does not adopt the definition of licensed facility in the gaming act uh if city council at the time
had intended to simply adopt the definition of a licensed facility they could have simply just
said so uh it would have been simple casino a licensed game a licensed facility as defined by
the gaming act or whatever referring to the specific uh citation for pacs part two
they didn't do that that would have been one sentence and it would have clarified this entire
issue forever they didn't do that and i think uh mr bonnie pointed out why they didn't do that
precisely because even though at the beginning it was understood that all casinos i think
originally uh all casinos had to be attached to a racetrack initially uh but that or not
most of them were attached to racetracks i mean one of one of the the the but but more importantly
the issue is that they only had slots but it was understood by pretty much everybody at the time
that eventually you would have table games uh and as mr bonnie points out two years after uh casinos
licensed facilities were allowed in the state they did in they did then add
a new a new form of gambling and i think the intention of council at the time
was that they would be flexible that they wouldn't simply say okay we're going to we're going to
restrict mr chairman that's speculation i don't see how mr reuter could know what it's it's not
speculation because the the definition itself is clearly intended to be broader than the definition
in the gaming act because they don't simply they don't say they're not adopting the definition
in the gaming act if they wanted to do that they would have they didn't do that
they said it says a licensed gaming facility as authorized by the commonwealth pursuant to
it says a licensed gaming facility as authorized by the commonwealth pursuant to the gaming act
so again so we agree that this is a non-primary location and we all accept that the state
has in 2018 uh initially temporarily and then later uh it became permanent so to speak uh
allowed sports wagering in pennsylvania uh they allowed it in licensed facilities and they also
allowed it by um a petition at non-primary locations if the petition submitted by a
holder of a license just to have slot machines so again we everybody agrees there's not going
to be slots here there's not going to be table games here yet because here's and this is the
key point if let's say for the sake of argument if the state decides well we're going to allow
allow people to play poker for money at these at these locations because again that's something
that many people have talked about is and many states do have uh authorized just card rooms
poker rooms california said poker rooms for that's not in but that's not an issue before us
no but the point the point is what's the intention of the definition here and the point is if if the
state were to allow a poker room to operate at a non-primary location are we to understand that
city council would have had no intention to kind of restrict that type that type of gambling taking
place everywhere the point is is that the definition of casino in the city's code is
clearly broader and intended to be broader and to pick up more types of activities and including
activities that were not yet considered at the time the definition was written because everybody
knew that once you allowed casinos with slot machines that eventually they would have other
activities taking place and it's the same thing here i mean again if the state says we're going
to allow poker rooms or the state said we're going to allow card rooms in the state like many other
states do we wouldn't need another definition we wouldn't need another category because that would
be subsumed within because if it's licensed by the state as authorized and if it's under the
gaming control the gaming act it's a casino excuse me mr reuter if that's the concern here that this
the definition could eventually be expanded to include table games or slot machines as far as
this case is concerned couldn't the board simply add a proviso providing that no table games or
slot machines are prohibited no no i think i think i think that's and that's not what i'm
intending to say here i mean yes that's that's a possibility and i have no position on whether
there's going to be a provisor or something it's this this this has nothing to do you are saying
that it is broader than the um than as defined under the gaming act can i ask then if it isn't
related to the gaming hat act would a location with strictly off-track betting be considered a
casino no because off-track betting is authorized by the racing act not the game i understand but
you just said that the definition isn't limited by the language of the gaming act so why would
that not be because the definition does it it the definition covers activities that are licensed
and authorized by the gaming act so again we agree because off-track betting by itself is
not authorized by the Gaming Act that an off-track betting facility is not a casino.
The definition explicitly cites the Gaming Act. So if it's authorized by the Commonwealth
pursuant to the Gaming Act, and if it's a licensed activity, it's a casino.
