- 19 -
evidence in the record. First, the building permit application
identifies the intended use of the Ashland Building for farm and
storage. Second, the August 22, 1995, Certificate of Occupancy
identifies the type of property as "commercial and residential
year round". Third, the insurance records for the Ashland
Building do not reflect an intent to use the structure as a
melting facility. Nancy Weingartner, an employee of the Hartford
Insurance Co. and underwriter for the Hempstead and Ashland
properties, testified that the business listed for the Hempstead
property is that of general refining and smelting and the
business listed for the Ashland property was that of an office.
Petitioners attempt to explain these inconsistencies. As to
the building permit application, Mr. Spera stated in a sworn
affidavit that, in obtaining the building permit, the builder
misidentified the intended use of the Ashland Building as farm
and storage. He further testified that he did not complete the
building permit application, nor did he enter the total cost of
the building or its intended use. Instead, it was Mr. Abresch,
the builder and co-owner of Huntersfield, who completed the
application after Mr. Spera affixed his signature. As to the
Certificate of Occupancy, Mr. Spera testified that the reference
to "residential" referred only to the occasional use of an
apartment. And as to the intended use of the Ashland Building as
identified in insurance records, petitioners claim that the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011