New York, and I am a small business owner and my small business is failing. And converting this to
residential will save my building and it will help the commercial corridor. It will not hurt it. But
a vacant commercial space sitting here with developers constantly calling me and asking
why is it vacant isn't going to help anybody. It doesn't have to set a precedent. It could just be
the start of the commercial corridor, moving past Haverford, up Lancaster.
Mr. Wright, I'm sorry, did you want to respond?
Yes, I appreciate the work that you've done overseas. It's very admirable. Some of that
same kind of work is happening on the ground in West Philadelphia. It has been happening for a
long time with all the different groups, civic associations, community leaders, nonprofit
for employees that are giving up the same kind of blood, sweat, and tears that you have
overseas in this community to ensure that it comes back in the best way. 2020 was a really
difficult year, and I understand what it means to own commercial property and have to manage assets
in a difficult situation. We own the commercial space at 3945, which was, again, vacant in a
similar way for three years just because it is challenging, but we were able to get a business
in there that has managed to maintain through COVID across the street at 3950 is a new bike
shop that is thriving.
The old West Philadelphia Title and Trust, the beer distributor business that you cited
was in the middle of rethinking their strategy for how to work with a new community with
students and young professionals coming in.
That property is sold to a new developer who's interested in transforming it.
Then, of course, 2020 happened.
The Quality Taste restaurant opened up a second storefront, and as you noted, they're doing well with two separate storefronts right at that intersection.
Tiny WPA at 4017, which is also a PST property, is also doing well, just two or three storefronts down.
So it's difficult, and it's a hard environment, but there are businesses that are successful.
And if you think that putting residential on the ground floor does not damage a commercial corridor,
that is counterintuitive to the planning strategy that the city has employed, that the Commerce Department has supported.
And that's just the honest truth of it.
And that's just the honest truth of it.
Let me ask a question, Mr. Wright.
But let me ask a question, Mr. Wright.
I guess it's a question for both Mr. Wright and Ms. Felliger.
Meredith, you mentioned early in your presentation,
the Councilwoman Gautier's office had suggested to your client
to seek some assistance as it relates to potentially getting tenants
with a number of organizations.
And you may have said this, I don't recall.
was Commerce Department one of them? The Commerce Department was one of them. I believe Adam did
reach out to them and similar to the other organizations that he contacted, that nothing
came to fruition. So some of the incentives that the Commerce Department has is for businesses
coming into places like this. And so they have a program called InStore, which would give a
business owner up to $50,000 to do a fit out at that spot. They also have a facade improvement
grant, which because this building faces the corridor, it can apply for multiple addresses,
not just the one on Lancaster Avenue. Commerce considers is a commercial building. And then
there are other, as Meredith said, as you said, there are other institutions like the
Merchants Fund or such which would support a business that chooses to locate here. It
is a challenging year, so businesses are probably making tough decisions on where they can locate,
but when a business comes to this location, there's upwards to about $75,000 that they could
apply for and potentially receive via the Commerce Department. And Mr. Chairman, you know, just to
reiterate, Adam mentioned they offered a prospective tenant $250,000 towards the fit-up space, so,
You know, this was not a situation where a business just simply did not have the resources to pay for a fit out of the space.
I mean, they went above and beyond to try and encourage.
I hear that and I respect that.
I just was curious to what extent the conversation took place between your client and the Commerce Department.
Everybody wants the best thing to happen.
And your client, obviously the city and Commerce Department.
I know they have a new commerce director who has been very, very helpful to try to get these things moving along in the city.
All right. With that, I'd like to ask if there's anyone else who would like to discuss this application, please raise your hand.
And I would appreciate after the hour, almost an hour's worth of testimony, if whoever wants to speak, if you can add something new and different.
Chairman, we have Andrew Goodman. Mr. Goodman, you can speak now.
Good afternoon, Andrew. Please identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon. Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, representing the Office of Third District
Councilmember Jamie R. Gaudier. We're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Thank you. So I'm here today on behalf of Councilmember Gaudier, who strongly opposes
the variants being pursued today and ask that the ZBA deny this application.
We are certainly aware of the justifications that the applicant is making today, and we're
not here to challenge any of those.
