Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Officer's Decision - PLNAPP2025-00938SALT LAKE CITY LAND USE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CASE NO. PLNAPP2025-00938 APPELLANT/PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID DEVECCHIO HEARING HELD: DECEMBER 18, 2025 DECISION ISSUED: JANUARY 12, 2026 On December 18, 2025, a hearing was held on this matter. Janelle E. Bauer appeared as legal counsel for the Appellant, David DeVecchio, who was also present. Kathrine Paskar, City Attorney, represented the City. Noah Ellmore, Principal Planner, 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. Appellant owns certain real property located at approximately 613 E 3rd Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “Property”). The improvements on the Property consist of a single- family residence. The residence contains four bedrooms and three bathrooms. The Property is within Salt Lake City’s SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District (the “SR-1A District”). 2. Appellant purchased the Property in 2018 and represented that the prior owner had used the Property for short-term rentals1 for at least 1-2 years prior to Appellant’s purchase of the Property. Since obtaining the Property, Appellant has also rented the Property for varying durations. Appellant typically rents the Property to families who are vacationing in Utah for less than 30 days. 3. The City does not dispute that the Property was used for short-term rentals since at least 2018 by the Appellant. There is no genuine dispute that the Property was used for short-term rentals for at least 1-2 years prior to Appellant’s acquisition of the Property. Based on the arguments submitted by the Parties, whether the rental of the Property began in 2016 or 2018, is neither relevant to, nor determinative of the issues presented. Accordingly, I find that the Property 1 Appellant submits numerous records detailing the renting of the Property. These records indicate that the Property is primarily rented for occupancy for periods less than a month in duration. While the term “Short-term Rental” is currently specifically defined in Salt Lake Code, this term was not defined when Appellant began renting the property on a short-term basis in 2018. Use of the term “short-term rental” in this opinion refers to rental of a property for occupancy for a duration of less than one month. Appellant describes the use of the Property as that of a “short-term rental.” CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00938 MEMORANDUM DECISION 2 has been used as a short-term rental since approximately 2016 and the Appellant has specifically used the Property as a short-term rental since approximately 2018. 4. On August 1, 2018, the Utah State Tax Commission issued a “Sales Tax License and/or Use Tax Certificate of Registration.” The documentation submitted by Appellant related to “Transient Room” taxes, was also issued by the Utah State Tax Commission. While Appellant presents evidence that approximately 17.8% of taxes paid are attributable to a tax categorized as “City”, Appellant provides no evidence that that Salt Lake City collected these taxes directly from Appellant. Appellant provided no other documentation or evidence to support that Salt Lake City issued any licensure or permits allowing the Property to be used as a short-term rental. Accordingly, I find that during the time frame relevant to this appeal, 2016 to the present, the Property was not licensed as a short-term rental by Salt Lake City. 5. In approximately 2023, Salt Lake City adopted a definition of the term “Short-Term Rental” as “The use of a dwelling unit or units that are offered for rent or lease for a period less than thirty (30) days.” 6. While Appellant points to other commercial uses in the surrounding general neighborhood, Appellant clarified during oral augment that he was not asserting that the areas shown in the map attached to his appeal were all in the same zoning district. Appellant also did not establish that the any of the listed uses were other short-term rental properties. 7. On September 9, 2025, Salt Lake City’s Principal Planner issued an Administrative Determination of Nonconforming Use (PLNZAD2025-00767) (the “Administrative Decision”). 8. Appellant timely appealed the Administrative Decision. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16.030.A, the standard of review for the appeal of an administrative decisions is de novo. 2. Pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.16.030.J, the Appellant has the burden of proving that the decision appealed is incorrect. 3. Pursuant to Salt Lake City Code 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.” 4. The uses allowed in the SR-1A District are enumerated in the land use tables in Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020 does not permit short-term rentals within the SR-1A District. Similar uses, such as “bed and breakfast” and “hotel/motel” are also not permitted in the SR-1A District. Id. 5. Prior to 2023, Salt Lake City’s Zoning Code did not specifically define “short-term rental.” 