Check check check check check. >> Hello. >> Are we all ready? >> Okay. Uh, welcome to the zoning board of adjustment regular meeting in May 20th, 2026 at the meeting room at town hall. Can I have a call to order, please? Okay. I hereby announce pursuant to
section five of the open public meetings act that adequate notice of this meeting has been transmitted on January 14, 2026 by the board administrative officer to the Asbury Park Press, the Two River Times, the township clerk and has been posted in the meeting room and in the
entrance hall in town hall all pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act. >> Thank you, Francine. Uh Irene, can we please have a roll call? >> Mr. Burgle, >> present. Miss Campus >> present. >> Miss Gerard >> here. >> Mr. Luchiani >> here. >> Mr. Murzoka >> here.
>> Mr. Gian Paulo >> here. >> Uh Mr. Orphanita Pulos >> here. >> Uh Miss Costello is absent. And Mr. Arnon >> here. >> Thank you. We have a quorum. >> Thank you, Arena. Uh please stand for the pledge of allegiance and a moment and remain standing for a moment of
silence to honor the military, police, and our first responders and the military currently serving overseas. I alian to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. So, uh, Francine and Irene, I believe we're going to do some resolutions first before we get to the, uh, applications here. >> Okay. >> Um, Irene, I'm sorry, Francine, can you read number one, item number one on the agenda?
>> Yep. Resolution number 2026-01 Husan Atul Kai and Emily Abdle Hammed of three Beachwood Grove Court, block 50.13, lot 7. the variance approval for a pool and patio with a sideyard setback
to the patio of 15 feet where 40 feet is required and within 10 feet to a conservation easement. >> Thank you, Francine. Um, did the board all get to review the resolution that uh Irene sent around this week? >> Yes. any
>> sent to uh council as well as to our engineer and he was the only professional to recall and every satisfied they had um you recall this is the one where they're going to remove those papers on the right side of the pool and landscape and meet with with Al
to do that and um they have to remove some stones or get permission to leave them there in the back and >> Al are you satisfied Yes. >> Microphone.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Just speak to the mic next time. Uh board members, any questions or changes to the resolution? >> Seeing there is none, Irene, do you want to take a a roll call for the or actually I have a motion to uh >> motion and second
>> to uh accept the resolution? >> Yes. >> As written by >> I second it. >> Okay. >> Is that a motion? Yep. >> Mr. eligible to vote. Mr. Burkel, Miss Ghard, Mr. Luchiani, Mr. Rendipulus, Mr.
Gian Paulo, and Mr. Arnon. So, Mr. Arnon. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Gian Paulo. >> Yes. I'm sorry. For the record, we will sit. >> Uh, no. We No, we don't need We're fine. We're fine. >> No, we are
Miss Castello is out. Mr. Ron is an alternate toe. >> Okay. >> But he was eligible to vote at that meeting. >> Absolutely. >> So, okay. Mr. Arnon. >> Uh, Mr. Gian Paulo.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Offender Pulos. >> Yes. >> Mr. Luchian. >> Yes. >> And Miss Gerard? >> Yes. >> And Mr. Burkel? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Resolution passed. Um, Francine, you want to read item number two on the agenda? >> Resolution number 2026-02.
Randy Kilman Kilmalooski 78 Parkway Place, Block 24, lot 15 approval to construct a twocar detached garage on the applicant's property. >> It's fast. Turn around. Marty, um, do you have any, uh,
>> No. Again, uh, sent to Applicants Council. We didn't hear any comments since our professional engineer uh he was fine. This is the one if you recall the detached garage >> was last week right >> have to meet with our engineer to see if they can go even another five feet
>> based on his discretion and submit a landscape plan ahead of time u just to make sure what the implications would be if they do that. So I don't know if that's been done yet or not but that's a condition of >> that that I haven't seen anything as of yet. Um I expect it'll be shortly. Uh no
issues no issues with the resolution from an engineering standpoint >> and this should be fresh on everyone's mind. Uh any changes to the resolution sent around this week? Any comments on it? Anyone? If not, can I have a motion to approve resolution number 2026-2?
>> I motion to approve that resolution. >> Second, can we have a roll call vote? >> Eligible to vote. Mr. Marzoka, Mr. Gian Paulo, Mr. Orphanos, Mr. Luchiani, Miss Gerard, and Mr. Burkel. So, Mr. Marzokam, >> yes.
>> Mr. Jolo, >> yes. >> Mr. Orphanopoulos, >> yes. >> Mr. Luchian, >> yes. >> Miss Gerard, >> yes. >> And Mr. Burkel, >> yes. >> For the record, resolution um 20267 and 20268 were successfully memorialized.
Thank you. >> And just to be clear, I think it's 20261 and 20262, right? >> I know it's application number. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Great. Um, all right. So, we're going to skip over. We're going to carry a bunch of approval for minutes. Uh, but we will review the May
6, 2026 minutes. Uh, and vote on those. >> That is correct, Mr. Chairman. >> Um, did everyone get to review the May 6th minutes? >> Any changes or edits to that? All right. Um, can I have a motion to
approve the May 6, 2026 zoning board of adjustment minutes? A motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Mr. Arnon, >> yes. >> Miss Campus, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Merzoka, >> yes.
>> Mr. Gian Paulo, >> yes. >> Mr. Orphanopoulos, >> no vote. I wasn't here. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Luchian, >> yes. >> Miss Gerard, >> yes. >> And Mr. Burkham, >> yes. >> Thank you for the record. May 6, 2020. Six uh minutes were successfully
approved. and we will carry the other minutes for approval to the next meeting. >> All right. So, now we're gonna open up the hearing to sorry the meeting to uh a public hearing portion where uh Francine, do you want to read the first item? Well, the only application on the
on the agenda tonight. >> Okay. Uh item number four, zoning board of adjustment 2023-10 Andrews Management LLC 125-127 Red Hill Road, block 21 lot
and 4.01 zone 48 by furicated application. >> Thank you Francine. Uh Mr. Alfier Kate is not here yet. So, do you want to give a summary just because it's been a while since we heard from you and just give a recap to the board. There's some newer
members up here that weren't here last year that heard a lot of this. So, if you can give a recap and drag it on for about 10 minutes. >> Yeah. So, I'm I think um >> Can I Can I interrupt one second? So, we should little housekeeping. Uh we need to swear in our professional who is new
to this application. So, you swear to tell the truth about the truth you got? >> I do. >> Okay. So for the record, our professional has been sworn and just for the new members, just to make sure there's no conflict with the applicant team and if the applicant team has any conflict with our new members. We already did this for the old members.
>> Okay. See you none. Just wanted to get that on the record. >> Okay. Thank you Marty. >> So um good evening everyone. Salvatore Alfuri on behalf of the applicant. We were here uh multiple times presenting this application starting in September I think of 2024.
Um there's been a pretty long gap in um last time we appeared through this evening. Uh we presented testimony from our civil engineer who we have with us tonight, our traffic engineer, u the applicant himself. Uh
>> do you recall the date? What what was the last date you were you were in front of us? >> I have April. Okay. >> And we left >> April 16th. >> Yes. April 16th. And that was the last um the last exhibit we had was A8, which we'll talk about shortly. Okay.
>> For tonight, um and I cleared this with Mr. Simon, but I know his colleague is here tonight. Um to try and coordinate how we're going to get this application finished, unfortunately, our planner um could not be here tonight, nor could Mr. Simon. Our goal since it's been so long
and since you have some new members is we're going to have our civil engineer show everyone the plans and just do a pretty big broad summary of what the plan how it evolved to what it is today and summarize what we're proposing. The board also had questions of our traffic
engineer uh because um he did a he did an analysis on another project about the required parking for medical uses and the board wanted to hear some more testimony of that on that point. Um and then we're really finished unfortunately or fortunately um the just to bring the
board up to speed we the last meeting in April our planner finished her testimony uh Mr. Simon started her cross- examination but did not finish. So when we come back, our goal is to have her cross-examination finished and then the
objectors can present their case and then we're finished. So that would be that's that's really where we are from a logistical procedural point of view. So if if I can, we're going to introduce our engineer again and let him run through the plans with everyone. I know we changed engineers and there's new
board members, so it'll be helpful, I think. um through the chair. Um for the record, Mr. Arnon and Mr. Mazoka, they had the chance to watch the tape, so they are all caught up and I do have paperwork for that. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> And just to add to what was said, uh
after Mr. Simon finishes the applicant's planner, we'll open that to the public. Okay. >> Finish that if there is any. And then Mr. Simon called me yesterday and said he has one witness, which will be his planner. So, I don't know if that's going to change, but after um some point
yesterday afternoon, he said he's going to have one planner, but he wants obviously wait until after he's the applicants completely finished and all the cross examinations finished the applicant's witnesses. So, >> and I don't know if you want council to um enter the parents as well, >> please.
>> Oh, for the record, when we talked about when you were here last, it was April 16, 2025, >> correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Not this April. For the record, John Kaplan from Herald Low and Warren Township of New Jersey on behalf of Elizabeth Erbansky. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mr. Kaplan, is that your understanding
you'll have one witness whenever that time comes? >> Uh, I do understand that we do. >> Well, I can tell you Mr. Simon told me his client might be a witness as well. >> Okay. So, >> that's fine. >> Okay. >> And and just for the record, you you
represent one client. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So, um, uh, reintrod reintroduce yourself to the board, please. And then we you you may want to swear him in again.
