understand why my clients thought that they would not need to obtain a variance to build a home here
with parking, even though that's not the case because it's a change of use. And you can
understand the possibility that if our home is not built, that the property will continue to be used
purely as a parking lot. This is our application for appeal at Exhibit 5. Certainly, we'll not
walk you through most of it, but this is the memo that is attached to our application that explains
why we feel that we qualify for a variance for this issue under the standards of the zoning code.
I'll just sort of highlight a couple pieces.
Since I already touched on the hardship qualification, I'll move on to some of the other qualifications,
which is that minimum necessary relief is one of those other qualifications, as is minimizing harm to the general public.
So what we're doing here, as you saw, is we're taking a property that is primarily used for parking and can fit multiple cars
and transforming the use such that only one car will fit on the property, and it's an accessory
use. It's not the main use. So I assert that that's a reduction of the degree of the existing
zoning nonconformity, which benefits the public. We're also reducing the length of that curb cut
by half, as I showed you. So I feel that these elements of the project are to the public's
benefit and are the minimum necessary relief when compared with the alternatives for my clients,
which would be constructing a home with parking on a property that currently has no curb cut
or reducing or sorry, or building the project without reducing the existing curb cut.
uh or sorry or building the project without reducing the existing curb cut
and i'm lastly just going to touch on the uh rco's um role in this and then i think i should
be finished so um exhibit uh 14 is um actually they did a really nice job this is in addition
to a letter they provided what's on your screen now which is a very detailed breakdown of the
public vote at the RCO meeting. Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, the RCO took no position
as they described it on this matter. And what I want to highlight here is that under this header
that says info, you'll see that of folks that were verified to live within one block of the property,
15 of the 19 of them voted to support this project. Only four voted in opposition. So all
of the votes of opposition other than those four are coming from folks that live at a greater
distance from the property. I'll also just highlight at Exhibit 15 that following the
meeting, six residents of the RCO's catchment area emailed the RCO and said that they supported
the application but missed the meeting. Again, well done on the RCO's part. They suggested that
these folks email me so that I had a record of this and could include it as an exhibit.
But these six individuals were not counted as part of that vote. And then lastly on the vote,
you know, I just wanted to point out and, you know, in my rebuttal, we'll sort of get into
who the opponents of this project exactly are. But there were two people, and I find this to
be suspicious at this meeting who attempted to vote and were disqualified from doing so.
There are no such persons on our side of the ledger. So, you know, everybody that
voted for our property was an actual resident. So that's it. I know I was very brief on the
design. As I mentioned, I have the architect, but my client is here to adopt my test.
Why don't you bring your client on?
Thank you. Stephanie, could you raise your virtual hand?
Stephanie Weidner has been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, I'm Stephanie Weidner.
It's S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E-W-E-I-D-N-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Steph, did you, well, first of all, are you and your husband purchasers under contract
for this property right now?
Did you hear my testimony in your case this afternoon?
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, it is.
Would you therefore adopt it as if it had been your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thanks very much.
And if you want to say anything to sort of add on to my testimony, this would be your time.
Hi, I'm Stephanie, the applicant for this variance.
Brandon highlighted most of the important things, all the important things.
My husband and I pursued purchasing this lot for very specific reasons, but most significantly for its use as single car parking.
We've lived in our current home a block away from this property for the last 10 years,
and we strongly desire to stay living in the immediate neighborhood that we love.
I live with chronic pain from degenerative disc disease and the parking incorporated into this
new home would dramatically improve my accessibility and quality of life. I can expand more on my
health condition if that's helpful to understand. At the time we initially went under contract for
this property, I had some cursory knowledge of Philadelphia zoning regulations. I discovered
that the curb cut did not have current permits with the city, so I began this process to correct
that. For the reasons Brandon has outlined about the long history of the curb cut and other zoning
compliances of our designs, we believe this is a straightforward and rational variance to ask for.
At our FNA vote, we received great support within a one-block radius. Our neighbors have been
vocally and enthusiastic supportive of this project. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you very much. Mr. Anastasio, do you want to present your case?
Yes, thanks. I'm going to share my binder. Okay. And I'll be brief. This is the property in question,
as you can see, and this is a relatively new photo. As you can see, there's a car parked in
front of here, and there's a reason for that. This property may have been improperly marketed
this property may have been improperly marketed for parking. It may have been in the past used
for parking.
improperly for parking, but at no time has this property ever been a legal parking lot.
And even at the attorney's, Brandon's presentation, he admitted that about 10 years ago,
the curb cut actually disappeared and the city put a curb back in. So any use of front load
parking at this lot has been on, you know, without the benefit of any permits and in violation of the
permitted use. Now, this property is not on a corner. It's smack dab in the middle between
other row homes. And the issue is pretty simple and straightforward. Should there be front-loading
parking here? My clients who represent just about every occupant and or homeowner that touched this
property, here's the bird's eye view. They oppose. And here's a list of everybody who signed the
petition in opposition to the front-loading parking. That's really it. It's not a matter
of whether or not it should be developed. It's not a matter of density. It's just a matter of
the front-loading parking. All these folks who own these properties, occupy these spaces
that are hugging this property, simply don't think a front-loading garage smack dab in the middle of
to townhomes on a block with no other front-loading garages on any of the townhomes
should be something that is accepted because, frankly, there's no unique physical condition
that would prevent the purchaser from building in compliance with the code.
And that is a beautiful single-family home. If there is a medical condition that can be
documented, then the subsequent purchaser is entitled to apply for and receive appropriate
parking for ADA accessibility, handicapped parking, which, by the way, my clients would
not oppose. They simply don't think a front-loading garage on this row of townhomes
makes sense, is safe, and is consistent with the streetscape of the block.
