Riverside zoning board upholds staff, denies appeal to convert gravel pad at 301 Engleside

The Riverside Board of Zoning Appeals on June 30 denied an appeal by the owner of 301 Engleside Avenue seeking permission to convert a gravel parking area on a corner lot into a permanent hard-surfaced driveway, upholding city staffs interpretation of the Unified Development Ordinance.

City planner Cody told the board that staff received a complaint March 30, 2026 about an unlicensed truck, motorcycle and camper parked at the site, issued a courtesy notice April 7 and recorded a compliance extension April 14 with a May 15 deadline. Cody said the owner filed an appeal May 14 challenging staffs reading of UDO sections 1105.2, 1105.9(E) and (F2), and 1106.4, which (among other provisions) limits corner lots to one driveway and requires that nonconforming features abandoned for six months be brought into compliance with current standards.

The applicant, who identified himself for the record as Tony Topeka, testified that a gravel parking surface had been used at the location for many years and that aerial photos and older site conditions showed an RV and other vehicles there as far back as 2010. He said he purchased the property in 2018, has invested roughly $35,000 to $40,000 into house repairs, and sought to refurbish the existing gravel area rather than create a new driveway.

Neighbor Christina Sevet told the board she had lived across the street for 28 years and recalled the RV and boat parked there for many years; she said she had no objection to the applicant placing gravel or paving the parking area.

Board members questioned staff and the applicant about whether the gravel area had been maintained and whether photographic evidence established a continuous, maintained driveway. Cody said the aerial imagery did show a camper and truck but did not establish that the surface had been continuously maintained as an approved driveway; he noted that the UDOs abandonment section (1106.4) applies if a nonconforming feature was vacated or discontinued for six months or longer.

Members discussed alternatives such as widening the existing address-side driveway, creating an approved parking pad behind the front building line, or pursuing other permit applications. Staff and board members clarified that the new UDO eliminated use variances and that tonights hearing was an administrative appeal limited to whether staffs code interpretation and enforcement were correct under the letter of the law.

After discussion a motion to deny the appeal was moved, seconded and carried on roll call. The clerk recorded votes of yes from Mr. LMK, Mr. Wall and Mr. Gentry and a no vote from Mr. Gosler, producing a 3— vote in favor of denying the appeal. By denying the appeal, the board affirmed staffs determination that the gravel surface was not eligible to be converted to a second driveway on the corner lot under the UDO; the enforcement case remains in effect and the vehicles must be moved off the unapproved surface.

Staff told the applicant the city would work with him on other permit pathways for an approved parking surface and recommended he contact the zoning administrator to explore options including required permits or alternative applications. The board noted that if the applicant seeks a different remedy it would need to be presented through the appropriate permit or variance process, not through this administrative appeal.

The boards action resolves BZA case 26-00007 for 301 Engleside Avenue for the evening.