Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orangeville council hears appeal of short-term rental denial; decision deferred
Summary
An applicant appealed a zoning committee denial of a short-term vacation rental permit to the Orangeville City Council on Dec. 11, arguing the ordinance is ambiguous about how to measure the required separation distance. Council members said past practice measures property line to property line, and they closed the hearing to address the appeal in their regular session.
Orangeville City Council heard an appeal Dec. 11 from Wendy Berger of a zoning committee decision denying a short-term vacation rental permit for her parents' property, focusing on how the city's ordinance defines the required separation distance between rentals.
Berger, who identified herself as the applicant, told the council that the ordinance's separation standard—quoted in her materials as "1,350 feet or a quarter mile"—is ambiguous about whether to measure between structures, driveways or property lines. "Because the ordinance is ambiguous, the state law requires that it be interpreted in favor of the applicant," she said, citing Utah State Code.
Her brother, Dylan Locke, showed a crude map and measurements he said show a driveway-to-driveway distance of about 1,460 feet between the subject property and the nearest short-term rental. "If you take it from the house up first street ... driveway to driveway, it's about 1,460 feet," he said.
Doug Stilson, who identified himself as the official overseeing planning and zoning, described the committee's process and reasoning. He said the committee consulted the city attorney and applied longstanding local precedent to measure separation "property line to property line," and that under that method the parcel in question falls short of the quarter-mile requirement. "The way every single Airbnb in the past has been approved has been based off of property lines to property lines," Stilson said, adding that the panel sought to avoid setting a new precedent that could invite boundary disputes.
Council members acknowledged the competing readings and agreed to pursue clearer language in the ordinance so future cases are less ambiguous. No final decision on Berger's appeal was recorded during the hearing; the council closed the public hearing and said it would consider the appeal in the regular session that followed. The council closed the public hearing by motion (attributed in the minutes as a motion by Kurt, seconded by Tracy) and voiced assent to proceed to the regular session.
The next procedural step recorded in the meeting was the council's plan to take up the appeal during the regular session; no vote on the short-term rental permit itself was taken in the public hearing portion of the meeting.
