We have the attendance sheet on the first page. Okay. Names that are missing. James Wel, John Kulak, and Chris Gav. Okay. Yeah. Who's missing? Okay.
That That's important. We need to know who was there. So, we'll get that changed up. You made it. We'll get that changed. Yes. I think I already emailed the transcriber. All right. Thank you. Make a motion here. All right.
Let's back up to Mr. So, you're on page two. Two. All right. You're page two, right? Okay. So, I was missing and NY's on there. And on page two where it says your name is I'm not there.
Where they have the attendance on page further down, right? and also professionals as rors. So when you go to page seven, all the names are there. Okay. All right. So we've got changes from
Mrs. Amen and a motion. Do we have a second, please? I move with the changes. All right. I'm sorry. Who second? Uh that was Mr. Wedelli. And who? Mrs. Amin made the motion. Oh, sorry. Mr. Widelli. Uh, yes.
Mr. Sweeney. Yes. Mrs. Amin. Yes. Mr. Bonjouro. Yes. And Chairman Fouse. Yes. All right. Next up, we have the Starbucks resolution. Rich, thank you for putting that together. 25 pages of
goodness. I I had no changes. Anyone else comments, changes on Starbucks? I'll make a motion. Okay. Changes. the whole thing. Wonderful. 25 pages. Mrs. Amin makes the motion. Do I have a second, please? That was Mr. Widley.
Mr. Delli. Uh, yes. Mrs. Amin. Yes. Mr. Kulak. Yes. And Chairman Fouse. Yes. All right. Rich, why don't you take us through our first case that is going to
be postponed tonight. 756 hard. So we we received some communication with respect to application 25-006 uh weight couch weight couch. Um indicating that they needed some additional time to be able to address
some of the uh information in the fire marshals report. Um and I believe we can adjourn that to October 28th. All right. So anyone that's here for that case 7 p.m. this room October 28th. No further notice. No further notices from the applicant. All right. Thank you, Rich. All right.
That takes us to 160 Oak Street. Good evening. Hi there. Hi. Rich, why don't we just check notice and swear everybody in? Yes. So, I did check the notices and it is in proper form. It was uh published
and on August 5th, sent by certified mail on August 8th. So, we do have jurisdiction. We're good. Okay. Is Mr. Tobia the only witness? No, we'll have two witnesses this evening. My name is Marcia. I'm the attorney for the applicant.
LLC planner and Mr. Mr. is also a member of the LLC and he is here this evening in case of any questions. Uh we're going to start with Mr. Tobia because I think most of his
testimony will address the reason for this application. Uh Merkow's intention is to construct a new dwelling on the property to replace the existing dwelling. I I use the term dwelling a little loosely because as you'll see
from testimony, uh the Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I did Okay. Did you pick up anything or not? All right. Again, my name is Marca Zeleleski. I'm the attorney for the applicant Merkel
LLC. Uh we have two witnesses this evening. Uh Mr. Tobia, our planner, and Mr. Mance, our engineer, a representative of the applicant, Mr. John Callo, who is the member of the LLC, is available for uh further questions if necessary. So, I'd just
like to proceed with Mr. Toby at this time. Michael, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, we do. Thank you. And your full name for the record, please? Michael Toby. T O I
Not necessary. We accept you. Good to see you again. Thank you. And there's no wireless mic down there anywhere. We got everything down here. All right, good. Feel free to use who gave me a whole tutorial before the meeting started. And I think we're going to be wired up momentarily um to a
little PowerPoint that I prepared. Um but um as you heard this is Why don't you use that wireless mic? I'm getting the sign if I do that. So I'm That's perfect. Thank you. This is a simple case, one lot, isolated lot with a very modest home on it right
now um that we uh the applicant John Callow behind me um on the aisle um wishes to demolish and build a new home on the property. You'll see in a moment what's out there now is one of the most modest homes um in Bridgewater. Um the
improvement should be self-evident when we go through our uh our slideshow. Um, it's an R10 zone. Nearly every zoning requirement is met. Okay. Um, lot size, uh, front yard, impervious coverage,
building height are all met. F is met as well. This is an application board members only for, um, sideyard setback variances. More on that in a moment. Now, let's see. There we go. Um,
do that. Michael, we're going to mark your presentation, your slide presentation here as A1 with today's date. That's right. And I gave you a copy of that. I have a copy. Yes. Right. Um so, um A1 is our our only
exhibit at least from me. Um and let me just now. Okay. So, these are photos, Mr. Oler, August 18th. I shot them all uh by me and the uh exhibit is dated August 26th. Um 160 Oak Street is the site. Um
okay, so slide two uh shows the property in all its glory right now. Really modest, really neglected, really small. home. Okay. Uh uninhabitable now. In fact, my client wouldn't even let me go in the building when I did my sitewalk.
