[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
ARE WE GONNA PUT HER IN THE MINUTES? TRUE.
I WAS GONNA SAY, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? STEWART.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
ON.WE NEED APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 4TH, 2025.
EVERYBODY HAD THAT IN RITA AHEAD.
I BELIEVE KEN NOTED THAT HIS NAME WAS MISSPELLED.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE WE PUT THAT IN THE MINUTES,
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE MARCH MEETING MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTION IN THE SPELLING OF KEN'S NAME.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
WITH THE MOTION AND SECOND ON THE TABLE.
YEAH, SHERRY SAID SHE WAS GONNA BE HERE.
[5. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS]
TO NEW BUSINESS.THE FIRST ONE IS PROJECT NUMBER 2025 DASH 21 DASH V.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3 0 4.
3 0 4 EAST KING STREET AND IDENTIFIED ON BERKELEY COUNTY TAX MAP 15 AS PARCEL 1 0 5.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO MARTINSBURG ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 3.04, FIGURE THREE DASH 2D TO EXCEED THE MAX FRONT SETBACK FOR OUTBUILDINGS.
MOSES GREENBERG, IF YOU COULD COME UP TO THE MIC, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
3 0 4 EAST KING STREET, MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA.
IF YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, CAN I SWEAR YOU IN? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE INFORMATION YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, ALL TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP ME, GOD.
PLEASE GIVE US A SYNOPSIS OF WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
WELL, I HAVE A VERY LONG, KIND OF A REGULAR SHAPE LOT THAT'S A, IT'S, IT, IT'S PARALLEL TO THE RAILROAD TRACK.
AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE MY OUTBOUND, MY OUTBUILDING.
I'D LIKE TO BRING IT CLOSER TO THE HOME FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
IF I, IF I WERE TO KEEP THE, AND MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE SETBACK, THE OUTBUILDING WOULD BE IN THE AREA OF THE TREES AND IT WOULD ALSO BE VERY CLOSE TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE TREES PRESENT BECAUSE IT PRE, IT PROVIDES A SOUND BUFFER FROM THE TRAINS AS THEY ROLL, ROLL BY.
AND ALSO ACROSS THE TRACKS, UM, FROM THIS PROPERTY IS THE ADAM STEVENS HOUSE.
SO BY KEEPING THE TREES THERE, IT, IT KEEP, IT MAINTAINS THE PRIVACY.
SO NOT ONLY IT WOULD, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE USEFUL TO HAVE THE BUILDING CLOSER TO, TO BE, TO BE MOVED UP.
UM, BUT ALSO I COULD KEEP THE TREES WHERE THEY'RE AT AND IT WOULD REDUCE THE NOISE THAT COMES FROM THE TRAINS.
AND THE OTHER REASON IS IF I, IF HAVING A BUILDING BACK THERE IS WORRISOME TO ME BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WALK THE TRACKS.
AND IF I HAVE ANYTHING VALUABLE, IT MIGHT BE TEMPTING TO BREAK IN.
SO FOR SECURITY REASONS, I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE IT CLOSER.
I WILL SAY THE 40 FOOT MARK IS THAT RED LINE.
SO THAT ONLY GOES, THAT'S WHERE HE WOULD HAVE TO PUT IT.
IF IT CONFORMED IS THE RED LINE AT THE BOTTOM.
OH, OH, IT'S THE SOUTH PICTURE.
SO GOING, USING THAT RED LINE THAT'S 40 FEET.
'CAUSE HIS WHOLE PROPERTY THAT SIDE IS 206.
SHE'S 246 IS ALONG THIS LINE? YES.
ANY QUESTIONS? NO STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PUT A 24 BY 40 FOOT OUTBUILDING ROUGHLY 206 FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS AN ADJUSTMENT FROM THE FRONT SET REQUIREMENTS, 40 FEET MAXIMUM FROM THE REAR.
UH, FOR THE OUT BUILD OUTBUILDINGS IN THE UR THREE DISTRICT, THE APPLICATION OR THE APPLICANT WILL STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE REST OF THE SETBACKS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR STAFF? NO.
ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC PORTION.
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
[00:05:01]
THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.LET THE RECORD SHOW NOBODY COMING FORWARD.
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THE PUBLIC PORTION IS NOW CLOSED.
SO IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE, WE DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE POINTS FOR A VARIANCE.
SO WE CAN DO THAT NOW, AS LONG AS THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE DO SO.
UM, A, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OR THE RIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR RESIDENTS.
IT ARISES FROM SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR ATTRIBUTES WHICH PERTAIN TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AND WHICH WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PERSON SEEKING THE VARIANCE.
