Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Plaza, you can go forward.
It appears as though we have at least 52 people present.
Thank you.
Good morning, all.
My name is Confessor Plaza, and I'll be the acting chair for this morning's SONIN hearing,
along with board members Thomas Holloman and James Snell.
And we, at some point, might be joined by our chair, Frank DiCicco, and vice chair,
Ms. Carol Tenere.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunkit and board attorney Sharon Saleta also will be in attendance.
Before we begin, I'd like to note that the following changes related to the virtual format.
First, please be advised that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
third anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star
nine then star six to unmute yourself before calling the first cases we will hear hear any
requests for continuance if you are asking that that a case listed for today be continued
Please raise your hand now.
There are no hands at this time, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, first one up, it's MI 2021 -000185 -5820 Willows Avenue.
I would like Ms.
to panelists. Good morning, ma 'am. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. And I'll just put my name on the record as well.
Clemente Amazon, C -L -E -M -E -N -T -A, last name A -M -A -Z -A -N -123, South Broad Street, Suite 1600.
Thank you. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required document, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this listing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. May I share my screen?
Yes. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we actually met with the RCO twice, and we have several letters.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Can everyone see my screen?
Perfect. So again, good morning. My name is Clemente Amazon. Today, I'll be presenting 5820 Willows Avenue.
This is a pretty straightforward project. What we are looking to do here is legalize a duplex.
We do not have a roof deck. There is no basement living. Trash will be stored in the basement.
It's very straightforward.
So, excuse me.
I'll go through the D, Certificate of Tax Clearance, our Notice of Refusal, the Application for...
I'll go through the deed, certificate of tax clearance, our notice of refusal, the application for appeal, maps of the area, photographs of the property, as well as plans and drawings, and the letters that we received from the community.
We did, in fact, meet with the community twice.
We have two letters of what I would consider to be non -opposition, as well as a letter of support from a nearby neighbor at 5814 Willis Avenue, which is just a few houses down from our project.
So here we have the deed indicating that my client does own the property, the tax information, the notice of refusal, as I mentioned prior, we're simply looking to legalize a duplex.
the property is zoned as RSA 5. There are no dimensional variances, there's no basement living,
no roof deck, so it's a very minimal use of the property. There's actually other properties in
the area that are multifamily and rental as well, so this is not uncharacteristic for the block.
Trash will be stored in the basement for this project. Our application for appeal,
our project information form map of the area again we're on willows and south 58th
or off of 58th rather this is a view of the front of the property from willows avenue
a view to the right on willows avenue view to the left on willows avenue and as i mentioned
there are other multi -family properties in the area as you can see just across the street 5827
willows avenue is a nearby triplex our plans and drawings are just looking to legalize two units
here so it's not an overuse in any way we did actually meet with the community twice for both
meetings there wasn't a large attendance so we were provided with a letter of non -opposition
from third ward executive committee third ward executive committee rco from our most recent
meeting as well as a letter of non -opposition from cobs creek neighbors and we did receive
a letter of support from a nearby neighbor at 5814 willows avenue the refusal and the notice
that we sent out for our most recent meeting on wednesday april 21st at 6 pm which included the
dba information meeting id and passcode the notice that we sent out to all the properties
and our certificate of mailing indicating that we did in fact send that notice out to all of
the properties as required by the planning commission so if i may have my client adopt
my testimony um sam feldman and i also would like to note that during our community meeting
um the rco did request that we have the property professionally inspected which we are more than
happy to do we embrace the process and we are also going to be having this property professionally
managed by real estate management advisors. They have over 150 properties in the area, so
the property will be well taken care of. Trash, how will trash be handled? Trash will be in the
basement. It's for all units that will have access? Yes, they will have access. Thank you. You say
you're going to bring your client up? Yes, Sam Feldman.
mr feldman has been allowed to speak sir can you please identify yourself for the record
yes hi please identify yourself for the record my name is sam feldman
Spell your last name.
F -E -L -D -M -A -N
Address for the record?
5910 15th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11219.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Mr. Feldman, did you hear my testimony today?
And was it true and accurate?
it yes correct and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you mr feldman thank you
does the board have any questions no no no okay is there anyone else here in this matter that
would like to testify or speak?
Mr. Andrew Goodman has his hand raised.
I will allow him to speak, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Goodman, please wait to be sworn in.
Mr. Goodman, can you please identify yourself for the record?
Yes, good morning.
Andrew Goodman, last name G -O -O -D -M -A -N
here representing the office of third district council member
Here representing the office of third district council member, Jamie Gaudier, room 586 City Hall.
Jamie Gaudier, room 580
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. Members of the board, our office has no opposition to the variants proposed at this address.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
no further hint at this time sir thank you planning commission chairman and members of
the board this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan and given
rsa5 zoning in 2019 this parcel was located near cobs creek and is not very transit oriented
the g bus does not or does run by but that's it the applicant has not shown us how the property
was previously existing as a two -family there is no hardship here forcing them to have multi -family
we recommend that the requested variances be granted not be granted i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm
paula brumbalo burns from the planning commission and have not been sworn in
sorry about that and do you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth
i do thank you apology and i apologize for that no problem thank you paula okay um board has any
questions no no right calendar number mi 2021 dash 000 185 5820 willows avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck thank you you're welcome
So next one up is MI 2020 -002709, 3410 North 17th Street.
Mr. Masters has been promoted to panelist, sir.
Morning, Mr. Master.
You swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Good morning, members of the firm.
You please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Steve Masters with the law firm of JustLaws, 621 West Monterey Avenue in Philadelphia.
I'm here on behalf of the applicant, PB Properties, Phil Borthwick.
Thank you.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents?
I'm sorry, Chair.
Could we just swear him in first?
I'm sorry.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral, folders, and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We have met several times with, there's several RCOs.
There was no letter that was submitted until 20 minutes ago.
We have submitted an email showing that the RCO supported the letters that were just received literally 20 minutes ago.
We have certain things to say about them in the hearing.
Okay, you may proceed.
Can I share my screen?
All right.
Good morning, members of the board.
We're here on 3410 North 17th Street.
This is a project for a triplex on a block, as we'll see in the photos that literally has hardly any structures at all.
there's been almost complete demolition of this block, and it's filled with empty lots overgrown
by weeds and unfortunately some short dumping and other illegal debris. Our refusal is simply
one -use refusal. This is an RSA 5 designated district, and we are proposing multifamily,
so there's no other refusals besides the use.
We have a large number of petitions in support of the project from the surrounding neighbors,
and as I said, there are really no surrounding neighbors specifically to our property. It's
adjacent to a large number of vacant lots, but as you'll see when we show you the walking list,
Mr. Borthwick was able to go around and meet many neighbors on the surrounding
Mr. Borthwick was able to go around and meet many neighbors on the surrounding streets and get their strong support for the project.
This is his walking list in which he described all the properties that he knocked on and what the results were.
In exhibit three is our plans.
In terms of the elevations, we, when we met with the RCOs the first time, they expressed
a desire to have us change our design so that the front of the property would have a covered
porch that would be similar to many of the other existing residential buildings. Many of them are
multifamily in the surrounding area. So we agreed and we changed our plans to include
a covered porch with the columns that are similar to the area. We also created, as we'll see in the
next part here. We created an area for trash for all three of the units. There's going to be an
attractive cabinet that will be located in the front yard. It'll be screened from the street by
vegetation. It'll be just off the porch and it's a covered cabinet where the trash bins are easy to
move in and out inside so we have no living space in the basement it's just
for the mechanicals we have each apartment is on a single floor so on
the first floor we have two bedrooms on towards the rear of the kitchen and the
living room and on the second floor one of the bedrooms is towards the front
then we have the kitchen living room in the middle second bedroom is to the rear
on the third floor similar floor plan one bedroom in the front kitchen and
living room towards the middle, second bedroom in the rear.
You see the site plan with vacant lots
on each side of our property.
There is a multifamily dwelling a few doors down
that we'll take a look at in terms of a photo.
This is our setbacks for our property. The trash container is here to accommodate all
three units. The covered porch that was requested and a large rear yard in the rear.
for photos. This is an aerial view of our property, which is, as I said, nestled among
a lot of vacant lots. This is our property from the side.
Across the street are those covered porch homes that we now are mimicking with our facade.
This is the closest building to our project and it's a multifamily dwelling.
Across the street there is a some kind of a personal care home or rooming house
And in addition, all of these are multi -family dwellings.
This is our zoning posterings for this second hearing.
A site plan showing the zoning and the conformance with the dimensional requirements.
Steve, who was the, what was the name of the RCO again that you guys met with?
So we met with a combination of Tioga United and North Central.
North Central Philadelphia CDC on April 21st, the head of North Central Philadelphia CDC
wrote us to say that the project has our support and we're anticipating a community benefits
agreement uh we then received 20 minutes before the start of this hearing a summary from north
central philadelphia cdc dated april 5th but as i said received 20 minutes ago um stating
position of support and showing that virtually everyone at the meeting was in support.
There was one vote in opposition and
the RCO also included what they said was a support letter for 3410 North 17th Street,
but this was the file that they sent and this has nothing to do with um with our location
okay uh they did send an email uh in in that um with with these files in which they stated
that rco tayoga united and the community is in favor um therefore they must vote with the
community but they included what they called a statement of denial and requested that the
density be reduced to two units.
Like I said, we've been meeting with the RCO several times.
We have been asking them for weeks now to give us any kind of proposed provisos or any
concerns.
20 minutes before the hearing is not acceptable and we wanted to um
to bring the board's attention to um to two provisions in the planning commission's
regulations which control and regulate the conduct of rcos concerning zoning applications
regulation 12 435 which is on the screen now states that at least two days before
Before the Zoning Board hearing, the coordinating RCO shall complete and submit the meeting
summary form provided by the Commission in accordance with the zoning code, and it explains
what the meeting summary form should have.
Regulation 12 .5 .2 .2 states that if an RCO acts in violation of the procedures of the
Commission's regulations, it can be subject to a penalty, including suspension or revocation.
And the violations include number 0 .5 is failure to submit the meeting summary form and a written statement in a timely manner to all required parties.
As we understand it, the council member's office did not receive the summary or the letter prior to this hearing.
We certainly didn't.
We don't believe that the board received it until 20 minutes before the hearing started.
So we are going to ask that the board disregard the letter requesting a proviso that we had no opportunity to consider or talk to them about, and to go with the statement that they sent us on April 21st, where they said the project has our support.
Excuse me, this is Sharon's letter. Mr. Masters, could you forward us the letter that was received 20 minutes ago?
we have not seen it we i sent it to you and the other um email i have i have an email from you
with the um email attached this email and support but oh with this with this um this one email okay
i thought i have it sharon i'll send it sorry i haven't okay great i thought i did i thought i
sent it to everybody yeah yeah okay thank you all right sure um steve is uh you're flying around to
uh adopt this question yes all right um mr borthwick can you raise your hand so that you
can be acknowledged and i'll just go through slowly here's the deed the tax clearances
thank you our application for appeal our argument is that um hardship exists because the three
family dwelling is compatible and consistent with the recent changes to the surrounding
neighborhood. Basically, there are literally no single family homes on the block. There
are virtually no structures on the block because it's been decimated by blight and depopulation.
um and uh and depopulation and this project is really the only feasible way of beginning to
And this project is really
develop this block again and that's why the community is supporting it because it's um
it's a shot of hope in for this block to come back from a fairly devastating population
Our project information form is also attached and the RCO notices that we provided and proof of
mailing. Mr. Borthwick, are you? Can you hear me? Yes. Sir, can you please put your name
on an address on the record?
My name is
Philip Borthwick. My
address is 4002
Peachen Street.
P -E -C -H -I -N
Street.
Go ahead.
Philadelphia PA
19128.
Please spell your last name for the record.
B as in boy.
O -R -T -H
W -I -C -K.
Do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth
for nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Mr. Borthwick, did you hear my testimony this morning?
I did.
Do you believe that it is true and correct,
and do you adopt it as your own?
I wanted to ask you a few questions.