It's really um quite a mess. Slide two. We'll go around to the side elevation. Uh you can see a partial gravel driveway there. A really really old uh siding material. Not sure what it is. Might be a speestous. Um but uh we haven't seen
anything like this in a long time. Slide four is the detail uh on the side. This is the northerly side of the house. There are some uh homemade dormers over the windows. Chimneys in really bad shape. Old old siding. Even got some rat
traps on the ground. Five shows the front porch in a zoom. Um looks like a do-it-yourself type of deck that uh has seen its better days. Slide six. in a really nice neighborhood with, you know, pretty nice lawns and
plant material. Um, the front yard of 160 Oak Street is a mess. Um, no plant material. We understand a neighbor's been nice enough to mow the lawn periodically, but uh, it's not anywhere near as nice as the other homes along
the street. Slide seven shows you a gravel driveway. It's only a partial driveway. Doesn't even connect to Oak Street. It's just more of a pad. actually have to drive over the lawn to get to the gravel driveway if you were going to park a
car. Site has no garage. Um, in the rear yard is a an old shed uh with multiple building materials on it, overgrown lawn, tree stumps in the back um and as modest as the house itself.
And here's the house from the back. almost like a sub bungalow type of structure. Um really small concrete patio in the back. Um you can see left and right newer homes that have sprung up in the neighborhood. Uh making the
subject property quite a dwarf a dwarf when it comes to the house. Um okay. So um we are here board members for um very simple variance request. Sideyard requirement in the zone is 15 ft. We are
asking for 12 and 1/2 foot sideyards. So we're 2 and 1/2 ft light on each side. Uh the combined sideyard in the zone requires 40 feet. We are proposing 25.
Okay. If we applied a 40 foot sideyard to a 50 foot lot, we'd end up with a 10- foot wide house. That's the whole nature of the case. The law calls that a hardship and a practical difficulty. That's true. So, what we're doing is
asking for a relaxation of both sideyards in order to create a usable um and modern house. More on the house in a minute. Um the whole neighborhood with the exception of several lots um is
composed of 50 foot lots just like this site. Several dozen of them. The whole area was zoned for 50 foot lots cookie cutter style with a couple of exceptions here and there. Every home on the street without sending a survey team out there
has Can I ask interrupt you? So the house to the left and the right they're 50 foot lots also. Yes. Okay. Um and so what we did here on slide 10, um
yeah, I'm going to correct myself. The one immediately to our south is a 100footer. 100 one to our north is a 50-footer, just like the next uh four in a row. Okay. Nevertheless, the house shown on the um
on the left in slide 10 has a 6.4 foot sideyard setback. So even on that larger lot, uh we have a sideyard setback that's roughly half of what's proposed by this. When you go to the north side, we have a
2 and a half story colonial house. Um it is 8.8 eight feet off of its side property line 8.8 with 12.5 actually proposed by us. This is the standard rhythm throughout the whole neighborhood. You can't build a house on
a 50- foot lot without sideyard setback variances. Recall what I said before, every other zoning control is met and our impervious coverage is actually well below what's permitted in the zone. Okay, that's the basics on it. Okay. So,
now we have up on the monitor um site plan. I'm going to zoom in on the site. Let's see if I can Here's the lot 50 by 200 like so many other lots in the neighborhood. 10,000
square foot lot size which is the minimum lot size in the zone. The house is shown on here. Mr. Mans can talk about it more in a moment if you like. Um, each sideyard would be 12 1/2 ft. And you can see with Mr. Mance's u uh
survey material and aerial photography all the other houses in the neighborhood and how close they get to side property rights. It's impossible to meet the R10 control and still build a house on the site. U elevations. Uh Mr. Callow proposes a
nice traditional style house really in keeping with what's in the neighborhood. Uh board and batten siding material on the front, a stone water table, panel doors, double hung windows. I think we
