Everything last year. I don't think testing. Check. Check. Can you hear me? Test. testing. >> I was thinking No, it's not. Yeah. I'm live now.
It's No, we're ready. and I will be the acting chairperson to start off tonight's meeting. I would like to welcome you to the March 23rd, 20026 reorganization meeting. Please stand for
a flag salute and a moment of silence. This meeting is in compliance with the open public meeting act as adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by mailing the annual schedule of meetings to the Union County local source to leader and star ledger and by posting such annual meetings. meeting
schedule on the bulletin board and town hall reserved for such announcements and the filing of such notice with the township clerk of Clark. Formal action may be taken at this meeting. Okay. I don't we have a little mixed up today.
So, Doug Croc, >> Ed Ruth >> here. >> Chris Tierney >> here. John Caliguire >> here. >> Dante Tikin >> here. >> Okay.
Um the next thing on the agenda is the correspondence. Um we have a resa resignation letter from William Helm. Um he has resigned from the board due to unpredictable work schedule for this year. Uh if you'd like
to see the letter, I could pass it around. he, you know, he says, "Thank you to board members, myself, the board attorney." Um, so that uh is that I'll pass that around to you. Uh there's a memo from the clerk's
office. Um this is uh regarding our board attorney uh who was recommen recommended by the business administrator and chief financial officer uh for her professional services to Kelly M. Carry
and her firm. Do you want me to read off the names? >> No. >> Okay. >> Not necessary. Um, and then also in here is a copy of what was posted online when our meeting was
cancelled in February. All right. The next thing now going for is um I'm looking for a motion uh for a board chairman. I can't see. Second that.
>> Second that wire. Okay. >> Uh any other motions? >> Second. >> No. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Any nace? >> None. Okay. >> Congratulations, Mr. Ruth. You're stuck
with it again. Looking for a motion for a vice chair. >> At this point, I would like to nominate Doug Croc as vice chair for the coming year. >> Second. >> Second it. Okay.
All in favor? I. Any >> opposed? The eyes carry motion. Congratulations attorney. nominate Kelly as our board attorney for the coming year. >> Second it.
>> Second. Okay. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppos? >> Any other motions? >> All right. >> Um all in favor? >> Yes. >> I >> I >> Okay. Uh motion for board secretary. Can I
have a motion? >> Recommendation for it as our board secretary. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Um are the nominations? All in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? >> No other motions. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Okay, >> Jamie, you're in charge. >> Um, so then we next on the agenda is
just the resolution that puts all of this in writing um for the board to memorialize the votes we just took. That's resolution 1 R26. And then this the one after that is um 2 R26. That's our annual report is required by the miscellaneous law that the board puts
together a report to the planning board and to the council about the applications that we've had over the the last year. We had two applications. So that report is very very succinct. Um so if we can have a motion for both of those, we can vote we can vote on them together.
>> Motion to approve both resolutions on R26 and 2 R 26. A second. >> I second. >> Second.
>> You want a roll call or do you want to vote? >> Let's do a roll call on this, please. >> Roll call, please, on this one. >> Can you do a roll call vote for this roll call? >> All right. Start with Doug Croc. >> Yes.
>> Christi. >> Yes. >> John Calibire. >> Yes. >> Dante Tini. >> Yes. >> And Ed Ruth. >> Yes. >> And that'll do it for the reorgan meeting.
We can move on to the regular. >> Do you have any discussion? Anyone from the board? Before we adjourn the meeting, one thing I would like to do is to thank publicly Bill Helm for his
years of service to the board and to welcome Dante as a full-time member. I have a motion to adjourn. Motion to second.
All in favor? The crociallaguire Dante. >> Yes. >> And Ed Ruth. >> Yes. >> This portion of our meeting is officially closed.
>> Now start the next one. We're going to do we'll do that as part of the next the regular meeting. >> Now like to open our formal meeting of the board of adjustment for Monday, March 23rd, 2026.
This meeting is in compliance with the open meeting public meetings act as adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by mailing uh the annual schedule of meetings to the star ledger
and the union county local source and by posting the annual meetings on the bolton board in the town hall reserved for such announcements. Our official website of the township https
rclark.com in compliance with public law 2025 C 72 effective March 1st 2026 and the filing of said notice with the
township clerk of Clark formal action will be taken at this meeting since we've already done the pledge of allegiance and the moment of silence. We'll go right to a roll call of membership. Denn
roll call. Yeah. >> Okay. Croc >> here. >> Here. >> John Calaguire >> here. >> Dante Tini >> here.
>> Ed Ruth >> here. All right. Next item is a review of the minutes for the November 24th, 2025 meeting. Everyone has had a chance to review those
and we'd like a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Second. Hi Chris.
I'll just voice vote. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Any opposed? None. >> Opposed. The minutes are approved as read. >> All right. Our first calendar case tonight is calendar
number 3-26. Uh, Katherine Golich of 333 Col Carolina Street in Clark. Madam attorney, have all the proofs been uh verified?
>> Yes, the board does have jurisdiction. They did appropriately notice for this meeting. Thank you. >> All right. Um, the ordinance that was changed to 200 instead of 100. >> Okay. for the gazebo. >> Just the board secretary is handing out
a copy of the recently changed ordinance that involves the gazeos. It used to be 110 foot um maximum and now it's 200 foot. So just so everybody knows. >> Good evening sir. I have name and >> yes good evening Mr. Chairman members of
board. My name is Donald B. Fraser Jr. I'm a member of the law firm of Parata Fraser and Forester 16 Valley Road here in Clark, New Jersey. It's my pleasure this evening to represent your applicant Kath Katherine Goldage of 333 Carolina
Street. Just want to digress for one second sitting here watching the reorganization and I saw Mr. Ruth that people congratulated you upon your election. And I'm just going to tell you when we do that in Garwood and we reorganize our board, I usually extend
my condolences to the chairman upon his reelection. So, um >> radio, but thank you. >> All right. But I d but I digress. This is a very simple application. >> Before we do that, we need to swear. >> He's the attorney, so no. But do you have any witnesses you need us to swear?
>> I probably not >> call my client if it appears necessary, but I'm not so sure that it is. >> Okay. >> Fine. Please proceed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very simple application. The applicant proposes to construct a
gazebo uh or pergola, whichever term you prefer, in the rear yard. Why are we here? Two reasons. One, the proposed pergola is 21 feet by 25 feet,
which my uh high school math tells me is 525 square feet. ordinance allows 100 square feet. So, in that sense, it's quote unquote oversized. Secondly, at its peak, the
height of the proposed uh gazebo is 15t in whereas your ordinance provides for 12 feet. So, in that sense, it's also not in strict compliance with your zoning ordinance
in this particular case. And I think if you look at the um site plan that was submitted, the point that I want to make is that this is an oversized lot. According to
your zone, 10,000 square feet is required. This lot is 15,000 square feet. The other bulk issues on this property, building coverage, impervious coverage, even after the proposed construction
would be accomplished are substantially less than would be otherwise permitted in the zone. Moreover, even after the construction, the proposed construction talking it's going to be more than 30
feet away from either of the sideyard property lines and more than 30 feet away from the rear property line. This is not something that's overbuilt. That's a problem that's going to create
all kinds of shadows and havoc with the neighbors. Um, my client would testify that she had in fact spoken to the neighbor who seems to be in favor of the proposed construction rather than opposed. The other point I would make is
the applicant could actually build this as of right if the applicant merely attached it to the house because it would comply with the bulk requirements of the zone. What
subjects us to scrutiny here of the board under your ordinance is that the structure is detached. But you could actually like a beam between the gazebo that's
proposed and the house and then legally becomes part of the house and is permissible as of right. The applicant would rather not do that. The applicant doesn't want to play games. The applicant's here. We want to build this gazebo. Built a nice new house. They
want a nice gazebo to have the backyard, patio, outdoor space, all usable. And that's the application. I suggest to the board that it does not have any negative impacts and I suggest to the board that this application should be approved. Um,
I'm prepared to answer any questions that the board might have. I'm not here under oath. I can call Miss Goldish, the applicant, if the board has questions that they would like answered under oath. One thing I'd point out um just handed
to all of us that the uh council has expanded the size from 110 square ft to 200. So now you're looking at 200 versus >> So I still want a variance but I want
less. Mr. Chairman, >> just for the record to clarify, >> I w I was aware of that and perhaps I should have mentioned that my preliminary comments, Mr. uh chairman, uh but I did uh when I submitted the application um proceed under the pre the
prior ordinance. >> Um I I think you should probably just bring your the property owner just just to have her tell give us the negative positive criteria as far as the >> Absolutely. Cassel. >> Hi everyone. Good evening. Katie Goldich, 333 Carolina Street. >> Raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony about given this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> If you could just have her address whether there's an impact on the neighborhood and >> well, you're the applicant here, correct? >> Yes. >> And you're the owner along with your husband of the property at 333 Carolina Street. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> And you heard what I said to the board. Now, I wasn't under oath, but if you were testifying, would you have backed up what I said? >> Yes, 100%. And would you tell the board specifically um about your conversation with the neighbor uh concerning this project? >> Yeah, so we've been wanting to add some
additional outdoor space to our new home um for a couple years now in the planning process. We're very close with a lot of our neighbors in Clark. They'll be benefiting from this as well. So, we have no um issues from anyone around us and are really excited about it. >> But have you actually discussed the proposed construction with the neighbors
on both sides? >> Yes. >> And was there any negative feedback at all? Nothing received negative >> the witness, Mr. Chairman. >> And you're still not in favor of attaching it in some fashion to your house, which would eliminate the whole
discussion that we're having. Any board members? Any questions? Well, um, Mr. Calgary, if I'm looking at Mr. the deck site plan and I don't have a scale in front of me but I see that the depth of the pergola is
approximately 21 linear feet and just eyeballing it it appears to me that that's pro approximately equidistant to the house so again I haven't scaled it but it appears to be approximately 21 linear
If the board doesn't have any other questions, we should open to the public. Is there anybody in the public that wants to ask any questions about this application or speak for or against it? You'd come up to the mic. >> Seeing none, I would close the public
session portion on this. board have any discussion or do we have a motion? >> May I have a motion to accept this request or to deny? No questions. Yeah, I have a motion on this
application. >> I'll make a motion to approve the application. >> Second. >> I'll second that. on the motion. John Caliguire, >> yes. >> Douglas Croc, >> yes.
