HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report - PLNAPP2026-000951
Staff Report
BUILDING SERVICES, CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
To: Appeals Hearing Officer
From: Nicholas Rush, Legal Investigator / nicholas.rush@slc.gov or 801-535-6689
Date: March 1, 2026
Hearing Date: May 21, 2026
Re: HAZ2025-01499, PLNAPP2026-00095
Appeal of Administrative Decision
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1883 S 700 E PARCEL ID: 16-17-355-006-0000
ZONING DISTRICT: R-1/7000 Single-Family Residential District
APPELLANT: Avid Amiri, Property Owner
ISSUE:
Whether staff erred in issuing a Notice and Order evidencing short-term rental usage.
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
This is an appeal of an administrative decision pertaining to an enforcement of Salt Lake City’s zoning
code, which is found in Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (“City Code”). The appeals hearing officer,
established pursuant to Section 21A.06.040, is the City’s designated land use appeal authority on appeals
of administrative decisions, which include enforcement actions. As per subsection 21A.20.030.H. “The
responsible party shall have the right to contest the notice and order at an administrative hearing in
accordance with Chapter 21A.16.” In accordance with Section 21A.16.030.A, an appeal made to the
appeals hearing officer shall identify “the decision appealed, the alleged error made in connection with
the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error.” The appeals
hearing officer’s review of the administrative decision is de novo. City Code 21A.16.030.I.1. It is an
appellant’s burden to prove that the decision made by the zoning administrator was incorrect. City Code
2
21A.16.030.J.
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT DECISION:
Based on the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance sections 21A.33.020 and 21A.62.040, Civil Enforcement
gathered evidence supporting the claim that the property owner was operating a short-term rental
business in a residential zone. Subsequently, a Notice and Order was issued on January 23, 2026.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES:
21A.33.020 - Land Use Table for R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District
21A.62.040 - Definition of ‘Dwelling’
DWELLING: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for
occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities.
The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, shared
housing developments boarding houses and lodging houses.
APPEAL:
The subject property is a single-family residence located in the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential
District. It is subject to the land use tables in Section 21A.33.020, permitted and conditional uses for
residential districts. Per 21A.33.020, short-term rentals are not permitted in the R-1/7,000 zone nor are
similar uses permitted, such as “bed and breakfast” or “hotel/motel”.
The appellant claims that the Notice and Order issued January 23, 2026, erred in determining that a
short-term rental use was occurring at the subject property. The appellant claims City staff was
unresponsive, ignored exculpatory evidence, and did not respond to a GRAMA request for the subject
property in a timeframe that would allow an informed defense of the cited violation.
City staff communicated with the appellant in accordance with city code and within
reasonable bounds.
The appellant asserts staff was “inaccessible and unresponsive”. Civil Enforcement staff communicated
the violation in accordance with the requirements set forth in Salt Lake City Code 21A.20.030. Assertions
that staff were unresponsive reflect an interpretation of events not shared by the City. Staff routinely
manage a high caseload, often exceeding 75 active cases at any given time. In this instance, the volume of
communication from the appellant, via email, text, and phone calls to multiple staff members, was
3
unusually high. While staff endeavor to respond in a timely manner, they are not obligated to respond to
each individual communication within a timeframe unilaterally determined by the appellant.
As reflected in Exhibit 2, the appellant first submitted documentation alleging compliance via email on
Saturday, January 24. Staff responded on Wednesday, January 28, acknowledging receipt and stated, in
part, “please be assured that I will review all documents you’ve submitted. If the evidence demonstrates
satisfactory compliance, fines will be backdated to the date the documentation was originally provided,
as appropriate.” The Notice and Order was issued on January 23, meaning only three business days
elapsed before staff provided a response that the documents were being reviewed.
The documentation submitted by the appellant failed to rebut the evidence relied upon by
City staff in issuing the Notice and Order.
The appellant asserts that City staff ignored “exculpatory evidence provided.” The evidence at issue for
the relevant period consists of a screenshot of the appellant’s future booking calendars from listing
platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO. In the email transmitting those calendars, sent on January 24, 2026
(Exhibit 3), the appellant states that “the property at 1883 S 700 E has modified its listings to reflect the
30-day minimum rental term as dictated in today's Notice and Order and that the property is in
compliance.” However, City staff gathered evidence from the initiation of the case in May 2025 through
and beyond the Notice and Order period in January 2026 substantiating the City’s finding of
noncompliance. (Exhibit 3 reflects the relevant timeframe in question when the Notice and Order was
issued). The purported exculpatory evidence sent by the appellant on Jan 24 (Exhibit 3), which shows a
short-term booking from January 26 through January 29 that the appellant claims were “voluntarily
cancelled”, is contradicted by the City’s on-site inspection on January 28, 2026 (Exhibit 9), which
documented multiple individuals with luggage entering the property; one of the vehicles present also
displayed out-of-state license plates.
Additionally, as reflected in the City’s case summary report (Exhibit 4), there were numerous occasions
on which the City’s inspector conducted on-site inspections, spoke with neighbors, and spoke with
multiple occupants, all confirming that the property was being used as a short-term rental. This included
an on-site inspection on November 25 (Exhibit 6), during which the inspector obtained evidence from
within an Airbnb profile showing a current short-term stay receipt at the subject address. During another
inspection conducted on January 23 (Exhibits 4,5), the inspector contacted occupants on-site at the
subject address. The occupants confirmed they were visiting from Idaho for a two-night stay. The
inspector also documented a vehicle on the premises displaying Idaho license plates. In addition, a
software tool utilized by the City indicated that the property was being actively booked for short-term
rental during the enforcement period (see Exhibits 7,8,9 ).
4
All GRAMA documents were provided in the timeframe governed by state law.
