Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Lot Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents Split Over Restoring 1.06‑Acre Minimum in Spring City Zoning Debate
Summary
At a packed Spring City public-comment session, residents traded conflicting appeals over whether to restore a 1.06‑acre minimum lot size or keep an ordinance allowing half‑acre splits. Advocates for one‑acre lots cited historic preservation and infrastructure costs; proponents of splits cited affordability and property rights.
SPRING CITY — Residents filled the meeting to address whether the city should return to a 1.06‑acre minimum lot size or retain an ordinance that allows half‑acre lot splits, with public comment sharply divided and planning and zoning scheduled to consider a recommendation the following night.
Many longtime residents urged the council to restore the larger minimum lot size to protect the city’s historic pattern and limit infill. “I support the 1 acre lot,” said Melissa Paulson, who described living in Spring City since 1974 and said the town’s open‑space character is its defining feature. Charles Shepherd, identified as the new president of the Friends of Historic Spring City, said state preservation tax credits and heritage tourism depend on the town’s historic fabric.
Supporters of reversing the 2025 change also raised financial and technical concerns. David Figgott said planning and zoning had voted 4–1 against allowing half‑acre lots and said he was never given an official infrastructure cost study by ordinance supporters; he told the meeting, “This analysis demonstrated that it could cost as much as $4,000,000 to develop the infrastructure necessary for the half acre lots, which would be allowed under the ordinance.” Several speakers linked water and emergency‑service capacity to lot‑size choices.
Other residents urged flexibility and said smaller lots can expand housing choices. Amanda Sorensen, who said she has lived in Spring City her whole life, framed the issue as property owners’ ability to responsibly use land and said, “Allowing lot splits down to half acres strikes a fair balance.” Sean Landau cited the broader housing shortage and warned that keeping only large lots could increase pressure on low‑income residents and invite state scrutiny; he said retaining half‑acre options can be part of an affordability strategy.
Speakers also disagreed on process and community intent. Serola Calderwood characterized the previous change as hurried and said it was advanced with limited public input and in a way that made a referendum difficult; she urged repeal of the ordinance she cited as '25 05.' Others argued the November election should be read as a referendum supporting larger lots and pointed to prior referendums and survey results as evidence of public sentiment.
Residents raised numerous technical and drafting concerns about the ordinance text itself: how the code defines guest houses/ADUs, the meaning of 'proportionate' allowances, caps on duplexes and guest‑house square footage, and which areas in the historic district are affected. Several speakers asked that any change be clear about utility connections, permissible unit types and limits on accessory dwellings.
No formal action or vote took place at the session; the meeting host told attendees planning and zoning will take up the item the next night and attempt to make a recommendation to the city council. Several speakers asked that the council consider placing the zoning change on the ballot so all voters can decide.
Planning and zoning members will review testimony, technical questions about ordinance language and infrastructure implications at their next meeting before forwarding a recommendation to the city council.
