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.