(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Alta was not estopped from seeking to enforce its zoning regulations. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s holding that the rental of the Ben Hame home did not constitute a valid nonconforming use under the express terms of Salt Lake County’s (the County) zoning code. I also respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Ben Hame did not adequately present its spot zoning defense and would hold that Alta was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The Ben Hame Corporation is owned by two nonresident families who use the home for their personal use as a vacation home. The home has a kitchen, a living room, a dining room, a game room, a family room, a laundry room, a caretaker’s room, four bedrooms, and a garage. When the families are not personally using the home, they rent it out. The entire Blackjack subdivision, where the home is located, is only 450 feet by 500 feet and is zoned as a separate land-use area.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The majority fails to state the proper standard of review when interpreting zoning ordinances. Zoning laws “must be given strict construction and the provisions thereof may not be extended by implication.” Maui v. Puamana Management Corp., 2 Haw.App. 352, 631 P.2d 1215, 1218 (1981). “[ZJoning ordinances ... are in derogation of the common-law right to use property so as to realize its highest utility and should not be extended by implication to cases not clearly within the scope of the purpose and intent manifest in their language. ” Wiggers v. County of Skagit, 23 Wash.App. 207, 596 P.2d 1345, 1348 (1979) (emphasis added) (quoting State ex. rel. Standard Min. and Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, 82 Wash.2d 321, 326, 510 P.2d 647, 651 (1973)). We may not extend the County’s zoning ordinances beyond their express technical terms. “[W]hen the construction of a sentence involves technical words and phrases which are defined by statute, the provision must be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition.” Cannon v. McDonald, 615 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Utah 1980).
The majority asserts that the meaning of the zoning ordinance should be “divined” from the general purpose of the ordinances. We do not, however, “divine” the intent of the ordinance by resorting to its general purpose unless there is some ambiguity in the ordinance itself. “Where statutory language is plain and unambiguous, this Court will not look beyond to divine legislative intent. Instead, we are guided by the rule that a statute should be construed according to its plain language.” Allisen v. American Legion Post No. 134, 763 P.2d 806, 809 (Utah 1988).1
The majority also disregards the longstanding rule that we presume local zoning authorities have special knowledge concerning zoning matters in their community. Consequently, we give broad deference to their legislative decisions to adopt, or not to adopt, particular zoning regulations. See Naylor v. Salt Lake City Corp., 17 Utah 2d 300, 302, 410 P.2d 764, 765-66 (1966); accord Marshall v. Salt Lake City, 105 Utah 111, 121, 141 P.2d 704, 710 (1943) (the determination of which land uses are *807permitted in a zone “lie[s] in the discretion of the governing body of the city”). We may not “second-guess the county’s lawful exercise of its legislatively delegated discretion.” Sandy City v. Salt Lake County, 827 P.2d 212, 218 (Utah 1992).
When interpreting regulations such as a zoning ordinance, “a reasonable administrative interpretation and practice should be given some weight.” Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake County, 568 P.2d 738, 741-42 (Utah 1977). Given the technical expertise of the County’s zoning and planning department, it is in a much better position than we are to achieve the desired goal of proper zoning as determined by the county commission. We therefore must defer to its administrative interpretation of its own zoning ordinances. See Sandy City, 827 P.2d at 218; accord Cottonwood Heights Citizens Ass’n v. Board of Comm’rs, 593 P.2d 138, 140 (Utah 1979); cf. Morton Int’l, Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 814 P.2d 581, 586 (Utah 1991) (“[T]he dispositive factor [in determining whether to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute] is whether the agency, by virtue of its experience or expertise, is in a better position than the courts to give effect to the regulatory objective to be achieved.”).
Furthermore, the majority’s activist approach exceeds the limited review mandated by the Utah Supreme Court in Phi Kappa Iota Fraternity v. Salt Lake City, 116 Utah 536, 212 P.2d 177 (1949):
There are, of course, various solutions for zoning problems such as this; and opinions may differ as to which is the most efficacious. But it is not for the court to weigh the respective merits of these solutions. That is the duty which lies upon the shoulders of the governing body.... If changes have developed which indicate [the need for a different approach], that is a matter for submission to the commission; and not one for the courts.
