Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer allows further filings after Salt Lake City short‑term rental appeals
Summary
Salt Lake City Planning Division heard two appeals alleging illegal short‑term rentals at 1544 E Tomahawk Dr and 1883 S 700 E on May 21. The hearings officer took both matters under advisement, set briefs due May 28 and responses due June 4, and did not issue a ruling at the session.
Mary Woodhead, the land‑use hearing officer, presided over two appeals on May 21 alleging short‑term rental violations at 1544 East Tomahawk Drive and 1883 South 700 East and declined to issue a ruling after oral arguments. She closed oral testimony for both matters, set a deadline of May 28 for additional written filings and June 4 for responses, and said she would take the matters under advisement.
The City, represented by City Attorney Courtney Lords and planner Nicholas Rush, told the hearing the enforcement notices were properly issued and supported by a combination of platform listings, booking data, guest reviews, on‑site inspections and occupant statements. Rush told the hearing the department relies on a four‑factor evaluation — listings, booking records gathered via a software API, reviews referencing stays, and on‑site occupancy evidence — and called the combined exhibits “substantial and persuasive” evidence that the properties were used as short‑term rentals in violation of City Code provisions cited in the staff report (including sections 21A.33.020, 21A.62.040 and 21A.20.030).
Appellant attorney Daniel Witte and property owner Mr. Amiri disputed the city’s reliance on platform data and said the owner uses a reservation‑request workflow and written 30‑day leases for occupants. Witte said the city’s automated searches and scraped listings do not, standing alone, show unlawful short‑term use and argued the parties had proffered lease documents, tenant affidavits and security footage showing month‑long occupancy that counseled against finding a violation. At one point, Witte told the hearing the appellant was “willing to extend [any deadline] by whatever's necessary to deem it held within that time” to preserve the statutory 180‑day appeal period.
The city responded that the record includes receipts and testimony from occupants, booking calendars and inspection notes (including photographs and observations of luggage and trash consistent with short‑term turnovers) that together meet the administrative preponderance standard for a violation. City counsel also cited Utah Code § 10.8.85.4, which allows municipalities to use platform listings as evidence when they have additional corroborating information.
Woodhead warned parties that brand‑new evidence not already in the record might be inadmissible but said submissions that ‘‘put a light on what’s in the record’’ would be accepted. She set the same schedule for both appeals: written filings by May 28 and rebuttal responses by June 4. She also confirmed the proceeding was recorded and that the recording would be posted to the city’s website within two business days.
The hearing did not resolve the violations or penalties; the officer said she would review the written materials and issue a decision later. The matters were taken under advisement with the procedural deadlines in place.
