HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Officer's Decision - PLNAPP2024-01011Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – 1807 South 1900 East– PLNAPP2024-01011 January 22, 2025
SALT LAKE CITY LAND USE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER
APPEAL OF A ZONING VIOLATION PETITION NO. PLNAPP2024-01011 1807 S 1900 E, SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC HEARING HELD JANUARY 16, 2025
DECISION JANUARY 22, 2025
Susan Klinker, property owner, appealed a Notice and Order issued by civil enforcement for an over-height hedge at 1807 South 1900 East. On January 16, 2024, a public hearing on her appeal was held and appearances were made by Ms. Klinker, and Salt Lake City staff. A
neighbor, Lane Valum, testified against the enforcement action. Based on the evidence in the
record including testimony at the hearing and the staff report, the enforcement action is upheld.
Salt Lake City Code §21A.40.120 provides that the height of fences, walls and hedges located between the front property line and front building line of the façade the primary entrance to the principal structure “shall not exceed four (4) feet in height.” On July 12, 2024, Civil
Enforcement for the city investigated a complaint concerning the hedge at issue and measured it
to be eight feet tall, higher than allowed by the ordinance. Following a site visit and discussions with Ms. Klinker, a Notice and Order was issued on August 29, 2024 and this appeal was filed on September 6, 2024. Accrual of the fine has been stayed pending the outcome of this Appeal.
Ms. Klinker appealed on the basis that the word hedge was too vague to create an
enforceable rule, that the long existence of the hedge should negate enforcement, that the
language of the ordinance should be changed for policy reasons and finally that the enforcement action should be stayed while a possible change to the ordinance is pursued. It is undisputed that the hedge is higher than the City’s height limit.
In response to Ms. Klinker’s argument regarding the definition of hedge, the City noted
that City ordinance provides that terms not defined be shall be applied as set forth in Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary. Salt Lake City Code §21A.62.010. Webster’s defines hedge as “a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees.” The images of the property illustrate a hedge as defined and Ms. Klinker did not offer any evidence to counter the factual analysis set forth in the staff report.
Ms. Klinker also argues that because of the age of the hedge and other violations in the
neighborhood, the City should be estopped from enforcing its ordinance. For estoppel to apply however, the Appellant would need to show some clear representation by the City allowing her to rely on a promise that the ordinance would not be enforced on her property. Myers v. Utah Transit Auth., 2014 UT App 294, ¶20. “Failure to enforce zoning for a time does not forfeit the
power to enforce.” Town of Alta v. Ben Hame Corp., 836 P.2d 797, 803 (Utah Ct. App. 1992).
Ms. Klinker did not present any evidence suggesting a promise by the City not to enforce the
height ordinance with regard to her hedge.
Finally, Ms. Klinker argues that the City’s policy with regard to the height of hedges is ill-advised. She further indicates that the hedge may not survive compliance with the ordinance.
The Appeals Hearing Officer does not have authority to set or overturn policy adopted and
reduced to ordinance by the City Council. Salt Lake City Code § 21A.16.030.K. Policy is for the Council, not the Hearing Officer. Moreover, Ms. Klinker did not provide any statutory basis for
Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – 1807 South 1900 East– PLNAPP2024-01011 January 22, 2025
staying enforcement while a change to an ordinance works its way through the process for
possible adoption. Rather, City process provides for a stay only in specific circumstances not
applicable here.
Based on the evidence in the record, described above and as set forth in the Staff Report, the Notice and Order is upheld. The City’s enforcement action was based on substantial
unrebutted factual evidence in the record and the Appellant failed to muster any legal basis for
overturning the Order.
Dated this 22nd day of January 2025.
/s/ Mary J. Woodhead Mary J. Woodhead, Appeals Hearing Officer