Good evening. The Rarent Township Planning Board is now in session. Call to order. The notice requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act have been satisfied by pling of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building. Filing the notice with the township clerk and transmitting
the notice to the Hunton County Democrat, the Courier News, Star Ledger, and the Trenton Times. May I have a roll call, please? >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings >> here. Vice Chairwoman Miss Donna Drews >> here. >> Miss Robin Fatu has asked to be excused. Mr. Scott McDade >> here. >> Miss Michelle Kavakiri
>> here. >> Mr. Dennis Concanan has asked to be excused. And Mr. James Miller as well has asked to be excused. We have Mr. Glenn Solowski here via Zoom >> here. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane >> here. >> Board professionals board attorney Mr.
Joe Toriella >> here. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Bakarella >> here. Township engineer Mr. Aesh Dargy >> present. >> Township landscape architect Mr. John Morgan Thomas here. >> Board traffic consultant Mr. J. Troutman.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'd like to invite everyone to please rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for the men and women in the services. And of course I'd be remiss if we didn't remember the veterans who we honored yesterday for Veterans Day. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
Anywhere you want to put it. Okay. This evening as we arrived, we received a resolution 25-15. This authorizes professional ser a professional services agreement with Jessica Caldwell, who we all know as a
as a planner uh to conduct a redevelopment investigation regarding block 40, lot 5.05. And we are being asked to agree with this resolution. Obviously, I don't know that everybody has had an opportunity to
read it. So, take a minute and take a look at it. Joe, do you have any other background on this? >> Well, it was just that this was this was um post a discussion and approval back was it in August or it was it was in August. So, this is really memorializing
in writing the um the prior decision of this board um at the request of the governing body. They they would like to have this memorialized. So it's belts and suspenders. It really is. >> So we previously had recommended the
redevelopment plan be completed prepared I should say put. >> Yes. And there's already an escro account uh set aside. So >> very very straightforward. I'd like to ask for a motion to approve resolution
25-15. >> So moved. >> Second. Chairman, Mr. Edward Giddings, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews, >> yes. >> Mr. Scott McDeade, >> yes. >> Miss Michelle Capakiri, >> yes. >> Mr. Glenn Stoolski,
>> yes. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane, >> yes. >> Thank you. I did not have any other report this evening. Anybody have any board comments for this evening? >> No engineers comments? >> I have not this.
>> Okay. Thank you, Resh. Planners comments. No comments at the time. >> No. >> Thank you. Attorney's comments, Mr. Toriola. >> Nothing to add. >> Okay. Uh I'm not aware of any correspondence for this evening. So, next up on the agenda are the minutes from our October 8th, 2025 meeting.
Taylor had provided us with that in advance of the meeting. Does anyone have any comments, questions, suggestions on the October 8 minutes? I had a minor typo
Taylor on the set on on page four right in the middle of the page. Mr. Mr. Benadetto was sworn in and provided his credentials. Talk about picking something out of pepper. Uh but it's it's one of
>> no worries. >> Make note of it sick mind that I have. So other than that, if there's nothing, can I have a motion to approve the minutes from October 8th, 2025? >> Motion. >> Second.
>> Chair. Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scott McDade. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Solowski. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane. >> Yes. Very good. Thank you. Next up are
the minute meeting minutes. October 22nd, 2025 meeting, >> which means we're right up to date, Taylor. That's great. >> No, we're not. >> Oh, by date we are. So, so if does anyone have any questions or comments on those
meeting minutes that Taylor had provided? >> I do not. >> Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of October 22nd? >> Move. >> Second. That was you, Scott?
>> Yes. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scott McDade. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Sloski. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane. >> Yes.
