Woodland Avenue, which is the properties that my client owns and operates. And you'll see that it
abuts, directly abuts into the applicant's property where he's trying to build multifamily
in an industrial area. Now, just to understand, and I think the chairman asked, well, you'll get
a chance to tell us what you do, so let me try to tell you what we do do. We're the oldest
continuing operating family-owned manufacturing operation in the city of Philadelphia. Began in
1874. Manufactured various different kind of products, basic
We manufacture various different kinds of products, basically used for tarps.
So if you're trying to think about what we do, think about the Phillies bringing out
in a rain the tarp that covers the infield.
We manufacture that.
All of the back end, when the left fielder goes into the left field padding, that padding
was manufactured by us and we do that for stadiums all over the country including but not limited to
you know high schools uh colleges um elementary schools even you know and um but that's like the
sexiest part of our business we also manufacture tents and uh other things that are used by the
military and have various government contracts. The flags that you see flying in Center City
announcing different events, those are being manufactured in the facilities that we've just
shown you. We employ about 150 people, and about 50% of those people come from the surrounding
neighborhood in the King Sessing neighborhood. We've been in King Sessing now for about 11,
12 years. Prior to that, we were located at 1231 Carpenter, if my memory is correct,
in South Philadelphia, and had to move. What we tried to do was to move, you can see here,
to one-story buildings.
The other thing that we do do is
we acquired a company called Jeffco Awning.
So the awnings that you see,
let's say in Center City at various restaurants
and the awnings that have been put up
as a result of COVID,
those awnings were manufactured and sold
by DC Humphreys Cover Sports.
during COVID. During COVID, we stayed open as a result of an emergency so that we could fulfill
contracts for the federal government, particularly for the military. And we also manufactured 10,000
masks that were used by the Philadelphia firefighters. As I said, we employ about 150
people, about 50% come from the King Sexton neighborhood. Many of the employees have been
with the company for an excess of 20 years, some as long as 40 years. The company starts its
unskilled labor at $15 an hour, full medical, full vacations. People like to stay working
with the company, and then we give them advanced training. The company has a reputation in the
neighborhood, we have acquired numerous single family homes, rehabilitated those homes, and then
sold those homes at below market rate, at below market. In February, and you're going to hear from
our architect, in February of 2020, the company was awarded a $1 million grant from the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, commonly known as an RCAP grant, a redevelopment assistance capital program
to build in addition to their property. So what you're going to, what you saw before, and
we can go back down to, I think it's exhibit six, which right there, you see that there's two
properties that we operate on. And what's going to happen is we're going to build,
and you're going to hear from our architect a new building as a result of that grant,
and we're going to match that grant with over a million dollars in financing to build a new
building that's going to connect these two buildings. That's a little bit significant
because the building that we're going to build
is directly abuts the property in question.
It directly abuts it.
So these multifamily homes that you saw
being proposed by Mr. Mulvihill's client,
those balconies on that property
are going to directly look onto our operating facility.
How do we operate?
We operate at least six days a week. That includes Saturdays. We bring in people on a regular basis. I remember, although we had a little trouble finding it, that the picture that the chairman referred to when he asked me a question about whether...
the picture that the chairman referred to when he asked me a question about whether it was an
operating facility, there was a large FedEx truck. Trucks come in and out of that facility.
We are delivering product all over the United States, and we are getting product on a regular
basis. So trucks come in and out of that facility on a regular basis. How else do we use the outside
For one occasion, we have to weld. We don't want to weld inside the building. So we weld outside.
So let's take a look. Let's look at Exhibit 2, which I think pretty well looks at what the neighborhood is.
um you can see here the on exhibit two exhibit three you look at what is the purple that's our
building all surrounding it are other industrial facilities and single family homes not multi-family
homes as is being suggested here.
And before I present our architect to explain the new addition, I want to comment, and I've
read over the notes of testimony carefully, so I decided not to waste the time of the
board and not to cross-examine anyone.
What was described to you as the so-called hardship to the property was an easement from the water department, which comes directly into our property as well.