Id., 212 P.2d at 181. See also Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 393, 47 S.Ct. 114, 120, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926) (“We have nothing to do with the question of the wisdom or good policy of municipal ordinances.”).
NONCONFORMING USE
The majority inappropriately approaches this case as an accessory use case. No serious contention can be made that Ben Hame did not have a right, as an accessory use, to rent out the home as a “single-family dwelling.” The renting of property for a permitted use is so common that we must acknowledge that it is a permitted accessory use as a matter of law. If it is not a permitted accessory use, we must conclude that the majority today outlaws all renting of property in the County because the renting of property, short-term or long-term, is not identified in the County’s zoning code as a permitted use.2
The appropriately framed issue in this case is whether the weekly rental of a single-family dwelling, as a single-family dwelling, was a lawful use prior to annexation by Alta. In order to determine whether weekly rentals were “lawful” prior to annexation, we look to the express provisions of the County’s zoning law. See, e.g., Crestview-Holladay Homeowners Assoc. v. Salt Lake County, 545 P.2d 1150, 1151 (Utah 1976); accord Rock Manor Trust v. State Road Comm’n, 550 P.2d 205 (Utah 1976).
There is no prohibition of weekly or short-term rentals found anywhere in the County’s ordinances. If the County had intended to regulate the rental period of a *808single-family dwelling, the ordinance “could have been drafted to more clearly reflect such an intent.” Steele v. Brienholt, 747 P.2d 433, 435 (Utah App.1987). Because no such restriction was created in the ordinance, we are bound to conclude that the County did not intend to create such a restriction. Id.3 Ben Hame even presented to the trial court evidence that, as a matter of actual practice, the County did not interpret its zoning ordinances to prohibit short-term rental. The majority dismisses this evidence by stating that the County may not “forfeit the power of enforcement by disregarding an ordinance.” The majority, however, never identifies (nor can it identify) a single provision of the zoning ordinance that the County has not enforced. By rejecting the County’s administrative interpretation and application, the majority unilaterally and drastically alters the zoning law in all of Salt Lake County. It imposes upon the County Alta’s interpretation of the County’s ordinances without giving any thought to what the County intended.
Even though the County has not prohibited weekly rentals, it has, pursuant to its legislative discretion, addressed the issue of “improper” rentals in residential districts. The County protects residential neighborhoods through its definition of “single-family dwellings.” When the Ben Hame home was built, the County defined a “single-family dwelling” as
a building arranged or designed to be occupied by one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit for living or sleeping purposes; and having one, but not more than one, kitchen; 'provided the building is not a hotel, apartment hotel, boarding house, lodging house, mobile home, tourist court, or apartment court.4
Under the County’s zoning plan, if the Ben Hame home is designed for use by a single family, it is a “single-family dwelling,” unless it is actually used for an impermissible use such as a “hotel,” “boarding house,” or “lodging house.” Given this definition, Ben Hame needs only to show that the home was designed for use by a single family in order to prove it was a presumptively lawful use. This it did with an affidavit from the designing architect. The majority even concedes that the Ben Hame home was designed as a single-family dwelling. The home is therefore a lawful use under the County’s zoning ordinances unless Alta proves it was actually being used as a “hotel,” “boarding house,” or “lodging house,” as the County defines those terms.
The trial court, however, never found that the home was actually being used as a “hotel,” “boarding house,” or “lodging house" when it rendered summary judg*809ment. Instead, it ignored the County’s definitions and created its own classification of an impermissible use by concluding that Ben Hame was unlawfully “operating a commercial lodging facility.” The trial court stated:
Defendant’s legal and technical arguments about the classification of the particular rental use as being too small to be a hotel but too large to be a boarding house are not sound.... High intensity overnight rental does not accord with the letter and spirit of “single family” zoning. The fact that Salt Lake County ordinances do not contain a specific definition of commercial rental use does not alter this conclusion.