>> Very good. Okay. We do not have any resolutions to approve this evening. Citizens privilege. We do have some folks in the room with us this evening. This is the point in the planning board meeting where anybody from our community who's in the in the room has an opportunity to address the planning
board on any item other than those items that are coming immediately following. So any if anybody has something they'd like to address to the board, please step up to the microphone and identify yourself. Okay, there are none. So we will move on
to our public hearings. We have three extensions this evening. The first one up and we had received the paperwork on this in advance. The first one up is Woodmont Rarit and Flex. You'll see the letter from Englesino Taylor, Attorneys
at Law, signed by Mr. John P. Wikiscala. I apologize if I did not get that name right. And that is requesting an extension
permitted under NJSA for 40 col 55D-7 parenthetical G. It's pretty straightforward. Anyone have any questions or concerns about that extension? He gives a description of why it's
necessary. He's looking for a six-month extension as it states in the document. There being none, I have a motion to approve the extension for Woodmont Rarit and Flex LLC. And again, this is block 40, lot 5-10
Vorhees Corner Road. >> Motion second. O >> chairman Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scott McDade. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Kavakiri. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Glenn Sokowski. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. The next up is New Jersey Conservation Foundation. This is a time extension
request for obtaining signatures of a final subplan subdivision plan. Excuse me. We had received uh a letter from Dotus Fitzpatrick Cole and Giblin law firm by Mr. R. Scott King Esquire. They
would like to uh as they requested have this on our agenda this evening and they are looking for 190day extension for filing minor subdeed subdivision deeds. >> Good evening, Mr. >> Good evening. >> Good evening members of the board of
professionals. Uh my name is Jamie Clack PLA CEK. I'm with the Dakota firm. >> Okay. >> I'm here on behalf of Mr. King who could not be here tonight and our request has somewhat expanded over the last few hours. It's come to our attention that
the written resolution that was adopted um it was not of concern to us so we did not pick it up but the the adjacent property owner did who's impacted that uh paragraph 3A notes that none of the existing accessory structure shall be used for any purpose. The problem is is
the de term accessory structures encompasses three barns which the testimony makes clear were intended to continue to be used by the property owner. And so it's simply a screener error that the barns were not separated out by definition from the other
accessory structures which are not permitted to be used. Do >> uh I looked at the resolution earlier um and I I sent um an email out. My my interpretation was there was no issue with it because on the condition
approvals it it specifically listed the structures that were the subject and it excluded the three barns. It only dealt with the chicken coops, but can I see uh I don't have it with me. I looked at it earlier. Uh can can I see what you're
which paragraph are you referring to that is of concern to you? Is that where it's tabbed? Let me just concern that property that we're all gone and someone picks this up and you know there may be
a different owner there may be an attempted sale and it's a tight interpretation and I agree with council that it it should be clear but to the extent it's not we we request a simple rectifying scrier error resolution that
clarifies that paragraph 38 does not apply to the three existing barns. >> Okay. >> I I I I don't disagree that that was definitely not the intent. Jeff and I had a conversation about it today. We reviewed everything and and it
was it was all of those chicken coops if you remember. It was like a was like it was all the whole alpha alphabet with the exception of those three. There was testimony from the applicant that he wasn't using the barns. But my opinion
on that is that has no legal relevance because they are and I confirmed with Jeff today they're permitted accessory structures and so long as used for agricultural purposes they're allowed they're allowed to use those. So, I don't think that was ever the case, but
I'm looking at the highlighted provision and I agree with you that it's probably a good idea to do an amended resolution to clarify that. Um, yeah. Um, if I may suggest, can you read
that line into the record? >> So, so it it's page 11 of the of the and I don't know if this is a signed resolution or a draft. Uh no it's it's the resolution. So it's page 11 of the resolution paragraph 3A. Paragraph 3
says existing accessory structures. The following is required with regard to the existing accessory structures. A none of the existing accessory structures shall be used for any purpose. I think we were clearly not we did not mean those those
three. So, I think we can prepare uh an amended to clarify that. >> Isn't there another section in the resolution that specifically spells out the alphabet? >> It does. It does. >> Yeah, >> it does. And that's what I was looking at when I thought there was no issue.
But I think council's point is somebody like a third party, it's like which provision do they look at and it it creates unnecessary ambiguity. So, >> that was our concern. We certainly don't want to cause an issue. you know, it's it's uh we we could take care of that.
