We're ready to begin.
chair there are 68 attendees we are ready when you are
you'd say six eight didn't you yes
um okay uh good morning everyone uh before i begin i'm gonna apologize for the delay we were
having some technical difficulties. Having said that, my name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of
the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our
Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere. Present. Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza. Present. Board
Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman. Present, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. James Snell. Present. Board
Administrator Lakeisha Dandy, and our Board Attorney Ms. Sharon Saleta are also in attendance,
as is our Zoning Board Administrator Ms. Tanya Sunkett. For those of you who haven't yet
participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can
expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded,
and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded
and that the recording will be made available to the public
by contacting our board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunkit at tanya .sunkit at phila .gov.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand
by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally, to enter an appearance statement,
call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat that. To enter an appearance statement, call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave
your email address and the address of the property at issue. And I'd like to remind everyone at this
time, please do not attempt to testify in the chat. Any comments, questions or concerns should
be directed to our Board Administrator Ms. Lakeisha Dandy. Having said that, I will begin by
doing some house cleaning as it relates to this case. This is a resumption hearing on appeals
against O &I, filed by the Greater Busselton Civic League and Sandemeyer Steel Corporation.
These appeals have been consolidated for the purposes of the hearing.
The board has reviewed materials submitted by all parties, and would like to begin by making a few preliminary announcements.
First, the appellant's requests for subpoenas are denied.
Second, the board will begin today's hearing by allowing Mr. Orfanides to continue his questioning of examiner, and I apologize if I mispronounce your name, Chili Daha, D -A -H -A -L, for a maximum of one half hour.
Mr. Cattuzzi and Mr. Primavera will then be permitted to question Ms. Dollar.
Third, following Ms. Dollar's testimony, the board will hear testimony from the designated L &I supervisor,
whose testimony will be limited to confirming the department's position that the challenge permits were properly issued.
Were properly, excuse me, properly issued.
the board will then hear testimony limited testimony necessary sorry to establish the
appellant's standing no other testimony will be permitted at the conclusion of the hearing
each party will be given a maximum of 10 minutes to present closing arguments
the board will then allow and we'll go forward from there so um who was first up is it mr orphan
Is it Mr. Orfanides?
needs? Chair, if I could suggest that all of the
Chair, if I could suggest that all of the attorneys involved be promoted.
It hurts.
We can spell it.
Yeah, we'll get them on the record.
That would be Joseph Kutuzzi, David Orfanides, Len Reuter, Carl Primavera, Paul Turner, and Maggie White.
Let's start with Mr. Orfanides' full name.
Spell your name and I'll swear you in and then we'll go down the list.
Yes, may you raise your hands, please, if your name was called?
can you hear me yes uh david orphan you want me to identify myself uh yes please and i'll swear
you swear you in or david orphanetes orphanetes and toner uh two penn center 1500 john f kennedy
boulevard suite 800 philadelphia pennsylvania 19102 and i'm here please please spell your
full the last name sure it's o -r -p -h -a -n -i -d -e -s and i'm here uh with my partner paul toner
who's also uh been added as a panelist um and we are here this morning on behalf of our client
the greater busselton civic league you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do let's get mr turner on and then we'll get to mr primavera and his team
we can't hear you hello you're muted yeah can you hear me now david you're muted
david you're muted there you go
try that can you hear me now mr chico yes yes we can
Paul Turner with Orphanetes and Turner Council, Mr. Orphanetes for the greater and less intensively.
We're affirming to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay, Mr. Primavera?
Chair, excuse me, this is Sharon.
There's actually one more attorney working with Mr. Orphanetes.
That would be Andrew Ross.
Okay, I didn't see his name.
I apologize.
So, Mr. Ross, are you out there?
If so, please raise your hand, unmute yourself.
I don't see him out there.
He's coming in now as a panelist.
Thank you.
Mr. Ross, you can unmute yourself.
Mr. Ross, please spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
You're muted, Mr. Ross.
All right, why don't we do this?
we'll go to Carl Primavera's team, then we'll come back to Mr. Ross. Carl? Yes, Carl Primavera,
P -R -I -M -A -V -E -R -A, and I represent the Intervenor Permit Holder, which is Relativa LLC
and its affiliate CDC and the ultimate tenant user UPS. You're a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do, thank you. Thank you. Next on your team, Mr.
Mr. Cattuzzi. I'm actually, uh, Mr. DeCicco, uh, Joe Cattuzzi on behalf of Sam Meyer Steel
Company. I'm with the law firm of Stradley Road. Okay. Uh, let, let's, who else is on your team
with us, uh, Carl? Uh, there should only be, uh, Melanie Lacey, but only for the purposes of
assisting me if I have technical difficulty. So, uh, it's just me, uh, participating. Thank you.
All right. So, all right, let me go back to you, Mr. Cattuzzi. Please spell your name and I'll swear you in.
Morning. Joseph Cattuzzi, C -A -T -U -Z -Z -I, on behalf of Sandmeyer Steel Company.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I see, Mr. Toner, I think we did get you, right? Maggie White, Law Department.
this is maggie white on the on behalf of the department of licenses and inspections
we're from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr reuter
uh good morning uh may please the board leonard f reuter senior attorney for the city of philadelphia
let me spell your last name please i'm sorry r -e -u -t -e -r we're from to tell the truth the
T -E -R.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Did I leave anyone out, either on the appellant side or the applicant side?
If I did, please raise your hand.
Here we have Melanie Lacey.
Melanie Lacey.
I believe Melanie is assisting Mr. Primavera.
That is correct.
It's technical, right, okay.
Okay, Chair, she's coming back in as a panelist now.
Excuse me, Chair, you're muted.
Mr. Chair, may I?
Hold on, yes.
Yes, we have Leonard Reuter, Leonard Reuter. Thank you. This is Leonard Reuter speaking. I see that we do now have Chelly Dahal as a panelist. She will be the witness who I believe Mr. Orfanidi is going to continue questioning. We do have another witness who is from Illinois. If I could ask that he be made a panelist, his name is Jais Skaria.
so it's j -a -i -s -s -k -a -r -i -a um and jace if you could just uh raise your hands so the
yeah let's let him identify himself and i'll swear him right i would we'll want him to make sure that
he um is able to and he just needs audio location yes for now for now yes right he may be called
later to testify but for now he just needs audio Shelly will need um video when when it's her turn
Mr. Hall uh please spell your full name I'll swear you in
you're muted I'm not
Ms. the hall you're muted
Ms. Dahal, please unmute yourself.
There you go.
Please spell your first and last name.
C -H -E -L -I -D -A -S -A -L.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Did the court reporter get that spelling?
C -H -E -L -I -D -A -T -H -A
I'm asking the court reporter.
Yes, I did.
Were you able to get that spelling?
And I think I said we'd go back to Ms. Lacey.
Melanie Lacey, please spell your first and last name.
Oh, good morning.
name is spelled m -e -l -a -n -i -e last name l -a -c -e -y these were from to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do i won't be testifying though i know just in case
okay thank you sometimes things happen around here we don't plan for sometimes
i think is there anyone who will be either on the applicant or the
protestant side that
needs to be sworn in. Any other lawyers out there?
If so.
I'm not seeing the other person that was supposed to testify.
Mr. Chair, it looks like Andrew Ross
is appearing as Paul Toner.
Oh, yeah, it is. I'm looking at it now. Andrew, please
spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A -N -D -R -E -W -R -O -S -S.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. I believe all the principal folks have been sworn in.
Having said that, I believe Mr. Orfanides, you're up first.
Mr. DiGico, also, as far as swearing people in, we heard what you stated at the beginning of the hearing,
But we had months ago submitted a list of witnesses, offers of proof.
They included our traffic expert, Andy Heinrich, a planner, John Gibbons, an economic specialist, Jim Hartling,
Jack O 'Hara, who's the head of the, who's involved with Greater Busselton Civic League,
Michael Herskovitz, David Bauer, Bruce Sloan, Lenny Greenfield, and Bill Hill are all members of the Greater Busselton Civic League
of the um greater busselton civic league and either live or work on properties in the immediate
and either live or work.
vicinity of the subject premises they are here today to testify and we would ask that they be
sworn in and if they're on permit they're not being permitted to testify we object
um to the preclusion of them as as witnesses in this matter as they're uh truly relevant
and would provide substantial evidence regarding the issues the specific issues involved in this
case excuse me this is sharing um mr chair if i may explain that the board has reviewed all the
materials submitted including the offers of proof has determined that the testimony of anyone
other than the witnesses as named this morning will not be permitted
and again we object to the preclusion of these witnesses um because we obviously disagree and
feel that given the nature of the matter given the the lack of information that was provided to
the examiner mr your objection you may state this in closing arguments okay thank you sean
so mr hall is on
yes okay and may i share the screen and utilize the um our exhibits that were submitted to the board
can everybody see that yes
uh mr hall um mr uh good morning how are you this morning
if you can enlarge that that would be helpful oh yes sir
that's good thank you okay okay so mr hall um council for the city mr reuter provided us
with some screenshots of um what's known as the eclipse system um and can you describe for the
the board real briefly what the Eclipse system is.
This is a, you are asking me?
This is a new system and the applicant has to apply online.
Then the document must be uploaded
in applicant document section and then we review it
and then we give the permit.
If we need the more information, we mark up on the plan
and they will provide the information.
And then we issue the permit if everything is correct.
And Mr. Hall, so what I have up on the screen right now,
there are two zoning permit applications
and zoning permits at issue in this case.
And they are ZP2020000653 and ZP202010545, correct?
And were you the examiner for both of those permit applications?
And did you issue both of those permits as a matter of right to the applicant?
And what I have up on the screen right now that's being reviewed by the board, which everybody who's on the Zoom call right now, is that is a screenshot from Eclipse, correct?
Got it.
And that is regarding ZP 2020 -000 -653, correct?
Yes, got it.
And it lists two addresses.
Is that correct?
One Red Lion Road and 198 San Meyer Lane, correct?
Got it.
And it has the creation date as April 7th, 2020,
issue date of December 30, 2020,
and the expiration date of December 29, 2023.
Is that correct?
And what is the creation date?
Creation.
Excuse me.
Creation date means like,
we are talking which application.
Can I explain the process a little bit?
When the application was applied,
it was for the unity of use,
not for the new construction.
I issued the permit for the unity of use
after the CBT design was over.
And after that, I had to create the child application.
The application number GP2020 -010545
was the child application I created by myself.
child application i created by myself applicant doesn't have to apply for two applications
Applicant doesn't have to...
and then i have issued the permit under this gp202010545 for the new construction and the use
mr hall i'm just asking about 600653 right now okay and a specific question regarding
the creation date versus the issue date. So the creation date, is that the date that the
application is submitted? Yes. Okay. So, all right. So the application is submitted on April 7th,
and then this permit is issued on December 30th of the same year, correct? Got it. Okay.
And here's another screenshot that was provided by council for the city.
um and it talks about and this this box would be what enlarge uh david please
if you can enlarge that it's no problem thank you for asking is that better yes thank you
and mr hall would this would this work description who who enters this information the work
description who is the applicant applicant okay and for zero zp 2020 000 653 um it states five
things correct yes okay one is for the unity of use for the two existing lots for purposes of zoning
whereas the unity of use will be bound by easements agreements and covenants clearly
limiting present and future owners of the lots of parcels to unity of use, which will be recorded.
Number two, and again, this is exhibit we're looking at, we were previously looking at 4A
from our exhibit book. This is 4B. Number two, for the complete demolition of all existing
structures for the erection of one -story partial two -story detached structure and for the erection
of accessory structures. Number three, for use as warehouse, distribution, and trucking and
transportation terminal with accessory offices and vehicle services and maintenance with accessory
structures for employee access, maintenance and accessory vehicle fueling in paren,
providing gasoline, diesel, CNG dispenser and CNG station, end paren, and wash station with
With 1 ,827 accessory parking spaces, start paren 956 employee spaces, comma, 737 trailer spaces, comma, and 134 tractor spaces, end paren, comma, less than 25 loading spaces and 101 bicycle spaces, period.
Number four, as per enclosed plans prepared by Bowler Engineering, PA, comma, LLC, comma, dated March 4th, comma, 2020, period.
five applications submitted without prejudice to comma or abandonment of comma all prior permits
and approvals period that's correct that's that's the application that was submitted
by the applicant correct for this particular permit number yes okay and i'm looking at number
three um when some well let me back up when somebody puts in an application through eclipse
or even with a paper application they're to utilize the use categories and use subcategories
set forth in the Philadelphia Zoning Code that was first adopted in, I believe, August of 2012,
correct? Yes. Okay. Is a look in line in number three, warehouse, is that a use category or
subcategory set forth in the zoning code? Use category, like warehouse. Okay. Is that,
that answer is yes yes okay is distribution just distribution a use category or subcategory use
subcategory subcategory it says like warehouse and distribution it's like the same like this is the
this in a warehouse is the main use and then it comes together like warehouse and distribution
and then this is under the warehouse distribution comes together with the warehouse well mr hall
is it is you know and just for a moment um can we just check can we have that last question and
answer read back by the reporter i just want to make sure that the reporter's getting what's being
stated by mr hall here so we have a clear record she is kind of hard to understand but i got the
last is distribute distribute i can't say that word distribution use a category or some kind
distributed i can't say that word distribution use a category or some kind of you some kind of
use of category and then she said subcat it's like a warehouse and distribution it's like the
same this warehouse is and then it comes together like a warehouse and distribution and then it is
under the warehouse she's very hard to understand so i just need her to slow down okay talk talk a
little louder okay this would be under warehouse distribution and storage this is the main use
warehouse wholesale distribution and warehouse is the main use this is the yeah this comes
the warehouse distribution and yes okay yeah and again i'm just gonna ask the court reporter
just to whenever there's an issue here, because I think we had a little bit of this the first time
around, and you're not getting everything down clearly, please have Mr. Hall restate or slow
down, because it's important that we develop a clear record in this case. Mr. Hall, isn't it
true that there is no use category of distribution, that it's wholesale distribution and distribution?
It is a category.
This is the category under the wholesale distribution and storage.
This is under the same category.
If you go to the table 14602 -3, it's a warehouse.
This is a use time.
So you're saying there is a use category or use subcategory that's just called distribution, correct?
Just called the...
Or is distribution, I'm sorry, I asked that question.
Are you saying that that is a word used in and of itself or does it go with wholesale?
We go by the warehouse. Warehouse is there in the main use.