>> How much how far away is Kate? >> Any text? >> Let's just see how far away. If she's like a minute away, we'll wait. I mean, >> he's not offering anything new, though. Just >> What about all the comments who made it
back last year? Are you addressing any of those comments tonight? >> We we believe we addressed all your comments through the last w the last testimony >> when we at the end of the meeting. Didn't we give you like a bunch of items to look into
>> I have all my notes here. >> Okay. Just asking. >> Yeah. >> Text is in a parking lot. No, no, no. That's fine. Okay. Thanks. Just pull it in
another spot. Yeah. Move along. Yep. Yep. I was there. That's where John was, right? >> I don't think Um Irene, should I pass these out? Are these for um >> No, no, no. I need your signatur. >> Okay. Okay. Gotcha. Okay.
>> You can sign off on them. >> It's too big. Yeah. >> Oh, I remember that. That was the uh the chemicals. >> Oh, she brought she What's her I never did that for me.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Here she is. >> All right. >> No. No. >> She's got a lot of plate. She's coming. Never. >> Hey, Kate. Okay, Kate's here. So, Mr. Alfiri, if you want to get started,
>> okay, >> go have your testimony. >> Do you want to do you want to swear him in again? >> We can since we have kind of gone by to tell the truth about you. I do. >> Spell your name for the record, please.
>> Sure. First name Michael. M I C H A E L. Last name Wesalowski. It's W S E L L O S KI. >> Thank you. And Michael, you were qualified as a licensed engineer at the at the prior hearings. You provided
testimony and you're still licensed in good standing, I assume. >> All correct. >> Okay, fine. So, as you heard at the beginning, I wanted you to run through and summarize the nature of this application and then um maybe how it evolved to the current configuration.
>> Certainly. >> And you I assume you're going to be referring to exhibits that have been previously marked, correct? >> Yes. I believe this exhibit would have been marked A5. If you have different, please let me know. This is titled site rendering and it's dated February 19 of
25. Okay. So, as you heard, my intent this evening was really to provide a highlevel overview of the proposed development as we last saw it. Allow me to zoom in slightly. Back out. All right. Just to orient you
here. North is to the top left of your plan. The subject property fronts on Red Hill Road which is to the right or southeast. Also has frontage along the Garden State Parkway right ofway offramp to the northeast or plant top.
The site access is provided via a single driveway at the property's south corner. From there you have a 25 foot wide circulation loop taking you throughout the site. We're proposing two threestory medical
office buildings. As you know, each has a 4,960 square foot footprint. Per prior dialogue with the board and your professionals, we have agreed to reduce the parking to what you see here.
This is in a sense 18 parking spaces. That includes four, excuse me, EV credits. Now, the total building square footage here is 29,760 square ft. That provides a ratio of 3.63
parking spaces per 1,000 square ft of building area. Uh between each of the two buildings, I'll zoom back in. We've provided a ambulance dropoff area at your request. There remains a single trash and
recycling enclosure toward the rear of the property. the rear of the developed portion of the property I should say. Storm water management for the development would be handled via two proposed bio retention systems. One fronts along and is parallel with Red
Hill Road. The second is internal to the site bound by the proposed drive and parking spaces. We also have reserved an area for pvious pavement should we determine that additional storm water area is required.
You mentioned developable port developable portion of the property. Can you give some context of what that means in relation to the entire site? >> Sure. As we zoom out here, you can see that the property line is substantially further northwest where this portion of the site is not being developed apart
from potentially some burming and landscaping. >> What's what's the size of that approximately >> of the property? >> What's the size of that non-developed portion of land there? uh acreage. >> Yeah, that the non. Yeah,
>> bear with me one moment. >> I think it's new. Yeah. >> It's um just over an acre. >> So that's an acre to the left. Okay. That's the acre bufferage. >> Correct. >> I have a question. Is that a new one? Because I don't remember seeing that one before. >> No, it's it's old. We have it in our
>> paper. >> I don't know if I have that exact one. I have an older one. >> You can go on. >> Okay. >> Sorry about that. >> No problem. >> One of the probably primary changes we made as presented at the last hearing
was to relocate the two proposed septic fields, one for each building. Previously, they were along the bottom or southwest property line. We've since relocated those to be on the opposite side of the site so that they're now situated
between each proposed building and the parkway offramp. >> And just highlight that again where they are. >> Sure. So that's these two rectangles that you see at the top of the >> Y. Gotcha. I don't have it. >> Yeah, that's revised.
>> Yeah, let's follow along here. >> I just want to make sure we have the right one for the record. I hear that one, but this is not >> this is you mentioned. I think I think some members have older ones.
>> All right. >> A34 >> A5. >> Actually, you could see where the old septic was then where it was on the original on A3. A3. >> Yeah. >> Oh, but that's
How high was the burm? I'm sorry, I heard you say a burm. >> So, in from relocating the two septic fields, we'll now have landscaping and a burm along that southwesterly property line. The burm would be approximately six feet in height. >> Six feet.
>> All right. Sorry for interrupting you. >> No problem at all. Do After the meeting, could you just work with um Marty to resubmit a color rendering of this A5? >> You just send it to I you want hard copies?
>> Yeah, >> just so everyone >> No, she has it. I see. She has >> I have it. You have? >> No, this is my copy, but if I have it, this means it was distributed to the board. But if you could just email me as well, that would be great. Sure. But I'm
sure I have it. >> But just in case. Okay, then shifting to what I believe was introduced as our last exhibit A8. Yeah, this is titled dimensional exhibit, also dated February 19 of 25.
This is essentially a zoomed out version of the prior exhibit with several dimensions placed to demonstrate the separation from the two proposed buildings to the surrounding residential structures. and and that yeah was a question I had. How many residential structures are are touching this
property? >> So highlighting. So we have one here >> that's not showing up too well on new screens. >> So we've identified those three. >> Those are the three that are touching his property. Okay.
>> So to plan left which is northwest known as lot 3.15. It's approximately 434 feet from that home to the near corner of proposed building A. From that same corner then
in a west direction to lot 3.16, it's approximately 502 feet. And then finally at the bottom of the sheet here in a direction southwest from the other building, the near corner of building B, it's approximately 682
feet to the residential structure. Then the other building's opposite corner, building A, approximately 765 ft. And just to put that in common perspective, that's about the distance of two football fields including the end
zone. Okay. So, the one to the left there, about one football field there, to the left, the two homes to the left. Is that correct? >> Right. One and a half maybe. >> One and a half. And then the one to the south, the bottom there is two football fields, >> right? >> Okay. >> What uh what is right next to uh on the on the bottom?
Is that a nursery or something? It's not a residence. That area. >> I believe these are barn structures if that's what you're referring to. >> Right. They're zoned residential though, right? The property is Yes. >> So, somebody could build homes right
there. >> Yes. >> What's the acreage zoning on? How many acres you need? >> 48. >> Is it one acre? >> Yeah. One acre. >> One acre. >> Correct.
Thank you. >> That is >> that's that's all we have as the summary. If you have questions, >> I'm sure the board has a couple questions. Uh Jean, anything? >> Yeah. Uh the reason uh there's two two
things uh uh needed for variance. One is that there's a benefit involved uh for having these particular buildings there. >> And secondly, no harm is done to the neighborhood. Now,
uh I remember it being stated that there was a need for medical offices in this area uh because the uh uh if I remember correctly because the uh buildings across the street in Middletown, I
guess, were full. Oh, >> put your microphone on. close close to your microphone. Just turn the red button on. >> The red light's on. Okay, good. I'm just uh talking further away. Usually don't need a microphone, but uh Okay. Uh yeah.
Uh so uh but I didn't hear any testimony along the way uh from anybody uh associated with that other building that there was a you know an inadequate amount of space available for the
tenants. uh who were occupying that building. In other words, they really needed more lab space and more office space and there wasn't any prospect of buildings close by and this would be highly beneficial
to them. So, uh that's one thing that bothers me a little bit >> and this witness is not qualified to answer that question. >> That's true. >> S may I just say Mr. Luchiani, are you referring to the Sloan Kettering building? >> Yes. >> Okay. So this this applicant has nothing to do with Sloan Ketering. He's not
talking about >> Right. But that's >> the testimony and the applicant does not need to prove the applicant is here for the application that's before us tonight which you know for the last several >> years. I think what Gan is saying though is just that they're they're suggesting there's a need for it because Sloan Royal Ketering is across the street. So
perhaps Gene is looking for someone from that area to say we would need these office buildings across the street. But that's not really the way it works because it's Sloan Ketering is a totally different operation in a different town. The applicant's testimony, sorry, and this is all done at the last hearing. Christine Cafone testified. I just want
to clarify here because I want to make sure that the board has the right standard of review. The applicant's testimony um just to paraphrase and since the beginning when the when the um principal testified, it's not that you know Sloanketering is full. We need more
office building here. It was the combination of the fact that the principal the first meeting second meeting testified that he believes there is a strong market for off for medical office in the area which he does not have to prove to this board that that's the case. He's here for an application for medical office. That's up to him.
The second test the second from the planner was that this is an appropriate this site is and I'm just I'm not saying that this is what I believe. I'm saying what the planner said that this site is one of the reasons that this site is particularly suited for that use is because there's medical office in the vicinity which means that it's it's it's
not a it's part of the overall context of the area. It's not specifically that that they need overflow from Sloanketing. >> Yeah. But Kate, when you talk about that, you're talking about in general or you're talking about Homedale because obviously that's a residential area of Homedale Middletown. What they have a
core street is up to them. That is that is a question for their applicants. I'm just reiterating what Christine said at the last hearing. >> And then Gene, if I could speak for you, I think what Jean's offering is is or suggesting is that because there's been this demonstrated need for development
of this office building. This is a particularly suited site for this medical office building. My suggestion, well, I think what Gene was saying is that just providing some kind of testimony to kind of support that. >> Yeah. In other words, that would make it look like this is more of a b, you know,
this is a benefit to having it there rather than not having it there. In other words, just keeping it residential that there's some some real reason uh some real benefit for the community as a whole or home in general to having medical offices there.
