Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance Moore 2202 Lakeshore topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner withdraws Lakeshore Drive deck variance after fire‑safety concerns and advice to seek building‑commission approval
Summary
An attorney for the property owner at 2202 Lakeshore Drive withdrew a setback variance request after a Long Beach volunteer fire department letter raised safety concerns and building‑commission members advised that a code‑compliant deck could likely be approved by the building commission.
At its June 10 meeting the Long Beach Board of Zoning Appeals heard a petition seeking a use and development standard variance to rebuild an elevated deck at 2202 Lakeshore Drive that would sit about 6½ feet inside the 12‑foot side setback.
Brad Adamsky, an attorney for the petitioner Mike Moore, told the board the deck had existed for years but was torn down amid a substantial renovation and that permitting missteps and a stop‑work order followed. Adamsky said his client now seeks a variance to replace the elevated deck largely as it had been for safety reasons.
The clerk read a letter from John Wall, deputy chief of the Long Beach Volunteer Fire Department, opposing the requested side‑setback relief. The letter argued that narrow side setbacks on Lakeshore Drive limit firefighters’ ability to place ladders and hoses and that added structural elements such as decks increase the risk of fire spread.
Adamsky responded that the Moore property abuts a public beach stop rather than another occupied residence and that aerial photos show a wider separation from adjacent structures at this location. Building‑commission member Dr. Lame and other commission representatives joined the discussion and outlined an alternative: if the petitioner withdrew the variance and presented plans that complied with setback and building‑code requirements, the building commission could approve the work.
Board counsel (Chris) and members discussed whether rebuilding the deck would expand a nonconforming structure or would be considered an addition to a nonconforming house; the distinction would affect whether a variance was required. Counsel and building‑commission members indicated they were comfortable that a code‑compliant deck could be reviewed and approved by the building commission.
Given that guidance, Adamsky said the petitioner would withdraw the variance request and prepare revised plans for the building commission. The board recorded the withdrawal and encouraged the petitioner to return if necessary with clarified plans. No final variance was granted by the board at the June 10 meeting.
The board concluded business and adjourned.
