DECISION BY THE LAND USE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER
Petition No. PLNBOA2011-00715
222 "L" Street Hearing Date: October 3, 2012
Re: A request by Bliss and Veronica Parsons (Property Owners) for a variance which would legalize a carport which was constructed without permits and also allow an additional carport on property located at 222 "L" Street. The variance requested would be from the strict application of the ordinances (1) limiting the structures on a lot to 40% of the lot area and (2) prohibiting structures in a required interior side yard Subject property is located in the SR-JA (Special Development Pattern District) zoning district and the Avenues Historic District.
This matter was heard by the Salt Lake City Appeals Hearing Office, Craig Call, on October 3, 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 substantial evidence to establish that the proposed variance meets standard three related to a substantial property right. While there are no doubt significant advantages to having covered parking at an apartment complex, the applicant has provided no evidence that the absence of covered parking would create a hardship that would leave the property with no economically viable use or otherwise unduly or unreasonably burden an aspect of property ownership which has been recognized by the courts as constituting a substantial property right. Indeed, uncontradicted evidence in the record provided by the City and neighbors would indicate that the Applicant's existing illegal carport could not be constructed even if a variance were granted because the Applicant has no legal easement to access the area where the carport was constructed. One cannot claim that the ordinances impose burdens on property rights that do not in fact exist.
4. The Applicant failed
to provide substantial evidence to establish that the proposed variance meets
standard four related to the General Plan and the public interest. Indeed,
testimony offered at the hearing would indicate that the proposed and existing
illegal carports would impose burdens on the neighboring property that the
ordinances are designed to avoid.
5. This decision is based on the entire record of this matter, and not only upon those portions of the record specifically cited here.
6. This decision is effective as of October 29, 2012.
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 Katia Pace at the Salt Lake City Planning Office at 801-535-6354 or at katia.pace@slcgov.com.
Craig Call Appeal’s Hearing Officer