-
Pages
Recent Comments
-
No recent comment found.
Archives
- January 2022
- December 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
21 Comments
I certainly would not call it a retreat. More like strategy. Pulling the application for the other side of the street is probably dependent upon the results of the board of adjustment hearing. The Edelman Group is asking for 12 variances, height is just one.
Their number of 41 1/2 feet is suspect and it is still too high.
the proposed structure would block the sunlight from reaching the existing solar installation on an adjoining property …. aka – solar damage …. a real disincentive for Belmarians wanting to Go Green
There are too many variances requested. All opposed to this MUST attend and voice their concerns. This will lead to many other developers requesting multifamily units on single or double lots. Not the Belmar I want, that’s for sure.
This will lead to many other developers requesting multifamily units on single or double lots. Not the Belmar I want, that’s for sure.
#2 Blocking someones solar panels after they paid to have them installed should be enough to stop the project. Unless the developer would like to reimburse the resident and pay for their electric use FOREVER!
Lawyer manipulation. Ask for the sun then tell us your doing us favor by excepting the moon.
Jackpot Katrina, nothing more than that! You are a very wise and articulate young .
#5 …. all solar installations in NJ are subsidized by electric ratepayers in their bills …. We are all LOSERS when renewable electric energy production is reduced.
At 41 1/2 feet the new proposed building is only six inches higher than the Belmar Inn, so it should not block anyone’s solar panels more so than it does now. I was against the initial plan, but I think the new plan is a great compromise and I would much rather see 24 condos on the property than the blight of the Belmar Inn!!
You should read the article that was published today on the Tap into Belmar website: Developers Respond to Pushback (https://www.tapinto.net/towns/belmar-slash-lake-como/articles/developers-respond-to-pushback-to-plans-for-high).
It sounds like Bill Shipers, who the article says leads and heads Edelman Investment Group, has listened to us and revised his plan. I’m not gung ho about the exterior design, but now that it’s just 24 units on the Belmar Inn property and nothing on the south side of the street I’m all for it! Definitely better than keeping the Belmar Inn, which is the alternative.
Compromise just opens the door to further intrusion of developers’ wishes. It’s the old “wear ’em down” approach – hoping those who protest just get tired and go away.
Hmmm…Shipers and the architect seem to be a “package deal” in town…does the zoning board love them for whatever reason?
I think it is a great solution only 24 units with parking incorporated things will be nicer than they were with the Belmar Inn.. it is an improvement over the way things were. Some are just automatically opposed to any change without considering that it might be a good thing.
#11- Similar to the Taylor Pavilion bonding fiasco. Wear um down.
#12- did you ever think that professionals of quality get constant referrals, and perhaps if your in the business for as long as they have been the amount of time they spend presenting clients applications to the Board, reflects more on them and their reputation of being knowledgeable and experience in the field and less of the Board just loving them? Neither are volunteers or politicians they are both professionals and are not involved in these small town politics.
#13Mr.Anonymous, if you live in town then put it across the street from you. I am for changes but not a 24unit and a parking garage under neath. If the Belmar Inn was run properly and was kept like when it was the New Irvington with just summer rentals it was no problem. When it became an all year rental was when all the trouble started and thanks to the town that it fell on with deaf ears.
#15 That would be nice and you have a valid point, BUT, the interweaving of some professionals and governmental boards and such around town is suspect in my limited thinking. I would love to smell the flowers, but unfortunately, the prevalence of stinkweed pattern has altered my nose.
Maybe off topic, but relevant to zoning issues. When did La Terrazza at 4th & Ocean get Zoning Board approval to install a permanent glass extension to the front of their bar? With that, how was La Dolce Vita ever permitted to make their glass extension a permanent extension, when their approval was for glass that slid open and closed? Seems like special treatment over there.
It’s all smoke and mirrors. No regulations are followed if you’re an insider.
#18, Your right off topic; #19- Your spreading false information; “the resolution stated to permit them to construct a retractable glass enclosure” In addition it was for weather purposes, obviously thats a permanent enclosure. The owner of the restaurant, was required to expend money to present to the Board, hire professionals, and make a proper presentation to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Before you speak just to speak, maybe just maybe you should consider thinking or even better verifying if you feel that strongly about an issue. When you hid behind “Guest” and throw out these kind of allegations your not doing anyone any favors. Spreading misinformation and rumors, is just gossip, it may not effect your life “guest” but realize the impacts your misinformation may cause others.
They need to work on the front setback. As I understand it they are seeking a variance to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 5 feet. (is this correct) That’s a way to much
Let than know that they need to adjust plans and submit them in a timely manner.
Post a Comment