The appellant asserts that his initial GRAMA request for records related to the subject property,
submitted on January 26, did not result in responsive records being provided before the expiration of the
10-day deadline to appeal the Notice and Order. He therefore argues that the City denied him the ability
to prepare a defense for this appeal. Pursuant to Section 21A.16.030, the deadline for filing an appeal of
this nature is 10 days from the date of the decision. In this instance, the relevant date is the postmark date
on the Notice and Order, which was January 23, 2026. Ten calendar days from that date is February 2,
2026.
Per Utah Code 63G-2-204(4)(b), a governmental entity must respond to a written request for records no
later than 10 business days from date of receipt. Here, the Notice and Order was postmarked January 23,
2026; thus, ten business days from the 23rd is February 6, 2026. Accordingly, the City released the
responsive records for the subject property on February 3, 2026 (Exhibit 10), well before the February 6
deadline. With the hearing on this matter scheduled for May 21, 2026, the appellant had ample time to
review the responsive documents in preparation for the hearing. Nevertheless, the notion that not
possessing GRAMA records for the subject property somehow inherently nullifies the City’s Notice and
Order is faulty reasoning, the two are simply unrelated. In addition, the appellant states that staff ignored
the exculpatory evidence provided, so any responsive records to this effect are records already possessed
by the appellant. The City’s evidence is only inculpatory.
CASE SUMMARY:
• May 13th, 2025: A Civil Enforcement case was initiated based on data obtained from the City’s
monitoring software tool that indicated short-term rental activity at the subject property. (Exhibit 4)
• May 16th, 2025: During an on-site inspection, the inspector contacted a neighbor of the appellant’s
subject property, who stated they were aware of the property being used as a short-term rental. The
neighbor reported observing a party checking out of the property the previous day and noted frequent
activity of individuals working inside the residence. (Exhibit 4)
• June 13th inspection: Hosting website data indicated short-term rental use at the subject property
during this weekend. During an on-site inspection, the inspector contacted a short-term occupant, who
stated that he had booked the property through Airbnb while visiting his sister following her completion of
a program at the University of Utah. (Exhibit 4)
• September 23rd inspection: Four active listings were found on the hosting sites. The listings were set
for 3-night minimums. According to the software tool, a short-term booking was found for August 24,
2025, and for a stay from September 4-7, 2025. Active listing #2 had a potential stay on October 10-12,
2025. (Exhibit 7)
5
• November 6 inspection: Data from City software indicated a short-term booking November 24-28,
this was corroborated by an inspection on November 25, where a receipt for a short-term booking was
obtained on-site. (Exhibit 8)
• November 25 inspection: During an on-site inspection, the inspector contacted a short-term
occupant who stated they had booked the property through Airbnb and were visiting from Colorado for
Thanksgiving. A vehicle in the driveway displaying Colorado license plates was confirmed to belong to the
occupant. The occupant provided verification of the stay by displaying an Airbnb booking receipt on their
phone (Reservation Date: November 9, 2025; Confirmation Code: RC5CF3WC2J). Stay dates: November
24-25. (Exhibit 6)
• January 7th inspection: Four active listings were found on the hosting sites. The listings were set for
3-night minimums. The software tool indicated potential short-term rental activity on January 24-29,
2026. This was confirmed during an on-site inspection on both January 23 and 28, 2026. (Exhibit 4)
• January 23rd inspection: During an on-site inspection, the inspector contacted a short-term occupant
who stated they had booked the property through Airbnb and were visiting from Idaho for a two-night
stay. A vehicle in the driveway displaying Idaho license plates was documented. A Notice and Order was
mailed and posted on the property that same day. (Exhibit 1,5)
• January 26th: Daily fines of $200/day begin. (Exhibit 4)
• January 28th inspection: During an on-site inspection, the inspector documented three individuals
carrying luggage into the subject property. A vehicle with California plates was also documented. This
matched the calendars provided by the appellant, showing short-term activity on this day. (Exhibit 3,9)
• February 24th: Appellant provided documentation of web calendars, short term rental cancellations,
and a lease agreement. At this time, no short-term listings were found on the hosting websites and on-site
visits confirmed a vacant property. Fines were modified to cease on January 30 and property deemed
compliant. (Exhibit 4)
NEXT STEPS:
If the administrative decision is upheld, the nightly rental offerings in a residential district may not continue.
If the administrative decision is overturned the property owner may continue hosting nightly rentals in a
residential district, inconsistent with SLCC Section 21A.33.020 Land Use Table for R-1/7,000 Single Family
Residential District. Any decision on this appeal can be appealed to Third District Court within 30 days.
6
EXHIBITS:
1. Notice and Order
2. Email from Appellant 1/24/26
3. Email from Appellant re: calendars
4. Case Summary Report
5. Inspection photo 1/23/26
6. Inspection photos/evidence 11/25/25
7. Rentalscape data/calendar 9/23/25
8. Rentalscape data/calendar 11/6/25
9. Inspection photo 1/28/26
10. Grama completion 2/3/26
11. Appellant petition
7
EXHIBIT 1: Notice and Order
8
EXHIBIT 2: Email from Appellant
9
EXHIBIT 3: Email from Appellant re: calendars
10
EXHIBIT 4: Case summary report
11
12
13
14
EXHIBIT 5: Inspection photo 1/23/26
15
EXHIBIT 6: Inspection photos/evidence 11/25/25
16
EXHIBIT 7: Rentalscape data/calendar 9/23/25
17
EXHIBIT 8: Rentalscape data/calendar 11/6/25
18
EXHIBIT 9: Inspection photo 1/28/26
19
EXHIBIT 10: GRAMA completion 2/3/26
20
EXHIBIT 11: Appellant petition