Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Officer's Decision - PLNZAD2025-00349SALT LAKE CITY LAND USE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER REQUEST FOR VARIANCE CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00349 APPLICANT: Richard Holm HEARING HELD: July 17, 2025 DECISION ISSUED: July 21, 2025 On July 17, 2025, a hearing was held on this matter. Richard Holm appeared as the applicant (the “Applicant”). Jason Berntson, Salt Lake City Associate Planner, Salt Lake City Zoning Administrator, appeared and gave testimony on behalf of Salt Lake City (the “City”). After reviewing the evidence submitted, testimony provided, and arguments presented, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant owns certain real property located at approximately 1363 S 1300 E, Salt Lake City, Utah, more particularly described as Salt Lake County Parcel No. 16-17-231-003- 0000 (the “Subject Property”). 2. The Subject Property contains a single-family residence and is located within the R-1/5000 zone.1 3. The Subject Property is a corner lot with both west and south yards and is sloped along both street frontages. 4. Due to alleged difficulties in keeping live grass along sloped portions of the Subject Property, Applicant installed artificial turf in portions of the yard and park strip between May 2022 and December 2023. 5. On December 15, 2023, Civil Enforcement opened an enforcement case on the Subject Property to address the installation of artificial turf contrary to Salt Lake City Code §§ 21A.48.080.B.4; 21A.48.060.A.2. The Civil Enforcement is a separate matter not being appealed or reviewed as part of this request for a variance. 6. Other landscaping options are available and permitted in these areas. Applicant desire to have grass or turf instead of other permitted landscaping options. 7. While the Applicant has responsibility to maintain the park strip, the City owns the park strip and did not give Applicant permission or consent to the installation of artificial turf in the park strip. 1 The staff report and applicant’s narrative mistakenly lists the property in zone R-1/7000. The correct zone is R-1 5000, but this does not affect the legal standards under which this decision is made. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00349 MEMORANDUM DECISION 2 8. In response, Applicant has requested a variance and submitted a Narrative in Support of Variance Request. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A variance may only be granted if the Applicant establishes all required criteria in Salt Lake City Code. 2. The Applicant has not established an unreasonable hardship because the alleged hardship does not come from circumstances peculiar to the Subject Property but rather comes from conditions that are general to the neighborhood, and because the alleged hardship is self-imposed and economic. Specifically, Applicant desires to have turf or artificial turf instead of other approved landscaping options. 3. There are no special circumstances attached to the Subject Property that do not apply to neighboring properties. The Applicant has not established special circumstances because the Applicant has not established that special circumstances relate to the alleged hardship and that the special circumstances deprive the Subject Property of privileges granted to neighboring properties or other properties in the applicable zone. 4. The granting of the requested variance is not essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by neighboring properties or other properties within the applicable zone. Specifically, there is not a right to turf or artificial turf. Under City code, there are numerous permitted landscaping alternatives to turf or artificial turf. 5. The Applicant’s requested variance would be contrary to the public interest by creating a heat island and increasing stormwater runoff.2 6. It is not within the spirit of the title and substantial justice to grant the Applicant’s requested variance. 7. The Applicant’s use of artificial turf in the entire yard was greater than the minimum variation necessary to relieve the alleged hardship. 8. The Applicant has the burden of proving that all of the conditions justifying a variance have been met. Applicant has failed to meet this burden. DISCUSSION To obtain a variance, an applicant has the burden of proving that all conditions justifying a variance have been met. See Utah Code Ann. § 10-9a-702(3) and Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060. Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.060 sets forth five standards, each of which must 2 During the hearing, the Applicant presented evidence that the particular turf identified would not leach chemicals or certain microplastics. As there are multiple reasons which support a finding that the variance is contrary to public interest, it is not necessary to make a determination regarding the leaching of chemicals or microplastics. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00349 MEMORANDUM DECISION 3 be established by the Applicant to qualify for a variance. Specifically, the Applicant has the burden to prove the following: 1. Literal enforcement of this title would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of [Title 21A]; 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district; 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same district; 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan of the city and will not be contrary to the public interest; and 5. The spirit of this title is observed and substantial justice done. Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060.A. Beyond these standards, a potential variance must not fall within one of the prohibited variances, including if the variance: A. Is intended as a temporary measure only; B. Is greater than the minimum variation necessary to relieve the unnecessary hardship demonstrated by the applicant; or C. Authorizes uses not allowed by law (i.e., a "use variance"). Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.050. An applicant must establish all of these standards and not fall within one of the prohibited categories. Accordingly, the failure to prove even one of the requirements precludes an applicant from qualifying for a variance and the request must be denied. The Applicant is unable to establish any of the standards and falls within one of the prohibitions, each of which is addressed in turn. 1. Applicant Has Not Established an Unreasonable Hardship. In order to demonstrate that an unreasonable hardship has occurred, the Applicant must prove that the alleged hardship 1) “is related to the size, shape or topography of the property for which the variance is sought”; 2) “comes from circumstances peculiar to the property, not from conditions that are general to the neighborhood”; and 3) “is [not] self-imposed or economic.” Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060.B–C. Although Applicant’s alleged hardship relates to the topography of the subject property, Applicant has not demonstrated that the alleged hardship is peculiar to the property, nor that it is not self-imposed and economic in nature. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00349 MEMORANDUM DECISION 4 A. The Alleged Hardships Do Not Come From Circumstances Peculiar To The Subject Property, But Rather Arise From Conditions That Are General To The Neighborhood. Within the R-1/5000 zoning district, there are many properties that have similarly sloped front and corner side yard areas. In fact, many in the neighborhood itself have sloped front yards. Therefore, a sloped yard is not a peculiar condition of Applicant’s property giving rise to an unreasonable hardship. B. The Alleged Hardships Are Self-Imposed or Economic in Nature. In a separate provision, the Salt Lake City Code states: “In determining whether or not enforcement of this title would cause unreasonable hardship . . . appeals hearing officer may not find an unreasonable hardship if the hardship is self-imposed or economic.” Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060.C; Utah Code Ann. § 10-9a-702(2)(b)(ii). Applicant’s alleged hardship is self-imposed. Because the Applicant installed the artificial turf of their own volition, the economic costs of installing and later removing the turf would be considered a self-imposed hardship. Similarly, the Applicants’ desire to have grass or artificial turf is a self-imposed hardship, as there are other landscaping options that could satisfy city landscaping requirements. The hardship is also primarily economic in nature. The Applicant points to the cost of installation of artificial turf as evidence of hardship, but “[h]ardship is not demonstrated by economic loss alone. It must be tied to the special circumstances, none of which have been proven here. Every person requesting a variance can indicate some economic loss.” Xanthos v. Bd. of Adjustment of Salt Lake City, 685 P.2d 1032, 1037 (Utah 1984). The lack of special circumstances attached to this property is discussed below. 2. Applicant Did Not Established That Special Circumstances are Attached to the Property. The Second Standard requires that the Applicant establish that there are special circumstances which attach to the Subject Property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone: In determining whether or not there are special circumstances attached to the property … the appeals hearing officer may find that special circumstances exist only if: 1. The special circumstances relate to the alleged hardship; and 2. The special circumstances deprive the property owner of privileges granted to other properties in the same zoning district. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00349 MEMORANDUM DECISION 5 Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060.D (emphasis added). Applicant has failed to establish any special circumstances relating to the Property which relate to the alleged hardships. Additionally, the applicant failed to establish that there were special circumstances which deprive the Applicant of the privileges granted to other properties in the applicable zone. Specifically, as noted above, there are no special characteristics of the Subject Property which differ from its neighbors. It is of a similar size, shape, and topography as the surrounding properties. Additionally, as described by the City, other surrounding properties would be required to meet the same requirements related to turf and landscaping requirements. 3. Applicant Has Not Established That Granting the Variance is Essential to the Enjoyment of a Substantial Property Right Possessed by Other Property in the Same District As noted above, other surrounding properties would be required to meet the same requirements related to turf and landscaping. The Applicant has not shown that other properties have rights of which the Applicant is deprived. The ability for the Applicant to have grass or turf is not a substantial property right. Indeed, Applicant failed to present evidence or precedent to support a finding that turf or artificial turf is a substantial property right. Furthermore, Applicant has admitted that other nearby properties with steep slopes have achieved attractive, sustainable landscaping solutions. Applicant has not been prevented from pursuing such options. 4. The Requested Variance Would Substantially Affect the General Plan of the City and would be Contrary to the Public Interest. Applicant’s requested variance runs contrary to Guiding Principle 6: Natural Environment, found in Plan Salt Lake, to protect water quality and supply. Artificial turf does not readily absorb water run off and contributes to heat islands within the City. The requested variance would flatly conflict with such policy determinations, despite the City’s commitment to reducing water usage. 5. The Spirit of this Title would not be Observed nor Substantial Justice Done by Requested Variance. Applicant contends that because artificial turf promotes water conservation and is, allegedly, aesthetically pleasing, that substantial justice and the spirit of the title require the requested variance. However, the purpose and intent of the landscaping chapter 21A.48 are to promote water conservation, reduce urban heat islands, and reduce stormwater runoff. While artificial turf would promote water conservation, it does not meet the other two objectives, while several other available methods do so. Therefore, denying the requested variance does not offend substantial justice or the zoning. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00349 MEMORANDUM DECISION 6 Conclusion The Applicant has failed to establish numerous required standards to obtain a variance. As the failure to establish even one necessitates the denial of the request for a variance, the remaining standards are not addressed. DECISION For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant’s request for a variance is DENIED. This decision may be appealed to the Third District Court within 30 days of the date of this decision. Dated this 31st day of July 2025 /s/ Clayton H. Preece Clayton H. Preece Appeals Hearing Officer