This is the main use under the table 14602 -3.
And the whole subcategory is wholesale distribution and storage.
And this is the warehouse.
okay so there's warehouse yes okay maybe can mr hall turn on her video is that would that be
i don't know if that's helpful in understanding or not yeah that would help me what's that i don't
know if that's possible um but okay so mr hall again there there isn't it true that there is no
So there is no use category or subcategory that is called just distribution, that it actually is wholesale and distribution, correct?
You've got it.
All right.
And then number three, it goes on to state accessory offices and vehicle services and maintenance.
Is there a use category in the zoning code that is simply vehicle services and maintenance?
I'm having a hard time here. You're breaking up a little bit, Mr. Hall.
One second, please excuse me.
So I asked the question, does the use or sub -use category that states simply vehicle services
and maintenance, those four words, does that exist in the zoning code by itself?
Excuse me.
And again, I'm just talking, this is the application, Mr. Hall.
This is the information that was provided to you by the applicant.
Is there some, Mr. Hall, is there somebody there with you?
no i my this speaker is not working today my computer was not working there so yeah
i i'm asking for the help help from help from whom we had this we had this issue we had this
issue the last time where we were asking you questions and there was somebody else assisting
you i mean no offense but we're you are you are being examined and we're looking for your testimony
your testimony only who is who is there with you right now yeah
Yeah. Mr. Hall, are you talking to yourself or to somebody else?
No offense. Mr. Hall, are you getting assistance from someone regarding responding to these
questions? She's coming in now as a panelist. I think she was trying to figure out how to do the
video okay yeah we sorry thank you um my understanding is that she was not able to use
the video uh i don't know if she was not made a full panelist or her video was locked out so that
she was my understanding is that she's just trying to find out if there's a problem on her end yeah
no criticism we just want to make sure that um and again since we have the second well that's
being worked out uh the i might suggest that you know if mr orphanetes wants to establish what the
code says in terms of the use categories can you hear me yeah one minute mr hall hold on one minute
yes i think that uh you know if he wants to present just the uh sections of the philadelphia
code the board could just simply take judicial notice of that um and you know we would agree to
what obviously what the code says um but uh so i i think it would be more fruitful to just simply
show the section of the code and i don't think that needs to be verified by a witness what the
code says but well i think it's i think it's relevant because this is the application part
of our case you know this goes back to our witnesses in general is that what was presented
to the examiner wasn't in the application is inaccurate isn't even in the code let alone
accurate portrayal of what is being proposed by ups and in addition to that is it goes to
whether or not the permit was properly reviewed and issued i and and again i i think it's been
established that the work description that's being shown on the screen right now is what was
presented by the applicant and the code says what it says so again i'm not sure why we need to spend
45 minutes questioning the plans examiner to tell you what everybody already agrees with
this is what the this is the application and the code says what it says and i understand again it
is a legal argument whether this description meets what is provided for in the code that that's
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleh.
There's no dispute about any of this.
Excuse me, gentlemen, and one other thing before Sharon begins.
I don't mean to put a burden on you, but since there's so many people who will be testifying, if you can just say your name before you begin, that would be helpful for the court reporter and the record.
Thank you.
Sharon.
And this is Sharon. If I can just mention that Mr. Orphanides has 15 minutes remaining in which to question Ms. DeHal.
If he would like to spend his time on these questions, then I think the board will give him some leeway.
And again, I object to the limitation on our testimony. We have no, with all due respect to Ms. Saleta and the board, you know, we clearly have the right. It's well established.
We've asserted this to the board in our prior submissions, all of which we will move into the record to the board.
And all of your objections are noted, Mr. Orfanides. Thank you.
Thank you. Lastly, sorry, David, just for a sec. Could you also make Jais Skaria, as I mentioned before, he is here as a witness for L &I.
I'm not sure if he needs to testify, but again, he says he's not even able to hear the audio right now.
I think he's still in the waiting room.
are you asking that he'd be uh made a member of the panel
uh i think he could be made a member of the panel i don't think he's going to say anything
at this point but yes because apparently i can tell you the city's been having some real problems
with its network all morning so um i almost wasn't even able to make the hearing so yes if
you can make him uh uh at least let him in because i think he's still in the lobby uh if he's in the
lobby he should be able to hear everything so and then i can just let you know later if he needs to
be made a panelist so i'm sorry um pauline it um this is tanya the zoning board administrator
there is no lobby am i correct yes so if something's going on it might be that he needs
to try to find another area where he can try to access wi -fi because we don't have him showing
in our attendee list at all because we can just readily promote him so it might be the
um internet where he is okay i just let him know so he'll sorry he's walking as
Sorry, as you wish, Mr. Reuter, he can also call in on the phone number that is available.
as you wish mr reuter he can also call in on
OK, and he's trying to log in. He's trying to re -log in right now. So he said if he was me to resend him the Zoom link, I can do that as well.
No, he has that. He said he just got accidentally. He got kicked out. But again, our network has been pretty much it's been very problematic all morning.
But anyway, I think it's going to be okay. I'll let you know later. We can finish with Ms. DeHall now.
Mr. Orfanides, in all fairness to you, we just stayed up a few minutes of your 15 minutes, so you still have 15 minutes, okay?
Thanks. I appreciate that.
I'm not the supervisor standing there.
So, okay. And again, Ms. DeHall, you're there by yourself, correct?
Yes, it's okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Great. So vehicle service and maintenance, isn't it correct that the zoning code does not have a use category or subuse category that's simply vehicle services and maintenance, that it's either personal vehicle services and maintenance or commercial service, commercial vehicle services and maintenance? Isn't that correct?
And isn't it, well, this property is located in what, the I -2 zoning district?
And it's also located in the Far Northeast Overlay District, correct?
And you are aware that commercial vehicle repair and maintenance and personal vehicle repair and maintenance are both prohibited in the Far Northeast Overlay, correct?
Correct.
All right.
But this is the accessory maintenance.
This is not the main maintenance.
This is for the transportation terminal center.
This is for the accessories, maintenance, as per code 14601 -10I.
Like, it is not the personal or commercial vehicle repair and maintenance use.
Okay, I'm not sure I understand that.
This is the accessory use.
This is not the main use.
And it's an accessory use, but isn't it true under the zoning code, Mr. Hall,
that accessory uses are restricted and controlled just as principal or primary uses?
are controlled so if it's not it doesn't say in the code so if it's not permitted at a
principal use it's not permitted as an accessory use is that not correct
accessory use zoning permit is required they apply for the building application
but in this case after the cb design review i mentioned it but accessory use and the
The accessory structure shouldn't be mentioned in the zoning for me.
You don't have to apply for the accessory use.
Mr. Hall, can you just answer my question?
Is our accessory uses there if a use is prohibited as a principal use,
it would also be prohibited as an accessory use under the Philadelphia zoning code, correct?
It's correct.
But the main use is not the personal vehicle repairs and maintenance.
Thank you, Mr. Hall.
You answered my question.
And I'm going to now go quickly to 010545.
That is the other permitted issue here.
And is this what's shown on the screen?
Is this also a snapshot from Eclipse?
Screenshot.
Yes or no?
Okay. And this shows a creation date of December 23rd, 2020,
an issue date of December 23rd, 2020, correct? Yes. Okay.
So is it that the application was submitted on the same day the permit was issued?
They didn't apply. I have created the child application. Okay. And this also called,
this now also sets forth this permit sets forth the same uses and accessory uses as were set forth
in the prior uh application that we discussed correct got it okay and those same uses and
accessory uses that we've discussed we're also here at exhibit six are the actual zoning permits
that you issued, correct? ZP 2020 -01 -0545. Is that the permit for that application?
Yes. 12 -23 -2020. And it sets forth those uses. Now, what's interesting is this permit has an
additional language that says amended permit language as of 1 -13 -2021 per Civic Design Review
committee accessory retail sales and office uses are proposed in the accessory structure
uh are retail sales permitted in the i2 zoning district that this prop where this property is
located they're not low let me strike that access retail sales are not permitted
they're not low let me strike that excess retail sales are not permitted in the i2 zoning district
is that correct where the property is located okay yes please explain why a permit that was
issued on 12 23 20 references language from a date after the permit was issued
in reference 113 2021 which is after the date of the permit
After the civic design, the applicant wanted to put the language over there, but this is
not the wrong permit because this is the accessory use and accessory structure.
I don't have to put in my language.
I put it because after the civic design notification, the applicant wants me to put the language.
That's why I amended the permit.
Same permit, I added accessory detail sale and the accessory structure on that same permit.
Mr. Hall, isn't it true that Civic Design Review issued their position on this case in November of 2020?
But you're referencing something from January 13th of 2021.
What are you actually referencing there?
What was done, submitted, written on 1 -13 -2021?
Maybe after CVDGN, they decided to put that language over there.
You're not sure?
I'm not sure.
You're not sure. Okay.
Okay. Now, were there any – was there an amended application submitted in this case?
Where can you we've we've not been provided with any of that information from the city in our right to no request. What was that amended permit application?
When was that submitted?
Amended. This would be under the same application number. The amended permit is under the same
original application number. GP2020 -010545. And then we can see the date. Like if you go this application.
Going back to Exhibit 4C.
Yeah, applicant document, like.
But that's a separate application, correct? That gets submitted.
No, it's not the separate, same application.
Same application number, but you have to submit a separate application to amend an existing permit, correct?
Correct, but nothing was changed. Nothing was changed. Everything was the same.
And they didn't have to submit the new plan.
If they submit the new plans and then they make the, they describe as a new application, in my case, everything was the same.
But I amend the permit to aid the language.
That's it.
That's why they don't have to apply for the new application.
You just said an amended application is a new application under the existing permit number, correct?
Correct.
But nothing was changed.
What's that?
Nothing was changed.
Well, there is something that changed because you reference in your permit, you reference something that happened after the date of the permit. You reference something from January 13th, 2021, which you've stated you don't know what that is, although your permit references it. Correct?
Yeah, got it.
Okay. And so we haven't been provided with the amended application language for ZP 2020 -01 -0545, correct?
We don't have that.
No, we don't have that.
All right.
And were there any other communications between you and the applicant during the application process, during your review process?
Did you have any other communications with them?
You had other communications.
Were those communications in via email or telephone call or in personal meetings?
Sometimes I call them, sometimes emails.
sometimes change the plans so there were changes to the plans correct yes did you issue comments
going back to the screenshots that were provided to us by council by council for the city did you
issue uh comments through eclipse no i marked on the plan and then they have to answer by the plan
They changed the plan because in the plan, I marked up what I needed to be changed.
what i needed to be changed and after that they provided the new plans language is the same
And after that, they provided the new plan.
language was changed on the application all right so you marked up plans and you uploaded
them to eclipse correct they uploaded i mark up and then they change it goes to the applicant and
you upload the marked up plans to eclipse so then they make any changes based upon your markups
correct? Right. And they have changed it. They uploaded the new plans. Okay. And do you have
copies of the different versions of the plans that were submitted by the applicant? Sorry,
we don't keep in the Eclipse. If we don't need it, we'll delete it. Because they went to the
Civic Design Review and after that... I'm not worried about Civic Design Review. I'm asking
about the plans they submitted. No, we don't hold it. Whatever it is into the system, that's it.
I have still the correct plan.
So you're telling me there's no record of the various plans that they submit through Eclipse?
Really? So in the document, there's a folder in Eclipse that says, that has documents.
And it has all the documents that have been uploaded through the various stages of the review.
And you're saying those do not show up in Eclipse once the permit's been issued?
sometimes it remains sometimes it is deleted okay in this case have you checked to see whether
they remained or whether they were deleted no i mark up the plans when i review please answer
my question in this case were they are did you have you checked under both of these permit
applications to see whether any prior versions of the plans or any all the submissions that were
made by the applicant have been saved and still show up on Eclipse?
Sometimes it's still...
Do you know? Do you know whether they were or not?
I don't remember.
You don't know. Okay. Is that something you can review?
You could advise this board about?
any other communications you had with the applicant did you have any communications
via email with the applicant yeah i had it when i reviewed the application
and what were those communications with the applicant about
about the plants about the
did they did they provide you with any did they provide you with any details regarding the nature
of their proposal yes and the words warehouse distribution the words that show up in their
application did they provide you with any other details in the words in their application
or what what they presented on their plans regarding the nature of their proposed use
of the property and the way it was to be constructed there they they provided what
is in the application and that was understood because this is actually wholesale and the
distribution but this is not for the personal vehicle repairs and maintenance this project
is not for the retail sale and it was quite understanding because this is for the exit use
and the accessory structure, the main use is the warehouse and the distribution.
That's why the information was enough when I reviewed the application.
So you're saying that by using the words they used in their application,
by putting what was on the plan, which is included in our exhibit book,
at um well we have the zoning permits at five and six and seven and then we have the approved plans
at exhibit eight that there you in your mind what was presented in the language of the application
and what was shown on the plans was enough for you to evaluate this application and that what
they indicated on the application is what they actually proposed to do there is no additional
information requested or provided is that correct yeah they provided provided what
information plan sometimes they change the plans because i'm asking you did they provide you
anything else other than the plans anything else other than the language in the application which
anything else other than the application language and the plans did they provide you with anything
else to explain or elaborate on their proposed use of the property?
Yes, they did.
What did they provide to you?
They provided me all the information what I needed.
and they yes and and what and all right so you they provided you what you needed
And they, yes.
what information that you needed was there i guess that you determined you needed
other than the application language and the plans that were i guess changed from what was
originally submitted to what was eventually approved per your language per your testimony
i'm sorry so what else did they provide to you first i have asked the question about the retail
sale and they told me this is the retail sale this is the accessory used as per the definition
and okay stop stop stop right there stop right there i'm sorry to interrupt um but your time
has actually run out so if you can summarize that would be helpful i mean i i i i mean i spent
So I've asked a number of questions that I can't get a straight answer to. No offense to Mr. Hall, but this is incredibly important to this case. I know you gave me a half an hour, but right now, and I know it was extended possibly because of technical difficulties the city's having, but we're right here talking about what's the meat of the case.
what is what was the information provided to the examiner regarding the use and what was her
evaluation of that information and that goes to i mean if we're going to have her testify this is
i'm sorry i i have to chime in here it's not as well excuse me i can say hold on hold on hold on
please right to mr orphanages just hang in there one second mr reuter well again uh we would beg
to differ uh we've kind of uh let uh mr orphanetes go on with basically the same question asked 75
different ways for the last half hour um if he doesn't like the answer that's just too bad um he
can find somebody else to ask or he can again present his own witnesses to testify the only
issue before this board is does the application itself which we have provided and which they have
Does the application itself and the plans that were approved by the department meet the requirements of the code?
