Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION NO. HO 2012- 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 />3355 VIA LIDO (PA 2011 -153) <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 New Port Townhouse LLLP, the owner of <br />property located at 3355 Via Lido, and legally described as Portion of Lot 4, Lot 5, and <br />Portion of abandoned alley of Tract 1117, requesting an extension of the abatement period <br />specified by the NBMC Section 20.38.100. If granted, the extension will allow the <br />continued operation of existing commercial use for ten years from the date of the Hearing <br />Officer's approval (February 1, 2022). The property is located in the RM (2178) Zoning <br />District, where 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, since the <br />current owner recently purchased the property and was recently made aware of the <br />abatement requirements. The information submitted by the applicant supports that a 10 <br />year abatement period is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of the applicant's <br />property. The ten year period would allow the owner to recover any remaining <br />investment in the property to avoid an unconstitutional taking, will allow additional time <br />