>> Chris Tanny, >> yes. >> Kante Techni, >> yes. >> And Chairman Ed Ruth, >> yes. >> Yeah. Very good. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. We appreciate it. My client uh
looks forward to uh completing this project and being a positive addition to the neighborhood. >> Thank you very much. >> You calendar case 4-26. Uh Elena and Ryan
Lando Phil. Am I pronouncing last name correctly? 78 Hutchinson Street, Park. Have you identify yourself and you need to be sworn in? >> Take care of that.
>> How you doing? I am My name is Richard Pierce. I'm an architect. Richard J. Pierce Architects LLC. I'm based in Cranford. >> Good. Just wanted to know. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Just spell your name for the record, please.
>> Richard, R I C H A R D Pierce, P I E R CE. Address 9 Stratford Terrace, Cranford, New Jersey. Uh, home and office. >> Okay. And you are your licenses are >> licensed architect. uh graduated Pratt in 93,
Bachelor of Architecture, license in New York in 98, and Jersey in 99. My license is currently in good standing. >> Does anybody have any questions about accepting him as an expert in architecture? >> No questions from the board.
>> Okay, go ahead then. >> Good evening, everybody. I'm here representing Elena and Ryan Landalfi. They are on 78 Hutchinson. Um, I don't know. I have a hard drive with the drawings or you have the drawings. We could just go off that, but I'll just at least briefly explain what we're looking
for. >> Do you have you have hard copies? >> I didn't bring the hard copies. No. >> Okay. I I provided >> Can we pull them up so that can we pull up >> give it to you? Did you >> Yeah, we have to You have it electronically so we can pull it up for the audience.
>> I have a hard drive, a thumb drive with them if they want. in here. >> Kelly have a mouse. I don't have a mouse or anything here. I don't know. Wait a minute.
>> Oh, it's the TV guy. Yes. into this. That's my >> Do you have the >> Yep. >> Got it in it. >> Yep. That's my file. >> Thank you. >> Sorry about that. I always said every time I went into an office with a new
copy machine, you looked like an idiot trying to figure it out. Um, so real simply, uh, Elena and Ryan approached me a little while back about doing a addition on their house. Have a small capelike house on Hutchinson, similar to a lot of the houses in the neighborhood.
Um, the reason we are here for variance, they're on an undersized lot. Their undersized lot is required in an R75 zone to be 7,500 square feet. They are at 6676. So they're about 88% unders sized. They're
also undersized on the lid the lot width. Um should be 75 ft according to R75. They are at 56. So they're about 60 75% I'm sorry 75% of the required width. The one of the main things the
Landalfies were looking for was to get a garage on their house. Um, they have a tight sideyard on one side. I'm gonna pull my drawings up. Just want to make sure I bring the latest one. Give me two seconds. And these are the plans that were submitted as part of your application.
and just give us the date for the record and tell us which what we're looking at. >> Okay. I believe the >> the revision date is 1726. >> Okay. >> Date on the bottom of the drawings though is 1726. >> And which is it?
>> Okay. So there as as mentioned the lot size is undersized at 56 feet versus 75. Uh those are the existing non-compliant conditions. Again, lot size in square footage, lot width. Um and then a minor
one on the lot. Minimum front depth there at 247 uh 24 ft 7 in. It's supposed to be 25 ft. What they were looking to do was to add a garage onto the side of the house similar to a couple of other houses on the lot on the street. That's where they got the idea
for this originally. Notably, um, n 79 Hutchinson, which is directly to their left, I believe. Yes. Um, to their left, and then 71 and 54, which even though the numbers are off, I don't know if anybody knows it, but Hutchinson has a very weird numbering system. Um, it's
pretty much directly across the street. Um, in doing that, they would not they they would need the variance for sideyards. The proposed sideyard we are giving on the garage side would be five
feet. The house adjacent to that. Apologize I'm a lefty in the I couldn't get the mouse over to the right. Um would it will provide about 12t 8 between their new construction and the existing house adjacent to it. So a 5
foot lot line 5 foot tall lot line 12'8 to the adjacent house. Um on the other side, the neighbor to the left, number 79, actually did this type of addition years back, um they are 4 foot2 off the property line, uh and a total of 11
foot7 from the house from house to house. So we're a little better than the adjacent exact condition on the other side. So, the two um the two variances they're going for here is the minimum lot size, I'm sorry, the minimum
sideyard, which would have to be 8 ft. They are provide they are requesting five feet. And then the total, which is supposed to be 20 feet, and they're requesting, I believe, 12 foot five. Um there's no other way except for doing a
detached garage at the back of the property. There's really no other way to get a garage on the property. Um, in speaking with the Landalfies, they didn't want to do a detached garage, one a onecar detached garage at the back. They really was important to them with
their young kids having the garage, the mudroom. If you want to look at my plans and see the way it's laid out. Um, so basically that's what they're looking for. I think the reasoning on this is the lots are undersized for the zone.
Um, what we're asking for on the yard, I had the uh, give me a second. I had the percentages here, but if the lot is undersized about 88% of what it's supposed to be and the the sideyards are, sorry, the lot width is undersized
by about 75%, we're asking for about that same deduction. Um, we're still maintaining 12 12T 8 from the new construction to the adjacent house. that's an improvement of what the neighbor did to um when they did their addition on the opposite side. Um so
they're just looking to hopefully get this get this these plans approved this way or we're maintaining a minimum of 5 foot from the property line. Um that's basically it. Any questions or you want to look at the plans?
>> Yes. Currently a house that's there. What is the distance between the existing home and the neighbor both sides? >> So problem seems to be the addition of the
garage which shortens distance on their neighbor to the right >> uh to the right. Correct. Similar to what when the house to the left was approved did to them. So, the house to
the left of them has this garage and and has similar um sideyards that don't meet the current thing. I don't know if they went for variance or or not or if it was done before the current variance was in, but on the left hand side where there is
a current garage, that garage is 4 foot 4T off of the property line and the distance between the garage and the Landalfi residence is 11'7. On the other side existing without the without the garage is 23 feet 9 in. We
are proposing 12 foot 8. So a little bit about a foot better foot and a couple inches better than what is on the left hand side. >> Where the garage will not be on right hand side. >> Our proposed garage is on the right hand
side. Correct. Same layout as the house to our left. questions members say the existing property to their left that I drove down that street there's at least only two houses that have bumped
up their >> um >> size >> within the 200 feet. There's three houses that have done this. Yes. The one directly to their left, one almost directly across the street. It's number 54. I think it's one house over and then 71. That the the numbering on that
street is odd. It's in the 70s continuous on one side and the 50s continuous on the other side. It's not odd and even. Must drive the postman crazy. >> Hard to find. >> Yes. If you want to look, this is what the proposed addition will look like.
And with this addition, they are they're looking to expand their second floor. Also, we are trying to keep the mass low. So that's why on the garage side, it's not a full two and a half stories. We kind of pulled it down a little bit. >> Not at the moment. kind of um runoff
with the water since you're adding more roof space. >> We're actually well under on the impervious surface. Um this area where we're building the garage was already a paved driveway, so there's really not much change. Obviously, we will um run any water not onto the adjacent property, so we'll swell it to the
street or swell it to the back. Um in the back there is a uh a drainage ditch that goes into the retention pond down the street. So we are under on impervious surface. Um we're allowed to be up to
3338 and we're only proposing 2490. So we're well under on that. Further discussion. Can I have a motion on this? We have to open to see if anybody in the public has comments. >> Apologize. >> Is there anyone in the audience who'd
like to speak in behalf of this application or in favor or against >> or ask questions about the >> questions? No. public. >> A motion for the application to be
approved. Second call. >> On Caliguire, >> yes. >> Douglas Croc, >> yes. >> Christi, >> yes. >> Dante Tini, >> yes.
>> And chairman Ed Ruth, >> yes. >> Great. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. So, so we will we'll draw up a resolution and then it'll be adopted at the next meeting and then after that you can take it and go for your building permits. Okay.
