Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo council rejects single-property ADU text amendment after hours of public comment
Summary
After more than three hours of presentations and a packed public-comment period, the council voted 0-7 to deny a text amendment that would have allowed an accessory dwelling unit at 1841 N. 1550 E, with residents citing spot zoning and enforcement concerns and applicants saying the property meets ADU rules.
The Provo Municipal Council voted unanimously to deny a proposed text amendment that would have allowed an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1841 North, 1550 East, after a lengthy public hearing dominated by Oak Hills neighborhood opposition.
The vote failed on a roll call of seven to zero after councilors debated the merits of a single-property change and the divisive nature of the current ADU process. Council members repeatedly said they sympathized with both the applicant and the neighborhood but were unwilling to create what several described as spot zoning.
Joanna Lello, one of the property owners, told the council the house was built in 1967 and already contains a separate living space with a kitchen, private entrance and ample off-street parking. “We meet all the requirements,” Lello said, arguing the family wanted to legalize an existing unit and follow Provo’s housing goals. Her co-owner, AJ Ledllo, said the owners are longtime Provo residents who have invested in the house and intend the space for family use or a modest rental as needed.
Opposition came from a long line of Oak Hills residents who described the neighborhood as a multi‑generational, single‑family community and said spot zoning would erode that character. “Single family zoning promotes stability and continuity,” said resident Relene Becca Wallen, who told the council she had served recently on the Provo Planning Commission and urged preservation of the neighborhood’s character. Other speakers cited safety, parking and enforcement problems, and multiple commenters criticized the city’s existing enforcement approach, saying it incentivizes property owners to rent illegally until a later regularization is pursued.
Several councilors said the procedure that brought the application to the dais needed reform. Councilor Bogdan told residents, “We hear you. We understand you. We understand that this was a bad process,” and said council staff are working on code revisions to reduce neighborhood conflict. Councilor Hanley said he supported ADUs as a policy tool in some contexts but opposed the one-off rezoning: “I’m going to vote against this… because I don’t like the spot zoning,” he said.
Council discussion repeatedly returned to two themes: (1) the fairness and precedent of one-off text changes that remain with a parcel in perpetuity, and (2) the need for stronger enforcement against illegal rentals. Several councilors described options under review — restoring or revising administrative pathways, tightening enforcement, or undertaking neighborhood-level overlay changes — but said none justified approving this single-property text amendment.
The denying motion registered a string of “no” votes in roll call (Councilors Hoben, Whipple, Garrett, McKay, Christensen, Hanley and Bogdan), and the chair adjourned the meeting. Council staff said they will continue work on a broader ADU process reform and enforcement improvements.
What happens next: The failed motion leaves the property under current zoning; the owners may pursue other legal zoning pathways, and staff said they will return with proposed code or process changes intended to reduce neighborhood conflict in future ADU requests.
