Springdale planning commission favors allowing rebuilds within existing noncompliant setbacks, asks staff to draft code language

The Springdale Planning Commission on Jan. 7 directed staff to draft ordinance language that would let property owners rebuild or renovate noncompliant structures within their existing setbacks while requiring other zoning standards to be met.

Tom Dancy, the town staff member leading the discussion, opened the item by defining noncompliant buildings as “those buildings which were legal at the time they were constructed, but subsequent changes to the code have made them not conform or not comply with the current iteration of the code.” The commission then walked through six hypothetical scenarios — two sets for residential and two for commercial properties — intended to clarify what counts as "removal" and what constitutes "ordinary maintenance and repair."

Commissioners wrestled with trade-offs between preserving neighborhood character and moving toward full compliance. Several members, including Commissioner Jennifer McCullough, said they leaned toward permitting owners to rebuild within an existing noncompliant footprint (what the staff outline labeled response B or C depending on the scenario) provided other standards such as parking and landscaping were brought into compliance. McCullough said, “I lean towards B,” when discussing a homeowner who wants to start over in the same footprint, and several commissioners said they preferred written, predictable code rules over ad-hoc, case-by-case decisions.

Dancy and commissioners also discussed thresholds for substantial repair, noting a precedent in the town's flood-hazard rules where a 50% substantial-improvement threshold is used. Commissioners favored requiring professional verification when an owner seeks to replace major structural elements, such as slabs or roof joists, to prevent owners from claiming necessary repairs as a pretext for perpetuating noncompliance.

On commercial properties, commissioners again favored incremental approaches that reduce disincentives to redevelop. Dancy said the town had examples where uses or building positions were compliant when built but became nonconforming after later code changes; commissioners discussed incentives and limits — for example, allowing a new building in the same footprint but requiring compliance with landscape and parking standards that affect long-term town goals.

As a next step, staff will draft ordinance language reflecting the commission's direction: allow redevelopment within existing noncompliant setbacks but require other zoning standards to be met, include objective thresholds or criteria for when repairs count as substantial improvements, and provide professional-verification requirements for major reconstruction. Dancy told the commission, "we'll go back and start working on some ordinance language that tries to implement these positions that you've articulated tonight."

The commission did not take a formal, final vote on code language at the meeting; it provided policy direction and asked staff for draft ordinances for review at a future meeting.