>> Sure. I I will if Mr. Alfieri wants to provide that. I think some again this has gone on for a long time. I think you know the applicant's original testimony was that it's low vacancy rate. He thinks it would be successful for that reason. But I just want to I just want to caution the board because from an economic perspective it's not really the board the board can't really look at
this whether or not it's going to be tenanted. You can look at it whether you think it's going to c you know whether there is a benefit. You know it's not a it's not an inherently beneficial use but you want to look at you know first of all you want to look at that the site is whether the site is particularly
suitable for the proposed use to use variance. That's what you're looking for here. Um, this is especially it's bifurcated. So, the kind of the benefits outweigh the detriments is really kind of uh um I guess to say superseded by that it's particularly suited for the
proposed use. So, we can go over this more before you vote especially because the planners aren't here tonight but I just want to I just want to make sure that the board state you know that that you like because it from an economic perspective the applicant does not have to justify why they want to do this. >> Right. >> So, Mr. I was going to let you respond
Mr. and and Mr. Simon in his cross-examination of Miss Capone, our planner at the April 2025 meeting, raised a question about vacancy rates for medical officers, etc. When she comes back, you could ask her again what you need what you think you need to
hear, but um I don't think vacancy rates in and of itself is what's required to support the variance, but we certainly would give you answers to your questions. >> I know we talked about a lot of this stuff, but we're trying to re revitalize our memory because I know we talked about like alternate sites about it like
on Beer Street there's an empty property why not over there and there was some testimony about that but I can't remember it so I guess we'll ask somebody to recap some of that because I I feel like Jean the same way yeah I think to Kate's point and Mr. Dr. Alira, if you can respond to this is just one
of the criteria is particularly suited to this site and I think that's what we're looking for you to respond to. Why this site is particularly suited why this these two medical office buildings are particularly suited to this site in Homeell. That's what I think Mr. Lucian is asking. >> Right. And we think our planner gave
that testimony, but obviously um she's going to have to give it again to make sure. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I again again just from case law not not profering my opinion on that this or not but the case law is that they do not have to show that this is the only suitable site. They just
need to show that this they need to demonstrate to the board satisfaction that this site is particularly suitable. There can be multiple sites in the township or elsewhere that are all potentially particularly suitable. So it's it's not um you know it's a little it's a little nuanced at that. So just
want to be care clear. I I agree with what what he's saying, what Gina is saying that, you know, that's a residential neighborhood. Why should we put office buildings over there and change the whole look of that neighborhood, the whole street scene having two big office buildings? What's what's the benefit to us?
>> And Demetri, that is why they're before the zoning board. >> So, I know that that's why they're so I haven't heard anything either like Jean said the same thing to >> Yeah, I think >> I know we can't talk about financial, but that's the only thing I could think of. >> Yeah. Somebody said, >> Mr. Sure. I think she's be taking notes for the when your planner comes back to
kind of refresh everyone's memories. There's been a you know over a year ago. Uh these are some of the things that I think we would like to hear from. >> Understood. >> The planner Mr. >> It's not something that the engineer or I can provide testimony to. >> We opened it up for all questions I thought just now. Didn't we? Or is it
only engineer related? >> It's all he can answer. >> Okay. So engineering only. Okay. >> So uh Jean, are you finished? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Mr. That was my main that was my main concern. >> Okay. Mr. Marzoka, do you have any questions?
>> I answered I said I spoke too. >> Okay. Mr. Jim, >> not for the engineer. >> Miss Campus. >> Um, >> he's coming next. >> Because I know we talked about a sight
triangle that had to do with the Mammoth County that you needed to >> Well, you could answer that, right? >> Yes. Because there is a traffic concern also. >> Yes. >> Yes. There's an off-site traffic off-site site triangle is that would be required if this were to be developed.
>> Right. And was that result? >> It's not it's not yet. No. And it's we're not building it. A different development. So no, that's not that's not >> that doesn't have final approvals yet. >> So you can't build anything until that's approved, right? or or until we make a
deal with them and acquire an easement to install the sight triangle. But correct, we need an offsite sight triangle to and you want I don't do you have a plan to show the board. >> We do. This may be an older exhibit, but it serves the purpose of the question. >> Yeah. And Francine that it's always been
a condition of approval. It's a very it's an important one. Yeah. >> Um so but I think that that remains >> because it's coming back after a long time. So I thought something developed that would be beneficial to the board to hear for us to be able to approve or not approve this application.
>> It's a little bit of a chicken or the egg because it's like you know until they get our approval because it's a condition they but they can't actually build it unless they get that. So but yep >> I think you know unfortunately s you know it's been a long time. >> Yeah. But if if this was residential you
would need a side triangle only because it's commercial. Is that why you need that? >> No it's required nonetheless. So, if you were building, let's say, two houses there, would you still need to do that? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Francine, any uh >> show we'll show you where it is. Just so
>> those board members are in here at least. >> Okay. >> I just have some clarification about the height of the building. >> Okay. All right. >> Which exhibit do you recall which one this is? This is >> believe this was exhibit A4. Conceptual
sight triangle exhibit was dated September 6 of 24. >> I'll look here. >> Al, when we when Al when we ask these questions, you could jump in and tell us if you agree with him or not, you know, with the what I ask question. Irene, I
would actually move that one towards the audience and this one towards us. >> Thank you, by the way. That's perfect. Thank you, Irene. >> That's a good >> That's great. >> All right. So, as you can see, the
proposed layout here is an older version, but the purposes of the site triangle, it remains accurate at a conceptual level. So, what we've indicated here on block 1045, lot 12 across Red Hill Road in Middletown,
the white lines represent the property lines. This pink line that ever so slightly crosses over that property line represents the area of where that sight triangle easement could be required. Um,
we would have to obtain such an easement should it be determined that it does indeed cross into the property. We would also offer that as we are dedicating 10 ft of rightway to the county, that property would also have to do the same if it hasn't already been done, which
could negate the need for any such easement. >> And and that would be the only off-site site triangle area that you need. Have Have you had any discussions with the county? I mean, even preliminarily to >> Very preliminary. Um I I forget what their comments were, but it was just
very informal email communication. >> But but there were no immediate red flags for this new intersection. >> No showstopper. >> No, nothing of that sort. >> Okay. My next question, how high are the
buildings that you're proposing the medical buildings and what's the height of the residential residences that are abudding the >> um at our April meeting our planner indicated that the buildings would comply with the 35 foot height
requirement in that zone and that's a height requirement of a house not okay not a commercial I don't know how tall the houses are but we are going to comply with >> a residential height of 30 so somebody want to build a house they could build it up to 35 ft. That's what your height of your >> amen. >> And then there is in your ordinance, it
allows extra height for non-building function, non-functional items like a parapit or things of that nature that would go higher, but as allowed in the ordinance under the residential zone standards. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, this building is three stories. How is that going to be 35 ft?