>> Thank you again. Next case this evening is calendar case 5-26 Hunter Avenue Partners for 30 330 uh Westfield Avenue
corner Westfield and Emerald. >> I'm back. >> You're back. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, my name is Donald B. Fraser Jr. with the law firm Prada Fraser and Forester, 16 Valley Road here
in Clark. On behalf of the applicant, Hunter Avenue, Hunter Avenue Partners. I have with me this evening uh the two principles of Hunter Avenue Partners and I also have uh >> our engineerplanner
uh Mr. U Anthony Gallerano. Sorry about that, Tony. Uh >> before you start, sir, I can kind of pass up the form so that we have >> Sure. I'll take a second >> right information in front of us.
>> Um why don't we get your witnesses sworn in and I need to swear in our professionals as well. Anybody who's going to testify? Everybody come up. >> Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>> Okay. And then just one at a time, spell your name on the by the microphone. >> Spell it. >> Spell your name. Yes. >> Is there a hammer? >> Just spell it out loud. >> Out loud. Yeah. Yeah. Make sure the mic catches it.
>> John J HN Mim. N is in Nancy. I is in Ivan. E is in Echo. M as in Mary. C is in Charlie. Z is in zebra. Y is in Yankee. K is in kilo. >> Thank you. >> Preston Terrell. P R E S T O N T E R R E
L L. >> Thank you. >> Your engineer. >> It's Anthony Gallerano. G A L L E R A N O with the firm of Harbor Consultants. Our business address is 320 North Avenue
East in Cranford. and we'll do your credentials when you when you testify. And then Paul and um Rich, do you swear affirm the testimony about given this matter as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Okay. Our professionals are sworn in.
>> Go ahead, Mr. >> Okay, we qualify you. In what fields are you proposing to provide testimony this evening? >> Uh engineering and planning. Please give the board benefit of your credentials in the field of engineering. >> Sure. So, um I have a bachelor of
science degree from New Jersey Institute of Technology. I graduated in 1984. I'm licensed as a professional engineer and professional planner since 1988. Uh since then, I have provided testimony
uh throughout the uh state of New Jersey before numerous boards. Uh I also provide uh professional engineering and planning services to various municipalities. I I have testified before the Clark Planning Board and Zoning Board. Uh
however, I don't think I've been before this board for a few years. >> Are your licenses all current? >> Yes, they are. >> Mr. Chairman, I tender the witness as an expert in the fields in which he has so testified, namely planning and engineering. Anybody >> have any questions? He's acceptable. Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right, Mr. Mr. Galleran has inserted his uh flash drive into the computer. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um I can see it on his computer screen here, Jan, and I can't see it up top.
>> Here it comes. There you put it in there. It's in there. All right. Should come up. >> It's coming. Get out of that. Just maybe. So, Mr. Chairman, as a preliminary matter, this is a
subsection B of the municipal land use law um because we have density issues. So is my understanding as a result and council and I had an opportunity to discuss this but that we do require five affirmative votes under subsection D.
It's my understanding that we're proceeding before a me a meeting only of only five members this evening. Correct. >> Correct. So, as you're correct, as we discussed, um the applicant is entitled to have seven people vote on the application. And because we don't have
seven people tonight, certainly you can make your presentation and at the end of the evening, you can decide if you would like us to hold the vote until we can have two more members and they can watch the tape, the video of the of this evening's proceedings, and then you can get a full seven members to vote. Or if you feel comfortable at the end, you can
ask this the five that are here to vote. But you are entitled to that to make that request and we will allow you to do that. at the end >> and we'll make a game time decision on that. Um, council, I just wanted to be clear for the record as we were starting out that the applicant was not waving his right to have this heard by a or
decided I should say by a seven member board. All right. So, with that having been said, Mr. Gallerano, this is a three lot subdivision, correct? >> Correct. >> Why are we here? So, we're here um again to uh subdivide
the existing lot um into three proposed lots. Um we're here before the zoning board, not the planning board because of the uh density variance um which is D5. Uh there's also bulk variances also uh required which I will get into a little
more detail. >> Why don't we start out with the uh density? >> Yeah. So, um, the R, uh, this is the R100 zone. Uh, requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, uh, and a lot width of, uh,
a lot frownage of 85 ft. Um, the, uh, there's no direct um, density requirement in your ordinance. This is what we call kind of an implied density, uh, because, uh, of of the, uh, required lot size and the, uh, existing lot size.
So, this is a 23,551 square foot lot uh with a minimum required lot size of 10,000 square feet. That would um allow the applicant as of right uh two lots um or 2.4 lots. But
however, with density, we always round down. So, it would be two lots required. Uh in this case, the applicant is proposing three lots. uh therefore exceeding uh what would be the the allowable density. Uh if you were to
relate this in units per uh acre which we typically measure density u the permitted the permitted would be 4.36 units per acre or lots per acre and what's proposed is 5.55. So, um, whether we do it per lots or per units per acre,
either way, it exceeds the the allowable, therefore requiring the D5 variance. >> In terms of that variance, what are the planning reasons that support the grant of that variance? >> So, with density, uh, it's a little bit different than a D1. The D1 requires the
call the enhanced proof. uh with the density. Uh the focus is on whether the the lot can accommodate any um practical difficulties um associated with the proposed development. Um in this case, I I would
uh represent that this really does not present any any difficulties. Um the uh which we'll get into this a little later, but the lot sizes are all I believe it scale with the surrounding area. All of the other bulk requirements
are being met with the exception of the the lot frontage and the lot uh area. Um actually the corner lot actually beats the lot frontage. It just doesn't have the uh the lot area. Uh so I I believe there are no um no difficulties created
um by by the density variance or by granting of the density variance. >> Now the subject property is located at the corner of Westfield Avenue and Emerald Place. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And the three proposed houses will be facing Emerald Place. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. And so that we're clear, the frontage of each of those three lots that are facing Emerald Place or proposed to face Emerald Place, the frontage of the three lots will be what? >> So lot um 20 slots lot 2601 uh proposed
lot 2601 is the lot that's furthest from Westfield Avenue. Uh so starting with that lot um the uh lot frontage is 75 ft. Uh the lot depth is 100 foot. Um and
that has a lot area of 7,500 square feet. Uh lot 2602 is is the middle lot that's also has a frontage of 75 ft at a depth of 100 ft with a uh lot area of
7500 square ft. Uh lot 26.03 which is the corner lot that has a frontage of 83.4 4 a depth of 100 ft and a lot area of 8551 square ft. So uh lot 26 and 01 and 2602
uh each require a lot frontage and lot area variance. Uh the corner lot which we identify as 260.03 only requires the uh lot area variance. And is the reason that you made um lot
2603 the largest of the three lots is that because it is the one that is contiguous to Westfield Avenue? >> Yes, continuous and also have requires two two lot uh two front yards. So typically a corner lot um wants to be bigger because it needs to accommodate
the two front yards. >> Okay. And you've built that into the planning of where that house is situated. Is that correct? >> Correct. Do you see any negative uh impacts in terms of the grant of the variance to
permit this density and lot size? >> Um again um I I don't do not um we did one of the goals was here was to try to uh create um lot sizes and houses that were somewhat moderately sized but also
uh in conformance with the uh the surrounding area. Um, we've looked at all of the lots. Um, can I have another exhibit which I' Yeah, let me um might be easier to work with the exhibit on this.
>> And these exhibits, Mr. Garound, these are all items, although they are colorized, that were part of the submission to the board. Is that correct? >> Um, this one was not. I have a tax map exhibit that I put together. We need to mark that then
>> and you'll need to submit it. You can send it. You can email it to us tomorrow. >> I'm sorry. >> Well, you'll need to submit that. You can email it to us tomorrow. The file copy. >> Explain to me. Give me a What is it and what's is there a date on it?
This will be A1. So, this is based on the um township tax map. And the idea was we looked at wanted to look at all of the uh lots within the surrounding area. So we took um everything um up to uh Lexington
Boulevard >> um from Westfield Avenue. We didn't really go beyond that. Kind of gets a little bit further out of the uh out of the neighborhood. >> Excuse me, Lexington Boulevard or Boulevard. >> Uh um >> yeah, Lexington Boulevard, which is uh
the next street up. So um so what we did was we looked first the blue line is the zone line the kind of orange is the is the property in question. So when we looked in the uh the R r 100 we kind of
indicated everything we marked with a D would be considered um uh dimensionally um under dimensionally deficient where it wouldn't doesn't have the uh required lot frontage. the ones we marked with an A are also um don't have the required
area. So when we analyze all those lots in the R1 >> before you leave that exhibit for just a second. So if we look at the um exhibit that's up on the screen >> are you saying that every place where it's kind of colored in with a red letter is deficient?
