Cedar Springs planning commission recommends sweeping rewrite of zoning rules for nonconformities

The Cedar Springs Planning Commission voted to forward to the city council a recommendation to amend Chapter 32 of the city code to replace Article 5 on nonconformities.

The recommendation follows a staff presentation describing a rewritten chapter that separates nonconforming structures, lots and uses and adds clear standards for when and how those situations may continue or must be brought into compliance. Planning consultant (planning staff) told commissioners the draft “completely rewrites, article 5 of the zoning ordinance, which deals with nonconformities” and is intended to give staff and property owners clearer guidance.

Under the draft, a use or structure lawfully established before the zoning ordinance took effect would generally remain protected as a nonconformity, while unlawful developments would not be protected. The rewrite would allow a nonconforming structure that is damaged or destroyed to be rebuilt to its prior nonconforming condition — even if 100% destroyed — provided reconstruction occurs within one year and the degree of nonconformity is not increased. By contrast, voluntary demolition is treated differently: if a building is voluntarily demolished and reconstruction would replace 75% or more of the structure’s replacement value, the building must be brought into compliance with current standards.

The draft also clarifies nonconforming uses: a use abandoned for more than one year cannot be reestablished and a change to another nonconforming use would require approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. For nonconforming lots the code would permit building so long as setbacks can be met and, when adjacent undersized lots share an owner, the parcels can be treated as one lot for zoning purposes. A new section to address nonconforming sites would let property owners reoccupy buildings that lack modern parking or landscaping without triggering full retroactive compliance, while explicitly allowing the zoning administrator or planning commission to require site improvements when public health or safety officials identify unsafe conditions.

Commissioners asked about enforcement of poorly maintained parking lots and learned the ordinance currently requires paved surfaces; staff said the city can send compliance letters or pursue enforcement but enforcement intensity depends on resources. Planning staff emphasized the rewrite is aimed at giving staff “teeth and support” in the code so enforcement and permitting decisions are clearer and more consistent.

The commission opened and closed the public hearing on the amendment with no speakers and then voted to recommend adoption by the city council. The recommendation now advances to the council for consideration.