Salt Lake City hearing officer takes setback-variance appeal for 871 West 400 North under advisement

An appeals hearing officer for Salt Lake City took under advisement an appeal over setback and side-yard variance requests for 871 West 400 North and said he will issue a written ruling next week.

The hearing matters because the outcome will determine whether the house now under construction can remain as built or must be modified or removed to meet city zoning standards. The applicant says he acted on prior approvals and has invested substantial money and time; city staff says inspections, surveys and stop-work orders show the project did not comply with requirements.

Matt Worth, one of the appeals hearing officers for Salt Lake City, opened the session by identifying the case as PLN ZAD2025-00198 and noting the matter had been rescheduled from a June 19, 2025 hearing. Tim Fotu, the property owner and applicant, told the hearing he bought the lot in March 2009 and said he removed trees and cleared the site to build a family home. "I built the house. It is the family home for my my kid come from Hawaii," Fotu said, describing his intent to provide a home for his grandchildren to attend school in Salt Lake City.

Brody, the attorney representing the applicant, framed the appeal around the city—s variance standards and the hardship that would result if Fotu were required to reduce the house size or tear it down. Brody told the hearing the house is "around 2,000 square feet" and argued that the property is among the smaller lots on the block and that strict enforcement would cause an "unreasonable hardship." He also said Fotu built the house "with approved plans, essentially, an engineering stamp, and from the city's approval," arguing demolition would impose extreme financial hardship.

Kelsey, representing city staff, disputed parts of the applicant's account. "Mister Fotu did not pass any of his foundation inspections. Several stop work orders were opened in association with his building permit," Kelsey said, adding that the building-permit record shows multiple stop-work orders and that a 2010 survey submitted with the original variance request does not show the property line extending to the sidewalk pin. Kelsey also said the city accepts surveys and that it is the applicant—s responsibility to indicate property lines.

Fotu disputed the city—s statements about inspections and footing approvals and said engineers and inspectors had signed off on elements of the work. He also told the hearing he spent about $48,000 removing trees from the lot and described repeated problems with neighbors removing materials from the site during construction.

The hearing officer acknowledged written materials submitted by the applicant that arrived after the usual 14-day deadline and said those materials would be entered into the record. Given the timing of the late filing, Worth said he would take the matter under advisement to consider the newly submitted materials and issue a written decision next week. "I will take this under advisement, issue a written ruling next week, just to make sure I digest everything, fully," Worth said.

No formal decision or vote was taken at the hearing; the appeal remains under advisement pending the written ruling.

Details from the hearing that may affect follow-up include the permit and inspection history (building permit opened in 2011 with multiple stop-work orders flagged, according to city staff), a 2010 survey that staff said does not show the property line reaching the pin in the sidewalk, the applicant—s account of buying the lot in March 2009 and spending nearly $48,000 on tree removal, and the applicant—s statement that the house is approximately 2,000 square feet.