Again, it is strictly a legal question.
The documents that everybody has, I think, stipulated to, which is, again, the permit application, what's showing on the screen right now, the work description, does that work description meet the requirements of the code?
and then the plans again which they have copies of the of the plans everybody stipulated to the
authenticity all of this other stuff is just trying to i'm not sure what the point of it is
frankly i think we just either it's basically this this is what you're seeing on the screen
is the only issue everybody agrees that this is what this is the work description that was
provided on the application can we issue a permit for this thing and then also the plans which
they've also shown who said what to who and again i think we provided that i believe mr primavera's
client uh obviously would maybe be in a better position to know what they sent what they didn't
send uh in terms of like any emails or questions and answers which you know but i again i don't
see that any of that even matters uh they apparently they claim to have these expert
witnesses who are going to testify that we should not have issued the permit based upon this
application i wish we would just get on with it i mean that's that's mr orfanides you're saying
this is a general objection to relevance of all of this testimony understood mr mr orfanides you
have to unmute yourself i mean and i will say i'm not asking the same question in different ways i'm
i'm asking the same question and trying to get an answer no offense to mr hall the questions haven't
been directly directed to my the answers haven't been directed to my questions and again i think
i think the problem is it seems like you're not asking the direct question i'm asking you to me
so just be more direct i mean that would be helpful i asked her if how i asked her if there
been any other communications and she says yes and she says no have there been emails yes no i mean
we're getting all kinds of different answers. Now we're finding out that there was something
that was exchanged regarding retail. Well, again, I mean, there's two things. When you put in an
application of I provided all this, we provided all this previously. There's an obligation on the
part of the applicant to be truthful. And there's an obligation on the part of the applicant to also
provide enough information for the examiner to fully evaluate the application. And in this case,
they're clearly having conversations outside of the application and communications. And we're
trying to find out whether or not, based upon the information she was provided, first of all,
was it accurate, which we get to with our experts, which they have an obligation to be.
which they have an obligation to be. And secondly, based upon the information she was provided,
And secondly, based upon the information,
did she properly issue a permit? We have an issue here where the application involves uses that
aren't even in the zoning code. And then secondly, there's apparently some communications that helped
her arrive at her conclusion that she should issue a permit, again, that has uses that aren't
included in the zoning code, but that she relied upon in order to issue the permit. And if those
communications somehow shed some light on what the proposed uses are, which is why they were
having this exchange in the first place, because either she didn't understand it, which is why she
asked the question, or they felt the need to elaborate. That is extremely relevant. It is
part of this process that we are now reviewing and at issue here is, was the permit properly
issued? And there's a lot of sides to it. And Mr. Reuter wants to say it's a legal issue,
but it's a legal issue that's based upon facts. We're here for a hearing to establish -
I'm going to object. We just heard closing argument. Let's just move on with the case.
This is a repeat of what happened last time and why my client is so reciferously objecting.
So David Orvanides has a running objection to every ruling that's against him. We'll all stipulate that he's made that objection.
And let's move on, because the reality is that asking the witness from memory, and it's irrelevant in any event, because the written record shows an application and a permit.
If they don't match up as a matter of law, then he's made his case. If they do match up, which is obvious from the record and the evidence in the record, then he doesn't have a case.
But remembering how many times she spoke to different people is irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant and designed, I would say, to confuse and obfuscate. And then to say my client has been dishonest with the application. There's going to be issues with Mr. Paquetto on that. So I think that we should just close the record, have the argument, and move forward.
Well, that objection for the purpose of the court reporter, that objection was raised by Mr. Primavera, and that objection is sustained.
All right.
I'm sorry.
So wait, I don't even know what that objection was.
It means your time has run out, and we're going to go through some redirect, and then we're going to move on so that we can meet the time established by the board.
In good faith, we all have an obligation to meet the time established.
is now acting as if he's the zoning board. I understand that. Mr. Orfinites, I think you need
to stop and I think you need to follow the chair's rules. Mr. Orfinites, no one's trying
to gag you or prevent you from asking questions, but even in my non -legal mind, I'm not an attorney,
it seems like you've been asking the same questions repeatedly. No, I've actually moved
through all a series of different questions the problem is is that i keep getting slightly
different answers and that makes my job extremely difficult as i'm sure you can maybe it's no
disrespect maybe you're not getting the answer you want i think that's what i mean it's not trying to
get the answer i'm hearing on one side there's no exchange of of communications there's not an
amendment there is an amendment where's the amendment there's it's i mean i'm sorry it's
It's it's I am trying to find out what happened here again.
And you can say and which I'm entitled to do through the questions and securing testimony.
And I'm not asking the same questions. It's just that I keep getting different answers.
Well, then you're asking the same questions. If you're getting different answers, it means you're asking the same questions.
No, I'm getting this different answers in the same. I ask one question and I get different answers from the same question again.
And I can't be more specific. I'm trying, you know, I'm being very precise in what I'm saying. I learned my lesson from the first one, not to afford open ended questions, but even in my pointed questions, was there an amendment filed? It was, yes, there was, but it's not, it's, there's not a separate application. And I said, then I follow up and say, there's not a separate application. Yes, there is a separate application. I mean, we can have the reporter read it back.
doesn't matter it does matter it's extremely relevant part of the it's what
if i may if i may interject on behalf of sam meyer steel we would like an opportunity
mr could please identify yourself uh joseph cattuzzi on behalf of sam meyer steel uh we
would briefly like an opportunity to examine this witness we've been afforded no opportunity to
present our case and we'll be directing to the point uh chairman mr cattuzzi this is sharon
Ms. Saleta, as we announced at the beginning of the hearing, you will be permitted to question the witness once Mr. Orfanides has finished.
Okay, thank you, Ms. Saleta.
Once his time has run out.
understood thank you uh it's my understanding that the board's already ruled on that the time
Understood. Thank you.
It's my understanding that the board's already ruled on that.
is up yeah and that's mr reuter speaking yeah i'm sorry keep no worries keep doing that so um
okay mr katuzzi thank you thank you chairman so i'm going to share my screen uh bear with
me just a second here i think mr orfiniti's screen okay it's down now okay okay is my
screen being shared? Not yet. Okay, hold on. All right, Mr. Hull, again, my name is Joseph
Cattuzzi. I represent a neighboring property owner to One Red Line Road, Sandmeyer Steel
Company. So thank you for your time. Thank you for being here today. I have a few questions
for you. Mr. Orfanides was going through the process that you went through and some communications
you had with the applicant. I'd like to show you an email dated April 23rd, 2020 from the
applicant's counsel to a Kristen Bay with the philadelphia .gov address. And there's really
one part of this email I just want to show you and see if you have a reaction and recollection.
The applicant's counsel is talking about the proposed uses and then says, where it's highlighted here, I think the examiner looked at the overlay and saw that the code suggests that accessory uses, which would otherwise be prohibited as principal uses, should be prohibited and require ZBA approval.
Ms. DeHal, does that, hearing that, does that ring a bell or refresh your recollection at all?
Yeah, this is the first time I have asked the question, but I didn't know that that is the accessory detail sale and the accessory structure at that time.
And then after Civic Design, I issued the permit. I came to know that this is not the main use.
This is just like for the accessory use for the main use. That's why I have added the information as for the Civic Design notification.
Is it is it fair to say, Mr. Hall, that your your initial impression when you looked at the materials was that this required would require a zoning board approval?
Yes. OK. And can you walk me through why you believe that?
Because I saw the definition of like, can I give you the core section?
Sure. That'd be great. And I may bring it up here, too, but you can give it to me, Mr. Hall.
i didn't mean to interrupt you mr hall what was the code it's okay it's okay thank you
okay and then did you express when you when you form the belief that it needed zoning board
approval uh did you communicate that to to anyone i communicated with my applicant i discuss about
this project and then she told me that this is not the retail sale this is not the fueling gas
station this is just like an accessory use and i suggested to the applicant if it is an accessory
use they don't have to put apply for the zoning application this is just like understood and they
have the core section two core sections it allows to have the accessory retail sale and the accessory
repair for only for the main use and then as for as base of the definition and as for the cb design
results the permit and mr hall prior to this application how long have you been a plan examiner
10 11 years about 12 10 to 12 years yes 12 years about how many plans would you say you've reviewed
in your decades worth of experience as a plan examiner? So many. I hear you. So quite a few
plans, right? Right. And it's fair to say your instincts then having reviewed so many plans,
you're pretty familiar with the zoning code. Yes, yes. And did you, when you formed your initial
belief, that was based on your over decades of experience, right? When you determined it needed
zoning board. You've been doing this for so long, it seems pretty simple to you, right? Yes. Okay.
So I'll put up on the screen an example. This is, we agree that the property is zoned I -2 and in the
far northeast overlay district. Yeah, just an objection. When you say it may need zoning board
approval, what use are we talking about? I think she's been talking about what we're described as
either accessory fueling or retail i just want to make sure since this is an area of examination by
examination by Mr. Cattuzzi, that he explains what his real issue is. We're not talking about
that he explains what his
the million plus square feet of warehouse. You're talking about a de minimis amount of either
truck washing or truck fueling solely for UPS trucks, and then a business office,
which is a de minimis size. I think she said after CDR, and I hope the stenographer understood
what she said, she saw additional supplemental information through a very voluminous CDR
process. And she realized, oh, this isn't a Sunoco gas station. This is strictly for the trucks. So
let's be particular about what you're examining. I'm going to object to that. That's not even an
objection. It's not based on relevancy. My question was very clear. We looked at an email
and we continued. So that's not an objection to relevancy. It's not a proper objection.
But we'll continue. It's confusing. What are you referring to?
Look, I have limited time.
I'm trying to be as direct as possible.
And those types of interruptions and objections are not proper and delay this.
All right.
Maybe I don't understand.
But are you talking about the fueling or the car wash?
What are you talking about so I can understand?
It's not clear to me from your question.
This is a million square foot operation.
What are you talking about so we know what she's answering?
Could you be more specific, Mr. Cattuzzi?
um well so so mr hall we'll go through now we we agree um because i want to probe your
your initial assessment back in i guess that email was dated april all right uh we'll pull
it back up up there with me april of 2020 it was
yeah so april 2020 i apologize let me pull this back up
all right so april of 2020 that's the time frame when you and at that point when you
made the determination that zoning board approval was required were you looking at the zone what
for what it's only required for what please carl please what one minute the sonographer can't
did you yeah mr cathutia you can be more specific to that question that would be helpful
Sure. So, Mr. Hall, I'm going to put up a picture of a plan that I think we've all agreed shows the types of uses. And I've highlighted some things here. Do you remember seeing this general plan for this application?
can you see on my screen yes all right so this is exhibit five in sandmeyer steel zoning
zoning exhibit package but mr hall i'm going to go over a few uses that are shown and then i'm
going to ask you some questions about them okay so do you remember seeing this uh proposed
warehouse that's over a million square feet yes okay and then uh oh
and then do you remember seeing a portion of that million square foot warehouse is titled
proposed accessory vehicle service and maintenance and it's nearly 20 ,000 square feet
do you remember seeing that vehicle service and maintenance is this one of the uses that you
thought needed zoning board approval no it's not i said the accessory is not
accessory we don't they don't have to go to the zoning board they don't need to i asked like maybe
it is a main use is the retail sale and the auto repair shop applicant told me this is not the main
use if it is the accessory use service then they don't have to go okay but just trying to get a
better sense of um what exactly made you you know formed your belief what exactly was it in the plans
and materials that you thought they needed zoning board approval?
Because for my safety point of view, I have asked if they have the retail or not.
They say no, no retail, no auto repair shop.
I want to make sure whether I'll review the good for me.
That's why I asked them.
And they explained to me this is not the main auto repair shop.
This is not the main gas station.
This is for only accessory use for the main use.
Okay. So just a few uses on the plan. I'm going to see if you remember them. You have the vehicle service and maintenance portion of the building. We have vehicle fuel storage or proposed accessory fuel storage and proposed vehicle wash station. Do you remember these components on the plan, the components of the use?
Yes, yes.
Now we'll go back to the zoning code section.
We all agree that it's zoned in the far northeast overlay district?
Okay. And do you remember seeing this code provision? This is, I represent to you, it's from the section about use regulations in the Far Northeast Overlay, and it says commercial vehicle repair and maintenance, vehicle fuel stations, etc., are prohibited within all lots zoned I -1, I -2, right?
And do you remember seeing this?
this is not the main use that's okay but but is it fair to say that um well how about this
yes and answered she says because it's not a main use or open to the public it's permitted
if you don't like the answer object to it and move on the objection is sustained it's been
asked several times, Mr. Kattusi, by yourself and Mr. Orfanides. Sure. Mr. Hall, is it your
position now, this is the definition, I'm just putting up the screen of how commercial vehicle
repair and maintenance uses are defined. Is it your position that if the applicant calls a use
accessory, then it can repair, install, maintain the mechanical components and bodies of large
trucks on property, even if it's explicitly prohibited, that the definition accessory
somehow allows, otherwise allows, which was otherwise prohibited? That doesn't fall under
that category because they are not doing the repair. The main use is the transportation center
and that is accessory for the repair for the cross -transposition center, not for the repair
for other stops. That's why it doesn't comply with that section, but this is understood. This
is only for the retail and the auto repairs of like personal vehicle repair and maintenance
only for the main use that this is not for the repair for other stops that's why like
we don't have to see that definition i guess okay but the so how about the fueling facilities
because remember we went over the the fueling storage center that that's shown on the plan
and they have they talk about fueling uses i would say objection asked and answered
mr hall please mr hall please respond so mr hall remember we talked about the the fueling uh
facilities and fueling features on the plan now the far northeast overlay district prohibits
commercial vehicle repair and maintenance uses i understand we we maybe disagree about whether or
not this means you can do it if it's accessory. But it does say here that truck stops, and this
was the portion of the plan that was in place when you reviewed it, it says truck stops and
fueling facilities are included in this definition. So why didn't the application get a refusal if
they're putting fueling facilities on the... Excuse me? Because they have to go to the
zoning board if the main use was like auto repair and the gas station that's not the main use main
use is the transportation center truck transportation center and they don't have to go to the zoning
board because this is not the main use this is the accessory use gas system for the truck
transportation center not for the other people and repair just like they have the um they have
fix the like they have to fix a small thing and then they don't have to go outside that's why
that that is only for the accessory for the menus okay and mr harvey they don't have to go to the
zoning board because it doesn't another point i think he's just trying to argue with mr primavera
something's wrong with your microphone we can't hear you all right i think again i think this
accessory uses i don't see what what the objection is here it i couldn't pull in with my a truck
i'm not i'm not affiliated with ups or any other it's accessory use specific to the ups um operation
and mr chairman de chico i think this may help us uh you know address that point uh and mr hall
when you were reviewing the the application or reviewing the accessories did you consider that
the zoning code says accessory uses and structures are subject to the same regulations that apply to
principal uses and structures it's not access to you they don't have to apply for the zoning
application if it is the accessory use but in this case because they went to the zoning board that's
how i put that language as for the zoning board suggestion actually this is the like menus like
accessory use and accessory structure, they don't have to apply with the zoning application.
