Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION NO. HO 2012- 002 <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 />1499 MONROVIA AVENUE (PA 2011 -152) <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 by Kenneth M Kaplan, the owner of property <br />located at 1499 Monrovia Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 2 of Lot Line <br />Adjustment 2007 -002, requesting an extension of the abatement period specified by the <br />NBMC Section 20.38.100. If granted, the extension will allow the continued operation of <br />existing commercial use for ten years from the date of the Hearing Officer's approval <br />(February 1, 2022). The property is located in the RM (2420) Zoning District, where <br />such nonresidential uses are not permitted; and <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 1, 2012, in the City Hall Council <br />Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place <br />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 specified by the Municipal <br />Code is not of sufficient duration to amortize the property owner's investment and the <br />ability: to negotiate leases (which currently expire in September 2012), or to renegotiate <br />the financing of the property (which will come due within the next year). Based on the <br />information submitted by the applicant, staff recommends that an extension of 10 years <br />for the abatement of the current use is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of <br />