So absent any real hardship that this property presents, we do think that the front-loading
garage part of this, which is all use based on L&I's review, should be a use variance
that is denied.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Anastasia, are you going to call a witness or no?
I have nothing further, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Questions from the board?
I have a question.
Go ahead.
Any other questions?
Did I see a garage, like a door, a garage, or was this more just a parking sort of?
I don't know what you call it, but like an alfove, if you will, or a, I didn't see a door.
So it presents a garage.
So can we go back to the plans here?
Is there a door?
There is.
There's a, there's a, both a pedestrian door and a garage door.
I just would need, thanks Vern.
He just, he knew what I was asking there.
um so could could i have the board's permission to share my screen to answer board member gaston's
question and then to offer a rebuttal okay thank you let me just pull that up uh let's see
it was a garage yeah there's a garage and a door to get in yeah
okay i'm sorry wait did i uh this rendering that you yeah yep yep i'm gonna go back to that
one, one second. Let's see. Okay. Okay. So here's a decent route. Can everybody see this?
Oh, okay. Okay. So there's two, there's an interesting design. There's this sort of garden
on the side with a walkway here, and this is a low pedestrian gate. You would enter here and
then make a right into what is effectively the front door of the property. This is going to
actually provide more light and air both to our client and to the who I
understand to be one of the clients the one named Mr. Lolio I believe he owns
this property here too so this design is to his benefit as well and then yes
And then, yes, there is a garage door. The front of the building, board member Gaston, is flushed with the fronts of the other building on the block.
there is a garage door the front of the building board member
And how is the access from this garage going to be beneficial to the health condition of the?
Sure. So I'll pull up the floor plan. I think if I could, I think my client would be in the best position to answer that. Stephanie, could you help us out?
hi there um uh would you please repeat the question the question is how is the property
going to be accessed from this garage here such that it helps with whatever the physical condition
is that you are dealing with? The physical condition is my chronic pain is worsened by
sitting in my car. So by getting home and exiting the car quickly, that dramatically would change
my daily life. Ms. Gaston, so you can see that there's a door, as is common in homes.
I apologize if I didn't understand the question. Yes.
Yeah, no, Steph, I think that was relevant.
I just wanted to add there's a door here that would allow Stephanie to walk directly from the driver's side of the car into the home.
I mean, that's the gist of it.
But it's just like steps and what have you to get to the other floors and that kind of thing.
we're not yeah anything in terms of uh well okay it doesn't have anything to do with the parking
but are we talking about some stuff has the ability to go up and down stairs and the the
home could in the future be reconfigured to put um a bedroom on the ground floor but that's that's
not the at least at this point in her life she's able to go upstairs um so the ground floor as
again is i'd say traditionally the case in home with garages will be um for like living room type
use and if i if i may add i'm i'm comfortable to address this that the house in entirety with my
architect is designed with greater accessibility in mind uh the floors themselves uh the ceilings
are not as high as majority other new construction so that the stairs are reduced to the
uh lowest amount to climb and the main bedroom that i would use is on the second floor not higher
with the laundry right next to the bedroom so that there's the least amount of traveling between
floors as possible so there are many facets of the house uh that i have the opportunity to design
for my accessibility even though i am able to walk stairs in general thank you
Any other questions from the board?
Mr. Chairman, for the record, in case this goes to appeal, and I'll try and do so as quickly as possible, I just wanted to put on a brief rebuttal case.
A rebuttal for what?
From Mr. Anastasio's testimony.
Okay, go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity.
So this is the petition that Mr. Anastasio submitted.
He only named one client, and he should come on and correct me if this is not the case,
but I don't think that he intended to state that all of these folks are his clients.
I think that they signed a petition that was created by his client.
I took the liberty of mapping out, and this was this morning, because this petition was only provided to me overnight last night.
I took the liberty of mapping out the addresses on that petition.
There were 17 addresses.
So what's interesting is that Vern's client, Mr. Lolio, owns one of the properties adjacent to ours.
And he did write his name, to be clear.
I'll show you right here, 1427 Marlboro Street.
And he writes his name, Anthony Lolio, on that line.
and then he writes FSVRE. So I wondered, what is FSVRE? And it turns out that that same LLC
owns two other properties on the list, and Mr. Lolio owns a restaurant and a fourth property
on the list. So four of those properties are connected to the same person, although he failed
are connected to the same person, although he failed to identify that with the exception of
to identify that.
one property, which I found, and again, I don't blame this on Vern at all. I just found that to
be a bit disingenuous. Most of these properties, as you can see, are on Frankfurt Avenue and
several others of the 17, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, are owned by other LLCs. There, in fact, were only three
properties that I could verify that the name on the petition matched one of the registered owners
with Atlas. So again, only three of these 17 properties are owned by an individual who
actually signed that petition. So that to me says this is sort of a corporate interest-driven
group of folks, whoever they are. I'll flip through these quickly, but these are your
screenshots from property.phila.gov, proving the ownership by Mr. Lolio's LLC with regard to the
three properties that I mentioned there. And here's the fourth, which is his restaurant.
And now we get into something even more troubling, which is that the property that Anthony Lolio
indicated that he lives at, the one he did sign his name next to, does not appear to be a single
family residence. This is a listing on VRBO, VRBO.com. And if you go up to our architectural
presentation, you can see this very distinctive tarp over a roof deck next to our property,
which clearly shows you this is 1427 Marlboro. This is the property that Mr. Lolio purports to
live at. But this is a, this is a printout of the listing page on vrbo.com, which is a brokerage
for short-term rentals. He offers this property for rental by up to 12 people at a time, according