HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Officer's Decision - PLNAPP1015-00408Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – 722 South 700 East – PLNAPP2025-00408
SALT LAKE CITY LAND USE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER
HISTORIC DISTRICT ALTERATION APPEAL
PETITION NO. PLNAPP2025-00408
722 SOUTH 700 EAST
HEARING MAY 22, 2025
DECISION JUNE 10, 2025
This matter comes before the hearing officer on appeal of an administrative decision by a
homeowner following the denial of a Minor Alteration Application for the painting of unpainted
masonry, replacement of a stone/concrete cap and window replacements on a contributing
structure within the Central City Local Historic District. On May 22, 2025, a hearing on this
matter was held and appearances were made by the property owner, Tierney Syndergaard and
Paul Nielsen and Sarah Javoronok for Salt Lake City. The record also includes a staff report by
the City, appeal documents and a response to the appeal from the City and additional documents
proffered by appellant. Based on the evidence in the record including testimony at the hearing
and the staff report, and follow up submissions by the parties the Administrative Decision is
affirmed.
Salt Lake City code has a number of provisions in place intended to protect the integrity
of historic districts and contributing structures within those districts. The house, at 722 South 700
East is a contributing structure and that determination is not on appeal. “[N]o alteration in the
exterior appearance of a structure, site, object or work of art affecting the landmark site or a
property within the H Historic Preservation Overly District shall be made or permitted to be
made unless or until the application for a certificate of appropriateness has been submitted to,
and approved by, the Historic Landmark Commission, or administratively by the Planning
Director, as applicable.” Section 21A.34.020.E. On April 21, 2025, the Planning Division issued
an administrative decision denying the Certificate of Appropriateness for the changes
enumerated above. This review on appeal is de novo. Section 21A.16.030.I.1.
I. SALT LAKE CITY’S LANDMARKS ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE
SYNDERGAARD’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Appellant asserts that the City’s historic preservation ordinance violates her rights and
that enforcement of the ordinance constitutes a taking as forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. Ms.
Syndergaard cites a number of cases generally discussing the issue of takings but does not
address the longstanding precedent set forth in Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York, 438
U.S. 104 (1978). The case addressed the constitutionality of New York City’s historic
preservation law as applied to a proposed redevelopment of the Grand Central terminal. The case
remains good law and stands for the proposition that even stringent historic preservation rules do
not constitute takings where the intended and economic use of the property remains. Neither Salt
Lake City’s landmark law nor its application to this property constitutes a taking.
Justice William Brennan stated:
Unlike the governmental acts in Goldblatt, Miller, Causby, Griggs, and
Hadacheck, the New York City law does not interfere in any way with the present
uses of the Terminal. Its designation as a landmark not only permits but
Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – 722 South 700 East – PLNAPP2025-00408
contemplates that appellants may continue to use the property precisely as it has
been used for the past 65 years: as a railroad terminal containing office space and
concessions. So the law does not interfere with what must be regarded as Penn
Central's reasonable expectation concerning the use of the parcel. More
importantly, on this record, we must regard the New York City law as permitting
Penn Central not only to profit from the Terminal but also to obtain a "reasonable
return" on its investment.
Id. at 136. Similarly, nothing in the City’s Landmark regulation prevents the homeowner
from using the house for its intended purpose and receiving a reasonable return on her
investment.
Nor has Appellant alleged the facts to support a denial of her right to equal protection in
the zoning context. Where the application of zoning implicates an individual property by its
nature, a party must show animus or an improper personal motive in order to prove that different
treatment is constitutionally improper. Patterson v. American Fork City, 67 P.3d. 166, ¶32 (Utah
2003), quoting Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 US 562 (2000). There are no allegations in
the record that the City acted with ill will in its enforcement decisions.
Appellant’s constitutional rights have not been violated.
II. APPELLANT HAD NOTICE AND THE TOOLS TO UNDERSTAND HER
PROPERTY WAS GOVERNED BY ZONING AND LANDMARK RULES.
According the timeline not disputed by any of the parties, at the time the appellant made
the changes which are subject to this appeal, she was aware the property was governed by
various land use ordinances. Photographic evidence produced by the City indicates that the
changes at issue, the new cap, painting the brick and replacing the windows all occurred between
2019 and 2024, when the current enforcement action commenced. Although Appellant has
presented persuasive and unrebutted evidence that there was not any indication on the title at the
time she purchased that house in 2008; she was granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for
some windows in July 2019, at which time she would have become aware that the City had rules
governing renovations and changes to the exterior of the house. Information about the details of
the landmarks ordinance was available on the City’s website or by calling the City. Moreover,
“ignorance of the law is no excuse.” State v. Stewart, 449 P.3d. 59, 66 (Utah 2019).
III. APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN ERROR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.
As to each of the items alleged to be ineligible for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the
record indicates that Planning staff’s denial was consistent with the regulations and guidelines
adopted by the City. In each case, the evidence indicates that the changes made by appellant
were inconsistent with maintaining the integrity of the structure as required by City ordinance.
Appellant argues that the painted brick is exempt from Landmarks enforcement because
of evidence of previous paint on the back of the house. Photographs produced by Salt Lake City
show the front and sides of the house with unpainted brick. Small samples of possible paint on
additions in the back of the house do not justify an exemption from the ordinance that would
Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – 722 South 700 East – PLNAPP2025-00408
allow the entire façade of the house to be painted where the evidence indicates that the vast
majority of the brick facade has remained unpainted for most of the history of the house.
Appellant also asserts that the stone/concrete cap should be allowed to remain on the
basis that the City’s requirements are too restrictive. The Design Guidelines provide that when
repairing damage, “Match the size, proportions, finish and color of the original masonry unit, if
replacement is necessary.” Residential Design Guideline 2.1.Appellant made the decision to
replace the existing cap; however, the new material is smaller, has a slope, lacks the distinct
finish and is a different color than the original. It was not error for planning staff to determine
that the new cap was not in compliance and should be replaced.
Nor was there error with regard to the windows. As with the concrete cap, homeowners
are required to replace windows with those that closely match the originals. The photographic
evidence entered into the record demonstrates that the replacement windows do not match the
composition and visual presentation of the originals in material ways. For example the number of
openings changed from two to three and the materials are different. Although the new windows
may provide for better egress, solutions are available that allow for both safety and compliance
with landmark standards, And the City has indicated its willingness to work with the Appellant
to find a solution that meets both standards.
Finally, appellant has argued that bringing the house into compliance will cause her
significant economic difficulty. While this is unfortunate, the City cannot have different
enforcement mechanisms depending on the finances of various homeowners. This would result
in the unequal protection of the law and is not supported by legal authority.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence in the record described above, the Administrative Decision below
stands. The Appellant has not shown legal error in the denial of the Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2025.
/s/ Mary J. Woodhead
Mary J. Woodhead, Appeals Hearing Officer