Inglewood planning commission favors 3‑year window to pull permits for damaged nonconforming homes

The Inglewood Planning and Zoning Commission on July 7 discussed proposed changes to rules for nonconforming residential uses and broadly agreed to recommend that the City Council extend the time owners have to pull reconstruction permits after a structure is damaged from one year to three years.

Will, a city planning staff member, told commissioners the current code requires property owners to obtain a permit within one year of a determination of damage; under the draft changes staff proposed expanding that period to three years to give owners time to secure financing and insurance settlements. "Obtain a permit within 1 year," Will said when describing the existing rule, and explained the proposal would "expand it to somewhere in that 3 to 5 year range," with staff drafting three years for commercial structures.

Why it matters: staff said about 55 properties remain on the city's list of nonconforming residential uses, concentrated in certain R‑1 districts and a few R‑2 areas; commissioners said the permit timeline affects how long damaged lots can remain blighted and whether owners have a realistic chance to rebuild. Will said the proposal would also allow rebuilding to meet district standards while preserving the unit count in many cases, rather than forcing an exact replication of the prior building form.

Commissioners debated the appropriate timeline. One commissioner said two years would be "generous" and expressed concern about long‑term blight, saying, "I don't want another neighbor to ever have to deal with what I'm dealing with right now." Another commissioner cited insurance and financing delays and said three years felt appropriate. The chair summarized what the group had discussed and noted a "general consensus of 3 years" for extending the rebuild window from one year to three.

Staff clarified how construction timelines would work if a permit is obtained: after pulling a permit, an applicant generally has 180 days to show meaningful progress (typically demonstrated by a first inspection), and additional inspections extend the permit's active timeline. Will said that if a permit lapses the property would lose the nonconforming protection and likely be treated as conforming or require code compliance.

Commissioners also addressed unit counts and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Staff said many nonconformities predate recent code changes and result from lawful development under older rules. The commission agreed it was preferable to preserve a property's pre‑damage unit count (for example, a duplex or triplex) rather than require rebuilding the identical building form; that approach, commissioners said, avoids "shoehorning" old forms into modern standards while allowing the same number of dwelling units.

The commission asked staff to review related code language, including a cross‑reference that still reads "180 days" for discontinuance in one subsection, and to correct typos in the draft. Will said he would check the code references and return with revised language. No formal ordinance or text amendment was adopted at the meeting; the discussion produced direction for staff and a recommendation posture toward council.

The meeting also handled routine items: commissioners approved minutes from the June 16 meeting (with a correction removing two names from the "present" list) and approved two findings of fact tied to prior agenda items. The meeting closed with scheduling notes and an announcement about a local museum opening.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft code language to reflect the commission's preference for a three‑year permit window, confirm whether the 180‑day discontinuance language needs amendment, and bring updated language back for further review before council consideration.