Hearing Officer's Decision - PLNZAD2023-00728 (2)
Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – Jason Seaton – PLNZAD2023-00728 (Variance)
Salt Lake City Land Use Appeals Hearing Officer
Variance Decision
Jason Seaton – 1101 West 400 South
PLNZAD2023-00728
November 25, 2024
This application consists of a request for multiple variances in order to allow for
redevelopment/construction of a residence located at 1101 West 400 South (the “Property”). The
first request for a variance was to reduce the required front yard setback from approximately 14’
to 10’, to reduce the corner side yard setback from 10’ to 0’ (with a roof overhang into the right-
of-way), to reduce the required distance from a garage door to a sidewalk from 17’-6” to 14’, and
to increase the maximum building coverage from 40% to 46%. Variances are decisions made by
the Appeals Hearing Officer per Salt Lake City ordinance section 21A.18.020.
A hearing on this matter was initially held before the Appeals Hearing Officer on Thursday,
November 21, 2024. Mr. Seaton, the property owner appeared and testified, along with Erik
Sansom, a representative of the owner. Andy Hulka from the Salt Lake City Planning Department
appeared and represented the City.
Discussion
In light of the related and dependent nature of the multiple variance requests, they are being
considered together without distinction. Thus, my discussion herein of the variance standards
apply to all variance requests and will not require separate analysis.
Before the statutory variance requirements can be analyzed, the Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance, Section 21A (hereinafter referred to as the “City Code”), provides a threshold analysis
that is required where variances are prohibited:
21A.18.050 Prohibited Variances: “The appeals hearing officer shall not grant a variance that:
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; and C. authorizes uses not
allowed by law.”
I find that the Applicant clearly showed that the proposed new construction of a residence
was not a temporary measure. However, it is arguable whether they are requesting more than the
minimum variance necessary to relieve the alleged unnecessary hardship of a narrow lot. Because
there were no other options presented. Nevertheless, for purposes of this analysis, I will give the
applicant the benefit of the doubt with respect to this threshold question. The variances would not
authorize a use not allowed by law as the use would not change as a result of the variances
requested. Thus, I find that these initial conditions are met.
Since all of the variance standards set forth in City Code, Section 21A.18.060, must be met
for a variance to be granted, I will analyze each of the variance standards based upon the evidence
(or lack thereof) presented at the hearing, findings in the city’s staff report dated November 21,
Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – Jason Seaton – PLNZAD2023-00728 (Variance)
2024 (“Staff Report”) and other materials provided to the Appeals Hearing Officer to consider by
the City and the Applicant. City Code also places the burden of showing that the variances meet
all of the standards upon the Applicants (See City Code 21A.18.040).
21A.18.060. Standards for Variances A.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
this title.
City Code provides further guidance on how to determine whether the lack of a variance
would cause “unreasonable hardship.” City Code states that “the appeals hearing officer may not
find an unreasonable hardship unless: 1. The alleged hardship is related to the size, shape or
topography of the property for which the variance is sought; and 2. The alleged hardship comes
from circumstances peculiar to the property, not from conditions that are general to the
neighborhood.” (City Code 21A.18.060 B.1-2). The first condition is met as the narrow shape of
the property lot is related to the alleged hardship.
Whether the alleged hardship stems from “circumstances peculiar to the property” and “not
from conditions that are general to the neighborhood” is where the City and the Applicant disagree.
The Staff Report provided analysis of the various lot sizes and lot widths along the same street of
the Property. The City showed clearly that more than half of the lots along the street have widths
that are as great or greater, as well as a number that show lot sizes to be even narrower. The
Applicant did not provide any evidence to the contrary. It stretches the limits of reasonableness to
argue that the Property has “peculiar circumstances” when at least seven (7) of the lots on the same
block face as the Property are similarly substandard in width. Based on the evidence provided
with an overwhelming number of lots along the same block face as the Property that are narrow in
size, the Property does not appear to be “uncommon or unusual.”
The Applicant was not persuasive to the Appeals Hearing Officer that the alleged hardship
was not self-imposed. Therefore, the Applicant was unable to show that the alleged hardship was
an unreasonable hardship as required by the City Code.