>> I all I know I can't answer that except we're going to be 35 ft. I don't know if you could answer it either, would it? We would have to review uh how the definition is in your ordinance and if that requires adjustments, so be it. But it we would not exceed that height. >> So what do you mean adjustments? You're
going to take out a story and make it twotory high. >> If our proposal is to comply with 35 ft and three stories can't be provided at that height, that would have to be the result. >> Okay. >> Just want to clarify. >> So you won't be requesting a variance
for height? >> No. As of the last meeting, the the um planner of knowledge we would comply with that. >> Yes. Yes. And again, before we vote, I will give this whole spiel again. The way the ordinance is written in Homeell Township is that there are no bulk standards for a use that is not
permitted. So, you can take all of this into your account with the use variance, but especially since this is technically bifurcated, the the anything that you know, height, setback for a building, things like that, anything that specifically pertains to the zone does not apply here unless we say so. So take
it all into account, but it's not no height variance would was was technically needed. It was all part of the D1, but now they're saying that they would comply with the um underlying R40. >> Correct. >> That's 100% correct. >> And that's the current intention to keep
within 35 ft. >> Yes. >> So that would Marty explain to me that would that would be a a special condition. Okay. >> Um Francine, are you finished? >> Yeah. Yes. >> Mrs. Gard Lori, >> I was going to ask the same question about the height because we've got
redistributed old do >> we were redistributed all documents what the building would look like and I was trying to figure out how you were going to fit three levels. But as long as you're saying that you're going to leave it the what the current residential zone
is of 35 ft that my question has been answer. >> Can you go back to the page you were just on that show the the uh the buildings again? I had to um just out of curiosity. So, why didn't you actually move the buildings like the one to the far left to the far right
there with the two uh circular green I guess landscaping right there? Yeah. Just out of curiosity. >> You're asking why isn't there a building? >> Yeah. Why didn't you move the building to the left over to the right there just to keep it further away from the residences? >> Right. We felt that somewhat centering the buildings both offset them from the
surrounding residential areas but also from Red Hill Road to provide greater setback. >> Okay. Um Okay. So I think at this point any more questions from the board. >> Wait, one more. So if you had to, in other words, I'm curious to see what this building would look like at meeting
the regulations. I guess at some point or another we would see that. >> What do you mean regulations? >> The 35 ft. >> 35 ft height that you're saying. somehow you're going to make it work. So I'm curious to know how that so we all get to see that somehow. >> If you feel that you need to see that to
grant the don't forget this is a bifurcated application and we have to come back for a full site plan. But if you think you need that to make a decision on the use then we'll we'll give you what you want. >> I don't know anybody else feel that way. >> I do. >> Commitment on the height would be
satisfactory how they make the floors. >> Yeah. But what if they make a flat roof? >> They are I I believe they're proposing a maner a mansered roof. Um so but that that was that was Christine's testimony that there will be um like because there
is there's there is an exception and this was testified to last hearing. I'm just going to reiterate that this is not my own testimony and it's but she's correct is that there is a provision in Homebell's ordinance 30-126 which is intended to encourage non-residential buildings to have more
residential type features like peaks and things like that and parapets that can mimic manered roofs. So I believe that that that you know we'll talk about it again but in the future uh next meeting but that that is the intention here. So the the building for from per definition
would meet the 35 ft um and it would it would f also technically meet that exception. So what we need to get that confirmed but yes and also if the board were to approve this and the applicant were to approve it would be 30 you know the building will not exceed 35 ft as measured per township ordinance. They
would have to come back with the building measuring 35 feet or less in height as measured per township ordinance or else they would have to rejustify their use variance. they would not be in compliance. >> Yeah. But as um Dimmitri said, they could decide to do a flat roof
>> and maybe meet it. >> We still can't go higher than 35 ft. >> Yeah. But but it's a totally different number one, it's a totally different look in a residential neighborhood with a flat roof as opposed to something that's got >> what I would like to hear. Mr. Yodakus probably has a lot to say about all
this. So we haven't heard from you tonight yet. I'd love to hear your, you know, on all the board's comments and questions, your your thoughts on what we've been asking. >> Uh, most of my comments for the for the engineer specifically, I mean, we're really kind of getting down into the weeds of the site plan layout and tweaks
and and those types of things. I I don't know that I I want to get into a lot of my more technical comments tonight because that's not specifically part of the use variance application that we're that we're hearing right now since it's a bifurcated application. So, more of my
concerns were relating to the buffering which we kind of talked about but more so for traffic. I believe they have traffic engineers here as well. Those are some of my favorite concerns. >> Well, just because we have the engineer here now just I figured engineer to engineer and some of the things you know
if if we were to go forward how that 35 ft height requirement would what your opinion on that >> like how would they how would they address that >> or how could they address that? What are the options? difficult to say without having an architectural plan in front of me to see what they're going to do.
>> We'll we'll we'll save time. We'll provide a rendering of what it will look like. It's it's we have I we have it on the phone. It's not going to help you tonight, but we'll certainly get it to you for next meeting. >> That was the first >> that's the first iteration. It's not >> this is the one we just got.
>> Okay. and and then also the impact for the height without having a grading plan and knowing is that area of the site going to be slightly higher. So we may need to look at the the buffering and the BMS to bring that up to buffer it from adjacent residents those kinds of things without having full grading plan
is difficult to say but >> and do you generally agree with the engineers's response about where the buildings are placed on this property? So, so is uh >> So, are you referring to having the buildings further back from the road as
>> far? Yeah. Close to the road as possible. Yeah. Same size buildings. >> I expect u there might be some residents here that would want to see the buildings closer to the road. Um from an engineering standpoint, do I see a big difference one way or the other? No. Um
>> it's just aesthetically. >> Yes. Yes. Are are we looking more for what it's going to look like from the streetscape or >> and I think we do need to take into account buffering for any residents that are in the area. >> So is it is is it necessary to move them
as close to the road as physically possible or is there some meeting in the middle there? Yeah, I think there probably is. >> Okay. Thank you. Um before we open up to Mr. uh the objector, uh Mr. Kaplan, are we done with the board questions? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh, Mr. Camplin, would you like to come to the uh microphone, please? >> And you're asking questions of the engineer only. >> Uh, actually, this is all old testimony. This is all cross-examined already. >> Okay. >> So, I'm not going to cross examine the engineer.
>> Okay. All right. Then, uh, we're going to close the, um, you know, the board and the, uh, >> there may be other members of the public that have questions. >> That's open up to the public now. >> Oh, sorry. >> Yeah. So, we're going to open up the uh the public uh to questions only. We're
not no comments. Uh questions for the engineer. If anyone would like to raise their hands and um be heard or um please do so now. Okay. Seeing that there's no one in the audience and the public that would like to speak, we're going to close the public hearing portion of this
questioning now. Um Mr. Alfiri, what did you have anything else to offer tonight? >> The traffic engineers present. Okay, great. >> And to while he's coming up to remind the and just check with John which exhibit if he needs any um
>> just um John's testimony was finished as well. John Ray, our traffic engineer, but he did discuss a parking study that he did for other medical uses that the board and perhaps the other attorney may have
questions on. So, we wanted to at least get that completed and then we're finished with him as well. >> Okay. Great. Great. >> I do. >> Qualified. So, >> we accept your qualifications. >> Thank you. So, John, you you heard the
engineer summary about the parking that's being provided with the ratio of 3.63 spaces per square foot um built and then perhaps um bank parking if there was ever a need for it. You heard that? Yes. >> And then you indicated at a prior hearing that you did a study elsewhere
about park medical office building need parking needs and I think we just want to close the loop on that. >> Yeah, we've been involved with this project since uh 2023. It's been some time ago and one of the first things that uh I was concerned about when I
discussed this with my client was uh parking. Did we have enough parking to support the uh size of the office buildings that he wanted to construct? So, we recommended going out and doing a parking study of other medical office uh
buildings here in Homeell Township. And uh we did I I published a study dated June 20th, 2023. And we looked at one, two, three, four, five. We looked at six different medical office buildings here in Homeell. I can
give you the addresses. 668 North Beer Street, 721723 North Beer Street, 704 uh 70274 North Beer Street, 717-719
North Beer Street, 733 North Beer Street, and 735 North Beer Street. We looked at six different office buildings at those addresses and uh we did substantial parking counts and we found that the maximum parking ratio that was
recorded at any of those locations was 3.3 parked vehicles per thousand square feet. So that was a number that we basically zeroed in on with respect to what we thought was needed for these buildings. What time was that when you did those
surveys? from 10 o'clock in the morning till 3 in the afternoon when medical office buildings would be generating their peak parking and u so basically after doing those analyses and looking at the what we
measured here in Homeell uh and applying those ratios to the uh I think it's about 29,000 square feet that we have here we assume that we would need approximately 100 parking spaces in order to make the site work. If I'm not
mistaken, I think Mr. Wowski testified that I don't know exactly what the number of parking spaces is. We're proposing 108 parking spaces, but we can provide more should the board desire more parking spaces. The 108 spaces that
we're providing on the plan that's in front of the board is the minimum num number that we can provide. We can provide additional parking. Uh we talked about banked parking at the last meeting. It is my opinion that if I do not believe that the parking spaces will
be necessary, I would rather see the parking spaces be banked, leave the space green, no runoff, extra green space. If we don't need the parking, but if we do need the parking, we have the ability to construct the parking and the
engineer needs to make sure that the drainage will work. So at the end of the day, um I'm confident that we can provide enough parking. This is a bifurcated application. I think the issue of the number of parking spaces that we should uh construct should we be
fortunate enough to get an approval is still open, but we can provide more than 108 if necessary. One of the other things I did in the parking study was I looked at the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking generation manual. The IT is the
professional organization that traffic engineers use to estimate how much traffic and how much parking will be generated by a land use proposal. And looking at the IT numbers, they were pretty much in line with what we measured here in Homeell.
Um, looking at the IT numbers, we figured that we would need an average of 3.23 23 park vehicles per thousand square feet which was pretty much in line with the 3.3 that we measured here in Homeell. So we we basically concluded
that whether we looked at the IT parking numbers or or the parking ratios that we measured here in Homeell we can provide for adequate parking for this uh for this use for this square footage. Should the board agree that the application is
something that they want to the use variance can be approved, we can provide for adequate parking based on the Homeell study that we did and based on the IT data that we uh referenced uh to take a look at what we think we need. So, parking will not be an issue in my
estimation. >> I'm going to interrupt you a second. >> Yes, sir. This might sound like a a silly question, but it's not because there's probably board members that have no idea what all this means. So, you you threw a lot of agency initials, you talked about standards, you talked about comparison.
What is this the percent of number that you said 3.3 what does that actually mean? How do you come up with this number? I know you did some survey between 10 and three, but what did you find out? We count the actual number of cars in the parking lot and we look at the square footage of the building and
then we do a simple calculation of how many parked vehicles there are per thousand square feet of building area. >> So we don't know if that parking lot was full or not full. That's what I >> Well, that's that's the whole point of the parking study to determine there may have been a lot of times you'll drive
drive past the medical office building and you'll see a parking lot that's half full and that that's the whole purpose and reason for the parking study to determine exactly what the actual parking demand is. Um and and the same the same, you know, thing applies to
shopping centers, office buildings. How many times do you drive past the shopping center and see a >> parking lot that's >> three steps? Okay. You said how did Tell me like what's the calculation? You went and measured the building. You went and calculated how much space is on each floor and you came up with what in those
buildings? >> Yes. >> Pick one number one building in particular. >> The the parking study if I'm not mistaken was submitted. We were asked to submit the study at the end of the last meeting. I believe it was submitted >> and we do have the square footages of those buildings. Okay. particular,
whatever one you want. The reason I'm asking all these questions, I'm on the first aid squad, >> okay? >> And I've been to those buildings numerous times and I always have a challenge to get into those parking lots because they're so jammed up >> and people are actually coming from parking on the back to come around to the front.
