Common Sense For New Hampshire

13 Comments

1. Anonymous wrote:

   Last nights hearing was all about how horrid the Belmar Inn has been. No deviation from the topic. Looks like Mr Shipers wants this all on tape for future use. Fire Marshall and Code Enforcement (seems like scripted responses)need to do a better job for the residents of Belmar in earning their salaries

   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
2. OLD MAN wrote:

   Zoning board was zoned out

   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 8:35 pm | Permalink
3. flower power wrote:

   Sounds like the building of an argument as an ultimatum. Power to the people!

   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
4. Next wrote:

   Hire taxes higher salaries, dog and pony show.

   Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 8:47 am | Permalink
5. Tom Dilberger wrote:

   #4 – Ser/Maadm, Youre speeling is nott gudd. I’ts “higher,” nott hire.

   Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
6. Way too big! wrote:

   Waste of 5+ hours. We all know how bad the Belmar Inn is. The Boro should take some ownership of that. They allowed the conditions to get worse and worse. Still no talk of the exact plans (which are changing again!).

   Monday, August 27, 2018 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
7. RF wrote:

   Was there a second video shot that night?

   Monday, August 27, 2018 at 5:33 pm | Permalink
8. Land Use wrote:

   It’s a simple land use issue. The state of disrepair of the Belmar Inn, although very true, is irrelevant. The fact that the condo project is too big, or too ugly, or a breath-taking display of greed, is also irrelevant. It’s a non conforming use currently and the developer wants to increase it’s non-conformity. The answer is no. It’s not grey, it’s not nuanced, it’s not open to interpretation. It is a NO (or should be if there was a spine on the dais)
   If the board wishes to pass it back to mayor cupcake and the council so that they can pass an ordinance that rezones the parcel, they so be it. Other than that, these meetings are a waste of everyone’s time.

   Monday, August 27, 2018 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
9. Anonymous wrote:

   #8, finally the light is reslly shining on this variance issue. It’s non-conforming to even more non-conforming.

   Monday, August 27, 2018 at 11:18 pm | Permalink
10. legion wrote:

    More spot zoning…when does that stop? When someone wants to spot zone something next to the mayor’s or a board member’s property? Deny!

    Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:50 am | Permalink
11. Anonymous wrote:

    #8 it’s funny that you think you know what your talking about. It’s a non conformity because of use hotel/commercial use rooming house in a residential zone, a condo with residents and giving up the commercial use would make it more conforming not less. It would be residents, not to mention it is already xoned for cluster family housing, maybe you should get your facts straight. You know what’s worse then greed, stupidity

    Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
12. Land Use wrote:

    #11- Oh be nice, Mr Shipers.
    The new building will increase lot coverage to 95%. That is a no, my friend. You can keep doing the little meaningless reductions and make the handicap parking spots out in the elements but it doesnt change the fact that you’re increasing the coverage of the lot. And asking for more variences than an entire neighborhood of new dwellings would require.
    You know what’s worse than (the word is ‘than’ not ‘then’ Mr Smartypants)stupidity?
    Greed. Scale it back significantly or build it elsewhere.

    Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:34 am | Permalink
13. Sandra Caputo wrote:

    #7 RF – Is there something you don’t like about this video?

    Friday, August 31, 2018 at 11:07 am | Permalink

Post a Comment