Brighton hearing officer opens variance case for 11464 Church Road, asks for quick briefs on whether slope rules apply

BRIGHTON, Utah

The Town of Brighton's land-use hearing officer on Tuesday opened a variance hearing over a proposed cabin at 11464 Church Road and focused attention on a threshold legal question: whether the town's slope ordinance, adopted after the parcel's creation, legally applies.

Hearing officer Greg Hall said he would first decide whether the parcel is subject to the ordinance and then, if it is, whether the applicant meets the five statutory criteria for a variance. "I want to accept some exhibits," Hall said, and he asked parties to file supplemental briefs by Friday to help him resolve the applicability question and whether the variance standards are met.

The applicant's attorney, Larry Moore of Ray Quinney Nebeker, told the hearing the parcel was created by a recorded warranty deed in 1960 and relies on case law and an advisory opinion from the state's private property ombudsman to argue the slope regulation cannot be applied to that lot absent a "compelling countervailing public interest." Moore said denying development would "leave the parcel with no viable economic use" and could amount to "a regulatory taking."

Town attorney Polly Samuels McLean urged caution. She told the hearing that declaring the ordinance inapplicable to lots created before 1997 would have broad implications for Brighton and surrounding areas and that such a sweeping legal determination may be better addressed in a more formal judicial process. "If this parcel is not subject to FCOS, then you're saying that basically every parcel and lot that was created in the town of Brighton prior to 1997, FCOS doesn't apply," McLean said, characterizing that result as "revolutionary."

Town staff and the Municipal Service District (MSD) provided historical and factual context. Curtis Woodward described deed records and county assessor maps showing multiple conveyances between a 1951 deed and the 1960 deed that created the parcel at issue. Staff noted certain slope waivers exist for slopes between roughly 30% and 40% under local code, but that the subject lot is over 40% in many places and so would need a variance.

The parties also discussed technical exhibits: an applicant-provided survey with topographic lines and a county GIS overlay that staff said was misaligned in the packet. Counsel agreed the applicant's survey is the best source for establishing slope on the parcel in question.

Hall said he would bifurcate the proceeding: first resolve whether the slope ordinance applies; then, if applicable, determine whether the five variance criteria are satisfied. He asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs by the end of the week and said he would try to issue a written decision within two weeks. The hearing was adjourned for the day at roughly 3:10 p.m.

What happens next: the hearing officer's written decision will address the threshold applicability question and the variance criteria; his order will be part of the administrative record and may be appealed to district court.

(Reporting note: statements and quotes are taken from the March 25, 2025 Town of Brighton land-use hearing transcript.)