Can you describe the condition of the block
to the members of the board
and how you decided to design the project
that you that you are proposing today so it started uh someone i know is developing
nearby streets down there and he asked me if i was interested in coming down to develop a property
so i was able to purchase a lot on my side of the street there's pretty much only three
properties that i'm aware of there's a five unit on one corner and then there's about
10 houses in between that are vacant land and like steve said they're they're pretty much
short dumping there when you say there's houses in between you really mean just a lot vacant lots
right yes vacant lots yeah and i only know of one single house on the block there's a triplex
and then a church and that's really it across the street um i knocked on every door over there
it's pretty much dominantly triplexes there's two assisted living homes and i told the rco
when i went around to the neighborhood and i went door to door myself and talked to everybody
and they basically said hey you're not building you know uh any type of a halfway house or
you know even they referred to the assistant living it's not really the best looking assisted
living house that i'd imagine they would like and i i explained to them what i wanted to do
and i i said i'm i'm my intentions are to build exactly what the neighborhood already approved
down at 17th and venango and everybody seems pretty content with that so they like the look
of it i thought i was doing the the right thing uh mr borthwick you're you're not um develop real
state development is not your primary occupation, is that correct? Yes. Can you tell the board what
your background is with the building trades and what you do for a living? I'm a union electrician
in Philadelphia. And when we had the meeting at the RCO and they asked you, like, who is your
property manager? Who would that be for this property? I said that I've done it myself
um because i have a rental property so i've always thought it myself and the other rental
property that you have um have you ever had any any issues with the community
around how the tenants are behaving in your properties no
i have no further questions at this time but if but i want to reserve um some time to address
any concerns that the planning commission raises i i reached out to the planning commission several
times over the last week um but was not able to receive any callback from anyone to discuss this
matter thank you uh does the board have any questions uh yes yes do you have revised plans
um yes the revised plans we submitted to um attorney soletta and that was um the plans that
we showed you in our exhibit binder. Thank you. Excuse me. This is Sharon. It's three pages.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in this matter?
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in this matter?
Sir, Mr. Charles Richardson has his hand up. I will allow him to speak at this time.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson. Can you please identify yourself for the record?
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Do you swear to our firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Just calling to say that since the community overwhelmingly supported granting this proviso at the meeting, we have no objection to granting the proviso.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
sir i have miss tina marie russell with her hand raised i will allow her to speak at this time
thank you good afternoon good morning board this morning can you please identify yourself for the
record this is tina marie russell from north central philadelphia cdc rco thank you do you
who are affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.
Please proceed. Okay, great. So yes, this information is received late. I've been having
a bunch of issues and we are a nonprofit that is not receiving a salary. So, you know, I am just,
I have been comforted by a little bit of sickness as well as being overwhelmed by some other
activities that you know we also be holding to so I did explain that to to the applicant attorney
and let him know that as soon as I could it's going to be late that's why I sent him the email
to support him prior to me being able to officially send over a documentation um so it was he was
aware that this would definitely be a late letter um and I made that clear and as he supported
that in the email that he submitted to you as well. I'm apologizing also that I didn't realize
I had connected the wrong letter to this document, but I did send it to everyone this morning and I
resend it a few minutes ago with the correct letters in summary form. So yes, everyone
has in community is agreeing to the project. They are agreeing to the changes that the project
bring to the community because unlike the applicant stated um this there is a homeowner
which he said was a boarding house right next door to that property which is not it's a single
family home that family has been working hard to they purchased the house as is and they've been
working hard to rehab it and bring it back up to compliance which is one reason why it looks the
way it does now across the street yes there is a bunch of boarding homes and yes the community
wants no more boarding homes. We have both RCOs, Tiago and myself who also live in the community
actually down the street from the project. We don't want any more boarding homes. So that's
why we too did not totally deny what we're asking for is less density. Why is that? Because there
are already apartment buildings on the corner that is about I think five or six stories and
on the RCO request, they have already been approved of additional density, high density
apartment buildings in the community. And we feel like the homeowners will be saturated
with all this building coming in the future because these are already approved activities,
buildings, right? So I wanted to put into record that no, that this is not about us
harming or trying to in any way cause harm to the applicant but just to make sure that we empower
our community because we know that the past zoning approvals
which are going to hopefully saturate that community and there's also a church on that
block as well that the applicant forgot to mention so um yeah so anyway and around that area there's
a whole bunch of regular houses regular homeowners so what i wanted to do is just read into the
record my letter so that um oh i see what i did wrong so that um we can ensure that um
um the people get um recognized for um for what they would like to see done
and since i can't read into record because anyway so i'm just going to say it verbally
i'm going to have to make sure the provisals are met
I just wanted to raise an objection again that the letter was not delivered two days before
the zoning hearing under the planning commission's regulations it is not allowed to be considered by
the board because it is it is in violation of the regulation process I think that's really hardship
from this in this case and very biased because i gave you forewarning that this would be late
tina we're losing you you're having a back connection
i was saying can you hear me better now yes now we can okay i was saying that i gave the applicant
forewarning i even told the uh tayoga that i was going to be late because of all the issues that i
was having and that that's why i gave him the email in advance so he would understand what
was going to happen but so i don't think it's wise or i think it's biased for him to say that i
should lose my um rco processing because i'm late with a letter when i just can i ask a question um
thank you mr plaza um please sure miss russell do you remember sending me an email saying that
you were going to have a letter by friday and i did send you an email as well as telling you
did i one person at a time okay i'm sorry do you remember sending me an email saying that you were
going to have your letter by april 23rd at 5 p .m i probably did again i told you i'd also called you
by phone i told you that i'm running late that i'm not going to be able to do everything i commit
myself to because there's a lot of issues going on i was also sick during that time so i'm doing
the best I can as an RCO. And we have a lot of applicants every week trying to uphold my duties.
And I'm just finding out of fronting that you are recommending I get dismissed because I'm late.
Excuse me, Mr. Masters, Ms. Russell, Mr. Masters, your objection based on the late
submission of the record of the letter is noted for the record. Thank you.
okay can i proceed though yes please i'm sorry thank you i am sorry too because um just to
mention uh uh chair that the the document wasn't sent to us timely either so it wasn't before the
board or our council for them to for her to review as well just wanted to put that on record and that
um we do have uh another very lengthy case that we have to get to so i would request that we don't
along this matter i do thank you if i could just actually it is a very brief letter i think if
ms russell is just permitted to read it into the record it would not take much time okay briefly
okay so bottom line is we feel that the case for um a hardship has not been met we feel that um
the density based off of the current um zba agreements with the um high -rise properties
coming into the community causes hard undue heart causes hardship to the existing community
um we would also like to make sure um that um and you guys can read the rest later on i'm hoping but
the main things are that we just feel like we should reduce that density because of the existing
rco approvals for high density apartments coming into the community our 20 35 year plan and the cdc
permission is to create an equal number of housing units that are mixed as well as
single family to keep our historical value.
Ms. Russell, can I ask one question? Is the bottom line that your position is one of non -opposition
if it is limited to two units? Is that a correct interpretation?
that in the provisos and the provisos are simply that the unit stays does not become a bmb
that it is stays not and it's also not a boarding home that the um the trash capacity gets increased
because if you do include three units in our area we have three units already if even though you
have a nice beautiful compartment we find that it's still too much trash for three units so for
that one compartment. So we're looking at the first floor trash in the basement and the second
and third trash compartments, if they keep the second and third, will be with that unit he has
outside the house. And I think the other proviso is that the agreement between the applicant and
the community was that they would stay in touch with the community. They would actually create a
CBA afterwards because we feel like this is too much moving parts they didn't really know what
they wanted as a CBA and this is so I'm sorry to keep interrupting you but that's about it
that's about it okay thank you really the board um there's that was to explain that there's really
okay thank you really the board um there's that was it
no need to add provisors regard regarding it not becoming a housing um a group living situation
because that hasn't been applied for it is in any case prohibited even if this is i agree with you
but we've been finding even though they have no agreements with it we have been having
like these bnbs is popping up all over the place and they're not legally done but so we put it in
record it gives us more grounds to substantiate it when we go toward um trying to remove them from
the community i have a i have another issue members of the board i don't have a copy of
this letter ms russell says that she sent it again she never sent it to me no problem i'm sorry again
i don't i don't have it in my email i'm not able to look at it i'm not able to evaluate it and i've
and i've asked for this literally for the last three weeks i've asked her to give me what her
concerns are what her issues are if there's any provisos if there's any community benefits
agreement we could work out we wanted to sit down and work this out but sending sending the board
something 20 minutes before this hearing starts and not even sending me a copy of it when when
she says that she has another letter that is that is the correct letter i'm not able i don't know
what um what she wants me to do with this but i'm not able to come to any kind of a of a of a
negotiation at this moment um the the other rco gave their gave their vote of support for a triplex
without any of um conditions she sent me uh ms russell sent me an email on april 21st of full
support for a triplex she's now saying that her position is different and gives me that position
20 minutes before this hearing starts and that's why i said that's not that just doesn't um that
doesn't comport with with a fair process um and um that's why uh while we want to work very closely
with her rco and the other rco and we are committed to we committed to go to another meeting later
this week mr masters we got you not to interrupt we got it yep all right
is there anyone else here in this matter can i say one last thing please is that we
yes we have a kiana i muted you for a reason thank you thank you we have kiana
jason can you unmute him kiana it's just been unmuted man kiana you uh please identify yourself
for the record? Yes, good afternoon or morning rather. My name is Kiana Shedrick. I'm a resident
of the neighborhood. I live two blocks over. My name is Q -I -A -N -A, last name Shedrick, S -H -E -D -R -I -C -K.
Thank you. You swore and affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth for nothing but the truth?
That is correct. Thank you. Please proceed. Yes, so I am a resident of the neighborhood and I was
actually present on the day of the meeting. And so I just wanted to offer a few short points
in regards to this case. I actually live in the neighborhood and walking distance of the subject
lot. I do community cleanups in the neighborhood, just had one this weekend and actually clean near
that lot. So I wanted to offer a few things. One being, regardless of how the pictures show,
It is a commercial corridor. It's a bus route. And so there's traffic there frequently. So
whereas it does bring density, it certainly wouldn't overpopulate the block. And as you can
see, it's empty. So to revive the block would definitely be a positive thing. There is other
proposed development coming on that block. And the developer did mention the church that's
currently there and they're currently going um undergoing minor renovations as well so um it's a
it's a construct construction is it's forthcoming on that block um and it's going to be a positive
thing um it'll fill in the space so just to move on um from the developers um comments during the
meeting they seem to be um in tune with the needs of the neighborhood in regards to the trash aspect
and spoke up with some suggestions and positive ways to be an asset to the block and so I'm
looking forward to that happening and I wanted to speak that up for the record because it was
mentioned on the call and just wanted to thank you for giving community members an opportunity to
be heard during the meeting members were muted and even though our votes were taken we weren't
able to come forth with our opinions just because we didn't live on the block. And as you can see,
um come forth with our opinions just because we didn't live on the block and as you can see
it is boarding homes it is empty so if i live a block over and i walk there i should be able to
have input um so just thank you for allowing that to to take place um and uh also i just wanted to
note it for the record that an actual um property owner of the block was not allowed to vote during
in the meeting. So again, just thank you for allowing community voices to be heard, whether
they're for or whether they're against, just making the forum open. So thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Chair, we have Ms. Sheila Howard. I will allow her to speak right now. Thank you.
yes good morning good morning can you please identify yourself for the record please
name and address howard s -h -e -i -l -a last name h -o -w -a -r -d
i just wanted to you sort of firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I'm sorry. Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I just wanted to say I attended the last RCO meeting held and I did participate in the vote. It was a unanimous yes vote. And that vote did not entail anything about a reduction in the size of the units.
So we voted on a triplex.
It included the provision with the trash receptacle in the front.
And I concur with the previous testimony that one of the residents of the block was asked to leave before the vote was taken, although he is a resident on the block.
And I questioned that action and was told that the RCO determines who can do whatever.
So I wanted to go on the record for that.
And the church, which is Eagle Swings Ministries, which is pastored by Pastor Lola, she actually invited me to the call.
And again, I live a block away, but I'm very active in the community.
And so we are very much in support of more development on that block, a lot of vacant lots. We encourage the comeback of 17th Street. It is really important. And I just wanted to go on record as being one in support and a part of a unanimous vote. Yes.
Thank you. Anyone else?
No further hands at this time.
Thank you. Does the board have any questions? No.
Planning Commission? No. Thank you.
I'm Paula Brumblow -Burns with the Planning Commission.
I first want to address a comment that was made by the attorney.
If you want to file a complaint against an RCO, you need
to contact the RCO coordinator for the proper action and not necessarily harp or break keep
bringing it up here the complaint needs to go through the planning commission not through
the zoning board and our recommendation is the property is indicated for residential use on the
city plan the north district plan recommended that this block be zoned rm1 given the plan
recommendation we recommended that the requested variances be granted thank you okay
Calendar number MI 2020 -002709 -3410.
