Hello. >> Red Bank Preservation Commission. >> Oop, sorry. >> We'll hold a regular meeting on Wednesday, October 15th, 2025 at 7 p.m. at 90 Mama Street, Redbank, New Jersey.
Adequate notice of this meeting has been posted by a hall file with borrow clerk and provided to the Asbury Park Press and the two river times. The commission has maintained a policy cutoff hour of 8:30 p.m. for its hearings.
Let's please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Allegiance to the flag to 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. And now roll call. Lois Alarini >> present. >> Marjorie Cavalier absent. Liam Collins absent. Tom >> here.
>> Marjorie I'm sorry. Karen Schmemelloff >> here. >> Anthony Sero >> here. >> And Betsy Belair. >> Thank you. Um, if it's okay, I think I'm going to hold all public comments till the end and I'll go straight to
administrative matters. Um, and we >> Yes, Michelle's on. >> Michelle's on. Okay. Hello, Michelle. >> Yes. Good evening, everyone. >> Good evening. Um we we have to my right
um Michael White who uh is uh joining us as the newest member of the HC and uh we would like to proceed with the oath of office. >> Yes. Mr. White, would you please raise your right hand?
Uh and uh please say um I and then state your name. I, Michael White. >> Do solemnly swear >> Do solemnly swear >> that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
>> that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. and that I will faithfully impartially and justly perform
>> that I will I'm sorry, say it again. >> faithfully >> I will faithfully >> impartially and justly >> and justly perform >> the duties of the office >> the duties of the office >> as a member of the Redbank Historic
Preservation Commission. >> I'm sorry, one more time. as a member of the Redbank Historic Preservation Commission. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. Thank you.
>> Um and now we'll move to the meeting minutes. Approval of the minutes of the last meeting. Um, anyone want to move for approval or are there any questions or comments on those minutes before we do that?
>> I was not present, so I can't um approve anything. >> Nor was I. >> I can approve it. >> And we need a second. >> Second. Thank you, Karen. >> Okay. >> And then we have >> those who were present.
>> Okay. Anthony Sero, >> yes. >> And Betsy Valera, >> yes. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> And now we'll move to the reports of the committees starting with the minor works committee. Um
the minor works committee over emailed um reviewed I believe it was three applications. Um one was for signage for seven Broad
Street. Um then we had a sighting for 37 Washington Street uh which is was just a paint. Um and then for three east front and that
was for signage also and all of those were approved by the minor works committee. >> That's it. >> Great. >> Oh, I'm sorry. No, that was it. >> That was it. Okay. Very good. Thank you. moving to the river center. Karen,
>> nothing new that I know of. I suspect there's a lot new, but I'm not hearing of it. So, >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> So, Karen, were you not looped into the meeting that River Center had with Stephen? >> No, it's probably something worth talking
about. >> Do you feel like you should have been and you were purposely left off of that? You are the River Center leaison, right? I am, but I I'm not gonna figure out like what's going on. I think Marin's trying to figure out what she's doing and dealing
with a lot of input. So, um, unless Shauna feels otherwise, I'll talk to Marin and ask what she say sees in terms of this. Um, because I I think she's got
an awful lot of things coming at her. That's it. >> And also pushing things out there too. So, >> which is why I think you should be there. >> Absolutely. No, >> should be every
>> I should be every place. >> Okay. >> And uh moving to the third report which would be the historical sites designation and design guidelines committee. Karen, were you gonna um >> if you could just turn on your mic.
Sure. Glad I didn't turn it on before. Um, is Stephen coming tonight? >> Yeah, Stephen is on Zoom. So, I think I guess you can just speak to the architectural survey. Maybe >> Stephen's gonna think speak to that.
What I would want to talk about is that Marge and I met with Stephen last week. It's a small group and we were concerned that small things don't have to go back to the HPC again that little tiny things that are that
are going to be done. That was one of our concerns not to keep coming back. Uh we did talk about a new cover uh that we wanted to keep red for both the survey and guidelines but uh make the cover different. Um
okay. Is that are you there? We can't hear you, Stephen. >> Anyway, we talked about that. Yeah, >> you Stephen. His lips are me. Yeah, his lips are moving, but he's not. >> I think something still can't hear you.