got 12 on 12 front facing gable and um siding on the sides. double hungs all around the property, all around the building. Um, nice and traditional. Um, Mr. Ker tells me he's built 15, 20 homes in Bridgewater over the years, town
resident um, and very experienced in this field. Floor plans show um, a four bedroomedroom house. We are on slide 13. Four bedrooms up, two baths up. Uh downstairs, a great room off the
back, small home office. Sorry about that. And a two bay garage. Um the the applicant is not trying to overbuild on this lot. If you look at those bedrooms, they're all basically 11
to 12 feet wide and deep in their dimensioning. They have three back bedrooms. U so um it's a modestly sized house. It comes in at about uh
2497 square feet. There is a basement proposed. It is proposed to be unfinished. It has not been included in our calculations for floor area. Um and we will if you like um accept a condition
that um as will provide you with a basement plan demonstrating that it's unfinished. Um the garage um on the left side of this exhibit, slide 13, has not been included in our floor area calculations
consistent with your zoning ordinance. So let me um that's a one think I'll just go back to the the site plan the variance plan for a second. Um our proofs are simple. This is what we call in the planning community a C1A
hardship case where it says the shape of the property makes it impossible to achieve zoning compliance and um if you strictly enforced your ordinance with respect to sideyards, we wouldn't be able to build any useful
house on the site under the statute. Uh that is called an undue hardship and a practical difficulty. So instead of having an undue hardship and a practical difficulty, we ask the board uh for approval of only the sideyard setback
variances, recognizing every other control um in R10 is met. When the vast majority of the neighborhood is also on 50-foot lots with many, many, many sideyard
deficiencies, it's impossible to conclude that the granting of this variance would be a detriment to anybody. The whole neighborhood looks basically like um what we're proposing here. In fact, our flanking properties, as I shared, have much smaller sideyards
than what we are proposing. goes without saying the site is an eyesore. It's a blight on the neighborhood. It's a blight. Um just removing it alone would seem to warrant the granting of many more variances if we were asking for them. Uh so the other
way you can grant a variance is what we call C2. The benefits outweigh the detriments. Here the answer here is um absolutely yes. Right. Time to fix up this property. Um these reasons we meet
goals A, C, G, I, and M of your uh municipal land use law. Most notably that it's much more efficient use of land and it promotes a desirable visual environment. Um are we overbuilding the
site? No, we're not. 35% the permitted coverage level. What you're seeing on the slide right now is only a 21% proposed level of coverage, 14 percentage points below what's permitted. Um
that's um I think that's the case. I'll take any questions, Mr. Chairman, if you have them. Thank you, Mr. Toia. One question, please. uh on this plan that you had the variance plan. Variance plan uh the the new house extends all the way back uh
towards the shed. The shed is going to stay or is it going to be uh everything on the site's going? So the shed will be removed. Uh three trees are coming down. Uhhuh. And uh Mr. Callow is starting over. You
know, nice new clean uh house. So it will be slightly moved. be removed so the the new building does not uh interfere with the location. I can't hear that. So I'm sorry. So the question is that you know the
shed will be moved to allow the new building to be placed in there. Yeah, we're not moving it. Um we are the existing shed will uh will be moved and it will remain moved right into a dumpster.
It will remain though on the side. Yeah, it will not remain. Oh, God. Gone. Okay. Okay. The other question I had was your basement is 9 ft high. Is that going to be finished or anything or
No, it will not be finished. It's an 8ft high basement. Um 12 blocks, 12 cinder blocks going up and it will not be finished. Okay. Any
other board question? Did I hear you correctly that it's uninhabited at the time? Yes. Do you know how long it's been uninhabited? October. Okay. So, fairly recent. Um, how old is this house? Do you know? Records estimate it was built in around 1940.