The trial court erred in dismissing Ben Hame’s legal arguments concerning the technical classification of this home. It is the zoning ordinance’s classification of uses that determines whether a given use is lawful. Because the discretion to zone has been delegated to the County, courts must apply the legislative classifications created by the County. See Marshall, 141 P.2d at 709 (“If a classification is reasonably doubtful, the judgment of the court will not be substituted for the judgment of the city.”). As the trial court freely admitted, there is no definition of “commercial rental use” or “commercial lodging facility” in the County’s zoning code. Therefore, the trial court’s conclusion that the weekly rental of a “single-family dwelling” was not permitted constitutes nothing more than the creation of a judicial exception to the County’s zoning ordinance.5 “[OJrdinarily where exceptions to a statute are enumerated in specific detail, it is indicative of legislative intent not to permit other or additional exemptions, and no other or further exceptions will usually be implied.” Broadbent v. Gibson, 105 Utah 53, 68, 140 P.2d 939, 945 (1943). The trial court therefore exceeded its authority by effectively adding the classification, “commercial lodging facility,” to the County’s statutory list of prohibited uses of a single-family dwelling.
The majority likewise ignores the classifications created by the County. It never applies the County’s definitions of “hotel,” “boarding house,” or “lodging house” to the facts of this case, but simply asserts that the use of the home “fell within one of these three enumerated exceptions.” Because it never applies the controlling definitions, the majority never resolves the sole issue in this case: Did the weekly renting of Ben Hame’s single-family home in its entirety to single groups constitute an actual impermissible use of the home as a “hotel,” “boarding house,” or “lodging house.” It is patently unfair to fault Ben Hame for violating the County’s zoning ordinance and then not identify the provision of the ordinance violated, or explain how the ordinance was violated.
The majority justifies its decision by indicating that weekly rentals have attributes similar to hotels. Such reasoning is contrary to Utah case law. If a use qualifies as a “permitted use” it is lawful, despite the existence of undesirable attributes, unless the definition of the permitted use expressly prohibits the presence of the undesirable attributes. See, e.g., Crist v. Bishop, 520 P.2d 196 (Utah 1974) (proposed detention school was permitted because it "came within the meaning of ‘school’ where there was no qualification or limitation upon that term” even though it had attributes of a correctional facility). To prove that Ben Hame was not entitled to nonconforming use status, Alta must show that the weekly rental of a single-family dwelling contains all the defined attributes of a prohibited use. Otherwise, it has not *810shown that the use actually made of the home was unlawful.
The majority, without citing any contrary authority, simply ignores the two short-term rental cases presented to this court. The courts in both cases reasoned that short-term rentals were permitted in residential zones because they were not expressly prohibited. See, e.g., Landing Dev. Corp. v. Myrtle Beach, 285 S.C. 216, 329 S.E.2d 423, 424 (1985) (short-term rentals were permitted even though the ordinance required “permanent occupancy” because “no time limit is fixed in the zoning ordinance as to the length of rental property or any minimal rental period for permissible use within any zoning district.”); Puamana Management, 631 P.2d at 1219 (“There is no definition of hotel usage in the ordinance and it is hotel usage that this case is all about.”). The courts also held that the fact the short-term rentals at issue had some attributes of a prohibited use did not cause them to be prohibited. Landing Dev., 329 S.E.2d at 425 (the availability of services to short-term tenants, which is an attribute of a motel, does not convert individually owned condominium units into a “motel” as defined in the zoning ordinances); Puamana Management, 631 P.2d at 1218-19 (even though organized short term rentals of condominium units had attributes of a hotel, it did not have all the attributes of a hotel as defined in the ordinance).
Absent a conclusion that Ben Hame violated the County’s zoning code by using the home as either a “hotel,” “boarding house,” or “lodging house,” as defined by the County, the majority exceeds the proper bounds of judicial restraint. The majority’s holding today is nothing more than a judicial imposition of its legislative judgment that short-term rentals should not be allowed in residential zones.6 Such a decision is directly contrary to the County’s own zoning decision to allow short-term rentals.