>> Yes. Correct. Okay. >> So in the AR 100 we looked at 65 lots. 51 of those were non-conforming with respect to lot frontage. 11 were deficient with respect to area. Um all total there were 53 of those lots are
non-conforming which equates to 82%. We also looked at the R75. Even though we're not in that zone, we are directly across from that zone. And we looked at 102 lots. Um 93 were um deficient with
respect to lot frontage. 11 were deficient or deficient with respect to lot area. Again all total there are 98 lots that are non-conforming and 90 that equates to 96%. Um why we did that just really look we
wanted to see what the lot sizes were how it compared to what we're proposing. Uh we believe that the three lots that the applicant is proposing really is more consistent with what's out there now. Um whether in the R100 or in the R75,
um these lots again are more within within the character of the neighborhood. >> Now recognizing that the lots in question, the proposed lots in question are in fact in the R100 zone, it sounds like what you're saying is were this the R75 zone, they would all be fully
compliant. Is that correct? >> Right. Correct. >> And in fact, compared to what is there in the R75 zone, most of those lots don't even comply with that. Correct. >> That's correct. >> So, is that another way of saying that these three proposed lots will actually
be larger than most of what's in the neighborhood? >> Yes, absolutely. Um, yeah. Yeah. And also keep in mind if you were if you were to divide this lot into two lots, you would have um two lots that were 11,7,775
square ft. Also with a front is 117 thou 117 ft, which would be significantly larger than everything else in that in that neighborhood. Um which would be more of um would look way more out of character than what the three lots that
the applicant is proposing. So, um, again, that was the exercise here. We weren't trying to point out that these are all non-conforming, but really point out that how these three lots are going to fit in better with this neighborhood than if you were to subdivide this lot into two lots.
>> Are there special reasons that would augur in favor of the grant of the request? >> Yeah, so again, these are um, you know, all C2 variances. Um I think we already talked about the negative criteria. I don't believe this is going to have any
negative impact. In fact, I think it's again it's consistent with the neighborhood. Um we are um again in also complying with all of the other uh bulk requirements. Uh the uh we have great these lots are all graded
and designed so there will be no runoff uh directed towards any adjoining property. Each law will have its own uh storm water management system consisting of an under underground detention system. So all of the um onsite runoff
will be mitigated uh so that there'll be no increase in runoff from the uh the proposed development. Uh the uh total impervious coverage per minute is 50%. Um these lots are all less than 31% in
total impervious. So, we're way significantly under what would be permitted by uh the impervious coverage. Each lot has sufficient parking. Uh each house will have a two-car garage and a twocar driveway. So, uh each will be uh
you know sufficient with with respect to parking. So, I I don't see any negative uh impact. I I I don't I believe the negative criteria is uh is met here. Uh with respect to the positive criteria, I believe under paragraph G which talks
about of the purpose of zoning to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial and industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their perspective environment environmental
requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. Um again we al already talked about the uh the density variance. Uh so therefore I believe that uh these variances uh can
be granted. Uh it's my opinion that the special reasons exist for the granting of the variances that the benefits of granting the requested variances outweigh any detriments will not have any substantial impact on the surrounding area or substantially impair the intent of purposes of the zoning
plan and ordinance. Are there any of the uh other um documents that you have there on your computer that we need to pull up or is that really addressed what you want to address? >> I think so. I mean I I do have um an aerial exhibit I can show which kind of shows you the um just again what I was
talking about with the uh respect to the neighborhood >> and is this part of the packet or we need to mark this also? Was this submitted? >> Was this part of >> No, it was not. No. So this will be A2 >> A2,
>> you know. So we marked in red uh the PQ and as you can see most of these houses again in the in the area. We took the area all the way up to uh Lexington between the Parkway and and the municipal building kind of calling this
the the neighborhood. And you can see these are all kind of again moderately sized houses. There's a variety of styles, capes, some ranches, some some colonials. And again, we we really looking at um this project when you look at the scale of the houses that are
proposed, they're going to be more more in conformance with this neighborhood than if you were to build two two significantly larger houses. So, >> and really that's the point other than the variances variances, excuse me, that
specifically discussed i.e. 7500 and 8,500 square feet as opposed to the 10,000 and the 75 ft where you would need 85. These lots are really going to be
consistent what's in the general area and will permit because no other variances are sought houses that will be more modest in scope. Would you agree with that Mr. Gallerano? >> Yeah, absolutely. And that was the the objective with this development when we you know we did look at different things
and um you know originally the applicant was looking at possibly doing more lots possibly doing duplexes which you know was immediately ruled out by your board professionals. So we did try to working with them we tried to come up with
something that we thought that would be um you know appropriate for for this particular lot. Um I also have a a colorized version. This is also a new exhibit. It was not submitted with the application. >> It's A3. >> And this is just um kind of gives you an
idea um the colorization gives you kind of puts it in perspective with respect to the the the size of the houses and the amount of green space and surrounding. As you can see um you know there's significant amount of green area being proposed around the houses. Um
there's going to be uh shade trees um proposed uh in these darker green circles and some evergreens uh along Westfield Avenue to help uh to provide some screening um to Westfield Avenue. Uh there are also
um existing trees on the property that are going to remain uh and the yards are proposed to be enclosed with a six-foot uh high solid vinyl fence. That's all >> of the witness.
>> Or as the distance between different houses, it appears that the one that is the corner lot, these are the lot lines right after it. may
not be consistent with the space between the other two homes. Is that this optical or are you >> proposing that the distance between you're facing the house the left hand
side of the first house and the right hand side of the second that distance is the same or meets the requirement because on the second and third house
the distance seems to Why? >> Let me address that directly. Mr. Chairman, the applicant is not requesting any side effects whatsoever and will comply. >> Maybe it would help Mr. Galleran Mr. was
saying about that you have the uh house plans there. >> Yes, I do. >> Yeah. So, we'll start with um the corner lot, which is a slightly bigger bigger house. Um this is what that house will
look like. >> Okay. And this is these are new as >> these are new these are new exhibits. >> No, not been submitted. This wasn't >> A4. I actually thought that was >> I don't make it.
>> Yeah, I think we submitted the um just the uh non group. >> All right. >> Yep. So, this is this is what the house the corner house will look like. These are all going to be four bedrooms. All have two-car garages. Um
the uh the two interior homes will basically have the same floor plan just will have um different facades. So this is um one of the facades that would be on the interior lot.
>> This is going to be A5 >> again. Also four bedroomedroom twocar garage. And then this would be another like an alternate to that. Again, it would have the same floor plan just the two facads would be
would be different not to have two two look alike houses. >> That's A6. >> Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> What would be the approximate uh square footage of the homes?
>> Um I believe 2500 square feet. advised by my client. 20 2356 square feet would be the interior lots and um the corner lot. Then the corner lot uh 3,273
square feet. So again by today's standards those are I cons I consider to be kind of moderately sized >> lots the bigger lot for the bigger house >> in comparison to the homes that will be around it. It will dwarf they will be
dwarfed by these two proposed homes. >> Yeah, I mean they're gonna they're going to be >> story or you know if they bumped up maybe they've got domers or something like that but and as you look at the picture it's a very nice house. It
doesn't seem to fit in the rest of the neighborhood. >> Mr. Galler would be correct. ending up with even bigger >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Absolutely correct. Yeah. >> There are there any other new houses on that block that
>> houses that I don't know if they're new or renovated? There were some other There were a few houses that look have a newer look, but again, I don't know if they were new or renovated. I I I couldn't tell. >> Most of them have been there for a long time.
>> Sure. Wouldn't you exacerbate the problem or not the problem but the concern that's being expressed by members of the board that you would have putting three new houses there. If you're only putting two houses there, you'd have even bigger houses on even
bigger lots. That would even be more if this be considered out of the character. It would be even more out of the character neighborhood. Wouldn't that be correct, Mr. Gallerano? Yeah, I I think the two lots the lots the houses would look almost ridiculous. They would be way way bigger. I mean, these of course
are going to be bigger. I mean, usually build today. You try to build more by today's standards. Um, again, these are bigger than maybe bigger than what's there, but by again they're not overly overly sized houses. you know, 20 2500
to 3,000 square feet is, you know, considered a moderate house considering what some of the houses that are being built out there today. >> I ask our experts, Mr. comments.
>> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um, the the homes that are being proposed are conforming for the purposes of setback purposes and are conforming by virtue of impervious coverage, building coverage, etc. for the lots that are
proposed. Um the one lot that you had questioned was roughly 26 and a half ft from home to home whereas on the other side it's 30 but it is right on the sideyard of 10 ft that's required because that corner lot has two fronts
with two sides instead of a traditional rear yard. The applicant has worked with us to address the drainage concerns that we've had and has submitted compliant plans.