Excuse me, Mr. Paulson, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm afraid that I gave you the wrong information.
The trash enclosure is shown on the revised plans.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2020 -002709 -3410, North 17th Street.
my vote is yes with proviso revised plans three pages approved today my vote is yes with proviso
yes with proviso yes with proviso good luck thank you very much members of the board thank you okay
let's see bear with me one second
All right.
The final items on today's agendas are read MI 2021 -00086.
2021 -000875. Also MI 2020 -000876 and MI 2021 -000904. It is 198 San Mayor Lane, right? Or
It's both properties.
It's 10090.
Thank you.
Is that it?
These are an appeal
against L &I.
So we will ask
all the attorneys for all parties
including the city, please raise
your hands and so that you can be promoted to panelists uh when called up please identify
yourself and your clients for the record okay i want to also remind every uh every party involved
that this is an appeal against l and i and uh stick to uh you know all your points be
make sure it's uh it's to the appeal against l and i okay i uh we will we will allow
mr plaus if i could suggest that each um attorney put their name on the record
and um identify who they represent and also be sworn in yes okay who's up first
First, David Orfanides from Orfanides and Toner. Paul Toner is also here with me, my partner. We represent the Busselton Civic League.
Thank you, Mr. Orfanides. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. And then also, please, Mr. Toner as well.
I do as well.
Thank you.
Next. Good morning, members of the board. My name is Joseph Cattuzzi of Stradley Ronan. I represent
Sandmeyer Steel Company. Thank you. And do you swear on a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
for nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Mr. Primavera, I believe you are up. Yes. Good
morning. Carl Primavera. I'm representing Relteva LLC and its affiliate, Commercial Development
Corporation, which is the owner of the property, and a tenant, UPS, and with me, who will be
operating any technology, is my colleague, Stephanie Gray, as well. Thank you. And do you
swear on the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.
And now, I believe Mr. Reuter, and if he could identify the other attorneys from the law
department who will be appearing in this matter yes thank you uh good morning members of the board
leonard f reuter uh reuter senior attorney representing the uh city of philadelphia
through the department of licenses and inspections i'm joined by my colleagues
today maggie white uh who is here as a panelist and also elizabeth okapu who i do not see as a
panelists so if you could promote her um we have two witnesses but i guess you don't real quick do
you run a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you please
proceed um and we do have uh two potential witnesses i believe um miss aleta may explain
how we're going to go forward in this particular case today so um at the appropriate time i think
that they can be sworn in at the point um okay okay i believe that we're beginning today with
each an attorney for each party um summarizing very brief summary limited to five minutes
of the points that you will be making summarize your arguments um we'll then move on to um a bit
out of order mr reuter will be um presenting the city's case with regard to he'll be presenting
the materials that were submitted to the examiner and he will be calling Ms. Chelle de Hall, the
examiner, to testify. The other parties will then have an opportunity to cross -examine her
and we'll go on from there to see what happens after that, whether we have additional time left.
Thank you.
um before we proceed i do not see shelly she was signed on earlier
okay um i will try to reach her and
Okay. I will try to reach her and make sure she gets back on.
Because I did not know that she was not here because when we were, if you're not a panelist, you cannot see who the participants or the attendees are.
So I would have contacted her.
I'm sorry.
I did check earlier.
She was signed on.
I promoted her to panelists, but I'm not sure what had happened.
uh okay let me uh all right since each party will be given five minutes um mr orphanetes or
mr toner which of you will be if one of you could start and then mr katuzzi i'll get started
um good morning members of the board uh david orphanetes again for the greater bus specifically
League. We are here on case – our particular appeal is HA -2021 -000899, MI -2021 -00065.
We filed two appeals of two permits. One was Zoning Permit 2020 -010545. The other one was
zoning permit 2020 -000653. My understanding is that both of those appeals are consolidated into
our single appeal number and meeting ID case number. Again, I am here, or we are here,
partner Paul Turner and I are here on behalf of the Greater Busselton Civic League. The Greater
Busselton Civic League is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation with a registered business address
of 9980 Haldeman Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19115. The Greater Busselton
Civic League is a registered community organization in accordance with Title 14,
Section 1430311A of the Zoning Code. And per their – both their bylaws and the information
that's been provided and approved to the Planning Commission, their border runs to the south side
of Red Lion Road, which is directly across from the main property involved here, which
is 1 Red Lion Road.
Their constituents and their residents and their members live to the south, directly
across the street to the south of the subject property.
Along Red Lion Road, there are boundaries, I believe, run from the border with Montgomery
Avenue over to Roosevelt Boulevard.
um it's our position that uh you'll hear our argument you know in my opening and then our
presentation of our case throughout the hearings in this matter that there are a significant number
of members residents uh constituents of the greater busselton civic league that own property
live work uh across the street from in close proximity to the subject premises and there
they will be negatively impacted seriously materially by the proposed development of the
subject property as approved. Excuse me, Mr. Irfanides, I'm sorry to interrupt, but rather
than going into the standing arguments, you have three more minutes to summarize all of the
substantive arguments. Not a problem. Thank you. Not a problem. I wanted to establish that part of
it. So there, you know, our case is set forth in great detail in the appeals that were filed with
the board. I'd ask that the board take the time to read them at some point if they have not already
done so, because I can't get through it all in five minutes. But essentially, our position is
that the applicants did not properly identify the proposal in their application. Their plans
are defective. They did not completely follow the CDR process as required by the code.
this project did have to go through cdr that part of the process of the permitting process was
defective and in the end what was approved this property is zoned i2 and what was approved was
not an i2 permitted use for either either of the two properties one red lion road or uh 198 sand
Meyer Lane. The use is a use that is not permitted. You will hear it's not permitted in I -2.
Fortunately, the examiner probably wouldn't have been able to figure that out from the materials
that were submitted to her. And as a result, it's our position that, first of all, this permit
should not have been, neither permit should have been granted by right by the Department of Licenses
and Inspections. And in addition, it's our position that given the location of the subject
property and the property surrounding it, this property is improperly zoned as an I2
classified property, particularly if a use such as what is presently proposed and has been approved.
particularly if a use such as what is presently proposed and has been approved by these permits
is to be permitted at this property. And obviously that is a very, very brief synopsis of what our
case is. Thank you. Mr. Cattuzzi. Good morning again, members of the board. My name is Joseph
I represent Sandmeyer Steel Company. And briefly in five minutes, what we have here is Sandmeyer
Steel is appealing the same zoning permits that Mr. Orphan -ED has described. To provide in a
nutshell what's happening is we have a site and a project that's located along Redline Road. It's
up in the far northeast district of Philadelphia, pretty much against the border of Philadelphia
and Montgomery County. And we have two lots. You have on the one hand this one Redline Road lot.
It's a large swath of land.
It's nearly 130 acres inside, and it is located and sits directly on Redline Road.
The road goes out into Montgomery County and down to Philadelphia.
And then on the other hand, we have 198 Sam Meyer Lane.
That sits at the end of the bulb of a cul -de -sac that goes up and around and behind the one
Redline Road parcel.
In comparison, it's substantially smaller.
It's about one acre, 1 .3 acres, 1 .4 acres in size.
So nearly 100 times smaller than one red line road.
Sandmeyer Steel Company is located at the base of that cul -de -sac that the 198 Sandmeyer Lane property is located.
Sandmeyer Steel has been there since the foundation, since the inception of the Sandmeyer Lane cul -de -sac.
It has seen the development and the growth of the Sandmeyer Lane cul -de -sac, as well as the changes in the community over time.
So again, we're appealing two permits.
You have a zoning use permit as well as a unity of use permit.
And we're appealing them for essentially the following reasons.
First, the uses that are proposed are not permitted under the zoning code.
We agree with the Civics Association that really it's more properly in terms of its
intensity and I -3 zoning classification.
But more specifically, as we point out in our zoning, in our appeal applications, there
there are certain uses that are explicitly prohibited by the Far Northeast Overlay Zoning
District, and those prohibit truck stops, fueling facilities, commercial vehicle repair and
maintenance use, and that's a significant component of what the applicant in this case
has requested. So what we'll demonstrate is that both the zoning law as well as case law prohibits
certain uses, really all the uses that are being proposed. Secondly, we believe in particular the
proposed use of 198 Sam Meyer Lane as a driveway is improper. And just to provide the board with
very, very brief context, again, we have that large swath of land that's about 130, 129 acres
in size, and sitting right on top of it is just a one acre lot. And the only use of that one acre
lot, 198 Sam Meyer Lane, is a driveway to service what is proposed to be a million square foot
building for UPS. And we believe that use of that driveway at the end of the cul -de -sac and that one
lot is not allowed because it's an accessory use that is not located on the same lot as the
principal uses that it otherwise serves. It's not allowed because it's a driveway that's servicing
prohibited uses. And it's also not allowed because it exceeds the development capacity for that
small one acre lot. You know, respectfully, one simply cannot fit the intensity and the size of
what they're proposing to do on one red line road on such a small lot that serves as the end of a
cul -de -sac of a small industrial community that's been there for nearly half a century, for many
decades. And thirdly, what has occurred here is effectively a subdivision. We have, in essence,
the changing of lot lines for the sole purpose of making substantial improvements.
Respectfully, that is the definition of a subdivision.
And Sam Meyer Steel Company would appeal to the planning prerogatives
that would be in place by the subdivision process
to protect the transformation of such a tiny lot at the end of a cul -de -sac
into such effectively a massive parcel.
So that in a nutshell is our appeal
and it's further explained in our materials.
So we look forward to walking you through
in some more details.
Thank you.
Who's next?
Mr. Primavera would you like to present next? I'll defer to Len Reuter unless he wants me to go
I'll defer to Len Reuter unless he wants me to go first.
first. Well I was going to suggest
Well, I was going to suggest that since we are beginning with Mr. Reuter presenting his case and calling Chelly DeHal that maybe he could include his summary as he begins his presentation.
Fine. That's a great idea.
So, again, Carl Primavera with me is Stephanie Gray, who's going to assist with any technology issues.
We represent the owner of the subject properties, RELTIVA LLC.
It's an affiliate of CDC, Commercial Development Corporation, which is the property owner, and UPS is the tenant.
We are, I guess, as a matter of status, intervening appellees.
We, in fact, are the owner and tenant, respectively, and the zoning permits which were issued by the city are for our benefit.
As you've heard, the property is zoned I -2, and it's industrial, and we will assert and prove that the use of the property is for that purpose.
Previously, the property had been owned by Teva Pharmaceutical.
It had received similar permits by L &I for a transportation warehouse distribution center.
Unfortunately, it never started construction on the building, although I think some site
work had been done.
Previously, and perhaps as an original use, it was the bud plant, and it was the famous
bud plant where they manufactured and serviced rail cars.
So the history of this property has long been affiliated with industrial use.
Our uses include a variety of permitted uses, warehouse, accessory maintenance, and fueling
solely for our vehicles, accessory, other activities, which would include business
office and things of that nature. All of the uses, which are either principal uses or accessory uses
are for our purposes. So the prohibitions against gas stations or mechanic stations
or other activities really don't apply because everything we're doing is related to the owner
and operator of the proposed UPS facility on the site. There's an interesting background here.
If you look at the situation, we are fronting Sandmeyer Lane, so we have every right to use that
as we see appropriate. We have received all our approvals from all of the prerequisite agencies,
including Streets Department. We have everything in place with planning, with water. So there's
nothing that's a defect or imperfection in either our permitting process or the permits which we
currently have in our possession. We went through CDR. You'll see in the CDR documentation it was
lengthy. In 40 years, I have not had a case with more civic engagement and with more process
involved in every city agency. I think the fact that people are unhappy with the use
doesn't mean that it's an illegal or improper use. Quite the contrary, we're providing an
opportunity to take a long abandoned industrial property and turn it into a thousand new living
wage jobs with all of the services that apparently people now desire so that they can get their
products delivered to their door. So we don't believe that there's any imperfection in any of
the many or multitude of objections raised by the Protestants. We also will have a running
objection, which we'll get to later as to standing. This is an appeal of a permit. And we do not
believe that either Sandmeyer or the Busselton League have any interest in real estate where
they're complaining that we're doing something on their property. The streets involved are city
streets. They're used by the city. They're used by the public. To the extent that these protestants
or appellants are objecting, they're objecting the way anybody would object, saying too much
traffic on the road. If that becomes the test of permits, then this city will be closed for
business. And I just want to remind the board that as technologies come online, clearly we need to
find next generation facilities so this is far less intrusive than the bud company we don't
manufacture anything and it's really something that will be as you'll see from our exhibits
nicely fit within its own campus and provide no adverse impact so thank you
thank you and mr plaza if you agree um mr reuter could present next um beginning
with a brief summary of the actions taken by the city
and testimony by Ms. DeHal.
um testimony by mr hall thank you please proceed uh thank you again leonard reuter for the city of
Thank you.
