Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds 529 East Broadway variance request to allow revised plans and resolve court matter
Summary
ZBA deferred action on an application to enlarge a two-family dwelling at 529 East Broadway after learning the accessory structure is the subject of a pending city-court case; the board asked the applicant to submit amended plans and said the file may be heard at the January 23 meeting.
The Long Beach Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday declined to vote on an application to alter a two-family property at 529 East Broadway and instead held the matter open to allow the applicant to submit revised plans and to resolve an outstanding City Court proceeding concerning an alleged illegal accessory apartment.
Charles Schwartz Apple, representing the applicant, said the property is a preexisting two-family residence with a non-habitable garage converted previously and that his client intends to remove an illegal kitchen and convert the accessory space to an attached master suite for full-time occupancy. Board members and counsel pressed the applicant on whether conversions were permitted and suggested alternatives — such as a rear bump-out rather than living space to the property line — to avoid exacerbating nonconforming and near-property-line living space.
Neighbors raised parking and enforcement concerns and noted that the City Court currently has a matter related to the accessory unit. One board member proposed keeping the case open so the applicant could submit amended plans to the Building Department for review; board counsel reminded the applicant that revised plans must be submitted to the building department first and that renoticing would be required if the application is refiled. The board provided a possible next hearing date: January 23.
No formal vote on the merits was taken; the record shows the board’s action as a hold/continuance to permit submission and review of alternate plans and for the court matter to be addressed. The decision to hold the case was presented as a way to improve “optics” and give the applicant an opportunity to propose plans that minimize encroachment to the property line.
