Council approves spot rezoning for four parcels after debate over neighborhood character

The Enoch City Council voted to approve Ordinance No. 2026-02-18-A, changing zoning for four parcels (A-0920-0001-0000, A-0920-0002-0000, A-0920-0004-0000 and A-0920-0003-0000) from Single-Family Residential R-1-18 to R-1-11.

Council Member David Harris moved for approval and Council Member Shawn Stoor seconded. The motion carried on a roll call vote with Council Members Stoor, Harris, Trower and Miner voting yes and Council Member Debra Ley voting no.

The City Manager’s staff analysis said that under current R-1-18 rules the four parcels could support roughly four lots once infrastructure is accounted for; under R-1-11 the same area could accommodate up to seven lots in theory, although infrastructure needs could reduce that to six or seven. Public Works Director Hayden White told the Council that once development reaches five or more lots the project would meet major subdivision standards and require installation of 8-inch water and sewer mains, a fire hydrant and the addition of curb, gutter and sidewalk.

Residents near the parcels raised concerns during public comment about preserving the existing subdivision character. John Banks, a Hillcrest Circle resident, gave the Council a petition and urged that the lots remain R-1-18 to maintain consistency with adjacent properties. Council Member Debra Ley said the original vision for the subdivision should be respected, calling the request “spot zoning” and warning about setting a precedent for piecemeal rezonings.

Developer Brian Slade said the R-1-11 change would allow more flexibility to build homes that meet current market demand and keep prices accessible for median buyers. “If the development does not serve the good of Enoch or meet market demand, it will not be successful,” Slade said.

City Attorney Justin Wayment summarized the legal context for the Council, explaining that legislative zone changes are reviewed under a “reasonably debatable” standard and that courts generally defer to city decisions unless the action is arbitrary and capricious.

The ordinance’s supporters argued the change would enable additional, more affordable single-family lots and that infrastructure requirements would be triggered if the development grew large enough to justify them. Opponents focused on neighborhood continuity and the risks of approving a spot zone within an existing subdivision.

Following the vote, the Council moved on to other agenda items. The minutes and roll-call record show the ordinance passed 4–1.