The applicant is still going to need to submit a tree replacement plan in accordance with 338-15B in our ordinances. Um right now they're proposing approximately um 14 trees to
be replanted on the property whereas based on the removals we think that 20 may be necessary. The applicant's going to have to get that plan approved by the shade tree director and we'll have to fund refund for any trees that they
can't. information regarding how the proposed lot would conform to the neighborhood. And this is the this is the question that the board has to decide. They're arguing that they believe it's improved zoning here because they're proposing
lots that are more conforming to the neighborhood and as a result of that, those smaller lots would result in, lack of a better word of saying it, homes that are more consistent with the area even though they're larger here. I
mean, the capes never got really updated in this area of the town. And they're saying in comparison, if it was or two lots under a two lot conforming subdivision, those homes could be quite large. And that's their argument and
they say and they're arguing that this results in improved zoning for that reason um in in a nutshell. So that that's the major decision um for you to make. Um the only thing that I think that wasn't noted was I think you need a
um uh dimminimous exception or from our ordinance there's no sidewalks proposed on right here. >> They'd have to contribute to the municipal sidewalk fun. >> Is that part of your letter? Okay. Is that your recommendation? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um
>> Mr. Okconor discussed tree removal, landscaping. You saw architecture. So, you're committed to build what's on your plans here if this was approved as part of this application? >> One thing we might remove,
one thing we might remove is the plan on the on the corner. It has an attic kind of a finished attic space. And our our reasoning there is that that we may put that in, we may not. It's it's really a balance because our thinking is someone
living on the corner may be more, you know, drawn to that house because it has a finished paddic to turn it into an office or a playroom or whatever. So, it might be something that may not be finished. In other words, we may but the houses as you see them is what we're committed to constructing.
the finish on the interior of the attic may or may not have. >> And and for the the devariance portion of the application, their burden is is really because single family homes are proposed here is that to to demonstrate that the lots can accommodate the
problems associated with the increased density. I think is what they largely said again is that despite that they're building homes that meet all the setback requirements, they provide adequate parking and the like. So, it's really the board's uh decision as to whether you believe that they they met their
burden of proof and this does result in improved zoning. The other thing that I would point out, Mr. Chairman, is the board is technically granting major subdivision approval for this particular lot and the applicant is going to have to perfect
that subdivision by virtue of a filed map. Um actually just a clarification for me u Mr. Okconor I think there was a mention of the storm water that it's individual per lot but something about using only one pipe to go out to the
street. Is there going to be a requirement for easements in order to make that happen? >> The applicant revised their plans to accommodate that request already. >> So are we going to need to include the requirement that they give us that they provide easements among the lots >> that >> are they like sharing a pipe? Okay.
>> They they have already limited their connection to the street to one point. >> You have any questions? >> I guess I should ask, was there ever any official plan of if you did go with the two houses, was there anything was that
followed up at all? Building on the laws with all the current existing regulations from the area. You'll have a chance your house will be smaller of the area compared to the new
ones that will be built. As you said if you do in two lots the type of home you would build would be even bigger than what you're proposing here. Right. >> I think that's a a good way of putting
it, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is what would what one would reasonably build >> on two lots here will be proportionately larger than the houses that would be built on three lots here. If one looks
at it even as a matter of economics >> and what land costs are, >> somebody's going to just slice this into two lots rather than three. The land cost per house is going to be that much higher
and that much bigger of a house will have to be built to justify that. So I think you've really nicely encapsulated it, which is okay. Are these houses a little bit or somewhat bigger than the houses that are
in the neighborhood? Yes, I guess so. But how much bigger would what's the derogatory term? The McMansion. How much bigger would the McMansion have to be to justify this? And I think and I I was listening to you know the planner's
comments and I thought he really you know he said it well what this is here and it ultimately becomes the board decision of is what is being proposed here best thing for the neighborhood compared to what otherwise would happen?
I think it is yet but I appreciate I'm biased but you guys aren't and that's what you'll ultimately be required to decide. I anticipate before I rest I'll call Mr. Nunchek to testify as well. But at this point I have tendered this
witness and I assume some members of the public may have questions. Why we proceed? Did any of the residents that are here that have questions of Mr.
entertain those at this point. >> When you come up, uh please give your name, address. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. So, we're asking for questions at this point and then at the end you'll also be able to come up and give your
opinion for against the application, but what we're asking for right now is if you have questions of him to help everybody understand what the application is about and then your opinion on the application will come at the end. Okay. So, >> so does anyone have questions on what he
presented? >> It looks like everybody wants to come up for comment. >> That sounds like a question. Come on up and give your name. >> Um, >> give your name and your address, please. My name >> is Phyllis Cunningham. I live at 314 Westfield Avenue in Clark. Um, is there
are you within the amount of green space that is supposed to be on a property when you build a house? Like when I had wanted to put the addition on the back of my house, they didn't realize how big my property was. So they said, "Well,
you have to have like 75% green." Like, are you within compliance with that like with the amount of green? So the house is okay. >> I think we need you to when you're answering the questions, you need to
come to the mic as well. >> Give your name and your address, please. >> Robert Cunningham, 314 Westfield. Um, I'm not sure who this would be to, but has there anything been concerned about the city talking about here? Emerald,
that emerald place, right? Yeah. Um, you're going to have cars backing out and there's emergency vehicles to leave Wilson Avenue and it's an offset. So, and you look at during school time,
traffic's backed up practically to Grand Avenue and people make a really hard turn and somebody's backing out of their driveway. There's now we have three areas of conflict, three driveways backing out. And what about when they get to Amazon?
This is a Emerald Place is not some side street. It's basically maybe it's not a secondary road, but it's pretty close. So, I think that the safety of this is is critical. I almost get hit every time I make a left onto Westfield Avenue by somebody coming and making a right. It's a very narrow street. We're going to add
more areas of conflict. Guess it wasn't looked at. That was the question whether that's something that be considered or should have been considered. I would ask anyone up here, did our police department have any comments on the safety of this application at all?
>> Both police and fire issued review memorandums with no comments. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hi, of uh 324 Westfield Avenue. >> Your name, please?
>> My name is John Solowinsky. J O H N S O L O W I N as a Nancy S K I. Uh I live there with my wife right across the street. This property is exactly across the street. It's the blue house right across the street from this
courthouse. Um I live there with my wife and my mom who is the uh present owner. Uh but I'm her son and I would just like to read uh my concerns and um I starting
off I just wanted to also add about the shade trees. The shade trees uh they're wild. They're sour gum maple. They fall a lot of the uh uh >> big balls. I want and I would like the
trees also first of all cleared from the back fence so they're not growing into the fence. Of course you guys are proposing that there's going to be a fence um uh you know a vinyl fence added. Um, I would also recommend that
that vinyl fence they make them in shadow box so that there's better air flow uh because the it can get very hot. But that's just a recommendation of mine as not you could do what as you wish on that. But um yeah, I'm going to I have
just something I'd like to read real quick. Okay. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak. While I understand and respect the need for thoughtful development in our community, I have several concerns about the proposal to build these homes on this property.
First, the density of the project does not appear consistent with the existing zoning intent or the established character of our neighborhood. the addition of three homes on a single parcel, which currently it's a single parcel um on
Westfield Avenue, but these are all going to turn into addresses on Emerald Place. So, this is it says Westfield Avenue, but it's going to be uh facing Emerald Place. I don't believe these are going to be Westfield Avenue addresses anymore. Anyways, um
the addition of the homes on significantly alter the spacing and overall feel of the area. I am also concerned about the impact on traffic and safety. Our streets are already accommodating local traffic and adding multiple households could increase
congestion and pose risks to pedestrians, including children. So, uh I I heard there was something mentioned about sidewalks earlier. I hope that there would be sidewalks. There's no sidewalks on that street. There's people
with baby strollers walking by. Um, and like Bob said, my neighbor Bob that was just up before me. Uh, it's it's there's people honking at rush hour to make that right turn or the left turn to the high school. It's just a little congested,
you know. And um the reason why these lots are deep um I'm the next lot next door. The reason why these lots are deeper so that you can pull in your car and also, you know, make a K turn or or come back out facing outward into
Westfield Avenue. With with these lots being so close to the corner and someone making a hard right real quick and not seeing around the bend and someone's backing out, it's just posing a bit of a risk. That's that's my concern about the
three houses being built. Two is pushing it. I think it's okay. But three, three is just a bit much if you ask me. For the area, it has nothing to do with the lot size. It's just the the way where
this lot is placed and the congestion at Rush Tower. That's my concern. You know, I I understand everyone's got to make a living and and uh you know, and make the area more beautiful because these are beautiful houses.
Additionally, the environmental impact should be carefully considered. The removal of the trees and green space may lead to drainage issues or increased flooding or risk for nearby properties. I heard that the drainage was going to be addressed. I just want to make sure
of that. Uh the the during a thunderstorm on the corner of my property where the it's adjacent, uh the water does collect in a big pool puddle. So, I just want to make sure that the drainage is well addressed and
that those trees on the fence line are all removed and replaced. No problem. But just not some wild berry trees, some something, you know, much much nicer. That's not a problem. Trees are great. Uh there are also potential >> questions for our witness or
>> I'm sorry. I appreciate your commentary, but do you have any other questions for the gentleman up here making the presentation? >> Questions for him? >> No. >> No, I don't have any other questions for
him, but I finally developments that are not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood can have unintended consequences on nearby property values, which is an important consideration for many residents who have made long-term investments in this community. I respectfully ask that the board take
these uh concerns into account and consider revising or reval reevaluating this uh proposal to better align with the character and capacity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Um
look, I'm on disability. I had two back surgeries. The taxes used to be $7,000 on our property. Now it's 12. I I just can't simply afford to for any higher taxes to
come in. And I hope that these houses being built will actually help lower my taxes or not affect my taxes. But a lot of times taxes are assessed by the surrounding houses. And I heard that uh
what are the proposed um my question is what are the proposed values of these houses? Um, I heard about 850 each. I That's hearsay. That is not a fact. That was here >> and that's not something that the board's permitted to to consider. So,
>> yes. So, I just don't want my taxes raised, please. Because uh my wife's having a baby. We're having she had in vitro. We tried real hard and the one thing I didn't want taken away from me is my my right to have be a father and have a baby. And I just don't want any
strain to be put on me. And last, very lastly, my backyard is going to be the view of Central Park from Trump Tower from these houses. My privacy is being taken away. Um it's uh it that's you know that's the
price of development. Uh all I ask is whether you consider two houses or three houses that I may have the precedent to also build what I am zoned in a townhouse zoning
that I be able to build town houses or three houses the same way. If it's going to be three houses, then I would like the precedent to be set that the lot adjacent, which is mine at 324 Westfield Avenue, be allowed to be uh built the
same way. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Anyone else? >> One more. >> Good evening. >> Janine Pingor, 75 Dawn Drive. Sorry. Can you say your last name again?