>> One second. Double mute somewhere. It's waiting on >> there's this silly mute button on my laptop. You can all hear me now, right? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um yeah, the design guidelines and survey committee met a week or two ago
and the primary focus of that meeting uh was the architectural survey which I can I can provide maybe a little bit more of an update on in a moment. Um but I think the primary item before you all tonight is the uh final draft of the design
guidelines from October 1st. That's a 94page PDF document and that uh October 1 draft incorporates the feedback that I received from you all when I was last down there. Um I got some additional
followup specific comments from the chair. um those are incorporated to the greatest extent possible and I think where we're at right now is essentially looking for the HPC
um to approve or accept that document so that it can uh continue working its way through the adoption process uh toward your town council and then become a document that you all can can use in the coming meetings. Um
there was a meeting in I believe it was late August or early September that we we spoke about setting up as a committee um that was between me, John, Jay and Marin
at the River Center and they wanted to walk through essentially the storefronts and signage in greater detail. Um Marin had been keeping them in the loop. We appreciate I think the River C Center's uh feedback you know representing the
business community a major recipient and stakeholder in these design guidelines and um what they requested uh recently I think Sean has provided you all with was a couple sentences
uh to be added to the design guidelines and I think that's ultimately up to the HPC tonight um to consider that are and I can add that in or um or not. Uh, so I
>> Stephen, hi. It's Paul Kagno. >> And just as more of a comment to the board, I didn't um realize that we were voting on the Z guidelines if that's what we intended on doing because I haven't, you know, I would have liked to have quite frankly
had the opportunity to to read it again a little more thoroughly. I didn't, you know, it's not on the agenda to vote for this. So, >> oh, sorry. It was >> plan on voting for it unless I can read it fully. So at the last meeting it was discussed that um this meeting it would
be um voted on unfortunately. >> Yeah. Well unfortunately I won't be able to vote for it. Um I would suggest I mean I don't know if my vote is going to make a difference. Likely I would vote for it. I do have some concerns
that we can talk about but all I'm saying is I can't ethically vote for something if I haven't read it. So, if I'm not prepared to vote for it, I'm not going to vote for it. Um, so if we can push it, I don't know what if there is another meeting forthcoming or everyone was expecting to vote on this, but I I
simply wasn't. So, that's my concern there. Um, and I guess >> we're in any rush to, you know, >> two people as well. >> I don't think we're in any rush to vote on it. There's not like a timeline grant-wise. >> Okay. >> So, just >> I just would like to take another closer
final look at it. But the other thing I would comment on some of the emails that uh Steve and you and uh I I guess with regard to the conversation from the river from the river center, but um the language I don't know the context of what the
language is referring because I haven't looked at these pages, but I know that I brought up the last time when we were talking about the guidelines being a little too perhaps not a flex not as flexible for some of the homeowners when it came to using certain materials on their homes. We talked about having to
replace with wood or do we can we allow the Hardy back that looks like wood and there was some hesitation to that and I don't know if that was further discussed at the last meeting or not but it seems that River Center is basically saying the same thing except they're describing
it more as an economic viability and a breathing you know the guidelines should be a breathing document etc etc which now I'm not necessarily opposed I think Liam brings some very up some very good points and we can read his points into the But um and I agree with all them. We
can't simply in my opinion have some type of loophole which I think is what it is >> strictly for the business owners >> but somehow hold the residents in these few blocks to some higher guideline. I think that's quite frankly an absurdity to me.
>> Um so that's my initial comment. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks, but if at all we're going to have some wiggle room, which I think there probably should be personally, it's got to apply equally to commercial owners and residential owners. It can't be one way out for the commercial but
not for the residents. >> Speaking for this small group, we've gone through this quite a bit. I think that the the the guidelines we're looking for are both the business and home residential. I don't think we're
making a distinction between uh this being difficult and this not being difficult. The same there's perhaps different design issues involved, but we've kind of across the board had the same um attitude about both of them. Am I right,
Stephen? I don't want to speak out. Yeah, it's it's really page 25 um of the draft in front of you um that I I kind of emphasized more based on the comments I received from this group a month or
two ago. Um so there's a section there related to materials now and then the checklist uh to the right from the secretary of the interior about when um substitute materials like hardy plank
and and fiberglass etc um are appropriate and um the quick take on it is they're they're appropriate in a lot of instances and I think these design guidelines throughout not just for storefronts and signage, but for things
like residential windows and roofing provide for a very wide degree of latitude um in choosing materials that meet the HPC's aesthetic and also the property owner's budget.