Okay. And the only other question I had was you mentioned that the siding may be asestous. Has any testing been done for that? Yes. Did I? I'll answer. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, is there a plan in place for appropriate removal of the asbestous? We will do everything right. You know,
we get our building permits and uh probably have a cleanup crew come out to remove the sign. Okay. And you're reminding me if I may, Mr. Chairman, building department told our applicant if they would save one wall of this building,
they could build without a variance. You know the rule. They could if they saved both sidewalls, we could have come in here and built without a variance. And there's just no way to save these walls. Like he don't this this is unsuitable for firewood. Okay. So rather
than do that and achieve technical compliance, he's trying to do things the right way. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I just have one question for you on the plans. It shows for what appear to be just simple steps out the back. I'm guessing patio door. If you were to
propose a deck for that, that shouldn't affect the coverage that you're proposing. And is that something that is planned, but you just didn't want to show it? Are you waiting for a client or not sure what? Most of these homes are built with optional decks. Uh, this does not show a
deck now. Um, and as I told you, we have 14 percentage points to play with. So, there's a lot of room if the eventual buyer wanted a deck. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. City water and sewer. Yes. Thank you.
All right. professionals. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, unfortunately, the board has asked a lot of the questions that were in my review or in my mind and Mr. Tobia did a wonderful job, I think, of addressing what was in uh the the joint engineering
and planning review memo. Um, the only thing I will say is uh I would I would recommend that the board agree to that or asked that that condition to include the basement plan being closed so it can be part of the compliance file. if this board does act favorably on it. So we so
we have that um basement plan in place. I think that would be helpful to have for the file. Um other than that, I think um everything was answered that was in the review. U Mr. Burr is not here this evening. Um and there are just a few storm water items. I don't know if Mr.
Tobia touched on them. I don't know if Mr. Mance is going to touch on them, but um No, they're important and and we just want to make sure that any storm water management that is done complies with Mr. BR's review. The answer is yes. We'll comply with the conditions in the report. Great.
Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. All right. M please. Um what about landscaping and the grass? So everything there now is going um and we'll be adding landscaping. Again, plant material on sites like this is
usually some basic plant material is added by the applicant and then usually the eventual homeowner will come in and do what uh what they they want. We will have lawn put down a good-look property.
Thank you. Sorry, just one more thing. Mr. Bonjouro brought something to mind for me from the memo. Um there are a number of trees shown on this on the survey. some of them kind of close to where development is proposed or any of the trees being preserved. The joke before the meeting was we're
only taking away tree stumps, okay, not trees. I was corrected by Mr. Mance who said three trees are coming down. Okay. Okay. Um and then everything else stays. Do you are you are you aware of which trees those are? They ones that are
pretty much covered up by the development. We can we can have Mr. Mans come up. I think that would be helpful. Well, let's finish this witness up that members of the public have questions on Mr. Tobia's planning testimony. Now's the time to come up front.
See none. Thank you, sir. All right. See everyone again. Yes, please. You'll see it up on the monitor. Are you all seeing this on your monitor? Yes. So, Mr. Mance, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that
the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And your full name for the record? James J. Mance, MC. Thank you. Professional engineer state of New Jersey.
my testified before most recent testimony was in county and and you live in Bridgewater. I live on Brahma Avenue. Okay. Wonderful. Welcome back, sir. Thank you. Familiar with the neighborhood. Great.
I I think that the planner um gave a a really good explanation of what the site is and so forth. Um and I'd almost just like to go through the uh review letters and answer any questions uh that may come up. Uh on the screen is
my site plan. I'm not sure how I'm I'm old school. I brought paper with me, but I'm going to try to use the uh video here. How do I Okay. Um there the pictures that
as far as trees are concerned there was an existing tree in right in front of the um dwelling the existing dwelling. Apparently, that has been taken down. There uh was a maple tree on the north side of the dwelling, and there's a was
a maple tree, I'm not sure if it's still there, uh near this the south side of the uh proposed dwelling. So, those uh trees will come down. From a drainage point of view, almost everything on this site drains in a
souths southwesterly direction. Uh what I propose to do is to raise up the house. You saw from the existing pictures that the existing house uh sits fairly low to the ground. We're going to raise up the house about 2 feet out of the ground. The driveway then will drain
toward the street so that runoff will not then travel to the back of the property. The increase in the pvious area is only 94 square feet. And in my opinion, that that's just a minimal amount of increase. So I don't believe that there's any storm water uh
management required. Um I did address I did address on the plan the the comments in Mr. Burr's letter as as far um specifically on page five of seven talking about the uh runoff. Um he had
comments of the four four items the drainage of any area she's not to be adversely affected and I put comments on the plan to that effect and I as per my testimony the 94 square feet additional will not affect runoff on adjoining
properties. The natural pattern drainage of the area is s shall not be significantly altered. Um what we're going to do is drain the roof leaders to the to the ground and then the water's going to run to the rear of the property. That's in accordance with the
D BMP uh methods of uh controlling runoff. The the water goes across the lawn and is allowed to seep into the ground uh as as much as possible. Soil erosion after during the development is increased over
natural rate. We we um will have soil erosion control fence in place. We'll have it a uh stone tracking pad in place. Uh so we won't have any adverse soil erosion and any downstream area
subject to increase flooding or erosion. And again, we're not going to increase the runoff to the rear of the property or have significant or any erosion to the rear of the property. So, um, that I believe addresses the bulk of the
engineering items that were in the letter. Um, runoff, will it be better or worse after the proposed home is built? The same? Yes. Thank you. Uh just going going through the um the
review letter to page four of seven. Um there were several comments as far as was a basement proposed. The plan does show um the elevations of the first floor, garage floor, and basement on the plan.