I A, AN INDICATION OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED A SPECIAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AGAINST THIS PROPERTY? I, I WOULD SAY THE FACT THAT IT IS A DOUBLE LOCKED, UH, BECAUSE THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS BASED ON TYPICAL LOT SIZES.
SO THIS IS AN ATYPICAL LOT SIZE PLUS IT DOES MURDER A RAILROAD TRACK.
UM, AND IT NARROWS SUBSTANTIALLY.
SO IT, IT'S A, A LOT CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT ZONING.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD'VE SAID TOO.
PLUS THE, JUST THE GRAPHIC UP THERE OBVIOUSLY SHOWS THAT IT'S RIGHT.
IT WOULD ELIMINATE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND PERMIT A REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
IT WILL ALLOW THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE.
WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL POINTS.
SO AT THIS POINT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE FOR REQUESTS FOR 3 0 4 EAST KING STREET PROJECT 2025 DASH 21 DASH V TO EXCEED THE MAX FRONT SETBACK OF 40 FEET FROM THE REAR FOR OUTBUILDINGS IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR FRONT SETBACK OF 206 FEET FROM THE REAR.
OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY WITHIN 30 DAYS.
NEXT ONE IS PROJECT NUMBER 2025 DASH 22 DASH V.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8 0 1 EAST MOELLER AVENUE AND IDENTIFIED ON BERKELEY COUNTY TAX MAP SEVEN AS PARCEL 47.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO MARTINSBURG ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 3.04, FIGURE THREE DASH TWO B TO EXCEED THE MAX LOT WIDTH AND DEPTH AND C 0.1 TO EXCEED THE MAX FRONT PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACK D AND I DEVELOPMENT IAN HOROWITZ, WHO IS REPRESENTING THE STATE.
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
AND MY ADDRESS PERSONALLY IS ONE 15 RAPHAEL COURT MARTINSBURG 2 5 4 0 3.
AND CAN I SWEAR YOU IN? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE INFORMATION YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH AND WHOLE TRUTH AND ABOUT THE TRUTH? YES SIR.
PLEASE TELL US WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
SO MY CLIENTS ARE TAKING A, UH, BASICALLY A CITY BLOCK THAT HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER AND BY CREATING 10, CONFORMING LOTS TO THE ORDINANCE, WE MUST COME HERE AND ASK FOR A NON-CONFORMING LOT FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE.
SO YOU'RE SUBDIVIDING IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES.
AND YOU'RE, MOST OF THE LOTS ARE GONNA BE CONFORMING, BUT IT'S GONNA LEAVE ONE THAT'S NON-CONFORMING BEHIND, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WHICH IS THE EXISTING ONE THAT IS CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING? WE ARE ACTUALLY BRINGING IT MORE INTO CONFORMANCE.
BUT IT, IT DOESN'T MEET THE SETBACKS BY DOING SO IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? RIGHT.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT? YES.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE LOT WILL LOOK LIKE MM-HMM
THE, THE ONE THAT'S GONNA BE LEFT THE RESIDUAL LOT THAT IS LEFT OKAY.
THAT MAKE SENSE? ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS? NO.
OKAY, THEN I'LL MOVE ON TO STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CREATE A SINGLE LOT WITH A STORM WATER
[00:10:01]
POND AS THIS IS THE RESIDUAL LOT THAT IS LEFT OVER FROM THE CREATION OF THE 10 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT THIS CAME BEFORE.THE CURRENT LOT LAYOUT EXCEEDS THE MAX LOT WIDTH AND DEPTH, UH, FROM THE REQUIRED 40 FOOT MAX AND 140 MAX DEPTH.
THE NEW PROPOSED LOT, UH, WIDTH WILL BE 162 AND A LOT DEPTH OF 286.
UH, THE, THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING A 42 FOOT, UH, FRONT SETBACK, UH, INSTEAD OF THE 16 MAX FOR THE EXISTING ITEMS, UH, THE APPLICANT WILL STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE REST OF THE BUILDING SETBACKS, UH, THIS PROJECT DID COME BEFORE, UH, REQUESTING DRIVEWAY VARIANCES IN FRONT SETBACK FOR THE 10 SINGLE FAMILIES OF 20 FEET.
UM, THAT WAS APPROVED ON THE APRIL 2ND MEETING OF 2024.
IF THESE VARIANCES ARE GRANTED, THE PROJECT WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A SITE PLAN AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, WHICH WILL GO IN FRONT OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UM,
THE LOT WIDTH IS 40 FOR THE ORDINANCE.
THE MAX IS 40 THIS LOT WIDTH BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE EXISTING HOUSE ON IT AND IT'S THE RESIDUAL LOT.