Ms. Sillette, I just want to add, I don't know if this is in your mind or not, but
unfortunately, or for better or for worse, the Gaming Act actually has the phrase racehorse
in its title. But that's only because a lot of the money goes to subsidize
racehorses. Right. Actually, I was considering more
your argument, Mr. Bonney, that it should be determined by the nature
of the use. Yes. And if the nature of off-track
betting is gambling, I'm not understanding
the reasoning for not including that. Why is that assembly and entertainment
as not personal? As Mr. Reuter says, we can't ignore
the second half of the sentence and that that so things that are happening only because of the
racing act um are not referred to here um yeah and and again i i want to be clear it's we're not
saying that gambling per se is make something a casino but if it's gambling or
is make something a casino but if it's gambling or sports betting or anything along any kind of
activity that is licensed by the commonwealth under the gaming act that's what the definition
says so sports wagering is licensed by the commonwealth under the gaming act i i don't see
how this is really actually at all that confusing if this if the city had an if city council had
intended to explicit to to uh expressly say that a casino was a licensed facility as defined by
the gaming act we wouldn't be here but that's not what they did and it's pretty clear that
the council's intention was to cover more activities than just simply uh you know slots
because again at the time this was written that was the only thing that was that was out there
it was the only thing that was being authorized at the time the definition of casino but it was
clear that city council had the foresight to understand that there would be other activities
and again it doesn't say slots but again at the time the definition was written that was the only
type of gambling that was allowed in a casino was slots so why didn't it just say slot machines you
can't have slot machines or if you have slot machines it's a casino that's not what it says
it says okay it's it's again i guess i'm probably i'm kind of beating at that horse here but the
point is is that the definition says if it's a license if it's licensed by the commonwealth
pursuant to the gaming act it's a casino can i mention uh mr chairman and members of the board
we have to take a look at the assembly and entertainment section and look at the subcategories.
What is also prohibited in a CA, in a neighborhood shopping center like this?
If Chickie and Pete's wanted to sublease that 2,600 square foot room to a company that wanted
to put in four Ms. Pac-Man machines, that would be an amusement arcade. And that will be strictly
prohibited or if the subtenant wanted to put in three pool tables that would be strictly prohibited
i think it is unreasonable to think they'd be entitled they'd be entitled to a hearing in front
of this board wouldn't they for a variance for a variance we do that all the time well and that's
what we're asking you here for is to require a variance that for city council to say you can't
have four pac-man machines unless by a variance but this sort of thing with these bonnie you're
putting the rabbit in the hat i mean with all due respect i mean this is getting again very far
afield it's mr reuter's argument at this point not yours so respectfully mr chairman i would
ask that we you know keep it on on task yeah i guess mr reuter to uh wrap it up if you could
appreciate well again i i think again in uh you know notwithstanding the typo on the first page
We, again, concede, this is a non-primary location, concede it is not a licensed facility as defined in the Gaming Act, and yet it's clearly an activity, sports wagering is an activity that every step of the process, from soup to nuts, every single aspect of sports wagering has to be licensed and authorized by the Commonwealth,
and that licensing and authorization takes place pursuant to the gaming act it it is
without any question a casino as defined by the city's code that's it and that's why the
decision was made to uh issue an amended uh refusal uh and not a referral for a special exception
okay um this is sharon before we move on to a vote for this i should mention that um rich
demarco mr demarco is here with his hand raised um mr demarco participated in the original special
exception hearing i believe but he is not a party to the appeal against lni um if we could call him
just to get him to clarify
that he is not a party
to the appeal against L&I.
Marco?
Morning, can you hear me?
Please identify yourself
and I'll swear you in.
You're muted.
Good morning, can you hear me?
Yeah, I thank you, Sharon,
and I agree I'm not...
Richard, identify yourself, please.
You got it.
Richard DeMarco, address 2005 Market Street, 16th floor, Philadelphia.
Address, 2005, Market Street, 16th floor, Philadelphia,
10103.
I agree I'm not specifically-
You're swearing a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Sorry.
