Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION NO. HO 2011- 003 <br />A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY <br />OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING THE ABATEMENT <br />EXTENSION PERIOD FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT <br />1526 PLACENTIA AVENUE (PA 2011 -059) <br />WHEREAS, Chapter 20.38.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) <br />requires nonconforming nonresidential uses in residential zoning districts to be abated <br />and terminated upon the expiration of time periods identified by the NBMC. Following <br />the issuance of an Abatement Order, Chapter 20.38. 100 provides that a property owner <br />may request an extension of the abatement period in order, to amortize a property <br />owner's investment in the property and avoid an unconstitutional taking of property; and <br />WHEREAS, an application was filed on behalf of Mary Anne Morrison, the owner of <br />property located at 1526 Placentia Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 1 of PM -124- <br />25, requesting an extension of the abatement period specified by the NBMC Section <br />20.38.100. If granted, the extension will allow the continued operation of existing <br />commercial use for ten years from the date of the Hearing Officer's approval (November <br />30, 2021). The property is located in the RM (2420) Zoning District, where such <br />nonresidential uses are not permitted; and <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 30, 2011, in the City Hall <br />Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, <br />place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the NBMC and other <br />applicable laws. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented and considered at this <br />meeting; and <br />WHEREAS, the hearing was presided over by Hon. John C. Woolley, retired <br />Judge (California Superior Court, Orange County), Hearing Officer for the City of <br />Newport Beach; and <br />WHEREAS, the findings and considerations of Section 20.38.100 (C.4(c)) of the <br />NBMC and facts in support of the findings and considerations are as follows: <br />1. The length of the abatement period is not appropriate considering the <br />owner's investment in the use; <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The one -year abatement period provided by the Municipal <br />Code is not of sufficient to amortize the property owner's investment due to the existing <br />term of the lease agreement. An extension period for the term of the lease is necessary <br />to avoid economic hardship that will result if the owner is required to abate the use prior <br />to expiration of the lease. <br />