Um, at our last meeting, uh, we actually approved somebody to use Hardy, uh, Pike. The request that I had that they were fine with was in their design that they showed us, they were vertical, and there's no siding historically that's
vertical. So, all we asked was if they minded changing it to horizontal, but we were okay with the Hardy, and that's what we approved. So I think we are flexible to that point. But I do see this additional couple sentences to be a big
like a butt or a however after you explain something and everything that you just said before could be erased. And I agree that that's kind of what it feels like. >> And I think that's I think that's what it is. I think
there's such concern in going through this before, but the Hardy board is a is our friend. It's been accepted within >> easily. Um my poll said, we're going to go through this. I think um maybe we do want to
spend some more time on William's questions here. I guess we should read them into the record if possible. Um, I don't know if somebody wants to do that. >> Or you want me to do it? >> I'll do it if wants to do
>> a whole thing or just one, two, three, four. >> Um, I guess the whole thing. Should we read the proposed language first just for context? >> Yeah. Go there. I could I can read that if you like.
>> So the the language that the river center has given us you should read this first that it's supposed to be um within these pages this is just for inclusion and those pages. >> Okay. So I'm about to read language.
This is the intro to that. Um from the river center as discussed just now see attached text requested by the river center for inclusion on either page 58, 71 or 83 of the design guidelines. I I
believe in and oh this is from Stephen. >> Yeah. >> I believe the intent of this text economic viable and market demands is already incorporated throughout but I'm glad to include verbatim if the HPC is available.
The text at issue is is as follows. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we recognize that a downtown business community is a living, breathing organism which
must change from time to time in order to continue to be economically viable and to allow business owners and businesses operating in those buildings to keep up with changing markets demands.
So that's the statement. >> Oh, and then Liam's comments. >> I can read those. >> Liam's comments. I appreciate the river cent's interest in supporting economic vitality alongside our historic preservation
efforts. However, I have significant concerns that introducing terms like economic viability and market demands into our guidelines could unintentionally create a loophole that weakens our ability to protect the
historic character of Redbank. To ensure these guidelines truly serve our community's heritage, I propose that there are four points. Point one, we clearly define economic viability and
market demands within the guidelines to prevent vague interpretations that could justify harmful alterations or demolitions. Two, preservation of architectural and historic integrity remains our primary
priority. Economic factors should only be considered in ways that support, not override, this priority. Three, any proposals citing economic reasons for deviating from preservation
standards must be thoroughly reviewed with documented evidence demonstrating that strict adherence to preservation guidelines is financially unfeasible. Four, there should be transparent processes and opportunities for public
input where economic considerations are invoked to modify preservation requirements. And then he closes with, "By implementing these safeguards, we can strike a careful balance between
preserving Redbank's unique historical identity and supporting sustainable economic use of our properties without compromising the standards that make our town." No, I mean quite frankly, >> it's more of a comment than anything. I
don't really understand. It's it's ambiguous somewhat. I mean, I think it's su superfluous. >> I mean, the document that, you know, the guidelines, the last draft that I read was inclusive enough. I It just
almost sounds like it's a sole extra for me. I'm not sure it's necessary. I think if anything >> I don't >> think it even um puts a burden on us necessarily, but I guess technically it could be interpreted as some type of
ability to challenge a decision. >> Are you talking about >> the River Center? Yeah. Okay. >> But I guess from a legal point of view, I don't know if it's even necessary. I mean, maybe uh we can hear from the other lawyers on it. Would you like me
to uh comment on that? I I I reviewed what the uh the River Center had proposed and I thought that with the last version of the design guidelines, the idea of having a a flexibility
that's inherent in the way that you address a proposed change to a historic building is something that is recognized by the courts as a essential component really of of what is the character of
design guidelines. They're not like zoning. There's a lot of misunderstanding about that where zoning has relatively hard and fast rules. You know, you have a setback, you have a height. There's a lot more subjectivity that is just part and parcel of the
subject matter. So I thought that the existing guidelines already had been modified sufficiently to provide this flexibility without necessarily looking at it like a loophole. It's more
like you know there's there all many different factors that can be looked at when you are evaluating what someone is proposing and when they propose alternate materials for example that
might not be strictly in conformity but um you know may have valuable reasons why you this particular topic often comes up with slate roofs unfortunately you don't have a a lot of them in town. So, uh I I thought that what the river
center was asking was in fact duplicative. But when a put a do language is placed in a document, it's read as a whole. You don't just pull out one section and make that dominate the entire interpretation.