Please proceed.
philadelphia um first i want to apologize for not being on camera i am at my home office i don't have
a camera here and was unable to go into the city office where my camera is set up but since i'll
probably be sharing documents most of the time that uh i'm presenting it you don't need to see
me anyway i don't think uh so um and i do want to again mention that i am joined by my colleagues
elizabeth okapu and also um maggie white who are also here um i understand you probably don't want
two different attorneys or three different attorneys asking questions from the same side
so um but they they will be uh they're here watching and uh you know just to let you know
So in terms of the city's case here in defense of the permit that was issued by Wright, I'm largely just going to echo what Mr. Primavera said.
Basically, the uses are permitted.
In fact, the uses of the property, there are two main uses here, neither of which, in fact, is even our industrial use.
They are permitted in the district, in the zoning district classification here, which is I2.
But the two main uses are warehouse storage distribution, which is a separate use category from industrial use, and the second use is for trucking and terminal.
With respect to those two uses, everything that's being done on the property, the city reviewed it.
Plans examiner, as you'll hear, the plans examiner reviewed it.
There were some discussions that were had, and it was determined that, in particular, the vehicle repair and maintenance on site is subsumed within the main use of trucking terminal, and therefore the overlay does not apply to that.
They're not servicing commercial vehicles in the sense that they're not operating a shop that has other people bringing in, third parties bringing in vehicles and doing repairs or maintenance of it.
Also, again, as we'll bring out, this is even the vehicle fueling station restriction under the far northeast overlay definitely does not apply here because that that is explicitly restrict the vehicle fueling station is explicitly defined as a facility that does retail sales of fuels.
so that's not happening here regardless of how you look at it so that that part of the restriction
clearly does not apply and opposing counsel is just simply wrong about that with respect to the
other issue 99 of this case and I've been trying to explain this with with counsel and previously
is legal argument we have plans that were submitted the plans were reviewed plans examiner
and Ellen and I made a determination that the permit could be issued.
Opposed, the appellants are arguing that the permit should not have been issued,
that there was a misinterpretation.
We're not talking about, leaving aside apparently some allegations
that there were defects in the plans themselves,
the question of whether or not there was a misinterpretation of the code is a legal question.
So, you know, basically you have plans that were submitted.
I think everybody can stipulate that the plans that we're going to show you are accurate and that the permit was, in fact, issued.
And therefore, the permit speaks for itself that the city made a determination that it could be issued.
So I think we believe that the factual testimony here can be very, very limited.
What needs to happen is we just need to get the plans and the permit in the record.
And then the rest of it is legal argument.
So with that, I'm going to then call Chelly DeHall as my first witness, and I'm going to simply introduce the documents through her.
And just as a pro tip, if people could mute if you're not currently speaking.
So Chelly DeHall, and I will need her to be sworn in.
Hi, this is Chelly.
Mr. Hall, could you please spell your name for the record?
C -H -E -L -I -D -A -H -A -L
Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Can you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Hall. Do you work for the City of Philadelphia?
With what department?
L &I License and Inspection.
Okay, and what is your job title?
Civil Engineer.
civil engineer too. Okay. And are you also, are you a plans examiner for zoning plans?
Okay, and are you also...
Lance, I'm sorry. I have to, I meant we were having problems as far as getting on and off mute
before. Members of the board, before we get started with this, there's how many members
of the board present right now? Four, correct? That's correct. Okay. And, you know, I understand
that um chairman tachiko may be joining us at some point um you know given the the nature of
this case um given the parties that are involved um we would just like to make sure that the parties
are moving forward understanding that um we're basically agreeing to moving forward with the
four board members mr tico will be joining that there won't be any objections raised at some point
that regarding the need for regarding the need for five members to to be present to vote the case
regarding the number of members necessary to vote the case excuse me there three members is a quorum
we do have a quorum present the board members who this is obviously going to go to a second hearing
board members who are not present for all or part of this hearing will have the opportunity to view
the video prior to participating they will confirm on the record certified that they have done so
and right we just want to make sure nobody's going to object to the fact that the process
that you've laid out will be a ground for an objection to the proceeding and the vote by the
members doing so um yeah we are we all in agreement that we want to make sure that there's not an
objection later raised to what's how we're proceeding right now well i i what sharon was
sharing again since we have a quorum if at some point one of the attorneys or parties wants to
make an objection they can do so at the point when it becomes relevant thank you all right we just we
raised the objection you know we object to that being raised at the future time if we're going to
move forward with this now so thank you hi okay um again leonard reuter uh just before i go on
with charlie i just want to i confess i'm not entirely sure what mr orphanetes is talking about
but i do want to make it clear as i did before that it is very unusual for the city to go first
in an appeal against l and i i just want it known for the record um we're going to go ahead and do
it at request of counsel for the zoning board however um just so it's clear this does not in
any way shift any burdens it does not provide an opportunity for appellants to then bring in
rebuttal testimony since again uh this it is it would be it is the appellant's obligation to
establish their case and establish uh the record uh going forward first and again we could have
avoided all of this had council all simply stipulated to the accuracy of the documents
that that we provided to everybody um so with that i will go forward just so len just to clarify i
mean just to clarify the objection is i mean what we're what we want to we would like their
stipulation to be that that parties aren't going to object to the chairman voting this case at some
point later that's that's fine I have no yeah there's I'm not going to object that's what I'm
saying will everybody stipulate to that that's what we have on the record that you object to
future objections um as for the order of testimony um just to be clear this is something that I
discussed with the board the call on how the proceeding was theirs not mine alone um and
there is no change in the burden of proof of course thank you and again I just want I know
that that we had talked about that prior i just want to make sure that that was now in the record
so uh with that i'll proceed um and sharon just to be clear there's no limitation on rebuttal
witnesses either based upon the manner which we're proceeding i assume that all of your witnesses can
be characterized as rebuttal witnesses well again the the reason why i raised that point is because
to date busselton civic league has not identified a single witness um so and with and i'm going to
disagree to that point okay well other than this is sharon i i there are going to be many procedural
issues that arise in this but if we could simply go forward with mr hall's testimony for right now
please okay thank you uh getting back to you uh mr hall uh again we just established i think that
You are a plans examiner with the city.
How long have you been doing that?
10 years.
10 years, okay.
I'm sorry?
13, okay.
Thank you.
With respect to the matter here, did you review plans that were submitted to develop for, I'm sorry, an application and plans to develop a property at one Red Lion Road?
With respect to the matter here, did you...
And also, did you review plans and application materials for a property at 10098 Sandmeyer Lane?
Okay. Are these properties adjoining?
Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, are they both owned by the same entity?
Okay. Now I'm going to try to share my screen here.
Now there were two permits in this. There were a couple actually permit applications that were submitted. Is that correct?
Okay, I'm going to show you a document here. Do you recognize this?
Yeah, I do.
Okay, let me see if I can.
All right, is that better?
Can you see that?
Yeah, I can see that.
okay let me see if i can it's okay i can see that okay um and what is this what do you
you recognize and what is this what is this for and this is for the warehouse and the
parking terminal one of the menus and then this is out of the property line which i have swing
this is the this is the boundary line is the property line okay and let me uh can you see
the little hand moving around yes okay so you so this is the if we this large area here that's
the property line is that right okay and this is red line road down here yeah red line road and is
this sandmeyer lane that comes up here yeah okay and that extends off the plan and comes back down
to here is that right right so this little this property here the smaller uh part that juts out
here that is is that one uh zero zero nine eight sand myer lane yeah i just i just want to be
careful about i'm going to just have a minor objection here about just being careful about
leading mr hall because i understand we have limitations because she can't you know physically
look at the plan but we could keep the questions less excuse me this is sharon saletta it is an
administrative hearing, the formal rules of evidence do not apply, but your objection is
noted for the record. Thank you. Thank you. And again, the larger lot, what is that address?
One red line road. One red line road. Okay. So with the proposal here was to develop
these two parcels together. Is that right? Right. You need your feelings. Okay. And again,
And when you say unity of use, what do you mean by that?
You can use the both lot as a use, like unity of use.
And again, in this instance, both of these lots are owned by the same entity?
And the applications were submitted by the same party?
Yes, same party.
Okay. So, what is the zoning classification for the property?
Okay. And the use proposed here, what were the uses that were proposed?
Warehouse distribution, trucking terminal.
That being used.
Okay. And are those uses permitted in I2?
Okay. And were there any, to the best of your recollection, were there any
issues regarding the dimensions or any setbacks or any of those kinds of
issues involved in this? No. Okay. And in terms of
the submission of the plans, were there any problems with the plans that were submitted?
Yes, they changed the plans. I'm sorry? They have changed the plans.
The plans were changed. So, okay. So, but the plans that, the revised plans, were those also in conformity with the code?
Okay. And based upon your review of the plans and the proposed uses, did you make a determination that the permit could be issued?
Was there any, okay. And at the time you understood that there would be
Okay. And at the time, you understood that there would be some vehicle repair and maintenance and some fueling of vehicles on the site?
Yes, but that was like accessory use. That was not for the public.
And as a definition, trucking and terminal, as for Section 14601 -10i, it allows minor repair only for the main use.
auto repair and the gas station only for the main use not for the public okay um and based upon that
and uh did you make a determination again that uh the permit could be issued yes and the permit
and and the permit was issued and it was a paid for and picked up by the applicant yes okay i have
further questions. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me go back. Let me just show you very quickly. I'm going to
skip to a smaller screen so I can do something very quickly.
So this is one of the plans that was submitted for zoning permit 2020 -000653.
and again
and would you agree that this is a an accurate uh true and accurate copy of the plans that you
reviewed i have you like on 13th of january was the correct one okay the application because
Because after the CVDGEN, they have to put the comment, and then that was the correct
Okay, let me just see what the date is of this one.
This is the combined.
It looks like this revision was April 20th of 2020.
No, I have a stamp on 13th of January.
and see this was also that is for the stamp that's the stamp from the streets department
yes okay all right thank you I'm going to show you another document then
this is uh appears to be zoning permit plan or plan 2020 -010545
Let me just see if I can close up on this.
And these were again submitted by these rezoning plans that were submitted to the department.
it? Ms. Dahl, are these plans that you reviewed? Yes. Okay, thank you.
And do you recognize this? Yeah, I do. Okay, and what is this?
This is the unit of use permit, I guess, yeah.
Okay. And this is the permit that basically allows the proposed uses covering both parcels, okay?
And this is another permit. Do you recognize this one?
yeah this is for the new construction okay so this is the this is the the the zoning permit
that allows the construction yes okay thank you um and do you agree that all the documents that
you've looked at are true and accurate copies that are in the possession of the department
licenses and inspections yes and these were all submitted by the way through the eclipse system
And your review of them was, you looked at the electronic version of the plans, or did
you review paper plans?
Electronics.
So these are, in fact, not really copies.
They are, in fact, the original plans.
Original, yes.
Thank you.
Now, again, I have no further questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
but obviously I reserve the right for redirect.
That is by the way, the city's case in its entirety
and we will reserve the right for a rebuttal
either by recalling Mr. Hall
or and or other witnesses as necessary.
Thank you. Would Mr. Orphanides or Toner or Mr. Cattuzzi like to go first, cross -examining the witness?
Thank you.
I can go.
I believe Mr. Primavera may have, if he wants to, I would think that he would be able to ask Mr. Hall some questions, but that's up to them.
I'll wait until the other council have inquired.
Fine, thank you.
all right may i share my screen
everybody see i have the plan up in front
yeah mr hall how are you doing today
I'm doing okay.
All right. And just to be clear for the record, I don't know that there's
maybe any of the attorneys on this call that don't deal with Ms. Dahal in the line of what we
do on a regular basis. I submit applications. I have applications that are reviewed and permits
that are issued by mr hall um if there are any objections uh to my examining mr hall at this
time i'd like to hear them um but again i believe all of us have dealings with their and as well as
other examiners at lni uh through the course of other applications we submit to lni um for other
clients uh mr hall you stated that uh you've been a plans examiner uh with lni uh for 13 years
correct and that's all that's been as a zoning plans examiner or yes and have you
was that your only job you've had with l and i have you had any other jobs before that with l and i
no okay all right and um as a as a plans examiner this application was submitted through eclipse
when? Do you know when? 2020. Oh, sorry. I don't remember the date.
