All right, we're on record. Good evening and welcome to the special meeting of the Township of Sipony Hill Court Board of Adjustment. Today is Wednesday, May 20th at 2026 and at 7:00 p.m. The announcement is made that adequate
notice of this meeting has been given and that it is being conducted in accordance with NJSA 10 col4-6 at SEC of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. Roll call. We have Miss Gross
>> here. >> Mr. Mozarella >> here. >> Miss Neglia >> here. >> Mr. Patty >> here. >> Mr. Ready >> present. >> Chairwoman Grani >> here. >> Board planner Mr. Chadwick >> present. >> Board engineer.
>> I said board planner, right? Board engineer Mr. Lammanoit and board attorney Mr. Johnson >> here. Please stand and join us saying the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on something other
than what is on our agenda this evening? I see none. I didn't. >> Nora, would you please do No. Nora, you want to do the resolutions or at the >> We'll do them at the regular 7:30.
>> Application 24 col 66. Travidi, 13 North Beverick Road, block 611. Lot 6, zone B5. A dev variance to convert the level of a mixeduse building into two apartments. This application was carried
for May 6, 2026. >> Good evening, Mr. O'Neal. >> Good evening everybody. Joseph O'Neal on behalf of the Trabettes. >> This is a longunning saga as you can see from the 2024 number. It actually predates that. This is a successor of a
other application where they tried to get the apartments downstairs, but the design was not sufficient. And so we came back with this redesign for two apartments where there were two offices before.
As you probably all remember, we've been trying to get the town to sell us neighboring property to help with the parking lot, but after 10 years, we are officially giving up.
So, we are we think that the units we're proposing for the people that we're proposing them for, these are all tenants who do not drive. There are three parking spots, four parking spots. Mr. McDonald will help me out in a minute. >> On the site, that's where we're going to
have. So, without further ado, I'd like to introduce Mr. McD. >> Yes. You swear or affirm, but the testimony that you're about to give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Have your credentials changed, but also the last time.
>> Nope. Still current and good standing licensed landscape type professional planner state >> qualified. Second, you've had an opportunity to examine the property in the application here. >> Yes, I have. >> You're familiar with the local ordinances and master plan?
>> Yes, I am. Wonder if you can give us your findings regarding the interaction that I have. >> Sure thing. I think the board well knows I like to lead off by letting the land speak for itself. So, I'm going to uh hand out, madam chair, with your permission, some exhibits uh that show
the subject site, the surrounding land use context, and from a physical planning standpoint, we'll lay out a foundation for I think this is a good fit for this location and this site. And then I'll come back and hit the criteria as well. Start on my left, your right
here. >> I don't think we've marked anything yet on this. Now we have so >> A1 and how many pages is that? >> A A1 I think it's four pages. Let me just check that. Yes, four pages. There's a series of aerial drone
photographs that were taken about a month ago about April 8th, 2026. And these are really intended to supplement the report that was submitted as part of the application. There were some photographs in there. I don't know if that was marked as evidence, Joe, but
>> it was submitted with the >> submitted with the application. Um, my report was dated February 25th, 2025. And I actually have some ground photographs in there as well, uh, which are part of the record. Um, we were out there on some one really cold day, uh,
looked at the inside and the outside of the, uh, the building and the units in question, and we put in the report why we think this is a good fit here. So, back to A1, the first sheet shows that this is a single tax lot. Um, it is
identified on your tax roles as block 611, lot number six. It is about 40 ft wide. It's about 100 ft deep, 4,000 square ft. And I stuck a little yellow our arrow on there to show the building in question. It looks and feels like a
typical garden apartment here in Paripany. You can see there's sort of a couplet building with it as well that is developed residential and the applicant is looking to take the two commercial units that are uh at street level or or sub street level and convert them to
residential living units which we think is a good fit here. I'll give you the reasons why. But again, from a a purely physical standpoint, it looks and feels like a residential building. You can see that in even clearer context when you
look at the second sheet, sheet number two, uh, which is a view now looking more south on South Beverick. And you could see the couplet of buildings immediately adjacent to that have a clearly defined storefront, clearly defined second story,
uh, clearly differentiated. Whereas here, it all looks like one thing, one integrated, uh, again, I believe like a a garden apartment. You've got a couple of these smaller brick buildings here along the corridor. Many of them have manifested with residential as well. So,
uh, the applicant, in my view, is not doing something that's an anomaly in the context of of the landscape and actually fits with the physical characteristic of this property. Interestingly, flipping back to the very first page, you can see that we do have
a vacant parcel immediately adjacent, which has which is actually owned by the city. It's a I'm sorry, the community, the township, it is not a um it is not a private lot. It is a a a public lot owned by the municipality, but has no
access. No access whatsoever. There's a and compliments to the community on adding a very nice streetscape here. You can see the street light in the front of the property, the utility pole. There is a full face curve along the frontage of this property. So,
uh, there's no curb cut that would lead to that green area. There is a curb cut on the subject site that also straddles that adjacent lot as well, uh, which conceivably can provide some access for for one or both lots. Um, but we're
building this application on the premise that there is no pure access to the property. Therefore, no parking on the property under the current condition, which is important because there's some case law that says a board cannot impose
parking or a parking requirement on a site that does not have parking in the first place. And what's nice about this application converting commercial space to residential is that any permitted use that could go in this space would
generate more than or even double what the residential use would generate here. And by way of example, uh, from a parking standpoint, some of your permitted uses here that could go in this space, and again, we're talking about very small units here. You have
557 square feet is one of the units. 692 square feet is another unit. What could go here? You could get a deli in here. You could get a convenience store, a bakery, a learning center, child care, dentists, doctors, offices.
