Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council removes confusing owner-occupant clause in code; staff says no policy change
Summary
Provo City Council voted 5-0 to amend the definition of “owner occupant” in Provo City Code 14.06.020 to remove a clause that staff and applicants found confusing. Staff and the city attorney said the change is intended to clarify language and not change policy; a comprehensive zoning rewrite is expected next quarter.
Provo City Council voted 5-0 Tuesday to amend Provo City Code 14.06.020 by removing a clause in the definition of “owner occupant” that staff and applicants had found confusing.
Policy analyst Malia Daley told the council the amendment grew out of questions raised during consideration of a Bannock Drive accessory dwelling unit (ADU) application and a planning commission review. Daley said staff and the city attorney concluded the clause did not create a legal exemption or loophole as written, but the language was confusing when read in isolation. She said the change is meant to simplify the code and avoid future misinterpretation; it does not constitute a policy change, according to legal staff.
Councilor Rachel Whipple, who said she supported returning the item to council to clear confusion, argued the clause had created ambiguity about whether all owners or only some owners needed to occupy a property for ADU eligibility. Whipple said the city has generally interpreted the code to require owner-occupancy and that removing the confusing clause restores clarity. “Because I don't believe there's support for [creating an exception that would allow one owner to occupy], I think it makes sense to take this out so that we are clear and consistent,” Whipple said.
Daley also told the council that planning staff is conducting a comprehensive zoning-code rewrite that will revisit definitions in chapter 14. Staff had aimed to present that rewrite by the end of the year but now expects it in the first quarter of next year, a city staff member identified as Bill told the council.
Planning commission members had recommended denial of the Bannock Drive ADU at their September meeting, citing the confusing subsections and broader concerns about ADUs and housing affordability. Daley emphasized the current amendment is intended only to clarify wording and not to change longstanding policy on owner-occupancy.
The council approved the amendment 5-0 with Councilors George Handley, Katrice McKay, Becky Bogdan, Rachel Whipple and Gary Garrett voting yes; Councilors Christiansen and Hoban were excused.
