Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION NO. HO 2011 007 <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 />1455 SUPERIOR AVENUE "J" (PA 2011 -032) <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 The Rawlins Family Trust, the <br />owner of property located at 1455 Superior Avenue "J ", and legally described as Portion of <br />Lot 918, First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, requesting an extension of the abatement <br />period specified by the NBMC Section 20.38.100. If granted, the extension will allow the <br />continued operation of existing boat storage use to December 31, 2013. The property is <br />located in the RM (2420) Zoning District, where such nonresidential uses are not <br />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 (C.4(c)) of the <br />NBMC and facts in support of the findings and considerations, and required conditions <br />as apply to mitigate adverse impacts on the neighboring uses. as implementation of the <br />approval 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 is not an adequate period of time to amortize <br />the property owner's investment in the property, especially since the current lease has <br />an expiration date of December 31, 2013. <br />