>> So, I'm just wondering whether you're underestimating how many parkings you would need if that building gets approved. >> I don't believe I'm underestimating anything. And since we're coming back for another meeting, I invite you to accompany me. I will go with you to any of these. Pick any one of these
buildings that you want or all six of them. I'll accompany you to those buildings. We'll go during peak times and we'll do a parking count. No, I'm very confident. >> I'm obviously not going to do that with you, but >> Well, I'm just saying I'm just trying to help. >> And also in response, the parking lot could be full because they don't have
enough parking spaces. >> Exactly. But not because of the use but because they built it for two. >> But so Mr. Ray, if I could paraphrase Demetri and other board members if it correct is it correct to say that that your the way your study was performed
you you basically neutralized the size of the parking lot. You you took out like you kind of like controlled for the size of the building and the size of the parking lot. Not know you know we don't have those approvals in front of us but what you did have you had the square footage of the buildings on each site.
>> Correct. and you counted the number of cars parked in the lot. So that way it was just kind of a one over the other and that's you know to say that you know we can look at those and I don't know I I don't know how when I think some of those buildings are underparked some are overparked in terms of like in terms of
the ordinance and how what it affects that zone but the idea is that you kind of like controlled just just a a comp a way to compare that's what it is right yes so so you ended up with the what was the maximum average of those that you see >> 735 North Beer Street was the building
that had the highest uh parked ratio of 3.3 parked vehicles per thousand square ft. But the interesting thing is of all six buildings that we looked at here in Homeell, they were all relatively close. They ranged from a low of 2.3 parked
vehicles per thousand square feet to a high of 3.3. We had 2.7, 2.6, 3.1, 2.6. Pretty consistent. >> And how how many square feet is one parking space? A parking space is generally 9 by8. So
it's 172 square feet. >> So it's about you. So 200. So it's a five car. Five cars. >> Well, no, no, no. They're talking about They're talking about the building area. >> Yeah, but the thousand thousand square feet. >> No, that's the building area. That gross floor area. >> I I tried to answer your question about
how big a parking space is, and maybe that's not what you wanted me to do. >> No, no, that's what I was trying to figure out because you were saying 3.3. I was trying to envision 1,000 square feet, 3.3 cars in a What? Go ahead. The the general standard that it sounds like they're using is three for every 300 square foot of building
they're providing one parking space which is a generally pretty accepted standard for uh a business office. Medical office can tend to be a little higher. >> To to give you an example, let me let me try to focus in on something that's similar in size to what we're proposing.
The medical office building at 721723 North Beer Street has a square footage of 35,500 square feet and the maximum parking number we counted there was 95 cars which is a ratio of 2.7 spaces per thousand square ft. Uh what we're
proposing is a little bit less. I think it's 29,000 square feet and change and we're proposing 108 parking spaces. So, we're 6,000 square feet less than that particular location and we have we're
proposing 13 more parking spaces. Uh I'm I'm I'm very confident that the parking numbers I've provided to you are accurate. And again, uh we're going to come back for another meeting. I'm willing to go do another parking count if any board member wants to accompany me. I'm
telling you the truth and let's go out and count the cars. Very easy to count cars. Do do you know how many additional green bank spaces you can get? I'm assuming you're you're speaking on the bottom of the uh >> Mike. It's quite a few additional I can get up to almost like 190 spaces if need
be >> if I'm not mistaken. I think I counted approximately >> you're talking about that open field. >> We can get 100. We can get 190 spaces >> where in that open field along along the bottom the bottom green bottom said nothing there. No parking there because that would affect the neighbors cars
pulling into a parking. There's no way that I would accept that. >> So they would have to if they wanted to bank them, they would have to go in that back port. >> They can go in the back. If if we go in the back, I'm looking at Mr. Wesloski's one of his previous plans. If we don't do the parking spaces along the bottom
up near the residential, we can get an additional 24 plus 44 parking spaces toward the back and up toward the park the uh parkway ramp. We can get an additional 44 where that those two green trees are in the front. Is that what
you're talking about? >> No, I'm talking about to to the far left. To the far left. >> To the south. >> Yeah, I think right there. Right in that area and then up towards the parkway ramp. Why wouldn't you put them up on the top there? >> Right. We can get an additional 44 spaces in there.
>> No, on the right towards the Red Hill roadside where there's just open >> Not on the Red Hill roadside toward the back. But he's asking why you wouldn't how many spaces could you get on the Red Hill roadside? I'm trying to keep it away from residents. Got >> If we're going to approve this thing, it has to be no. My feelings are it cannot
affect the neighborhood and take their quality of life away. >> Understood. Uh, I I would probably have to let our engineer run that those numbers. We have 14 parking spaces up along Red Hill Road. Now, we could probably extend that up toward the
parkway ramp, Mike, >> and and get another 10 spaces if we extended that parking in an a easterly direction up toward the parkway ramp >> or separate the two buildings and put it in between the two buildings. Something like that.
>> Yeah. Yes, sir. We're not here for site plan approval. I know, I know, but we can we can get additional parking. >> I know what the purpose of this hearing is, but to me, I wouldn't want to have the applicant spend a lot of money where things already are things that we don't like. Why should we go further? If we
don't like what we got now, and you say it's not final, but then when final comes, we'll say no. And then he would have wasted a lot of money for nothing. If we don't like it now, why keep going with it? >> Agreed. >> That's the purpose of this hearing, isn't it? >> So, what don't you like? That we don't have enough parking. Is that what you're saying?
>> That's what I'm That's what all my questions are in line. >> You think that the medical study establishes the need for >> I know there's all kinds of statistics that everybody goes by, but I look at reality where I drive into parking lots and I think Jean agrees. >> Can I interject something here about the
study because you used um you said you use the hours between 10 and three. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um quite honestly um I think most people that go to work want doctor's appointments as early as 8:00 in the
morning and that's also when we have other traffic going on. But we're talking about parking right now. So, I'm not so sure that there's enough of a scope there because I know myself, I make appointments after 10:00 so I don't have to deal with all the people that
are going to work trying to get the early appointments at the doctors. The doctors do have appointments as early as 8:00 in the morning, >> 7:30 >> to accommodate people that are working. >> I'm I'm willing to do parking counts at 7:30, 8 in the morning. What I can tell you is that I've done literally dozens
of parking studies for medical office buildings all throughout the state. A lot of them in central New Jersey. I've looked at the IT, the Institute of Transportation Engineers data. 10 in the morning to 3 in the afternoon is when medical parking peaks. If you want me to do parking counts at 8:00 in the
morning, I guarantee you they will be a fraction of what I've counted between 10 and three. I'll do it if you want me to. I don't want to question, but I have gone to a doctor that has convinced me to go at 8:00 in the morning, and I could not find a parking space. >> I'm I'm sure there you can find a a
situation where that may be true, but >> I'll go out and do parking counts at 8 in the morning if you want me to, but I can guarantee you they won't be as high as the middle of the day. >> Yeah. Merry, I think again what we're we're hearing here is just you want to provide testimony to the board members who have concerns right now before
there's any kind of vote being taken. If you could, I don't know if it's, you know, what the cost is involved here, but go to some of these same buildings on Beer Street 7:00 in the morning and do it from 7 to 10 just to kind of, you know, satisfy some of the board members
questions here. >> My client indicates he's willing to do that, so we'll do it. >> And and as I said earlier about the about the, you know, we talked about the particularly suited area, I think just responding to some of these questions, I think, is is helpful. >> Thank you. >> No problem. Wait, just a little bit more
on this traffic and parking in that lot since you're here. So, I'm just thinking and I'll take my hat off first a squad and be a person that goes to a doctor's office and I'm uh I'm not that old. I'm 71, but I like to park close by. So, these spots that are far away on the
other side, I don't see how people are going to walk there. There's no crosswalks. I know you tell me this is not a final site plan, but I think you're going to lose spots in order to allow some kind of walkway to get from that other side all the way to the buildings. And to me, that whole side
almost shouldn't even be there. They should be separate the buildings and find a way to put more parking near the buildings so people that are older, seniors that have to get to the building are not trying to walk with their walkers that long distance there. It doesn't it doesn't make sense this layout to me.
>> Again, Mr. Mr. Weslosski has done the best he could to put a a concept plan together for a use variance application. These are all things that I think the first thing we have to establish is to make the board members comfortable with the amount of parking we're providing. Once we know what that number is, we
have to figure out where to put it on the site, which I believe we can do. And the one thing that we also can do is we can direct and actually mark parking stalls for employees at the employees park at the parking spaces that are furthest away from the building.
>> Yeah, >> that that can be done. That's done on a regular basis. >> This that was actually I spoke briefly I mean about a site plan concerns I had that was one of the concerns. I I see that basin in the middle absolutely being somehow divided in half there at least being a walkway that goes across
and those most likely being employee parking. >> Yeah. >> And again, Mr. Alfiri, I think just, you know, the the the suggestion that the buildings be moved further to closer to Red Hill Road makes sense. With Demetri's point about putting the parking right there for the this the
folks who have difficulty walking, being closer to the building, uh, you know, is something to take into consideration. I think again when you come back to the next meeting, just kind of responding to I think there's like three major points that I'm hearing right now from the board members concerns.