Since Alta failed to show that weekly rentals violated a provision of the County’s zoning ordinances, it failed to show that they were unlawful. Ben Hame is therefore entitled to continue its weekly rentals as a nonconforming use, and summary judgment should be reversed.
SPOT ZONING
Ben Hame also argues that Alta’s prohibition of short-term rentals in the Blackjack subdivision, while the similar surrounding property was not likewise restricted, constitutes an unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory spot zoning. Without establishing the elements of a spot zone, or identifying what elements were missing, the majority holds that Ben Hame failed to adequately raise this defense. I believe Ben Hame did set forth the prima facie elements of a spot zone, and that Alta did not show that Ben Hame could not have prevailed on its spot zoning claim. Summary judgment in Alta’s favor was therefore improper.
Under Utah law, “[t]he regulation of the use of property by lots or by very small areas is not zoning and does violence to the purpose and provisions of the statute. It would not, and could not, accomplish the purpose of the law as set forth in the statute_” Marshall, 141 P.2d at 708 (emphasis added). In Marshall, the supreme court recognized that despite its inherently suspect nature, spot zoning may be permitted if “the districts [have] been created according to a fair and rational plan.” Id. at 710-11. The supreme court reasoned that the spot zones at issue in Marshall were not invalid because they were created in accordance with a clear plan. The spot zoning therefore did not fall within the scope of the impermissible spot-zoning cases which are “based upon special privileges granted, or restrictions imposed, without regard to a unified plan.” Id. at 711 (emphasis added).
*811Ben Hame asserts that Alta is treating a relatively small parcel of land, the Blackjack subdivision, differently than similar surrounding property without justification, or in other words, “without regard to a unified plan.” Ben Hame has thereby asserted all the elements of a claim of impermissible spot zoning.7 See, e.g., Viso v. State, 92 Cal.App.3d 15, 22, 154 Cal.Rptr. 580, 585 (1979); see generally 6 Rohan § 38.01[1][b] n. 63.
Alta, in turn, has not raised a factual challenge to a single element of Ben Hame’s spot zoning defense. There is no factual dispute as to the size of the subdivision. Nor is there any dispute as to the nature of the surrounding land. In fact, counsel for Alta affirmatively asserted at the hearing that there are no factual issues involved in Ben Hame’s spot zoning challenge.8 The only issue, therefore, is whether Alta was acting in accordance with a “unified plan,” as required in Marshall.
The majority holds, however, that Ben Hame may not challenge the summary judgment because it failed to establish a factual dispute. The majority points to the affidavit of Marcus LaFrance which “states in essence that property surrounding the Blackjack subdivision is zoned for single-family dwellings ... unless owners obtain a conditional use permit for short-term rentals.” The majority erroneously holds that Ben Hame needed to counter LaFrance’s affidavit with one of its own. LaFrance’s statements of what uses were allowed in the surrounding property were clearly legal interpretations of Alta’s zoning code. Expert testimony on questions of law are generally inadmissible at trial. Steffensen v. Smith’s Management Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 491 (Utah App.1991). LaF-rance’s legal statements therefore were not the proper subject of an affidavit. See Utah R.Civ.P. 56(e) (affidavits must “set forth facts as would be admissible in evidence”). Consequently, Ben Hame had no duty to challenge LaFrance’s legal conclusions with an affidavit of its own.
This issue may only be resolved by interpreting the zoning ordinance itself.9 A review of Alta’s ordinance shows that LaF-rance’s legal interpretation was in error. None of the surrounding zones regulate the short-term rental of single-family dwellings. Nor is there any provision that short-term rentals are allowed in the surrounding zones if a conditional use is ob*812tained. As a matter of law, the Blackjack subdivision is treated differently under Alta’s zoning code. Ben Hame has therefore adequately presented all of the elements of a spot zone.