the you know once uh the guidelines are adopted and you're looking at projects you're going to look at the guidelines you're going to consider them as a whole not just pulling out one factor versus another so I thought the
change was harmless yes it was bit duplicative I thought it was already embodied in changes that have been made by by Steve previously um so I I don't think it does any harm But, you know, I think if there is going
to be a desire to not really do this this evening, I would really appreciate it because I had um cataract surgery today and it's it was it's much more bothersome than on the other. So, I'm not functioning on all on all cylinders.
So, if you're going to put it off, um I'll take another look at the whole thing, the whole change that they had. I mean, I thought the language was a little strange. I mean, you know, it's not breathing, you know, but I'm not going to Someone said we're not going to
quibble over over semantics, and I I would agree with that. So, I didn't think it really changed anything from what had already been changed. >> Yeah, I would appreciate actually not voting tonight. As I'm scanning through here, Stephen, I'm noticing some of the
addresses are incorrect on the document in the photos. like the Iser building on here have labeled as 52 Broad Street at 74. Is >> he going to at some point did we discuss removing those addresses?
>> Oh yeah, that's what I think you had mentioned that >> we we had discussed removing it in in most places. Um >> residential >> in residential >> not for commercial. >> Yeah, on the commercial. Yeah, I'm noticing some of them are just >> accurate,
>> right? I I'll go through them, Stephen, and and note them. >> All right. And you know, and I I would be supportive of not voting on it tonight as well. There was one, you know, one observation I had in looking at this second
draft, this hopefully near final draft was scope. Um there is a page, might be page 10, it's it's near the front. um where um there's pictures and there's
maps. There's a map of the two historical districts and the page basically says this this book that's it on on the right hand side it basically says at the top
applicability. Now, when I read that, okay, and if I if I'm a an owner of a property that's designated historical and I have this book and it says right in the book, it
applies to these two districts and I don't live in one of those two districts, I go to the HBC and say this doesn't apply to me. So my concern is scope that we need we
should be thoughtful about what we're saying these guidelines apply to. I you know when we started this I thought the intent was for this to apply to the two historic districts and all
resources in Redbank but outside of those districts that are designated historic. True. >> That's true. >> That's true. >> The other thing that we did talk about and I'll jump ahead to the survey is that this is not we felt this was not the be all end all that we want a
mechanism for looking at other places and ways in which we can bring them into the historic district process. little bit less uh problematic as Irving place was but certainly other places that we can uh
find a method by which to decide approach people have feedback and whether and and broaden this these um areas so I think that that is along with what you're saying yes to broaden the
scope of it um but we talked quite a bit about that of wanting to the next process we're working on is surveys and wanting to be able to um really start looking at other places that we have in
mind or that others have in mind have a we need a a format for doing this especially given our own history. So >> and I know Anthony you have >> it never ends.
>> Yeah. Michael goes down the rabbit hole too. I think >> well this the history rabbit hole of town. Oh yes, it's good. >> The format though to expand the HPC's purview is the historic preservation
um plan element of the master plan and subsequent action by your governing body. putting we could cover the entire town red in this diagram and say that the guidelines are applicable to the entire
town and maybe even Shrewsbury. It won't it won't change anything though. >> And I uh you know I didn't read the section as limiting these guidelines to the existing established districts. Uh I
I I just didn't read it in that same context. So well if there's anything that would lead to that but ordinarily when the guideline is adopted the enabling clause that's put into the ordinance whenever I have been involved with them
being adopted it states for the existing and future historic districts or historic sites. So uh that clarification needs to be done that should be simple. I don't think I I I didn't read I didn't take the same interpretation, but if
there is any possibility of that being interpreted that way, we could certainly be clear that up, but when adopted, it is intended to serve you into the future. There's even some sections in here that would, you know, support that. So, uh, the so and and you know, there's
there's going to be work in that regard as well. This was just the next thing on the priority list of tasks to be accomplished. Michelle, would you just suggest that there just be a little asterisk at the bottom of the page of that page to kind of highlight that
statement that you just said just to add that so to >> I wouldn't do it as an asterisk. I would just I would just merge it into the text if you want. I work I I I didn't I I we could put it in there. Yes. But I wouldn't do it as an asterisk.
