Laserfiche WebLink
workers. Attorney O'Haire contended that the neighbors know best and they did not hear from <br />anyone who was working on 37th Street. <br />Attorney O'Haire submitted to the Board that there was no evidence and they have to <br />base their decision on what the courts call "competent and substantial evidence." In summation, <br />he reiterated that the property was abandoned by Alcohope; they intended to abandon it; their <br />intention was clear from the lease that they signed; it was abandoned, and their timeline proved <br />they did it. He submitted to the Board that they have no option but to say the use was not <br />grandfathered, and it was an incompatible and an inappropriate use. Because what was once <br />perhaps a compatible or an appropriate use, is not right any longer, especially after it has been <br />abandoned. <br />ATTORNEYHENDERSONIsREB UTTAL/FINAL STATEMENT <br />Attorney Henderson deduced from Attorney O'Haire's "excellent presentation" that he <br />apparently wanted a strict interpretation of the one-year provision, but a not so strict <br />interpretation of the provision dealing with the filing of appeals. <br />Attorney Henderson re-emphasized that he did not believe it is relevant as to what the <br />intentions of Alcohope were at the time; the arguments are about a nonconforming use; and the <br />owner at all times was New Horizons. He believed the question is whether they intended to <br />abandon this use on a permanent basis. The evidence shows that they did not, because they were <br />trying to find a substitute owner that would do the same thing as Alcohope was doing, and <br />because they were making repairs. Further, if they had intended complete abandonment, they <br />would have abandoned the place and not even bothered with repairs. <br />April 24, 2008 51 <br />Special Call Meeting (The Source) <br />