Yeah, I I I I don't disagree. I just want to I want to make a note. Um so it would be age 11. >> You can keep that copy if you you'd like. >> Okay, then I I I will Thank you. I will do that rather than and I can I can do a
minor tweak on that um to make it consistent with the specific provision that literally lists every structure by alphabet with and it excludes the three because that was the intent. That was the >> question would be was will this be on the next agenda?
>> Yeah, we I definitely this is this is a quick >> and then if we could just ask have the vote tonight on the extension and that would be greatly appreciated. I hate to make extra work and separate the two, but at least that's on record then so we're not running up against an issue with that. >> Certainly. My apologies for that.
>> Oh, no. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> Okay. So, to be clear, what we're voting on tonight is the extension that was included in the letter. We are not taking any action with respect to the amended resolution. We'll do that when it's amended, hopefully for the December
12th meeting. I'm sure that will happen. and then we'll vote on it at that point in time. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes. So, can I have a motion? This is again with respect to the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. We have the
letter from the Dotas Law Firm in front of us. May I have a motion to approve the extension of 190 days that has been requested for filing the minor subdivision deeds pursuant to NJSA 40
col 55D-47F >> chairman Mr. Edward Gettings >> yes >> vice chair Miss Donna Drews >> yes >> Mr. Scott McDade >> yes Michelle Kavakiri >> yes >> Mr. Glenn Soalowski. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Joseph Link. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thanks everybody. Thank you. >> Okay. Next up, we have another extension. This is Flemington Junction Associates 3 LLC. This is a time extension request for obtaining s signatures of final site
plan. We did receive information on this as well from Mr. Shimanowitz's law firm. Okay. And this also is looking for trying to find my notes here. For three-month extension. Yes.
190 for three-month extension on the the end of his letter. So, seems pretty straightforward. Like ask for a motion to approve this time extension. again for Flemington Junction 3 for a period of three months.
>> Motion >> second. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scott McDade. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Solowski. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane.
>> Yes. Okay. Great. So, next up we have Summit Custom Spray Drying Ink. This is a preliminary and final site plan. This is construction of a 3,372 foot building addition at block 27 lot
34 at 45 river. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Stephen Gruenberg on behalf of the applicant Summit Custom Spray Drying Inc. Um this is our application for preliminary and final site plan
approval for the tenant of this um development that has had prior approvals from the board and what they are looking to do is to uh have a minor expansion of the building to have drier number four.
Um we provided proof of service and publication of the notice of hearing in advance and I'd ask that jurisdiction be confirmed. Yes. So it is >> correct. >> Thank you. So um we've had good
discussions with the TRC. We've had uh good discussions with the board professionals and uh we are in receipt of the board professionals correspondence um raising a number of issues. And my um my intention tonight was to proceed forward as much as
possible with back testimony and engineering testimony in order to be able to address some of those issues. Um but I understand from the board's professionals that there's really two major issues that will probably prevent us from being able to move forward from
the board's perspective. The one being the fire pump um which the fire chief I believe said should u be a condition uh before any construction takes place. And the other is site circulation
um that apparently um there were prior approvals that dealt with site circulation that are a concern of the board professionals and the board members uh in uh in a whole. Um those are obligations of the landlord. Um but
we understand that they're condition or they're something that's going to be holding us up. So what we are proposing to do is that we don't want to proceed forward with our hearing this evening to waste anybody's time in going over the
testimony uh of fact testimony or expert testimony without those two major issues being resolved between the tenant and the landlord. I think our inclination, just so that you know, is to try to incorporate the circulation plan and the
fire pump as part of our plan. Even though it may not be our responsibility to do it, but there'll be hopefully an working it out with the landlord so that we can get our approval and um it will
be part of our approval. So, it will be something that will have to be done and the landlord and the tenant can figure out uh whose responsibility it is, but it'll be part of our plan. That's what our inclination. I can't promise you that that is what it's going to be
because the landlord's not here, right? >> So, um we're we're going to work that out. What I would ask of the board and the board professionals this evening other than the and we have your reports and we're going to address those reports
but are there other major issues of our application that you would like to see addressed that we can throw on a plan to represent to the board to address those? >> Yeah, Steve, thank thank you very much for that. Um, first I want to um we did
