Planning commission asks staff to clarify 'removal' and maintenance rules for noncomplying buildings

At its Feb. 4 work meeting, the Springdale Planning Commission directed staff to draft clearer definitions for Chapter 10-21 of the town code governing noncomplying buildings.

Thomas Dansie, director of community development, speaking for absent staff contact Niall Connolly, reviewed existing language and read the State law definition staff proposed to use as a foundation: "When a property owner voluntarily demolishes a majority of the non-complying structure." He also read the town's current code for maintenance, including the provision that "ordinary maintenance and repair of non-complying buildings and structures is allowed so long as such maintenance and repair will not result in expansion of any non-conformities or creation of new non-conformities." The Commission asked staff to propose precise verbiage that distinguishes removal from routine repairs and clarifies when owner actions are considered voluntary or involuntary.

Commissioner Terry Kruschke pressed for caution about creating different rules across neighborhoods, asking, "Is Springdale a town with a bunch of different neighborhoods with a bunch of different rules?" He and other commissioners said varying requirements could prompt complaints or unintended consequences for property owners. Paul Zimmerman said he was "not comfortable with adopting changes to the current code" without careful alignment with the town's General Plan.

The Commission left the setback conversation for later and requested staff return with draft language and background materials that clearly define "removal," "ordinary maintenance and repair," and the distinction between voluntary and involuntary demolition or rebuilding. The item will return for further discussion before any ordinance change is proposed.