>> P I N G O R. >> Thank you. J A N I N E. >> Thank you. >> All of the houses in this area have were built in the 50s. Majority were capes. Majority are still capes.
This house is beautiful, but it does not conform to the neighborhood. Nobody in our neighborhood has twocar garages. I don't even have a garage. My lot is 50 by 100. So, this house does not conform to the neighborhood. It's going to stick
out like a sore thumb. Um, safety again, the traffic. I don't know how three cars are going to get out of those driveways with the traffic. As anyone knows, the area traffic is a disaster morning, afternoon, even during
the day with all of the other building that is going on in this town. I can't see how. What do you consider sufficient parking? Because there's going to be nowhere on the
street for them to park. What do you consider sufficient parking on the property? This the driveway. How many cars? >> I'm sorry. Please, you need to be sworn in and need you need to come up and testify. Yeah, there we go. The
requirement for uh four bedroomedroom house is 2.5 parking spaces. Applicants proposing two in the garage and two in the driveway. So the applicant actually exceeds what the required parking would be by one and a half spaces. >> How many people do you know that park
two cars in their garage? >> You're looking you're looking at one that does that. >> I think you're one of So many people use their their driveway their garages for cars. I do not believe there's not going
to be street parking in this area. There's no way. So then where's the overflow going to go? Can't park in the high school. They'll get to then come around the corner to my which is already packed.
I do not feel that there is >> Yeah, the applicants met his obligation. Um, he's actually he's exceeding what what the requirement is. >> I get what you're saying. >> And all of the houses in the neighborhood were built in the 50s.
I don't know the date of the ordinance change. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> So, your lot So, your lot is about 5,000 square feet. 50 by 100. >> Thank you. Anyone else questions?
Another gentleman getting out. Steve Weiss, uh, 61 Ruckers Road. Uh, I grew up on 24 Emerald Place, which is right next door to the the houses being proposed. Uh, my dad still lives there as of this day. So, I don't have any
questions. I just have a couple concerns of the house. Could we hold the concerns until the next segment more? I wanted to get questions from the audience that they may have of the builder.
So, >> is there anybody else with questions? Don't go too far away. >> Anybody else with questions? >> No, no, he has comments. He has comments >> or commentary. And I was holding that for the next next. >> All right. Do you >> It's all right. Okay.
>> Mr. Fraser, do you have any other witnesses you want to put on? >> Come up. >> Come on up. Wait for a question >> and just state your name on the record before you speak. >> John Nimchek. I'm a principal in Hunter Partners.
um that I don't know I could be wrong but maybe Mr. Ricky or maybe Mr. Gallerano can correctly me but I the way I understand it we have to build with uh garages now like you need to have a certain amount
of parking spaces you're required of it because otherwise I I actually a long time ago I redid a house on Lexington and what it had is it had a smaller house probably built in the 50s but it
had a big driveway that covered you know you had to go all the way from the front all the way to back. And so what you wind up doing then is you covered the whole property with asphalt, you know. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Back to back to I
I I tend to I tend to go >> No, no, but she the lady brings up a good point. >> It brings up a good point. You know, the way we build modern houses is it's got a twocar garage, usually attached, sometimes slightly detached, and it's
got the two parking spaces in front of it. >> Mr. Check, was your purpose in building the houses with the twocar garages, the twocar driveway to comply, right, >> with the town's requirements? >> So, what we, you know, we didn't want to
go over, we wanted to keep enough green space. I know the lady also asked a question. I forgot which one that we got enough open space on that and that was a concern for us because >> we talking consider >> I'm sorry I get I'm I'm a little nervous but I need I had too much coffee today
but um but we did want to have enough green space enough distance in between the two homes as conformed with what the township calls for. So, you know, side to side, it meets exactly what the town
says. Coverage, it meets exactly what the town called for because it's a percentage. It's a percentage of it. where we get tripped up. This is, you know, I'm not crying, but I'm just trying to explain is when we look at that house there, it looks like a big house compared to the house next door,
but it's going to be on the same size lot as the two houses. Your father's house, the lots are the same size as the gentleman in the back, his father's house, and the house right next to it. And I don't know what the side street is, but there's two more houses, and those lots are the exact same size as
we're proposing here. If we could build it without garages and maybe we don't need as much parking, we could build a different house. But that house right there up on the screen, all it's got on the first floor of this house. Imagine it looks big. Twocar garage, a kitchen
with a powder room in the back, a family room, and a living room. Not even a dining room. That's how tight we got to make it. So although the picture is pretty, it's got a taller roof. It's got four bedrooms upstairs.
And so, you know, the thing is in the 50s, the 60s, 70s, we people were expecting to walk into a they wouldn't be upset if they walked into a bedroom and they saw a slanted roof. They wouldn't be upset. They'd be they they would have seen it. Today, if you do
that, you got everybody, you know, you got you're on Instagram suddenly because you cut, you know, a piece of the of the roof off. You cut a piece of the room off. >> All right. But Mr. But Mr. >> I'm getting to the point. All right. The point is that house is not that big on
the inside of it. It's four bedrooms downstairs. Like I said, kitchen, family room, and living room. And they're not gigantic. I think you guys all have the plans. >> But Mr. But Mr. N. The point is that house is less than 2400 square feet. >> That's right. Correct. That's right. And
moreover, that's a 20 or a little bit less than 2400 square foot house >> that is going on a lot that is 7500 square ft. Right. >> That's right. >> Okay. Whereas if you were looking at a
5,000 square foot lot, maybe putting a 2400 square foot house would be big. >> That's right. >> But this is a 7500 square foot lot. So, if you looked at it proportionately, a 2400 square foot house on a 7500 lot is
like putting a 1,600 square foot house on a 5,000 foot lot. Isn't that correct? >> That's right. And then the other way it goes is if if we split these into two lots, which I understand what what people are saying. I understand what that's about. >> This corner, if I when I'm coming down
Emerald, and I know the guy on on Emerald Corner, he redid his house a while back. He's a plumber now. He made a big house there long ago along Emerald. But across the street, the houses are all 75 75 75 75 75. This is all 75 in my opinion. And don't tell
him, but I think that that house that he built on that corner, it pops out of, you know, the kind it's real wide going along there. Covers a lot of it. I got nothing against them, but the point that Tony was trying to make is that when you go down Emerald, it's kind of maintains
it and the last one is longer. It it did put us further away from the corner so that anyone coming around. So if you look at the the colored one that he put up before that lot is pushed off and on purpose, we put the driveway on the other side, you know, we put it on the
side further away. So, we push the house away, put it further away to keep that driveway off that corner. So, god forbid. You know, I think it's better than trying to back out on Westfield, which is what they had to do before, right? So, I think we're trying to get rid of that thing.
>> All right. But, Mr. Nimchek, the point is though, in terms of the concern that was expressed by the neighbors about there being three driveways, you're entitled to two as of right. So, you're only literally adding one additional
driveway to the whole project beyond what you're allowed to do as of right. Correct. >> That's correct. That's correct. >> And in fact, the houses were specifically designed so the driveways would be as far away from Westfield Avenue as possible. Was that done for
safety reasons? >> On the first one, yes. The other ones, they're flipped. Like you can see this one. That one is goes down because normally when you build a house like this, you like to be you like to have the garage on the down slope because otherwise you see sometimes people have houses where they the driveways on the
upper slope. So you're walking down to your steps to get, you know, you go down to go up to your steps. Here it's on the down slope. That's ideal. That's the way you like it. This way we had to flip the house the other way to get it away from that corner.
>> That was done for purposes of safety. >> Correct. Correct. >> Correct. That's correct. That's correct. >> And you've been a builder for a number of years. Correct. >> I've been working at it since I was a little kid with my father. So, you know, I' I've been around this. Yeah. A little bit. >> But but you've been doing this. You've
been building single family houses in >> surrounding towns. Correct. >> We've even done a lot of work here in in in Clark too on Ros Street. Uh a couple years back right in the pandemic, we just sometimes we'll flip a house. So, we we do work here in town. you do in Westfield and Clark.
>> Okay. >> And you're prepared to comply with the various concerns that were expressed by Mr. Ricky and Mr. Okconor. Correct. >> Yeah. We we're this is the house we plan on building. We're not going to change it. And the layouts like you see the layout in the plans you got. That's what
we'd like to build. The only thing like I'll say again, the house on the corner in those plans, it's showing a finished attic. Maybe there may not be may that that I don't know about that finish. >> No problem. >> You can finish it.
