Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement Storage Wp Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverside BZA upholds zoning citation at 4620 Springfield Street
Summary
The Riverside Board of Zoning Appeals upheld a staff determination that 4620 Springfield Street is being used as outdoor storage in a B-2 zoning district and is not entitled to nonconforming use protections; the board rejected the applicant's evidence including a well-field inspection report.
At its meeting, the Riverside Board of Zoning Appeals upheld a city citation finding that the property at 4620 Springfield Street is being used for storage and therefore violates the B-2 (General Business) zoning district rules and the Wellfield (WP) overlay.
The board’s decision affirms city staff’s interpretation after hearing testimony from the property’s attorney, Matthew Sorg, and reviewing a source-water protection inspection. The board found the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to show the site operates primarily as an active machine shop and therefore did not overturn the citation.
The appeal centered on whether the site is a continuing machine-shop use that would qualify as a legal nonconforming use or whether it functions primarily as outdoor storage (a use permitted only in I-1 industrial zones). Attorney Matthew Sorg told the board, “Ultimately, our position is the zoning violation, basis we're a storage facility. I think the evidence we presented, photographs replete with that this is a custom machine shop. It's always been a custom machine shop.” Sorg also presented a source-water inspection and said the well-field specialist’s report showed compliance with chemical storage limits.
City planning and code staff told the board their records do not show documentation establishing continuous, primary machine-shop use or that the property pursued nonconforming rights when zoning changed. City staff cited a history of on-and-off outside storage complaints and noted that Secretary of State registration for a business at the site was recent. Staff recommended the board uphold the violation. The city’s presentation referenced the October 2024 source-water inspection and earlier enforcement photos and letters.
After deliberation, the board moved to uphold staff’s determination. The motion found that, based on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the record of the case and the testimony received at public meetings, the staff did not err in citing the property for storage in the B-2 district with the WP overlay and that the applicant had not submitted sufficient evidence to overturn that determination. The board clerk recorded affirmative votes and the chair announced, “Motion carries.”
The board also reminded the applicant that, under the BZA bylaws, a written determination would be provided to the applicant’s representative within 30 days.
Votes at a glance: the motion to uphold staff’s determination carried with the board voting yes (recorded individually in the minutes). The written decision will be issued and served to the applicant’s attorney.
The board’s ruling leaves in place the city’s enforcement finding; any further remedies (for example, pursuing a legal nonconforming-declaration process or correcting code violations) would follow administrative procedures outside this appeal.
