Skip to content

CAFRA Violation Saga

Submitted by a reader:

Screen Shot 2016-04-02 at 3.55.15 AM


And the beginning of a new one?Screen Shot 2016-04-03 at 5.58.46 AM(A complaint called in Friday to the NJDEP.)


  1. Pay to play wrote:

    Like everything else in our town this administration does what it wants then spends our money losing lawsuits or covering up its mess. All you south Enders who voted for Dorehty because he promised your outflow pipe, where is it? Why was it so imperative that the Pavillon bond needed to be bundled with the outflow pipe? Why is construction on the extremely over priced Pavillon started without proper permits when Colleen couldn’t answer when outflow pipe project stands, nor where the 6 mill bonded for that is?
    When Dorehty leaves Belmar, after bonding us into oblivion, Colleen along with him, we will be left paying the very large bill. Just don’t blame any new council members who hopefully will be voted in in November.

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:54 am | Permalink
  2. flower power wrote:

    Pile driving must not commence! That is like the premature demolition of the marina building.

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 8:57 am | Permalink
  3. Planet Belmar wrote:

    The Doherty administration now and hopefully with two new councilmen next January has all
    decisions made by the business administrator.
    All supporting “facts” or “reasons” for the council to vote to approve, likewise come from the administration. Now in the past, we had a councilman , who on his own did research before a meeting and his vote. That is too much for all four present council people. The above timeline on CAFRA mess can be viewed in this light.
    The leases to Chef’s going back to 2012, clearly refer to the CAFRA Plan and Permit.
    Bill Young and then Colleen Connolly never shared the plan with the voting council. Therefore every time ( Claire) the council voted to approve the redevelopment agreements and plans they unwittingly voted to approve VIOLATIONS OF THE CAFRA PERMIT. The record shows that the planning board approved without review of the 2010 CAFRA plan, (Double trouble. NOW THIS COMING COUNCIL MEETING. Resolution to approve Maser-Dave Roberts to work to amend seaport redevelopment plan. He contributed to a special committee that was used to endorse a plan extending the seaport redevelopment plan down Main St. and Rt. 71 to 16th Ave.. Not one council person will ask the obvious and get clarification. I emailed Brian Magovern for the plan and have it as of Jan. 2015.
    “Give them an inch…” The Seaport Redevelopment was for the area from 8th Ave. to Shark River Inlet. Dave Roberts was hired when Doherty took office and he amended it to include the Marina and Maclearie Park to attract tourist to the downtown. After this next phase only the blocks from 5th to Ocean will be out of a redevelopment area. ( and they will take a mile”.

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:03 am | Permalink
  4. OLD MAN wrote:

    Like Robert Mitchum said in the longest day ” God help us now “

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:17 am | Permalink
  5. USEFUL Tool wrote:

    Claire’s Post in context of timeline.
    Nov. 11, 2015 4:57 p.m. regarding CAFRA and permits, ” all has been dealt with -borough and engineer reps have resolved concerns posted.

    Nov. 12, 2015 12 noon ( 20 hours later ) DEP Supervisor emails Engineer Nick DeCotiis to cease all further work till new plans and permits. Something Nick and the Borough have not done.

    Nov. 12, 2015 Colleen emails DEP, Nick will have plans and applications done by early December.
    Early Dec. Maser Steven Sihota just starts on plans.

    Claire I fail to see from the point of view of DEP how the situation was resolved.
    I only see how Belmar was not their word at every confrontation.

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 10:23 am | Permalink
  6. Tuesday's Resolution wrote:

    I prefer issues and not personalities in an election year. However, the two Democrat incumbents ( their slogan being” continuing the progress ) must agree with all put to their vote.#9.its up to the taxpayers to educate themselves and speak up. The Resolution to hire Dave Roberts is to start the ball rolling. It is our job to inquire and then object to an unconstutional use of NJ Revelopment Law.
    Just as Steve Edelman and Henry Gray did May 2013- see Grau vs. Belmar which Matt lost. The new area designated must ultimately be “blighted”. The irony of the new unlawful extension to 16th Ave. is that the only non-tax producing and blighted blocks and lots are owned and “maintained” by Belmar Borough ie: DPW,Recycle and Dempsey Park. All current redevelopment properties have their property taxes abated. By encouraging redevelopment to the end of Main Street far more properties will get abated. Hence when the property/school taxes increase we will have to pay ours and theirs. That is why NJ State Controller issued a negative report on tax abatements. They screw you and me. I believe one candidate owns rental in the new area and would not be able to vote should they be elected.

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
  7. Fed Up wrote:

    They need the abatement to show the town has not financially recovered from Sandy so the 4.5 million Community Disaster loan will be forgiven.

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
  8. Perspective wrote:

    Community Disaster loan will never be forgiven. If we proved a loss of revenue due to Sandy, we could get a reprieve, but it only buys some time. It is a loan. It must be paid back in full. Anyone know when it’s due?

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
  9. admin wrote:

    This year, I believe

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
  10. Tuesday's Resolution wrote:

    #7. Neither the abatements due to improvements anywhere in Belmar- Area as REHABILITATION nor area under redevelopment 3 years after Sandy have anything to do with Hurricane Sandy. Belmar as rehabilitation area: criteria was the water and sewers were predominantly over 50 years old. That’s what gave them the criteria and the designation. The proposed extension of the Seaport Redevelopment area to go to 16th Ave. in order to qualify for redevelopment MUST fit the criteria of blighted. I will stake my career on it.

    Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.