have a a a good conversation tonight regarding some of the board's concerns and I did express to you off the record some of my my concerns and and the legal obligations of this board. The only thing I'm going to state on the record
while you say it's a landlord's legal responsibility. I I I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's neither here nor there. I just wanted to place that on the record. Um but to your very good question at the
end while you were outside um um discussing this issue with your client I convened with the board professionals and I I think and I can't speak to with specificity because I was not involved
in the prior applications but I have been told by board professionals there's been no less than four prior resolutions regarding this site with multiple conditions um that were required either of the
tenant or the landlord. Um, I'm not gonna I'm not going to speak to to which other than I have one in front of me where there are multiple conditions placed on the landlord and that is resolution 21-207
uh where um there were issues raised with respect to um traffic circulation in particular and I I I'm thinking um in answer to your question of how we address all of this it is the um opinion
of the board's professionals and I concur that really what needs to happen here is there needs to be an amended site plan submitted to this board and that the landlord and tenant both need to be here at the same time and I think
that is that is a way to address this holistically because what's happening is we're peacemealing this and things are getting confusing and they're getting lost and in the interest of the public safety
Um, and because there's been multiple prior applications where conditions have um not been addressed, that that's causing a cascade of of land use problems. And I think we need to hit the
reset button here. So, my thinking is um um to have a new application filed for an amended site plan and have the landlord and tenant come here together. And then all of these issues, we can
have our once that amended site plan is submitted, we can have new reports issued that will address everything and we're all we're all singing from the same himnel. Okay. I think that's that's the best way to do it. I I I'm going to respectfully take
that as a recommendation because I I think that we may be able to present this as a site plan standalone for our 3600 square foot addition to our
building which will address this the other site issues for ours because we can't control whether the landlord builds their other buildings. But we need to move on our 3600 square ft. >> Well, what I'm suggesting is that the
landlord doesn't do what they do. They might be preventing you from doing it because this board has no legal obligation to grant your request and looking the other way on what the landlord's not doing that is impecting and impacting the same site. That's why
I'm suggesting that an amended site plan. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and I I think a way that we could handle that, Steve, is is is like a phase site plan, right? So, we can decide we the board and the can
applicant can decide uh what would be in the phase that that your current client is is seeking to construct because I think if you let's say come in for just a site plan just for this applicant, it's kind of hard for me to understand how two site plans can exist at the same
time, right? So, so that that's what I'm struggling with a little bit. I think it has to be an amended site plan, but to satisfy or just to address the concern about hey, you know, why should this applicant be concerned with all of the other site improvements and and the the answer is I don't know that we want them
to worry about all the site improvements. We want them to to be to address the site improvements that we feel are are needed and necessary for their site and to be cohesive. >> Right. Exactly. and to be cohesive, but and the best way to do that would be a phased approval where where where you
would have an amended site plan the whole site. So, it's it's clear these are all the site improvements and then you you have phase one, two, and however many phases you know you and the property owner and the applicant feel uh you know this should be broken into, but we'll have in input on that. So, it
won't be just you know just what you're proposing tonight is phase one. it'll be what you're proposing tonight in addition to what what Jay and Jeff and John and I and the board feel you need to incorporate. So, that sound like something >> what what I was going to suggest and and
um I I can't commit to having the landlord do an amended site plan application for the entire site with the phasing plan. So what what I'm suggesting is that perhaps we meet with the board professionals to show how we
can do our proposal with the improvements that you would deem as minimally necessary if in fact that I'm sorry that fits within the pre previously approved site plan that
the landlord has achieved >> and if the landlord doesn't do the other improvements you will get the improvements that is minimal for us to be able to do what we need to do. >> So, so we're speaking the same language, I think, >> but it's not requiring me to file a whole new application with an amended
application and having the landlord come in on a phasing plan. It's similar, but I think we can work out the details. >> I think we all agree on on on that, but I my problem and and and again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a dumb engineer. Uh h
how how is it that two site plans can exist at the same time? Is that even possible? I guess from a legal standpoint. >> No, >> that's my issue. So if we go the route you're saying, right, and and we have a site plan this applicant with whatever improvements we all deem necessary, I think that site plan then becomes the
