Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION NO. HO 2011- 004 <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 />813 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD (PA 2011 -079) <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 Steve Legere, the property owner, <br />with respect to property located at 813 East Balboa Boulevard, and legally described as <br />Lot 7, Block 12, Balboa Tract, requesting an extension of the abatement period specified <br />by the NBMC Section 20.38.100, (Abatement Periods). If granted, the extension will allow <br />the continued operation of an existing commercial use for ten years (November 30, <br />2021). The property is located in the R -2 Zoning District (Two -Unit Residential), where <br />such 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 (DA) 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 />lease agreement which expires in September 2015, and the investment of the tenant. <br />An extension period for the term of the lease is necessary to avoid economic hardship <br />that will result if the owner is required to abate the use prior to expiration of the lease. <br />