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we must determine “whether there is any genuine issue as to any material fact, and if there is not, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Thornock v. Cook, 604 P.2d 934, 936 (Utah 1979) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Naylor v. Salt Lake City Corp., 16 Utah 2d 192, 194, 398 P.2d 27, 29 (1965) (summary judgment reversed because “an affected citizen must have redress to the courts if he believes a zoning ordinance to be an abuse of discretion”). The majority ignores this rule by refusing to address the spot zoning issue for lack of an affidavit establishing a disputed fact. When a matter involves only legal issues, affidavits contribute nothing. Ben Hame need not provide any affidavit to have its legal issues addressed.10
[Ujnder Rule 56, Utah R.Civ.P., it is not always required that a party proffer affidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment in order to avoid judgment against him.... Rule 56(e) states specifically that a response in opposition to a motion must be supported by affidavits only in order to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. Where the party opposed to the motion submits no documents in opposition, the moving party may be granted summary judgment only “if appropriate,” that is, if he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Olwell v. Clark, 658 P.2d 585, 586 (Utah 1982); accord Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Atkin, Wright & Miles, Chartered, 681 P.2d 1258, 1261 (Utah 1984) (rejecting defendant's argument that summary judgment must be affirmed because plaintiff did not file affidavits in opposition).
The majority never addresses the question of whether Alta is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law despite Ben Hame’s prima facie spot zoning claim. When a summary judgment is attacked on its merits for misapplying the law, the prevailing party must make “a showing which precludes, as a matter of law, the awarding of any relief to the losing party.” FMA Acceptance Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 594 P.2d 1332, 1334 (Utah 1979). See also Utah R.Civ.P. 56. Alta has not done this, nor has the majority even attempted to apply this rule. If the majority were to apply this rule, it would discover that Alta is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
In order to preclude Ben Hame’s defense, Alta must show that its inherently suspect spot zoning is done in accordance with a rational plan. Alta has not identified its “fair and rational plan” justifying the spot zoning. The majority’s affirmance of the summary judgment effectively places the burden upon Ben Hame to show that there was no “fair and rational plan.” If Ben Hame must show that there is no “fair and rational plan,” it must prove a negative. Ben Hame cannot affirm by affidavit that there was no “fair and rational plan” because that fact cannot be proven.11 *813Ben Hame can merely make the legal claim. The burden is then upon Alta to identify its plan.
A zoning authority must identify the purpose for the zoning decision when spot zoning is claimed. See, e.g., Chicago Title & Trust Co., 122 N.E.2d at 806 (village put forth no proof of any benefit of residential zoning in pocket of industrial use.); O’Malia v. Township of Wilkes-Barre, 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 121, 392 A.2d 885, 887 (1978) (township presented no evidence justifying disparate treatment of land found to be similar to surrounding land); accord Caputo v. Board of Appeals of Somerville, 331 Mass. 547, 120 N.E.2d 753, 754 (1954); Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115, 96 N.E.2d 731, 735 (1951); Wiggers v. County of Skagit, 23 Wash.App. 207, 596 P.2d 1345, 1350 (1979); see generally 6 Rohan § 38.02[3].
It is Alta, not Ben Hame, that knows why the subdivision was spot zoned. Alta therefore bears the burden of justifying its actions once a prima facie claim is made. See Banberry Dev. Corp. v. South Jordan City, 631 P.2d 899, 904 (Utah 1981) (“Since the information that must be used to [determine] reasonableness is most accessible to the municipality, that body should disclose the basis of its [decision] to whoever [sic] challenges the reasonableness of its [decision].”); Staheli v. Farmer’s Corp., 655 P.2d 680, 683 (Utah 1982) (burden of proof lies with the party most likely to have access to evidence).
The majority erroneously asserts that my recognition that Alta must present its justification for the spot zone is a new argument. However, this recognition is nothing more than an application of the “fair and rational plan” requirements set forth in Marshall. 141 P.2d at 708. The majority, citing Banberry Dev. Corp., 631 P.2d at 904, acknowledges that a property owner does not have the burden of proving unreasonableness until “the municipality has disclosed the basis of its decision.” In this case, Alta has never disclosed the basis of its decision to prohibit the short-term rental of single-family dwellings in the Blackjack subdivision while allowing the short-term rental of single-family dwellings in surrounding zones.