I would assume if it was submitted via Eclipse, it would have been submitted sometime after,
I think it was the middle of March of 2020. Maybe April 2020, I guess. April 2020.
Okay. All right. So it was not originally submitted by paper application and then converted over to Eclipse at any time. Correct. Okay. So it came in through Eclipse and that's how it was reviewed.
okay and do you have a copy or do you do you know
the application that was originally submitted um have you provided those documents
to counsel to mr reuter the application the application language and the actual plans that
were originally submitted because i believe your testimony was these are revised plans correct
Yeah, got it.
Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, when somebody submits an application via CLIPS,
there's a box, a dialogue box, where they can enter what the application is for,
and then there's places for them to upload plans and any other documents they may have.
They want to have L &I to review as part of that application, is that correct?
Correct, yes.
And can you tell us, first of all, what was set forth in that application box as far as what was applied for, being applied for, or, and or, did they upload an actual, some other written document that described what was being applied for?
They have the description in the detail, what they apply for.
Everything is in the original application.
Maybe it is under this application number, GP2020 -000653.
Everything would be under that application number, not the new construction one.
Everything is there.
So you're saying that if we look at permit number 00653?
If you go to the Eclipse, you can find all the documents, what they applied, when they
applied, we have all the information in there.
So I have in front of me, and this is exhibit seven from our exhibit book, this is zoning
permit zp 2020 000653 can you see that up on my screen
zp 2020 000653 can you see that up on my screen yes that was the original application
all right so i'm so i'm you said that that's how the application came in that was the original
application number assigned to the application yes but two two permits were issued correct
got it okay and but the two permits that come out at the back end are based upon an original
application with the number zp 2020 000653 yes that was the original so the original
when the matter was first assigned an application number that was the application number it was not
ZP 2020 -01 -0545.
That's just for the permit.
That is for the new construction permit.
That was the original one.
ZP 2020 -00 -0653 was the original one.
Right for the unit of use and the new construction
for the warehouse distribution and terminal.
And then you see the one permit.
This is the original one for the unit of use.
Second one I created for the new construction.
So there was no application ZP2020 -010545, just the permit that was issued with that number coming out of the application 000653, correct?
They put everything in the original application.
They put new construction and the unit of use under 000653.
and then after that I have to clear the child application when I issue the
unit if used permit for the new construction. Okay so the question I so the question I have if
you're so I understand what you're stating you're stating that their details the written description
of the project the application of what they applied for is only what was set forth is only
what set forth on the zoning permit 2020 000653 yes this is the permit number yeah
okay so and this is the exact sorry back to that
and you're you're saying your testimony today is
where under the heading approved development that's the exact language that was utilized
by the applicant in the details of what was being applied for.
And then somewhere in there, they had the approved uses.
I'm trying to find out what exact language they used.
And I believe your testimony today is the exact language they used
is what's set forth in 00653.
That is the same thing.
They apply for the new constructs, unity fuse, and both.
Election of one is a restructure
and the warehouse and distribution,
trucking terminals, all they apply with the same application.
I have more big language because I have to issue the format.
They write everything in application and they apply.
so what i'm trying to get at mr hall is that we're trying to discern what was actually applied
for not necessarily what the permits were that you issued but the language the language that
the applicant used when they submitted to you they apply the same thing they apply they use
this exact same language as appears at 000653 maybe language could be a little bit changed but
they apply for the same thing what they apply all right so what i'm trying to find out is do you
have can you provide to the board provide to your attorney to provide to counsel under the board
the exact language that was submitted with the application okay for this project okay sure
you you have it now i don't have it but i can provide it later okay and can you say today
whether that was something that was just entered in a dialog box on Eclipse or whether that was
and or whether that was provided in some type of PDF that was uploaded to Eclipse along with the
plans and whatever else was uploaded with the original application. Can you can you tell us
What was that today?
They apply with the plans and application was written in the detail tab where you apply.
where you apply and it was applied both you need to use and new construction and the usage
And it was applied both.
You need to use and...
and they then all the required documents they uploaded in the eclipse the original one as
for their plan and the application i have sent to the civic design after tv design they have
changed little bit plan they uploaded and then i have issued the permit right so you're saying
the original application was what they was what they typed into the text box in eclipse
and then one set of drawings that was what was submitted originally correct got it and uh the
plans that mr reuter was referencing which i'm going to pull up here which are included in my
exhibit book at tab eight um if i if i could interject uh just briefly uh and again uh mr
orfanides or mr toner when did you send over the exhibit book to the zoning board last last
thursday what's that to do you send that to all council i mean i'm not saying you didn't i'm just
trying to oh we we had it we had it no we did not you you did not send it to no to us no
can you provide that now yeah yeah i can forward it i can forward you i mean it's
part of the record now so hold on a second would you like me to email you that's fine thank you
so i can email you a link uh yeah probably a link because it looks like it's large and it
won't get through our email system i apologize i apologize mr reuter i thought i did forward
you a copy of that i don't believe so but um i will double check and also check with uh because uh
um ms okapua and ms white uh should have been copied on everything i'll also ask
uh either of them if they received it thank you okay would the board like me to take this time
right now to email this to mr reuter there's no need to do that mr orifanidis i'll take care of
it right now thank you just sent them uh sharon i just sent it to them as well okay thank you
okay at least to carl and leonard and then you can forward it to their other attorneys
sorry about that everybody um so mr hall um yeah still getting used to the
using this the zoom so uh mr reuter these are these are the plans that we agree these are the
plans that mr reuter was referring to earlier um they show a stamp similarly show a stamp by
streets dated April 29th. They're similarly dated April 20th, 2020.
So these look like the plans that you stamped and approved with the permit 010545.
There are two kind of points. One was issue and then after that they amend the application
as per the permit language as per civic design review and they uploaded another plan and then
i on january 13th i have stamped the emanate plan that would be the correct one 13th of january
mr reuter would you mind i'm i'm now slightly confused because i believe this is the plan that
you forwarded to us we forwarded sorry we forwarded uh two sets of plans uh and the two permits
and that was what i received from uh the department
and actually i believe they were also attached to your appeal right so the the ones that the
ones that you had up earlier were were the ones that were ultimately approved by the permit
correct that's my interest that that's my understanding yes and can you i i'm i'm not
testifying here and no i understand i understand i mean we so just to be clear i mean provided
these documents the end of last week and just so the board understands back in october we provided
a right to know request to lni and we were finally after considerable delays were uh provided the
uh provided the documents 300 approximately 300 documents last thursday which we haven't had
documents, 300, approximately 300 documents last Thursday.
necessarily at the time the process so um but i'm trying to get out of here mr paul i'm gonna have
to object to the discussion of that this is the first uh and i'm hearing or anybody's hearing
about a right to know request from busselton civic league regarding these documents of whatever
documents you obtained uh and again i should also say that right to know is not supposed to be used
for matters uh in uh that are in litigation so um uh but uh you know so the point is this again
mr hall so i'm just going to ask the question are these the plans that you approved or not
i have an objection what's that i have an objection out there yeah i don't want any discussion uh or
introduction of documents uh related or anything related to a right to know request that we were
never notified about uh in relation to this matter which i believe this appeal has been outstanding
for quite some time uh the right to know request was submitted before the appeals the permits were
issued and the appeals were filed.
It's just when the city finally
responded to it.
But in any event, I'm not
utilizing those documents right now.
I'm utilizing the documents that
one of the documents you provided
to us.
And I'm asking
Mr. Hall, which one is this?
I don't
actually remember because it's so hard to read. I can provide you later if you want to
because it is in the Eclipse. If you go to this application number GP2020 -010545,
the last one, this is the combined one, that is the latest one. That is the amended plan.
i'm sorry say that again mr hall if you go to the application number cp 2020 -010545
when you say go to the application number i don't understand what it what you mean
in the eclipse i i can't i can't do that i'm not the app i wasn't the applicant okay
so you know i'm you know this is a little bit of a drawback to you know using zoom because normally
i could use the exhibits that mr reuter had put up we could work off the same one so now i've got
to go back and i apparently have i have to document what which which plan we're looking at right now
um if i could interject uh not an object but interject here uh we may be able to or one of my
co -councils may be able to on redirect share her screen that can show the actual eclipse record
because again the public access I agree the public access to the eclipse does not allow the public
to actually look at all the background documents you're just simply getting a record of what was
issued and what was not so we we may be able to show the eclipse screens that indicate
uh what was on the original application just so we can explain to the board
um and i i don't think there'll be any objection to this but um let me know if there is when you
when you submit an application by eclipse you're basically just filling out an electronic form
there is no application in the old sense where we can say here's a piece of paper this is an
application that was filled out and this is what we reviewed that's not really how it works anymore
it's not how lots of things many things in the world don't work that way anymore everything is
electronic and everything is just a matter of the fact of an application having been submitted is
is just a an electronic record of the fact that there was an application but we may be able to
show uh how the application uh well i mean so again if you want us to try to do that now we
no no i think you need to i think i mean first of all you know when we i mean last week you had
indicated you provided us with all the information regarding the application and the and the permits
and approved plans that were issued um seeming that i mean i've received two sets of drawings
i'm thinking that there may have actually been three sets of drawings at this point
and whatever this material is we would like that provided i mean you're now well again
And this wasn't provided five days in advance.
We were not obligated to provide anything.
We are the appellees.
our cases rebuttal entirely if so uh we had no obligation to provide any documents with documents
Our case is rebuttal entirely.
So we have...
we did provide uh was gratuitous but nevertheless and again there is no application form to provide
i mean at best we can show you we can we could have sent a screenshot i suppose but we can show
the board that now i don't think you can do it that way with the zoom proceeding because they
have no way to capture that for the record so this entire thing is being recorded i i understand but
that's not how it's going to go up to that's not how it's going to go up to the courts if there's
an appeal i'm not going to review video um this is sharon they will actually but that's what it
would be possible for you mr reuter since there is going to be a second hearing um any document
that we can a screenshot that you think that's fine and again we explained this to uh all council
previously all council who are very well experienced in how eclipse works and you know again i i don't
think there's any dispute about what this application was for what the plans were that
were submitted we've now we've only got one hour left in this hearing and all we've been talking
about is an application or a the the existence of the fact that something was applied for
and plans that absolutely nobody is disputing and we we now have one hour left i mean i'm sorry
you rushing me through this case i mean are you do you have an objection is there any no is there
any dispute about the plans that were approved or what the oh yeah oh there will be but i haven't
gotten there yet. I'm trying to figure out what was applied for and then what came what came in
and what came out the and what came through the process and what came out through the out the
other end. Well this is primavera and I do have a running objection because Mr. Orphanides filed
an appeal with 20 objections. He must have seen something in order to raise so many objections
and now he has the witness that he can explore those objections and we're running time and quite
frankly this is expensive with legal time and it's abusive to the board i'm gonna i'd like an
offer of proof i'll object to that characterization offer let's have an offer of proof as to what he
wants this witness to answer and see if it's relevant but i think that we have two appeals
by two prominent attorneys with multiple objections and attachments of exhibits from
the city, which they are complaining about. Let's talk about that now. And then if and when we come
back, we'll have more exhibits that they can look at. But it just seems to me that there must have
been a lot of information that they examined in order to come up with such lengthy and detailed
appeals. Let's talk about their objections. And I'm getting to that, but obviously everybody
wants a foundation. And I'm also trying to get to what that part is. So I object to being rushed
through my case. It'll take as long as it'll take. I'm aware and I'm respectful of the board's time
and everybody else's time. But this is a very important matter to my clients. And we're going
to go through this case as we need to, unless the board tells me to do otherwise. I mean, at this
point whatever so the foundation is there's a permit that was issued i don't know we don't know
exactly we have issues with the permit that was issued and the plans that were approved
so we're trying to figure out how it got to that point we also don't know that what was actually
applied you know when you put in an application you're supposed to put in what you apply for
which we don't have we never have had because we're not the applicant and this came in through
a clip. So unless we provide an association code, we wouldn't have access to it. So the question is,
there's a lot of questions as to what was applied for here. What was represented to LNI, to this
examiner, as what was being applied for? Because part of our case, a large part of our case is
that there was a mischaracterization of the use. So I'm trying to establish, at least to show
that the examiner was provided certain information regarding this application that really didn't
indicate what it was. They may have called it a duck, but it's not a duck, which we'll get into
later in the case. It was a gorilla. It was an elephant. Excuse me, counsel. Excuse me. Yes, sir.