>> Historic recognize historic districts and something like that. existing in future. >> Yeah. Future. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I I mean I was thinking looking
for the page again. there is a notes section at the bottom and right now there's just a couple of lines of notes and I think something like you know uh in addition to applying to
properties resources within the historic districts. These guidelines are intended to apply to all >> locally designated >> locally designated historic resources including those that are in Red Bank but
might not be located in these two districts. >> It's less wordy but >> it's a reflection. >> I I I think I I I I think you want to just keep it very simple that these guidelines are designed to apply to what you have designated and what may become
designated in the future. in the future. >> Okay. And I I'm fine with that language. I just reading reading it cold to look at a picture that says
applicability. It only had those two districts highlighted. No other resources or pins on the map. That was my concern. I >> understand. up. >> Okay. I think we're all on the same page with that. It's just
>> I do too. It's just a matter of clearing up potential ambiguity. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um >> would it be okay if I sign off? I'm I'm uh I I had the this the surgery today was much more um impactful than the last
time. So I'm if it's okay if you don't have any other questions of me I'd like to sign off. >> I think what we would plan on is that if you could be present for the next meeting then that will be the meeting at which
we approve this. >> That would be perfect. Now, uh, it the next meeting I would suspect may fault or in the League of Municipalities. >> It does, which I was going to ask later on if we can um
>> switch the date or find another date or do something because I >> it's going to be >> I could do the week before and then the week after of course is e is a Thanksgiving so nobody wants that. But I could do the week before and a Wednesday evening if you'd like. But uh if uh you
know you want me to I I just thought of that but I can make other dates available. So >> I will let you know. We just have to check with the other meetings that happen week after. >> Okay. Give me a list of some options because I do have you know I have some
other commitments. I'll get back to you right away so that you'll be able to then >> make sure you have a quorum and I'll I'll be there in person. I'm so uh I'm just so pleased by all of the excellent acknowledgements that you've received
about being such a a great town. I've always felt that way about Redbank, so it was welld deserved. >> Thank you, Michelle. >> Thank you. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Hi. >> Hi. >> If I could just um add a few things
about the um upcoming November event. Is that possible at this time? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so on November 13th, uh, which is a Thursday, we'll be having
an public outreach event at the library in in the basement. Uh, this this will be in person and also on Zoom. Uh, it will be recorded. There is a link um to
join the Zoom that I'll be hosting. So, you'll see the whole screen. It's going to be um interactive and there will be a lot of great diagrams included in that presentation uh to explain these new design
guidelines to your average homeowner, tenant or architect. And uh the recording, you know, could end up on on the Redbank website uh for future reference. So that's Thursday, November 13th. So, it would be really great if
the HPC um is able to accept or adopt the guidelines on on Wednesday, November 12th. So, what we're presenting to the public on Thursday the 13th has already been signed off um by everybody. That
would just that's just a kind of point of convenience. And then >> 12 is a planning board meeting unfortunately. I'm sorry. >> Those are considered planning I don't think you can double book in hopes it won't get canled. Can you? >> I have to note. Let me just make sure
that I don't have an application scheduled for that meeting. >> Unless you want to have it earlier at the meeting because the planning board starts at 7. So unless you want to do 6. >> Is this the library? Because I have the
13th. Thursday the 13th. >> Yeah. Okay. No, this is for >> talking about the actual Yeah. >> So, right now I have nothing scheduled and I don't think anything will be scheduled probably. So, I >> So, if we could,
>> but if you'd like I can move it. We can Can we do six o'clock >> on Wednesday? >> I would have no issue with that >> as long as Michelle's available at six. >> Okay. Let me Yeah, I'll take I'll send her an email. Okay.
