Planning commission upholds denial of variance for proposed ADU at 604 E. Leland Ave.

The South Salt Lake City Planning Commission on Feb. 5, 2026 voted to deny an appeal from Ashley Chapman and Timothy Chou seeking a variance to reduce the R‑1 minimum lot width from 50 feet to 45.83 feet so they could build a 995‑square‑foot detached accessory dwelling unit at 604 E. Leland Avenue.

Senior City Planner Spencer Cawley told commissioners the parcel is roughly 0.25 acres (10,890 square feet) and approximately 244 feet deep; an ALTA survey measured the lot width at 45.83 feet and showed the primary dwelling (c.1917) encroaches across the western property line by about 1.54 feet and a detached garage (c.1955) encroaches into a side setback by about 1.4 feet. Cawley said the proposed ADU would meet height, massing, setback and parking requirements and would sit about 120 feet from the primary dwelling, producing roughly 8% rear‑yard coverage — compliant with R‑1 standards except for the lot‑width dimension.

Deputy City Attorney Brianne Brass framed the proceeding as a de novo appeal; she told the commission that under §17.12.010(B) the appellants bear the burden of proving five criteria for a variance. The staff report recommended denying the variance, concluding the literal enforcement of the code did not produce an unreasonable hardship and that the other statutory factors were not satisfied.

Appellants Ashley Chapman and Timothy Chou said the hardship is land‑based: the parcel’s historic subdivision and existing encroachments create immutable constraints that preclude a reasonable internal conversion or addition. Chapman argued denying the variance “renders this parcel ineligible for an ADU in any form” despite the project meeting functional standards. Chou added that neighbors were notified and that construction and utilities would remain on the property.

Commissioners examined each variance criterion in turn. Commissioners expressed concern that the lot’s exceptional depth is an amenity rather than a hardship, that other nearby lots with nonconformities do not justify an exception, and that allowing the variance would effectively bypass the numerical width standard the city adopted to manage spacing and density. Commissioner Mary Anna Southey acknowledged that the parcel has unusual features but concurred that, overall, all five statutory criteria were not met.

Commissioner Kathy Self moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Community and Economic Development Director’s December 5, 2025 denial; Commissioner Suzanne Slifka seconded. The commission adopted Findings of Fact that documented the lot dimensions, encroachments, and the proposed ADU specifications, and Conclusions of Law that the appellants had not met the five variance criteria. The commission denied the appeal; written findings and the formal order will be prepared from the meeting record and provided to the appellants.

The appellants were advised that their remaining options include petitioning for a code amendment to the ADU lot‑width standard, pursuing a continuance (if requested prior to final action), or seeking judicial review in district court as provided by law.