The need for the zoning action must be clear from the record. Naylor v. Salt Lake City Corp., 17 Utah 2d 300, 410 P.2d 764, 766 (1966); Gibbons & Reed Co. v. North Salt Lake City, 19 Utah 2d 329, 431 P.2d 559, 566 (1967) (record was “vacant of any reasonable evidence to show the possible menace” against which the challenged provisions would protect). Summary judgment may not be granted “unless it is obvious from the evidence before the court that the party opposing judgment can establish no right to recovery.” Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 681 P.2d at 1261. Alta has not presented any evidence of a rational, unified plan justifying the spot zoning.12 Alta is therefore not entitled to summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
Nonconforming use status was improperly denied because there was no finding that the single-family dwelling was being used in violation of the County’s zoning code prior to annexation.
Ben Hame raised a prima facie defense of spot zoning. Alta failed to present any evidence that the spot zone was created pursuant to a fair and rational plan. The trial court therefore could not have properly ruled as a matter of law that Ben Hame *814was precluded from raising a spot zoning defense.
Summary judgment in Alta’s favor was therefore erroneously granted.
. Alta has not identified any ambiguity in the County’s zoning ordinances that requires us to look to their general purpose. Instead, Alta erroneously asserts that the County’s silence regarding short-term rentals permits a judicial prohibition.
. Even under an accessory use analysis, the majority errs in concluding as a matter of law that short-term rentals are not a customarily incidental use of single family dwellings located in the canyons of Salt Lake County. The majority erroneously focuses its analysis on what might be customary in a typical residential zone. This is not, however, a typical suburban residential zone. It is a forestry and recreation zone located in a canyon between two ski resorts, surrounded by condominiums and hotels. Affidavits were presented to the trial court indicating that short-term rentals are in fact quite common in the County’s forestry and recreation zones. Given this uncontroverted evidence, the majority cannot rule by legal fiat that short-term rentals are not customarily incidental to the use of "single-family dwellings” located in forestry and recreation zones.
. It is unlikely a zoning authority could attempt to. require a landlord to prove that tenants will remain in a home permanently or for a set period of time in order for the home to be considered a single family dwelling. See Maui v. Puamana Management Corp., 2 Haw.App. 352, 631 P.2d 1215, 1218 (1981) (county’s position that a renter must manifest an intent to make a condominium unit his permanent home in order for it to be considered a residential use was “on its face, absurd”). Ben Hame has not, however, made such a facial challenge to Alta’s ordinance in this case.
. The foregoing definition is a composite definition derived by combining the definitions of the technical words contained in the County’s definition of a "single-family dwelling." A "single-family dwelling” is defined as "[a] building arranged or designed to be occupied by one (1) family, the structure having only one (1) dwelling unit." Salt Lake County Ordinances § 22-1-6(22).
A "dwelling unit” is defined as "[o]ne or more rooms in a dwelling, apartment hotel or apartment motel, designed for or occupied by one (1) family for living or sleeping purposes and having one (1) but not more than one (1) kitchen or set of fixed cooking facilities, other than hot plates or other portable cooking units.” Subsection 22-1-6(28).
A "dwelling" is defined as ”[a]ny building, or portion thereof, which is designed for use for residential purposes, except hotels, apartment hotels, boarding houses, lodging houses, mobile homes, tourist courts and apartment courts." Subsection 22-1-6(21).
A "family” is defined as “one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, or hotel, as herein defined.” Subsection 22-1-6(29) (prior to amendment April 5, 1981).
. Indeed, the County has actually considered and rejected a proposal to prohibit short-term rentals. The original proposal was to apply to all residential districts. The planning commission recommended the proposal favorably to the county commission, but only after exempting forestry and recreation zones so that short-term rentals would still be allowed in those districts. The county commission ultimately rejected the entire proposal thereby expressing a legislative intent to allow short-term rentals to continue. The majority may not, therefore, claim that the "custom or practice of certain county officials not to enforce the prohibition of short-term rentals of single family residences” does not "mirror” the legislative intent of the county commission.