21A.18.060. Standard for Variances A.2. There are special circumstances attached to the Property
that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district.
City Code provides guidance for finding whether special circumstances exist, namely, that
(1) “the special circumstances relate to the alleged hardship; and (2) the special circumstances
deprive the property of privileges granted to other properties in the same zoning district”
(21A.18.060D.
The City has shown that it is not uncommon to find narrow width lots throughout older
neighborhoods throughout the city with as narrow or narrower lots than the Applicants. See Staff
Report, page 14). The Applicant has not shown that it is deprived of “privileges granted to other
properties in the same zoning district.” Nothing was shown to suggest that the alleged “special
circumstances” even exist when many other properties have similar challenges with undersized
lots. Thus, the Applicant has failed to show that it meets this second variance standard.
Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – Jason Seaton – PLNZAD2023-00728 (Variance)
21A.18.060. Standard for Variances A.3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same district.
The Applicant did not show that granting these requested variances are “essential to the
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same district.” Other
options are available to the Applicant to still have a single-family dwelling on the Property.
Additionally, the Applicant failed to show that having a detached garage is a “substantial property
right.” Therefore, the Applicant was unable to provide evidence to meet the standard set in A.3.
21A.18.060. Standard for Variances A.4. The variance will not substantially affect the general
plan of the city and will not be contrary to the public interest.
I believe that is arguable that these variances will not substantially affect the general plan
of the city and will not be contrary to the public interest. The City acknowledges that the
Applicant’s proposal would not substantially affect the general plan of the City. The City argues
that not meeting setbacks and maintaining the public right-of-way is not in the public interest.
However, given the feedback from neighbors and other members of the public who were all in
support of this proposal, I do find that the Applicant did meet this standard of a variance and do
not find the proposal to be contrary to the public interest.
21A.18.060. Standard for Variances A.5. The spirit of this title is observed and substantial justice
done.
Zoning ordinances are in place to ensure an orderly development of properties throughout
the city consistent with the duly adopted regulations, of which setbacks and lot coverage, are an
integral part. The spirit of the title is to enforce the existing regulations, but under very limited
and specific circumstances vary from those existing regulations. Furthermore, simply having a
desire to build a new single-family dwelling that does not meet City Code in various ways does
not translate into substantial justice being done. There are many properties that are not code
compliant and that have to build and conform to existing regulations. The Applicant has been
unable to show that the variances requested would meet the spirit of the City Code and that
substantial justice would be done.
Conclusion and Ruling
Because all of the standards required by City Code to grant a variance were not met by the
Applicant, I must deny the variance requests. My findings herein are based on the documentation
in the lengthy Staff Report, including the Application and other materials provided by the
Applicant in this matter, along with testimony and discussion at the public hearing. These items
collectively provide substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached and are incorporated
herein by this reference. Each of the required variance standards set forth in the Salt Lake City
Code Section 21A.18.060 were discussed at length by the City in the hearing and in its Staff
Report. The Applicant also responded in writing to the City along with some oral testimony at the
hearing. However, the Applicant mostly complained about existing City Code, and only lightly
Appeals Hearing Officer Decision – Jason Seaton – PLNZAD2023-00728 (Variance)
touched on the merits and legal standards before me. And the burden to how that the variance
standards were met lies entirely with the Applicant. Based on the evidence submitted orally and
in writing, I found that only the 4th variance standard was met by the Applicant. Because City
Code requires that all five requirements be met, the variance requests fail and are denied.
Therefore, based on the written materials both from City staff and from the Applicant, as
well as testimony in the hearing and discussion of each of the variance standards, I must deny the
variance to reduce the required front yard setback from approximately 14’ to 10’, to reduce the
corner side yard setback from 10’ to 0’ (with a roof overhang into the right-of-way), to reduce the
required distance from a garage door to a sidewalk from 17’-6” to 14’, and to increase the
maximum building coverage from 40% to 46%. since all of the required standards for a variance
consistent with Code Section 21A.18.060 were not met.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2024
Matthew T. Wirthlin, Appeals Hearing Officer