And what day is that? The >> 12th. >> Right. The 12th. >> Yeah, the 12 at 6. >> I don't think the meeting should would be more than an hour. >> Well, this will force it. >> I do have
>> I do have one application though that I am going to add to the agenda. No, for this. Yes. >> It just came in today, so I wasn't able to add it to the um agenda. >> Okay. If um if I may um if anyone on the
commission present there tonight or not has any comments on the October 1st draft of the design guidelines. Um I think it would be best if you if you get those over to Shauna within the next week or so and that way I'll be able to
give you all a a final final draft uh incorporating everything um prior to that meeting. So everybody has due time to look at it before uh taking action on it. And then separately, I just wanted
to bring this group up to speed on the other side of the project um that the committee has been working on, which is an intensive level architectural survey of the Broad Street Historic District,
the design overlay area. And I'm not going to go through every single part of this um survey because it it is quite lengthy. Um but I'll tell you that we're looking at all of the buildings
within the boundary of the locally designated historic district. There's about 150 of them. and we're going to be writing survey reports which are a couple pages each on each building which is a contributing resource to the
historic district. So, some of you have probably seen the surveys that the county did um in the 80s and have kind of subsequently updated since. I'll show you an example of one. This is one a survey on the screen here that the
county did in 1981. Um, so that's part of my final package, but then there's also going to be about 70 or 75 new surveys of buildings that haven't been previously documented, uh, but are
contributing resources to the Broad Street Historic District. So you'll get a picture of every building as it exists today and then a very detailed architectural description of the existing condition, a brief narrative on
its history. Um when it was built, notable people that owned it, notable businesses there, etc. And then there's also a statement of significance included for each and every building uh as to why it's contributing and and what
the HPC will be able to do with these forms in practicality in the future when you receive an application for let's say a storefront alteration. You'll be able to go to these forms and first figure out is this a contributing historic building or not? What did the storefront
maybe look like at some point? uh what's significant about the existing building that needs to be preserved and that'll make um your job easier to reach an informed uh and impartial decision on future projects. So this is um this is
in the works. It has a lot of diagrams like every Sanborn map that has ever been done and Redbank because there were so many fires had a lot of sandborn maps uh produced. That's all included here. Uh the Wolverton map from 19 1889
is within here. Um maps going all the way back to the 1700s of showing the progression of the Broad Street Historic District, which I had to use to figure out when a lot of these buildings uh were likely originally constructed. So that's all within here,
and I hope um to have that all wrapped up sometime by the end of the year. and and of course we'll share with this whole group once it's done. If it looks like this would be an example so you
description >> send that >> statement sounds amazing. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> I'll send the the draft around. >> Any other comments relative to the the due projects that Steve is working
on? I'll just say I think uh this seeing that this was the right choice of district and focus that's really exciting part of that history on the on the uh historic >> business district. >> Yes. Yes. It's very clear this is going
to be an excellent product. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I would say the only my only complaints we we didn't have this 10 years ago. I mean it's Yeah. you know, looking back now at what >> knowledge we didn't have about certain things, it's just,
>> you know, just can't come soon enough. So, but let's make sure that we obviously do it, you know, do it the right way. So, >> couldn't agree more. Dublin House, Union House. Yeah. >> You know, we lost a couple key walls what they look like. >> Yeah. >> You know, there's there's even a the
there's a picture in in the guidelines now that is not accurate. There's an addition going up on it right across from Red Rock. >> Yeah. Check. >> There's a picture on one of these pages. Um >> I guess that's the one with the uh like with the industrial windows. Yeah.
>> But changing. >> Yeah. Um I think that concludes all business for this meeting. Any new business to bring up? There's nothing on the agenda. Um, the public appears to have left us.
>> I think we're too boring for us once once they heard. >> Betsy's brother counts. >> Oh, yeah. >> That's true. I just I see the top of his head. >> Doesn't even know we're talking. >> And I see I see a computer crafting or whatever.
>> Fast forward 10 years when he's sitting up here. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. We'll work in. All right then. In that spirit, would anyone like to move for concluding meeting? >> No. >> I move to
second. >> All in favor? >> I thank you. >> Thank you, Stephen. Thanks, Stephen, for letting me join. Take care.