6. Since 1995, Salt Lake City has defined “Dwelling, Single-Family” as follows: CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00938 MEMORANDUM DECISION 3 A detached building containing only one dwelling unit surrounded by yards that is built on site or is a modular home dwelling that resembles site build dwellings. Mobile homes, travel trailers, housing mounted on self-propelled or drawn vehicles, tents, or other forms of temporary housing or portable housing are not included in this definition. All living areas of a single-family dwelling shall be accessible and occupied by the entire family. 7. Salt Lake City defines the term “Dwelling” as follows: 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. 8. The definition of the term “dwelling” includes a durational limitation, specifically “for occupancy on a monthly basis” which by its plain language excludes occupancy for any period less than one month in duration. Accordingly, if a “building or portion thereof” is used for occupancy for less than a monthly basis, that building or portion thereof is not a “dwelling” as contemplated by Salt Lake City code. 9. The term “Dwelling, Single-Family” is a type of dwelling that meets certain criteria. It is clear from the plain language of the definition that the term “Dwelling, Single Family” is intended, among other things, to distinguish a “Dwelling” occupied by a single family from a “Dwelling” that is simultaneously occupied by multiple families or with multiple dwelling units, such as a duplex or other multi-unit structure. 10. A nonconforming use is “a use of land that legally existed before its current land use designation, has been maintained continuously since the time the land use ordinance governing the land changed, and because one or more subsequent land use ordinance changes, does not conform to the regulations that now govern the use of the land.” Utah Code § 10-20-102(53). Accordingly, to qualify as a nonconforming use, the use at issue must have been legally established prior to the revisions of the applicable code which subsequently prohibited that use. 11. Appellant has failed to meet his burden of establishing that rental of the Property for periods of primarily less than a month in duration was legally allowed in Salt Lake City’s SR- 1A District. Accordingly, the use was never legally established and is not a legal nonconforming use. DISCUSSION As articulated by the Parties, the issue in the present case is whether rentals of the Property on a basis of less than one month in duration were allowed in the SR-1A District. Indeed, while there is no dispute that Appellant used the Property for rentals of less than a monthly basis since at least 2018, and that the Property had been used for rentals of less than a monthly basis since at approximately 2016, the Parties dispute whether this use was legal under the then existing provisions of Salt Lake City Code. Specifically, Appellant raises the following arguements on CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00938 MEMORANDUM DECISION 4 appeal: (1) short-term rentals were allowed in the SR-1A District prior to the City adopting a short- term rental prohibition; (2) other neighboring properties are nonconforming; (3) the Property has been licensed as a short-term rental since 2018; and (4) the use of the Property as a short term rental benefits the City. Each is addressed in turn. 1. Short-Term Rentals were not Allowed in the SR-1A Zone Prior to the City Adopting a Short-Term Rental Prohibition Pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.040.E, the standards for determination of a nonconforming use are: 1. Burden Of Owner To Establish Legality Of Nonconforming Use: The burden of establishing that any nonconforming use lawfully exists under the provisions of this title shall, in all cases, be the owner's burden and not the City's. Building permits, business licenses and similar documentation may be considered as evidence establishing the legality of use. 2. Determination Of Nonconforming Status: The Zoning Administrator shall determine the nonconforming use status of properties based upon the evidence submitted and information available pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. A nonconforming use is “a use of land that legally existed before its current land use designation, has been maintained continuously since the time the land use ordinance governing the land changed, and because one or more subsequent land use ordinance changes, does not conform to the regulations that now govern the use of the land.” Utah Code Ann. § 10-20-102(53). Appellant argues that short-term rentals were allowed in the SR-1A Zone because “using a single-family dwelling prior to a short-term rental prohibition is a legal nonconforming use if the use as a ‘residential dwelling’ is allowed in the zone.” Appellant relies on Brown v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207, (Utah Ct. App. 1998), to support this argument. Appellant’s reliance on Brown, however, is misplaced. In Brown, the sole issue for review on the merits was whether the Sandy City Board of Adjustment’s affirmation of the staff’s interpretation of the Code to prohibit leasing of property for less than thirty days was correct when the plain language of the Sandy City Code did not include an express durational limitation. Brown, 957 P.2d at 210. Sandy City’s code