Long Beach APC debates limits on accessory structures, defines 'substantial demolition' threshold

The Long Beach Advisory Plan Commission on May 18 reviewed proposed edits to the town zoning code that would redefine when a home renovation counts as new construction and set limits on accessory buildings and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Members discussed a proposed measurement for 'substantial demolition' that would compare changes to a home's exterior envelope — roof, walls, foundation and other exterior elements — and treat demolition of more than 50% of that envelope as new construction requiring full compliance with the zoning code.

Why it matters: Changing the threshold for what counts as new construction alters which projects must meet current zoning standards or seek variances, affecting homeowners, contractors and the town's review workload. The edits also aim to reduce the number of variance requests the board of zoning appeals receives for nonconforming structures.

At the May 6 workshop recap, Seth McCormack described the proposed approach: "anything that's more than 50% demolition of the exterior of the home ... is going to be considered new construction." He said the committee intends to add clear definitions for "demolition," "substantial demolition" and "renovation" across the zoning code to avoid inconsistent interpretation.

The committee spent considerable time on accessory structures and what should count toward any numeric limit. The draft consolidates the concepts of accessory building, accessory structure and accessory use into a single definition, then lists what will be allowed as accessory items. Members agreed a detached or attached private garage should be excluded from the accessory-structure tally, but they debated whether to allow one, two or three additional accessory structures without a variance.

"I would not want to go more than three," one member said, while several others favored one or two. Kendra Bartlett said she's "leaning towards one ADU" because she worries that allowing multiple accessory structures will encourage lots of small storage buildings that change neighborhood character. Anita Ramis added that multiple accessory buildings could make a lot "look like storage units" rather than usable space.

Commission attorney Chris cautioned about unintended consequences, saying allowing additional garages or buildings could "create holy hell" in practice, and urged clear language to avoid disputes. Members also discussed decks, screened porches and permanent outdoor features; the group signaled intent to treat mobile barbecue equipment differently from built-in outdoor kitchens or masonry hearths.

The commission asked staff to tighten language that currently lists items such as "barbecue equipment" and to distinguish portable equipment (which could be moved easily) from permanent installations. One suggested test was whether a unit could be moved within roughly 30 seconds; a built-in pizza oven or masonry kitchen would be treated as a structure.

Staff and members noted enforcement experience with outdoor storage (boats, RVs, extra vehicles) and said they would include existing code language on storage limits in the next draft to clarify what is and is not allowed.

Next steps: Commissioners agreed to a 14-day internal comment period; members should email suggested edits back to the lead drafter, who will incorporate agreed clarifications and circulate a revised draft to the McKenna consulting team. The committee may schedule a short follow-up workshop if unresolved questions remain before sending the draft on to the town council and building commission.

Votes at a glance: The only formal vote recorded during the meeting was approval of the April 20, 2026 meeting minutes (motion carried by roll call: Diana Holt, Matt Karstrand, Seth McCormack, Anita Ramis and Tom Voyovich voted yes; Kendra Bartlett did not vote).

The APC took no final vote on the zoning amendments at the May 18 meeting; discussion will continue after the comment period.