Provo Board of Adjustment continues appeal over zone verification for Canyon Road car wash

The Provo City Board of Adjustment on Tuesday continued an appeal by a resident who says a zone verification wrongly states there are no violations at a car wash at 3645 North Canyon Road.

The appeal, filed on behalf of Daniel Larson, challenges a November 2024 zone verification that staff issued for the property and that states there were no current violations. The board voted to continue the matter to its next meeting and asked staff to perform an on-site investigation and report back.

Jessica Donahue, planning staff, told the board that the property’s conditional use permit application was filed in 1993 and the building permit was completed in 1995, and that Provo’s standard practice when issuing a zone verification is to list only open code-enforcement cases under the “current violations” heading. “Staff believes that the zone verification was issued correctly based on the information that we have,” Donahue said.

Walter Keane, representing the Larsons, said his clients had filed a nuisance action in district court and argued the zone verification letter could be used in court as evidence that no zoning violations exist. “That zone verification letter could be used later in the court as proof or evidence that there is no zone violation,” Keane said, asking the board to direct staff either to perform a site visit to check for possible violations or to reword the letter so it does not claim there are no violations where none were actively investigated.

Daniel Larson, the homeowner who lives south of the car wash, described repeated contacts with city staff and the police over noise. “They’ve gone out and measured the noise and even admitted that it was over the noise ordinance, but basically said, I’m not gonna stand out there all day and write tickets for every car that goes through the car wash,” Larson said.

Michael Field, who identified himself as the property owner of the car wash, said the business has been at the site since the late 1990s and that he was “simply trying to run a business.”

City staff attorney Bill Pepperoni told the board that its role is to determine whether staff applied city processes and ordinances reasonably, but not to directly impose enforcement remedies. He said some allegedly historic items (proximity and barrier questions) could be beyond appeal windows, while other allegations (noise and intrusive lighting) could be investigated. “In this particular case, the staff is not opposed to a continuance, so a site visit could occur to check some of the allegations being made,” Pepperoni said.

After discussion the board voted to continue the item to its next meeting and directed staff to investigate the Larson family’s allegations and to consider whether the zone-verification form language should be clarified to distinguish between “no pending enforcement cases” and “no violations found after investigation.” The motion to continue was made by Andrew Renick and seconded by Amanda Peterson; the roll-call vote was four ayes, no nays.

The board’s action does not itself change the legal status of the property; the continuation instructs staff to investigate and report back, and any enforcement steps would be handled separately by city enforcement processes and, if necessary, the city attorney’s office.