Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Use Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverside BZA denies expansion of nonconforming residential use at 2337 Valley Pike
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a homeowner's request to expand nonconforming residential rights to include additional accessory structures and uses at 2337 Valley Pike; staff recommended denial and the board found the application did not meet UDO standards for expansion.
The Riverside Board of Zoning Appeals denied an application to expand the scope of a legally nonconforming residential property at 2337 Valley Pike that sits in a B-2 (General Business) zoning district.
The homeowner, Melissa Peterson, told the board she was seeking approval to keep a recently delivered storage shed and a movable eight-foot enclosed "catio" (pet enclosure) and to obtain a permit for the shed. Peterson testified the shed is free-standing, movable and “not permanent,” and that her food trailer has been moved into the driveway. She said she uses the shed to store display cases and other items for seasonal festival and craft sales.
City planning staff, represented at the hearing by Naya Hope, explained the property had been certified for a limited certificate of nonconformance that covered the house and a garage; anything beyond those structures constitutes an expansion of the nonconforming use and must meet the UDO's strict standards. Staff recommended denial of the expansion request, noting prior cases and the code language discourage enlargement of nonconforming rights, and that the property had unpermitted structures and outstanding violations. The staff presentation cited lot size, permit history and the comprehensive land-use plan as relevant considerations.
The board discussed available remedies and next steps. The law director and city manager explained that denying an application to expand nonconforming rights does not preclude other administrative paths: the homeowner may apply for permits, seek conditional-use review (for a live-work arrangement) at the Planning Commission, or otherwise resolve outstanding violations. The law director noted expansion of a nonconforming use is an "extreme remedy" in the UDO and must be strictly justified.
After deliberation, the board moved to deny the application. The motion found the applicant had not met the standards in UDO section 1103.13(a) for expanding a nonconforming use and that granting the expansion would be inconsistent with past requests. The clerk recorded affirmative votes and the chair announced the motion carried.
The board and staff encouraged Peterson to contact Community Development staff to pursue permits or alternative paths; staff said a written determination from the BZA would follow within 30 days and indicated they would assist with next steps.
The decision preserves the limits of the previously issued certificate of nonconformance (house and garage only) and leaves available standard permitting and planning processes as the homeowner's next steps.