site plan and the prior site plan, I think, kind of gets voided. Isn't that am I am I out of line saying that? Um, >> I don't know the history on this in terms of which which trumps which. But >> to me, it's it seems like if this is the most recent site plan, you're you're kind of amending it de facto without
saying. You're saying this is now the site plan for the site and the previous approvals sort of voided. >> And and again, I I know that Mr. Bloomberg said it's a recommendation and again I I think this board can ultimately decide but it's my legal
opinion that if you feel that the public health safety and welfare cannot be addressed without an amended site plan you can deny the application and say unless and until the landlord and tenant come together with an amended site plan
you're not going to approve it you have the absolute legal right to do that and I that is not arbitrary It's not capriccious. A judge reviewing a record can review our colloquy right here where there have been significant concerns
regarding water, regarding circulation, and regarding the fact of inconsistencies and multiple concerns that were raised in prior applications where the landlord promised to do things and did not do them. that
then by not doing what they're required to do means that the health and safety of the public has not been addressed by the landlord as the landlord promised to do. That renders the site not developable.
So that's the problem. >> Right. My turn. Ian, if you speak to the microphone and swore in >> we haven't even started the hearing. Okay. We have a right to be able to
present our case without respectfully you coming to that conclusion. And what I'm suggesting is that we are going to take a step back and meet with your board professionals to come up with a plan that will address the health and
safety issues that you just addressed and any others I invited that was the way I first started this that the board >> can give us an idea of and we already have the board's professionals correspondents but I don't think the
kneejerk you have to amend the entire site plan uh and bring the landlord in. I can't because I don't represent the landlord on this application be able to commit to that and I'm entitled to a full public hearing on my application
before you come to that decision. So, what I'm asking is for a continuation this evening to be able to meet with your board professionals to come up with a plan. Well, I I I guess uh there's there's nothing that should prohibit the
conversation. To the extent that you can be you all of your concerns can be satiated and you can explain that, then I I guess that's okay. To the extent that your concerns can't be satiated, then we're right back to square one. And I guess we can deal with we can deal
with that as it's presented. Right. >> But just understand that >> in those conversations when it comes back to this board, we need to be able to look at this holistically. Whether you can get the the landlord in
here or not, that's your your business. But we need to look at it holistically so that we can make sure that everything is taken care of. >> Yeah. And I think somewhere along the way, someone has to definitively answer the question. And I appreciate it, Joe. I'm not saying this deridingly. Somewhere along the way, someone has to
answer the question of what happens to the old approval. >> Yeah, >> that's that's my and I know that's not your concern here, not your client's concern, but it might be the property owner's concern and that could be the way that you can get them to the table because I think I I don't know that his old site plan approval stands if your client goes and satisfies all the
concerns that we have and gets an approval. That's all I'm saying. >> And and I I think it does. Um and but I think that we have to show you that what we are proposing can be developed
regardless of whether that uh gets developed or not, whether it gets built or not. And that's why the concerns that you raised in terms of site circulation and the fire pump and you attributing that to our plan because those are
health and safety issues. I went to my client out in the hallway and said, "Look, these are health and safety issues that the board wants to hear before you're going to even get anywhere on your 3600 square foot." And that's why I'm inviting any other comments now.
But I think it's it's it's good for us to be able to hear from the board those two major issues that you had and from the board professionals, your review correspondents so that we can come up with a plan. And I would argue that I can come up with a plan that fits in
with the prior approvals regardless of whether they get built or not and allows my client to say, "Landlord, you got to do these things because they're not going they're going to be part of my approval and I won't be able to even do anything." And >> and just to be clear, you're referring
to building 500 and then the approval in 2007, building 600, >> correct? Okay. be because um you know my client can't control whether they get built or not. Steve, >> I need you to speak like closer to the
mic, not facing them. >> I'm really talking loud, too. Um my client can't control whether those things get built, >> but they can control with their negotiations with the landlord what site improvements can be made in order for
us. And it we're sort of talking the same thing in terms of a phasing plan, >> but I think we can do it without dragging the landlord in saying you this is an amended approval that I can't do. >> Luckily for me that's a legal question.
