04/24/2008 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

apply to the applicants and to the staff. That being said, he reasoned, we have to move on to the hearing of the merits. ATTORNEYHENDERSON'S REBUTTAL Attorney Henderson argued Attorney O'Haire's statement that the appeal period ran out on the neighbors on July 31St which is 21 days after the date of the July 10th letter, and found that to be somewhat absurd. He asked the Board to notice in the Ordinance [Code Section 902.07(3)(a) in the backup] which states in part, "The applicant, or any other person(s) whose substantial interests may be affected ..." and suggested that "substantial interests affected" is referring to people like the Metz's. Therefore, by its terms, the Ordinance applies to persons whose substantial interests are affected, other than the applicant. They would concede that had the July 10th letter been adverse to their client, their appeal period would have run out on July 31 st Attorney Henderson explained that the law applies a "chargeable with notice concept" when no notice is provided to persons with a substantial interest. He again argued points of the appeal period, and suggested that if the Board accepts Attorney O'Haire's arguments that this Ordinance does not apply, they would be left with a situation of exactly when and where the period began and ended. He suggested that that is not a logical interpretation of this Ordinance. Attorney Vitunac displayed a copy of the appeal form filled out by the residents, and declared that they figured it out, but late, and that was not acceptable arguments. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Chairman Bowden opened the floor to questions from Commissioners and reminded everyone that they should conduct their questions only to the issues of jurisdiction. April 24, 2008 10 Special Call Meeting (The Source)