Roy City approves rezone and a citywide front-yard setback change after months of debate; applicant’s unfinished addition spurred proposal

Roy City Council on July 15 approved three related land-use measures: a general-plan map amendment (ordinance 25-10), a zoning map change to R‑5 for two parcels at 2349 and 2365 West 6000 South (ordinance 25-11), and a citywide amendment to the zoning code to reduce a common front-yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (ordinance 25-14). The council voted to add clarifying language to 25-14 before final approval.

The set of decisions followed more than an hour of public comment focused on one property owner’s unfinished addition. Several neighbors spoke in support of the family living at 5924 South 2100 West; Yvonne Carter, who described the financial and health strain on her household, asked the council for help so her family could finish construction ("I am asking for help, and I am asking for a chance to move on with my family," she said). Neighbor speakers described the addition as close to the street and asked for leniency. The owner, Dustin Carter, told the council he had tried to work with staff and apologized to neighbors for impacts they experienced.

City staff and planning officials told the council the two rezone requests were reheard by the planning commission, which forwarded a unanimous recommendation to approve both the general-plan amendment and the rezoning to R‑5. Applicant and developer remarks at the council meeting clarified that the rezoned site is intended for for-sale townhomes rather than a rental project; Taylor Anderson of Cole West said the proposal is for roughly 56 three‑story, for‑sale townhomes and that the project is not seeking maximum R‑5 density.

The council’s broader zoning amendment (25-14) was framed as a citywide technical change to permitted front-yard setbacks in residential zones (outside of a separate chapter 13 station-area/business corridor zone). Planning staff told council members that the proposed change could technically affect many lots over time, but that the immediate, direct effect would be limited to parcels that can rely on existing adjacent setbacks (for example, corner lots where a side setback may serve as a front setback). Staff also warned that the amendment would not resolve other outstanding building-code or inspection issues still required on the Carter property.

Council members debated options other than an ordinance change—variances and development agreements were discussed. Staff advised that development agreements cannot be used to cure a post‑construction zoning violation, and that a variance requires a separate hearing and strict legal elements to be satisfied. Planning staff confirmed an applicant may still seek a variance even if staff had advised it was unlikely to qualify.

After debate the council approved the general-plan amendment (ordinance 25-10) and the rezoning (ordinance 25-11) by roll-call votes, then approved ordinance 25-14 with an added clause clarifying that "current setback" should be measured along the same side of the street regardless of whether it is called a front or side setback. Planning staff noted the amendment as written would bring the Carter property into setback compliance once the ordinance is signed but reminded the council that separate building-code inspections and corrections may still be required before the addition is considered finished.

What the council approved

- Ordinance 25-10 (general-plan amendment): approved by roll call. This change cleared the way for the rezoning request. - Ordinance 25-11 (rezoning from RE‑20 to R‑5 at 2349 and 2365 West 6000 South): approved by roll call. - Ordinance 25-14 (amend Title 10 setback table; front-yard minimum from 25 feet to 20 feet outside chapter 13 areas): approved by roll call with clarifying amendment to measure the smallest current setback "regardless if it's a front or side setback measured along the same street." Council and staff said that amendment was intended to ensure the Carter property would be covered by the change.

Stakeholder views

- Supporters at the podium argued the Carter family had invested in the neighborhood and asked the council for mercy and a practical fix. Dennis Brown, a neighbor, said forcing a removal of 16 inches of wall would cost the family tens of thousands of dollars. - Some commenters, including neighbors who said the addition blocked views or privacy, asked for limits or time frames for construction completion and removal of an overhang that they said affects a neighboring yard. - City staff and other residents emphasized the difference between setback relief and separate building-code inspection responsibilities. Police, planning and legal staff warned the council that changes to the code set a precedent that could affect many properties, and they explained the variance/hearing process.

What remains

Planning and building‑inspection steps remain for the Carter property to confirm structural and code compliance; staff said those inspections are not obviated by the setback change. The planning commission’s report and the final ordinance language will be posted in the public record when the mayor signs the ordinances.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article appear in the council’s public record and the meeting transcript.