June 25, 2012

Re: PLNBOA2012-00173 Taylor Variance - A request by Markay Johnson (Contractor) on behalf of J.B. and Hillary Taylor (Property Owners) for a variance to exceed the maximum size of an accessory structure at 2260 East Parleys Terrace (2480 South). The purpose of the variance is to construct a 2,000 square foot accessory structure. The subject property is zoned R-1112, 000 (Single-Family Residential) and located in City Council District 7 represented by Soren Simonsen. (Staff contact: Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.malov@slcgov.com.)

This letter is the Record of Decision relative to Case PLNBOA2012-00173 regarding the variance request as referenced above. The case was heard by the Salt Lake City Appeals Hearing Office, Craig Call, on June 21, 2012. After reviewing the evidence and testimony presented, I hereby deny the variance request based on the following findings:

1. A variance can only be granted if all five standards for granting a variance are met:

1. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.

2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same 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 would not substantially affect the general plan of the City or be contrary to the public interest.

5. The spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice done.

2. The Applicant bears the burden imposed by state statute and the Salt Lake City ordinances to provide substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding establishing that the proposed variance meets the standards.

3. The Applicant failed to provide evidence that established that the proposed variance meets standard one related to a hardship. The applicants claimed an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship due to their inability to build an outbuilding which is the same proportion of their lot area as other property owners with smaller lots in the district. They also claimed an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship in that their property is impacted by traffic noise from the I-80 interstate highway. My finding, based on the evidence presented in the record, is that other properties in the city which are zoned for one acre lots are also subject to the same outbuilding restriction, so the imposition of a limit on the size of an outbuilding on the applicant’s lot is not unreasonable. The record also shows alternative methods of mitigating the impact of traffic noise, as well as the fact that a number of lots in the district are also impacted by traffic noise. The distance from the interstate is also a factor in determining that the traffic noise does not rise to the level of an unreasonable hardship, and the variance fails to meet the requirements of standard 1.

4. The Applicants failed to provide substantial evidence that established that the proposed variance meets standard two related to special circumstances of the property. While the applicant’s property is unique in that it is larger than many other lots in the area, these unique characteristics of the property are not related to the requested variance to allow a larger outbuilding on the property.

5. The Applicants failed to provide substantial evidence that established that the proposed variance meets standard three related to a substantial property right. The Applicants claim a substantial property right in being free from freeway noise and having an outbuilding which is proportionate to their lot size. The evidence in the record related to the distance from the property that the freeway is located and the availability of other options to address noise abatement lead me to conclude that using a larger outbuilding to mitigate the noise does not involve a substantial property right. I also note the lack of any Utah case law establishing that traffic noise in a similar situation has ever been the basis for a successful property rights claim and the lack of any Utah case law declaring the ability to building an accessory building of a certain size as a substantial property right.

6. This decision is effective as of the date of this letter.

Any person adversely affected by any decision of the Appeals Hearing Officer may within thirty (30) days after written decision file a petition for review with the Utah State Third District Court in accordance with Utah Code §10.9A-801.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Michael Maloy at the Salt Lake City Planning Office at the telephone number or email address noted above.

Sincerely Craig Call Appeals Hearing Officer