You could get private clubs, restaurants, bars, gyms, public uses. all would have a parking requirement depending on what ratio you use of 8 to 13 spaces where the residential component would have a parking requirement of only four.
So again, there's strong case law that says the board cannot impose a parking requirement on a building that has none in the first place. That is the Rick case uh which basically said the board cannot impose parking on a lawfully existing building that has no access. In my view
there, this is further reasoning why uh looking at a reason to deny the application, parking could not be a compelling reason why. This is going to be less intense from a parking requirement standpoint than permitted uses. Likewise, I believe the board cannot
deny the application based on any detriment to the public. This is the negative criteria. There are no public detriments here. The units meet all building code, fire code, and life safety code requirements. As I said, this building looks and feels
residential in its character. So, there's a good um compatibility in that regard. And similar to other buildings in the corridor that have uh lower level residential units as well. Lastly, in terms of the negative criteria, we look at substantial
detrimement or impairment to your zone plan. I also think the board can move favorably in that regard as well. And we put this in the report uh focusing on the 2020 master plan which is fresh that has goal number two right there on page
number 12 which says as a fundamental underlying goal in the community provide a variety of housing types density and a balanced housing supply all in appropriate locations to serve township residents of
various ages household types and incomes. The development of new apartment units should be directed towards established centers of development in close proximity to business corridors
which is exactly as we know what north beverage is. It is good planning to concentrate people in close proximity to civic amenities and that goes towards the positive criteria here. Again, it is a fundamental purpose of the the land
use planning to provide for a variety of housing choices according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens. Who would benefit? Who would be the beneficiary of this conversion to residential? You would get people who
are in life transition, perhaps a uh a young adult just starting on their own, college students, recent widowers or divorces, um empty nesters, and seniors seeking to age in place. We call it from a planning standpoint,
missing middle housing. It's very um prominent in land use planning today on the premise that not everybody can afford a single family home. Not everybody wants to live in a big apartment building. Middle missing housing fills the gap and that's exactly
what this is here. We have two fundamental problems here from a land use planning standpoint in New Jersey. We have shortage of housing for all a variety of of uh people and we also have scarcity of land. So,
when we have an opportunity to grab housing on an established site, especially adaptive reuse within an an existing building, that's a good thing from a planning standpoint, especially when many of the permitted uses in a zone that does allow for wide
variety have never manifested here. the office is use hasn't manifested, the ery hasn't manifested here, the bar, uh the gym, the barber shop, any of those have not uh manifested here. So from a planning standpoint, uh we think there
is a strong predicate for this uh simple conversion. Again, two small units here would advance fundamental purposes of zoning, including purpose A, the promotion of the general welfare, delivering missing middle housing stock. Purpose G, to provide for a variety of
uses and appropriate locations. Purpose I, to promote a desirable visual environment. Nothing about the look and the feel of something that's been familiar in the local landscape for many years is going to change as a result of this conversion. And lastly, purpose M,
which is our planning goal for efficient use of land because this is adaptive reuse. This is not enlargement or expansion, taking in an existing building, putting underutilized space back into productive use. Based on that and the particular
suitability, the ability of uh this building to accommodate these units in conformance with all applicable building codes um including but not limited to room size, ceiling height, egress exits, egress windows and sleeping rooms and
opening requirements for emergency escapes, window wells, waterproofing, ventilation and lighting all are complied here. You have several other examples of this type of residential on Beverick Road, including the adjacent building at 11
Beverick um and right across the street at 12 to 14 Beverick. Again, very similar type buildings with that all brick in a relatively small scale. So, I don't think the board the applicant is asking the board to move far a field from what's contemplated
under the the zone scheme here. You've got good master plan predicate uh encouraging what the applicant is doing here. And looking again at the case law, I don't think parking would be a compelling reason to deny an application, especially giving those