. What constitutes an acceptable rental period? The trial court erroneously referred to these as over-night rentals when they were in fact weekly rentals. The majority holds that these weekly rentals are prohibited, but could a home be rented for two weeks? Could a home be rented for only one month with no intention of ever renewing the lease? These are legislative questions which this court is ill-equipped to answer.
. The majority’s assertion that Ben Hame failed to properly present its spot-zoning defense is contrary to the record. Ben Hame claimed that this was an impermissible spot zoning in its pleadings and its motion for summary judgment. Counsel for Ben Hame clearly stated at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, "our complaint is that we’re over here with three homes, and all around us there are others [who] are being allowed to do this.” Ben Hame could not be expected to do more to raise its claim of spot zoning.
. Alta simply asserted that the Blackjack subdivision cannot be a spot zone because it is not an "island.” Crestview-Holladay Homeowners Assoc. v. Salt Lake County, 545 P.2d 1150, 1151 (Utah 1976) (defining spot zones as "islands”). The subdivision is bordered on one side by another forestry and recreation zone that likewise prohibits short term rentals. (The neighboring zone also requires one unit per fifty acres because it is a mountainside and therefore is not similar surrounding property.) Thus, the subdivision is part of a peninsula rather than an island. A spot zone, however, may occur in the form of a peninsula if there is no rational reason for treating the peninsula differently than the property into which it extends. See, e.g., Jurgens v. Huntington, 53 A.D.2d 661, 384 N.Y.S.2d 870 (1970) (759 feet by 450 feet residential "peninsula,” surrounded on three sides by business zones, was a spot zone); Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Village of Franklin Park, 4 Ill.2d 304, 122 N.E.2d 804 (1954) (peninsula was a spot zone).
The majority inaccurately observes that if Ben Hame were allowed to rent out the home on a short term basis, the home itself would constitute a spot zone because it would create an island within the Blackjack subdivision. See majority’s note 4. If Ben Hame were to prevail on its spot zoning claim, the entire subdivision would enjoy the same privileges currently being granted to the surrounding area, not just Ben Hame because the ordinance would be voided for the whole subdivision.
. The majority asserts that the "zoning map" is evidence that the subdivision has been treated similarly, but it is the text of the zoning ordinances that is at issue. Before the majority may say that the subdivision is treated similarly as a matter of law, it must compare the textual restrictions placed on each zone and show that the same or similar restrictions have been placed on the surrounding property. This it has not done.
. I agree with the majority that the subject matter of Ben Hame’s expert’s affidavit is limited to the Ben Hame home itself, and is therefore of little help in determining whether the Blackjack subdivision, as a whole, was spot zoned. However, because no affidavit was even needed, it was mere surplusage. Any perceived inadequacies are therefore harmless and of no consequence in properly analyzing Ben Hame's spot zoning claim.
Similarly, any discussion in LaFrance’s affidavit regarding the public purpose behind the prohibition on short-term rentals does not speak to Ben Hame's spot zoning claim because it does not address why the boundaries were drawn the way they were. While it may explain the perceived need for the prohibition, LaFrance’s affidavit is silent as to why the prohibition was only imposed upon the Blackjack subdivision and not the other properties along the by-pass road. The majority therefore errs in relying on LaFrance’s affidavit as evidence that Alta was justified in spot zoning the subdivision.
. Affidavits submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment must “set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence." See Utah R.Civ.P. 56(e). There is no admissible fact that could be submitted to prove that the spot zone was done without regard to a unified plan.
. Alta’s claimed justification for the prohibition is patently arbitrary. Alta asserts that the short-term rental prohibition is necessary to keep the state by-pass road clear in the event of an avalanche. Alta does not, however, explain why the same prohibition was not placed on the property across the by-pass road from the Blackjack subdivision? Alta even conceded that short term rentals are permitted in the Peruvian Estates subdivision, a single-family subdivision less than 1,000 feet away, bordering both sides of the by-pass road. Certainly the need to keep the by-pass road applies equally to both sides of the road and all along its length. Little good could come of having the road clear in front of the Blackjack subdivision if the road is impassable along the rest of its length. No one has ever explained why attempting to keep the by-pass road open only in front of the Blackjack subdivision was not arbitrary.