Okay, but did you consider this this specific section that says accessory uses?
Yes, I'm asking her if she considered it.
No, I'm asking her if she considered it.
She said she considered it.
I think she did.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Everybody slow down.
Carl, something is wrong with your microphone.
All it is is a lot of static, and we can't keep talking over each other, folks.
Thank you, Chair.
Is that better?
Mr. Primavera, it might be a good idea to go out and come back in,
and we'll immediately promote you to see if that can resolve your audio issue.
Let's give Mr. Primavera a couple minutes to get.
While we're doing that, can we just take like a minute break?
Take five minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
yes hello yes okay all right they're ready to are you ready yes i'm not rushing you if you need
more time i'm good okay all right i believe we left off with mr katuzzi all right um actually
is carl back on the line i don't want to start without him
so do you have anyone yes all right and can i be heard
mr primavera just uh mr chair yes can you hear me yes clear yes we can oh good all right thank
you sorry for the technical glitch no worries uh i believe you were making an objection when
your audio went out. I'm sorry. I just said that the objection is that this is really
repetitive and I don't see the wisdom or the appropriateness of just going through the same
issues with this witness, especially when we're on a time limit. So I just suggest Mr. Cattuzzi
move on. Yeah, Mr. Cattuzzi, Mr. Primavera is not putting words in my mouth, but I think we've
I've heard both from you and Mr. Orphanides pretty much the same questioning of this witness.
Yeah, I think, you know, a few more questions will be to wrap this up.
And it's really just gauging what was actually considered by the witness, because our position is that these zoning code sections clearly would warrant a refusal if they were considered.
And we'll tie that in the closing argument.
But with that in mind, I just want to establish what was considered or not considered.
And I'll be direct, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, Chair.
This is Tanya.
The Administrator may ask a quick question.
Mr. Primavera, are you here before us under Melanie Lacey?
I'm in her office.
So, yeah.
Thank you kindly.
Thank you.
Mr. Tuzzi, please continue.
All right.
Mr. Hull, again, what's in front of us is a zoning code section that says accessory uses
and structures are subject to the same regulations that apply to principal uses and structures.
Did you consider that in your review?
Shelly, you're muted.
Mr. Hall, okay, there you go.
Yeah, I consider, but that doesn't comply with that section. My permit was under the
core section 4601 8c and the under 14601 10i this is only accessory for the
transportation terminal and this is not the main use it means like this is not compliant with my
point okay did you consider these sections of the zoning code that say that um overlay district
provisions govern, if they're more restrictive over any conflicting provisions?
I heard of that when I did the application.
All right.
And then this property is comprised of two lots.
There's 198 Sandmeyer Lane and one Red Line Road.
Yes, and we looked at that plan earlier in the million square foot building was on 101 red line road.
And we looked at that plan earlier in the million square foot.
mr hall yes the uh the the the main building that we're talking about and all the main uses are on
the big lot the one red line road lot yes and the uh end of the cul -de -sac 198 samire lane
that lot is just being used as an accessory driveway yes okay and did you consider um
the section of the zoning code that says accessory uses and structures must be located on the same
lot as the principal use and structure and that's on the screen here
this is under the same this is under the same lot because two lots are using as a unity of use
you need a fuse means they combine they can use the same use under two different lots
that's why this is considered the one lot where does it say that in the zoning code
I have a template on how to issue the conditional unit of use permit.
Under the unit of use permit, they can use different lots.
As for one lot, the use would be considered as one lot.
They don't have to consider different applications.
If they apply six unit of use application, we can come out as one under the main application.
And there should be only one permit must be issued because this is considered as one use under the different address.
Would you agree with me, though, that just looking at the section of the zoning code I have on the screen,
it does say that accessory use is like an accessory driveway needs to be on the same lot as the principal lot.
I understand what you just said.
I'll object.
I think that's argument.
She's covered why she did it and why she didn't do what he wants, and it's argument for later
of the day.
But you would agree with me, Mr. Hall, that the section I just presented would say you
would not be allowed to do that, right?
That's not necessary.
If they apply for the unity of use, both are the main law.
We don't say this is the main law.
Both are the same principle laws.
All right. We agree to disagree on that. But, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other questions for the witness right now.
Thank you.
Who's up next? Carl?
I believe it would be.
Yeah, I'm it's the city's position, and I think everybody would probably agree that each appellant only gets one attorney to speak for them at the time.
I would ask Maggie to do this, but I don't I think she's going to bail on me.
But so but so, no, Mr. Toner and Mr. Ross don't get they can.
I don't have a problem with them participating in argument, but I don't think they have a separate right to ask their own questions.
So for the city, then I would like to proceed just a few questions of Ms. DeHall, if I may.
Yes, please.
Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Sorry, you're still here this morning.
I just had a few questions to ask you.
Just so the board and maybe everybody understands some of the process here.
There's been a lot of discussion about accessory uses versus main uses and all of that.
In the past, you say you've been doing this for 10 to 12 years.
Is that right?
So in the past, prior to Eclipse and even prior to the 2012 zoning code revisions, did applicants specifically apply for accessory uses to have those added?
And that has changed, is that correct, since 2012?
So accessory uses are no longer specifically applied for, is that correct?
Right.
So if an applicant or if a property owner has an activity that's taking place on a property that is not covered by the zoning permit that they have, the use permit that they have, then it's up to an inspector to determine whether that's a violation.
then it's up to an inspector to determine whether that's a violation.
Would that be fair to say?
Would that be fair to say?
Now, in terms of accessory uses, I think maybe I want to – I hate doing this,
but I'm going to try to share my screen here.
I just wanted to show – and I think we've already shown these before,
but I just want to show a couple very quick little things.
I'm going to pull this up.
All right, now let's see if this works.
I'm going to try to share my screen here.
I'm not sure what you're seeing.
Are you seeing anything?
It just says screen sharing started, blank screen though.
Mr. Reuter, this is Pauline from IT. If you stop screen sharing and then open your document and
restart it, the screen share, it might work. Yeah, right now, can you hear me at all? Yes.
Okay, because now everything's frozen. All right, that's okay. You don't need to see anything.
Wait, I just stopped the screen sharing. Let me itch. Okay, so you're saying I should
open the document yeah and then screen and then go back and screen share correct well I thought
I tried that but we'll see uh if this doesn't work um I'm just going to quit there we go
that should be showing yes yes can you can you see something all right uh and uh Mr. Hall can
you see that yes okay so this is is this a description of the uh industrial use uh category
Okay, I'm just going to scroll down. So, now we have subsection I here.
I, yes.
And that is trucking and transportation terminal.
Is that right? Okay.
Right.
In that description of the main use, that is the use, the subcategory use, trucking and transportation terminals, does that specifically state that minor repair and maintenance of vehicles stored on the premises is also included?
does the last sentence of that description say that yes okay so is it this just is it the
determination of l and i that minor maintenance uh minor repair and maintenance of vehicles
at a trucking and transportation terminal is actually part of the main use yes okay so i'm
going to ask you uh and with with the board's indulgence i just want to ask sort of a hypothetical
question here. I understand she's not testifying in that as an expert, but I think it'll help to
clarify some of the distinctions that have been made. You are, Mr. Hall, are you familiar with
the educational uses like a school, for instance? Yes. Okay. Relevance. We'll connect it up. Let's
hall you're familiar that schools uh have bands they have uh they have people doing plays things
like that right okay so when a school puts on a play or has a band concert um
do they need a separate permit for that or is that just considered what schools do
this falls under the educational facility under the new code in the old code they we have to
mention like what's going on but now you don't have to because this is not the main use right
and schools sure and schools also have cafeterias but they're not considered food establishments
right right that's just what schools do so when we're talking about a trucking terminal
and you have trucks coming in and out all day it's just part of what trucking terminals do
is they get fueled up and maybe they get an oil change and some tire work right yes right and
again we're not talking about body work we're not talking about major uh you know engine work or
rebuilds or anything we're just talking about minor maintenance is that right right and if they
were to do something like body work or major maintenance and major repairs, you would think
that would be a violation? Yes. Okay. Now, I'm going to unshare. I'm going to pull up another
document very quickly, hopefully. We'll see. I'm just going to object to that hypothetical on the
basis that it was a hypothetical line of questionings, and a more accurate example would
have been if you operate if you have a school but the zoning code specifically says no marching
Mark Benthien, M .D.: marching bands and you're saying, well, a marching band is part of the school when the zoning code specifically prohibits an activity on the property, I think that would be in a more appropriate hypothetical, but we just object to the hypothetical line of questioning okay well that that that that that's fair.
bands and you're saying well a marching band is part of the school when the zoning code specifically
And I want to reserve the right to call Mr hall to rebut these statements made by Mr roger.
and again uh we we would say that's all argument um but that that's fine and it would be the city's
position that if a school were in a uh in a zoning within a zoning classification that
prohibited uh you know band concerts uh that would not apply to the school because it's part
of the main use it's what schools do um and it would be kind of absurd to argue otherwise so
So thank you, Mr. Cattuzzi, for pointing out the absurdity of the position that you and your clients are taking here.
So with respect to the other thing I'm going to share.
Let me try this again.
Is this it?
Right. So hopefully you can now see this.
Can you see this, Mr. Hall, wholesale distribution storage use category?
Yes. Okay. Now, within this, you will see that there is
subcategory wholesale sales and distribution. Yes. That would be subsection 9D.
Okay. And in that description, does it indicate that incidental retail sales are permitted?
Yes. And again, it's a position of the department that they are permitted because
they're part of the main use it's what again it's what they do yes right
so okay so again i'm not going to repeat the same kind of questions that i did before
but i just wanted to you know try to clarify that we're talking about uses that are essentially
incidental and part of the main use now mr hall with respect to the questions that were raised
about the unity of use um that is a process that the department has used uh as long as you've been
in the department yes okay and uh it's it's your understanding that at least for quite for at least
the last 10 or 12 years that you've been doing it that the city has uh permitted uh
lots that are next to each other that are owned by the same entity to treat those as a single
zoning lot is that right okay uh and has with respect to the the issue uh here um we're talking
about um the sandmeyer lane property is being used uh essentially as a as a drive to access
That's the one red line road property.
Is that right?
And as part of that unity of use,
is the department requiring the property owner
to submit and to record documents
that assert that these two properties
will forever remain essentially connected
and used for the same purpose?
And you just generically call those
the unity of use documents?
and might might that also include like deed restrictions and whatnot
yes yes yes okay um so uh now mr katuzzi had asked um if the zoning code explicitly uh
addressed unity of uses um would you agree that that you the unity of uses are not explicitly
discussed in the zoning code no it's not right okay but again it has been the policy the department
to allow that for at least the last several decades yes okay all right and again um you know
we believe we'll address the rest of that argument that's essentially a legal argument that again
we're going to address uh at the appropriate time in closing but for now i don't have any further
questions for Ms. DeHal. Thank you. Who's next in line? Mr. Primavera? I believe so. Can you hear me,
Mr. Chair? Yes. Yes, we can. All right. Good. And I'll be brief because Mr. Reuter covered most of
what I wanted to do. So, Ms. DeHal, the property is zoned I -2, which is an industrial classification.
But in addition to defined industrial uses, there's other categories.
Defined industrial uses, there's other categories which are permitted in the industrial district, which would include the uses we're talking about, such as wholesale distribution and storage, as well as truck terminal, trucking depot, etc.
And the permit that was issued actually spells out a lot of, if not everything that's been discussed today.
So there's no hidden element here. We have warehouse distribution, trucking, and transportation terminal. We have vehicle service and maintenance. We have a wash station for our vehicles. And we even have a little business office retail space consistent with what Mr. Reuter just described in the code.
So there's nothing either in the application or in the permits that you issued that's missing from this entire discussion about this development.
No, everything is included.
And are you familiar with the term incidental use?
An incidental use is a use which is embedded in a primary use, and it's part and parcel to the approved use, whether it would be bathrooms, cafeteria, whatever it is, they are embedded within the permitted use.
Now, do you know who Sarah Adamo is?
Yes, I know.
And what's her title within L &I?
Sorry, I know her, but I don't know the title.
Does she have a supervising role with regard to code interpretation within L &I?
All right. Do you recall, and I'll point it out, I think it's exhibit nine in my package.
I'm not going to ask anyone to look at it now, because if I touch something, it'll break.
But does she sometimes review code interpretations to assist the examiners?
Yes, if you have to discuss.
All right.
And just for the purposes of the board, you'll see the correspondence with my office and the solicitor's office and Sarah Damo,
where she confirms what we heard today from the examiner in terms of the as of right nature of
these uses. With regard to the unity of use, are you aware of the solicitor's opinion
where the city solicitor authorized the unity of use procedures and process?
Yes. All right. And I don't have that number, but I know it's in our exhibit package as well.
Yeah, I'm not going to ask you to review it. You've been more than helpful already.
So with regard to this development for UPS, do you believe it's similar to Federal Express, maybe Superior, Postal Service, Amazon, these types of uses as being appropriate for I2?
I'm going to object because we don't know what those specific uses are, what the applications are.
We don't know any details as far as what he's asking.
I think any, I think any, even anybody, including myself, would understand that there's very similar, very similar type of business.
There can be, but there can also be differences.
Without more detail, I object to this line of question.
If she, if she knows.
Overruled, overruled.
All right. Ms. DeLau, have you issued permits for these types of facilities
in similar districts, I -1, I -2, including on property owned by the Philadelphia Industrial
Development Corporation? Yes. All right. So city -owned property is being developed for these
uses, and I assume the Postal Service has been around for more than a few years? Yes. So these
uses and these permits that are being issued for these uses aren't something that you or
Al and I have never considered before.
