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-