To: Springdale Planning Commission

Date: Submitted for the 11-19-2025 PC Meeting

As someone who is currently having a related problem in the village commercial zone, I’d like to share my perspective and thoughts. The upcoming discussion on noncomplying commercial buildings is very important and the current framework misses the central point. The question should not be how to eventually bring every property into compliance with current zoning standards—it should be how to allow existing property owners to reinvest, rebuild, and take care of their properties without being penalized for the year in which they were built or subdivided. The following suggestions would help eliminate the idea of town officials making judgment calls as to what current buildings they like or don’t like.

The problem with blanket zoning

Many of the buildings that give Springdale its small-town character are now classified as nonconforming under the current code. If we continue labeling long-established, lawfully built properties as problems to be corrected, we risk discouraging reinvestment in the very parts of town that reflect our past. These buildings aren’t bad, they were built legally and just don’t fit the new rules exactly.

Residential properties face the same issue. Homes that were fully compliant when built are now labeled nonconforming simply because of later code changes. The result is that the zoning codes no longer reflect the physical and historical reality of our community.

Because each lot in Springdale is unique—especially the smaller ones—the Town should work directly with property owners to identify where reasonable adjustments can be made and where current conditions already function well. Many of our parcels, both commercial and residential, are smaller than today’s minimum lot-size standards, which makes full compliance with modern setbacks, parking ratios, or landscaping rules impossible. In effect, these smaller properties can never be “conforming,” no matter how responsibly they are developed. Applying one-size-fits-all zoning to such a range of parcel sizes creates unnecessary barriers to reinvestment and discourages property upkeep. A more balanced approach would scale flexibility according to lot size—allowing smaller parcels, which face tighter physical limits, a little more room to operate within standards that make sense. Recognizing these differences is essential to fair, practical, and equitable zoning.

Recommendations for a Practical and Fair Solution

Direct engagement with property owners

The Town should contact every under-utilized commercial property owner—not just those in the CC zone—and talk with them individually to understand what would make reinvestment feasible. These are the people who know the physical limits and opportunities of their properties best. Their input should help guide any zoning adjustments.

Avoid new blanket restrictions

Except for maybe a few exceptions, older buildings should not face new layers of regulation simply because they predate modern zoning. For example, if a structure currently comes right up to the sidewalk, a small 5’ setback could be required in the event of redevelopment, but they shouldn’t have to completely conform to new guidelines. Otherwise, the superior proximity to the sidewalk would prevent a rebuild. In some cases, parking requirements would prevent it as well. And so on…

Establish “Legacy Zones”

The Town should consider creating legacy zones—designations for properties that were once conforming under earlier standards but have since been labeled nonconforming.

The goal of a legacy zone is simple: to ensure that properties which were lawful when built remain lawful today, even if the zoning code has changed since. Rather than treating these properties as exceptions (the exception now is if they do conform), legacy zones would formally recognize them as legitimate components of Springdale’s makeup.

How this could work

• Property identification: The Town could begin by reviewing all parcels that were legally developed but are now considered nonconforming—for example, those that no longer meet current requirements for reasons outlined in the Staff summary.
• Zone assignment: Those parcels would be placed in legacy zone categories, organized by type—commercial and residential, with subzones for both, depending on variables such as exact current zoning, lot size, etc.
• Preservation of existing conditions: A property in a legacy zone could be rebuilt within its current footprint, height, and configuration, maintaining the same relationship to the lot and the street as it has now, and could expand only if the additional area conforms to the current standards of active zoning regulations, not legacy ones. A few details like signage, screening requirements, lighting, building materials and maybe some others could or should conform to current standards.
• No expansion of rights: The property wouldn’t gain additional flexibility or revert to earlier, looser standards. Its current dimensions and layout would define its rights going forward.
• Administrative clarity: By formally documenting these rights, both the Town and the property owner have a clear understanding of what can be built or maintained. This removes uncertainty and eliminates the nonconforming status that discourages property investment.

This approach brings stability, fairness, and transparency. Owners retain what they have without gaining new latitude or losing existing rights, while the Town maintains consistency and control over scale and character.