And it is an 8ft basement. So, we're proposing that um there's a comment about the floor area ratio may not have been correctly calculated, but in fact, it was um the garage was taken out of the floor area
ratio calculation. So, that we are proposing 24 97 square ft of floor area. So, we meet the 25% allowable and I believe that is pretty much the
Yes, the sewer utility memo just we we're going to try to reuse the lateral if we can keep they want it TV and they want a detail of the um clean out. So, I'll put that on the plan. I have a question on the basement. You
said that it was going to be 8 ft. Yes. But you're going to have 12 levels of block. We're going to have three three levels of blocks showing. Then you have your sill and then you have your first floor.
You start. How much is going to be below the surface? How many blocks the foundation? It's going to be approximately nine blocks below. Nine blocks below the basement floor.
Oh, below below grade floor. Below grade. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other board questions for Mr. Mance? Yeah, a couple questions. Um the basement when you dig for your
foundation here um I guess your finished floor of the basement's about 7 ft below. You probably have to go about 8 and 1 half 9 ft. Um property lines within 12 ft and the adjacent closest adjacent home is 6 feet. So maybe you'd be about 18 feet
from an adjacent home. Are you concerned in any way that the excavation for the foundation could compromise the foundation? Okay. know knowing the soils in that area, you're going to hit shell down at about three feet and and on on down and then you know that that's solid
material that that won't cause any problems with the adjoining properties. Okay. And then my last question is and I know it was mentioned a couple times but you are raising the home 2 feet. Um looking south of the home here as you
said the drainage was southwest. Um will there be any natural any um swale that'll be positioned on this property to divert any of the runoff towards the street? No, the the runoff the only runoff
toward the street will be uh from the driveway the remaining amount of runoff will be alongside of the house along uh parallel with the the house to the rear of the property. And that's what it does now. Right. Right. So the so the the the
residence I'm just concerned with and is block 153 lot 13, the one right directly south. Would any of this runoff kind of flow towards their foundation and you know potentially cause drainage
issues for for their basement? No, because the the the water tends to you can see by the topography the water tends to go to the rear of the property and then make almost a um bend southerntherly. So it goes along
the rear of the the properties. Okay. So that that elevate that contour 92 around that home will kind of will remain untouched. And I do see kind of I see a 92 and a 92 contour. So there kind of would be a
natural swale that would bring the water to the rear of the property. Yes. Okay. Thank you. What else? Mr. Mans professionals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um just back to the trees. Um if they are removing
trees, there is a tree replacement requirement for anything that is 8 in non-deuous, 12 in deciduous. So any of those trees that are coming down, I would just make it a condition that those be replaced. Definitely. Those are some large trees, especially in the backyard. Yeah. And just to clarify, did you say that the oak tree along Oak Street is
down? The 32inch oak is That's to remain. It still remains. Okay, good. Because otherwise, I think that that nullifies the need for a street tree because the lot is only 50 feet wide and it's right on the property line with the adjoining property. Um, so they probably don't need any street trees, but they do need to replace the trees on site that are um
being removed. All right. Again, we're going to stipulate that Mr. is going to review any wastewater or storm water management that's on the site. He's just going to review the plan in general. So, you be prepared if he has comments to make changes. I'm I'm sorry.
