Democracy is messy, but Spring City found its way to a decision

Democracy can be messy, especially on emotional issues where citizens or legislative bodies are closely divided.

That is the fix Spring City has been in as it has faced down issues of lot size, potential “suburbanization” and multifamily development.

At last two years of controversy came to a head at a council meeting last week. The options were leaving a compromise the council had approved in 2025 in place (an option many residents and two out of three members of the city council wanted) or abandoning the compromise and dropping back to the zoning scenario that had existed since 2005 (the option a majority of three council members wanted).

Chris Anderson, the former mayor, now a councilman, walked the city council through the legal and political realities of the situation. It became evident that reverting to the old rules was the only option—at least for now.

Anderson, an attorney who played a role in drafting both the compromise (known as Ordinance 2025-05) and amendments to the town’s zoning ordinance overturning the compromise (Ordinance 2026-05) told the city council he had considered making a few tweaks, but keeping the 2025 compromise.

If that had happened, traditional 1.06 acre lots would have been required in a large section of the city, defined as the “historic protection zone.” But owners of the acre lots, most on the outskirts of the city, would have been permitted to split them into two half-acre parcels.

There were two problems. Based on subdivision applications submitted since passage of 2025-05 in October, if the compromise ordinance remained in place, the volume of development could unquestionably change the town’s character. Once that happened, as Anderson put it, “It’s too late to go back.”

But more significant, Anderson said, given new council members elected in 2025, no version of the 2025-05 compromise could not pass the present council.

There was a lot of speculation at the final meeting about what Spring City residents really want. The answer: Nobody knows.

A survey on planning issues was sent to 480 utility customers a couple of years ago when the city was developing a general plan. The city got back somewhere between 123 and 89 surveys. (Some of the surveys are apparently lost.) That translates to, at best, a 25 percent return rate, hardly a valid indicator of citywide sentiment.

During 2025, the city looked into taking a nonbinding poll of residents. But the people working on the idea couldn’t agree on who should write the poll questions, how they should be phrased, and whether all residents should be surveyed, or only people who owned property.

State law offers options for a vote on controversial municipal issues. There are laws defining how questions are phrased and what information must be provided to voters. The next opportunity for such a vote is in 2027. Such a ballot measure could settle the lot-size question for quite a few years.

That’s what happened in 2005, when the almost identical issue—whether the minimum lot size in the city should be a half acre or 1.06 acres—went on the Spring City ballot. More than 70 percent favored the acre lots. That settled the question until a couple of years ago.

Several positives emerged from the discussion last week. Both Anderson and Mayor Paul Penrod recommended adopting some kind of “hardship clause” to enable people who have an exceptional need to split their lots. That concept needs to be codified.

Councilman Marty McCain and Anderson talked about the need for more commercial zoning and, as McCain put it, “inviting business into the city.”

In the past, there have been comments at council meetings about the potential for hundreds of homes in the buffer zone around the city and the allegation that the city’s motive in upgrading its water and sewer systems has been to pave the way for such development.

Last week, we heard the Planning Commission chairwoman, council members and a resident who has been on the “anti-growth” side of the argument all said that the buffer zone needs to be address. And that parts or all of it eventually need to be brought into Spring City. That’s facing reality.

Another positive at the meeting was the tone of discussion. In contrast to many past meetings about growth and development, it was respectful and conciliatory. As Mayor Paul Penrod put it, even though council members don’t agree on everything, “we need to continue to be harmonious as a council and as a town.”

Councilman McCain summarized the situation when he said, “Life is not fair.” A decision had to be made one way or the other, and given that fact, some people would not get their way.

But through packed meetings, a lawsuit, a rough-and-tumble municipal election, ordinance drafts and redrafts, Spring City has forged its way to a decision and can move on to other issues and needs.