Applicant argues Option C is safest route across a 30% outcropping; hearing officer pauses decision

An administrative hearing for the Springdale Appeal Authority on April 2 heard testimony on a variance request to allow a driveway to cross a mapped 30% slope to access Lot 8 (and access across Lot 11) in the Watchman subdivision. Bryan Pattison, the administrative hearing officer, opened the hearing and identified the ordinance at issue as Section 10-15B-9A of the Springdale Town Code, which prohibits disturbance of slopes of 30 percent or more. The applicant is Wendell Burnette; the applicant’s representative, Jared Bates of Rosenberg Associates, presented engineering drawings and three alternate driveway alignments.

Bates told the hearing Option C is the preferred design because it is more direct, requires less cut-and-fill and shorter retaining walls, and would avoid paving in many places. “Option C…provides the best visual—least visual impact,” Bates said, and he argued that because Option C runs parallel to the contours it minimizes excavation compared with Routes A and B. He also said the fire marshal preferred Option C, and that from a safety standpoint it would allow firefighters better access. The applicant’s presentation emphasized engineering tradeoffs: Options A and B would require taller walls, steeper grades, and more visible pavement while Option C crosses a narrow 30% outcropping but otherwise disturbs less ground.

Hearing officer Pattison scrutinized the first legal element for a variance—whether literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause an “unreasonable hardship.” Pattison noted the application narrative included language that appeared to discount purely economic hardship and asked the applicant to explain what hardship would remain if Options A or B were used. Bates said the hardship is not cost but safety: “you’re putting the road in a less safe condition than what C would bring,” he said, citing higher walls, steeper slopes, rockfall risk, and emergency-access concerns. Bates also described flood risk at the existing lower access road through the wash, saying large flood events can carry about 500 cubic feet per second through that channel and could overtop the road.

Niall Connolly, Springdale’s principal planner, told the hearing the Town had worked with the applicant in pre-application design and identified the conflict with the code, but the Town was not taking a formal position between the alternate routes and wanted the variance process followed so code compliance and design details could be reviewed. Pattison said he planned to visit the site with a Town representative and take the matter under advisement; he gave the applicant 14 days to submit any additional information or an addendum addressing the hardship question before he drafted a decision.

No vote or formal decision was issued at the hearing. Pattison concluded the proceeding and scheduled a site inspection, saying he would consider the record and any additional materials submitted within the 14-day window before issuing a written ruling.