For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
to an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address of the property
in question. And lastly, the question answer box is not for testifying or comments. Any comments
should be directed to Tanya Sunkett, our executive director. So let's look at the
continuances that we have for this afternoon's meeting. Number four, MI 2021-002-585-250
Byberry Road, Continuance, Attorney Moving Party. Number five, MI 2021-005-416-3847
germantown avenue and number six is a withdrawal mi 2021-005-410-934-44 east
pashunk avenue is there anyone in the virtual audience has any comments relative to those three
cases. I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair. We're going to go to the regular list. MI 2021-005-414-100599,
Sandy Meyer Lane. Sean Ward is the attorney. No letter from the RCO at this point. Letter of
Non-opposition from Councilman O'Neill.
When Mr. Ward has been promoted to panelists, excuse me.
Hi, Mr. Ward, you've already been sworn in.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
Sean Ward on behalf of Sarah Valley Construction applicant
and owner of the property at 10-059-St. Myer Lane.
Thank you. Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Thank you.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
I missed your award.
Hi, Mr. Board. Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed and share your screen.
Awesome. Mr. Chairman, I will try and be very brief on this. As I've indicated, I represent
Sarah Valley Construction. They are the owners, operators, and occupiers of, in addition,
not just 10059 Sandmeyer Lane, but the adjoining properties. This is located in Sandmeyer Lane
Industrial Park in the far northeast section of the city. We filed an application at A1 as the
notice of refusal. The application was for the documentation of an existing use for vehicle
repair and fuel dispensing stations, accessory to an existing contractor's equipment and material
storage yard and office. The application was refused because vehicle fueling stations,
commercial vehicle repair, and personal vehicle repair is prohibited in the far northeast overlay
zoning district. Accordingly, we see use variances today for various reasons. A2 is the ZBA
application of appeal. A3 is the project information form. A4 is proof of ownership.
A5 is proof of tax clearance. A6 is a site location map. A7 is a zoning site plan. A8 are
photographs. A9 is the RCO meeting notice and certificate of mailing. A10 is a RCO letter
from Southern Pacific in apparent opposition to this application. A11 is the district council
person's letter. A-12 relevant zoning and permit history. I would point out that
in 1995, after purchasing the property, Sarah Valley contractors obtained a zoning permit
for a relocation of lot lines to create one lot from two lots for use as contractor storage with
accessory office and parking. Thereafter, in 2005, an operations permit was issued by the
Philadelphia, and approved by the state EPA for three underground storage tanks and dispensers.
A13 is the zoning map. A14 is the aerial photograph. So without further delay,
we have the notice of refusal. Again, the three refusals were cited.
we have our application of appeal our project information form a copy of the deed the property
was purchased from the philadelphia authority for industrial development it is owned industrial
and used for industrial purposes we also have the tax clearance proof of tax clearance from
the revenue department indicating that taxes through 2022 are paid a google map just shows
you quickly where the property is located. It's off of Redline Road. Sandmeyer Lane comes in,
and we are in this corner around the bend of Sandmeyer Lane. The Cerro Valley family owns
one, two, three parcels in this corner. Again, there was a lot line relocation,
which consolidated 10059 and 10057. Here is another zoning site map. I outlined in red
the approximate location of the fuel dispensing pumps. It does depict the large garage that is
used for the storage and maintenance of construction equipment. This would be the
Google aerial photo. Again, on the bend of Sandmeyer Lane, you can see Sour Valley
construction has been here. They have their warehouse, garage, offices, accessory parking
for their employees, and their yard all on the site. This photo depicts in the red encircled
area, the location of the pumps. A Google measurement would indicate that these pumps
are at least 285 feet from the property line to the adjoining residential district, so
to the adjoining residential district. So they are far and not proximate to the residential uses.
they are far and not proximal.
Copy of our zoning notice posted on the fence. This is a shot from the front entrance,
the front of the building. This photo depicts the offices are to the left and in the garage areas to
the right. Again, a further photograph of the existing garages. You may recognize Sur Valley's
trucks. They have that distinctive brown and white color tones. Here's a couple pictures of
the inside of the garage. As you can see, meticulous. You know, they work on their own
equipment commercial retail repair facility limited to work and storage and work on their
own vehicles and storage of their own repair pieces and equipment here's another you know
road construction equipment piece here you have a photograph of some dispenser pumps
two of which are diesel, one of which is gasoline.
Here's two more.
Just to back up, there is a fire suppression system installed.
It's been there since they were installed back in 2005.
And again, here is another photograph.
You can see in the distance some residential properties.
Again, the closest being 285 feet in a direct line.
Here is a copy of the RCO meeting notice that was sent out to the neighbors.
It included a copy of the refusal.
It included a copy from the CBA appeals calendar as to the date, time, and location of the hearing.
Also include a copy of the affected addresses.
Our certificate of bulk mailing that was mailed on April 21st in time for the meeting.
Here is the 1995 permit for contractor storage offices.
And then again, in 1995, they did a second floor mezzanine for the offices.
Here is the Certificate of Occupancy issued back in 1995 for the business offices for the contractors' storage.
And then most specifically, this is the operations permit issued in 2005.
And you can see it's for the installation of three underground storage tanks, USTs, and dispensers, and there are three tanks, 12,000 gallons each.
Part of that permit included a site plan showing the aforementioned location of the dispenser units, which I highlighted in yellow, as well as the gas tanks.
