Appeal Hearing: 12640 S Relation Street Lot Classification

On January 9, 2026, the Hearing Officer Tim Pack conducted an administrative appeal hearing regarding the zoning administrator's classification of a residential parcel at 12640 S Relation Street as a "corner lot" versus the appellants' claim that it remains an "interior lot." The central dispute concerns whether the creation of a street (June Circle) in the 2000 Baker's Cove subdivision automatically converted the parcel, and whether the City's interpretation aligns with Draper City Code Title IX and Title 17 requirements for developability and uniform application.

Consent Calendar

• The Hearing Officer approved the minutes from the September 23, 2025 meeting.
• No other routine consents were listed or discussed.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jenna Eyre and Michael Eyre (Appellants/Sponsor):

  • Position: Expressed strong opposition to the City's classification of the property as a corner lot. They argued the lot should remain classified as an interior lot with a single 30-foot front setback from Relation Street, and 12-foot side yards and a 20-foot rear setback.
  • Argument: They contended the City's ruling is arbitrary and capricious because it relies solely on the word "abut" without a legal mechanism for reclassification. They argued the 2000 subdivision approval did not legally convert the lot because it failed to widen the parcel as required by Title 17 (DCMC 17-5-020 F), creating a non-conforming, undevelopable lot. They highlighted that they received written assurances of interior lot setbacks during pre-purchase due diligence, and if the corner lot status had been known, they would not have purchased the property.
  • Testimony on Uniformity: They presented evidence of similarly situated properties that abut streets but were not treated as corner lots with dual setbacks, arguing the City's rule is applied inconsistently and therefore arbitrarily.

• Spencer Duchenne (Assistant City Attorney):

  • Position: Expressed full support for the Zoning Administrator's interpretation and the City's argument that the property is a corner lot by definition.
  • Argument: They argued based on the plain language of the code (DCMC Title IX), stating the parcel abuts twointersecting streets (Relation Street and June Circle) at an angle less than 135 degrees. They asserted that the 2000 plat creation of June Circle automatically changed the lot status without a need for a separate administrative action. They rejected the applicability of Title 17 engineering standards to this specific zoning interpretation, arguing it falls outside the Hearing Officer's jurisdiction and that the Code's definition of "street" and "corner lot" is dispositive.

• Jennifer Destromski (Community Development Director) & City Staff:

  • Position: Stood by the Zoning Administrator's report, maintaining the lot is a corner lot based on the code's plain language and the existence of two streets.
  • Argument: They noted that failure to enforce the rule on other properties in the past does not preclude enforcement now and cited case law (Carchner vs. Salt Lake County) supporting the City's right to enforce ordinances even after prior inaction.

Discussion Items

• Application of Title 17 vs. Title IX:

  • The Appellants argued that because the City relies on the 2000 subdivision approval as the event that converted the lot, the City must accept the Title 17 standards (which require corner lots to be wider and developable) that govern that approval. The City objected, stating Title 17 is outside the scope of the appeal and that Title 9 governs the interpretation.
  • The Hearing Officer allowed the Appellants to argue the relationship between Titles 17 and 9, acknowledging the logical conflict if the City accepts the 2000 action as the conversion trigger but rejects the standards accompanying it.

• Uniformity and Arbitrary Action:

  • The Appellants argued that the City's interpretation leads to arbitrary results when compared to similar parcels in the city that are not treated as corner lots with dual setbacks.
  • The City countered that past non-enforcement does not make the current decision arbitrary or capricious, provided the current decision is supported by substantial evidence (i.e., the plain language of the code).

• Reasonable Redevelopment and Non-Conformity:

  • The Appellants argued that classifying the lot as a corner lot now would freeze the property, preventing reasonable improvement and modernization, which contradicts the purpose of legal non-conforming status protections.
  • The City acknowledged the existence of non-conforming standards but maintained the primary issue is the definitional classification of the lot as a corner lot under the current code.

Key Outcomes

• No Immediate Ruling: The Hearing Officer, Tim Pack, stated he has not yet made a final decision and will issue a written ruling within the coming week.
• Procedural Status: The appeal remains pending the written decision. The City's appeal was initially filed by the IRS (stated as such by the speaker correcting to "City of Draper") but the context clarifies this is a City appeal of the Appellants' position or an administrative interpretation request that was appealed.
• Next Steps: The Hearing Officer will review the record, the arguments regarding Title 17 and Title IX, and the evidence of uniformity before issuing the final determination on whether the parcel is an interior lot or a corner lot.
• Appearances: Standard appearances were recorded for Hearing Officer Tim Pack, Appellants Jenna/Michael Eyre, and City officials Spencer Duchenne, Jennifer Destromski, Todd Draper, Todd Taylor, and Lori Stout.