Planning commission begins review to clarify rules for nonconforming buildings

The Springdale Planning Commission on Sept. 17 spent an extended portion of its meeting discussing the town council's direction to clarify municipal code provisions on noncompliant (nonconforming) buildings and on what counts as ordinary maintenance and repair. No formal action was taken; staff will research options and return with draft language.

Town staff member Nile Connolly told the commission the council asked for clearer definitions of when a building is "removed" and what constitutes "ordinary maintenance and repair." He summarized the current approach: "Noncompliant buildings are ones which complied with the code at the time they were built, but since then, the code has changed and they don't comply with today's code. . . . You can make additions or alterations to noncompliant structures so long as they don't expand the non complying part of that building or create any new nonconformities." Connolly also noted building-code matters such as electrical and plumbing are governed by the building code rather than the land-use code.

Commissioners discussed several options and concerns. One option proposed during the meeting was to treat removal of more than 50% of a building structure as removal that would require compliance with current standards; that draft language also included an exception if removal was required by safety or structural concerns. Commissioners raised technical and legal questions about a 50% test: whether the measure should be square footage, material value, or above-ground area; how basements or foundations should be counted; and how the rule might be gamed by piecemeal replacement (one wall at a time). A commissioner noted that courts in other jurisdictions have sometimes interpreted similar thresholds in terms of economic value rather than material percentage, and commissioners suggested seeking engineering or legal guidance on measurement methods.

Other discussion focused on the town center and commercial properties, where many older buildings are noncompliant with current setbacks, landscaping and parking standards. Some commissioners cautioned that a blanket rule allowing rebuilds on existing foundations could entrench noncompliance for decades, while others said narrowly tailored exceptions could encourage property owners to refresh buildings and support downtown revitalization. Connolly flagged a related upcoming commission item on revitalizing town center properties and recommended the commission consider the two issues together.

Commissioners agreed on process steps rather than policy outcomes: staff will research measurement options, legal precedent and building-code interactions and return with draft language for the commission to consider. Connolly said he would bring back options at a future meeting.