from the rear fence line and enclosed a lean-to to screen stored equipment. He said several possible alternatives were technically difficult given grade and septic requirements but that he remained open to moving or rotating the building to lessen impacts.
Opposition and staff findings: neighbors submitted photo renderings and argued the proposed siting would place a large façade within about 15 feet of their backyard, impairing privacy and neighborhood character. Planning staff said the commission’s 24 findings supported denial under Code section 10.418 (protect on-site privacy) and related human-scale criteria.
Council review and decision: council conducted a de novo review. Several members proposed mitigation that would preserve the applicant’s ability to use the site while materially reducing impacts on the immediate neighbor: rotate the accessory building, move it laterally toward a flatter pad and increase the setback from the neighbor's lot line. The council moved to grant the appeal conditioned on a revised site plan showing the reoriented building with a proposed footprint that (as discussed publicly) places the structure substantially further from the northern neighbor (council cited an approximate target in discussion of roughly 66–90 feet from the neighbor’s lot line, and recommended a 20‑foot north-side setback and about a 90‑foot east setback as a baseline), to be finalized in a revised drawing prepared by the applicant, reviewed by planning staff, and signed off by the community-development director or chair. The motion passed; one member’s abstention was noted on the record.
What happens next: the applicant must submit a revised plan consistent with council conditions; planning staff will review the drawing for code compliance (including health department recommendations regarding septic and driveway locations) and the chair will have authority to accept the plan once it meets the stated conditions. The council instructed staff and the applicant to expedite the review so construction can proceed without further appeals if conditions are met.