those positives that I just gave you. Um in addition, uh we do have some case law that would deal with lower levels of proof um to the extent C relief is required here. The pulio case says the C relief would be subsumed within the D
use variance here. And then you also have the pulling case which uh looks at the application holistically whereby the benefits of the application as a whole would substantially outweigh any detriments. Um for all of those reasons and again
given consideration to that Rick case with respect to parking I think the applicant has met its burden here. Um the building is what it is. There's no parking there now. There's no there's no way to get there um other than a
driveway that straddles two properties right now. So neither site has access without the other. Um so that said again I don't think the uh under that rick case where the court upheld a variance for insufficient parking at a site that
already uh lacked parking and there was no physical way to add more parking. Um, again, gives the board good reasoning here to support the application. Heard a lot of testimony. I've tried to bundle it up tonight in the somewhat limited time that I have here. Um, but
again, I think the statutory test is met. It's a D1 variance to allow for residential use in the B5 zone district. Um, which caters to a large variety of of commercial units.
Um I think that again the applicant has met its burden here uh with respect to that D1 use variance and uh the statutory criteria are met and approval is warranted. >> Thank you Mr. I have a direct >> Can I ask you a question about the parking uh testimony that you gave. So
there's parking in in the rear of the building correct but your point is that that's not accessible. Is that >> right? I think Mr. Chad there's no parking would tell me that doesn't count as parking if you can't get to it. That's but that was another person's property. >> That was what I was going to confirm. So
even though there's actual available >> spots to park in the rear of the building, since there's no dedicated access to that spot without going on to the neighboring property, that doesn't count as available parking. >> That That's true, Mr. Johnson. And my my
stance is there's zero parking on the property right now. Um with the residential conversion, there would be a requirement of 11 spaces. There's four units there already. This would bring it up to six. Multiplying by that two, it's actually 11.8,
sorry, 1.8 gets you to that 11 space requirement. But if you fill those lower units with commercial, that would drive it up to 18 or so spaces. So my my point is the residential infill here is less intense from a parking requirement standpoint
than if you put a commercial use in here. And does the fact that there are already residential uses on the property now factor into your opinions at all? >> Uh, it does. Um, the site has proven itself suitable for residential use.
This is just to add more residential use to what's already established there. This is not a full conversion of the building. It's only a partial conversion. >> Is the B5 zone? >> B5. Yeah. >> Is a mixer use. Uh, is mixed use permitted in the zone? I I
>> Apartments are permitted on the second floor, not the first floor. >> So, the relief then is the D1 again to allow that residential use on the ground. >> Apartments aren't permitted at all. The basement. >> Let me ask you a question, John. The existing building has how many apartments?
>> There are four one-bedroom units in there now. Okay. >> Some of them may be classified as a studio, but there's four. I'm sorry. >> How about the adjoining building? What's that? >> Um, dentist right there. >> Bear with me here. >> This over here.
>> They are somewhat look alikes. >> Is that a dentist, Chris? Do you remember? Is that a dentist? >> I don't I don't recall. >> I know there's residential in that adjacent building. I don't I don't have a breakdown of the numbers. >> Do you know if there's a basement? >> Bear with me one second.
I have in my report here uh the adjacent building has residential units and there are similar types of basement apartments that have been approved in the area such as 1214 Bevick. I don't know about 11 Beverick immediately adjacent, but I do know 1214 Beverick across the street
does have basement units that were converted like this. I only know that because I testified on it and I'm not trying to say that one is >> that was that >> how long ago was that? probably 15 years ago. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Since that time
>> they did have parking. They didn't have the issue of parking. I don't believe >> I would have to look. >> They had the parking. >> They do. They do have parking. They do have parking. >> Yeah. >> Little quite a bit different. >> Yeah. >> Um John, the uh car and the truck that
is on the property. I know it's on uh the car is on the township property and the truck is on also on the township property I believe. >> Are they residents of this facility?
