and you could take advantage of that in the future, correct?
Definitely.
I think that's true for everyone.
That's also true for our neighbor.
Thank you.
No further questions.
Can I add one more very last comment, if possible?
Be very short.
Please.
So I know during the last meeting, there was a lot of conversation about Nextdoor.
I was the one that posted about Nextdoor.
And, you know, Nextdoor is a very, it's a very big community of people that come together
who live within the same community and post about a lot of different things,
whether it be projects, businesses, you know, things going around the community.
And I think it was very much undermined during the last meeting, whether it be, you know, saying that, oh, it was random people.
We don't know if they actually live in the area.
You know, I do urge the committee to take those posts pretty, you know, seriously because it is.
to take those posts pretty um you know seriously because it is at this point i have to object
it is hearsay thank you thank you all right thank you for letting me speak i appreciate it
thank you and good luck with your career mr miller yes if i can have two seconds offline
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My next witness is Rami Shraim.
Would you please spell your full name for the sonographer?
Hello, everyone. My name is Ramy Shraim, R-A-M-Y-S-H-R-A-I-M.
Are you swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
There you go.
We're going to have some feedback, so I think I'm going to silence my microphone,
and I'll be asking questions. Hopefully, you'll hear me through Mr. Shraim's microphone.
Are you able to hear me?
Mr. Chairman, can you hear me speaking now?
Yeah, a little bit closer or louder and would help be a little bit muffled.
All right.
I'm sorry, we're using that.
Mr. Schroeder, would you introduce yourself to the panel?
Yes, my name is Rami Shrine. I actually moved to Philadelphia in 2000. I moved to go to Drexel University. And I actually lived in the neighborhood. I moved to 2001 Hamilton Street, which is City View today, which is directly to the south of the property.
I lived there for a number of years and you know before moving across the street across the parkway
to 2200 Benjamin Franklin Parkway so just like my sister said we've I've been living in the
neighborhood for for the last one years almost and just like she said we love this neighborhood
we've enjoyed living there and we've always dreamt of having our own home since we've been
renters all of our life so again when this opportunity came we were very excited and
And I actually remember, you know, the same month that I purchased the property, I scheduled a meeting with Ms. Pat Freeman, which is the president of the Spring Garden Civic Association, to come in, introduce myself, introduce my family, and introduce the projects and my plans and what I'm looking to do.
And I remember leaving the meeting really happy and excited on how well we were received.
You know, I brought my father, my brother, and my sister with me to the meeting.
that feeling of excitement quickly changed unfortunately when my next door neighbor
at 2002 you know made it very clear from day one that she was unhappy that there was a development
happening next door and was just you know trying everything there is to try to delay and derail
the project. We went through the historical approval process, which was very long and very
costly. And we did a number of changes. As Mr. Miller indicated earlier, we've changed the project
about five times, you know, taking into consideration all the feedback that we took
from the RCO and members of the community. And, you know, finally, when we presented the final
project. It was approved by the historical commission. And I remember the very first
thing I did after the approval was I contacted my neighbor, Molly Gallagher. And I basically
let her know that, look, we're going to be next door neighbors. I'm moving with my entire family.
I want to have a good neighborly relationship. And let's please put our differences aside.
and unfortunately the first thing she did was appeal the the decision and and here we are
today and I know you're you're going to hear a lot of testimonies and and a lot of different
opinions some supporting and some opposing and just would you know hopefully as my sister indicated
also I think the the one disappointing thing was that the RCO just you know very blindly and
biasly took the side of one neighbor and is just opposing the project at all costs.
I urge the board to please look at some of the open forums just like nextdoor.com to
at some of the open forums just like nextdoor.com to see that there is in fact support from a lot
see that there is.
of neighbors that same objection there is hearsay they're getting into hearsay that there is
that there is in fact uh people feel that there is an improvement chairman
objection okay my objection okay um and and i just you know what the the real like you know
beyond all the all the noise that that's being made the the facts are that the the two variances
that we're seeking here number one the height which was recommended and approved by historical
commission so that we could match the next door neighbor and the rest of the box the second
variance is the parking which today the property today has an existing 50 foot curb cut today we
are reducing this curb cut to almost half which will give the community parking spots so that is
obviously an improvement these are the only two variances that we are seeking uh i feel that the
the objections uh and the opposition is very unreasonable and very unfair to a you know is
there some kind of a suggested easement to a view to a street uh our property is a corner property
it is on rm1 which by code allows you to build on 80 percent of the property we are well below that
and we have again as we change uh the the design through the historical process have reduced
the the the length of the property and set it back as you can see to accommodate for it for
the neighbors but it's just it's i feel like it's there's nothing that we can do and and it's never
enough but again by code 80 is where an rm1 property is allowed and they're objecting to that
so i i just and i know this is not the end of the battle for us i know that just like they
appeal the historical commission no matter what your decision is today they're gonna appeal it
and all i can do this of this stuff mr chairman come on all i can do is continue to tell my story
in an honest and truthful way
and hope that my dream
and my family's dream
of owning a home
in this neighborhood
that we've lived in for 20 years
will become true.
I thank you very much
and I appreciate your time today.
Thank you, sir.
Is that it?
Mr. Miller?
Anyone else?
I have cross-examination.
I just want to make sure.
Yeah, I know.
Mr. DeMarco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schramm, good morning. So you feel you're being treated unfairly with this matter?
Yes, very.
Okay, okay. Have you offered any compromise proposal to my client at any time?
Objection. The documents that we've provided demonstrate compromise after compromise.
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, I'll ask the question a different way.
Mr. DeMarco, has your client offered any suggestions to Mr. Schaum?
My client's been very clear that the cornice line is not the objection.