All right.
I don't think I have anything more since I do believe all of this is a legal issue
and everything's in the record.
So thank you.
I have a question.
it's fleet management which is a city a city facility would you happen to know what those
facilities are are a zone what classification what kind of facility like they have different
Like they have different kind of facility, what kind?
kind of facility what kind well fleet management is where
Well, fleet management is where the city vehicles go
to have repairs made, mechanical repairs, bodies, repairs.
So I'm just curious if they're zoned,
if they are zoned industrial or not by two.
I just was curious.
Your Honor, I can check that for you.
I think you might be thinking about the one
at 11th and Wharton.
well i'm thinking yeah i'm thinking of not there are a number of them throughout the right right
many of them many of them to be fair probably predate the zoning code uh but uh but i'll
certainly we can look into that um and we can certainly update the board and everybody else
about that i can do that actually well i have a i have a reason for asking that even with police
stations and fire administration building and all those are not their main uses aren't for
distribution of they're not fueling station uh designated but they do have fueling stations
attached to them and that's not the main use correct like a fire station for instance it
would be kind of silly if they weren't right for for vehicles city -owned vehicles right regardless
if they're fire department related or not can go and fuel up their cars okay right um i i i just
wanted to uh to notify everybody because uh mr primavera asked a question about uh ms adama's
title she is the legislative affairs manager and zoning administrator for the department of licenses
and inspections and uh as we stated before she is unavailable uh and won't be available for a couple
months so thank you for your explanation thank you mr mr mr are you rest yes thank you reference to
her statements we have no ability to to bring her before this board to ask her questions regarding
that communication. So we object to its use to this proceeding as being improper and should be
disregarded unless or until Ms. Adamo can be presented to this board for us to question her
regarding her communications. Well, again, the communication involved the applicant's counsel
as well as the law department. So we don't need Ms. Adamo to talk about what's in the communications.
they speak for themselves no they don't i don't know we don't know what they were what she was
thinking her reasoning just like not even a little bit relevant that's not relevant yeah
no it is relevant if she's going to make a statement we have the same ability to question
her just like we questioned mr hall about her communication well we kind of didn't agree on
that either just to remind you but okay and and i just and the regarding the questioning or the
question regarding the city depots, you know, well, I object to that whole line of questioning
regarding these other uses that, you know, school, I objected earlier, when Carl raised it, I objected
earlier, when Len raised the school comparisons. When we're talking about those types of applications,
they say it's a school or it's a depot. They don't say it's a school with accessory assembly
and entertainment or with accessory sit down restaurant. They say it's a school. Here you
have an application where they called out specific accessories. If they just left it a trucking
transportation, trucking and transportation terminal, and then gave the basis of why the
repairs were minor, that'd be a different story. But they specifically called out accessory here.
So the comparisons that Mr. Reuter used and Mr. Primavera used don't apply here, because in this case, their application and their permits call out accessory uses, which means that anybody who has a use that may not have it being incidental may use these accessory uses.
Again, this sounds like argument.
um but the use of the comparison we're going to move on Mr. Primavera you you're arrested correct
yes I have no further questions um who is up next
yes I can come back and ask Mr. Hall a few follow -up questions I'm going to object to that
I think we've spent enough time with Mr. Hall answering the same questions uh over and over
again by at least two attorneys at this point so we're going to move on to the next witness
all right and again i object to that because there were some issues that were raised
by mr reuter and mr primavera and this is the hall answer that i wasn't able to address on
my initial questioning of her thank you sir with all due respect
i think the city said they had a second witness
um we do have another witness uh yeah mr scaria i don't think it's really necessary to present him
because uh i think he was he was just here uh sort of as a backup in case it was necessary
I think he was just here sort of as a backup in case it was necessary if there were.
But I think, you know, Mr. Hall actually covered everything that needed to be covered.
He is in a supervisory capacity of plans examiners at L &I, has familiarity with the Eclipse system.
I think there previously had been questions about processing through Eclipse.
But again, I think Mr. Hall covered that earlier today.
So, Jice is here, Mr. Skaria is here if the board would like to hear from him, but I'm not sure that it's necessary.
I mean, if you want, I can ask you.
Excuse me.
Yes, Sharon.
I'm sorry.
um mr writer i think the board announced at the beginning of the session that they would hear
someone in a supervisory position only to the extent that he would confirm that he has reviewed
the permit and that the permits or permits issued comply with the zoning code and were properly
issued by right beyond that i don't okay then i'll just go ahead and ask that then um yeah and i and
I would ask that I have the ability to cross on this matter, too, to confirm what he's
reviewed and to the basis for his opinion.
You can confirm that he reviewed the final permit issued and that it conforms with the
I mean, I would think that we would need to establish what his opinion is based upon and
what he reviewed in order to make that determination.
And that would be our line of questioning in that respect.
That seems to be a long way around getting an answer that I felt was very obvious.
But Mr. Reuter, let's bring him on.
I apologize.
I don't pronounce his name.
No problem.
Mr. Skari, could you just state your name and spell it for the record?
Well, first and last name, please.
Hi, my name is Jace Skaria.
My first name Jace, J -A -I -S, and last name Skaria, S -K -A -R -I -A.
I represent Department License and Inspections.
I'm an engineering service supervisor.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Right. Sir, are you familiar with the permit application that was submitted for
one Red Lion Road and 10098 San Meyer Lane? Yes. Okay. And did you have an opportunity to review
some of those documents? Yes, I have reviewed the documents. Okay. And were you also present for
at least part of today's discussion? A portion of it due to technical difficulties. Okay. We're able
to hear Mr. Hall's testimony? I did hear a majority of Mr. Hall's testimony, a little bit of
Mr. Orkney as well. Okay. And with respect to the permits that were issued to allow this proposed
use, first of all, with respect to the unity of use permit, do you believe based upon your review
that that was appropriately issued? Yes. Okay. And how long have you been with the Department
of Licenses and Inspections? More than 10 years. More than 10 years. Okay. And with respect to the
permit that was issued to allow the use as a trucking terminal and a warehouse distribution,
do you believe that was also appropriately issued? Yes. Okay. And do you agree that, say,
minor repairs and fueling of vehicles is part of is incidental to the main use of the trucking
terminal yes that that is what's referenced in the definition okay and would you also agree that
incidental retail sales are permitted for warehouse and distribution yes that's what's
reference as a definition. Okay. Uh, I have no further questions.
Any questions?
I have a few brief questions. Mr. Cattuzzi, please proceed.
Mr. Esquiera. Uh, my name is Joe Cattuzzi. I represent Sam.
Mr. Cattuzzi, I'm sorry to interrupt. Um, Mr. Hall, I think you're not,
you don't need to be here anymore. Cheli,
you can leave or at least disconnect your video and audio um you could be certainly free to watch
but you you can yeah you can go now thank you mr hall thank you i've completed review of mr hall
so thank you mr hall for being dismissed all right mr skiera asking scaria did you review as
part of the unity of use permit did you actually see any of the easements or any of the restrictions
No, I didn't go over that documentation. I know that a unity of use was issued for that lot. I know, as you referenced previously, you didn't think that was referenced as one lot, but per the unity of use agreement, as long as that permit is issued and all the documents were provided, it is recognized as one lot under the zoning.
No, I didn't go over that documentation. I know that was a unity of use was issued for that lot.
under a zoning. Was there any consideration? I'm sorry, can you say that again? I didn't mean
to interrupt you, but was there any consideration given to placing restrictions on the use of the
driveway across 198 St. Meyer Lane to protect and limit the traffic generation? I don't think
unity of use goes into that it just it's just reviewed as a continuous lot but to answer your
question i do not recall okay all right uh no other questions yeah i was referenced as a witness
um i didn't get enough time to look over all the documentation in detail um however when i know a
unity of uses reference if the documentation is referenced it's it's reviewed as a as one lot
in zoning purposes when it comes to building purposes that is not the case
thank you um any further questions mr katuzzi uh no not this time um i would also like uh sorry
before uh mr orfanidis goes forward i just want to point out that yes it's it's correct uh mr
scurria did not have a full opportunity to review anything it was intended that we would present
uh george persio but he um has moved on to greener pastures and no longer is uh with the city so
that's why we we changed the witness which we notified everybody about last week i believe
sure uh mr scurria um so you've been with the city for 10 years um can you go through what
your various positions have been and what the um how long you've been in those positions
I was a building plans examination engineer from May 2011 to May 2019, and I have became a supervisor since.
So I've reviewed zoning, building mechanical, and fire suppression design for all the buildings in the city of Philadelphia.
So you've been a supervisor for a little over a year.
A little over two years.
Two years, correct.
Correct. And you've just stated on the record that you did not have the full opportunity to review all the materials, but you are making taking a position and stating your opinion that yet nonetheless that the permits were properly issued, correct?
No, this was based on what Joseph said. If I looked at the documentation in regards to unity of use, but when I looked at the use permit that was issued by Charlie, the zoning use permit, I did review the documentation. I looked at the definitions, and that's when I was stating that, yes, I reviewed that documentation.
Okay, so regarding the use and the structure permit, you reviewed all the documentation. And what documentation was that that you reviewed?
It was just the permit documentation that was referenced in Eclipse.
So what is the permit documentation that's referenced in Eclipse? Because all we have been provided is the applications, the little dialogue boxes, and then the overall screen. And then we have the permits and the approved zoning plan. Are there other documents there?
No, it was whatever was referenced by the primary applicant based on your screenshots and the actual plan that was referenced on the approved plan.
Sorry, it was the approved plans that were referenced on the zoning application.
Okay, so no other documents.
So Mr. Hall had referenced that there were, she had marked up some plans and gave them to the applicant, and the applicant had submitted revised plans.
you didn't review any of those materials? No, I only looked at the final issue.
So what happens is when, say, for example, if a primary applicant submits an application,
then the plan examiner, which is Chelly, she reviews the application and plays comments.
And then it goes back to the applicant and the applicant can provide an updated version of the
document. So what happens is when the uploaded version of that document comes in, they actually
override what's there before so i only looked at whatever was previously approved so you didn't
see what she had reviewed earlier because of a limitation with eclipse correct i wouldn't say
it's a limitation with eclipse it's it depends some examiners have removed that documentation
some people override it overall i can take a look to see whether that's um whether that's uh
available but uh based on your questions that's that's kind of how i'm answering so it's not an
automatic function of eclipse that prior submissions get overridden it's just how it gets handled by
the particular examiner is what you're saying yes okay but you have not checked to see if
but you have not checked to see if there are other documents that were not overridden in this case
there are other documents that were not overridden.
that are in the document folder if you can give me some time i could take a look right now
it's up to the board um maybe maybe you can possibly do that while you're listening to
some more questions as we try to move through did you um did you review any of the uh
the communications between that mr hall reference between her and the applicant
I wasn't CC'd in any of those emails, like I said, so I won't be able to look at those.
Okay. And in reaching your conclusion, you were asked the question about whether minor repair
and maintenance is included with the transportation and trucking terminal use, and you stated yes,
correct? Yes. And you also stated that incidental retail is included within wholesale and distribution,
which is the actual use category correct it's it's a part of the definition of wholesale and
distribution correct there's no just definition distribution correct it's wholesale and distribution
it's wholesale and distribution uh correct okay and is incidental when something's incidental
and included within the description of a use is it it's a part of the primary function so an
Accessory use is another use that's referenced in the zoning code, but part of the definition of warehouse and distribution, it included retail as incidental.
So, go ahead.
No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
Go ahead, Dave.
So in other words, when somebody applies for an accessory use and is issued a permit for an accessory use, that's different than a use that's included in the definition and incidental, correct?
Can you repeat that question again?
So when somebody applies for an accessory use and is issued a permit for an accessory use, that is different than a use that's included in the definition and incidental.
Accessory use isn't referenced in the permit language.
It actually is in this case a number of times.
It shouldn't be referenced.
That's not common practice.
Right.
And it was referenced, I mean, in Mrs. DeHall's defense, it was referenced in the application as well.
So is that correct?
Based on what I looked at, yes, she did reference accessories.
Okay, so the applicant put in accessory, a variety of accessory uses, the permit reference a variety of accessory uses, and you're saying that's not correct if they were actually referring to the uses that are incidental and included within the specific definitions of transportation and trucking terminal, and if they had applied for wholesale and distribution and been issued a permit for that, correct?
If it was wholesale and distribution, it shouldn't just reference as wholesale and distribution.
Right. And the use would just automatically. Is that in using Mr. Reuter's example of the school of plays and cafeterias, isn't it that an application would just say a school or a learning institution?
And that would be, it would just say education facility. But in this case, because it's a trucking terminal, they're not going to reference that incidental use in that permit language.
But if they reference trucking and terminal, what we know in the zoning code, it says that a minor repair maintenance is a part of that use.
And wouldn't it be, would it, I mean, I'm going to go in two places here.
Wouldn't it be necessary for them to establish that the nature of the repair and maintenance is in fact minor?
i i don't know what the correspondence was between shelley and and the applicant but
if she believes and the applicant confirmed that it was minor in nature it would be it will be
references that in the permit okay you didn't see any information between shelley or anybody else
i didn't see any correspondences because i'm not her primary supervisor right you're not her
primary supervisor okay and who is that is richard majetti okay all right and is there a reason mr
majetti her her primary supervisor isn't here today i was just told to appear in front of the
zoning board because of my knowledge of the zoning code and the building code all right and and again
so you don't have any information as to that was exchanged between the applicant and mr hall
as to the nature of the repairs and maintenance
and establishing that they'd be minor, correct?
The specific correspondences I did not look at.
And isn't it correct that if somebody actually applies for
and is issued a permit for an accessory use that's not included,
that that use would be permitted as an accessory use to anybody?
that that use would be permitted as an accessory use to anybody who has use of the property it's
it's supposed to be customary incidental to the primary use i think i think the definition um
which mr catuzzi had pulled up um references that it be and this is at 14604 1 c accessory
use of the structures must be subordinate to the principal use and principal structures in terms of
variant function. That's point one. This is C .1. C .2, contribute to the comfort, convenience,
or necessity of the occupants of the principal structure or principal use serve. And point three,
be customarily found in association with the principal use or principal structure.
