Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report - PLNAPP2026-000881 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: HAZ2025-04122, PLNAPP2026-00088 Appeal of Administrative Decision PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1544 E Tomahawk Dr PARCEL ID: 09-33-128-010-0000 ZONING DISTRICT: FR-3/12,000 Foothills 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 2 appellant’s burden to prove that the decision made by the zoning administrator was incorrect. City Code 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 29, 2026. APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: 21A.33.020 - Land Use Table for FR-3/12,000 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 FR-3/12,000 Foothills 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 FR-3 zone nor are similar uses permitted, such as “bed and breakfast” or “hotel/motel”. The appellant claims that the Notice and Order issued January 29, 2026, erred in determining that a short-term rental use was occurring at the subject property. The appellant claims the City ignored exculpatory evidence in the form of a 30-day lease and camera footage, did not respond to a GRAMA request for the subject property in a time-frame that would allow an informed defense of the cited violation, and that the short-term rental web listings are used solely for billing, advertising and negotiating rather than for bookings of actual stays. The evidence provided to our department by the appellant was duly considered but deemed inconclusive with respect to compliance. The appellant asserts that the City “ignored” exculpatory evidence in determining whether the subject property was in violation of the applicable ordinance. The evidence cited by the appellant consisted of a lease covering the period of January 15 through February 15, 2026, as well as camera footage that the appellant contends shows the same occupants remaining at the property beyond the dates reflected on 3 the Airbnb booking receipt obtained by the City. The evidence submitted by the appellant beginning on January 29, 2026, and thereafter was continually reviewed by the Code Enforcement Officer in consultation with supervisors and management. At that time, it was determined that the City possessed sufficient evidence to proceed with issuance of a Notice and Order. Specifically, the City considered evidence (Exhibit 5) of a booking provided by the occupant from within an Airbnb profile showing receipt of a current short-term stay at the subject address. This evidence was deemed conclusive and was afforded greater evidentiary weight than the lease documentation and video footage provided by the appellant. The information provided to us at the door by Mr. Pirtle, the short- term occupant (and apparent lessee) of the unit, directly contradicted the existence of any lease, as well as booking data from VRBO, which overlaps with the purported lease (Exhibit 4). The individual confirmed he was staying on a short-term basis through Airbnb and presented a receipt supporting that claim. In addition, the City had obtained corroborating evidence from hosting websites and related software tools indicating that the property was being offered for short-term rental, including listings, short-term reviews, records indicating prior and future short-term stays, as well as ancillary evidence such as vehicles with out of state license plates (Exhibits 3,4,5). Lastly, the appellant requested time extensions as noted in his appeal. The first request for an extension was made on January 30, 2026. This request prima facie indicates an acknowledgment of non- compliance. Also, the lease agreement was provided a day before the extension request. It is unclear why a time extension would be necessary in light of the “exculpatory lease”. The appellant was granted all GRAMA (Government Records and Management Act) documents requested four days prior to appeal deadline. The appellant asserts that his initial GRAMA request for records related to the subject property, submitted on December 23, 2025, 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. However, the record reflects otherwise. Utah Code 63G-2-204(4)(b) requires a governmental response to a request for records within ten days from the receipt of request. Appellants initial GRAMA request was submitted on December 23, 2025 (C- 2025-620) and was denied on grounds permitted under state law (63G-2-305(10)(a). The appellant contested that denial with the City Recorder and made a new request on January 29, 2026 (C-2026-99). The responsive records associated with the January 29, 2026 request were released on February 4, 2026, (Exhibit 7). 4 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 29, 2026; ten calendar days from that date was February 8, 2026. The City released the responsive records for the subject property on February 4, four days prior to the expiration of the appeal period. Also, since the hearing on this matter is scheduled for May 21, 2026, the appellant has had ample time to review the 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. The determination of a violation is based on the investigations at the property, online, via software, and the applicable code requirements, not on whether records were obtained through the GRAMA process. The Notice and Order was not issued solely based on online advertisements, but on additional evidence of short-term rental activity at the property. The appellant asserts that he is allowed to use any platform to advertise, bill, and negotiate his rental properties as long as the “final lease” reflects a 30-day