Relation to the Demolition, Repair, and Refurbishment of Noncomplying Buildings (Agenda Item A.1)

Agenda item A.1 for this same meeting—focused on how to handle demolitions or rebuilds of noncomplying structures—is a direct by-product of the larger problem addressed above.

If the Town were to adopt the framework described here—particularly the concept of legacy zones—the entire demolition/repair/rebuild question would become far simpler and, in many cases, unnecessary.

Here’s why:

• Clear rebuild rights: Properties in legacy zones would already have clearly defined rights to rebuild in their current configuration. That means demolition and reconstruction could occur under predictable, documented standards, without the confusion that now surrounds noncomplying rebuilds.
• Consistent decision-making: This approach prevents the Town from making ad-hoc determinations each time someone seeks to rebuild, ensuring fairness and consistency. A property owner shouldn’t be punished for discovering rotting wood. Making a contractor do piecemeal construction at great additional cost to the owner is not a practical solution. The legacy-zone system would create a standing rule: if the property was legal when built and remains within its current envelope and doesn’t increase what would be considered nonconformity for active zones today, it can be built (assuming everything else meets guidelines).
• Reduced staff workload: Staff wouldn’t need to draft or interpret one-off demolition provisions or manage competing interpretations of noncomplying status. The zoning designation itself would provide the answer.

In other words, by formally recognizing existing properties through the legacy-zone framework, the Town would pre-empt many of the conflicts and uncertainties driving the demolition/repair/rebuild discussion. Adopting this system first would make that item basically antiquated, because the ability to rebuild responsibly would already be built into the code.

Relation to the Town’s Reference Documents: “Summary of Nonconforming Use Law” (Utah Land Use Institute, 2015) and “Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures” (Utah Land Use Institute, 2022)

Both editions of the Utah Land Use Institute’s summary, authored by Craig M. Call, J.D., outline the same key principles that directly support this proposed legacy-zone framework. The 2015 version established the foundational interpretations of Utah Code §§10-9a-511 and 17-27a-510, while the 2022 update reaffirmed those principles with newer case law, Ombudsman opinions, and statutory refinements.

Together, they make several points that align precisely with this proposal:

• State law protects the right to rebuild structures destroyed by fire or other calamity, unless they have been voluntarily demolished or abandoned.
• A noncomplying structure that legally existed before a zoning change remains lawful, and the burden of proof to show illegality rests with the Town, not the property owner.
• Utah courts have repeatedly cautioned against the overzealous elimination of nonconforming uses, noting that sweeping restrictions reduce property values and create unnecessary administrative burdens.
• The 2022 edition adds that municipalities may not impose additional conditions on nonconforming structures beyond those specified in statute—reinforcing the need for clear, consistent, codified treatment rather than ad hoc interpretation.

These same principles support the legacy zone concept. Instead of maintaining a patchwork of judgment calls and discretionary rulings, the Town can create a transparent structure that codifies what both editions of the Utah Land Use Institute paper describe as a “balanced perspective”—preserving lawful, long-standing uses while maintaining community standards and administrative clarity.

In Closing

The staff report seems to suggest a divide between maintaining the Town’s “vision” and supporting economic reinvestment. The General Plan is aspirational and consistently contradicts itself. Therefore, there’s no solution completely consistent with it. There are several references to finding solutions for under-utilized properties, in both the Land Use and Economic Development sections. The real challenge is between a uniform zoning framework and the diverse, irregular, and sometimes small-scale fabric of properties that actually exist in Springdale.

We can protect our town’s vision and maintain economic vitality—but only by grounding zoning policy in the physical and historical context of our reality.

I encourage the Planning Commission to look seriously at the concept of legacy zones (or whatever name is most appropriate) and begin direct outreach to affected property owners. These steps will help the Town preserve its visual integrity while creating a fair, workable path for property owners to reinvest in the buildings, businesses and homes that give Springdale its character.

The answer is to make rules that fit our Town—not to make our Town fit one-size-fits-all rules.

Thank you for reading,