So in terms of those, point two, Mr. Hall referenced about the distinction between it's
for the, not for the public, it's for private. I mean, here it talks about an accessory use being
for the convenience and necessity of the occupants of the principal structure of principal use,
not the public, correct? I don't know whether it was for private or public. Like I said, I wasn't,
I'm not, I'm not sure what she, what the correspondence was between her and that.
Well, let me ask you a question. Did the, does the permit distinguish whether the repair or
maintenance or the fueling station, fueling services are for public or private? Does the
application or the permit language indicate as much? Please let me take a look. Hold on for a
sec, please. I can pull it up for you, too, if you'd like. No, I have it right here. Sorry.
So, the use said for warehouse distribution, trucking and transportation terminal with accessory, office and vehicle services and maintenance with accessory structures for employee access maintenance, accessory vehicle fueling.
It doesn't say public or private.
And again, what's in both permits, it references, just as in the application, throughout. It talks about accessory offices, vehicle services and maintenance, accessory employee access, accessory maintenance, accessory vehicle fueling, just as it references accessory parking spaces.
So, again, there's nothing in the permit application, in the permit itself, that would distinguish that it was incidental or that it was accessory.
In fact, being accessory, specifically stated as accessory, there could be uses that are not incidental to these and not included in the definitions of transportation and trucking terminal or wholesale and distribution, correct?
So that vehicle fueling and the maintenance and repair should be a part of just trucking and transportation.
But it's not in either the application or the permit, correct?
In the permit wording, it says it's accessory.
And that's incorrect. That's wrong, correct?
It should just be incidental.
Right. And as it says accessory all over the application and all over the permit,
And does it not say in the zoning code, and I'm pulling up 146041, which is Exhibit 17C of our exhibit package, it states, unless otherwise expressly stated, accessory uses and structures are subject to the same regulations that apply to principal uses and structures.
So as the application is worded and as the permits are worded, and given that, as Mr. Cattuzzi and I have both gone through, the personal and commercial vehicle repair and maintenance is not permitted in the far northeast overlay.
That retail sales as an accessory use should not be permitted in the I -2 zoning district.
So as the permit is worded, the permit should not have been granted as a matter of right, as the permit is worded, correct?
It should have referenced incidental. So as worded, the permit was issued incorrectly. That
as worded, there should have been variances or refusals issued. Is that not correct?
The way that it says accessory vehicle and fueling, if it's considered a primary use,
then that is not permitted. Thank you. I have no further questions.
and oh wait one second and that applies to retail as well correct and the repair and maintenance
correct so for the retail that's part of the incidental use of uh warehouse and distribution
that's part of the definition but hold on a second look at her but if it was considered primary if it
was considered a primary use then it is not permitted but again let's look at her permit
she talks about
She talks about what to object. Let me finish accessory retail sales.
I'm going to object
let me finish
This has been asked and answered a few times. What he said was, if it's the primary use is permitted.
I objected.
He said if the accessory uses are treated as primary, they wouldn't be. And that's been covered numerous times.
So I think you've made your point, which is legal argument.
but the answer has been consistent with what the zoning examiner did now he's making argument i
object i asked him you've been repetitive and we're trying to move let's let's yeah let's let's
move on and mr permavera you were a bit muffled then believe i'm sorry he made a conclusion and
i was going into the basis of the conclusion and it seems that his conclusion that he previously
stated is not correct and that by his own words it's this permit was issued incorrectly as
worth it i would object to the characterization that's not exactly what he said um and we we'd
like a little bit of redirect sure then i mean the right to rebut rebuttal following mr uh reuters
redirect you want me to go there mr katuzzi do you have any further questions for mr sakara
just reserving you know the right to rebut after uh mr reuter uh questions him
Sure. Mr. Scuria, again, with respect to the vehicle repair, regardless of what's on the actual permit, with respect to whether or not you would agree that if UPS were to do minor maintenance and repair of their own trucks on the site, that would be allowed?
Yes. Okay. And you would agree that they would not be allowed to repair and maintain other people's vehicles.
They're not permitted. That's not permitted, regardless of what's on the permit. Right.
Okay. And therefore, with respect to how the permit is issued, referencing the minor repair and maintenance of vehicles at the site, wouldn't it be fair to say that because the permit can't allow the minor maintenance and repair of other people's vehicles,
is that regardless of the use of the word accessory on that permit,
the only thing that's actually permitted is the actual...
I'm going to check what it is on the permit.
Again, it doesn't matter because, again, the permit itself only allows,
even if it says accessory,
you would agree that accessory vehicle maintenance and repair of other vehicles
is not allowed even with this permit as written.
It is not permitted.
Right.
So the only way to interpret this permit as written is to only allow the minor maintenance
and repair of an incidental repair of their own vehicles.
And would you also agree that with respect to the retail sales, that they can only be incidental here?
So in the case of UPS, the facility we're talking about, people can come up and pick up packages that when they weren't home, so they get the little sticker and they have to go to UPS and pick up their packages.
And that would be permitted.
It's incidental.
right but they can't sell you know i don't know what else i don't think ups sells anything but
like you know they can't sell maybe boxes or anything of that nature because that's considered
a primary use that's not right they shouldn't be selling they shouldn't sell things um they can't
uh you know they can't sell pizzas or anything like that they they basically are only allowed
to do incidental retail uh to allow people to basically pick up and drop off packages
Zach, would you agree?
No further questions.
I believe Mr. Primavera,
do you have any questions?
Can't hear you, Carl.
You're muted.
You're muted.
He's having technical difficulties, it looks like.
can you hear him now we can hear you now okay thank you all right
Can you hear them?
from you very have any questions for this witness yes uh briefly let me just hopefully my technical
problem has been resolved uh so i'm not sure have you seen the correspondence in our exhibit package
with Sarah Adamo and my office, where my office says that the accessory uses
are being proposed as customarily incidental to the principal uses. And that went to Sarah Adamo.
Are you aware that my office made that representation to Sarah? No. And basically,
Basically, you said it was the intent of the applicant, as understood by the city, that would be controlling as to the nature of the use.
Yes. The way that the examiner reviewed it was that it was considered incidental.
All right. Now, my client would have no objection to have the language deemed customarily incidental to avoid any confusion about the use of the word accessory.
Would that clarify it in your mind and resolve any dispute that may arise over the use of accessory versus incidental?
I would say so, yes.
All right. And I would make that stipulation to the board. I think it's inherent, but to the extent that people are concerned that we're going to go beyond the customarily incidental use in our million square foot facility, then we would stipulate that and the board can make that part of its finding.
And L &I can so confirm that in its records. So I have nothing further, thank you.
who's up next we heard from david i can i would like to respond but i may but mr
So Ketuzia hasn't had a chance yet.
Ketuzia, there you go.
So how would one understand, like the plan is showing, is stating on its face,
accessory vehicle service and maintenance, one story and nearly 20 ,000 square feet.
If all we're looking at is this plan, then how is it possible to understand if something's incidental or not,
if all we have to deal with is a plan that says 20 ,000 square feet of accessory service and
maintenance? If the examiner has a question in regards to the use of the building, they usually
have something called the RFI request for information. They send out documentation,
an email or something through the Eclipse system asking that specific question. So for example,
you know if there are things like say sit down restaurant or takeout restaurant if we're not
familiar if we can't classify the specific use we'll ask for a specific definition whether they
apply for this specific definition or not does that make sense so there's additional so there
would be additional dialogue is basically additional dialogue to confirm whether whether
that use pertains to that specific proposed use and and again just your your testimony was that
you weren't able to um see that that dialogue or i i've not been given any correspondence to look
over i just looked at the permit documentation that was referenced in the clips and it stated
that uh it showed me the plan and um it also referenced the previous uh unity of use and i
looked at that based on and i looked at the overlays as well go ahead so if we wanted to
ascertain then whether or not you know if we're going down the incidental um use theory um we
would need to have access to that those communications and that information to be able to
assess the argument right we would need to see what the dialogue and communications were
uh let's say so yes we don't have you to the best of your knowledge you don't have that and
I did not see those correspondences.
Well, just for the record, again, just to make sure you're being accurate, Mr. Cattuzzi, in our exhibit package at nine is the correspondence with the city.
Now, maybe Mr. Scoria hasn't seen it, but the city's seen it.
It's been in our record.
It's been available to you for six months.
Also, we went through a voluminous CDR process, which your clients all participated in and heard in minute detail about each and every aspect of how this operation was to be done.
of how this operation was to be done. So I don't want you to suggest the lack of information or
So I don't want you to suggest the lack of information or opportunity.
opportunity to learn about the information. I think maybe your question was directed to
Mr. Scoria, who's a recent player in this. Well, I find it interesting that in our right
to know requests, we actually got more information from Mr. No, that was a question to Mr. Coutuzzi
so he could clarify his position. I don't want him to be suggesting on the record that this is
somehow unknown to him because it's been in our record and in his records that have been made
available and about our representation to the city, including the solicitors, that it was
incidental and customary. So I don't want him to suggest that this is somehow something new
that he's found out about. No, I don't think it's a new call, but I don't believe that there's been
I don't believe there's been an evidentiary showing that it's incidental. I believe that
every representation has shown that this is nearly 20 ,000 square foot commercial vehicle
repair and maintenance use that'll be servicing. We don't exactly know what, because it hasn't
been clear in the records, but I'm presuming it's you. No, no, you participated in civic design
review meetings that were open. You were counsel of record. We had many meetings. So please,
you can argue legally, but don't suggest. Carl, what I'm suggesting. Please, you're speaking,
everyone's speaking over each other, please, one at a time, Mr. Catuzzi. What I'm suggesting
uh sorry mr chairman what i'm suggesting what i'm stating is that the 20 000 square foot
uh vehicle is identified as an accessory vehicle service and maintenance use
it's going to presumably repair and maintain maintain large trucks and box trucks and etc
all different types of trucks um i i'm saying that that's a massive use it's it's major it's huge
this is argument and it's not there's no question it's argument sounds like argument i'm pretty
if i can come back to mr scoria um you know about one thing mr primavera regarding the cdr process
there was one meeting which our which our our client conducted and during that meeting you
know we were cut off during to ask questions so but we'll get to that on the standing question
but so mr scoria you've heard the offer by mr primavera two cdr meetings that were public
that you participated in there were private meetings but there were two public cdr meetings
that counsel and clients participated aggressively and asked all the questions so i just don't want
anyone to suggest to the board that this is somehow something that wasn't um you can argue
about the appropriateness of the language or the legal resolution but factually how this property
is going to be used was discussed ad nauseum as it was again today. And it's limited to UPS's
activities. There's no question about that. That's actually not correct. We didn't get
into any details regarding the need. I'm sorry. Mr. Skaria had nothing to do with the CDR
process at all. Why are we even talking about this? Mr. Primavera opened that door. Mr. Skaria,
Mr. Primavera has made a suggestion to this board to correct the issues, errors, whatever you want to call them, with both the application and a permit regarding the repeated reference to accessory uses in both.
Now, we're going to go closing.
I don't believe that that's the ability of the board to do that here.
But with that being said, what would the process be for him to do that?
Would he not have to file an amended application since a permit has already been issued?
Yes, you have an amended application.
There is there are there's a fact sheet or there are certain criteria for the for the city of Philadelphia Department of License and Inspections to where they will accept an application to amend an existing zoning permit.
I'm objecting. We're at the board now.
who has powers over and above l and i so i i think this is the legal argument guys guys
guys sorry but i'm not getting anything yeah you're absolutely i keep reminding folks i tell
you what we're gonna take we're gonna take a five minute break i actually have a package being
delivered and i have to sign for it so we'll be right back please do it for first are you gonna
ask them if they can change your oil while you're at it uh is it minor or is it accessory
I'm covered. I have a warrant. I'm covered.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, is the court reporter available?
No, not yet.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Could, real quickly, could Paul Turner be let back in?
Tanya or Lakeisha, I'm not sure.
Yep, he's coming in now as a panelist.
I'd like to remind everyone it is now 12 .17 p .m.
We have a hard number.
We were supposed to have a hard number at 12 .30.
We're going to allow another 30 minutes.
This hearing will come to a conclusion one way or the other by 1 o 'clock.
Report reporter is back, I believe.
Do I have to be?
do i have to be yeah unfortunately
Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
Mr. Affinitis, I think we left off with you, if I'm not mistaken.
Yeah, I'm just going to do a little cleanup.
And gentlemen, with all due respect, when I say one o 'clock, I mean one o 'clock.
We're not permitted to go beyond that.
um mrs guria so in terms of accessory uses again there's no distinction when a permit application
or permit says accessory there's no distinction that it's for the people on the property or off
the property correct right so it'd be different than incidental in that respect correct right
so if it was called as accessory i'm sorry say what so if it's referenced as accessory then i
would you know if the primary use would have to be permitted in this in in this case the city
uh approved it as incidental the word accessory should not have been referenced in the current
language like you said before um and again there's no reference to incidental in either the
application or the permits correct and in the language no like i said i did not look i didn't
I didn't have access to the correspondence between the primary applicant.
Also true on the plan, as Mr. Cattuzzi pointed out, that the plan all over it, both on the graphically on the site plan, on the elevations and over on the description, talks about accessory.
It doesn't mention incidental, correct?
Right. It says accessory, but primary applicants usually reference the word accessory when they don't know what it actually means.
Okay. But this applicant.
It's in the primary language.
this as by the by the uh again i can pull it up you may have it in front of you in this case
the application wasn't submitted just by anybody it was submitted by um and i'm looking at exhibit
four um all four exhibits there a b c and d by bowler engineering yeah llc you you've heard of
them before correct yes they submit a lot of applications with the city of philadelphia
correct they do zoning and build okay thanks they use the word accessory for a lot of building
terminology right but here they used it they do do a lot of zoning and they used it with zoning
correct i can't i can't confirm that they submit a lot of zoning applications okay all right
have you have you reviewed any of their zoning applications i may have nine years ago okay
um and then in terms of amending uh we what we were what we were getting at there was that
you know mr primavera has made a suggestion to change the wording of the application change the
wording of the permit um to remove the reference to accessory and i i think before we took the
break uh i had asked you the question that would in order to do that that would require an amended
And that's where I made my objection. And I said that we were asking the board if it was so inclined as part of its decision making process for your benefit to clarify it and that we would stipulate.
I didn't say we would go back to L &I if there was any need. It was a stipulation as an offer to resolve what appears to be some concern that UPS, one of the Fortune 50s, is going to somehow expand beyond incidental use for its trucks.