>> I appreciate that. >> As long as it's safe, >> guys. Please, please, only one person can speak at a time. >> But in terms of what will be seen from the outside, what you see is what you get. Is that correct? >> Correct. Correct.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other questions for either of the witnesses that >> Yeah, you have to you have to come up and speak at the mic, please. >> I don't like these boards, by the way. It's better. They used to put them up on
the board. I'll show you over here. >> How many feet from the corner is the first driveway on Westfield Avenue corner? >> I'm not a I'm not an engineer, but played one on TV and I'm gonna
>> Can I show you over here? >> Sure. >> Please. >> Here is 30. So, >> please repeat it for us. >> How many feet is it to the >> drive? I'm kind of working it. >> John, you can only speak it to here because doing it for the record. Okay.
>> All right. So the house itself, the corner of the house is 33.5 ft, but that's not from the curb because they got like another 10 feet over here. So let's say 40 feet, which is roughly in line with your with the folks house
over here. So it's roughly the this line if you look at it, it goes roughly their house. I think they might be a little bit forward. Oh no, their house is right here. So this is where it is. So roughly if you were to look where their house is ending, that's where this driveway comes out.
>> And how wide is that driveway? >> Um, looks like on the plan. >> Let's look on this one. >> Cuz how many cars are going to fit in that driveway? Cuz that looks like a twocar. That's a two-car driveway. >> Yeah. Two cars. So you got two inside the garage and two outside of the
garage. >> So it's more than 10 feet wide. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They're they're 20 some ft. Point is, when you say two cars, you mean two cars side by side. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> That's what I'm asking. >> Correct. >> Two side by side.
>> Now, if somebody wants to get cheeky, they might even put >> talking to the mic. >> Oh, sorry. If somebody wanted to get cheeky, they could probably park two cars and two cars. You know what I mean? is it's 30 30 feet to the to the property line, but
then another 15 no 10 10 15 feet. So if somebody because there's no sidewalk going to be over there, >> so nobody's going to be walking in that in that in that spot. But you could if you got two, you know, you may get two
normalsized cars and two smaller cars. You could if you had to, you could put four cars in, I bet. >> All right. >> Okay. Thank you. I have a question. >> This is actually a true question. I'm sorry. >> Do these houses have I'm sorry again for
the record. 24 Westfield. Do these houses have basements for storage? >> They have basements. Yeah. All three houses are going to have basement. >> Sometimes you know the they build these houses with slabs and there's no basement. >> No, they because everybody's got garbage, right? They're going to have if you make good dry basements, well
well-made basements, they're going to put their storage in the in the bottom and use the garages for their cars hopefully. >> That's the that's the plan. >> Thank you, Mr. Nyamch. Thank you. >> You want come forward, sir?
>> Question the drainage. You got three houses there. the house behind you. Two houses on >> Westfield Avenue. >> Uh my father's house next door.
>> Yeah. >> So is there any drainage in the back for >> I you know what I I know >> water go back >> right some >> so every the site's graded. So
everything goes from the back to the front. All the runoff is directed towards the street. All of the roofs related and put into an underground system >> that runs to the street >> that runs eventually. Yeah. But the idea is it holds it holds it supposed to hold
it on site. So there's no runoff anything. None of the runoff is being directed onto any adjoining property. So you're you're in the back or Yeah. Sorry. It's all going away from the adjoining properties. So you won't get you will not see any of this runoff onto your property.
>> Yes, that that was done by design. >> Okay. Elevations of all the yards even with the elevations of all the other houses. >> Um >> as far as the property itself, you're not building up the property higher. >> The corner lot might be a little bit lower. The two
interior lots about the same elevation. >> Take a look. Yeah. So, these are um these are about the same. This one drops about half a foot. So, this one goes a little bit lower.
>> Yeah. >> If you can come back to the microphone, please. >> Come back. >> So, please repeat for us what you said on the side there. >> So, you're here. This runoff goes in this direction towards the way and towards
>> Yeah. And then everything here goes in this direction and Here you see these these are underground pipes that collect all the roof leaders. So again the idea is to control and that's required by ordinance. So we have to control the runoff on the proposal
site. Yeah. >> I have a quick question for Rich O' Conor. Um gentleman mentioned about sidewalks. Are you going to be requiring sidewalks? I don't I know there none in the area now.
>> There's none in the area now. The every development application either has to construct sidewalks or contribute to the township sidewalk fund in the event that they don't want to put them in. Most applicants opt to construct the
sidewalks simply because it's less expensive than contributing to the town sidewalk plan, but the applicant has that option. Robert Cunningham, Westfield Avenue >> running longer than usual, but I appreciate all your comments. So,
>> uh, second story on these buildings. Will there be any kind of deck out the back? >> Is it's the same kind of thing. Sometimes you put them on those bedrooms, a little balcony. >> I I because I didn't see the plans. I apologize. No, >> you can take a look here.
>> Really small windows so they won't >> got really good looking people by >> No, there's people good looking people living there. >> There's no >> Okay, >> there's no deck on the back. >> You look over the thing.
>> Getting back to my point, Richard. Uh, it's up to the developer what they opt to do. >> You have no requirement. >> That would be like a regular deck on the ground level. >> The the board could make the decision for them if the board wanted to have
sidewalks imposed on the property, but there are no sidewalks currently in this particular neighbor. So that that leaves it the applicant's option unless the board establishes a condition otherwise.
>> Mr. Chairman, I do not have further witnesses. >> You do not have further witnesses, Mr. >> No further witnesses. Okay. Do you have any other comments at this point? >> Since the presentation by the builder is
you're completed for now, right? >> I've completed my uh my witness's testimony. After I hear any further comments from the members of the public, I would request the opportunity to sum up before the board the application.
>> No further comments, Mr. >> Chair. Open now. Open the forum to comments from the audience. Now you can give your opinion testimony. We're going to swear you in when you come up.
>> Thank you, Kevin. Guiding me on this one. >> Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in? This matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And just state your name for the record on Make sure you get in the mic. >> Uh Steven Weiss, 61 Ruckers Road. My father lives at uh 24 Emerald Place. I
grew up in this town. Uh I lived next to this lot for numerous amount of years. Um it's a great lot. Um the last couple years it's been in disarray. Glad they knocked the house down that was there that has was an eyesore, but I do have some concerns
about um three houses being built there. Now um most of this you've heard already, but uh the plans of the houses um they look great. The houses are don't look like they're in proportion with the rest of the neighborhood. Houses look
like they're threetory houses with the roof line. Compare that to all the houses on the block which are mostly twotory houses. Um you're cramming three houses uh in on a lot um that's zoned
for two houses. Um other concerns are the access points, the driveways going out to Emerald Place, then a few hundred feet of busy Westfield Avenue and a newly installed traffic light. uh safety concerns with cars turning on to Emerald Place and coming out of the driveway
from these three houses uh during school hours uh and rush hour uh in the morning and afternoons. That street is a mess with the light there and cars turning on to Emerald Place with the driveways being so close to West Valley Avenue uh
should be concerned and should be something that you guys should take into consideration with this variance. Um, again, you know, concerned about the drainage for three homes. You got a lot of houses on that area draining into that backyard onto a lot. I've seen that
lot flood a lot uh during some of these crazy storms we've been getting lately. Now, you're adding three homes to that with drainage, uh, driveways, and the size of the house draining onto that area with all the other houses as well. So, that's something to consider, drainage, proper drainage, especially in
the backyard of that area. Um, other than that, um, I think that's pretty much it. It's it's, you know, the variance for going from two to three. Um, I, you know, just take into consideration that it's it's
not to maximize profit uh, in building three homes on a lot that's zoned for two. I have to say thank you. >> Thank you. You're aware that it's compliant. >> I amware. Uh, no. I prefer two houses.
>> I'm talking about this or that. >> I I prefer two houses the size of >> similar to the similar to the size of the house in the neighborhood. >> That wasn't the question, sir. Compared to what is here, are you saying that what you would prefer be there for like
Any other comments? >> We're going to swear you in since you're giving comments. Swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matters of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. >> And state your name again. Thank you. >> Robert Cunningham, 314 Westfield Avenue. I actually have a little question. I not
for anybody here, but a point of maybe I don't know what it is. Uh, I purchased my home in June 1984. Um, and at that time, I believe the housing was zoned to R10. Somewhere
sometime about 2006, it changed to TH1, town home. We're one of only three areas in town. I think they're town home. I don't recall when that happened. I must have missed the certified letter or whatever, but it is what it is. Um, up until recently, I believe that the entire five homes that were on facing
Westfield Avenue were included in the TH1. For some reason, 330 Westfield Avenue wasn't included in the TH1. Um, it might be somewhat interesting as to why that was done. Why wasn't that included in the TH1? That would have
provided access off of Emerald Place into uh the remaining areas, but it wasn't done. Um, so don't know if you can go you all look back in your records or something, but it might be something of interest before you make your decision. Um, so I really don't know. U some of my comments, it's obvious that
site could be developed as two single family homes um in compliance with existing zoning. Um, we know we've heard, well, if you don't want those, we're going to buy build these gigantous ones. It's within zoning. I wouldn't be here. So build away. I mean, that's what
you want to do. Go ahead. because I can't have no reason to argue that. But yet, it's kind of almost like I won't say a threat, but it was borderline of saying, "Well, we're going to build these 4500 square foot homes if you don't accept these." We would have no
right to say don't because it would fit within zoning. So, go ahead. Um, but the other issue is in the 70 years I've lived in this town, born and raised, and um, I've seen a lot of changes, but recently there seems to be an acceleration in the density. That was
mentioned many times, density, density, and density. Well, now you're talking about being more dense. Yet, you know, we have the apartments on the other side of town. We have all kinds of areas. The merit's going to eventually be developed. Um, and everything else like that. That's cool because they're kind
of in a commercial area. And I think the idea of a town center down the other side of Westfield Avenue is great. So I look forward to that. But these are areas that are appropriate for development. You know, they're on main streets, mostly commercial areas. I think one of the things that I also heard was that these fit the
neighborhood. And yet they'll say, but these don't look like anything in the neighborhood. So they either fit or they don't fit. So my qu my point there is that we need to look at is it worthwhile to have two big old homes or three
mostly big old homes. Um I'm personally going to say I would build your two. I'm done. >> Thank you. I was reminded I forgot something. Um, also about the safety we talked
about. You realize the police looked at it. Um, it made me want to have another chat with them about that. I mean, you know, I was, you know, on a fire department and the fire department we look at stuff. It just might be certain that you'd want no no comment. wanted to
have a a positive comment like it's not going or they don't believe it's going to be that's just an issue. Sorry. >> We're going to swear you in. You're going to give comments again. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And just state your name again, please.
