Springdale council adopts ADU ordinance changes but removes workforce, height and owner-occupancy requirements

The Springdale Town Council on Wednesday approved revisions to the town's accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules but removed three of the more contentious provisions: a workforce-occupancy requirement, a new building-height cap for external ADUs, and an owner-occupancy mandate.

Tom Danzi, town planning staff, summarized the ordinance changes being considered: adding a height requirement for external ADUs, increasing minimum lot sizes for external ADUs, clarifying maximum size and minimum rental periods for external ADUs, and explicitly allowing guest houses to be occupied by nonpaying family members without an ADU permit. Danzi said the updated draft also tied external ADU occupancy to employment “in Springdale or Zion National Park” in one proposed version under discussion.

During public testimony, Sherry Eichard urged the council not to force owners to rent only to town employees, saying “I wouldn't want somebody telling me that I have to only rent out to active employees in town.” Councilmembers, staff and members of the public debated multiple policy goals: protecting neighborhood character, expanding long-term housing for the local workforce, and avoiding regulatory overreach that would impose deep restrictions on property owners.

Councilmember Pat Campbell and others emphasized the town’s general plan goal to support “housing options that support a diverse population, including ... accessory dwelling units,” and noted the town's housing inventory: seven existing permitted ADUs citywide and approximately 66 detached structures (garages/casitas) potentially convertible to ADUs. Council discussion also cited a town housing inventory figure that identified 83 long-term rentals, 79 owner‑occupied dwellings, and 124 second homes in town.

After extended deliberation about balancing property rights with workforce housing goals, Councilmember Barbara Bruno moved to approve Ordinance 2025-09 with specific deletions: remove the workforce-occupancy provision (Sec. 10-22-9(e)(2)(f)), remove the proposed ADU height restriction (Sec. 10-22-9(e)(2)(c)), and remove the owner-occupancy requirement (Sec. 10-22-9(d)(2)); the motion also directed renumbering of affected sections. Jack Burns seconded. The motion passed 4–1 (Randy Aton voted no).

Councilmembers said the approved changes preserve many of the planning commission’s clarifications—size limits, rental minimums, and consistency language—while postponing the most controversial workforce and height policy questions for future consideration. The ordinance as approved will apply to new ADU permits going forward; Danzi confirmed that properties with existing ADU permits remain vested under the rules in place when they were approved.

Council indicated it may revisit workforce linkage and height limits in future work sessions if misuse or unintended consequences emerge.