Board approves two variances to allow narrower roads for RL Street Farms subdivision

The Spring City Board of Adjustment on a voice vote approved two variances requested by RL Street Farms LLC that reduce standard road and utility easement widths for a proposed seven‑lot subdivision west of Main Street.

The applicant, identified in the hearing as Randy, told the board he owns the property and is proposing a 5.1‑acre subdivision served by a new internal street and a short section of Spring City Pond Road. “I’m here to request actually, actually, 2 variances,” Randy said, describing a request to dedicate 41.25 feet of Pond Road to the city and a separate request for a 44‑foot road and utility easement for the subdivision street. He said the subdivision street will only serve the seven lots and would not be part of the city’s through‑street grid.

Board members spent the hearing asking about jurisdiction, past easement splits and how utilities will be installed. Randy said he owns the portion of the road within the city limits, that the county maintains the road beyond the city line, and that he was proposing 41.25 feet because it represents roughly half of potential future needs while keeping the road aligned with its historical center. “If the county was to widen into the 66 feet, if they were to take more from me, it would put a jog in the road,” he said, explaining why he proposed dedicating the narrower strip.

Planning and zoning context factored into the discussion. Kristen Mortensen, a planning and zoning member who addressed the board, recounted past development compromises and urged code cleanup, saying the commission’s recent scrutiny has surfaced inconsistencies that make predictable outcomes difficult. “There was a lot of discussion about the city code… these codes have been changed and massaged,” Mortensen said, arguing that updated language would reduce future variance requests.

When the board moved to decide, a member motioned to approve the Pond Road dedication of 41.25 feet; the motion was seconded and the board recorded multiple yes votes and one no, approving the first variance. The board then moved to approve the 44‑foot road and utility easement for the internal subdivision street, added the phrase “road and utility easement” to the approved language to capture utilities without conducting a second formal roll call, and approved that variance as well.

The approvals included practical conditions and clarifications discussed at the hearing: the applicant will install infrastructure (water, an 8‑inch main to a future fire hydrant, and sewer routing described during the hearing), the paved street width was described at 22 feet (two 11‑foot lanes with a one‑foot shoulder on each side noted in the plan), and the applicant asked for and the board discussed the possibility of delaying final paving until some lots are sold to avoid damage during construction.

The board emphasized that its variance rulings are specific to this application and reflect site circumstances, including the road’s limited role serving only the proposed seven lots. The board asked the applicant to return to planning and zoning with final documents as the subdivision proceeds. The hearing closed after the chair thanked the applicant for his preparation.

What’s next: The applicant was asked to provide documentation and follow through with planning and zoning for subsequent subdivision phases and final approvals; the board’s variance grants allow the project to move forward to those next steps.