Thank you. >> I am John Silowinski and I live at 324 Westfield Avenue, Clark, New Jersey. 07066. >> Thank you. >> Um I just want to mention that my
backyard and my privacy is being really affected and may it be the finished attic. It's it's a beautiful thing to have nice beautiful homes and you know better tax revenue for the town and and you know three can can make more
and I understand all these uh things. Um, first and foremost, I would I I I'm pleading to the board here, please do not raise my taxes and and assess me based on these houses that can easily
fetch probably roughly 800 plus or minus. >> I understand your concern, but this board has nothing to do with taxes. >> Okay. Well, then I'd also like to make sure that I also get the precedent that my backyard is now being from the upper
floor. It's going to be a view as if you're in Trump Tower looking over Central Park. It's a beautiful view, beautiful green space. I'm sure you've been back there. Um, Inspector Ed, Mr. Ruth, uh, it's it's it's beautiful and
it's open and it's green and then later if I would want to build some town homes, these three new neighbors are going to come up and be very angry that their view of Central Park, uh, which is my backyard. I'm I'm quoting Central
Park from Trump Tower. But the point I'm making is that they're not going to like that. Their view is going to be taken away by a bunch of town homes, which I'm zoned in. I didn't ask for this zoning. I didn't get a letter about it, but it's okay. If if I'm zoned for town houses,
if you can't beat them, then join them and I will build some town homes. That's not a problem. Uh we have the bank credibility in town. Uh we have three houses in town. My mom lives in one of them. one's rented and one I live in right across the street. Um, you know,
we so we we contribute to the town. We love our town. Uh, we love Clark very dearly and we just want to see that the right changes are made and that, you know, I, as I said, my concern, okay, is the taxes. I I understand that you can't
help me much there, >> but if the taxes are going to go up, then I would like to to have precedent to make sure that I can also build and that these homeowners know that their backyard that the view that they're getting right now is uh when they're
buying the house that this is zoned for town housing and that they will not have any contest to me building town homes uh in the back there. That's all I'd like to say. Thank you very much. >> And those trees and the trees that they
be cut down in the by the fence. That's all. >> Thank you. Any other comments from the audience? >> Earlier I believe you said that you didn't even give consideration to two
homes being built. But now you're saying would you rather have two mansions? If you didn't even consider building two homes, why are you threatening two big homes being built?
Excuse me. My client's desire to build Good for the neighbors and yes good for himself. Win what my client of
a lose lose lose. So my client wanted to do a win. What I was trying to demonstrate my question as well. My response microphone >> is that what was being proposed was preferable and better and to hope that
the witness would see that and that the witness who I assumed and I believed and I accepted that the witness is testifying honestly that when the witness heard the question the witness would have to agree that was the purpose
of the question. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from board members or comments? Only if you have any questions or would like any further additional comments. Mr. Fraser, want to um more of a summary
summation? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. This is not a complicated application and it's not a complicated question. We're here seeking two variances that
are necessary to allow the houses to be built on 7500 and 8,500 square ft lots where 10,000 is required, which then obviously also affects the frontage. What's the real question here? The real
question here is whether or not three houses rather than two can be built on Emerald Place. I'm not trying to downgrade the questions of safety or traffic or K turns.
They are what they are. I believe that the applicant's decision and preference that the lots should front on and face Emerald Place rather than Westfield obviously promotes that. We understand
it's not optimal for the driveways to face out onto Westfield Avenue. Anybody can see that. So, what is the safety issue? The safety issue is or the congestion issue is that there is one
more driveway. There be three instead of two, which is as of right. I submit that the safety or congestion issue is a red herring. That's not what this is about.
Yes, as of right we can build 2.3 or 2.4 houses which drowns down to two. If you stop your inquiry there, then we're wasting our breath. But I suggest to you and I submit that
when you look at the totality of the circumstances and you look at the houses and lots that are around them and you look at the concerns and that were and art that were articulated by the
neighbors, they're really making my point for me. The neighbors are saying, "Yes, we have the capes. We have the 50
by 100s. We have the smaller houses and this is new and it's going to be bigger." And that's really their objection. The real objection is that what is proposed
is bigger than what is there. But that supports the argument that we should be downsizing. Put three what I'll call midsized houses on this parcel
rather than two McMansions. That's consistent with the purpose of zoning. That's consistent with what's going on in the neighborhood. That's what's consistent in this zone of town.
I suggest that the reasons that were set forth by Mr. Gallerano in his planning testimony comport with common sense that if you look at this, it just makes sense to put three houses on this that
face Emerald Place rather than what the other permissible and zone 4 alternatives were. It's not a threat. My client doesn't
want to come in and build two giant McMansions. My client at his brothers, we probably would have duplexes or something like that there. I think it was I think it was Mr. Ricky said maybe it was Mr. Okconor, but that at some
point, you know, that was and the town's version was no, not happening. We get it. But in terms of what's going on in this area of Clark, what's going on in the neighborhood, look at the radius. You
saw Mr. Gallano's ex exhibit with all the things that were marked up with houses that are on deficient lots. What my client is doing is going to improve the whole area. It's going to be a benefit. and I suggest and I submit to
the board that the board should grant the variances that are requested. I thank you for your time and consideration. >> Um, so now the question is, would you like the board to vote or would you like us to have two other members watch the watch the videos and then voted it probably at our April meeting?
>> I need five. I think I better wait for seven. Okay. >> So, you're saying you'll postpone us voting on this tonight >> unless you have a Star Trek teleporter that you're going to bring some members in. Yes.
>> Okay. So, the So, the public understands this matter is going to be carried to our next meeting, which is April, what's the date exactly? >> 27th. >> April 27th. >> Make good. We're going to make sure. >> How many papers here today? Well,
>> you just gave me the calendar. >> All right. So, that's going to be April 27th. >> April 27th. Okay. So, you're not going to get any further notice. Um, and they're not going to give any more testimony. There probably won't be any public coming in, but what we're going to do is give our members that are missing time to watch the video and look
at the papers so that they can have a full seven members who are going to vote on on the application. Um, so you're welcome to come in and listen to that or you can watch the video afterwards. Um, but there isn't going to be any more testimony, nothing new. It'll just be the vote at the next meeting. Okay. >> Are you here in April, members that are
here? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is it a procedural question? >> Do you have a procedural question? Go ahead. >> It's not a procedural question. >> Okay. Well, we've closed the meeting. We've closed the testimony.
>> Just wanted precedent to be made. If this is precedent, my law has to be the same. Do we need to vote on that? >> No, we carried >> has been presented. Uh we will hold a vote on this particular application next
month. I'd like to thank both the applicant and the public that came to the meeting to express your concerns. You know, we needed to hear that and thank you for your time. What else we got?
>> We have any resolution? >> No resolutions back I'll discuss. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um >> having no resolutions to approve at this meeting, we'll go into discussions and
>> Yeah. Um so board members, you should have you should have on the day is there a copy of the proposed bylaws. They're fairly long, so I wanted to make sure you got a copy of those um to review and we can talk about them also at the April meeting. >> Okay, >> that's it.
Okay. I have >> does any any of the board members have any discussion to bring up? >> Then we can motion to >> any anything else you have, Kelly? >> That's it.
>> Any other discussion from any of the board members on the applications we heard tonight or >> so so the reminder is to not discuss this. >> Oh, not the discuss. >> Yeah, you cannot discuss the application
except in the in the open public meeting. So we've con we've closed the hearing. It will only be for the vote when we get back when we when we return. Okay. So no discussion outside of the meeting. >> We will be allowed of course to make comments, >> right? And your comments for while you're voting, right? But not
>> that would be necessary. from every >> Yeah. and >> acrimonial. >> Yes. And we need and we need that on the record because that helps me write the res the resolution the reasons you're vote you're voting the way you're voting. But we're not going to have any new testimony and the board should not be discussing this between the meetings
as you already know. But it's good to remind you. Okay. >> All righty. So next thing is German. I have a motion to adjurnn.
I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Second. Uh voice vote. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> I >> thank you all. All right.