minimum. Utah Code § 10-8-85.4 provides that a municipality may not impose a penalty solely because a property is advertised on a short-term rental website. The City recognizes this limitation and does not issue violations based only on the existence of an online advertisement. As subsection 3 of the law states, a municipality may use: ...a listing or offering of a short-term rental on a short-term rental website as evidence that a short-term rental took place so long as the municipality has additional information to support the position that an owner or lessee violated a municipal ordinance. Advertising a prohibited land use does not shield the activity from enforcement. With respect to the assertion that rentals may be billed or negotiated on any platform, the City does not dispute that no ordinance regulates the choice of billing, negotiating or advertising platform. However, the issue is not the platform used, but the use of the property. Short-term rental land use is prohibited in the FR-3 zoning district, and a dwelling, as defined by the City, does not allow occupancy for periods of less than a month- to-month basis (21A.62). CASE SUMMARY: • August 20, 2025: Civil Enforcement received a voicemail alleging short term rental use at multiple addresses, including the subject property. A case was opened for the subject property. • Sept 25th inspection: Three active listings were found on the hosting sites: two on Airbnb, and one on VRBO. The listings were set for 4-night minimums and indicated a past stay on September 4th-6th, 2025. 5 A separate software tool utilized by the City indicated active short-term bookings. (Exhibit 3) • October 24 inspection: Three active listings were found on the hosting sites: two on Airbnb, and one on VRBO. The listings were set for 3-night minimums. The software tool utilized by the City indicated active short-term bookings. (Exhibit 9) • November 25 inspection: Three active listings were found on the hosting sites: two on Airbnb, and one on VRBO. The Airbnb listing was set for 3-night minimums. The software tool utilized by the City indicated a future short-term booking for December 30-31st, 2025. (Exhibit 9) • December 18 inspection: Three active listings were found on both Airbnb and VRBO for minimums less than 30 days. The calendar from VRBO indicated a future short-term booking on December 21st-28th, 2025. The software tool indicated potential short-term rental activity. (Exhibit 9) • January 21 inspection: Three active listings were found on the hosting sites: two on Airbnb, and one on VRBO. Inspector noted a review on VRBO from a "Jon A." stating that Mr. A rented for four nights in October 2025. The software tool indicated a past stay on January 1st-3rd , 2026 and that this stay was booked on December 26, 2025. Calendars on Airbnb and VRBO indicated future bookings for January 28 through February 1, 2026 and February 11-February 15, 2026. (Exhibit 4) • January 29 inspection: Civil Enforcement Officer conducted inspection at subject property and spoke with an occupant at the door who stated he was visiting Salt Lake City for a couple of days. The occupant provided a screenshot from within an Airbnb account showing a current reservation with 'current trip' details for dates January 27th-February 3rd, 2026 at the subject address. This was corroborated by the web calendar, and a Notice and Order was issued and mailed out the same day. In addition, the Officer was informed by appellant of a 30-day lease for the subject property and was sent a document to this effect almost immediately after the inspection. (Exhibit 5) • February 5: Daily fines of $200/day begin. (Exhibit 9) • February 10 inspection: Officer visited subject property and observed more than half a dozen trash bags outside, vehicles removed, and all indications were that the party observed during the January 29, 2026 inspection had left and the property was cleaned. (Exhibit 8) • February 12 inspection: Officer conducted onsite inspection and observed no activity. • February 15: Officer observed all listings for the subject property were removed, no future bookings were found, and no short-term occupancy was observed at the subject address. Fines stopped on this day. (Exhibit 9) • February 26: New complaint received. The complainant contacted the Civil Enforcement Office and reported that short-term rental activity had resumed at the subject property. The complainant observed multiple vehicles with out-of-state license plates arriving at the residence. (Exhibit 9) 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 6 residential district contrary to City Code Section 21A.33.020 for FR-3/12,000 Residential District. Any decision on this appeal can be appealed to Third District Court within 30 days. SLCC Section 21A.16.040. EXHIBITS: 1. Notice and Order 2. VRBO review 10/25/25 3. Rentalscape data/listing 9/25/25 4. Rentalscape data/calendar 1/21/26 5. Inspection photos/evidence 1/29/26 6. Email from appellant re: time extension 7. GRAMA completion 2/4/26 8. Inspection phot0 2/10/26 9. Case Summary 10. Appellant Petition 11. Neighbor Statement 7 EXHIBIT 1: Notice and Order 8 EXHIBIT 2: VRBO Review 10/25/25 9 EXHIBIT 3: Rentalscape data/listing 9/25/25 10 11 EXHIBIT 4: Rentalscape data/calendar 1/21/26 12 13 EXHIBIT 5: Inspection photos/evidence 1/29/26 14 15 EXHIBIT 6: Email re: time extension 16 EXHIBIT 7: GRAMA completion 2/4/26 17 EXHIBIT 8: Inspection photo 2/10/26 18 EXHIBIT 9: Case summary report 19 20 21 EXHIBIT 10: Appellant Petition 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 EXHIBIT 11: Statement from neighbor