Skip to content

2nd Ave Condos Approved




  1. 2nd Ave wrote:

    The rendering is not the White House project.

    Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
  2. admin wrote:

    Oops I’ll try again

    Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
  3. OLD MAN wrote:

    Think I may buy a few

    Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 4:20 pm | Permalink
  4. South Side wrote:

    The Zoning Board does not know how to say NO anymore.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 9:18 am | Permalink
  5. curious wrote:

    is this project located next to the white house I assume?

    What is bad about owner occupied resedential housing as opposed to potential rental units?

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 9:50 am | Permalink
  6. watchman wrote:

    Maser was the borough engineer who signed off on matters on the questioned checklist? We know how reputable they are, referencing the pipe project in the south end, for example, the project for which reimbursement was denied by the state because of the improper way the contract was rewarded. A Matt buddy in various projects in town, like the Main Street light pole fiasco as well. Looks like Mr. Shipers trusted them.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 10:43 am | Permalink
  7. Anonymous wrote:

    As usual in Belmar of late, density and property lines.

    How about 4 townhomes that fit the property instead of 6 that come out to the sidewalk.

    Cover the ground with buildings and don’t worry about runoff. Its somebody else’s problem.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 11:37 am | Permalink
  8. watchman wrote:

    I’ll betcha this will be appealed in court.
    The project footprint area should have been short cut, not the application process. Allegedly.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
  9. Anonymous wrote:

    Money talks and BS walks. I don’t begrudge a guy with lots of money to make a little more, but when he does so at he expense of others’, that’s where I draw the line. Take your condos to Asbury or Spring Lake.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
  10. Anonymous wrote:

    #6 & #8- For one, the new engineer also as stated at the hearing reviewed the application and the prior reviews done by Maser. Mr. Shipers trusts the professionals that were hired by applicant and he would not have represented an applicant to the Board had he not thought it would bring good to Belmar. The application submitted and attachments if you went to the Borough to review them you would see the i’s and the t’s crossed. In addition if you have ever experience this process yourself, even after Board approval the developer of any project still has to provide additional documentations, reports and submit to the Borough, County etc., and same is inspected during the whole course. The developers professional builders will have to pull the proper permits with construction drawings, etc.. The application process was not cut short. Frustrating that those who assume they know feel the need to make these unsupported documents. Prior to an application, the applicant had a survey done, engineer work up and revisions, architect drawings and revisions, that process in itself takes a substantial amount of time to complete the right way; After that a Minor Land Use Certificate submitted to the Borough and denied. Then a formal application with a significant amount of detail and supporting documents, notices published and mailed out, conference after conference in preparation for the excessive amounts of meetings. This application’s first hearing was in October of 2018 and drawn out until May 28, 2019—- thats a long hearing process of approximately 8 months, and prior to the hearing process starting the applicant and his professionals work started back in the Spring of 2018. No short cuts in fact this was a marathon of an application process by no means a sprint.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
  11. 2nd Ave wrote:

    Short cut? How many meetings and hours spent on this? After 5 years, the Puleos made an offer after the property was under contract in the style of extortion “take our offer or we will drag this out as long as we can” their offer was lower.. who takes less money when they have a better offer? And being under contract prohibits one from entering into another. Joel does not live on 2nd Ave or even in Belmar..he rents his home out for the entire winter and premium short term rentals throughout the summer.. He drives a Bentley.. greedy?? The opposition should look in the mirror. Tom Wagner gas been paying high taxes for decades, his family before him.. on a commercial property assessed at over 2 million. It only makes money a few months a year. It is a premium property and not overpriced. No buyer came forward wanting to do single family homes. Serious offers made to do luxury rentals, out of town developer wanted some sort of multi family, a high end wedding venue and hotel, and a luxury sober living facility. Mr. Merkler’s offer was the most feasible and it is nice that it is our neighbor developing this unique site. Get over it. Change happens. It is an improvement and the most suitable use for the neighborhood.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
  12. Average Joe wrote:

    I think it’s an above average rat wanting to make more and more money

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
  13. watchman wrote:

    #10 I hope you are right. If there are faults in the application process, let that be discovered. Trust but verify.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
  14. Anonymous wrote:

    I attended the White House meeting and was so upset with the Zoning board crew. First of all what was Tom Palmazano doing up there. He had nothing to say and went by the specks and drew his decisions from what he read, whereas the board have been working on it since Oct. 1918. Master Plan, what Master Plan? Where were these stupid questions coming from, the zoning board? Yeah, for the appeal. Shippers could not shine Bronskies shoes.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
  15. Holiday Inn Express wrote:

    @14 I am not a lawyer but a master plan is not law or set in stone.. as for Shipers vs Brodsky don’t confuse a little polish and arrogance for expertise. Brodsky and his planner failed to show any detriment. This decision will stand. Probably won’t even get to court.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
  16. Maria Florio wrote:

    Kuddo with #14.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
  17. Columbo wrote:

    One more thing, the board’s attorney mentioned looking into any possible loopholes and addressing them. If he sensed a potential problem, that is enough to create some questions, not a matter of raising issues by detail oriented residents who are aware of correct procedure and may be more observant that some.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
  18. Shiper's Suit wrote:

    I think they were blinded by the head-to-toe canary yellow glow coming from Shipers’ suit. It was hurting their eyes and at 12:05 they just couldn’t take it anymore.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
  19. Anonymous wrote:

    #14- first off you dont even have either names correct it’s Brodsky and Shipers. Second, since you clearly were not paying attention or only have selective hearing Palmasiano listed to the tapes of the prior hearings and submitted an affidavit— so he DID in fact know the entire presentation. As for Brodsky vs Shipers- my money is on Shipers who was more prepared and knowledgeable and brought substance to the presentation. As oppose to Brodsky and his presentation- and actions during this whole process- he got his way to delay out to coordinate with his schedule, attempted to assist his clients to threaten seller in an attempt to play dirty- not ethical, he puts his other client in the hot seat without doing his homework thinking Mr. Shipers wouldnt think ahead of him, but he in fact did. And if you live in a glass house you shouldnt threw stones.
    #16- with a friend like you Mr. M doesnt need enemies, its all fun and games and entertaining when its not on your dime huh? I guess its all about the devil we know these days, no change can possibly be positive.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
  20. elemental wrote:

    It is fascinating how the perceptions of people are so vastly different. I thought that Mr. Brodsky and his planner were slam dunking it all over the place, while it seems that someone thinks Mr. Shipers is the cat’s meow. Wow.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
  21. elemental wrote:

    I did like Mr. Shiper’s jacket, chartreuse, I would say. The man is bold, sometimes a merit.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
  22. Mark wrote:

    Is it possible to start a petition to remove all the constant “yes’ people from the Zoning Board? All zoning board members should vote as if they are living next door to what they approve….

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
  23. Columbo wrote:

    And that Mr. Shiper called Mr. Long as a pro-project “witness” at the first hearing was not “playing dirty”? That was inappropriate and the board attorney pointed that out. Such testimony is more aptly called for in the public comment time. Lawyers do what they do, and depending on one’s point of view, playing dirty is either good or bad if doing so helps make a case.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:29 pm | Permalink
  24. Guest wrote:

    I think the zoning board got it right on this one. Some people are just against all development,and they will never be happy. The White House as it stands is an eye sore. They tried unsuccessfully to sell it as a single family home for years. these condos are going to be gorgeous. There are lots of condos in that area of town and these will be,by far, the nicest.
    Many neighbors spoke in favor of this project. The owner of North End Builders lives in this neighborhood, so it doesn’t behoove him to build something that doesn’t add value and isn’t aesthetically pleasing.
    Also think of the increased tax revenue for the town – and we are in need of more tax revenue. I know that’s not a zoning concern, but that is a major benefit of this approval.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:41 pm | Permalink
  25. 2nd Ave wrote:

    Don’t be fooled..Brodsky is usually the one fighting for variances. He knows little about Belmar, Red Bank area more his thing.. he is slimy..lacks ethics.. how is he working the opposition while also trying to interfere with Merkler’s contract?

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 8:15 pm | Permalink
  26. Anon wrote:

    @Columbo..Brodsky is dirty..the fact that he would be interfering with a contract while representing the opposition on this.. dirty gets dirty

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 9:10 pm | Permalink
  27. Anonymous wrote:

    #19 instead of correcting names read your grammar. Yeah for the appeal.
    That will take a few years.

    Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.