Can you proceed on without having that information? I mean, I can go. I can keep going.
i was just like if she doesn't have it then which she ultimately says she doesn't have
we were then to that council her council was going to provide it i believe she said she
believe she said she was going to provide it on the next hearing next time um if i can interject
was going to provide it on the next hearing next time if i can interject
that's fine and i was ready to move on but mr reuter wanted to share the screen and i think
it should be submitted in advance we are submitting we are sending around uh pdf uh pdf converted
converted uh screenshots of the applications and those should be received by everybody including
Ms. Zunkit and Ms. Soletta within a few minutes.
And we could still share a screen, but, or I can even, but that's fine.
Mr. Reiter, is it possible before the next hearing for you to go through the Eclipse
records and take screenshots of anything that would not be available to anyone other than
That's what I just said.
That's what we're doing.
We're actually -
Oh, the entire -
We have been doing this while Mr. Orfanides has been talking.
and we like I said I can also we will send those and you know if we want you know obviously the
board will want to see screen see them and we'll share those or Mr. Orvanides can share those or
Mr. Primavera or you know whoever. Okay thank you. Yeah and real quickly in light of the Mr.
Reuters objections regarding the right to no request you know I'd like to ask and confirm
whether any other in light of that objection whether any documents any other documents are
being withheld from the parties or from the board whether if i missed the hall upon direction or
otherwise i again the city was not obligated to provide any documents to anyone there is no
discovery in administrative hearings the current emergency rules and regulations of the zoning
board require parties to submit documents to the board that they intend to use with the exception
of rebuttal materials five days prior to the hearing our entire case we are the appellees
this is an appeal against lni the city's case is a rebuttal case we were not obligated to provide
any documents the permits that are being appealed were attached to the appellant's own appeals
they were they and we have stipulated that those are uh maybe part of the record as as uh are will
are the plans so again there's if if the and i believe you know again that the uh appellant uh
the busselton civic league has requested a subpoena from the board uh which we have opposed
the board has not ruled on the subpoena so until unless and until the board does that there aren't
any other documents. But that being said, we basically have provided all of the relevant
documents here, which are the plans and the actual permits. And we will give you the screenshots of
what was in the Eclipse application thing, form, whatever it's called. Mr. Roy, you are correct.
We have an outstanding request for subpoenas that would include some or all of the documents that
have been provided plus additional documents. At this point, you make the statement that all
relevant documents are before us have been provided or before us we we don't know obviously
there is no discovery in these proceedings so part of this is for us to sort out how we got to where
we are and whether things were handled and done properly uh and whether the permit was issued
properly which is really really what about about what a lot of what our case is about here um it's
about the permit that was issued so mr hall if i can get back to what i was excuse me david if i
can interrupt for just one minute before you start um leonard are you agreeing on the record
that you will provide mr orphanetes with all of the um requested documents well again which
requested documents we will provide documents relevant to these uh to these applications again
yes i think there's a presumption that there's thousands of pages of documents that are involved
in this and there's not no so i never said that we will give you and i have explained uh ad nauseum
how eclipse applications work basic the best we can do is send screenshots which we are going to
do so that's it so and eclipse or specific this is not a phishing expedition if there are specific
documents that they want tell me what they are and we will try to provide them unless there's
some reason why we believe that they need to be confidential listen and mr orphanetes would you
in turn be willing to provide the other parties copies of whatever information you received in
response to the right to know request yeah sure yeah okay no problem thank you i mean again we
We just got it, you know, last Thursday after waiting six months for it.
So, and following up and being, extensions being requested by the city repeatedly.
You know, with that being said, you know, there is no discovery.
You know, with that being said, you know, there is no discovery. There are no depositions. I did check with the board solicitor to confirm that they would not issue subpoenas for depositions. And this is not a phishing expedition. We're providing, we're attempting to secure information. So the board, and it's very relevant and germane to our case.
There are no depositions.
um and i need we need to know basically we need to know what was reviewed by this examiner
so if you go to eclipse you have done it many times and for those members of the boards that
aren't familiar you know mr reuter talked about eclipse a little bit so i'll say as well there's
there's a dialogue box where you can enter and write text what your application is for which i
understanding is going to forward, which to this date we haven't seen. There is also places to
upload plans and whatever other materials, revised plans, any supporting documents. And so that's
what we're looking for right now. And that's what I'm asking Ms. DeHall to explain to us so that we
understand what was reviewed, what came in to then result in what came out the other end,
the permits and the approved plans. So in the meantime, if I may continue with Mr. Hall,
because we do have a limited amount of time today. Mr. Hall, how many sets of drawings
did you review as part of this application? Originally two, and at the end, everything was
so many pages of the plans, but the plan was like one, one copy. No, no. I mean, how many sets,
shall I say? How many versions of the plans were submitted to you for review and that you reviewed?
Okay. So there was the original set of drawings that came with the application originally through Eclipse
and then the set of drawings that were stamped in April, correct?
Correct.
Or May, I'm sorry. What's that?
No, in April. And another one is the amended one. That was in January. They applied in January.
So there's an amended application as well?
Yes. Not the application, amended plans.
Revised plans. You mean revised plans?
Amended. Yeah, revised plans.
So is there three sets of drawings or two sets of drawings?
Three.
Okay. And you're saying a permit was issued, two permits were issued, one on December 23rd and one on December 30th.
So 010545 was issued December 30th, which had to do with the unity of use.
And then before that, a week before that, on December 23rd, you had the permit that was issued for the demolition, the erection of the structures, and the use of the property, correct?
And then sometime after the issuance of these permits, there were, you're saying there were amended drawings?
Amended drawings and the amended permit.
And were those...
Application number.
And were those submitted by, how were those, what communications were there between you and the applicant regarding the amended or revised plans? How did they get them to you? Was there another application or?
no they they can apply amended application under the original application number they put the note
what they want to amend the application and they upload the plans there is no another application
number that that would be under the same application number and have to provide the
application they don't have only they have to provide the plans and they will put into the
system what they are going to amend, like the language of the application.
Okay. So you said they up, so there was a note that was uploaded?
Yes. Okay. And then you receive, what happens? You receive notice that something's been uploaded
and connected? It comes into the system. Yeah. They have, yeah. Then after that, when I get the
notice then i have to review okay and um and so that note would also be a document that would be
available to you and to your council uh through eclipse correct as far as what was uploaded
yeah you reviewed that note correct yes okay and do you know what that note said
they want to change the permit language as per the civic design
they want to change the permit language as per the civic design notification it says exactly on
the permit language mr hall what do you what are you what are you looking at and referring to right
now just so that we know you're looking at a document just to work with what document are
you referencing right now yeah this is under the permit language it says the amended application
permit language there is no separate permit the permit would be the same under the original
application original permit only it says admitted permit you have to read that one that's the same
thing they apply okay so what were you just referencing what were you just what were you
just looking at right now was that what permit were you looking at excuse me counselor council
The eclipse system is totally different than the old days
the way we used to do it.
And I think you're not quite understanding the new system.
Oh, I use it every day.
But the questioning that you're asking
are about looking at the yellow slip.
That's only a fragment of the total picture.
What yellow slip?
The yellow tag they put on the drawings in the eclipse system.
You were asking her the question about that.
I didn't say anything about a yellow tag.
No, but her information is on a yellow tag in the ellipse system.
Right.
So that's what she's referring to.
No, no, she was holding, no, when I said she was referring to something, she had a piece of paper in her hand that she was looking at.
I was just asking what that was, if that was the permit.
as because we're not in court so it's a little hard to you know there's there's sometimes issues
with what somebody's looking at and referring to in a proceeding to and how that is affecting their
may affect their testimony and i'm not saying she's doing anything wrong i'm just curious as
to what she was reading off and referring to something and that's you know we're limited here
we wouldn't have this issue if we were all in person so i'm just asking what she was looking
at it wasn't it was an accusatory and i'm thinking that it was a permit but if she could just answer
the question i wasn't asking what she was looking at on the clips if that's clear thank you okay so
mr hall when you were just holding the piece of paper and looking down what were you looking at
no i didn't look anything i told you that you have to go and check the permit under gp 2020
010545 application number that was for the new construction development plan and the
permit is there like amended permit it comes under the same permit language we don't issue
the separate permit for the amended permit it comes under the original under the original
permit i mean i'm looking at i have up on my screen 0006530 that says must be
supply amended permit language to remove the permit language of new construction.
First of all, use the word language. Can you amend a buy -right permit?
Yes, you can.
You can amend a buy -right zoning permit?
Yes. If you want to change the plan, you can.
After the permit has been issued?
Yes. They amend after the permit is issued. They can do that.
for a buy rate zoning permit not not not a permit that's approved by following the issuance of a
variance or somewhat special exception by the zoning zoning board you're talking about a buy
right zoning permit yes please they can okay um i didn't know that okay um so is this the permit
0 -0 -0 -6 -5 -3, are you saying that there needs to be additional permit language that needs
to – amended permit language that needs to be provided?
Excuse me, this is not the permit, which is the development permit.
You have to go under the development permit, not this one.
Yeah, under this one.
Under 0 -1 -0 -5 -4 -5.
Please go down.
Yes. Can you see the language? The star?
Okay. So what are – could you just tell us what you're referencing?
Amended permit language. That was the change. That's where they completed the new plans.
Where you have the asterisks? Where you have the three – starting where you have the three
where you have the three at starting where you have the three asterisks yes where it says amended
asterisks yes where it says
permit language as of 113 2021 per civic design review committee accessory retail sales and office
use are proposed in the accessory structure and additional landscaping has been proposed
that what you're referencing yes so are you saying 010545 is an a is an amended permit
this is the original and the amended everything should be under the same application number
they can amend with the original permit application so 000653 is the original
permit and you're saying 010545 is an amended permit? No, this is the new development permit.
I cannot issue the both permit under the unity of use and the development. I have to create the
child application. The original one was one for the unity of use and after that I have created
this application number gp2020 -010 -545 for the new development and the uses and under the same
application number they amended the application and i issued the permit under the same application
under the same on the bottom of the same permit language so there is no another permit
the part would be under the same application number if you amend the application.
And this was all this amended permit language was provided by the applicant
on January 13, 2021, correct? Yes. Which is after the date of this permit, correct?
Yes, yes. That was the original date, yeah. I mean, the permit that references the date
the amended is before the date of the of the amended permit language, correct?
Right. And it's also the date of permit 00653 is before that 1 -13 -2021 date, correct?
Good. Okay.
All right. And it mentions accessory retail sales.
um that was the request for that was submitted by um by the applicant
it was not in the original application that was just like a cb design notification
they never applied for the retail it was only for the wholesale and the
transportation terminal and this repair and the gasoline is only for the accessory to the menu
use. They never apply for the retail. It wasn't apply for the retail in the original one.
They did not apply for the retail in the original, but they applied for it
after with this amended permit language, correct?
They didn't apply. Only just the language was written as per the CBT design,
but they never applied for the retail.
your app your permit says accessory retail sales and office use are proposed in the accessory
structure so is is our retail are you saying retail sales is not part of this permit or is
part of this permit i mean i'm just reading it it looks like it is
it looks like but the original they didn't apply for the retail
but it's in your permit so let me ask you this question with this permit in hand
somebody could have reached the the applicant or somebody after the applicant somebody else
who owns the property leases the property pursuant to this permit could operate a retail sales use
at this property, correct? I don't know. That is the civil design determination, but they didn't
apply for the retail. Maybe they have to go to the zoning board and they don't have to go for the
civil design process again. Because retail sales is not permitted in I2 zoning district, correct?
they have designing district for this property correct is that correct got it okay
and the revised plans that can't you're saying that the revised plans that were provided to you
were provided to you on january 13th sometime on or about or after january 13th of 2021 correct
sometime on or about or after January 13th of 2021, correct?
Yeah, January 13th, I guess, yeah.
Okay. And as far as – I mean, you wouldn't know, would you, whether those revised plans from
January 13th, 2020, or on or about or after January 13th, 2021,
were ever submitted or provided to the community at any time? You don't know that, correct?
all right um i am referencing plans that well let me ask this in terms of the application
which we haven't seen yet you know the language
were you provided any details regarding the proposed warehouse distribution trucking and
transportation terminal use at the subject properties, other than the use of those words?