Uh ju just just another question on on green bank parking. Uh I'm assuming we're going that way or some additional parking. If if we are to do green bank parking, I'm assuming you will agree that all of the drainage, buffering, everything else will be designed so that if at any point the green bank parking
needs to go in, it can just be constructed and there's no other additional work that needs >> Yes. I I believe our engineer testified that this was designed to accommodate the potential. >> Right. Thank But but where it gonna go is what I'm interested in knowing. >> We understand. So we'll show you.
>> And obviously I want to be far away from any of the residents. >> The furthest way you can be. We understand. >> Okay. Uh we've asked a lot of questions, but Gan, is there anything uh additional you'd like to ask the traffic engineer?
>> Uh not at this time. I think uh you know I I've gone through the the traffic uh somewhat uh you know I mean it's it seems like uh according
to the traffic study that it won't seriously impact the uh that particular area in there. However, you know it's it's We we
yeah right now I I have don't have uh sign significant uh questions about that. Obviously uh some of the assumptions could be different. I mean there could be more traffic going toward the Parkway or less
or something like that. Uh but uh It doesn't look like uh one of the things I I was concerned about was the the turning out coming out of the uh uh out of the uh uh area there
>> to make a left turn. Right. >> Right. To make a left turn. Uh now there are two lanes. One so the left turn lane would be uh dedicated and the right turn lane would be there's a right turn lane as well as
a left turn lane. Uh whe In fact, far enough, you know, if you get if there's a rush hour and you get three or four cars lined up, there's the left lane and the if the double lanes long enough uh to uh make that be fairly seamless
because yeah, there's supposed to only be a couple cars there, but there might be three or four on occasion. So, you know, making that left turn making that left turn from the Red Hill
Road into this area could be a question as well. >> So, >> do you do you want to respond to that? >> I I do. Okay. >> And I understand all of that and I've worked with Monmouth County for the last 40 years on county roads to make sure that the access to the projects that I
work on turns out to be safe and efficient. And at the previous hearings, I think I testified twice at at two previous hearings, we have to if if we're lucky enough to get a use variance from this board, we have to get a county approval because Red Hill Road is a
county road. And I testified on previous occasions, it is my expectation that the county is going to want us to do a widening on on Red Hill Road in order to provide a left turn lane for traffic on northbound Red Hill Road entering the property. That's my expectation based on
my experience with the county. They will require a left turn lane. We will have to provide it. >> Okay. >> And and we can't get a county approval without doing what the county wants us to do. >> I I I'm in the concurrent with what Gan
is saying. I know we talked about this and we and you gave us testimony about the turns. it would be safe. But I ride this road every morning at 9:00 taking my granddaughter to nursery school and I pass by this and it's a fiascoal over there between the parkway exiting. I
don't know how a senior coming out of that parking lot's going to be able to make a safe turn fast enough to make a left turn when cars are coming over the top of that parkway at 45 50 miles an hour down that road. To me, it's dangerous. So, we we talked about it. I
know you gave us all the statistics how there's gaps in the traffic light and all that. I It's still I'm not convinced that it's safe. >> I'm sorry I couldn't convince you, sir, but I'm a professional engineer. I've been doing this for 50 years and I will not change my testimony because I can't
convince you. >> I've got the same concern. I got the same concern as well because I've passed here many times and you're basically almost you're almost you're effectively sandwiched in that across the street is Sloan Kettering and its parking lot and
then right next to this site and Sloan you have cars entering into and exiting the Garden State Parkway. I mean, what kind of widening do you envision is going to is going to mitigate that? >> Enough widening to pro provide for a
left turn lane for traffic on northbound Red Hill Road to enter the property. Red Hill Road is a county road, and trust me when I tell you, the county engineering staff does not cut us any slack when it comes to providing safety for access to the county road network. Again,
if we get a use variance, I would welcome the participation of the township's professionals to come with us to the county meetings. Bring whatever concerns you or the board members may have to the county and let's work it out with the county. If the county believes that we cannot get a safe access to and
from the property, then we don't get a county approval. But I believe we can get it based on my experience. And again, the township is always welcome to participate in the county meetings. >> And Demetri brought up an additional layer here that I wasn't even being
cognizant of is on top of all the other factors we just went over, there's also the fact that you're going that a lot of the time the drivers that will be coming out of this parking lot, they're going to be seniors or they're going to people who are older or may have >> some of them will be. I'm 74. I'm a
senior. >> All right, >> I can still make a left turn. I'm not worried about you, but >> I'm worried about more so in general how many, you know, how many uh drivers coming out of, you know, on top of all those factors, you know, coming out of that parking lot are going to be able to na are going to be able to navigate that
as well. That's an additional I think that's an additional factor. I I do understand the concern and in response to that concern at the previous two meetings, I did testify that we did two gap studies back in the fall of 2023 and again in the fall of 2024. We have to do
another one. We'll do another one. I encourage the township to participate with us. The gap studies all showed that there are adequate gaps in the traffic flow on Red Hill Road to get the left turns out of that driveway. A lot of that is due to the fact that we have the signal at the Garden State Parkway
offramp and it periodically stops southbound Red Hill Road traffic. That helps provide some of the gaps that we're looking for. And the gap studies show that we have adequate gaps to get the left turn light left turns out. Trust me when I tell you if I didn't believe what I was testifying to, I
wouldn't be here tonight. I'd probably be home watching the Yankees lose again. >> Yeah. But it's not that we don't believe what you're saying. just that I live here and I take that road and I see what goes on and when you I know we talked about it last time was I brought up Bell Works and now it's 100% occupied. You
should see how many cars are lined up in the morning going or in the afternoon going to the parkway because that's the way to get to the parkway. So I don't see the gap study that you took. We talked about it last time. I know I'm bringing up old stuff but I'm not happy with that situation. It's to me is
there's a lot of cars there moving and we're adding more obstacles. And if I put my other hat on the first aid squad, I've been to numerous accidents, people coming out and not getting there fast enough out of the way of the cars flying down Red Hill Road. And I'm thinking that this is just another item that's
going to be a cause for people to get hurt over there. >> And and Mr. Fury, this is again something I I think I've been saying throughout the meeting, this notion of particularly suited. I think you need to address why this location to the board members again is particularly suited
like North Beer Street. I think what you're hearing from John and Jean and Demetri is the North Beer Street locations, the medical office buildings there. Senior citizens can pull out nice and slowly onto North Pier Street and not be worried about this line of traffic coming from Bell Works, you know, or coming from other other
direction from the other the parkway too as well. But there's the the Middletown access point there crossing the parkway. So again, what I'm just suggesting to you is to make the case of why this is particularly suited suitable this this location versus some in comparing it to North Beer Street with the with the
light traffic that's over there and with senior citizens trying to make a left-hand turn or right-hand turn out of that. >> Do you want to respond? >> I I I do. Okay. The only reason why we studied the locations on North Beer Street was not to see how easy it was for the traffic to get onto and off the
property just to see what the number of cars that were parked there in relation to the size of the buildings. That was only for a parking study. >> But I think it's a good point though. That's where a lot of the medical office buildings are. >> I agree with you. It's easier to get out on North Be Street. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think I'm just I'm repeating what the comments and concerns
of of the board members over here just and again to Mr. Fury the point of of the first point the particularly suitable that's the I think the point you need to address >> I understand >> and the other thing is if you take a look at Sloan they have restricted turns you can't make left or right turns some
there's some restriction with signs over there leaving their parking lot I don't remember what they were >> there's no they have a traffic signal there no restrictions >> no restrictions >> there's there's a traffic signal there are no restrictions >> none and in order to make a left turn you use the jug handle you take the ramp
that goes onto the out that way and it has to go all the way around. >> There's no restrictions. >> Um, we did skip over Mr. Morzoko and I want to make sure everyone's able to >> Okay, you're good. Okay. Uh, Miss Kempus. >> U, well, this getting off a little bit of the traffic thing, but talking about
the parking spaces, this banked parking, if you had to now develop that for spaces, and forgive me because the application's a long time, how does that affect the impervious coverage on this site? In other words, if you just have the same
>> spaces and you say, "Well, we've got bank spacing and you are within the impervious coverage." If you had to use those bank parking spaces and develop them, would the impervious coverage still be within the limits? >> Uh, yes. My understanding is, and I
think Mr. Rosski testified to this, that if we had to construct the bank parking spaces, we could still make the drainage work. And correct me if I'm wrong, Mike. >> Yes. Okay. Yeah, it's just because it's a long time ago. I just want to make sure. Thank you. >> Understood. >> Thank you, Francine and Mrs. Gart.
>> No questions. Okay. Uh at this point, I think we're the board has asked all the questions. Mr. >> Yeah. No, was it going to get there next time? The board is done asking questions. Uh Mr. Kamplin from the objectors, if you'd like to come up to the ask some questions to the traffic engineer.
Again, for the record, >> John Kaplan, Maryland Law in Warren Township, New Jersey. Good evening, Mr. Ray. Your parking study's three years old, correct? >> Approximately three years. Yes. >> And based on your testimony this evening, you've not updated it to see if
your 2026 projections are correct, have you? >> I think I was just asked to do that. And in addition to doing the 8:00 parking counts, I will do the >> uh seven seven o'clock, right? seven seven or eight. >> I I will I will update the parking caps. >> And you don't know if those buildings
were at full tenant capacity. Correct. >> They were pretty pretty full. We did look at the roster of the uh you know medical users that were in those buildings. They were pretty well full. There's always there's always going to be a little bit of a you know potential vacancy in all these buildings, but they
for the most part they were all pretty well full. based on the roster that lists vacant units. >> There weren't a lot of vacancies. >> And how do you know that? >> Because I was at the site and I did some of the parking counts. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Campblin. Uh at this point, we're going to open up to the public for any questions. No comments, questions only for the traffic engineer. And please raise your hand if you'd like to ask a question. Okay. Please come to the front.