We have the same easement. It is a large, and it will be described by the architect, it is a large pipe that comes through. So the water department has to be able to access that property and access the facility.
And that's why they built two multi, they're suggesting two multifamily properties, two multifamily properties rather than one.
I suggest to you, first of all, you could have, if they wanted to build in that fashion, you could have two industrial facilities rather than two multifamily facilities.
But let's leave that aside. What you're going to hear from our architect is that we had to deal with the same exact problem. We abut that property. That means we are directly next to that property.
And what happens is that we have to deal with that as well. And our architect is going to explain to you in some detail as to how we have dealt with that property.
Let me also suggest to you that the surrounding, the other surrounding properties, first of all, you've got the railroad on one side, but the other surrounding properties is a bus company in which buses come and go.
In other words, they store the buses and they come and go as they're needed for various projects.
It is not, there is no multifamily residential in there.
And our suggestion, quite frankly, is that it continues to be that.
Let's see how it was marketed.
It was marketed by Century 21.
You'll see a sign on their property, a Century 21 sign.
I think we can all believe that Century 21 usually does home.
Our client, who is landlocked, has been looking for this property for a while.
So what did they do?
They went to, and we can show you, LoopNet, which is the place to market commercial industrial properties.
Never was it put on the market for that.
And I'd say...
Lack of personal knowledge, lack of foundation, unless Mr. Feynman is somehow a real estate expert
who's going to have somebody testify that they looked up on LoopNet every single day for this property.
There's no evidence in the record to sustain what Mr. Feynman is saying.
I'll have my client adopt my testimony shortly.
He can cross-examine it.
Yeah, if you can get to the relevance of your comments, for me at least, it would maybe clear it up.
I'm not sure.
The relevance is that for whatever reason, I don't believe that this property was ever marketed for industrial.
For whatever reason, I don't believe that this property was ever marketed for industrial use.
And we'll leave that aside.
The board can determine what kind of relevance and what kind of weight to give to that evidence.
We would, at this point, I would ask Mr. Nissenbaum if he would adopt the testimony that I've given
And if he has anything in addition to add, I'd be more than happy to listen to that.
I'd ask him to make those comments to the board.
Is Mr. Nissenbaum here?
Yes, he's available.
He can unmute himself.
Good morning, sir.
Please spell your full name.
Yes, I am.
Good morning, sir.
Sir, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Ronald Nissenbaum, N-I-S-S-E-N-B-A-U-M.
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I affirm.
Thank you, Mr. Finer.
Mr. Disabam, you heard what I summarized as your presentation.
Do you agree with that presentation?
Yes, I agree.
Is there anything in addition that you would want to make comment to the board?
Okay, thank you.
with that mr chairman and um i i would call our architect at this point who i believe is on the
call chairman if i may interrupt this is all the hill speaking i'd just like to have the ability
to cross-examine mr nissenbaum before i'm just going to ask you please proceed please proceed
uh good morning mr nissenbaum good morning uh do you ever make a written offer on this property
uh verbal a verbal offer can you explain to me what that means to you i can't uh i contacted
century 21 okay and asked him uh whether or not uh the property was available that was about five
years ago um secondly uh when uh i felt that uh they were asking price was and i consulted with
the commercial realtor and that the asking price was way beyond market value. I contacted Century
21 approximately a year and a half or two years ago and spoke to the realtor and he told me
the building was under agreement. The realtor that you spoke with, was that Mr. Kwasniewski?
uh yes who's ever on the century 21 sign yeah and i'm just going to spell that for the record
it's k w a s n as in nancy i e w s k i
so at this point you never made a formal offer on the property a formal written offer correct
that's correct and that's because you thought the price was too high correct
That was five years ago. There was no back and forth negotiation.
Okay, well, let's answer my question now. You thought the price that they were asking for was too high with respect to the recent conversation you had. Is that correct?
That's correct. But I might add that the property, when I spoke to the owner five years ago, was not officially listed by the realtor. It would have been a private transaction.
Okay. I don't have any other questions for you. Thank you, Mr. Nissenbaum.