All were the accessory uses, yeah.
I'm sorry, Shelly. My question is, when you write a permit, you issued a permit for warehouse
distribution and trucking and transportation terminal. Were you provided any application
language, where you provided any words other than those words, any details or description
of what the warehouse distribution and trucking and transportation terminal would entail other
than the use of those five or so words?
Yeah, it was in the application.
It was in the application, all the uses.
But they just used those use, they just used those five, approximately those five words, correct?
In other words, they didn't give you any more information regarding what the warehouse distribution, trucking and transportational terminal use would be involved, right?
Right. And then after that accessory use, they have provided to me.
I understand. Regarding the vehicle services and maintenance, the servicing of vehicles and the maintenance of vehicles and the providing gasoline accessory vehicle fueling, they just provided you those words and you put them in the permit. You looked and saw that they were uses that using those words are permitted in I -2 and you just put those in the permit, correct?
No, this is the accessory to the main use. That's what I put in my language, that they're not the retail, they're not like, this is related to the main use.
I understand. I guess I'm not, I don't know if I'm making myself clear. In the application, or on the, I'm limiting myself to the application.
On the application, the language that they use, when they said what they were applying, when the applicant indicated what they were applying for, because we don't have it in front of us yet.
I don't know if it's come in, did they provide you with anything, any language other than
indicating that the proposed use was warehouse distribution and trucking and
transportational terminal regarding, let's say, the principal uses, the primary uses?
They have the application, yes, they have provided.
Was it limited to that language as far as you know?
i don't remember what i think they provided all
did they provide you any details yeah they did they provided you details regarding the
warehouse distribution and trucking and transportational terminal use
yes okay and what and what and what details did they provide to you
that would be the main use like warehouse distribution trucking and transportation
would be the main use and they provided me the accessory use and then parking information they have provided.
That's it.
But they didn't they didn't provide you. I mean, they just use those words.
They didn't give you any details versus what the operations were going to have an objection here.
We have had the same question asked. Well, because she's not answering my question.
i don't believe she's answering my question and i'm not saying she's doing it intentionally look
yeah i think she has and i think we've had the same question 20 times now for like the
last 15 minutes so i would ask the board to ask the appellant to move on yeah i think
maybe she doesn't understand but okay all right we'll have heard her like you said we still got
okay all right we'll have further like you said we still got another gonna meet again and i guess
another gonna meet again
you know you'll be able to provide anything you will need all right i think this thank you thank
you can i tell you something in the new system in the eclipse that we don't have to describe
everything we just warehouse distribution and trucking and transportation terminal
we write only what do we apply we don't have to disturb like in old application we do not
I understand. You don't have to say it's distribution of sneakers or distribution of, you know, that wasn't my question, but okay, I understand. And in terms of the plans, you know, I am referencing plans that are stamped by which, you know, have a permit.
I'm putting plans up on my screen right now.
These plans are dated 4 -20, I'm going to enlarge them, 4 -20 -20.
They're stamped by streets April 29 -20.
And in the bottom left -hand corner, there's 15 sheets of them.
Is that an approval?
stamp? No, I stamp like previous and the later one. I don't exactly remember which was that
because it's so hard to read. That's not clear in the screen. But it's a stamp of approval by LNI,
correct? Yeah. And then after this also, another plans was uploaded. So you're saying these are
not the final approved plans? These are not the final approved plans? I cannot say like that
because the screen is so small, it's so hard to tell you.
When was that?
5 -11 -20.
No, that is another
amended one.
If it was, yeah.
Try this.
Unfortunately, this one I have, which I thought was one of the ones for Mr. Reuter,
is a little hard to make out in this scan.
if i could stop my share for a minute i'd like to actually pull up the plans that we received
from mr reuter via email would that be okay for the board to make sure we're looking at the same
plans?
Thank you.
Okay, I'm going to represent to the board that these are the plans that I received via email from Mr. Reuter.
Mr. Hall, these are also dated 5 -11 -20. These are dated 5 -11 -20. Does that seem correct to you?
one second maybe i'll find it here hi jeffrey can you please in one minute please
maybe i could find it here yeah i need to go to the this application number and find the
what are you doing right now you're pulling up eclipse yeah can i do
um go to go to your eclipses windows maybe i have to play that right
yes i didn't want to close but if it is possible
then i can see the screen
Then I can see the screen.
And Mr. Hall, what are you doing right now?
You're looking on Eclipse?
Yes, please.
I guess this is the benefit of doing this really clear one, one, one, one, one, zero, five, four, five.
Thank you.
Just so the record is clear, I'm sure Mr.
you won't object uh mr hall who are you speaking with yes who's helping you with
i'm uh jeffrey tan plans examiner oh hi jeffrey okay just wanted to make sure that the record's
clear that she's getting some assistance from some from jeffrey tan to presumably share her
screen or look at stuff that that's all go ahead yeah um so she uh you guys are requesting her to
share the eclipse plan right now uh actually i just wanted to confirm that the eclipse plan
is the one that i have up that is the one dated that was stamped approved five or twenty yeah my
this is the 114 i stem 114 21 that's not the same one which you are showing to me i have 5 11 20.
it's not the same the last one is 114 21.
on. I believe, again, maybe, again, I think, David, you won't have a problem. Charlie, I think
he's asking, with respect to the plans that were originally approved, not the amended plans from
January, which, by the way, were never appealed. But the, but he's talking about are the plans
uh previously approved are those same ones wait wait wait hold on a second is i'm appealing
the permit and the plans that go with the permits whether or not right regardless of the date of
the plans and so these are the plans that you forwarded to me to us that said these are the
approved plans with the permits sam meyer steel joins in the permit that was the permit that was
appealed yes not not amended stuff that that was take that was uh didn't become a reality until
uh january after your appeal no no but if these hold on a second i mean i'm gonna object now
because it doesn't matter if you i don't believe you can amend a by right permit i mean look it
It doesn't matter. I don't care. You can go look and say whatever you want.
I'm just trying to find the plans that go with the permits.
This entire line of questioning is utterly irrelevant. It is utterly irrelevant.
They have taken appeals from the issuance of use permits.
They are claiming that the uses are not permitted at this property.
It is a legal argument. The permit says what it says.
What Ms. DeHall looked at at this point is essentially irrelevant.
You have uses that are on a permit that we issued, that the city issued. That's what's on appeal. They're saying that we can't issue those permits. That's the entire thing. Nobody's disputing what's on the permits.
what was submitted at this point is basically irrelevant this is just a complete waste of time
no actually and i object to that characterization i'm not in the practice of wasting the board's
time so i will say that again it very much has to do with the permit because it has to do with
what was actually applied for the language of the permit is one thing what was actually applied for
what was represented to LNI, what was represented to this exam.
what was represented to LNI, what was represented to this exam, it is absolutely not relevant at
all. Just because, listen, you are required under the administrative code and under the language of
the permit to accurately describe and represent what is being applied for both in all the materials
that you submit. It's in the codes, it's on the permits, it's everywhere. We all know it. And the
problem is one of part of our cases here is that what was represented to lni and to this examiner
is not what is really happening here it's not really what was proposed again they can call it
a duck and the examiner unfortunately takes what they say without any additional information
because i don't you know we can we'll get into this too as far as what their responsibility and
obligation is i don't think mr hall did anything wrong necessarily in respect to the principal
use in what was stated to her. But the reason that we're getting into this is just that fact.
There are other details regarding the materials and what was submitted that might have resulted
in this permit also not being issued by right. The question is, what was applied for, what was
represented to L &I, and what was the permit that was issued? And this is all extremely relevant to
that because if she wasn't provided accurate information she can't do her job and she can't
issue a proper permit or make sure that the permit is properly reviewed as required by the code
we already have here a permit that talks about a retail use which is not permitted in i2 whether
it's accessory or not doesn't matter whether it's principal or accessory now you're getting into
argument what you're no longer responding to my objection you're getting into argument no i
i'm not i am i'm giving you the grounds and the basis we all have what you're giving you the reason
i'm giving you the an example of the reason for this line of questioning
excuse me the permit is defective the permit is defective that's our application that's our
thing can i interrupt for one minute mr orfanides if they applied for a duck and were given a permit
for a duck and you're saying that the use is not a duck then isn't that a matter they don't have a
permit for that isn't that an enforcement issue not an error on l and i's part yes they are only
able to operate within the parameters of the permit that they were given um and as far as
the retail sales issue i was hoping that um mr hall could clarify in in fact for warehouse and
distribution, aren't accessory retail sales permitted as incidental to the warehouse and
distribution use or the wholesale and distribution use? I would just like her to clarify when she
said that retail is not permitted, was she referring to retail as a primary use or will she
acknowledge that in certain circumstances, industrial uses such as wholesale sales and
and distribution specifically do allow incidental retail sales.
The language of the permit is not, number one,
we cannot get into the legal argument of whether incidental is permitted
when it's not permitted as a principle or accessory use.
I understand. I'm not trying to make an argument here.
I just meant if she could clarify, because she did state that retail sales aren't permitted, and I just wanted some clarification on whether she was referring to retail sales as a principal use, or if she was saying that retail sales are never in any circumstances permitted as an accessory use in an industrial district.
Thank you.
i don't know if she realizes that's a question is that a question for mr hall
well let me again if someone could just at some point in your questioning clarify that with
mr hall thank you i mean i thought i did i did ask that question and i thought she answered it
um she did and i just wanted to be certain that her answer meant that she was saying she said
that retail sales are not permitted and i'd like her to um further clarify whether she was saying
retail sales in any circumstances, or was she saying that retail sales as a principle
use, just so that we understand, so that the board understands her answer?
What I was thinking, originally, it was not like, it was not an issue for the retail.
After the civic design, they make determination, but that doesn't mean that they have the retail sale.
After the shipping design, they make determination, but that doesn't mean that they have the
Because the retail sale also, if they apply for the retail sale, they have to go to the zoning board, but they never apply for the retail sale.
As per the civic design notification, that doesn't mean that they will comply for the retail, because retail is not applied, never ever.
I put the notification only for the retail sale, as per the civic design notification.
that means if they apply in future some other thing they don't have to go for the civic design
they can go for the variance because they never apply for the retail sale i don't think they are
applying for the retail sale too that is not the permit for the retail sale that is for the
documentation after the civic design notification because they changed the plan that's why that's
the notification they want to put on the permit language that's why i put on the permit language
that doesn't mean that they don't sell retail retail is not applied at all thank you mr hall
i mean the permit says what it says i mean i mean i mean um we can deal with this we can deal with
this at a later time well also i think if i might uh the board can take the equivalent i guess of
judicial notice of what is permitted uh in wholesale distribution and storage use categories so under
14 -601 sub mine sub d uh incidental retail sales are permitted uh for in distribution facilities
so it's i mean the code says what it says again somebody's recollection of what the code says is
kind of again a route like a lot of this is irrelevant the code says what it says and it
is permitted well no mr hall just said well no we're i mean now mr reuter is testifying so no i'm
asking i am asking the board to take please i'm asking the board to take judicial notice of what
the code says that but we're not you can bring that up at another point right now we're not
evidence it's a it's a it's a code it's what this board is bound by the question was directed to
mr hall though and she said it's not permitted she says retail sales is not permitted and required
trip to the zoning board. But if it is incidental, that is a different story.
I'm telling you another thing. Auto repair shop is not permitted on the north far overlay district,
but as per definition of the trucking and transportation termination, they can have
the minor repair. That means they can have repair if they don't do the retail auto repair shop.
that means like they can have the incidental but they cannot have the main retail they cannot have
the main auto repair sub that's the whole content is that only accessory and incidental they can do
it not for the for the public i mean mr hall is there a difference between incidental and
accessory in the zoning code i mean accessory it's clear that the code is it not that accessory
uses and all it's very maybe it's the same but i don't know the definition but accessory and
incidentally i'm going to object here again he's asking mr hall about her opinions about things
again we have a permit application permit application materials that were submitted a
permit was issued i i i'm she's this is really infuriating members of the board she's an examiner
Her job is to interpret and apply the zoning, the zoning code in her job as a zoning plans examiner.
She's the one who reviewed this application.
She is the one who interpreted the application, interpreted a code and issued the permits.
And that is her job.
Exactly. And the permit that was issued is is basically that is the exemplification of what her interpretation was.