Well, just yeah, come to my phone. Just state your name, your first and last name, and spell it for us. And then also where where you live. >> William Arnhammer. I live at 111 Red Hill Road here. >> This is good. >> So, >> and and direct your questions to the
traffic engineer. >> So, excuse me, sir. When you say Red Hill Road, what where exactly on Red Hill Road? Because I don't know the numbers. Where are you? How far? >> I'm next to the Banskys, the next house of >> Okay. So you're on the same side as the applicant's property. >> Can you just pull up Can you pull up the
uh map again? I just It's always useful to see that. >> Yeah. So then you would be person that would know the traffic best of anybody. >> Uh >> All right. So you are Can you Can you just point for the for the record where >> It's not on the map. >> So So you would be going down the
street. >> Okay. >> And then it wraps around the next lot and then it's >> you're below them. Okay. Understood. Got it. >> So, I'm trying to understand some things here. So, uh you're talking about 108
parking spots. So, from that, is there a way that we can determine how many cars? Like, how many cars are you anticipating per hour going through there? And then, >> do we break it down? Can we break it
down every 15 minutes? Like, what's going to be the increased traffic? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Traffic engineers measure the impact that a land use development proposal will have based on peak hour traffic flow. We do traffic counts out on Red Hill Road and we measure the peak hours
in the morning and the afternoon. And then we use the IT, the Institute of Transportation Engineers data to estimate how much traffic will be generated based on the square footage of what we're proposing. I'll give you some numbers for the 29,760
square feet of medical office space. And I just want to say this is from the 11th edition of the IT trip generation manual. 12th edition has subsequently come out. The numbers are lower. We're projecting 73 inbound traffic movements,
19 outbound movements during the morning peak hour. That's the amount of traffic that would be generated consistent with the peak hour traffic flow along Red Hill Road in the morning. And in the afternoon, 35 inbound movements, 82 outbound movements for a total of 117
>> over how much? >> Over one hour over the peak hour on the tra on the road. >> Okay. So, I should have been taking notes. If you wouldn't mind repeating 17 uh inbound or >> morning peak hours, 73 inbound. 73
inbound >> 19 out 19 outbound total to 92 driveway movements >> so they're so they're going to be there longer than an hour perhaps that's why >> I'm just trying to understand >> and I'm trying to explain >> right >> the numbers that I'm giving you are
based on actual traffic counts that have been conducted at medical office buildings literally hundreds of studies that have been compiled by the IT >> summarized >> the data and the numbers that I'm giving you are accepted by the NJ DOT by the
Mammoth County Engineering Department. They're very accurate. Right. >> And there's a report that Mr. Ray did that's on file that has all this information. >> If I could just add your typical uh for use like this, your morning peak more people are going to be going there
because you have employees who are reporting for work. Uh and then your afternoon peak out more people are going to be accident. >> That is correct. That's why those numbers are different, >> right? >> But that that's so you're including that in your traffic study and when you update the traffic study, it's you're
taking into account based on other buildings. It has nothing to do with the amount of parking spaces yet, which I also think would be part of that metric. >> Well, there are two metrics. There's the traffic generation and the parking generation. We look at both,
>> right? And they're related, but some are. Okay. Yes. So, Back to the parking 108 spaces. You're saying that's based on the amount of square footage that is required or the
requirement would be based on the square footage of the buildings. >> Yes. Okay. But we don't know if those buildings are two or three stories. So, how do we know what the square footage of these buildings are going to be? >> Well, right now we're proposing 29,760
ft. If that changes and becomes something less, then the parking generation would be proportionately less. >> The footprint would remain the same. You're not going to change. >> If this were approved, we can't build more than 29,000 whatever that number. >> So 5,000 5,000 square feet per floor
times three is 15,000 per building, 30,000. All right. >> So 5,000 how many So just on average and you might ask your client, so 5,000 square feet, how many office how many medical office buildings could you get? Two. Okay, so two birth floor. So 246 12
offices with patients coming >> six practitioners per building roughly 12 total correct >> okay but doesn't that drastically change whether it's two or three stories that's what I don't understand how you >> it's a square footage that
>> each floor is going to have a square footage >> yeah 5,000 it'll be I don't want to testify for you but I'm trying to back into this >> I just care about the square footage when I do parking calculations I I don't care whether it's two stories or three stories. It's the square footage that relates to the amount of parking that we
need. >> Okay. I'm still not understanding because the buildings we don't know. They're going to be the same dimensions as in this plan roughly. We don't know if they're two or three stories. >> How do you know how many?
>> We're proposing threetory buildings right now. If I'm not >> I think that's the assumption we think that's the we should go use the assumption. It's going to be three stories. 5,000 per per floor which my what I what M the applicant has explained is two medical office
buildings per floor that's six in one building 12 alto together uh we said six practitioners and I mean I don't want to testify so 12 feet per floor but not quite because it's 35 not 36
>> okay but that's not you that's the other >> I'm not an architect I just count cars yeah >> okay thank you Thank you. Thank you. >> Good questions. Yes, Demetri, go ahead. >> Follow up on this gentleman's comments. I I realized that this study I looked at
the date was done December 8th, 2023, which is a Friday. So, not only was Bell Works way less occupied on that time of year and that type of a day is the probably about the least traffic that would be on that road. So to me, if this
was correct, I know for example on Wednesdays there's a farmers market. Bel Works parking lot's packed. If anybody's been there on a Wednesday, how do those people get on the Parkway? They have to go down to 114 as close as exit. So to me, this study is not accurate. I'm sure
it was accurate for the day he did it, but realistically, it comes down to real life situation. And I'm surprised that gentleman didn't speak more of the traffic because he lives there. He sees it. that this is underestimating how much traffic is really on that road. >> Sir, could you give me the dates again that you referenced because I don't see
them. >> I looked at the the date on here. Is this at December 8th when you did this? >> That's the date of the report. >> That's the date of the report that the counts were done. Wait a minute. See, this is part of the problem. Before that, >> the counts were done on in September 20 in September. If you look in the
appendix and look at the dates the traffic >> September what was it on a weekday, a weekend? What day of the week? >> Yes. September 14th. It was a Thursday. We always try to get counts on a Tuesday, a Wednesday,
or a Thursday. It's in the appendix. >> Okay. It doesn't change what I'm saying because Bell Works >> is very much more occupied. It's 100% occupied now with tenants and people and events that are running there all the time. Three years ago, I'm sure all the
board members are familiar with it. It wasn't like that. So, this traffic study is underestimating what the real traffic is on that road. >> I disagree with you, sir, but I think there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. >> No, I know that. >> All right. I'd like to go back to the public if we can. Is there anyone else
in the public who Yes, please come up. >> And again, just for the clearly into the microphone, uh, your name, your first and last name, spell it for us and where you live. >> Sure. >> Hi, Christine Harry. I live at 12 Fox Hunt Road. Um, so my question is for the
traffic engineer. Um, I'm I'm going to form everything. It has to be in the form of question. Um, are you aware that drivers coming in and out of uh Memorial Sloan Kettering um don't always follow
traffic laws and um illegal turns. >> Uh, you know, I'm sure they have a lot on their mind. They're not familiar with the area. I drive on Red Hill Road multiple times per day almost every day and this is something that I see and in
my mind that creates um uh just a safety concern because >> we'll let him let him respond though to your question. Do you asked the So the question you you understand the question? >> I do. I personally haven't seen people coming out of MSK making illegal turns. I'm sure you may have seen it. I
personally haven't seen it. If you believe that's an issue, you should probably contact the police department. >> So I so so thank you for that and I the police are aware of it and they've also shared with me that it's something they're working on, but I just thought I
would bring that uh just to your attention uh just as part of uh as you had mentioned uh this is reality. I so appreciate the science and math that goes into the calculations that you're performing. Uh, but when it comes to real life and being a New Jersey driver
for over 40 years, I I also, you know, have a lot of experience with how the roadways work. So, I just wanted to share that. >> I I I appreciate that. And just to reiterate, I have been doing traffic work in Mammoth County for 40 years. My daughter lives here in Homeell. I use
exit 114 on a regular basis. I am not unfamiliar with the local road network. I'll just say that. >> So, again, Mr. off the I just you know you're you're hearing everything. Uh I think the one point on traffic is the 7 a.m. I think uh Mr. Mr. Finanopoulos is
bringing up the point of updating the traffic survey from 2023 to something more current in 2026 if if that's okay with the applicant. I this is again what I what I think is to appease the board questions um you know to re refresh some
of the uh analysis that was done. >> I have detailed notes. >> Okay, great. Great. Um all right, so if is there anyone else in the public? Yes. Okay, great. Great. Come on up. Same thing applies. Just please say your state your full name, spell it for the
record, and where you live. >> Sure. >> I am Crystal Hall. I live at 111 Red Hill Road with my husband and I would love sir um >> it's a question right >> yes it's a question as as part of our
traffic study that we do I would really like to know how many accidents happen on the section of Red Hill Road from the parkway down to Crawford's corner because I live there and only been there
four years and there's been an accident every year >> more than >> so one accident one accident one accident a year wouldn't be bad in that stretch more but in order to get that data you would have to contact the Homeell and the Middletown Police Department in order to get that data I I don't have it
>> okay well but I do think it's something we should all be aware of as we add more traffic to that area >> thank you thank you Mr. Mr. Fury, I don't know if you want to take note of that as well. I do. >> Okay. Okay. Great. >> Take note of everything. >> Okay. Thank you. So, when we come back,
we just kind of address all these concerns, you know, to the public and to the board. Uh, I think there was one more question out there. Please come on up. Same old procedure, full name, spell your name, please, and where you live and speak clearly into the microphone. >> Hi, Jen Ashcar, 21 Spring Valley Drive.
