Lot Merger Decision Moved to May 8 Despite Neighbor Request

posted: April 25th, 2012 01:42 pm | 5Comments

The City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to wait until May 8 to hear a controversial Ocean Boulevard lot merger appeal, despite a request from a neighbor to wait until later in June.

“We’ve been agreeing and agreeing ago the extensions,” said Clifford Jones, who has been a spokesman for a group of neighbors who oppose the lot merger. “This is the first time we’ve asked for anything.”

Jones said the issue has been up in the air for seven months, and that Tuesday was supposed to be the “drop dead date” for a decision about whether to allow the merger of the lots at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Blvd.

Neighbors have been opposed to the lot merger because they say the home that would be built on the merged lots would block views and thus violate a private 1951 agreement that limits three Ocean Boulevard homes to one story.

Those neighbors have scheduled surgeries and vacations around the Tuesday Council meeting and will be unable to attend a May 8 meeting, Jones said.

Coralee Newman of Government Solutions, Inc., who is representing the homeowners, said she opposed the delay to June 26.

City staff asked for the continuance to May 8, the next Council meeting, in order to prepare and record restrictions on the home that can be built on the lots. The restrictions were added before the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve the lot merger, reversing an earlier Planning Commission decision.

Mayor Nancy Gardner clarified that the City Council would have final say on the merger and restrictions and not the homeowners.

She also said that the homeowners and neighbors had met to try to work out a compromise, but the meeting apparently was not a success.

“There’s two weeks,” she said. “We can hope.”

Read our earlier stories here, here, here, here, here and here.

5 Responses to “Lot Merger Decision Moved to May 8 Despite Neighbor Request”

Comments

Fed up

April 25th, 2012

I really don't get this at all! Mayor Gardner is hoping for a compromise!!! The Guida's new neighbors are only asking from the City what is fair and legal. One of the conditions for allowing a lot merger is : "5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development." (taken directly off of the City's application). The whole idea behind adding this stipulation to the City's application was to eliminate the mansionization of a quaint community. The Guida's bought their two small homes on speculation that they would be able to merge the lots so they could build their 12,000 square foot mansion. They also knew about the restrictive covenants that are recorded against the land protecting the views of the neighboring properties. Why does Mayor Gardner hope for a compromise? Mayor Gardner should be protecting the rights of long time Corona Del Mar residents rather than cow towing to a Chicago area transplant that has total disregard for agreements that have been in place for over 50 years and City requirements for lot mergers that do not allow for excessively large parcels. Every property owner in the City of Newport Beach should be enraged that the Mayor has such disregard for long time City residents and property owners. A compromise is not what is needed in this case. Just because someone has lots of money and can pay for expensive consultants does not mean that they are right! Please City Council Members, do what is right, do not allow this lot merger!

Sammy

April 25th, 2012

I don't know the whole story/background here but that said, I don't understand why the City is even involved with regard to the height restrictions. There is a private agreement in place which runs with the land. One could build a beautiful single story home on two lots. There's your compromise.

Jamie

April 25th, 2012

To "Fed Up" - who says that CDM is a "quaint" community? CDM is an "exclusive" community of multi-million dollar mansions on small lots. So let's get that straight. I don't buy into the "quaint village" idea unless you want to pay for my loss of property value. Ocean Blvd. is filled with large homes on two or even three lots. This house will be an asset to the community and will increase neighborhood lot values overall, therefore I support the new construction over building two dinky homes that in turn will decrease values. This is one of the premiere home locations IN THE WORLD - it is worthy of a world class structure. I absolutely agree that it should comply with any legal height covenants, but that is a private matter between the litigants. I also believe people should not cause harm to others while seeking their own happiness or profit. And once again, I do not know any of the parties involved. And I'd like to ask - what is the motive behind the folks who are not directly affected and who do not want a new beautiful home on this site. Please explain why you are against the modernization of CDM and the replacement of old houses built in the 1940's and 50's with modern beautiful, high value homes? Are you jealous, do you just oppose change on principal? What? I really want to understand.

Fed Up

April 26th, 2012

"Jaime" - I have lived in NB since the early 70's, in CDM, on the peninsula, and in the Heights. My family has lived here since the early 50's. I guess I am showing my age when calling CDM a quaint community, as this is what it was in the 70's when I first lived here. I am not opposed to modernizing Corona Del Mar. What I am opposed to is the total disregard of City requirements for lot mergers that were made to stop the mansionization of Newport Beach. Have you seen the horrid "boxes" in Newport Heights? From what I have seen of the proposed plans, the structure is a big box (19 1/2' tall), lacking any character, drawn to maximize interior square footage. A beautiful single story structure with some architectural appeal would be welcome. I do have to disagree with you on property values decreasing if two single story houses were built on the existing lots.

Phil

May 1st, 2012

I think a convincing argument could be made in FAVOR of lot mergers. Our village is densely packed and many of the older homes that were built upon 60 foot lots have been subdivided, yielding the narrow and awkward looking homes on 30 foot lots. More lots means more cars and more people per block. We should welcome folks who are proposing to merge two lots with one home. As for the height restriction in this particular case, I agree with Sammy and think the City should stay out of it.


Leave a comment