Agenda Item Title:
Title
Firefly Forest Subdivision - Final Review - Alleged Error Review
3392 E. Deer Hollow Circle
[Community #29 - The Dell]
Body
Presenter:
Mike Wilcox
Body
Description/Background:
The Appellants, Kelly Powers, Trent Pearce, Zhibin Guo, and Kirk Olsen, are represented by James Dunkelberger of Bennett Tueller Johnson & Deere (“Appellants”). On the Appellants’ behalf, Mr. Dunkelberger has filed a request with the Sandy City Board of Adjustment to review a claim that the Sandy City Planning Commission erred in their decision to determine that Final Review of the Firefly Forest Subdivision is complete (see attached Appellants’ Letter). These Appellants are property owners that are immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivsion.
See the detailed staff report attached hereto for additional information.
Recommended Action and/or Suggested Motion:
Recommendation
The Board should carefully consider and follow the statutory requirements for an appeal set out above before rendering a decision. As stated in the ordinance cited, the Appellants bear the burden of proving that the land use authority erred. It is not enough to show that one could reasonably reach a different conclusion on the facts; as long as there is a reasonable basis for the decision reached by the Planning Commission.
Based upon our analysis of the Appellants’ Letter requesting the appeal and the standard of review required, Staff recommends the following:
That the Board of Adjustment determine that the record on this decision is complete and not deficient as demonstrated in the referenced Staff Reports, Planning Commission Minutes, Findings and Conditions, and available recordings of the Planning Commission meetings, and therefore, that the matter can be reviewed on the record, and not de novo.
That the Board of Adjustment determine that the Planning Commission did not err in making its decision to determine that the Final Review of the Firefly Forest Subdivision (revised) was complete, based upon the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Appellants have not shown that there was no reasonable basis to justify the action taken, and therefore, the determinations made were so unreasonable as to be arbitrary and capricious; in other words, the Planning Commission decision was correct in its interpretation and application of the Land Development Code.
2. (If applicable) The Planning Commission decision was reasonable and based on substantial evidence, including the following:
a. (The Board will need to further cite and articulate the evidence, if applicable)