SO IS THERE, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THERE, COULDN'T THAT BE ANOTHER LOT IN THERE? NOT THAT I AM ADVOCATING PUTTING ANOTHER STRUCTURE THERE.
IS THERE, WE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY TRIED TO BUT THAT ONE OUTBUILDING THERE WOULD, IT WOULD CAUSE US TO, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME HERE FOR THAT LOT TO BE ABLE TO GOT IT.
AND, AND THE CLIENTS WERE, THE CLIENTS WERE COMPLETELY FINE WITH JUST, JUST 10, 10 PROPOSED LOTS ALONG WITH THE EXISTING, WE, WE, WE COULD HAVE WENT EARLY STAGES AND TRIED TO GET TOWNHOUSES AND THAT ROUTE, BUT WE JUST, UH, THEY JUST WANTED TO TRY TO GET 10 SINGLE FAMILIES THERE ON A, ON A CITY BLOCK.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC PORTION.
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
LET THE RECORD SHOW NOBODY COMING FORWARD.
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SO FIRST OFF, I WANNA CORRECT A COUPLE THINGS.
UM, THE 10 LOTS THAT WERE CREATED ARE NOT CONFORMING LOTS.
UM, THERE'S, THE UR THREE DISTRICT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 30 TO 40 FOOT WIDE.
THERE'S LOTS THAT ARE AN EXCESSIVE 40 FEET.
UM, IN THIS PROPOSAL, YOU CAN SEE IT HERE ON PAGE 35.
BOTTOM LEFT CORNER IS OVER 40 FOOT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WAS TAKEN CARE OF LAST YEAR, BUT I WANT TO CORRECT IT.
INACCURACY THAT WAS TESTIFIED TO THIS EVENING THAT THOSE LOTS ARE NOT CONFORMING.
THE OTHER PORTION OF THOSE LOTS THAT ARE NOT CONFORMING IS THE FRONT SET MAP.
UM, FRONT SETBACK AND UR THREE IS SUPPOSED TO BE EIGHT TO 16 FEET.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALREADY, UH, WE DID THAT IN A MEETING ALREADY AND APPROVED IT.
UNDERSTAND, BUT WE HAD TESTIMONY THIS EVENING THAT SAID THAT THESE LOTS ARE CONFORMING.
THAT IS NOT THE, THE 10 LOTS THAT WERE CREATED ARE NOT CONFORMING LOTS.
THEY ARE LOT, THERE ARE LOTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE UR THREE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, TO BRENDA'S COMMENT, BRENDA, ABSOLUTELY, UM, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER LOT THAT PUT COULD HAVE BEEN PUT THERE TO THE LEFT OF THE HOUSE.
AS IT AS THIS IS DRAWN UP, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU COULD HAVE EASILY HAVE GOT 30 TO 40 FEET LOT WIDTH IN THERE AT ANYWHERE FROM A HUNDRED TO 140 FOOT DEPTH.
UH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, OBVIOUSLY THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO IT, BUT THERE, THERE IS SPACE THERE.
AND I WANNA REMIND EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD THAT THESE LOTS EXISTED AS 33 FOOT WIDE LOTS,
[00:15:01]
135 FOOT DEPTH BEFORE ANYTHING WAS DONE, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE WITHIN THE UR THREE DISTRICT.UM, THIS HARDSHIP WAS CREATED BY THE OWNER BECAUSE THEIR VISION FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, THE ZONING ORDINANCE CLEARLY STATES 30 TO 40 FOOT, 100 TO 140 FOOT DEPTH, WHICH THOSE LOTS PRIOR TO, TO THE APPLICANT DOING ANYTHING WOULD'VE MET THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, I AM AGAINST THIS PROJECT.
ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE APPLICANT? LET THE RECORD SHOW NOBODY COMING FORWARD.
THE PUBLIC PORTION IS NOW CLOSED.
NOW WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE POINTS TO JUST JUSTIFY VARIANCE.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE DO SO FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? NO.
BRENDA LOOKS LIKE SHE'S THINKING.
YOU GOOD? I'M, I'M GOOD TO GO.
WHO WERE THE ALTERNATE MEMBERS? CHRISTINA.
AND SO YOU'VE ALREADY MADE A MOTIONS, SO YOU ARE NOW VOTED THEM.
YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN QUESTIONS AT ALL, BUT, 'CAUSE THERE'RE ONLY FIVE VOTES, YOU CANNOT VOTE ON THE MATTER.
YOU CAN PARTICIPATE AND ASK QUESTIONS ON ALL THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CLEAR, UH, WITH THE PROGRAM.
SO A, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OR THE RIGHTS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR RESIDENCE.