Does the board have any further questions?
No, I'll ask that. I'm just asking, do you have any questions?
No, I do not.
Okay. Is Mr. Horvitz, are you presenting?
No. We're going to call. Is John DiBenedetto, is he here? The architect, our architect?
i thought he was on i would i thought i see his hand raised yeah so he can unmute himself
and wait for the chair can you hear me now yes john please spell your full name and i'll swear
you in john d benedetto it's d-i-b-e-n-e-d-e-t-t-o you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole
truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Feynman. Before Mr. Benedetto begins,
I have an objection to Mr. Benedetto's testimony. Number one, it's irrelevant. We're talking about
a completely different parcel at issue. We're talking, we're talking, we're talking, well,
we're talking well as based on Mr. Feynman's discussion we're talking about this property that
as based on Mr. Feynman's discussion, we're talking about this.
they had acquired we're seeking to acquire via this grant that they received number two
despite the fact that I see I received previous to this hearing voluminous documents from Mr.
Feynman's office we're now being surprised with drawings for what appears to be a completely
different property. So essentially what we're having here is rebuttal by ambush rather than
having a fair opportunity to review these documents and allow my architect potentially or any other
witness that I wish to bring or perhaps even an expert the opportunity to testify in this instance.
Mr. Feynman has had Mr. Feynman's had the opportunity to review our documents and plans
at length. Apparently Mr. DiBenedetto has also had those opportunities although I guess he'll
testify one way or the other. But nevertheless, I object to his testimony based on relevance and
basis of unfair surprise. Mr. Feynman, what is the relevance of the ARCHAB?
Yeah, right. I think maybe he's mixed up and I'm hopeful that the board is not mixed up.
This construction as a result of the ARCHAB grant, and that's what he's going to testify to,
is on our property what will happen is there will be a connection and this is will directly abut
their property and there will be a connection which if you can go up to exhibit seven you'll
see there's going to be a connection between or actually i guess the other exhibit where we had
both of the properties there's going to be a connection between the two properties that we're
talking about between the one we now operate out of two properties that are not connected
on located on our property this property is going to be built on our property directly abutting
their property moreover what we're going to talk to you about in some detail is how we've dealt
with what they've identified as a hardship to their property we had to deal with that in building
this new property the commonwealth of pennsylvania gave a grant of a million dollars to do it why
did it do that because we're going to employ about 50 more people i get i get that property
it's not an additional property gentlemen hold on mr feinman i i hear what you're saying
and uh i'm just trying to figure out what is the negative impact of mr mulvihill's client
as it relates to what you want to do
as it relates to the proposed building
of adjoining these two buildings.
I'm not clear on that.
Mr. Chairman, our position,
and it is the position of PIDC
and I believe the Commerce Department is,
these properties were zoned industrial.
There's a reason they're zoned industrial.
And the reason is we have very little industrial property in the city of Philadelphia to give good jobs to everybody.
I also hit, hit.
You know, I understand, David, I understand that and I'm all for that.
I mean, I pretty much made my whole life.
I'm just trying to figure out how does what is being proposed by the applicant interfere with the expansion of your client's facility?
Either we will not be able to expand further because we can't buy that property, or other industrial uses won't be available to us.
But moreover, Mr. Chairman, the only hardship that he has identified to that property is this so-called water facility, water plate.
Let me tell you, why don't you just listen to our architect as to how we have dealt with the same problem.
Chairman, if I may.
Hello?
Yes, Chairman, if I may respond.
Yes, please.
Yeah, for the record, I am not confused.
I know specifically that Mr. Feynman is speaking about the client's, his client's property, where he wishes to have an additional expansion done.
What it seems to me to be the case is that Mr. Feynman's argument is going to be predicated on his client acquiring the parcel that my client has under agreement.
No, it's not. It's not. What you're going to see now is what we're going to build.
Mr. Feynman, Mr. Feynman, David, let Leo finish and then you can.
If the chair would just kindly direct Mr. Feynman to direct any objections to the board rather than me directly.