Hearing officer weighs dispute over timeliness and substance of design-review extension for project near 300 South and 300 East

An appeal hearing over a planning commission decision to grant a one-year extension of a design-review approval for property near 320–330 South 300 East focused on whether the extension request was timely and whether the applicant met the standard that no change in circumstance would result in an unmitigated impact. Appeal Hearing Officer Aaron McKnight took the case under advisement and said he would issue a written decision within 10 days.

The appellant’s attorney, Eric Pacini, argued the extension request was untimely. Pacini said the design review approval was granted on Oct. 11, 2023, and that, under the ordinance language the city relied on, the approval period runs “from the date of approval,” which he said makes Oct. 10, 2024, the last timely day to request an extension. Pacini also told McKnight the applicant had not submitted the site plan information required by the design-review ordinance and that the record contains no showing that “no change in circumstance” would result in an unmitigated impact, a burden Pacini said the developer did not meet.

Salt Lake City senior city attorney Catherine Pasker disputed those readings and urged the officer to follow the plain language of the zoning code. Pasker said the code should be read to give applicants until the anniversary date — Oct. 11, 2024 — to file an extension request and that the operative ordinance did not require the applicant to demonstrate “no change in circumstance” for the particular extension provision at issue. Pasker noted staff letters accompanying the original approval may have cited the wrong standard but argued that a clerical error in a staff letter does not change the code’s deadline.

The officer identified a narrow legal question he wanted addressed in writing and at oral argument: how subsections F and G of 21A.4.02 (interpretation) apply to computing deadlines and the definition of “year” under the city code. Both sides discussed statutory-construction principles and leap-year counting during their presentations.

McKnight said the hearing would be decided on the administrative record and not as a de novo public hearing, and he gave both parties time for rebuttal. No members of the public spoke during the hearing on this agenda item.

Outcome: The hearing officer took the appeal under advisement and will issue a written decision within 10 days. The parties were instructed to address the city-code subsections on time computation as part of their arguments.