I think we can all acknowledge and agree that we as a society have faced significant amounts
of crises this year, and I think it's important to note the incredible amount of duress that
has been placed on our service provider organizations as support or financial relief comes and goes
from various levels of government. These are the same organizations that are tasked with doing the
city's work of helping businesses with much less financial wherewithal, avoid closures and
insolvency. So I want to offer that as some context for the service providers that we made
referrals to as just like all of us, we are rolling with the punches as, you know, as this
public health crisis continues. We would like to assert that not getting a new business to pay
$4,000 a month in rent during a time like this should not be sufficient grounds for granting
a long-term multi-decade decision on one of the oldest commercial corridors in the city's
history. We were not privy to some of the exhibits of the applicant. The listing that
we saw, at least previously, did not explicitly reference the $250,000 that's being referenced
today, though I know it's been spoken to. And just looking quickly at what was shown
on the screen. The only other comparable I could see was a couple blocks away in kind of a denser
higher market section of University City that was offering rent at $1,200 less per month.
So just if we're talking about what going rates are, I think there is a sufficient case to be
made that $4,000 per month would not be that. And then want to iterate again or want to reiterate
And then want to reiterate again or want to reiterate, given the physical orientation of the building, we all know that many of these commercial corridors run on diagonals because of their history as predating the city grid.
There are probably hundreds of these sorts of sites that interact with diagonals and still find a way to be viable, and one directly across the street from this property has already been referenced by previous testimony.
So setting a precedent like this that this represents a physical hardship would be very troublesome, not just to Lancaster Avenue, but many other diagonal corridors across the city.
Lancaster Avenue was here before any of us were, and it will be here long after we are gone.
one. These corridors are crucial spaces for commerce, economic opportunity, and public
activity, and their importance and the importance of these visions and plans overrides the interest
of any single individual in any neighborhood or citywide planning process that relates to
Lancaster Avenue affirms this. We certainly share the application or the applicant's disappointment
in not having a tenant yet, and just like the rest of us, we ask that they weather the storm.
As far as we know, the rest of the building is operational and occupied, so we would dispute that this claim makes the whole building itself somehow unviable.
And given the stressors on the Philadelphia business community right now, we believe that there are very logical, rational, understandable reasons why we can look forward to greener pastures in 2021 once public health restrictions are lifted.
And I would also affirm Mr. Wright's testimony about the growth of the corridor and the horizon that it's on.
The idea that because something has not been successful recently means that it can't be successful for the next 20 years is very alarmist.
And further down that same block, the 3,900 block, we can see new businesses coming online in the last year or two years.
And so we agree that this sets a dangerous precedent, even if that is not the intention
of the applicant or of this board.
We know that in practice, we get in the district variances like, variance requests like these
at least once per year.
So while maybe unintentionally, we know that future applicants will cite what happens this
afternoon as grounds to poke holes in a commercial corridor.
On behalf of the council member, I thank you for your time and ask again that the ZBA denies
this variance request. Thank you again. I respond to the last part of your testimony, Mr. Goodman,
is that people say to us as board often, if you allow this to happen, it's going to set a precedent.
Generally speaking, probably the overwhelming amount of times we hear cases, we look at each
case on an individual basis. And before you go, Meredith, I just want to ask Mr. Wright, I don't
to put the burden on you but you do work in a department that the city relies on do you think
there's any value in a further any further conversations with Mr. Perlman since Mr.
Perlman has testified that he was willing to fit out this first floor a tune of two hundred fifty
thousand dollars is there any opportunity you think for a further conversation uh between your
office, maybe not you necessarily, but your office and Mr. Perlman to see if they're, I'm not sure
a lot of people out there know this. I mean, we understand what Mr. Feinstein did when he put this
out on a multiple listing, but you guys in the Commerce Department, you're on the ground floor
and you know what people are looking for in terms of assistance when it comes to either opening
business their business or continuing to operate their businesses yeah i certainly think there's
value to uh continued conversation especially given uh the additional resources that have
um come in at the tail part of the year the year um also considering the work that the council
member's office is doing around west philadelphia commercial corridors in general uh given the
difficult year. And just in that, because we are reaching some sense of normalcy,
business owners are more likely, entrepreneurs are more likely to seek out storefronts than they
were at the top and in the middle of the year. I don't know if this question's been asked, but
Are there any prospects for commercial?
No, that was Mr. Perlman's testimony.
And that's why, again, I wasn't sure if Mr. Wright and or Mr. Goodman,
I think he testified that they weren't aware of the offer that's being made,
The offer that's being made, the financial offer that's being made by Mr. Perlman, that may change the equation to a potential commercial operator.
the financial offer that's being made by Mr. Perlman.
I don't know. I'm not saying it will definitely, but that is a significant amount of money to be offered as a startup for any business.
We had this conversation back in September with Mr. Wright.
We said that we would be willing to fund the fit out.
But Mr. Wright is willing to continue this conversation.
And with respect, Mr. Wright, you never answered any of my phone calls.
You never returned any of my voicemails.
You didn't respond to my emails.