Do we know that? Cuz a a comment was made, testimony was made that these units, some of the people do not have cars. >> I do not know who those vehicles belong to. I don't know if they're residents or not. I always look for my drone operator
to see where he's parking. He may be that black vehicle in front of the building, >> but he doesn't have a red vehicle. >> Okay. Also, >> what time of day was this Ariel done? >> So, this is April 8th, so about a month
ago. And you can see from the shadows of the building south would be to the north. So, this is probably around, I say, noon, 1:00, maybe 2 o'clock in the afternoon. So, you said that there would be nobody driving in these
new apartments. That is that what you said during your testimony there? >> My I did not say that. I think that may have come out from council. What I'm saying is um there's no parking on the property right now. This is not going to exacerbate
that problem because if it was infilled with commercial space, the parking demand would even be higher. >> Okay. You know, I'm I I know at some point I heard, unless I'm not hearing correctly, that there the the residents won't be driving. Is that was that the statement made? I >> the residents have no place to park.
>> I thought I heard that they don't have cars. >> That's our understanding. None of them drive. >> None of them drive. That's the understanding. But now what happens if somebody decides to move in and does drive then places having no parking? >> But that doesn't stop them from having a car and parking on a street. Correct.
Well, if either property owner >> if either property owner ran a fence down the middle of that driveway, neither property is has access. >> Yeah. >> Right. No, I I get you. I'm just trying to go over in my head what we're saying. >> The other the other possibility is the township fences off its property.
>> I'm sorry. >> The township fences off its property. >> That's what I'm saying. I mean from a everyday standpoint people are using the downtown property to park on. Most likely they're
residents of this building. >> I don't know if that's the case. >> When I was there once uh code enforcement parked on that >> and they were driving a red pickup truck. >> Okay. >> So I don't know who's driving that.
>> No public use it >> potentially. that >> they should. >> Now, we found out more actually since January about how the township takes care of properties like this and we learned in the whole 10 years prior to it. And we found out we got a list of
what the township wants to see from the applicant regarding buying a property. They want to see it maintained as green space. They don't want it paved and converted into parking lots. So, we had a very detailed question. We were given a detailed questionnaire and the answer
to everything was we're paving everything. So just the town's policy is to maintain open space. And apparently the reason we never got a response back was the township was not interested in partnering with open space along North
Beverwood Road. Now 10 years they never relate that to me, my late partner Bob Gear follow or the clients, anybody. We had multiple meetings with the town. They always said, "Well, think about it." and we never heard from them. So, we finally got their policy through this process >> and it just looks like they don't want
to they don't want to pay them. I can't say I blame them. Uh, now we have there are children in this building. So, it was the thinking of the applicant that it would perhaps be better to use that as just a play area for children rather
than parking, which the township's not going to agree to ultimately, which is why we abandoned the pursuit of that lot. >> What about the liability? >> Township has liability on all its open space. >> That's one of the reasons maybe we don't
want to take it. We certainly don't want to put a playground. Let's get on there. >> These I know Mr. McDonald talked about the missing head on contradicting that. I believe that's true and accurate. >> But a lot of the people in this place
are working in food service industry and similar industries where they're walking to work or they're taking the bus that runs down North Perwood Road. They're local. They're working locally. That's the type of people that's being housed here. This is not going to I mean I'm not moving into the basement. So that's
not the type of rent that he's going to be getting. >> One bedroom, right? >> Lower rent type of stuff. >> All right. >> That that is what it is. You can't control who's going to rent. Go ahead. Go ahead. Got to ask your question. >> I have two questions. Um number one, they they are one-bedroom units. Correct.
>> The proposed R and the existing R. Yes. >> Then how can you have children in them? >> And any of >> I don't I don't know the ages of those children. I don't I just don't know. Can I have one, too? >> Well, the p the pictures that we have that were submitted on September the
17th, 2024, we see maybe a trunk um table. So, there are some items in the backyard that possibly are being used by young people, ages. I have to agree. I don't know.
>> Um I have a have a other question. Um, the last time I had a problem with the window well >> and how many have you looked at the report of February 14th from the chief of the the department?