I think it's absurd on its face, but we're willing to make that offer to clarify the record and to give you some comfort.
I didn't suggest we would do anything with L &I. We're at the zoning board.
I have a question. Sharon, is that within the purview of the board?
I'm asking this. Excuse me. I believe the board could add a clarifying proviso, noting that the uses are incidental uses.
Thank you. All right. And I am and I'm going to ask Mr. Scoria that that if it was put to L &I,
which and i believe the board has the power same powers as lni has that this would be
this would be handled through an amended zoning permit application correct
yes no i object that's not what we said
i'm sorry what's the objection i believe he said that he said i know how would you handle these
changes and he's and i asked him no i i said that the discussion was at the board level he has no
input at the board level i think the chairman suggested the right question
you know that's not asking about l and i i object that's you can make that legal argument
in closing about who has the authority to do what we could brief it let's make let's make
we could brief it let's make let's make that the closing part of the argument including i'm trying
that the closing part of the argument i'm trying to say so
to say so far i was trying to answer david's uh question whether an amended permit will be required
to change the permit language and that's all i said i didn't say that i was just answering his
question i didn't say what what any party needed to do i just answered his question whether if you
were to change the permit language any kind of permit you would require an amended amended correct
and and and and and jace the lni has issued a they have a currently they have a document called
it amended zoning permit process which is pz zero zero one inf is that does that sound familiar to
you uh i think the latest one is oh sorry okay you need to use for a second i just want to confirm
the number. This says rev 3 .1 .2021. I don't know the numbers by heart because we have updated
forms all the time. Double check the number. Well, as of. Yep. It's PZ001 revision date
September 2021. 2021. All right. If you have that in front of you, can you can you read
because i mine is now outdated by a couple months when it says the one what allowable my screen
is it okay if i share my screen please let me know where you can see my screen not yet
we have it now so thank you all right could you read the section that talks about allowable
amendments to permits include but not include the following excuse me mr orphanetes i'm not
seeing the relevance of this the question is was the permit that is being the permits that are
being considered here were they properly issued not how can they be corrected if they were not
Can you move on to another? Well, with all due respect, Mr. Primavera suggested to the board, and it sounds like the board is listening to the idea of making modification to the permit language on its face here. And it's our position that this is the proper procedure, as he stated.
Okay. The fact that there might be an alternative procedure does not affect whether the board can add a clarifying proviso.
And you can note that in your closing arguments.
All right. Well, just for the board, I wanted them to see what L &I would seem to be warranted for the issuance of an amended permit.
We understand that, but we have the authority to make those changes here.
and i and i and i want to we'll stipulate that l and i has a process that that you were just
going to point out we'll stipulate to that and that these changes do not qualify under
the allowable amendments as stated in this in this information sheet that l and i utilizes
well object because you're putting the rabbit in the hat yeah i think the testimony is that l and i
knows what it issued. And what I'm trying to do is get you comfort that the limitations that L &I
has recognized based on representations in the record are, in fact, clarified. So it's not a
new permit or amended permit. It's a clarification to address your concerns. Unless your concerns
aren't being raised in good faith, you should be happy that we're trying to clarify your concerns.
Oh, there's a problem. Make that part of the arguments, folks.
okay mrs i mean i've made the point with that mrs korea do you know whether if there's an amended
if there's an amended permit application whether the applicant would have to go back through cdr or
not if it affects the the actual use the primary use then it would need to go back to cdr okay and
also if this didn't fall within bell and i were handling this and and it didn't fall with allowable
amendments then a new application would have to be filed correct yes all right proposing if you're
proposing a new use then uh it wouldn't be considered an amended permit you need to get
a separate zoning permit you said a new primary use no primary a new primary use new primary use
how about how about a new accessory use well accessory use uh if it's added that wasn't
previously reviewed under the previous permit,
then a new permit will be required.
Yeah, thank you.
One very, very, one question, if I might.
Mr. Reuter.
Sure, Mr. Cascaria, if a permit is issued by L &I
that on its face might have an error or that L &I believes it needs clarification from its own
that on its face might have an error
or that L &I believes it needs clarification,
position as to what the permit allows, can L &I just simply reissue itself a permit,
the permit with the corrected language? Yes. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Scorio, do you know when it goes through CDR? I'm sorry, that's beyond the scope of our
redirect. Chair, this is Sharon. I believe we're ready now to move on to any witnesses on the
issue of standing, if you agree. I certainly do. The only one thing, as you asked Mr. Orfanides,
I don't want to keep this conversation going too long, but you asked that Mr. Toner be made
available again. Was there any specific reason for that? No, just so he can hear. Okay. I didn't
know if there was anything specific you had to ask him. Okay. Thank you. All right. We're going
to move on to witnesses. And again, Mr. Reuter had noted to us that he was going to produce
somebody from the Planning Commission, and we had called them and notified them as a witness.
And the board has decided that the testimony is not relevant and will not be admitted.
So move on to the issue of standing. Mr. Cattuzzi, if you could begin, I believe your client is the adjacent property owner, if you could just get them to, well, wait, first, let me go back. Is there still an objection to standing of the appellants? Mr. Primavera, Mr. Reuter?
Yes. And let me be clear, because I think we can avoid a lot of unnecessary testament.
There is no suggestion that Sandmeyer Steel and other adjoining and nearly adjoining properties are geographically close and intimately connected to the proposed facility.
There's no question about that in terms of geography, in terms of our proposed traffic will go down Sandmeyer Lane, as it will come out on Red Lion.
With regard to the Busselton Civic League, there's no suggestion that people will live in what I would call relative close proximity.
Our objection on standing is the fact that this is not a variance case.
This is a permit appeal.
So it's not the geography.
It's not like these people live or own property or operate businesses far away.
We're not suggesting that.
We're saying that the permit appeal is limited because city council has zoned this property for the intended use.
That's the health, safety, and welfare.
So it's big.
Well, I grew up with Penn Fruit.
Now they have Wegmans.
All right.
Some people grew up with Woolworths.
And now they have Walmart.
size the amount of traffic the amount of impact is irrelevant uh according to the use category
so that's my objection as to standing it's not the geography mr primavera um that really goes
to the merits of the claims that the appellants are making but do you agree that because
Sandmeyer Steel is the adjacent property, and the Civic Association has members who live in close
proximity, that they are parties affected who at least had the right, they have standing to bring
the appeal. Whether they're correct in their assertions is another matter, but do they have
standing? Do you agree to that? Well, no, but that's a legal argument, and I think it's based
on the substantive issue, which, as you say, is related to whether people have a right to complain
about certain things. And I would argue they don't in a permit appeal. So I would keep my objection
as a running objection, but I certainly understand that these people are in close proximity and they
will be living, operating, and traveling within close proximity to this proposed facility as they
were when it was the bug company. Okay. Chair, given that Mr. Primavera's statements,
the board could probably rule on standing just based on the information that has been presented
so far. So perhaps we can move on to closing arguments. If I could just indicate for the
record, Mr. Scoria, I'm sorry, Leonard Reuter for the city. I believe Mr. Scoria's testimony
is completed so i um with your permission we'll ask that he be excused any objection
thank thank you mr scarier for your testimony thank you
Thank you, Mr. Scaria, for your testimony. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we'll now move to closing arguments.
Who's up first? David?
And again, 10 minutes each.
Thanks.
So we reiterate our objections to the conclusion of the witnesses we previously identified and for which we submitted offers of proof.
We feel that, and particularly as it relates to these permits, it very much has relevance, substantial relevance, as to whether the permits were properly applied for, processed, and issued.
We, just before I forget, we move into evidence all of the exhibits that we previously submitted to the board, as well as various correspondence and communications we've submitted to the board in the various months since the first hearing in this regard.
I think in terms of the witnesses that you heard today, and again, I think you've only caught part of the picture.
our other witnesses would address the another part of the picture this was a more technical
round of testimony and presentation today but clearly I think by their own admission
the application was defective in the way it was worded the way what it provided the plans were
defective in what they presented and they were prepared by a professional engineering firm
They were submitted and applied for by a professional engineering firm.
We have statements regarding communications, all of which we have not been provided despite our request for the right to know request we submitted to the city, some of which we received from Mr. Primavera and not from the city.
We don't know if there's more out there.
But with that being said, it's clearly defective on its face with the language of accessory throughout.
out. The reference to a use that doesn't even exist distribution is not a use. There's wholesale
and distribution, which has a specific definition, which clearly doesn't apply here. If we have been
allowed to present our experts, you would hear that the other uses for which they apply, and if
you look at the definitions in the zoning code, do not relate and are not for what UPS apply.
But it's clear that the application and the plans by their own admission, because they want to
change it now are not accurate, are incorrect. It's that the permit and the approved plans are
incorrect. And that it's our position that while the board can step into the shoes of the Department
of Licenses and Inspections, given the process that this project was required to go through
regarding the size of it, to make a change like this at the board is inappropriate and not in
conformance with the zoning code and with the rights and abilities of the zoning board with
all due respect that if there is to be a change as Mr. Primavera has volunteered or suggested
that it should go back through the proper process of if it possible either an amendment or a new
application and as the case may be possibly CDR again it's a different it's a different application
again an accessory use it's clearly been stated that if it's not permitted as a principal use
It's not permitted as an accessory use. Mr. Catuzzi and I have both pointed to the sections of the code, which have been acknowledged by L &I, that for those uses regarding vehicle repair and maintenance, whether it's personal or commercial, again, the permit application, nor the permit, nor the plans, specify which one it is, but either of them are not permitted in the overlay.
In addition, we have accessory retail, not incidental retail, and that could be anything, could be a different type of retail and not something that's not incidental, and that would then be permitted by this permit.
This permit is overly broad. The application is overly broad. And as such, in looking strictly at the requirements of the zoning code and the administrative code regarding how an application is supposed to be submitted, how it is to be reviewed, and how a permit is to be issued, what a permit is to be issued for, as I've previously submitted in past months,
And as we've submitted on behalf of our client, that this throughout the process, it does not comply with the zoning code or the administrative code.
And thus, on its basis, permit should be revoked for how it was applied and for how it was worded and what's included in the permit on the approved plans.
And that in respect to Mr. Primavera's suggestions that the board could modify that permit or Mr. Reuter, that the board could correct it.
could modify that permit or Mr. Reuter, that the board could correct it, that that would be
inappropriate to just correct something so different. It's not making a minor correction
as to the number that's properly shown on the plan, but it's not a Scrivener's error here.
We're talking about the difference between incidental, which you wouldn't even reference
per Mr. Skaria, in the application or in the permit or on the plans. It's included,
like school cafeteria but once you said something's accessory it's a different animal it's a
different thing altogether and here it's clear that whether it's because of the overlay or the
underlying i2 zoning district a number of the accessory uses are not permitted aside from the
fact that some of the principal uses don't even exist in the zoning code thank you very much
thank you uh mr katuzzi you have 10 minutes
thank you chairman
so sammyer steel again just for the board's reference is down here at the base of sammyer
lane this this is an industrial cul -de -sac there's one way in and one way out to the city
of philadelphia and up to montgomery county all of these businesses at sammyer steel depend on
using this lane to run their businesses. They've invested savings. They invested into this
community. They employ people. This is an important part of Northeast Philadelphia.
And what's going to happen is you're going to have a use that is not permitted under the Zona
Code, specifically accessory uses that are on their face not allowed. And you're going to have
what is in all effect a subdivision under the technical definition of a subdivision.
we're going to have a driveway being used to push out well over, according to their numbers,
a thousand trucks a day or vehicles a day down the road. What used to be on this site was just
a 14 ,000 square foot food storage center. But what's happening here is we're having a nearly
one acre lot, a 1 .4 acre lot turned into 130 acre lot. We're having a 14 ,000 square foot building
turned into a million square foot building or having a little tiny parking lot turned into a
thousand employee square a thousand employee parking lot nearly a thousand uh tractor or
trailer spaces um a little closer to 900 but uh you know that's the practical problem is that these
owners sandmeyer steel are now although they have to share the uses and in our offer of proof uh
which like uh like the civics association we have a standing objection to we we have an we have a
Traffic Engineers Report, which talks about the vast disparity of the traffic generation.
And we have testimony, and we're going to present testimony from the owner of Sam Meyer
Steel Company to talk about how this is going to impact their ability to access and use their
properties. But that's the practical problem we have. And the law provides safeguards to address
this practical problems. We heard testimony that the proposed uses, respectfully, they're not
allowed under the zoning code. They're identified on the application as accessory uses that are not
allowed. They were identified in the CDR materials. The plans are presented to CDR as accessory uses
that were not allowed. And even today, when we look at the permits themselves, they're accessory
uses that are not allowed. The proposed driveway use on 198 Sam Meyer Lane does not comply with
the zoning code and violates Pennsylvania law in the sense that it basically effectuates a
subdivision under the text of the zoning code, but also that there's no consideration given to the
significant disparity in traffic generated from going across a one -acre lot, effectively turning
that into a 130 -acre lot. And again, we would move the Civics Association for exhibits to be
put into the record. But just so everyone's aware, in 1962, this whole area we're talking about was
owned by the Bud Manufacturing Company. It was one giant site. It was developed with the oversight
of the PIDC to create the Samireland community. There was not an intent to have the cul -de -sac
and dead end lead up to a driveway to a major, major use. The lots are distinct. We're dealing
with, again, this is the information from the LNI's Atlas website, 130 acre lot compared to
1 .4 acre lot. And again, just to walk the board through that the uses on their face that are on
the permit are not allowed under the zoning code and under the simple application of Pennsylvania
law. We're talking about accessory vehicle service and maintenance, accessory vehicle fueling,
wash station and accessory retail sales. And, you know, the analysis that I think the zoning
board should follow, and what I think is pretty straightforward, what Ellen and I
is pretty straightforward. What L &I seem to have done is you look at the zoning districts. Here,
seem to have done, is you look at the zoning district.
you have an I -2 zone property in the far northeast overlay district. You look at whether or not
there are specific prohibitions in that overlay, and the overlay specifically prohibits commercial
vehicle repair and maintenance. So that's in an overlay. It's a specific prohibition,
and that's defined as uses that repair, install, maintain the mechanical components or bodies of
large trucks. And at the time the application was reviewed, it also included fueling facilities.
Here you have fueling facilities. It should not have been allowed if it was accessory,
but the zoning code specifically said no fueling facilities. And you have those types of fueling
uses. You have a nearly 20 ,000 square foot portion of a building that's vehicle service
and maintenance. It was identified always as such in all the materials. And it's not just small. I
I mean, it's nearly 20 ,000 square feet.
