Resident’s modular shed halted by city; staff to inspect and meet on site

A Spring City homeowner told the Planning Commission that a modular, prefabricated 20-by-30-foot shed he began assembling at his property was tagged with a city stop-work notice and is on hold while the city determines whether it complies with setback and anchoring rules.

The homeowner, David Bell Howard, said he and his wife moved onto the lot about a year ago and removed older outbuildings before ordering the modular structure. "When they said stop, I stopped," David Bell Howard said, adding that the county (building) tag on the structure read, "stop work." He described the unit as a modular carport intended for garden tools and a four-wheeler and said he had set it back roughly 10 feet from a fence line to keep an existing fence intact.

The issue matters because the town's setback and right-of-way rules determine whether a temporary modular building may remain where it was placed. Commission members and staff noted several technical limits cited by the resident: a roughly 30-foot setback from the road is the standard the commission enforces for the active roadway, the roadway right-of-way measures about 82½ feet in some places, and setbacks from the residence and property lines vary depending on whether a building is considered permanent and anchored.

City staff member Craig told Howard that anchoring and permanence affect how the building is classified and that engineered anchors from the manufacturer's kit could make the structure effectively permanent. "If it's anchored down, the county is not going to approve that without it being basically permanent," Craig said. Commission members emphasized that permanent or anchored structures must meet setback requirements and, when property lines are not obvious, a survey may be required.

Howard said he had repositioned some framing to gain setback room and asked whether turning the building on its axis or moving it 10–20 feet would help. Staff and commissioners suggested moving the building to gain compliance — for example, adding roughly 20 feet to the west and 20 feet to the north to clear setback distances — or proving exact property corners through a survey. Howard also said the older buildings on the lot dated to the 1990s and that he removed them after buying the property.

As a next step, staff agreed to inspect the lot in person and verify property corners and setbacks. Craig and the owner arranged to meet Friday at 9:00 a.m. to measure and discuss how the owner can bring the site into compliance or whether a formal variance or permit is appropriate.

The Planning Commission did not take a formal vote on the matter during the meeting; the action taken was direction to staff to inspect the property and meet with the owner to clarify compliance options.

Howard said he and his wife want the structure to be functional and to "make it look right," and that they would submit any required engineering specifications or product anchor details if the city needed that documentation.

The commission reiterated that setback and right-of-way rules exist for public-safety and traffic-visibility reasons and that staff must verify property corners when fences or informal markers are unclear.

No ordinance change or variance was granted at the meeting; the item remains a staff-level inspection and potential administrative follow-up.