Neighbors and owners spar over proposed bar expansion at 777 West Beach; board leaves case open

Owners of the restaurant at 777 West Beach Street sought permission to enlarge an existing bar and add seating at a property in Long Beach’s West End, prompting hours of public comment and a decision by the City of Long Beach Zoning Board to leave the application open for further neighborhood discussions.

The applicants, represented by attorney Kenneth Apple and architect Edward Licalzi, asked the board to renew a temporary conditional variance (case no. 2312) and to increase the length of an existing bar by 28 feet 7 inches for a total 44 feet 6 inches; the applicant said the enlargement would add about six bar seats while improving back-bar service and storage. “The only thing we need permission for is to extend the bar,” said Victoria Lynn Scott, vice president of Profeta Corp., the applicant. “It’s about flow and storage; otherwise the space can’t function for the occupancy.”

Why it matters: Residents said the size and character of the bar matter because more bar space and sporting-event programming can change how a venue operates and how many people congregate on West Beach Street, a narrow commercial-residential corridor where parking, late-night noise and crowd behavior already draw neighborhood concern.

Board members and speakers focused on three concrete points: (1) the specific expansion sought — a roughly 28-foot increase to a total of 44 feet 6 inches of bar length and an increase of up to six stools; (2) whether the change would make the business operate more like a nightlife bar than a sit-down restaurant; and (3) enforceable conditions (noise, hours, and policing) that could be attached to any approval.

Supporters told the board the expansion was necessary for the business to operate year-round and to service catered events in an on-site party room. Architect Edward Licalzi said a larger service bar is required for the kitchen and dining floor to be functional: without more backend refrigeration and work space, the operation would be inefficient. Paula Rourke, a restaurant-industry consultant who inspected the space, told the board the site has dedicated parking that many other West End restaurants lack and urged the board to approve a workable plan so the business could succeed.

Opponents described a long history of problems at the location under previous owners and warned that a larger bar and a “sports-bar” model would increase late-night noise, public intoxication and street-level disturbances. “The rent is expensive, so let's make a nightclub,” said Steven Goldfeder, a resident next to the property, summarizing his view that prior operators repeatedly skirted rules and that enlarging the bar would entrench that pattern. Other residents recounted repeated late-night police calls, people urinating near homes, and cigarette smoke in adjacent alleys.

Board action and next steps: Rather than vote, the Zoning Board left the application open and encouraged the applicant and neighborhood representatives to meet and seek mutually acceptable conditions. Chairman Jammer Morelli and other board members said a private meeting and a written agreement about operating hours, noise monitoring and enforcement would help the board evaluate the application at its next hearing. The board’s planner stated the record would remain open and the item could return for a decision at the next scheduled meeting if parties submit an agreed set of conditions or additional evidence.

Quotes and attribution: “The only thing we need permission for is to extend the bar,” said Victoria Lynn Scott, vice president of Profeta Corp. Opposing the expansion, neighbor Steven Goldfeder said, “The rent is expensive, so let's make a nightclub. Illegally, of course, and screw the community.” Architect Edward Licalzi told the board the enlarged bar was primarily a service area needed to support the dining room.

Ending: The board did not vote on the application. It left case no. 2312 open for further outreach between the applicant and neighborhood groups and said any written agreements or proposed conditions should be submitted in advance of the next hearing so the board can consider them when it reconvenes.

Votes at a glance

Several other zoning cases on the same agenda received routine rulings or brief discussion. The board recorded the following outcomes during the meeting; where the transcript did not record a full vote tally, the listing notes that detail as “not specified.” All case summaries use the board’s case numbers as read into the record.

- Case 3452 (Gregory & Michael Cinto, 542 East Hudson St.): Motion to grant the variance for conversion of a one-family house to a two-family; the board granted the application. (Vote details: not specified in transcript.)

- Case 3352 (Mitchell and Nancy Gribble, 231 West Beach St.): Renewal of a conditional temporary variance for a second kitchen; the board granted the application with the original conditions.

- Case 3457 (John Ashton, 7 Delaware Ave.): Variance for a front-yard deck; the board granted the application.

- Case 1315 (Jordan and Leslie Price, 150 East Penn St.): Renewal of conditional temporary variance for two-family use; the transcript records discussion and a motion to grant a renewal; applicant presence and final procedural details were not fully recorded in the excerpt (status: motion introduced; outcome not fully specified in transcript).

- Case 3394 (Ronald Greco & Joan Berkovich, 15 Wyoming Ave.): Proposal for a new house with a front-yard setback variance. The board heard extended testimony from the applicant, neighbors and the architect and left the case open for review and additional neighbor input; no final vote recorded.

- Case 3451 (John & Diane Joyce, 20 Ohio Ave.): Request to reinstate two-family use and related dimensional variances for a 60x60 lot. The board took testimony, received letters in support, and left the case open to allow the applicants time to consider a temporary conditional approach and to provide further documentation; no final vote recorded at that hearing.

- Case 2312 (777 West Beach St., Beach Street Commons LLC / Profeta Corp): Request to renew a conditional temporary variance for the bar and increase bar length from prior allowed size to 44 feet 6 inches. The board left this case open for negotiation between the applicant and neighbors (see full story above).

- Case 3458 (Patrick & Lauren Smith, 105 Belmont Ave.): Request for a two-year conditional temporary variance to maintain a second kitchen and two-family use. After testimony and documentation of financial hardship, the board approved a two-year conditional temporary variance with conditions requiring owner-occupancy and periodic renewal (applicants must return every two years to confirm conditions).

What to watch for: The Zoning Board asked parties to submit written agreements or proposed conditions (hours, noise controls, monitoring, parking management) before the next meeting. The bar expansion (case 2312) and several house-scale variance requests (cases 3394 and 3451) remain open and likely to return to the board with negotiation results or additional documents.