Skip to content

Cautious Council



  1. eugene creamer wrote:

    the Belmar Planning Board report to the M&C regarding the draft redevelopment plan is on the Borough OPRA website…

    Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 9:08 am | Permalink
  2. Jerry Buccafusco wrote:

    Much of the discussion at the Council meeting Tuesday night centered around differences between the proposed Development Plan (the PLAN), the Seaport Redevelopment Plan (SRP)and the current Commercial District 1 (CBD1) in the Development Regulations with the issue being that the CBD1 is the least restrictive on the bulk standards when compared to the PLAN and SRP. The Council expressed the concern that if the PLAN or some redraft of it is not approved the developer has the option to proceed under the CBD1, which, for example only requires a 10 ft setback from a residential lot.
    After the meeting I reviewed the CBD1 Commercial Zoning Requirements, specifically the Schedule of Uses, and it appears to me that the only residential uses permitted in the CBD1 Zone are : “Apartments/Residences on the second floor of Commercial or Professional Office Structure”. ( A document entitled “Commerical Zoning Requirements. Pdf” is available on the Boro’s website on in the ordinances at Subsection 40-5.1.)
    So, although the CBD1 may permit, as the Mayor said in the article, “…a larger structure that comes closer to the adjacent property lines” that structure cannot be a structure with 30 residential units on three floors.
    Of course, the owner/developer can always apply for a “use” variance, also known as a “D” variance. I’m not an expert on variances but from what I have read a “D” variance is very complex and much harder to obtain than the usual “c” variance (variances pertaining to bulk standards).
    This may explain why the developer is pushing for the Council to pass a development plan for his two lots – to avoid the expense, time and uncertain outcome of applying for a “use” variance.
    I’d be curious to know if anyone has any other information or experience with the specific “residential” use” of the CBD1 or “use” variances.
    Thoughts anyone?

    Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 1:30 pm | Permalink
  3. Another Highrise wrote:

    Thank you for sharing #1, I had not seen that.

    #2 that is very interesting. I’m surprised to hear that just maybe the developer isn’t creating this plan out of the goodness of his heart?!?! Color me shocked!

    Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
  4. Guest wrote:

    #2 – Maybe the 2nd floor reference was another “typo”?

    Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink
  5. eugene creamer wrote:

    #2 … a ‘D’ or use variance would be the purview of the Belmar Zoning Board of Adjustment.

    the ZBA is uniquely qualified to handle such matters.

    Friday, December 6, 2019 at 7:46 am | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    #1, 5 – the OPRA is now closed. Seems like it was up for only a day on Dec. 3? Do I have to OPRA it in order to see?

    Friday, December 6, 2019 at 9:49 am | Permalink
  7. admin wrote:

    Friday, December 6, 2019 at 9:56 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.