I don't have to worry about that. Right. >> Yeah. The only other issue I would raise as a general um stormwater issues um because there was some inference and in the engineers review about reliance on some stormwater connections and
interconnections with existing it was unclear to me if they're existing basins or proposed basins or from a previous approval building 500. So, so there's there's, you know, so storm water as one of the other core um municipally land municipal land use law
recognized areas of poor control and concern for the board needs to be addressed. >> I appreciate that. And um that's something that we're we're going to have to address for you. >> Yeah, we we were taking the position that we were actually reducing imperous
coverage by reduc removing impervious coverage. So that but I >> but your pipes are still connected. >> Yeah. It's it's it has less to do with storm water management and more to do with conveyance and it's basically you have existing infrastructure that that may be impacted by those f that future
development. I think again >> any other big ticket items that we need to address other than Mr. Me and to Mr. Toriello fighting tonight. >> We're not we're having a discussion legal debate.
>> You haven't seen fighting with me. just you would know it. >> Um, no, no. And again, I I I you know, I I I have my view on how I think it should proceed, but I think you're you are entitled to have the
conversation with the board professionals because to the extent that you guys can work it out, then whatever concerns I have or the board has maybe don't become concerns anymore. So rather than dealing hypotheticals, have your conversation. We'll see where we're at
and then depending upon where those conversations lead, I can then look at where we're at and I can give my informed opinion as to next >> and we can talk. >> Um I was going to ask for a special
meeting, but now I'm not going to. Can we be on the January edition? Uh um >> you have to look to the boss down there. I don't know. >> Can we be on the January? >> I think we're looking at the end of January, right? You're looking at the second meeting of January, but I we could talk hypothetically because
technically we haven't established the meeting dates. >> Want to continue notice for a specific night because >> it was very expensive. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that that's that's reasonable. >> It's understood.
>> Anyway, so um you'll be looking at January 28th. >> That's correct. Gives us time. And then wait, I'm sorry. So, are we hearing them tonight or >> are we hearing them tonight or No.
>> No, we're not. No. >> Okay. Can you just check their time? >> No. >> January 31st, 2026. We need an extension. >> End of February. >> Stephen.
>> End of February. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Okay. I am granting an extension of the time period for the board to act through February 28th, 2026. >> See that clearly indicates you weren't fighting.
>> And can you make the announcement for the next? >> Yes. So, so this meeting th this uh this hearing will be carried to uh January 28th without further notice. >> Thank you very much. I do appreciate the
board's uh giving us the heads up through the professionals um about the major issues so that we can I my clients are very anxious to get this developed that as we explained through DRC it's very expensive but they're going through right now and
we're going to work with the come up with a safe plan for you. >> Very good. Thank you. Are you serious? That's a mic. >> Happy Thanksgiving, Steve. Bye, man. >> Oh, I never saw a USB recorder before. Look at you.
>> That's I was like I was like, what is this? >> I see that. I see that. >> You heard all his comments. >> Okay. I I I was All right. >> Is there anything else for the good of
the order of the season? >> Go ahead. >> Uh I just want to say um our next meeting is December 10th. Um it is for 14 US Highway 202. It's a self storage facility. And we do have confirmation
that the um Riden Hill LLC and Kevin Cool and Mary Cool subdivision is on for December 10th as well. I do have the hard copies here. So, do not leave until I give you your hard copy. And yeah, that's all I got.
>> The woman, she's going to be awake when I get home. >> And that's all I got. >> Okay. found that you have something else. No. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. With that, we're ajourned this evening. >> Thank you. >> Bye, Glenn. Happy Thanksgiving, buddy.
>> Bye. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving to you. All right. Cheers. >> I always got a Help.