Draft amendments would undo Ordinance 2025-05 in Spring City

SPRING CITY—The key point in a proposed amended zoning ordinance presented at a Spring City Council meeting Feb. 5 was expressed by the first “whereas.”

“Whereas, the Spring City Council has chosen to make amendments to Title 10 (of is municipal code) to restore 1.06-acre lots throughout the city and make certain other changes…be it ordained by the Council of Spring City as follows.”

What followed in the draft was the proposed reversal of the key provision of Ordinance 2025-05, passed last fall after months of controversy and a major lawsuit.

The 2025 ordinance demarked a protected zone where historic 1.06-acre lots would be preserved. Outside of the zone, homes would be permitted on half-acre lots.

At the same time, the new draft also preserved some features of 2025-05, including more permissive standards for guest houses on acre home lots and tight limits on the number and density of multi-family housing units in the city.

Early in the meeting, there was an announcement that the major lawsuit, which pitted pro-preservation residents against the Spring City government and city council, along with two less weighty suits, had been settled. The announcement was greeted with hearty applause.
But as the meeting continued, it was clear that the rifts of the past two years would take some time to resolve.

One resident complained that the city council was considering a subdivision that the resident claimed did not comply with city codes. “As you continue to make decisions that violate codes,” the resident said, “our risk for more legal action increases and the likelihood for uniting our town dwindles.”

Councilman and former Mayor Chris Anderson, who drafted the amended ordinance, said he hoped the document would be a starting point for discussion. “Hopefully, we can process this,” he said, moving through the steps required for passage, including study by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and public hearings before the planning commission and city council.

Anderson said that voters in the municipal election last year were saying they didn’t like what had happened with in Ordinance 2025-05 passed a month prior to the election.

“Our options are to repeal what was done, or to amend what was done, or to do something entirely different, a compromise or something. And given the interests of the people involved in the council,…my thought was, ‘Let’s look at the ordinance that was passed and amend it.
“Let’s take out the protected area. Let’s go back to the way we had it where the whole town, except for things that were subdivided in this interim period, goes back to 1.06 acres. (But) keep some of the things we had in there (in 2025-05), such as increasing the size of guest houses.”

The draft amendments preserve the concept, adopted in the early 2000s, of guest houses, defined as apartment-style dwellings found on the same acre lot as a main residence. Guest houses are intended as housing for “nonpayng guests or domestic employees.” They cannot be rented out.

One guest house is permitted per home lot. The houses must share the same utility service and use the same driveway as the main house.
Prior to 2025-05, the guest houses were limited to 650 square feet total. Under 2025-05, and preserved in the draft amendments, the guest houses, if two stories, can be 1,000 square feet total. No single story can exceed 650 square feet.

But the draft amendments say, “If there are conversions of existing structures (such as a garage being converted to a guest house), this limitation may be waived.”

The draft amendments preserve allowance for “internal guest houses,” referred to in some cities as “internal accessory dwelling units.”
These are apartments added to or created within a single-family residence. They may be rented out.

The only reference to a “historic zone” in the draft amendments is the longstanding Main Street Historic Zone extending along Main from 500 North to 500 South, including the backs of Main Street buildings located in the half block behind the two streets.

In terms of multifamily housing, the draft amendments permit two duplexes or townhomes on a 1.06-acre lot. But such structures can only have two units, which limits the number of units on a lot to four.

But both 2025-05 and the draft amendments limit the total number of multi-family units based on the number of single-family residences in the city. Ordinance 2025-05 limited the number to 4 percent. The new draft cut the ratio to 3 percent.

There are currently 16 duplex units on two lots in the northeast section of the city. That number already exceeds both 4 percent and 3 percent of the single-family residences in the city. So no multi-family units can be added until more single-family homes are built.

Other requirements did not change substantially from zoning dating back before 2025. Homes on 1.06-acre lots have to have 200 feet of street frontage, 10 feet of side yard on both sides of the house and 30 feet of backyard behind the house.

Accessory structures such as garages, barns, storage sheds and storage containers must be 12 feet from homes and 10 feet from side-yard lines.

And under the proposed amendments, Spring City would continue to have some of the most restrictive zoning in Sanpete County. Group homes for troubled teens, as well as condominiums and other share-ownership residences, are not permitted anywhere in the city.

After Anderson’s presentation, Councilman Courtney Syme, who supported 2025-05, said any changes in zoning should be based on facts and evidence.

“I think it’s very important that we don’t gloss over this and say, ‘We have a mandate, we’re going to change this, no matter what.”
If the council reverses last year’s decisions, he said, “There are people who will lose liberty and legal rights to property.”

He said it was hard to find any harm that had been done during the time 2025-05 was in effect. “The fact and evidence is that citizens who have waited 30 years (while the 1.06-acre lots have been required) had their property rights restored,” he said.

But Michael Broadbent, a new councilman and preservation advocate, said, “I bought (a home) here because of what’s existing. I wanted to preserve it.”

He said he and his wife had looked at towns from Cache Valley south to Sanpete County in deciding where to retire. He said he told his wife, “It’s either Spring City or we stay where we are.”

“So… you say no one’s harmed if, all of a sudden, I’m surrounded by suburban sprawl. When you say 1 acre is tyranny and a half acre is liberty, that doesn’t make any sense.”