Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs code changes to align variance and appeals process with new state law
Summary
The commission recommended City Council adopt a zoning text amendment to remove required public hearings for variances and certain staff‑level appeals to comply with Utah House Bill 368, replace hearings with public meetings and set new evidence and noticing rules.
Salt Lake City staff told the planning commission the proposed zoning text amendment will update the city code to comply with new state law and recommended the commission forward the change to City Council, which the commission did by unanimous vote.
A staff presenter explained the amendment responds to recently adopted state legislation, referring specifically to Utah House Bill 368. As the presenter summarized, House Bill 368 “basically prohibits cities from requiring a public hearing for a request for a variance or land use appeal.” The statute takes effect May 7; staff said the city will follow the new state law regardless of the local code update, but the amendment brings city code into compliance.
Staff reiterated the legal standards for variances: a variance is not a design modification in a plan development but a specific remedy to address unique circumstances that make a land‑use regulation impractical or impossible. The presenter reminded the commission that state law requires five standards for a variance, including that any hardship claimed cannot be created by the property owner and cannot be purely economic.
Under the proposed code change, variances and staff‑level appeals would no longer trigger a public hearing. Instead, cases would proceed through a public meeting format; staff said the record would accept written evidence submitted in advance and that the city will use a 12‑day notice period to notify neighbors and recognized organizations. Evidence may be submitted in writing up to the day before an appeal hearing so staff can prepare the record for the hearing officer. The amendment would also clarify that new information is not allowed after commission decisions, and that a hearing officer may remand an appeal back to the decision‑maker if the record is insufficient.
A motion to recommend City Council adopt the text amendment (recorded as PLN PCM 20 25‑0 0 3 2 7 in the meeting record) was made by Commissioner Christiansen and seconded by Commissioner Scott. The roll call vote was recorded as yes by Commissioners Leverett, Scott, Christiansen, Berry and the chair. The motion carried unanimously.
Staff told commissioners the change is procedural and required by state law; staff also described the city’s planned noticing and record procedures to ensure that neighbors and interested parties can submit evidence into the written record.
