Spring City overturns 2025 zoning ordinance, ends half-acre lot splits

SPRING CITY—After nearly an hour of impassioned comments by city council members, the Spring City Council voted last week to return to 1.06-acre lots citywide.

At a meeting Thursday, March 5, the council voted 3-2 for what has been titled Ordinance 2026-03. Technically, the ordinance simply amends the city’s zoning code, but the effect is to overturn Ordinance 2025-03, which was passed in October 2025 after months of negotiations.

Toward the end of the council discussion, Mayor Paul Penrod struck a conciliatory tone. He noted that terms and concepts that came up in council member statements included compromise, collaboration and mutual benefit. Encompassing all those ideas was term “harmonious.”

“I love this council because I think it’s a great council,” he said. “I love these views and different perspectives.” Even though council members don’t agree, he said, “We need to continue to be harmonious as a council and as a town.”

Ordinance 2025-05, passed last year, attempted to strike a balance between residents who wanted to retain the acre-lots citywide and others who wanted to split their lots into two half-acre parcels.

Under the 2025 ordinance, a large swath of the city was designated as a protected historic zone where any new homes would require acre lots. Outside of the zone, lot splits, including subdivisions consisting of half-acre lots would be permitted.

During 2025, then Mayor Chris Anderson was at the center of negotiations to resolve the lot-size controversy, including efforts to settle a lawsuit intended, in part, to preserve the acre lots, a remnant of the pioneer layout of the town.

But after two council members who clearly favored retaining the acre-lots were elected in November 2025, Anderson, who had stepped down as mayor but been elected to the council, took the lead in drafting the 2026-03 amendments. The city council went over the proposed amendments at a council meeting Feb. 5 and at a work meeting Feb. 17.

On Feb. 24, the Spring City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on Ordinance 2026-03. Some people spoke at the hearing while others submitted written comments. Still more written comments came in after the meeting.

While sentiment was closely divided, there appeared to be 2-4 more supporters of returning to the acre lots than supporters of the lot-split option.

On Feb. 26, the Planning Commission met to decide what recommendation to make to the city council. The vote on Ordinance 2026-03 (returning to acre lots citywide) was 2-2. It fell to Cami Christensen, Planning Commission chairwoman, to cast the deciding vote. She voted in favor of 2026-03.

Ironically, at the same meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed five subdivision proposals involving lot splits and a sixth that involved development in the buffer zone. The proposal added up to at least 15, possibly more than 20, home lots.

During discussion at last week’s meeting, Councilman Chris Anderson asked, “Why are we doing this? Why are we continuing this?”

He proceeded to explain his reasoning in proposing Ordinance 2026-03. First, he said, it’s important to know what the majority of citizens want. Last year, the city council tried to create an opinion survey. But the process got bogged down with disagreements on phrasing of the survey question or questions, and with who should be surveyed—property owners only or all residents. If property owners, should results be weighted based on how much property a respondent owned?

He said state law defines a process for putting a referendum or initiative petition on the ballot including how the question is phrased and what information must be provided to residents. But the next opportunity isn’t until the 2027 municipal election. That’s 18 months from now.

“If people ask for…subdivisions at the same rate they have in the few months since we adopted the (2025-03) ordinance, you could have 80-plus subdivision lots,” Anderson said. “Then it’s too late to go back.”

Anderson said he thought about trying to keep 2025-05 essentially intact with tweaks to incorporate a couple more historic properties in the protected zone. That option would have continued to permit lot splits outside the history zone.

“The problem is,” he said, “I don’t think we can get the council to adopt that compromise now because we have people from outside the protected zone who say, ‘We want to be part of Spring City, we want to have the same access to open space, we don’t want to have one rule for people who are in the protected zone and a different rule for people who are outside.’”

He added that he thought the city needed to take a comprehensive look at zoning, including areas in the city or the buffer zone, for commercial and multi-family development. He also said he favored “some kind of hardship exemption” from the 1-acre requirement enabling people in special circumstances to split their lots.

Councilman Courtney Syme said if a filibuster were permitted, he came to the meeting with enough material “to go through the night and well in the morning.”

“I believe this ordinance (2026-03) to be detrimental to the true heritage left by the founders of Spring City,” he said. “It’s also a retreat from the positive vision of progress espoused by the founders…Spring City is not a fossil, a calcified remnant of the past. It never has been.”

He talked about what the town was like in the years after settlement. Pioneers tapped the stream for water and traveled on dirt roads, all the while working to improve the community for the future, he said.

“And what a great future it has been,” he said. “Spring City was and has been and now is a living, growing, improving, progressive community.”

He cited capital improvements over the past eight years, including a new sewer distribution system, water distribution system, sewage treatment facility and a new water tank providing improved pressure to fire hydrants. And a transportation plan for street improvements is nearly complete.

He drew analogy between playing a piano and developing a city. One option is continuously striking the same key. But, he said, if the city wants to be a growing, progressive community, “the whole keyboard will be in play.”

Councilwoman Laurel Workman said the lot-size issues goes beyond historic preservation. She lives in an area of contemporary homes on one-acre lots. She said she spent the previous week visiting with neighbors. “Of all the doors I went to,” she said, “there were only two people who wanted half-acre lots.”

People told her, she said, that they bought their one-acre lots because that’s what they wanted and were told their neighborhoods would consist of one-acre lots. Their message, she said, was “We don’t want you to take from us what we want in order to give you the freedom to have what you want.”

Because of different practices and zoning regulations over the years, Workman said, about 50 percent of the lots in Spring City are a half-acre or less, while 50 percent are the traditional 1.06 acres. “I don’t see how we could be any more fair than that,” she said.

Syme, who throughout the debate over the past year, has advocated for protecting property rights, shot back, saying, “No one is going to force anyone to split their lots…There are people who own property who ought to be able to control their property for their benefit as well as the benefit of their descendants.”

Councilman Michael Broadbent said he and his wife were looking to move out of the Salt Lake City area to retire. He said they looked from Cache Valley to Central Utah.

“We found Spring City, and I told (my wife) it’s either Spring City or we stay where we are,” he said. “…Because as an outsider, I can see that it’s a unique, different place…If you don’t act to protect what made that appeal, you’re going to lose that last, fine example (of the past).”

“I’m all for growth…,” he said. “I just want that growth to occur in a way that enhances what I found so appealing, what drew me here…And this ordinance proposal (2026-03) will accomplish that.”

Councilman Marty McCain said the hard question is, “How do you pay for 1.06-acre lots?” He noted that the city just bought a new Power Department line truck for $140,000. Although the city will pay for it over time, that translates to at least $1,000 per household.

“That raises our utility rates; it has to,” he said. And now power lines are all going underground, “costing even more.”

McCain said the city needs a more diverse zoning mix overall, including commercial zoning. You have to invite businesses to bring in sales tax,” he said. “Those are things that need to be looked at, need to be discussed.”

He added, “Life is not fair. It’s not fair to someone who’s lived her 50 years, who’s old now and says, ‘I need to split my lot,’ but (he) can’t because of someone who moved in five years ago and built a house and says, ‘I was told this was a one-acre (neighborhood).’” But McCain said, “It’s either one way or the other.”

He said a resident told him, “If this goes through, we’re just going to referendum.” McCain said he replied, “Absolutely.”

Broadbent responded, “I look forward over the next four years to working with you (McCain) on many of these problems….Let’s work together to grow in a way that’s harmonious.”

Broadbent moved for passage of the 2026-02, and Workman seconded. Anderson, Broadbent and Workman voted “yes.” Syme and McCain voted “no.”