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.