permitted “use of a ‘housing unit within a structure with kitchen and sleeping facilities, ... for occupancy by one family.’” Id. However, in Brown, both parties agreed that Sandy City Code never placed an “express durational limit” on the use of any property. Id. In contrast, Salt Lake City Code’s definition of the term “dwelling” includes a durational limitation “for occupancy on a monthly basis.” Accordingly, the issue before the Court of Appeals in Brown, is fundamentally different than the issue presented by Appellant. Indeed, as there was no express durational limit in Brown, the only consideration was whether the occupancy was residential in nature. In the present case, the issue is not merely whether the short-term rental is CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00938 MEMORANDUM DECISION 5 residential or commercial, but also whether it is allowed based on the express durational limit established in Salt Lake City’s definition of the term “Dwelling.” Since 1995, Salt Lake City has defined “Dwelling, Single-Family” as follows: A detached building containing only one dwelling unit surrounded by yards that is built on site or is a modular home dwelling that resembles site build dwellings. Mobile homes, travel trailers, housing mounted on self-propelled or drawn vehicles, tents, or other forms of temporary housing or portable housing are not included in this definition. All living areas of a single-family dwelling shall be accessible and occupied by the entire family. Salt Lake City also defines the term “Dwelling” as follows: 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. Appellant argues that the term “for occupancy on a monthly basis” means that the structure is of a type that could be occupied for a month as opposed to a motel that would not be compatible with occupancy on a monthly basis as it lacks certain amenities, such as cooking and laundry facilities. This argument, however, is not persuasive. I must give meaning to the plain language, “for occupancy on a monthly basis.” I find that this term is unambiguous. Specifically, that a “dwelling” is a “building or portion thereof which is designated for residential purposes of a family” for a duration of at least a month. Accordingly, as there is an express durational requirement in Salt Lake City’s definition of “dwelling” the use of the Property for residential occupancy for less than a month was not permitted under Salt Lake City Code and the use of the Property for short-term rentals was, therefore, not legally established. The definition plainly delineates between occupancy on a monthly basis and occupancy for less than one month by contrasting with other land uses which are explicitly occupied on a nightly or weekly basis, such as “bed and breakfast.” Indeed, if dwellings allowed for occupancies less than one month, then the definition of “dwelling” would not include the express durational limitation of occupancy on a monthly basis, nor would it exclude uses like “bed and breakfast.” Occupancy for less than one month does not comply with the definition of “dwelling” and is therefore not permitted under the definition of “single-family dwelling.” The appellant also argues that the definition of “dwelling” does not require the same family occupy the dwelling for the entire month and that a string of families could occupy the Property to satisfy the “monthly basis” requirement. This argument is also not persuasive. First, the definition of “single-family dwelling” refers to “the entire family,” while the definition of “dwelling” references “a family.” In both instances, the singular “family” is used, as opposed to the plural “families.” Further, if I accept the Appellants interpretation that a string of families could occupy a property to satisfy the “monthly basis” requirement, this will result in the term “for occupancy on a monthly basis” to be rendered meaningless. Indeed, under this definition renting the property CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00938 MEMORANDUM DECISION 6 to different individuals for 31 days for 24 hours at a time, would result in rental on “monthly basis” instead of rental on a “daily basis.” In order to give meaning to the plain language in the definition of dwelling, I must reject Appellant’s proposed interpretation of this term. Next, Appellant argues “that a use doesn’t have to be specifically listed as a permitted use in the zone if it is commonly associated with another permitted use” and cites to Hugoe v. Woods Cross City, 1999 UT App 281, 988 P.2d 456, in support of this position. However, because I find that the permitted use “single family dwelling” by its reliance on the definition of the term “dwelling” incorporates the express durational limitation, “for occupancy on a monthly basis,” Appellant’s use of the Property as a short-term rental is contradictory to the plain language requirements of the permitted “single-family dwelling” use and, thus, cannot be associated with the use of a “single-family dwelling.” Finally, because the word “dwelling” requires occupancy for at least a month, and that word is used inside the definition of a “single-family dwelling,” I find that single-family dwelling must be lived in on a monthly (or longer) basis. As a