For reference purposes, you'd be coming in from the bend of Sandmeyer Lane from the bottom right here and then turning into where the pumps are located.
We also have the DEP approval letter.
Again, here is the zoning map showing that it's located in the industrial district.
The three red dots signifying the three properties owned by Sarah Valley.
through their, you know, entities. We do acknowledge that it's adjacent to a residential
housing development. But again, it's been there operating since 1995. And specifically, the pumps
and underground storage tanks have been operating there since 2005. So for the last 17 years,
they have been operating the repair maintenance of their own vehicles and the fueling of their
own vehicles. Not to belabor the point, I would just point out that the Foreign Office overlay
was first adopted in 2015, which prohibited vehicle repair maintenance and fueling stations
in I-2. Thereafter was amended in June of 2021 that where those uses, if permitted by special
exception, would require a variance. So the vehicle repair and fueling stations are permitted.
I would submit that they're permitted accessory uses pursuant to the old code, but the FNE overlay
pursuant to the old code. But the FNE overlay requires that we get variances.
So with regard to the fueling station, it's limited to company vehicles only.
There is no retail sales. It was installed by a duly issued operations permit in 2005.
They've been operating there for 17 years without incident, using the tanks, the dispensing,
and the vehicle repair. It does include three underground fuel tanks, five fuel pumps. It's
located near the gated entrance of St. Meyer Lane. It's 285 feet from the nearest residential
property line and actually 315 feet from the nearest residential dwelling if you go to the
wall of the dwelling. And with regard to the vehicle repair, it's limited to company-owned
vehicles only. There's no retail vehicle repair here. So there is a 10,000 plus or minus square
foot maintenance and storage garage, which is used to do the repairs on their construction
equipment and vehicles and their fleet trucks. Now, with regard to the grant of the variance,
obviously, we're here for a variance request. So we could proceed under a standard variance request,
which the board's familiar with. But I would also point out there's two other doctrines. You've got
the variance by estoppel doctrine, where the evidence shows that after a long period, which
the city knew or should have known about a violation and failed to enforce the law,
Sower Valley acted in good faith and innocently relied on the validity of the use due to the
permit that was issued in 2005. Sower Valley also made substantial expenditures in reliance
upon a belief that the use was permitted. Denial of the variance would obviously impose an
unnecessary hardship. And then also with the vested rights doctrine, under that doctrine,
we have to show that due diligence was used in attempting to comply with the law. Obviously,
we did. Back in 2005, the far northeast overlay did not exist. These uses would have been
permitted as accessory uses to the contractor storage. They used good faith throughout the
proceedings. They did expend substantial funds, which at this point would be unrecoverable,
and the expiration without appeal of the period during which any appeal could have been taken
from the issuance of the permit, and that the insufficiency of the evidence to prove that the
individual property rights or public health, safety, or welfare would be adversely affected
by the use permit. So Councilman O'Neill, who was at the earlier hearings, I don't know if he's on
this one, has no objection to the grant of the variance. I think he fully understands that this
predates the foreign northeast overlay. He's well aware of the Sur Valley Company and that they've
been operating there since 1995. However, the Summer and Civic Association, in a letter penned
by their chairman does indicate that they're opposed to it.
However, they do acknowledge that five fuel pumps
with associated tanks on the property
are used by the applicant accessory to the storage yard.
And to fuel its vehicles, the property also
includes the building with garages, et cetera, et cetera.
If the board really wants me to go into further detail,
I can, but I think the board at this point gets the nature of the application and that
these uses were instituted legally back in the day, but according to the new overlay and a new
inspector that went out, discovered that there was no zoning permit for the repair or fuel
dispensing. So with that, I do have Andrew DiGiovanni on the call. Andrew, if you could
raise your hand and he'd be permitted to speak. He can verify and adopt. Andrew, could you state
your name, please, and spelled for the court stenographer? Yes, sir. Andrew Bongiovanni. That's
A-N-D-R-E-W, B as in boy, O-N-G-I-O, B as in Victor, A-N-I.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Andrew, you are in-house counsel for South Valley Contractors, correct?
And you are well familiar with this application as I have worked with you day in and day out
with the filing, the appeal, et cetera?
and you attended the Somerton Civic Association meeting with me as well?
And you attended the Somerton Civic Association meeting with me as well?
I did.
And you've heard my representations to the board?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And you adopt them as your own testimony?
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I have Councilman Brian O'Neill with his hand raised.
I will allow him to speak at this time.
Mr. O'Neill?
Councilman, you've already been sworn in.
You can testify.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I totally support this application.
I believe it is legal.
It was it preexisted, it preexisted or preceded existed prior to the my overlay.
And if this were coming up for a variance as it is, but if if it were legitimately coming up, because I think it's it's not necessary, I would fully support it.
So I can't say enough about Cerevalli company.
They do everything first class.
They're a total union company doing major public and private works.
And I'm just glad to have them in the city and also in my district.
Can't speak any more highly of them.
And they follow all the rules.
And, you know, everything they do is first rate.
And I'm glad to support it.
And with with if it needed legislation, I would introduce that.
But I think I think we're good. Thank you.
We appreciate your time. Any any other comments?
Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
No, no further hands, Mr. Chair. OK, Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. Property is indicated for industrial use on the city plan.
the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or
conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used conformity with the code.
The proposed use is expressly prohibited in the adopted far northeast district overlay. Therefore,
we recommend the quest for variance not be granted. Thank you. MI 2021-005-414-10-0599,
Sandy Meyer Lane, I vote yes. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.