Springdale planning commission discusses code changes to rebuild noncomplying buildings with limits and safety requirements

The Springdale Planning Commission on March 4 discussed draft edits to town code chapter 10-21 that would clarify when and how non-complying residential and commercial buildings can be repaired or rebuilt.

Nyall Connelly, the staff contact and presenter, said the council directed the commission to clarify rules for "the repair and refurbishment of non-complying buildings," and that commissioners broadly want to "retain the requirement for redeveloped non-complying properties to come into compliance with today's code" while accommodating cases of involuntary reconstruction such as fire or flood.

Commissioners spent the bulk of the meeting debating specific language the draft uses for setbacks, foundations and building footprint. They agreed to change a clause that would have required reconstructed elements to "match" original setbacks to wording that the reconstructed elements "do not exceed" the original setbacks, a change intended to allow property owners the option of pulling structures back to reduce nonconformity.

On foundations and slabs, commissioners discussed whether removing or reconfiguring a floor slab should be treated as new construction. Several commissioners said partial reconfiguration could be allowed when it demonstrably reduces the nonconformity or is necessary for safety. Connelly summarized the staff direction: the code will allow floor slabs or foundations to be reduced or reconfigured "if it's going to reduce the nonconformity" and when an engineering report shows the work is needed for safety.

The commission also discussed draft provisions that apply specifically to non-complying commercial properties. Connelly said the intent is to permit rebuilding within an existing footprint and to allow a one-time additional two feet of building height so long as the property does not exceed the overall maximum height. Commissioners said any added height should require engineering justification rather than being automatic.

Several members raised concerns about potential loopholes. One commissioner urged adding a time limit so owners could not indefinitely delay reestablishing a non-conforming use after reconstruction; commissioners suggested tying reestablishment to certificate of final inspection and discussed a 90‑day deadline. Connelly said staff would add language clarifying the deadline and confirm the administrative milestone that marks completion of construction.

On the procedural side, the commission recorded two routine motions: approval of the meeting agenda (motion by Paul Zimmerman, second by Terry Kruski; voice vote recorded as in favor) and the motion to adjourn (motion by Paul Zimmerman, second by Terry Kruski; voice vote recorded as in favor).

Connelly told the commission he would revise the draft to reflect the agreed edits: replace "matches" with "do not exceed" for setback language; allow limited reconfiguration or reduction of slabs/foundations if it reduces nonconformity and is supported by an engineering report; add a requirement that non-conforming uses be reestablished within a short window after final inspection (suggested 90 days); and require engineering justification for height increases beyond existing roof heights. The commission did not take final action on the ordinance language; these items were handled as non-action draft discussions and staff will return with revised text.

The meeting adjourned at the close of the agenda.