Applicant concedes variance denial for Mohawk Way property; plat amendment left to planning staff

An applicant conceded a variance denial for a Salt Lake City property but asked the city to separate that ruling from a related plat amendment, Appeals Hearing Officer Matt Worthland said at a remote appeals hearing.

Simone, who represented the applicant on PLN ZAD 2024-01017 for 173139 South Mohawk Way, told the hearing: “For purposes of tonight's discussion, we'll concede the denial of the variance. I don't want to waive our right to appeal, but I don't anticipate that we will.” Simone also objected to language in the staff report that linked approval of a plat amendment to the variance decision and said the plat amendment complied with current code.

The concession narrowed the hearing to the variance alone. Paul Nelson, a Salt Lake City attorney, told Worthland that once an applicant concedes a variance, Worthland’s jurisdiction over that matter ends. “Your authority here … is as to consideration of a variance. And once that's conceded, that ends your jurisdiction,” Nelson said. Worthland agreed: he recorded the applicant’s concession and said he did not have authority to approve or deny the plat amendment.

Why it matters: plat amendments and variances are separate land-use actions under city practice and, according to the city attorney’s guidance at the hearing, are handled in different administrative tracks. The applicant argued that, under the current code, the plat amendment was compliant and should not automatically be denied because the variance was denied; the city’s staff report had taken the opposite position.

In the hearing Worthland noted he had reviewed the staff report and had driven past the property but said he could only rule on the variance. He recorded the applicant’s concession that the variance would be denied and stated the plat amendment would remain with the Planning Division. Simone said the applicant reserved any right to appeal the variance decision to a higher forum.

The hearing concluded with Worthland declaring the variance matter closed for his jurisdiction and with the clarification that any dispute over the plat amendment would be handled separately by planning staff and could be appealed through the city’s procedures.

The appeals record will reflect the concession on the variance; the plat amendment status remains pending before the Planning Division and could be the subject of a separate administrative appeal or other proceedings.