The perspective in comparison to the other uses, it's a pretty major use.
And you're also dealing with, you know, 871 tractor and trailer spaces.
So the designation of whether or not it's accessory or what it is, the zoning code specifically
talks about that accessory uses are applied to the same standards as principal uses.
So just as you can't do as a principal use a commercial, you can't repair and maintain the bodies of large trucks as a principal use, you can't do it as an accessory use.
And that's what they asked for in the permit. And that's what they've always asked for.
And then the zoning code interpretation principles, which we raised for the plan examiner, all of them say repeatedly that whenever when you're dealing with an overlay, that means that the legislature has looked specifically at this community and says that there are specific standards.
And if they're more restrictive or if there's a conflict, then you go more restrictive.
And again, that's consistent with Pennsylvania case law, where you actually see this odd in vehicle sales and fueling uses, where you have applicants trying to say, well, it's part of the primary use.
It's really, you know, it's necessary.
It's, you know, they may present statistics or they may present a lot of evidence to say it's accessory.
I need it. It's part of the use.
But at the end of the day, if the zoning code has specifically said uses are not allowed and they specifically identify the types of activities that the legislature says do not do in this community, in this district, then the law recognizes that you would otherwise need a variance.
We stand by with the retail use.
We think the accessory retail use is simply not allowed.
But the conclusion on these accessory uses is that the legislature deliberately decided
to prohibit commercial vehicle repair maintenance uses.
It deliberately decided to prohibit fueling facilities on certain lots in the community.
And the applicant, if they want to do those, could have sought a variance.
But instead, what they've tried to do is seek to install those under the label of accessory.
and that's simply not allowed. And respectfully, I think the zoning interpretation in that letter
where they determined that the zoning board approval was necessary is what should have been
the final conclusion. The driveway, again, on 198 Sam Meyer Lane, it's not on the same lot that it
serves. It's being used to access certain leases that are not allowed. And ultimately, it violates
Pennsylvania law in the sense that it's creating a significant disparity between what could
otherwise be generated from a traffic perspective on a one -acre lot to a massive 130 -acre lot.
And then while I appreciate the unity of use concept, the lots still exist. It's in the
permit applications and the permit themselves talking about that there's two lots. And if
there's a clear and specific code section on point, then respectfully, I think the applicant
needs to seek a variance from those specific sections. Moreover, for a variety of different
reasons, we don't think the unity of use applies in the sense that it's not integrated. These are
and have always been historically two separate uses. All of the primary, all of the principal
uses are on the large one red line road lot. And the only purpose of 198 St. Marlain, the end of
the cul -de -sac there, is to be used for traffic generation. And Pennsylvania law would require
a consideration of the disparity in those traffic generations. Again, just to run through,
again, Pennsylvania law, and I don't want to restate in the brief that's been submitted,
and I asked to be included in the record, but makes it clear that you consider disparities,
you consider a driveway with respect to the uses that it serves. And lastly, I think that this,
It's clear that this use effectuates a subdivision, which is defined in the code as a division of any part, lot, or area of land by the owner or his or her agent into two or more lots or changes in existing lot lines for the purpose of conveyance transfer improvement.
The applicant in their memo, they cut short the section where it talks about for the purpose of improvement.
The applicant in their memo, they cut short the section where it talks about
And that's what essentially is happening here is you have two distinct lots, but for the purposes of improvement, we're allowing an accessory use driveway to be built across them.
So I think it's pretty clear under the terms that we would consider it to be essentially a subdivision.
And it's significant because the planning prerogatives for this specific area, again, this is from the Far Northeast Overlay District, talk about reducing the scale of megablocks in this specific section on page 51 about this area, respecting the function of existing street frontages, trying to reduce curb cuts.
So for a variety of different reasons, we think that the certain uses on their face are not allowed. They have always been identified as accessory. The code, respectfully, we think it's a simple application that they would need a variance for it.
And that the Zoning Board, you know, if it were to receive an application would and could consider conditions to apply to protect all of these industrial uses that depend on Sam Meyer Lane to enter and exit their properties.
And the harms, again, are spelled out and the disparities are spelled out in the report of Andy Heinrich, which has been submitted.
So for those reasons, we respectfully ask that the Zoning Board revoke these permits.
Thank you. Mr. Primavera.
Yes, and I'll be brief because we want to hit your one o 'clock schedule.
So obviously all the exhibits are in the record.
It's a lengthy, lengthy record, but it's meaningful because it has everything necessary for the board to issue appropriate findings and conclusions and, if necessary, appropriate judicial review.
It's interesting.
I always say, what's really going on?
What's the motivation?
You would think that people in the community and objectors would like to have service of the vehicles, fueling, washing, minor repair done within this huge, huge industrial site, rather than having all the trucks pull up at a gas station.
But then I realized one of the members of the objectors must own the nearest gas station.
Can you imagine this guy's going to be, you know, the wealthiest man in the city?
So that to me, you know, I scratch my head and say health, safety and welfare.
You want the trucks to be clean. You want them to be safe. You want the drivers to be safe.
You don't want them unnecessarily pulling into a Wawa to gas up or going to the local repair guy to fix a flat.
why are they demanding conditions and situations which are not in their best interest? Well,
we know why. It's because they really want to block this project and they're nibbling around
the edges and it's disingenuous. It's a distraction. I think it's in bad faith,
but they realized the million square foot facility is going to happen whether or not people have the
right to fuel the trucks.
Now, I would admit that we need to be clear as to the accessory
I think Shelly was clear.
I think Sarah Damo in the record.
I think the correspondence in my Exhibit 9,
we admit that it's going to be customary and incidental,
these activities.
They're allowed in the code as customary and incidental.
That's why I offered a clarification. In your findings of fact and conclusions of law, you can say that the record reveals that it was the intention and the stated purpose that these activities were part of the principle or primary use, and they're going to be incidental, and they are quite frankly found in all large -scale warehouse and trucking operations.
We're not inventing anything new. The whole key to this is the primary use.
This is a zoned industrial property. The use category is allowed in industrial,
but it's an even higher use than uses that would be allowed as of right. Yes, there's truck traffic,
but can you imagine other activities that would be a more heavy industrial activity?
So I think if you're looking at the issues, you're seeing that there's unhappiness with regard to what is perhaps the future of Philadelphia in terms of jobs.
These last mile facilities, whether it's Amazon, FedEx, UPS, Postal Service.
whether it's Amazon, FedEx, UPS, Postal Service. They happen in these industrial zones,
including on PIDC property. Permits have been issued for a variety of them.
Shelly has issued them. We've received many of them. So this neighborhood is unhappy,
and they're trying to find a way to stop something that really is their future.
People need these services because the same people who are objecting are calling up saying,
I want this delivered. I want that delivered. So it's an inconsistent position, but I don't blame
people for being unhappy. What you want is the service without any of the, you know, associated
activity that goes with it. In terms of the unity of use, it's been around. The city solicitor has
approved it. Case law in Pennsylvania has approved it. Basically, it comes in under the code,
under the definition of zoning lot. So the law is that you can have deeded lots assembled
into one zoning lot. And that's what we have. We have one zoning lot. We're going to use
two streets to service this facility, Red Lion Road and Sandmeyer Lane. I recently had a case
where a school opened up next to a residential neighborhood. Previously, it was a dead end,
but it was a city street. And the court said, look, it's a city street. You can't prevent school
buses from going down it just because in the past, you didn't have school buses. I mean,
city streets are city streets. If this was meant to be a private cul -de -sac, it could have been
structured that way. In terms of the intensity and the size of the use, I've already mentioned,
Woolworth is now Walmart. A &P and Acme is now Wegmans. The use is the same,
whether it was smaller, larger, more trucks, more employees. The bottom line is that the use is the
same and it's consistent going back to the bud plant. More recently, a permit was issued for
Teva Pharmaceutical for a distribution facility with the same aspects relating to the incidental
uses. So I think at the end of the day, in conclusion, we have, and as of right use,
we have something that's designed by a Fortune 50, top of the line company, a thousand jobs.
Ultimately, this is where the future of Philadelphia is going to be because that's
what consumers are demanding. And despite all the creative nibbling at the sides and
inconsistent arguments about trying to, you know, challenge the permit to send this back to the
drawing board. I think that it's clear that this is a permitted use. And again, if the zoning board
takes on faith that the objectors are concerned about a use that would be outside of incidental,
then in your findings and conclusions, and along with the stipulation, we can basically make sure
that the interpretation is clarified.
And I think that's legitimately what people should want,
not looking to kill the whole project
over something that they're inventing as a concern,
which really, quite frankly, is not a concern.
So thank you, and thank you for your patience.
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter, do you weigh in on this?
Sure, just a couple closing remarks. First of all, again, this talk of whether or not the board can or could or should in their decision clarify anything, I don't think that's really necessary.
And certainly it's at the board's discretion, whatever they feel is appropriate, because I think, again, we've there's been a lot of confusion and fudging about incidental versus accessory versus, you know, main use.
And I think we need to just focus on that because, again, accessory uses, the code sections, which I'm not going to share my screen because I don't want to crash this and prolong it.
Under 14604, sub one, sub a, the very first thing it says about accessory uses and structures, it says, unless otherwise expressly stated in this zoning code, accessory uses and structures are permitted in conjunction with allowed principal uses and structures.
So the code provisions that we're talking about here, which again, we had previously discussed, whether the trucking center or warehouse and distribution, both of those categories, both of the subcategories that were discussed here, explicitly referenced retail sales in terms of in the warehouse and distribution.
uh retail sales in terms of in the warehouse and distribution um use uh it expressly stated that
uh incidental retail sales are permitted and with respect to trucking and transportation terminals
it expressly states that minor vehicle uh uh repair and maintenance was permitted it's part
of the use so again whether or not they're incidental or accessory or whatever they meet
the exception that's set out in the zoning code itself for what are allowed accessory uses. So
again, I think there's a lot of confusion about this. Now again, 20 ,000 square foot building used
for truck maintenance and repair seems like a lot until you again remind yourselves that this is a
million square foot facility and a 20 ,000 square foot section is only 2 % of the property. So again,
And we would submit that on its face on the plans, you can absolutely determine that this was minor.
And again, I sort of made a joke before the last break, but it was it was only halfway a joke, which is that I don't think there's anybody here that's been to a UPS distribution facility to pick up a package or to find a lost package that thinks that they could ask them if they could change their tires or change the oil in the car while they happen to be there.
It's simply on its face, any reasonable person would look at this application and the applicant and the proposed use and understand that there is nobody that's going to be fixing personal or other commercial vehicles on site.
This is a trucking and transportation center that's going to be maintained in its own vehicles, and that is not only permitted in the main use, but to the extent that the accessory use prohibitions might otherwise prohibit it because of the far northeast overlay, this is expressly allowed.
It is expressly allowed and therefore meets the exception to non -permitted accessory uses.
So the other thing I want to address is the use and treatment of the adjoining lots under the unity of use principle.
Now, personally, I don't like that phrase, unity of use.
It's a phrase that Illinois has been using for this type of thing for decades.
What it really is, is what the Commonwealth law has always allowed for, and certainly dating back to at least 1946 in Ray Appeal of Fisher, which is that you can always treat adjoining lots under common ownership as a single lot for zoning purposes.
In fact, it would be kind of nonsensical not to allow that if you think about it for a while.
So, again, yes, it was the owner's option, for instance, to have simply consolidated these two lots prior to submitting the application.
And then, frankly, the vast majority of Mr. Cattuzzi's argument on the unity of use would disappear completely because there simply would be no question that they could have the driveway here.
So, again, the unity of use agreements that are required as a condition of the permits that were issued provide assurances that these two lots will be used as a single lot.
And again, going back at least to the 1940s, in the state of Pennsylvania, zoning authorities are permitted to treat adjoining lots under common ownership that is the same owner as a single zoning lot, as a single lot for zoning purposes.
It's always been allowed.
It's always been done.
I don't dispute that it is not explicitly stated that way in the code. But again, Mr. Primavera is absolutely correct that zoning lots are not exactly the same thing as separate parcels per se. And again, it doesn't matter. It's permitted under state law and has been since 1940s.
And again, I think it's been reaffirmed in the 60s and more recently in, you know, a number of other instances.
I mean, there are tons of cases in the city of Philadelphia where the city has allowed for construction or zoning uses to take place by using, you know, when there are common ownership.
Again, I understand there may be issues when there's separate ownership of the parcels, but that's not what we have here.
And again, in terms of the scale and the scope of the use, again, we're all familiar driving around nowadays. You see these massive Amazon facilities. You do have the giant post office facility on Lindbergh. You have other UPS warehouse and distribution slash trucking terminals.
So we don't dispute that with respect to the scale of things. This is clearly on the large size, but it's not something that's unheard of. It's not something that doesn't exist. They do exist.
But it's not something that's unheard of. It's not something that doesn't exist. They do exist.
And again, when you review a zoning application, you're required as a plans examiner to determine what use category or categories the proposal fits into.
And if it's not explicitly stated, then the code requires the examiner to try to find the closest categories.
Now, we actually I actually think that these two uses are actually pretty on point.
it is it is a trucking terminal and there is going to be warehouse and distribution so
mr reuter we've passed the one o 'clock by three minutes so far so i think anyway so i think the
law clearly allows the permit to have been issued uh as a and treating these two lots as a single
zoning as a single lot for zoning purposes uh i think uh and again the code does allow these
particular incidental accessory, whatever additional uses, because they are expressly
permitted by the use categories and therefore meet the exception that's set forth in the
definition, in the code section 14604.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
Thank you very much.
Sharon, any unfinished business before we close this?
Mr. Chairman, may I just have a minute?
I didn't use a full 10 minutes to -
How do you know?
Do you actually know you didn't use 10 minutes?
I know it.
Yeah, I watched my clock.
I think you've heard closing arguments from everyone.
You can close the record and delay the vote.
Thank you all.
The record is closed.
The board will be discussing this matter tomorrow morning's executive session.
Tomorrow morning is October the 13th at 930 a .m.
Thank you all.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Hi, Chair.
This is Tanya.
Are we going to give the vote tomorrow morning as well?
unless the board decides otherwise we'll discuss it and most likely yes
and that's my my intention is to have a vote tomorrow morning thank you chair just clarity
for all those involved tomorrow at the 9 30 session thank you all okay thank you all have
a good evening thank you thank you thank you