Please proceed.
Yeah, I'm not going to-
We adopt-
We're obviously interested parties in the appeal.
We're not parties per se.
I agree with that.
Identify what you mean by-
When you say we, please identify-
Veteran Stadium Neighbors Civic Association.
we are an rco that shares a boundary with park civic and we are within one city block of the
use and my board has voted unanimously uh to oppose the proposal i agree i'm not a party to
the appeal against lni specifically however we would certainly adopt all of paul's arguments
he represents the neighboring rco we agree i would only add and i will not um i think you're
going down yes you certainly would be if this goes on to continue the special exception hearing
you certainly have a right to testify then but i don't believe um because you're not a party in
this case okay we adopt paul's arguments thank you thank you thank you all right we're going to
everybody we're resting this we're going to get into the vote on the appeal sharon are we good to
go yes okay do i read is it the zp number or is it the mi number read the mi number
okay mi 2020-001532 1526 pecker avenue my vote is to grant the appeal
my vote is to grant the appeal appeal granted appeal granted appeal granted
it thank you okay the appeal having been granted that means that the board um has adopted the
position that this requires a special exception there was a fairly lengthy hearing in december
on this i believe the way that it ended was that um mr matione had presented his case
mr bonnie he was going to bring his witnesses back for mr bonnie to cross-examine and also
present his own case. Is that correct? Is that memory? We did not finish all of our witnesses.
I did talk to Mr. Bonnie about this yesterday. We did not finish all of our witnesses. We have
three additional witnesses to prevent what we have everybody who testified last time
available for cross-examination and we were hoping that we were able to put on
Frederick Heron, the Director of Public Safety in Ben Salem Township, first.
I discussed it with Mr. Bonney yesterday.
I know he has a busy schedule.
I am not positive that he's on the line right now because he's got his Director of Public Safety for Ben Salem Township.
He's trying to make time for us.
If he's available now, I would love to start with him as our first witness.
Otherwise, I still have Debbie Farah, our traffic engineer, and Jerry Fretz, the director of public safety for the Parks Casino, as well as our direct witness.
I believe at the original hearing you brought, Mr. Shiroki and Mr. Davis testified.
Did they return today so that Mr. Bonney can question them?
They are both here, as is Matt Cullen, who testified.
And we have an architect, Jeremy Drummond, the original architect, has left the firm and is unavailable, but we have Marcin Skotak here, who is the architect handling the matter now, and he is here for cross-examination as well.
So we do have everybody available for cross-examination, in addition to our witnesses who haven't yet to testify.
And Mr. Perrin is available, I understand, right now, if we could go to him.
Can I ask a quick question, Mr. Mattione?
This is Tanya.
Do you have your volume all the way up?
Because you're a little faint.
I'm sorry.
Let me just move the computer closer.
I had to push back.
That's perfect.
That's perfect.
Mr. Mattione and Mr. Chairman, this is Mark Stewart.
May I just interrupt for one moment, Mr. Chairman, to request to be excused so that I may attend a funeral?
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
And thanks to the board.
I'll be safe. Before we start, Mike, I know you said you have someone who's limited time.
Is the court reporter okay for another 15 minutes or so? Okay. Yes. Okay. And then once we're done
with this first witness, we'll take a break. Okay. Excuse me, Chair, if Ms. Brumbelow wanted
to testify before she left to... Okay. Sorry about that. If she chooses to, I know that someone else
will be replacing him. Mr. Brumblow, Ms. Brumblow.
Mr. Brumbelow, Ms. Brumbelow.
Paula, if you're speaking and we can't.
Sorry, Paula shouldn't be here.
We have Dave who's representing planning commission.
In that case, it's fine.
I knew that Paula had to leave early.
If Mr. Fecto has taken over for her,
then there's no need to take his testimony now.
Thank you.
All right, Mr. Mattione, call your first witness.
Director Frederick Heron.