Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draper hearing pauses on Burrows setback dispute as officer flags code gap
Summary
At a Draper appeals hearing, resident Michael Burrows sought approval for a 10-by-10-foot addition to an accessory garage structure. City attorneys argued the issue raises a setback nonconformity that the hearing officer may lack procedure or jurisdiction to decide; the officer reserved a written ruling.
An appeals and variance hearing officer in Draper heard Jan. 5 from resident Michael Burrows and city attorneys on whether a roughly 10-by-10-foot addition to a detached garage may be regularized.
Burrows, who identified himself as Michael Burrows of 1191 East 13200 South, told the panel he had lived in Draper since 1995 and bought the property in 2005. He said the addition — which he described as a casita and storage area — will match the house’s stucco and roof and is “not even visible from the roadside.” He told the officer the room is used for family gatherings about once a month and, historically, for a Christmas breakfast for firefighters that draws “about 30 or 40” people.
Assistant City Attorney Spencer Duchaine told the hearing the portion at issue was not included in the original building permit and that Burrows built closer to the property line after the city’s required setback changed. “That part of the structure never was included in that building permit,” Duchaine said, and he argued the added portion “increases the degree of nonconformity.”
Duchaine also pressed a procedural argument: the enlargement provision the applicant cites (discussed in the hearing as subsection 96,050(c)(2)) lists height, area or yard regulations but not setbacks, and the appeals and variance hearing officer does not currently have a clear procedure to hear matters described under that subsection. He told the officer that the city could either adopt rules for the hearing officer that the council would approve or amend the municipal code to create explicit procedures. “We want procedure to be in place,” Duchaine said.
The hearing officer repeatedly questioned whether he had authority to decide the matter now or whether the zoning administrator must make an initial determination. The officer noted an apparent drafting gap between sections and raised the ‘‘absurd results’’ concern — considering whether a reasonable interpretation could fill the gap — but said he needed to review prior decisions. “I can’t do this. You need to make a decision first, city,” the officer said at one point when discussing jurisdictional options.
On the merits, Duchaine said the applicant had not met the burden to show there would be no detrimental effect on adjacent property values if the enlargement were allowed. Burrows responded that similar approvals had been granted in the past and asked the officer to consider those precedents.
No final ruling was issued at the hearing. The officer closed the record and said he would issue a written decision in about a week.
The hearing also included a routine approval of the minutes from the Jan. 5, 2023 meeting; the officer said he had reviewed and approved those minutes at the start of the session.
Next steps: the hearing officer will circulate a written decision on the Burrows application to the parties; if either party disputes the outcome, the record discussed that an appeal from the appeals and variance hearing officer goes to district court.