And if I could just respond to Mr. Goodman and Councilman Goddard.
I'm sorry, Adam, did you speak to my staff member, Dante Leonard?
On everyone's screen right now, they see the Chosen 300 church is adjacent to my building, 3965 Lancaster.
The councilwoman is in support of residential use of a CMX2 property at the Chosen 300, but she is strongly opposed to the adjacent property, 3965 Lancaster, having residential use on the ground floor.
So those are, it's contradictory statements coming from Councilwoman Gaudier's office to not allow residential use on the ground floor of one property and then strongly support it on the adjacent property.
And Mr. Wright, I did speak with Dante. We met at the property. We walked the property. We probably spent over two hours there together talking about the Lancaster Commercial Corridor, ways that I could assist any project that you guys have on the corridor.
um i received no no responses i received no any leads for any potential commercial tenants
and it's been over two years it predates covid and it will post date covid it's this is not a
covid issue i i can't have a vacant commercial space for another two three years i'll lose my
building if he wants to rent out uh so all right Dante Leonard because Dante is the commercial
corridor that works under me and I know that he has been in communication with you so I just wanted
to refute the charge that you haven't been in contact with PEC maybe not me directly but you
have been in contact with PEC and so gentlemen gentlemen this is this is a new day this is let's
put the things of the past as much as we can behind us. Mr. Chairman, 30 seconds please. I just
again you know specific to the point of the precedence again we have to prove a hardship
unique to this property and I believe that we have gone above and beyond to do that today
And just again, turning back to the map here, if you are on North 40th Street on the east side of North 40th Street and you continue along, you have this property, you have that small one that Adam talked about being a vacant ground floor commercial, and then you instantly hit RM1, a 17-unit apartment building.
So, again, just to refute the notion that this building is intimately contributing to the Lancaster Avenue corridor, again, I can't stress enough that I believe that we have established the unique hardship to this property in a way that will not set any negative precedent if another property is to come to you in the future.
Understood. Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Mr. Chairman, I'm familiar with the neighborhood, and the city's been working on Lancaster Avenue
development for at least 30 years, as I know of, and it hasn't gotten much further than it is now.
So therefore, I feel as though there is a hardship with commercial space on 40th Street.
Thank you. Thank you. And I do agree, from what I heard on testimony, that there is a hardship.
I'm just want to like I'm suggesting that we give this a few more weeks for the applicant
and Meredith and Mr. Wright and or ever from Mr. Wright's office to have a sit down along
with the councilwoman's office what what's got my attention a little bit more
Mr. Chairman you're muted I don't know if you intended to be
no could you hear me now sorry uh that my concern is with the suggestion that this would set a
precedent and if i heard it correctly the church building i believe a front
And if I heard it correctly, the church building, I believe, affronts Lancaster Avenue.
And that building is going to be or is going to have an application in front of this board, I assume.
Next month, yes.
To convert that building into fully residential.
Mr. Chair, this is Andrew. I can respond to that as well.
Yeah, please.
so our understanding of the application two doors down is that the ground floor at least is still
remaining social services and you know i don't think it's that particular address that is up for
review today but if the applicant here today is interested in a non-profit or social service use
we understand that commercial does not necessarily mean retail so this it is by no means the building
two doors down is by no means being converted into apartments or anything like that not fully
you mean part of part of others i think their proposal is for an overnight facility in the
basement all right well we'll deal with that when we get to it but in any event uh i i know there
are other people who like to speak and generally we allow them but we're an hour and an hour and
15 minutes into this case, we have numerous cases to go. So I'm going to suggest that
Sharon, I don't want to close this. I'm trying to figure out a way which we can allow for at
least 30 days of conversation to go between the Councilwoman's office and the Commerce Department.
mr chairman with all due respect i mean we we did this that's why we i know i know but i know i i
know that i heard it but sometimes when people come in front of this board and we're about to
make the decision sometimes an extra couple weeks some for some reason motivates people
to put pen to paper and work out some some of the issues maybe not but you know where i come from i
think you've known you've heard me before is generally a way of getting to some compromise
and i don't know if there is in this case but i think i'd like to allow for that to happen
so sharon i i if i closed the record um which way we handle this so if you close the record
you wouldn't be able to take any additional so we can resume the hearing we can resume the hearing
yes we have a lakisha do we have a specific date and time at least 30 days out
we would request no more if possible yeah i've just said 30 days yeah
give me one second sure take your time
Thank you.
27th is fine 27th okay mi2020-000945 3965 lancaster avenue this hearing will be resumed
on january 27th it's at 9 9 30 or at two o'clock
lakisha two two o'clock p.m at which time the board will consider any feedback related