We have the right to examine her and find out what the process was and what her reasoning was, what her interpretations were in issuing that permit, because we are questioning, unfortunately, those interpretations, particularly given the language of the permit.
And some of those interpretations, again, I'm going to state, maybe based upon the fact that it wasn't made clear to her, even though certain words were used that are permitted in I2, the reality of the situation is that they were not uses that are permitted in I2.
And again, if she's going to write accessory retail sales, well, the code is extremely clear that if it's not permitted as a principal use, it's not permitted as an accessory use.
No, I'll object. That's not the correct law. Plus, it's arguing.
Let's get to the testimony. I will be presenting rebuttal witnesses that will describe what each
So let's get to the testimony. I will be presenting rebuttal witness.
and every use aspect is. So we don't have to speculate. We'll hear the testimony. And what
introduced this whole line of inquiry was a speculative question by Mr. Orphanides that said
successor users may or may not use it for retail. And she said, well, if it's retail,
it should go to the board. But then she said if it's accessory or incidental, which it is in our
particular application, which is all that's really in controversy here, it's fine. And if somebody
wants to bring a box back, they go to the business office. And that's what we're going to be
presenting. It's not a retail business by any stretch of the imagination. So I would just say
that we need to get the testimony on from all the witnesses so we know exactly what the facts are
and not what somebody knew or thought or can't remember.
We're going to have the facts in the record.
Let's deal with that.
Well, and in terms of accessory, I can ask her if she's writing a permit that says accessory.
Is she familiar with Section 14604, which I've now put up on the screen?
Ms. DeHall applies the zoning code.
Mr. Hall, 14604 -1B states, unless otherwise expressly stated, accessory uses and structures are subject to the same regulations that apply to principal uses and structures.
You're aware of that section of the zoning code, correct?
okay and is that the reason why when you stated to me earlier when i asked the question before
all this these other statements by council that you said retail sales as an accessory use is
not permitted in i2 correct they are not applying for the retail just like the
you see not the retails you see the incidental to the warehouse distribution so you're saying
it's your test is that it's not accessory despite the your language in the permit that it's incidental
correct this is incidental but retail is just not like the detail incidental
i put the language how should be designed decided that's why i put the same language
but actually it's not the written scene the language in your permit
All right. But the language in your permit says accessories. So somebody could, an examiner or somebody could interpret that to mean that accessory retail is permitted at this site because that's in the use permit, correct?
Okay. Now, I want to keep, try to keep moving here. So in terms of the plans and what Mr. Reuter stated, you know, we,
There were two permits that at some point were posted at the property.
And there are the permits, you know, had photographs, you know, whether they were permitted in compliance with the code is another question, not for this examiner.
But there are the permits that we've attached to our exhibit, included in our exhibit book.
Mr. Reuter provided plans and those same permits to us via email last week.
These plans that I have up right now, which appear to be different than the ones that I have in my exhibit book, which I'm going to amend my exhibit book to include these, if these are the approved plans that go with those two permits.
but now i'm hearing that there may be an amended permit or amended plans that are different that
were approved after the permits that they relate to which i'm not sure how that could happen
and that somehow mr reuter's asserting that our our appeal doesn't cover those plans if there is
another permit mr hall are you aware of any other zoning permits being issued for this property
Either of these two properties, one Red Lion Road or 198 San Meyer Lane after the date and with different permit application or permit numbers than the two that we're talking to today, which would be ZP2020 -010545 or ZP2020 -000653.
are you aware of any permits having been applied for or issued
after the date of those permits having been issued by you on in December?
I issue only an amended permit after that.
What is the amended permit? Is that what you're saying when you say 00,
the one that references the language 000653.
the language 000653 same one this is the original one okay the language okay and mr and miss and
Same one. This is the original one.
you're in council for the city forwarded these two permits along with this drawing
that i placed up on the screen that says approved for zoning only 5 11 20.
that those are not the approved plans that go with those two permits that there may be
some other plan, even though the plans he provided us are dated after the date of the permits,
which I'm not sure how that happens, but that these may not be the approved plans that go with
one or both of those permit applications or permits. Is there a different set of drawings
that were finally approved, whether through some type of informal or formal amendment
or not, other than these plans dated 05 -11 -20, or that are marked and stamped as approved for
zoning -only 05 -11 -20? Or are these the final approved for zoning -only plans associated with
one or both of these permits? This was the final, but after that also another
After this, the amended plan was stamped, amended permit was issued, but that was the
first approval for the new construction, this plan.
So you're saying there's another permit and another plan issued after 5 -11 -20?
I told you the application number is the same.
The amended permit, there is no another permit language.
It is under the same, the date is the same.
It doesn't change the date.
That's why you are confusing because the date is the same,
all date, but only language is different a little bit.
And then plan, when I stand on the plan,
the plan is on different date.
That's it.
There is not too much of change.
Even though this plan is, you're saying,
even though this plan is dated 12 30 2020 it was actually issued sometime after that
yeah after this is the original one after the original we don't issue the same day after the
original permit i issue the new construction permit after after 20 days maybe for two weeks
now there's these are both these are a week apart in december yes and after that i issue the final
one like the same permit language i changed the language of the amended permit language
the plan was little bit changed it was in january 14 13th you're saying so there's another permit
dated january 14th 14th not the point this is the same permit like the same same permit the
application number would be gp 2020 010 545 that's the same permit number that's the same
permit only i ate the point one language little bit like as a minute permit language everything
is the same only the plan is little bit different and the date is different only on the plan
not on the application and not on the permit language that's why you are getting confused i
guess so you're saying there was an original
permit. There was an original permit that was issued in December and then sometime after that
there was a revised permit, an amended permit that was issued with the same number but that
was issued sometime after January 13, 2021. No. I didn't issue the revised permit. I issued the
same permit language only I changed the permit language, amended permit language. You can see
at the bottom of the permit language, only that is changed.
Everything remains the same as original permit language.
Nothing changed.
Only the changes language little bit changed,
like amended permit language, that's it.
The application number would be the same.
Only plan date, I stamped the plan,
the date of the plan is different than original one.
Besides that, everything is the same.
Little bit, I changed the language
for the eminent permit language that's all but since you added since you specifically added
reference something that happened in january of 2021 this permit could not have been issued
december 23rd 2020 it had to be then revised and reissued after that date correct yeah i don't have
revised and reissued after
that date, correct?
I don't have to revise. Only they have
to apply for the amended application.
They apply as amended application
under the same permit language.
Everything remains the same.
Only I have to put the
note, what are the changes
on the revised plan.
That's it.
I don't have to make the new
application. I don't have to write the new permit.
The permit, everything will be the
same under the same application number only i change is like language what are the amended
i change the amended permit language on the original for me
but you did issue a permit 010545 without the amended without the phrase amended permit
language as of 1 -13 -2021 per civic design? No, not this one. I don't know the date when I was
issued, this one. Permit is issued. After that applicant amend the application with the plan,
then I put only permit language. I add one sentence of the permit language,
one of the original permit. I don't have to make another application. I don't have to write another
permit everything remains the same it doesn't delete original permit doesn't delete only
i have to mention what are the changes on the permit language
i mean mr hall here's a bit of the here's a problem is that these permits were posted at
the subject property sometime before january there were permits with these numbers objection mr hall
doesn't have any specific knowledge about what was posted at the property that's fine that's fine
okay i withdraw my question all right back to back to back to the plans so mr hall are these
plans that are stamped 5 11 20 the final approved plans associated with these two permits
Or are there other plans dated after 5 -11 -20 or other than 5 -11 -20 that are approved plans? Because these are the plans we received from Mr. Reuter. So if I'm going to cross -examine you on the plans that were approved, I'd like to be doing that with the plans that were actually.
Mr. I apologize for interrupting you, but unfortunately our time has ended. Yes, it's 1230 and we will resume this hearing on May 18th at 1 p .m. Okay. May 18th at 1 p .m.
Before we break, if I could just really quickly, with respect to the documents that we introduced with Ms. DeHall's testimony, I would just ask to move that those be entered into the record.
And also, we did send around, everybody should have, and by everybody I mean with respect to the board, Ms. Sunkett and Ms. Saleta, as well as all counsel should now have copies of the screenshots for both of the permits that are at issue.
um and again i'll just say it in terms of like you know the last hour and a half of uh
examination or cross -examination by mr orvanides i think once we have an opportunity to redirect
mr primavera and i will probably take about five minutes to clarify all of the confusion
uh that has been raised with respect to um how eclipse works and what what was happening there
But I'll look forward to that next time, I'm sure.
That today then concludes my business.
I would ask that Mr. Hall be let go, and I would ask to be excused.
Excuse me.
Before you leave, Mr. Reuter, I would like to say that I will speak with the board prior to the next hearing and maybe at the next executive session
to discuss whether any additional legal briefing
or going to specific issues will be required
and I will inform the parties
what the board would like them to submit and when.
Well, and again, we said this in an email,
but I'll say it again for the record
that a letter brief was submitted by Mr. Katsuzi,
who I'm pronouncing your name correctly, by the way.
You got it.
And we would like, you know, reasonable time to respond to that.
But if everybody's going to be submitting new briefs or something like that, then that's fine, too.
We might ask for briefs going to specific issues such as standing and the subpoenas that are requested.
that are requested but again i'll contact the parties after i've had an opportunity to discuss
But again, I'll contact the parties after I've had an opportunity to.
that with the board and missile if i may i just i actually have a conflict on the 18th is it
possible to have another date um i don't believe so it's we have the board has limited availability
submit the request and miss sunk it and the board and i will discuss it and sharon for clarity of
record can you have or len can you please clarify exactly what documents are being labeled and moved
into the record um basically the two uh permits um one zp 2020 -00653 and the other permit uh zp
2020 -10 -545 and the two plans that we were that i reviewed uh on my direct of uh of msda hall
and like he just for the record i'm sorry of last amendment for each of those two plans
for clarity to record uh i'll look again this is something that we're just going to have to explain
when we do redirect it's eclipse doesn't work the way i think even a lot of people who regularly use
it think it works so um that's why we're going to uh i'll address that when uh when when we do our
redirect um but the those plans the plans that i submitted are exactly this the same plans that i
had previously emailed uh all council and the board okay what's being moved into the record
so that's that that was it that's what i just told you what what exactly the same documents
that were emailed to you again the only other cleanup item uh joe contusi the only other
cleanup item i just want to confirm while we're on the record that the matters are consolidated
for purposes of evidence and i know there's been a lot of testimony and i know we discussed
and in advance of this hearing that these appeals are consolidated but i just want to confirm we're
doing that. Yes, I would agree. And I would say that, right, moving things into the record on all
cases. Thank you. And can I ask now that everyone has the combined exhibit packet submitted by
Mr. Affinities and Toner, there's quite a bit to go through. If there are submissions that you
object to, you might let us know in advance the next hearing.
anything else
um i just wanted to ask one question of uh mr orphan 80s or toner you we have discussed very
briefly right to know request that was made and i just want clarification was that right to know
request made by your client or by mr bordelon made by our office made by your office okay and
that was to which department uh great to know was made to the philadelphia department of licenses
and inspections okay thank you and what date was that made you also made it to uh what's that
what date was that the request october 20 the original okay october 28 2020 right thank you
Numerous extensions were requested by L &I until they finally provided it last Thursday at the end of the day.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Cattuzzi, you will submit your request for another date, but as we end this right now, the hearing is scheduled for the 18th at 1 o 'clock.
um and sorry uh i there is also currently another uh appeal so that's a is that going to be a
regular that's a tuesday so that'll be it will be a special yep for that day okay because we have
we have uh another i guess special for 12 31 to 33 federal street um listed for 9 30 just want
confirm that that's this one is for 1 p .m okay great so no no we actually don't we don't we
don't have what one at 9 30 i i have a zoom link to all right well we can talk about that later
then i just wanted to because it looked because because that's definitely i have that on my
calendar so okay are we talking about chickie and pete's no no this is 12 30 yeah 12 31
on federal street uh this i'm sorry folks i got on late i had some other business this morning
this i'm sorry folks i got on late i had some other business this morning um 1231 federal i
think there was an issue it's an appeal against l and i right and um again involved and there
may have been there may have been an error on behalf of the attorney representing the applicant
i believe yeah while i pointed something out i don't remember what it was exactly right so anyway
way we can we can resolve that that that later i just wanted to be uh to be clear thank you okay
thanks lynn i'll look into okay that concludes see you guys next uh next day yep thank you thank
you good luck thank you
goodbye