>> Yes, I was my understanding that the window well complies with fire code and does not require any zoning relief. >> I believe uh >> but they have changed the sizes I believe. >> Right. If I'm reading correctly,
>> two and a half feet, right? >> They want it three and a half, three and a half by two and a half. >> Right. Modifications are needed as I understand it. >> Yes, it will comply >> and that would could certainly be a condition of but it will not trigger any zoning relief as I understand
>> and will comply fully with the fire inspector's recommendations >> and the egress from the from the apartment to get out. How are they going to get >> I think that I saw the detail of some sort of a ladder that goes in that well. >> Yeah. Are they going to have a ladder on the premise in the apartment?
>> I think it I think the ladder goes in the in the wellace. I'm not an expert on building. >> I mean, that's what I would like to see because my fear is somebody being trapped in the apartment >> and in the basement. >> Mr. Is someone going to be speaking on the
sketch that was presented to us by the Part Troy Fire Department? Um I I'd like to see where this additional space is going to be in relationship to the front of the property.
>> Back, Mr. Minister. >> Madam Madam Chair, that brings up another issue. I mean, I've been asking for a while now for an updated survey. The survey that we have is is is has been is outdated by virtue of the streetscape and we still don't have a plan to show how that window well works
with the existing conditions. We just have a a plan by the architect that shows the window well doesn't show the curb doesn't show the side. We don't know how all this is going to work. >> We have to relocate a a sidewalk because right now coming out of that basement stair, the sidewalk goes right through
where the window well is going to go. So the sidewalk's going to have to be reconfigured. But we don't have any of that. >> And we also have the staircase going downstairs to the basement. How is this window well going to impede that
staircase or going down to the stair staircase or coming up from the staircase? >> Mr. M. >> Okay. >> Swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Credentials the same as the last time
you were accepted? Yes, they are. >> You're acceptable. >> Yeah. In regards to your question, um, we are going to meet all the clearance requirements for the actual window well itself. There it's it actually has like built-in steps. These are pre-approved window wells that, you know, you use on
any basement application. Um, there's a certain size and minimum size, width, and length that we need to meet. That would be in compliance with whatever the building codes require. Um, the window well does protrude out. I believe three and a half feet and then the actual
thickness of the window well is about four feet. It's essentially in line with what the where the stair is going down. So we're not really going any further. We still meet the 10T clearance. There's a there's 15 ft from the building to the property line and we're we're only going
out about 4 ft. So there's still another 10 over 10 ft of u clearance between where that window well is and where our property line ends. So that that the sidewalk issue is not a concern there. Um there is also adequate space between
the the stair and the window well to kind of get out of the the stair. Um those are all building requirements. >> I'm sorry. Continue. >> Those are all building uh department requirements we'll need to meet with, you know, for fire and life safety. I
appreciate your testimony, your testimony, but I think for me, I need to see this on paper. You telling me it's going to go x amount of feet, x amount of feet. >> It it was shown on the drawings though.
That's what we did. >> The survey was not, you know, the survey was not updated or or >> there's there's no curb line on the same plan that >> I while we're looking for I just have one more question. Is that is that window those steps or that egress is
that like right next to the door you go into like you go down the stairs and go into the apartment and >> it's at the top of the stair. the the window wells adjacent to the sort of there's about three and a half feet between that. >> So the front door is here and three and a half feet this way. >> No, there's a
>> the door to get into the apartment. >> So that you got to go down the stairs at the bottom of the stair. The door and towards to the right of the top is the >> Okay. So So it's >> they're far enough apart. I I just did the way it looked and sounded to me
right next to >> So are you familiar with Mr. Colon Tony's February 14th, 2026 email. Do you have that? >> Yeah, I believe I have that. U >> Yeah, I think there was also a request
for a railing on top of that and we I think we addressed that last time to agree that we put a railing. >> Here's my question. So, Mr. Colin Tony indicates that the well window well as designed may meet code,
>> but his suggestion is that to make it more >> fire, >> make it safer that it actually be extended out an additional two to 2 and 1/2 ft. So there's a difference between
what code may require and what um Mr. uh Colentini is suggesting. So when you say We'll we'll meet we'll we'll comply with the suggestion. Are we talking about complying with code or doing what Mr. Collantini has asked?