result, renting a home for less than a month does not qualify as a single-family dwelling use. Accordingly, short-term rentals fall outside the category of single-family dwelling use. This remains true regardless of whether the short-term rental is residential or commercial in nature. Thus, there is no need to decide whether a short-term rental should be considered commercial or residential. For that reason, I decline to issue a ruling on whether short-term rentals are fundamentally commercial or residential in nature. In other words, short-term rentals do not qualify as single-family dwellings, so the commercial versus residential argument does not change the outcome and is, therefore, not addressed. In summary, I find that short-term rentals were not legally uses in the SR-1A zone under the permitted single-family dwelling use, because Salt Lake City Code includes an express requirement that the building or structure be “for occupancy on a monthly basis.” Accordingly, short-term rentals are not a legally established use in the SR-1A Zone and Appellant is unable to meet the requirements to establish the use of the Property for short-term rentals as a legal nonconforming use. 2. The Existence of Other Nonconforming Uses is Irrelevant to Whether Short- Term Rentals at the Property is a Legal Nonconforming Use. A nonconforming use is “a use of land that legally existed before its current land use designation, has been maintained continuously since the time the land use ordinance governing the land changed, and because one or more subsequent land use ordinance changes, does not conform to the regulations that now govern the use of the land.” Utah Code § 10-20-102(53). As set forth above, pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.040.E, the standards for determination of a nonconforming use are: 1. Burden Of Owner To Establish Legality Of Nonconforming Use: The burden of establishing that any nonconforming use lawfully exists under the provisions CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00938 MEMORANDUM DECISION 7 of this title shall, in all cases, be the owner's burden and not the City's. Building permits, business licenses and similar documentation may be considered as evidence establishing the legality of use. 2. Determination Of Nonconforming Status: The Zoning Administrator shall determine the nonconforming use status of properties based upon the evidence submitted and information available pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The status of other buildings as nonconforming is not a standard which is relevant to the analysis of whether the Property was legally operating as short-term rental. While Appellant argues that it is being treated differently that neighboring property owners, Appellant concedes that at least some of the area depicted in the map exhibit included with the appeal are in different zoning districts. Further, Appellant’s list of neighboring uses, while commercial in nature, were not other short-term rental properties. Accordingly, I find that the existence of other nonconforming properties is not relevant to the nonconforming use analysis. 3. The Property was not Licensed by Salt Lake City as a Short-Term Rental Appellant claims the subject property has been licensed as a short-term rental since April 2018. In support of this argument, Appellant refers to a Sales Tax License for a short-term rentals. The license was issued by the Utah State Tax Commission and not Salt Lake City. Further, the license notes “authority to engage in business is subject to city and/or county business licensing laws and other rules and regulations.” Based on the evidence presented, I find that the Property was not licensed by Salt Lake City to operate as short-term rental. I further find that any licenses issued by agencies or entities other Salt Lake City are not relevant to whether short-term rentals were permitted under Salt Lake City Code in the SR-1A District. 4. Benefit to the City is Irrelevant to Whether Short-Term Rentals at the Property is a Legal Nonconforming Use. The Appellant also raises a number of other arguments related to taxes paid, guest reviews, and letters of support from two neighbors. These arguments do not address the standards for determination of a nonconforming use set forth in Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.040.E or Utah Code Ann. § 10-20-102(53). Nor do they provide evidence establishing that short-term rentals were a legal use under Salt Lake City Code in the SR-1A District. Accordingly, I find these arguments are irrelevant to substantive issue on appeal. DECISION For the foregoing reasons, Appellant failed to meet its burden of establishing that short- term rental use of the Property was legally established and qualifies as a legal nonconforming use. Additionally, Appellant has not established that the Administrative Decision erred in its determination. Accordingly, the Administrative Decision is AFFIRMED and UPHELD. This decision may be appealed to the Third District Court within 30 days of the date of this decision. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00938 MEMORANDUM DECISION 8 Dated this 12th day of January 2026 /s/ Clayton H. Preece Clayton H. Preece Appeals Hearing Officer