Spring City public hearing draws residents over proposed zoning changes, historic‑district boundaries

Spring City planning staff and residents on Wednesday debated proposed zoning ordinances that would change lot‑size minimums, enlarge allowable guest‑house (accessory dwelling) square footage and redraw the city’s protected historic zone.

The Planning Commission opened the public hearing and heard roughly two dozen public comments spanning preservation, water supply, legal compliance and local economics. Planning staff and multiple residents said the ordinances would reduce the city’s default buildable lot from 1.06 acres inside a proposed protected zone to one‑half acre outside it, increase the maximum guest‑house size from 625 square feet to 1,200 square feet and adjust frontage requirements that are currently about 200 linear feet for full‑acre lots.

The proposed changes are contained in two draft ordinances the commission reviewed at the hearing; Craig Paulson, the city zoning administrator, summarized the text for attendees. "I'm Craig Paulson. I'm the city zoning administrator," Paulson told the commission before outlining the draft provisions and noting where the ordinance text would require sewer and culinary water connections for some new half‑acre lots.

Why it matters: residents and local preservation advocates said the combination of smaller lot minimums and revised boundaries for the protected historic zone could threaten the integrity of Spring City’s National Register historic district, affect eligibility for state preservation tax credits and change the town’s agricultural and open‑space character.

Multiple speakers described the stakes in financial and preservation terms. Charles Shepherd, who said he serves on the State Historic Preservation Office’s National Register review board, told the commission that property owners in town have used state historic‑preservation tax credits for renovation work and that prior approvals represented nearly three‑quarters of a million dollars in owner investment. "Owners of historic properties are eligible for state historic‑preservation tax credits for sensitive, compatible renovations," Shepherd said, noting recent projects and the size of credits seen in the area.

Scott Newman, who said he submitted an alternative compromise on behalf of plaintiffs in ongoing litigation, described his proposal as an attempt to reduce the number of historic homes left outside the city’s proposed protected zone. "A compromise is when two sides come together and willingly give up conditions in order to create a win‑win outcome, not a win‑lose," Newman said. Newman said the current draft (referred to in public comments as ordinance 2025‑05) would leave 55 historic homes and outbuildings outside the proposed protected zone — about 19% of the town’s identified historic properties — and that his compromise would reduce that number to 28 homes (about 10%).

Public commenters voiced other concerns. Several speakers urged the commission not to allow new multifamily development in the Main Street historic district and asked for clearer protections for commercial corridors and compatible upper‑story apartments. Raelynn Ferguson urged the commission to study water supply before enabling more housing growth: "Water, water, water," she said, asking for a study of where drinking and irrigation supplies would come from if the town grows.

Other recurring themes included process and legal risk. Tony Rudman, who identified himself as one of the plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit, told the commission he believes the city’s general plan may be statutorily deficient and argued that planning and zoning decisions should await a legally adopted general plan. Rudman listed issues his group is raising in the litigation: general‑plan compliance, the role of the board of adjustments in undue‑hardship requests, alleged spot zoning and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by elected officials.

Support for a partial compromise also appeared. Several residents said the mayor and city council had attempted a compromise ordinance and urged neighbors to work together rather than litigate. "Life is all about compromise," Cynthia DeGray told the commission, adding she supported the mayor and council’s draft and urged a negotiated end to the dispute.

No vote or formal action was taken at the hearing. Kristen Mortensen, who ran the session, told attendees the city council has postponed its own consideration until a week later and that the planning commission would need to reconvene to prepare a recommendation. "We probably need to reconvene to give a recommendation or a non‑recommendation on this new ordinance and let the city council move ahead with their deliberations," Mortensen said.

Next steps: commissioners asked staff to make the full ordinance text available on the city website and to set a follow‑up meeting to consider a formal recommendation to the city council. Several commenters asked for more time, a public cost‑benefit analysis and a water‑supply study before zoning changes are finalized.

The hearing included broad representation of residents, members of the Friends of Historic Spring City and plaintiffs involved in litigation over the earlier ordinance drafts. The commission indicated it will meet again, but it gave no timetable for a formal recommendation to the City Council and took no final votes during the hearing.