The Springdale Town Council on Sept. 10 concluded that an extensively dismantled dwelling in town had not been "removed" under the town's nonconforming‑building rules because the foundation, crawl space and utilities remained in place. The ruling followed a lengthy discussion with staff, the project’s structural engineer and members of the public about when ordinary maintenance becomes demolition that would require the property to meet current zoning. Why it matters: The council’s interpretation will apply townwide: if a building’s below‑grade elements remain, the structure can retain its nonconforming status and be rebuilt within the existing footprint. At the same meeting the council directed the planning commission to revise Chapter 10‑21 of the town code to define removal, ordinary maintenance and a demolition permit process. What council decided: After hearing testimony, including from Paul Blackmore, the project’s structural engineer, the council concluded that the foundation and other subsurface elements are integral to a building and that the subject property’s foundation remained. "At no point did we change the plans that were approved...we never touched the foundation," Blackmore said, describing field findings of rot and mold that led to replacing damaged framing. Councilmember Kyla Topham proposed an interpretation that the town will treat removal to include both superstructure and foundation if both are physically dismantled; the council adopted that interpretation and then asked staff and the planning commission to prepare code language to close the gaps. Planning‑commission directive: The council asked the planning commission to draft code revisions clarifying: what constitutes ‘‘removal’’ (including whether that term includes below‑ground portions such as foundations and utilities), how to treat buildings that deteriorate involuntarily (fire, flood, rot), whether to adopt a percentage test for structural replacement, and to design a demolition permit and inspection process (including asbestos/lead clearances and other pre‑demolition requirements). Council members repeatedly said the change is intended to prevent ad hoc precedent that could allow applicants to remove a building’s superstructure while claiming ordinary maintenance to evade current setbacks or other standards. Procedural note: Because the interpretation is a land‑use determination, it is binding townwide; the planning commission will now prepare formal ordinance amendments for public hearings. Quote: "If we're allowing a flood and a fire, if there was a process where we could have come to the city and said, in the process of our project, we discovered this natural damage...we would have come in with that submittal," Mayor Barbara Bruno said, summarizing the council's preference for clearer pre‑demolition steps. Ending: The council's action resolves the immediate permitting question for the property at issue and starts a code revision process intended to reduce uncertainty in future building work.