Um, I just thank you all for asking questions that you're asking. I think it's great. I think there's been a lot of good discussion today, especially um Francine, I wanted to just go back about the impervious coverage. I'm a little confused. I just want some clarity because I know >> Yeah. So, that was the other gentleman though. Uh bring
>> Do you want to bring him back? >> It has to do with parking. So, I just um it's my understanding that the impervious coverage was at 37% and then went at one point maybe in an engineer's letter it said 45% and then there were parking spaces. the parking spaces were
reduced to get to the current 26% where 25 is allowed. So I'm confused how you would add back in I think you said up to like 82 parking spaces and still meet that >> impervious coverage requirement. >> The percentage if we add parking spaces the impervious percentage will go up. I
think what was testified to that the storm water management system was designed to handle it but certainly the percentage goes up because we're adding more impervious cover. So you would be beyond the where the 25 >> I think she's asking if you add parking spots you're going to decrease the impervious coverage
>> increase increase >> increase yeah there >> that's testified that it wasn't going to increase it >> yeah that's what that's what I'm asking I'm just confused >> what did he testify to >> No I think he misunderstood the question
his answer was that the storm water system would be designed to handle it he didn't he didn't comment on the percentage She doesn't know. You don't know what the percent. >> I have no idea. >> Yeah, but that's what Francine was asking. >> I wanted to know what would that would do to the impervious coverage limits. >> We don't we don't have that calculation,
but we can certainly give it to you because you you want to see where they're going to go. So, the engineer will come up with what that currently on what you're recommending. I'm just giving argument and you're at 29% impervious coverage and adding those spots. >> It'll go up.
>> It'll go up. It may not be acceptable to have that whether the storm water We we the testimony is the storm water will work. What we don't know is what the percent at least neither >> I think we'd like to know. >> I guess my question is if the impervious coverage goes up and it's after the fact
like you have to use those bank spots how would the board accommodate that >> variance like they're you're going to approve it for 26% >> I don't mean I don't understand Kate can respond to this. >> So okay so there's a couple things here.
One is that if they were to propose a um plan that included potential banked parking spots, every the plan that was approved whether at the youth variance stage or at the site plan stage would that would be part of it. They would it would it would include that it would include that percentage. It would
include it would have as as mentioned it would include all any kind of drainage, any kind of storm water management that would all be baked into that plan whether or not they ended up ever using them. The second part and I know this is this is confusing. It was confusing to me at first as well the first couple times this came up. The way the homeale
township ordinance is written specific partic in mo most zones but it comes up the most in R4A and B is that if a use is not permitted in the zone there are no applicable bulk standards >> even for impervious coverage. It's all
just for you know if you if you look at the ordinance you'll see you'll see like categories. It'll say like here's the here's what you can do for single family. Here's what you can do for single family cluster. Here's what you can do for a church. There's nothing else. So what I recommend to the board, the same thing as I did for the height.
It is not to say that they can do whatever impervious coverage they want. The consideration as part of the overall use variance case includes what their impervious will be. So for example, I believe that the plan that's in front of that's up there now is 26% impervious
where 25% would be permitted for residential. >> Does that include No, no, no, no, no. That does not that does not. >> So, how would they come back later? >> They would go up. >> Is it just excused? >> No, no. It's it's off for the board's consideration. The board the board has
kind of, you know, I think we that would be part of their balance about whether when they look at whether to approve or deny this. And I think it's a fact that if there were bank spots added, the impervious coverage would certainly go up. Um, and that would be Yeah. And that would be we don't know what that number would be but it would it would probably
not be the 45% I believe that their very initial um application had but again I the board has to look at this holistically and it's like if they so say they're inclined so say someone you know they're they're reviewing this application
you'll hear the testimony and it's like some say someone's in favor of the application and they think that but they think that they need more parking and then they so but they they agree with the bank parking, but then they say, "I don't know if that's worth the I don't know if the benefits of the increased
impervious um is worth it." So, it's all just part of the weighing factor that they're going to do as part of their deliberations. That'll all be put on the record at the end when they vote. But, so it's not technically another variance, but a D1 use variance is the highest threshold of a variance anyone
can get can ask for. And so, it's all part of that consideration. And so when they if they come back with a higher percentage of impervious coverage on the site, they're going to have to do more storm water management in order to make up for it and demonstrate why that would not be a detriment. And it's all just
part of the same deed one variance testimony total possible. >> No, they do. They do. No, they do. >> They know they do. They do. Then they'll come back at the next hearing with that. >> Absolutely. That'll all be part of that. Yes. And so even if they don't build
that, the approval is for is for the banked parking and the potential storm water management associated with it. >> Yeah. The next Go ahead. Go ahead. >> When we do banks parking, they they show that on the plan. This is not just some nebulous, oh, we could add another 20 spaces. They would actually show that
parking on the plan, design it so that it would work with the storm water and everything else. That's what I asked about before. That needs to be 100% designed, ready to go. So at a moment's notice, we can say the parking isn't working. get out there and pave that bank because because you need it.
>> The 26%. >> No, no, no. They're going to come back with >> the next meeting. The ne the next meeting will have a lot of responses. >> The next meeting it Yes, they the board has asked for that yet tonight. No bank spots are shown
>> there. The board has asked for that to be shown on the plans and they will do those calculations for the next hearing and have an exhibit. >> We want to see that too. >> Yeah. So, >> so thank you. So, Mr. Alfaryi he has a lot of work to do between now and the next meeting. >> I have nothing Albert. So what you're saying is for
argument sake just onto that what that woman said brings up a good point. So let's say it's 30%. They're going to create a basin to allow that water to go into that basin and go back and recharge the ground. >> Pull it up on on there just to show where the current basin is. Just going
to make a bigger base. There's two of them I think right now. Right. Show the first one. The long one along Red Hill Road. Right. So I think that's what >> anytime I anytime I have done this in the past I have I have made them design for if it's 35% impervious. I'm just making up a number. They designed that
basin for 35% impervious which includes the bank parking. I also want to see are they going to need any additional uh drainage pipe? Any additional drainage inlets? Is the grading going to work? I want them to fully design that parking lot and show me that it works if it's ever required. And for the public again,
I'm sorry, just to to identify the one along Red Hill Road is one drainage basin there. >> Can they see that arrow on the screen? >> That's it. And then where's the second one going? >> Over there. Look over there. >> In the middle. >> There's one. And this is the second one >> in the middle of the island there. That's the other drainage basin to
handle the impervious runoff from storm water. >> Correct. >> Do you understand, miss? Back in the room, you understand what they're doing? >> Well, no. Thank you for your question. These are all great questions. >> That's a good very good question. >> Will have to be fully appropriately sized to accommodate the maximum
coverage that were to be approved on the site if everything was paid >> 100 years storm. >> They have to meet all NJ requirements. >> So I'm just saying >> I'm using that number so that young lady back there understands what it would be designed for.
>> So do we have any other questions? Again, these are important questions to ask from the public. Anyone else want to raise their hand? Okay, seeing that there is none, we will close the public portion of this uh application hearing. Uh that being said, Marty, is there anything else that we
need to do tonight? >> Mr. No more winners, as you said. >> That's it. No, that's all we have for tonight. We just need to get a date. >> That's what I was going to talk. Okay. So, where are we looking right now, Irene? Uh for possible dates for the third hearing. Uh possible dates would
be September 2nd, September 16th, October 7th. >> Mr. Campbell, you're going to work with Mr. Alfuri here on the dates >> so we can announce it to the public. >> Well, why don't you speak with Mr.
Calvin? Make sure that you >> Yeah, they're always Wednesdays. Yeah. That's Labor Day weekend. >> No, Labor Day is the next week. >> September 2nd. >> September 2nd is the date. So um we are going to do we motion to
>> notice without Okay. So can I have a motion to move this application to September 2nd without further notice? >> Motion to move the application to September 2nd without further notice. >> Okay. So for the public uh record item
number I I have >> u Mr. Arnon. >> Mhm. Uh, Mr. Orphanulus, >> yes. >> Mr. Gian Paulo, >> yes. >> Mr. Barzoka, >> yes. >> Mr. Luchiani, >> yes. >> Miss Gerard, >> yes.
>> Miss Campus, >> yes. >> And Mr. Burkel, >> yes. >> Thank you. For the record, um, Andrew's management um will be carried to September 2nd, 2026 without further notice. Thank you. >> And just Mr. Camplin. Um, you're going to have a witness, your planner, here on the September because we probably,
there's a good possibility, depending on how late this goes, that we will be voting on his application on September 2nd. So, will you have your planner here to testify? >> Our planner will be here September 2. >> Okay. Morty. >> Okay, good. That's good. Thank you. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, do you?
>> Uh, no. I think we No, we do miss. I think any no professional Do we have any professional reports, Mr. Gdakus and Mrs. Keller? >> Not tonight. Okay. All right. Um, then on that case, can we have a motion to close the meeting? >> I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
>> I'll second the motion. All in favor?