IT ARISES FROM SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR ATTRIBUTES WHICH PERTAIN TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS SOUGHT AND WHICH WERE NOT CREATED BY THE PERSON SEEKING THE VARIANCE.
UH, WELL FIRST OFF, I ONLY HEARD TWO PEOPLE AND THREE I HEARD THREE.
SO YOU WANNA VOTE ON THIS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? YOU SHOULD HAVE A VOTE AND THEN THE MAJORITY NEEDS TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ATTRIBUTES FOR TAKE THE PROPERTY.
VERY SOFT JUST TO HAVE ONE RUN.
SO YOU PROMISE YOU HAVE A VOTE ON THAT ONE ROLE PAUL? VOTE.
BRENDA CASABONA ARE WE ON A OR B? BB? UM, I THINK THAT, WELL I NEED CLARIFICATION.
THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY AND I REALIZE WE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR THE DIFFERENT LOCK SIZE AND DIFFERENT LOCK CONFIGURATION.
SO PARTLY THAT'S ON US BECAUSE WE DID GRANT THAT, BUT THE ORIGINAL LOT THAT THIS HOUSE WAS ON, DID THAT ENCOMPASS ALL THOSE OTHER LOTS? YES, IT DID.
OKAY, SO THEN I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE ON B BECAUSE
UM, AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD, UH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THIS STRUCTURE CHANGE WHERE THIS STRUCTURE IS LOCATED BECAUSE IT WAS EXISTING.
IF IT WERE NOT EXISTING, THEN I WOULD SAY THIS WAS A CONDITION THAT IS CREATED BY THE APPELLANT.
BUT SINCE THE LOT, THE HOUSE WAS EXISTING ON THE LOT IN THIS SPOT AND THE LOT WAS THIS SIZE, I WOULD RELUCTANTLY AGREE WITH ME.
AND FOR THE REASONS THAT UM, BRENDA UM, MENTIONED AND ALSO TO ME THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS THE FACT THAT THE VARIANCE WAS CREATED, UM, I'M SORRY, APPROVED PREVIOUSLY AND THIS IS WHAT WAS LEFT.
THIS IS THE RESIDUAL UM, LOT FROM WHAT WAS PROPOSED AND WHAT WAS AGREED UPON CONCERNING THE 10 LOTS.
SO THAT WOULD BE MY JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.
THAT TO ME IS A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT WAS CREATED, WHETHER IT WAS CREATED BY US OR WHO IT, THE 10 LOTS WERE APPROVED
[00:20:01]
OR THE WAIVER FOR THEM WAS APPROVED.AND I FEEL LIKE THAT THAT CAUSES A SPECIAL CONDITION TO ARISE.
AND CHRISTINA BRINER RIGHT? I AGREE.
YOU ALWAYS FORGET ABOUT ME KYLE
I DO IN THE WAR ZONE APPEALS, SHE VOTES ON EVERY ONE.
IT'S THE PLAINTIFF COMMISSION AND THE HBRC WHERE THEY VOTE TO BREAK THE, AND THAT'S OKAY.
ALRIGHT, I GUESS WE GOT THE FROM BRENDA AND MONIQUE WHAT THE BOARD, I'M ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY ELSE AGREES.
THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL CONSIDER SPECIAL ADDITION TO ATTRIBUTES? YES.
SEE IT WOULD ELIMINATE ANY UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND PERMIT A REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
IT WILL ALLOW THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO BE DONE.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 8 0 1 EAST MOLAR AVENUE PROJECT 2 0 2 5 DASH 22 DASH V TO EXCEED THE MAX LOT WIDTH AND DEPTH FROM THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF 40 FOOT MAX AND DEPTH OF ONE 40 MAX TO ALLOW FOR A LOT WIDTH OF 1 62 AND A LOT DEPTH OF 286 FEET.
AND TO EXCEED THE MAX FRONT PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACK OF 16 FEET TO ALLOW FOR A FRONT PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACK OF 42 FEET ON THE EXISTING HOUSE.
HAVE A MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY WITHIN 30 DAYS.
NO DISCUSSION OR ACTION ITEMS. NO OTHER, OH WAIT, OTHER
[7. OTHER BUSINESS]
BUSINESS BERNICE CALL US LETTER.YEAH, THIS WAS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT IN TO THE BCA.
UM, IT ACTUALLY WAS VERY GENUINE.
I JUST THOUGHT IT'D BE NICE TO INCLUDE IT 'CAUSE YOU GUYS MAKE A LOT OF TOUGH DECISIONS.
SO IT'S NICE TO GET APPRECIATED ON THIS.
NORMALLY THERE'S CRITICISM THERE.
SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
ALL A OPPOSED? WE ARE ADJOURNED.