Skip to content

Edelman Retreats



  1. Anonymous wrote:

    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.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:35 am | Permalink
  2. gene creamer wrote:

    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

    Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:41 am | Permalink
  3. Just say NO wrote:

    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.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:38 am | Permalink
  4. Go develop avon wrote:

    This will lead to many other developers requesting multifamily units on single or double lots. Not the Belmar I want, that’s for sure.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 11:41 am | Permalink
  5. Belle wrote:

    #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!

    Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 11:46 am | Permalink
  6. Katrina wrote:

    Lawyer manipulation. Ask for the sun then tell us your doing us favor by excepting the moon.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:28 pm | Permalink
  7. Anonymous wrote:

    Jackpot Katrina, nothing more than that! You are a very wise and articulate young .

    Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 9:20 am | Permalink
  8. gene creamer wrote:

    #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.

    Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
  9. anonymous wrote:

    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!!

    Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 5:04 pm | Permalink
  10. For Belmar wrote:

    You should read the article that was published today on the Tap into Belmar website: Developers Respond to Pushback (

    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.

    Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 5:19 pm | Permalink
  11. flower power wrote:

    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.

    Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 7:10 pm | Permalink
  12. flower power wrote:

    Hmmm…Shipers and the architect seem to be a “package deal” in town…does the zoning board love them for whatever reason?

    Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
  13. Anonymous wrote:

    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.

    Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 7:34 am | Permalink
  14. ALL TRUMPED UP wrote:

    #11- Similar to the Taylor Pavilion bonding fiasco. Wear um down.

    Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 7:53 am | Permalink
  15. Nick B. wrote:

    #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.

    Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:03 am | Permalink
  16. Maria Florio wrote:

    #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.

    Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:36 am | Permalink
  17. flower power wrote:

    #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.

    Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:47 am | Permalink
  18. Guest wrote:

    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.

    Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
  19. Anonymous wrote:

    It’s all smoke and mirrors. No regulations are followed if you’re an insider.

    Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:31 am | Permalink
  20. Nick B. wrote:

    #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.

    Friday, June 29, 2018 at 11:38 am | Permalink
  21. Steve wrote:

    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.

    Friday, June 29, 2018 at 11:55 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.