It is the massing of this property.
It's been very clear from Jump Street.
There's been no offer at all to mitigate the height variance in this case.
other than threats cajoles calling my client evil and attacking my client my client's not
the only person opposed also there's a widespread opposition to this we understand that mr chairman
the the process that we went through through the historical commission which again you saw earlier
in the presentation shows that this project took five different changes uh where where it went from
a a five-story building to a four-story building meeting the next door a height going and going
that has been made a number of units also mr sean
we're aware of what you're saying mr sean we want something new and different that's all
all right the question was has the has the witness offered a compromise to my client
not to the commission. He hasn't answered the question. Rami, you can unmute yourself
and please stop talking over each other. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize. Yes, my answer is
yes, we have through the reducing of the massing of the building, all the setbacks that you see
on the rear, reducing the number of units from seven, which is a bi-right RM1 that with the
reducing the number of units from seven which is a buy right rm1 that with the with the size that
we have today we have seven units by right we reduce it to five and we reduce the massing of
the building like i said we are below the 80 coverage on the lot which is the buy code the
rm1 uh uh by code uh that that is allowable we are below that so yes we have to answer your
question you didn't answer my question mr shreem i'm going to ask it again and try to be as clear
as possible those changes that you just described were made because you were trying to get historical
commission approval correct uh not true that actually the historical commission in in our
first submission um the architectural committee um had comments and refused the project but the
staff of the historical commission approved the the initial uh building which was a much larger
massing than what it is today right so you read and we have a letter stating that as well okay
you reduced the density and the the the massing of your property in order because you were denied
by the architecture committee of the historical commission correct we we were we were made
understand by the historical commission and specifically laura who was the staff member
that we were working on that we actually reduced the massing of the building beyond what the
Historical Commission would have liked to see or wanted to approve. We would have been able to
approve a larger building, but yet we continued to reduce that. And if you see the timing of the
reduction or the setbacks in the back, that happened after communications between us and
the RCO and the neighbor back and forth in between the RCO. I'm sorry, between the Historical
commission. So we did do that. Thank you for sharing this. So as you can see there, if you
look at the building, that is the evolution of the building. It was a much larger, a lot more
massing in the front and in the back. And we continued to reduce that even between, like I
said, historical meetings. That was really not to please historical, but that is more to answer
the feedback from the RCO and the neighbor. Mr. Shreem, did you offer any concession to my client?
Ever? Yes, I'm happy to repeat what I just said all over again. No, I don't want you to talk about
the historical commission. Have you offered a compromise proposal to my client? Mr. DeMarco,
your client was part of that historical commission. We met with the RCO and with your
client and your client attended the staff and architectural committee meetings and gave her
feedback and requested what she wanted. So our working with the historical commission and the
architectural committee was in line with what your client wanted because she was present at
the hearings. You were present as well and you testified and she testified and we went back and
we did changes following the architectural committee so yes we did uh and and and again
i can't i can repeat that one more time if you go uh i don't think we need no he's not all right
well i'll move on mr chairman i think the point is made uh mr shreem when you purchased this
property you purchased it in february of or march of uh 2019 right correct all right and the current
property uh was occupied at the time right correct all right there were tenants in there
and how many units was is was the current is the current property uh five but so the um those
those units were occupied by residential or commercial tenants right correct and they were
paying rent right correct okay so the proper the current property is income producing so to speak
is that fair to say yes it was the day i purchased it and before that yes okay thank you
so you had purchased the property with the intention to demolish the existing structure
and replace it with a larger uh property correct correct with my home for myself and my family
correct fair enough but your intention was to demolish the current use and replace it with a
larger and more and more larger uh greater uh leasable area is that fair to say correct the
current building is only two stories uh that is the only two-story building in that block and the
following block so obviously sure i wanted to demolish it and build a larger building that
is going to be a home for myself and my family yes okay fair enough and so during that process
your architects were able to obtain for you a permit over the counter for a seven unit
38 story building agreed yeah yes so actually that permit was obtained if you look at do you
have a copy of that permit since you of course i'm sure you do yes can you please look up the
date on that permit i believe it was last year please if you can put
i believe it was last year please if you can pull up the permit thank you so much
so what is the date on that permit february 19th 2019 right uh you're not allowed to ask me
questions mr shreem go ahead if you're answering my question i'll let you go if you're going to
answer okay i'll answer i'll answer so that permit was obtained february 2019 a month before i
purchased the property and it was obtained if you look at the applicant's name that was the
entity that owns that property the reason for that permit is I wanted to question because I
wasn't sure what I can if I can build or develop a home for myself or my family there so I asked
the owners if they can submit for a permit to see what you know if I can actually build because I
was actually unsure I've never developed in a historical district I've never gone through this
process before so that was just me inquiring before i purchased that was my homework before
i purchased the property to see what am i able or what am i allowed um um to build there by right
and that's why they submitted this permit prior to to me purchasing the property that was a month
before i purchased well hold on mr shreem the the applicant is mr kang right the apple yes permit
is mr that's your architect right yes he helped the gentleman on the property to do to obtain the
yes mr mr shreem it was your architect that was the applicant you directed him to obtain this
right you were the yes it was an agreement with myself and the owners of the property before i
purchased the property to see if i can actually build something on there fair enough you were
involved with the process you you directed yes absolutely i was okay you wanted to know what was
allowed as of right right that is correct all right so you could physically build this building
it's not what you want but you could build this building you could build this building right away
that's reflected in this permit right uh no i couldn't uh and the simple reason for that is
it was very obviously clearly communicated to us by the historical commission that
But what's going to go on there is going to be similar to what's next door.
And that's why we went through the approval of the historical process.
I think we established.