Sandy City, UT Logo
File #: BOA03092023-006495    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Planning Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 5/1/2023 In control: Board of Adjustment
On agenda: 5/11/2023 Final action:
Title: South Towne Center Mall Subdivision Plat Amendment Appeal to Review Alleged Error 10450 S State St. [Commercial Area, Community #9]
Attachments: 1. Staff Report, 2. Staff Report Exhibits, 3. Appeal Motion Form
Related files: SUB10122021-006180
Agenda Item Title:

Title

South Towne Center Mall Subdivision Plat Amendment

Appeal to Review Alleged Error

10450 S State St.

[Commercial Area, Community #9]

Body

Presenter:

Mike Wilcox

Body

Description/Background:

The request is for review of an alleged error of an administrative decision related to an application to amend the South Towne Center Mall Subdivision plat. The applicant is Bruce Baird (representing the property owner South Town Owner PR LLC). The site is a group of properties around South Towne Mall located at 10450 S State Street.

See the attached staff report and exhibits for full details.

Recommended Action and/or Suggested Motion:

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment carefully consider and should follow the statutory requirements for an appeal set out above before rendering a decision. As stated in the ordinance cited, the appellant bears 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 if there is a reasonable basis for the decision reached by staff.

Based upon the staff analysis of the appellants’ letter requesting the appeal and the standard of review required, staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment determine that the staff did not err in making its decision that the application for an amendment to the South Towne Center Mall Subdivision plat is incomplete and that review of the preliminary plat cannot proceed further until the Monroe Street issue had been addressed. This conclusion is based upon the following findings:

Findings:

1. The record of this decision is sufficient and not deficient as demonstrated in the referenced staff report and associated exhibits; therefore, this matter can be reviewed on the record, and not de novo.

2. The appellants have not shown that there is no reasonable basis to justify the action taken, and the determinations made were so unreasona...

Click here for full text