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.