Board of Adjustment approves appeal to rebuild house at 310 East 400 South; sends separate variance back to city council

The Spring City Board of Adjustment voted to approve an appeal from property owner Joel Scalson to allow rebuilding of a nonconforming dwelling at 310 East 400 South, affirming that the reconstructed house may be located to match its existing ("grandfathered") setbacks. The board formalized the decision by referencing the board's authority under the municipal code (10-3-3-a) to hear appeals of administrative rulings.

The decision follows a lengthy discussion in which the applicant described the home's condition, asserted that the structure predates current zoning, and said the house is effectively unusable without rebuilding. Joel Scalson described extensive termite and foundation damage and said he has maintained ownership and paid taxes while trying to make repairs. Mayor Anderson and other members read and cited passages of the city code relevant to nonconforming buildings and restoration, and the board debated whether the request should proceed as a variance, a special exception, or an appeal of an administrative ruling.

The board spent substantial time clarifying legal and procedural points. Members noted that: (1) a property-survey requirement had been recommended by an outside property-rights attorney who consulted with the applicant, Brent Bateman; (2) the Fair Housing Act and reasonable-accommodation rules had been discussed with regard to a separate accommodation pathway; and (3) ambiguity in local practice about whether demolition of a nonconforming structure automatically extinguishes grandfathered rights complicated the planning office's initial denial. In the meeting, the board quoted Brent Bateman's guidance that "a survey would absolutely be required to show property lines, existing structures, proposed addition, required setback" and recorded the mayor reading the municipal-code language describing when previously subdivided or nonconforming lots remain grandfathered.

Board members also reviewed technical requirements the applicant will still need to meet if rebuilding proceeds: the city performs staking inspections to verify setbacks, and the county performs building-code inspections (foundation, structural, electrical). Planning staff and the board emphasized that the standard city and county inspections and permits remain required and that reconstruction must meet applicable building-code standards.

In addition to the main appeal, the board handled a previously tabled variance application (referred to in the meeting as the "Avera" application). The board voted to defer that earlier item back to the city council on the grounds that the council had already taken related action and, as discussed in the meeting, some aspects fell within the council's jurisdiction.

Votes at a glance - Appeal to rebuild structure at 310 East 400 South (board framed as an appeal under municipal code 10-3-3-a, rebuilding allowed to match original setbacks): Motion to approve appeal carried. Vote recorded as affirmative by multiple board members during roll call (see transcript segment). The board stated that the rebuilt structure must meet the setbacks recorded on the approval paperwork and comply with required city staking and county building inspections. - Previously tabled variance (Avera): Motion to defer back to the city council carried; the board voted to return that matter to the council.

The board instructed staff to memorialize the approvals and conditions in paperwork (including setback dimensions on the approval form) and to proceed with the standard inspections and permitting process. Board members suggested the applicant obtain a land survey (the applicant discussed a quoted price for a survey during the meeting) and discussed potential mitigation ideas (for example, a restriction on future development on adjacent property was raised as an idea but not adopted). The board closed the agenda item after confirming the votes and signing paperwork.