Yeah. Mr. Burr is going to review your plan on storm water and if there's any changes needed, you're going to stipulate that you're going to make those changes. Yes. Great. Absolutely. Thank you. All right. Members of the public, questions for Mr. Mans on his engineering testimony.
All right. Seeing none. Thank you, sir. All right. Did you have one more witness or we we're wrapped up? Gotcha. All right. Very good. So, it's going to be last call for members of the public that would like to speak for or against this case. Seeing none, we're going to open up deliberations. Rich, why don't
you just take us real quick through um blasting was an issue. You stipulate to no blasting. I can't imagine that's going to be Yeah, just wanted to make sure Mr. Bessie had concerns with neighbors. Want to make sure that was addressed. Great. Thank you very much. All right, Rich.
Okay, so as we heard, it's um just a sideyard and a combined sideyard variance conditions. if there's an approval with respect to the application were only to uh provide the architectural basement plan as part of your plan. So, we had that on file. Uh
no blasting and digging the your foundation and comply with the tree replacement ordinance and the review letters, right? You good with those conditions? All right. Thank you. All right, Jim, your thoughts, please? Um it's actually pretty simple. The
house needs to be replaced. Um, you did a nice presentation as usual to the board. Um, it fits right in there. I'm all for it. Thanks, Mr. Vessio. Your thoughts, please. Um, totally for this application. I think the home fits well into the
neighborhood. Just looking at sort of Earth Google Earth views here and really all the homes are really close to the property line. So, really no difference to what's out there existing. I mean, this is a big improvement for the neighborhood and certainly a hardship. So, I think it checks off many boxes here. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sweeney.
Uh, I'm in favor of approving the application. And I'll just note very quickly that it's in my perspective an undue hardship since it's literally impossible to build any kind of useful house and and meet the sideyard
requirements. So, uh, again, no detriment to anybody, undue hardship. I will vote to approve. Thank you, Mrs. Amen. Um, yeah, it's a simple application with a small variance side yet joints. So,
I'm in favor of approving it. Thank you, Mr. I'm in favor of the applicants. Um, easy presentation, very small variances. Um, I would vote in favor. Hi. Um, I am sympathetic to the
hardship, so I fully understand that. Overall, we're under F, so that's, you know, great to know. Um, and it's just an improvement to the neighborhood. So, I would be in favor. Yeah, I would agree with the other members of the board and I would certainly support the application. I
would add that having visited the property today, the question is how quickly can you build it? But, but yes, I would support it. Thank you. I would also support it. Um the the current structure is made with unsafe materials. So that's going to be taken
out. Uh the one variance here is quite literally only a few inches longer than my 10-month-old. So it's barely asking for anything. I think it'll be an improvement to the neighborhood. I'm supportive. I too am in in support. And Mr. Toby, I think your C1 and C2 proofs were very solid. I think it's going to be a great
improvement for the neighborhood. I wish you the best of luck. Be careful with the asbestous. And with that, uh look to the board for a motion, please. I move. All right, Mr. Widley. Second with Mr. Bonjouro Murray if we could have a vote please. Mr. Dwidelli yes Mr. Sweeney.
Yes. Mrs. Amen. Yes. Mr. Bjouro. Yes. Mr. CCAT. Yes. And Mr. Mr. Kulak. Yes. And Chairman Fouse. Yes. Good luck with construction.
All right. All right. For the board, our next meeting is going to be September 9th, if I have that correct? Yes. September 9th should be a quick meeting. Right now, we have nothing else scheduled. Is that correct? We have just a quick vote to extend an
approval. Rockland APV application should be on. Oh, that is going to happen. That should be the I think. Okay. They've carried twice now. Three times now. I understand the Somerville Fire Marshall has issues.
Yes. I don't I don't believe did we receive an adjournment from them? Okay. So, APV and then we have a vote on an extension an extension for a residential application and that's our only meeting in September. Okay. Wonderful. All right. September 9th, 7 p.m. this room. Motion to
adjurnn. Please move. All right. Mr. Wy, Mr. Bonjouro. Thank you everyone. Good night. Keep it moving quick. [Music] Watch a little