unreasonable hardship
for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION BY THE LAND USE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER
Petition No. PLNBOA2012-00579
678 East Roosevelt Avenue
Hearing Date: October 3, 2012
Re: A request by George Stutzenberger (Contractor) on behalf of Gwenda Mitchell (Property Owners) to allow an accessory structure within the minimum side yard setback area on a corner lot at 678 East Roosevelt Avenue. The subject property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential).
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:
l. 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. There are no doubt significant advantages in the efficient utilization of the limited area allowed for automobile storage on the lot. But insufficient evidence exists in the record to establish that the inability of the property owner to expand the existing non-complying garage structure to make it a larger garage would deny the property owner a substantial property right. While others in the area no doubt have larger garages, the size of the garage has not been established as a substantial property right. No evidence has been provided to establish that the smaller garage denies any economically viable use of the property or otherwise unreasonably limits any characteristic of the property that the courts have held to constitute a substantial property right.
4. This decision is based on the entire record of this matter, and not only upon those portions of the record specifically cited here.
5. 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 Casey Stewart at the Salt Lake City Planning Office at 801·535-6260 or at casey.stewart@slcgov.com.
Craig Call Appeals Hearing Officer