Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council signals opposition to spot‑zone request for 320 S & 400 W after residents’ objections
Summary
Residents and the Planning & Zoning Commission urged the Parowan City Council to reject a request to rezone a 0.65‑acre parcel at 320 S & 400 W from A‑1 to R1A, calling it spot zoning that would create a zoning “island,” worsen access on dead‑end 400 West, and undermine neighborhood character.
Mayor Mollie Halterman convened public comment during the March 26 meeting where neighbors opposed a requested zone change affecting the parcel at roughly 320 S & 400 W.
Sue Cotter, who owns property opposite the lot, and other neighbors argued the proposal would create a spot zone that benefits a single property owner at the expense of long‑standing neighborhood character and could create traffic and emergency access problems on the narrow, dead‑end 400 West. Spike Ress framed his opposition in legal terms, arguing the request met the definition of spot zoning and conflicted with the comprehensive land use plan.
City Manager Dan Jessen briefed the council on the applicant’s proposal: the owner purchased the 0.65‑acre parcel at tax sale and wishes to split it into two single‑family lots. Under A‑1 zoning, the city requires 75 feet of frontage per lot (150 feet total), but the parcel has roughly 126–132 feet of frontage. Rezoning to R1A would reduce frontage requirements to 65 feet per lot and make the subdivision feasible, Jessen said.
Council members noted the Planning & Zoning Commission had held a public hearing and unanimously recommended denial, citing the spot‑zoning concern. Council Member David Harris summarized the council’s view: “planning and zoning nailed this one.” Council Member Rochell Topham added it would be inappropriate to create an island of different zoning within an A‑1 neighborhood.
The discussion highlighted potential requirements if the council were to approve the change, including flood channel setbacks and possible road improvements. No motion to rezone was recorded in the transcript; council members indicated agreement with the commission’s recommendation and did not proceed toward approval or amendment.
The council did not adopt any rezoning ordinance during the March 26 meeting; next steps were not specified on the record.