>> First off, the email. You already talked about the email. I don't know why we didn't get a real report. I don't know why this gentleman was not available to speak to us. We are complying with the code >> saying the code. >> We're complying with that because the
code has the force of law. >> Yeah, >> I understand. So his suggestion while it certainly would be nice >> we think the code is sufficient as does the state of juris. I just wanted to make sure what I understood that your
client's position to be >> but however code >> code you must have to comply that's a must >> code you have to comply it's a must whatever recommendation can you
accommodate that is it possible >> well the only person who's been available to us has been the fire inspector and the fire inspector has been satisfied with the changes Mr. mystery made. So, he's enforcing the code. >> Well, did you haven't seen the email? I
don't know if he's seen the email or did didn't Mr. Mystery just say he's going to adjust the plan to be uh the window would be wider and >> No, the the plan the current plan has the the you know standard testified.
>> No, >> no, it it has a standard >> window well design that meets building code. No, it's not it's not expanded out further than if that's a suggestion >> you agree to. >> We could agree to it. I mean, if we just got extended out, >> I thought you did.
>> That's what I was trying to clarify. >> Yeah. >> As to whether I >> I think we're >> it would extend out a little further. I think that >> Mr. O'Neal, that we don't have a picture and without it, it's going to be around
and around in circles. Is it possible to I don't know if you're committing now to doing the suggestion in m that Mr. coatini has made. But it seems to me that the board is struggling with how this is all going to work together and
would be very helpful to see a survey which shows the sidewalk >> the window well >> and the window well and the stairs to see how it all works together which >> I do recollect that Mr. Lmanitz has been
making that suggestion asking for a sprinkler system. All I'll say is um I'm looking at a survey that was last dated 101724. I don't know if that's the one Mana has. It was just handed to me. So I don't know if the board has it as well. It
does not show the window well on it, but it's >> it's an updated survey. >> What was that date? >> 10 1724. >> Yes, that's what I have. Is that before the streetscape was done or after? There's a note that's saying that it was
the streetscape was under construction at the time >> and so it doesn't show the current sidewalk. >> Correct. >> Right. >> It also doesn't show the grass that should be there. >> Which leads another question. This is a 90% lot coverage. If you've got to put a
sidewalk to go around the new window, well, you're going to be increasing lot coverage and you might be over already, which is why we need a plan. All right. Do you understand what's being asked to do? >> Yeah. Well, I mean, we need a survey. I'm not a surveyor to to do that. Um, I
didn't do the survey. That's not my uh >> All right. >> plan there. >> And for what it's worth, if anybody has it, my report figure five does show that view. So, at least you have a photo. It's not planned, but you have a photo. I I think the board kind of understands
the concept and and and sees what you're trying to do, but >> they don't I I think they would benefit from seeing the actual >> Yeah. >> proposed finished product on a survey with everything there so that they can
visualize how this is all going to work together. And if your client is willing to follow the suggestions that's been made by the fire chief, I I suspect that the board would be happy to hear that. I don't know if that would mean that they would approve it or not, but
>> and I'm understanding the the letter dated January 6 on the last page is stating that plans fail fails to identify the location of the fire department connection. A sprinkler system needs to be put in. Did we get anything that shows that? No, we agreed to put the sprinkler system that that's
already in the plants. >> Do we see anything that shows that? >> Cuz I I know I didn't miss any. >> It's a building. >> Yeah, it's a building. >> That's a letter the last page that has a little diagram on it saying this stuff is missing.
>> As a board member, I can say that I'm I'm looking at this project and putting somebody down in the basement. I want to be totally assured that the people are safe because I don't want my name on anything that somebody's not safe in. >> Well, this would still have to get approved by the building department and
the >> I I know. But we have a responsibility here, too. Not just the the the departments. We do, too. >> And and we we uh you know, I know I'm worried about their safety. I would
assume that my board members are too. I'm concerned as to the depth and how far this new design is going to come into the uh sidewalk and the staircase that has to go
downstairs for this proposed apartments. That's that I I would like to see something and I know Mr. Lmanowitz has been asking for some sort of a sketch or something and we don't have any of that. Sounds like the board's pretty clear on
what they would like to see to give a little more comfort. So, I'm sure the applicant will take that under adisement. >> All right. Okay. >> Would you marry the elements of Mr. Mystery's plan >> with a survey showing the actual dimensions? >> I know.
>> And the uh coverage >> and give consideration to the suggestion to enlarge the well. >> Right. Mhm. >> This is in the sidewalk. The sidewalk. The new sidewalk. >> The board needs to see how it all works together, >> right? In the new sidewalk.
>> The new sidewalk. and and well he's looking at the show