Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION NO. HO 2011- 005 <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 />601 IRVINE AVENUE (PA 2010 -147) <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 Dr. Frankenberger, the property <br />owner and tenant, with respect to property located at 601 Irvine Avenue, and legally <br />described as a portion of Lot 18, Newport Heights Tract, requesting an extension of the <br />abatement period specified by the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section <br />20.38.100, (Abatement Periods). If granted, the extension will allow the continued <br />operation of an existing commercial use for ten years (December 15, 2021). The <br />property is located in the R -1 Zoning District (Single -Unit Residential), where such <br />nonresidential uses are not permitted; and <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 15, 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 specified by the Municipal <br />Code is not of sufficient duration to amortize the property owner's investment, especially <br />since the dental office provides the primary income. The applicant indicates that a <br />minimum abatement period of ten years (December 15, 2021) is necessary to recover <br />his investment in the property and to avoid an unconstitutional taking of the owner's <br />property. <br />