Can Utah municipalities grant special exceptions for properties not on block faces? Ferre v. Salt Lake City Explained

In Ferre v. Salt Lake City, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether municipalities can grant special exceptions for building height when properties are not located on designated “block faces” under zoning ordinances.

Background and Facts
Jeremy Ferre challenged a special exception granted by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission allowing Silverhawk Enterprises to build a house exceeding the city’s maximum height allowance. The property was “uniquely situated” and accessed by a long driveway rather than being directly located on a “block face” as defined by the ordinance. After construction issues required design modifications, Silverhawk sought approval for a flat-roof house reaching 29 feet 8 inches—exceeding both pitched-roof and flat-roof height limits.

Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.110(D)(6) categorically prohibits special exceptions for additional building height when properties are not located on a “block face.” Ferre argued the Commission illegally granted the exception because it could not make the required finding that the proposed height was “in keeping with the development pattern of the block face.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that zoning provisions permitting property uses should be liberally construed in favor of property owners. The court found that while the ordinance requires consistency with block face development patterns when properties are actually located on block faces, it does not categorically exclude properties not on block faces from seeking special exceptions. Instead, the Commission properly considered the surrounding neighborhood characteristics to ensure compatibility with the regulatory purpose of promoting “compatible infill development.”

Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that Utah zoning ordinances should be interpreted to avoid categorical exclusions that would foreclose reasonable land use exceptions for uniquely situated properties. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether properties meet specific definitional requirements and consider alternative analytical frameworks when standard criteria cannot be applied. The ruling reinforces Utah’s preference for liberal construction of zoning provisions that permit property uses.