Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission overturns zoning denial, allows homeowner shed with 4-foot side setback
Summary
The Grantsville Planning Commission reversed an administrative denial of an accessory building appeal by Cole Shakespeare and modified the approval to permit a 12-by-28-foot shed with a 4-foot side setback; the decision was made by voice vote after staff and commissioners discussed utilities, precedent and conduit options.
The Grantsville Planning Commission on Sept. 18 reversed a planning administrator’s denial of an appeal by Cole Shakespeare, allowing a 12-by-28-foot accessory building with a modified side-yard setback of 4 feet.
Staff summarized the application and site context: the parcel is approximately 0.3 acre, located near 883 South Top Red Lane in the RR-1 zone, and the applicant proposed placing the shed near a side access strip rather than on the backyard lawn. Staff said local code and public-utility easements (PUE/PUE width references in the packet) limit how close structures may be placed to easements and property lines.
Commissioners and staff questioned why the applicant sought a variance rather than moving the structure farther into the yard. The applicant said the attachment to utilities is on the west side of the lot, the rear of the lot backs onto a church, and he preferred to preserve yard space; he also said he received approval letters from Rocky Mountain Power, Questar (gas), and Xfinity but noted a Public Works review initially denied an item in the packet.
Discussion focused on three issues: (1) future utility access through the narrow strip and whether equipment could be deployed in a 2.5-foot gap; (2) public-safety concerns (fire risk where a structure sits 2.5 feet from a fence); and (3) precedent if the commission routinely approves variances where there is clear space to move a structure several feet. Commissioners weighed the likelihood that utilities would ever need to cross the strip—staff and utility approval letters reduced that likelihood in this particular case—but several commissioners emphasized the code’s purpose to protect future city access.
After debate, Chair (Speaker 6) moved to reverse the administrative decision and to modify approval so the shed’s side setback would be 4 feet from the property line. A commissioner seconded and the commission approved the motion by voice vote; the meeting record shows commissioners responding “Aye.” The transcript does not show a roll-call tally by commissioner name.
The commission’s action modifies, but does not eliminate, the city’s setback and easement protections; staff noted that if utilities must be installed later, conduit or sleeves would likely be installed at the applicant’s expense and utility providers retain legal access through easements.
The commission did not attach additional conditions beyond the revised setback in the meeting transcript. The next procedural steps for the applicant are to update the site plan and obtain any building or utility permits required by city staff before construction.
