Notice of this meeting of the mayor and council has been provided to the co-star and the ice park press our official newspapers and notice of this meeting was posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building. Take roll call. Counciloman Donovan >> here. Council McKenna >> here. Mayor Fusco >> here.
>> Councilman Rando here. Councilman Le >> here. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stands one nationisible andice for all.
>> Please remain standing for a moment of silence for our troops, their families, and our first responders. Thank you. going to begin the evening with a with our workshop. And as part of our workshop tonight, I thought it would be
a good idea to have another presentation on where we're at with the affordable housing. This is going to be essentially the same presentation that was at the uh last meeting we had, but I thought since
uh many of you are here for that reason, it'd be a good thing to have our redevelopment attorney go over that so that you can uh see where we're at, what the process is, and it may answer a lot of questions for you and um and then
we'll have an opportunity to have you ask questions of her. Okay. So I'm turning it over. We serve as redevelopment council and affordable housing council to the burrow. Okay. Yeah. So uh we serve as redevelopment and affordable housing
council to the bur. I'm here this evening with Jen Beam who's the burough planner. So as the mayor mentioned, we did a presentation at the last meeting November 25th. This is very similar to that presentation just giving an overview and an update of the bureau's
affordable housing obligations. So see just taking a step back because we have some new faces here. Many of you have seen this slide already several times but what is affordable housing? So the bureau was a mandatory constitutional
obligation to provide its fair share of affordable housing in its region and just the bureau was in region four which includes Mercer, Mammoth and Ocean County. So this is a mandatory constit constitutional obligation. So you hear the term affordable housing a lot. What
is the definition of affordable housing? It is housing with the sales price or rent within the means of very low, low or moderate income households as determined by gross annual household income. So this is workforce housing. This is housing that is um determined
you're determined to be qualified for this housing depending on uh your income level. So where is the burrow now in this process? The burough is in the process of wrapping up or completing its third
round for affordable housing. There was a compliance hearing held on October 17th, 2025. The court issued an order granting conditional third round judgment of compliance and repose. And that order is conditioned on the bureau
doing several things. First, adopting a spending plan for the bureau's affordable housing trust fund. That was done at the last meeting. Second, adopting an affirmative marketing plan, also done at the last meeting. And finally, adopting an amendment to the
Seapport redevelopment plan for a redep redevelopment project that's located on 7th Avenue. That ordinance is on tonight's agenda for final adoption. The third round ended on June 30th, 2025. So now all the municipalities in New Jersey
are firmly in the fourth round. So far in the fourth round, the bureau's um adopted well let me just go back. So the fourth round has already started and it establishes new processes and includes new parties. This is a very
different process the municipalities undertook for the third round. It includes very specific stringent timelines for actions which are much more expedited than in the third round. So it's a much more compressed process
than has ever been experienced in New Jersey. So far, the bureau's adopted a resolution adopting its obligations for its present need, which is its rehabilitation obligation of zero, and a prospective need of 43 units, which is
new construction. So the number that was assigned to the burrow was 43 units, new units needed to be constructed as part of its fourth round, subject to a vacant land adjustment, which we're going to talk about shortly. The bureau also adopted and endorsed its housing element
and fair share plan on June 16th, 2025. And that is the plan where the bureau explains how it's going to meet and satisfy its affordable housing obligations. Now, what happens if the bureau didn't do any of these things? didn't adopt a plan. Failure to meet this deadline
would result in the loss of immunity from builder's remedy litigation. So, we've talked about builder's remedy litigation over an um many times in the past at a number of meetings, but just as a reminder, builder's remedy suits uh or it's litigation where a developer
sues the burough to change the zoning for a particular site and then the municipality loses control of the zoning for that site. Couple more key deadlines are August 31st, 2025
was the deadline for interested parties to challenge the housing element and fair share plan that the bureau adopted. The burough received three challenges from Fair Share, one from Fair Share Housing, one from 10 a developer um
named 1014th Avenue LLC and another challenge from 7th Avenue Associates which has subsequently been withdrawn in connection with the order um of compliance for the third round. The next key deadline is coming up on December
31st, 2025. At that time the bureau has to uh provide a plan to the program which is a capital P which is a new entity which was created as part of the fourth round to resolve and address the affordable housing obligations. The bureau has to
commit and uh provide information to the program as to how it's going to address the issues that were raised in the challenges. The final key deadline is a March 15, 2026 deadline, by which time the bureau has to amend its housing element and
fair share plan and adopt resolutions and ordinances that are required in a revised housing element and fair share plan to address all of its affordable housing obligations. So, as I mentioned, the burough received three. Now, it's down to two challenges
to its housing element and fair share plan. One of the challenges was filed by Fair Share Housing Center. The challenge initially sought to terminate the burrow's fourth round immunity, which would have exposed the burrow to builder's remedy lawsuits, but that has subsequently been withdrawn
again in connection with the um issuance of the order by the court for the the uh compliance order that was issued by the court for the third round. The fair share challenge also disputes the vacant land adjustment and the realistic development potential calculation which
was calculated for the fourth round. Now just by way of explanation, I know a lot of you are familiar with these terms, but a vacant land adjustment is an adjustment to the burrow's prospective need, which we already talked about is 43 units obligation due to available land capacity. So given that there's not
that much available land in the burrow, the bureau took what's called a vacant land adjustment to adjust its obligation for 43 units. That VA then determines what's called the realistic development potential or RDP. And the RDP is the
bureau's affordable housing obligation based on available land capacity as determined by the vacant land adjustment. Those terms are come into play in this next point which is um fair share housing also challenged the bureau's plan to
meet what's called its unmet need obligation. The unmet need obligation is the difference between the 43 units or the bureau's allocated fair share obligation and its RDP. So in this case, 43 units
minus the RDP that it's been calculated as 14 units is 29 units for its unmet need. So the fair share challenge is disputing the bureau calculated its vacant land adjustment, how it came up with its realistic development potential
and is also challenging the burough's plan as to how it's going to meet its unmet need. Additionally, the burough received a challenge from a developer uh called 1014th Avenue LLC. That developer is
proposing a a project located at Fourth and Ocean, which is currently the site of uh Lulchce Vida Restaurant. This, as you can see, is a just a overview of the site location. This project was originally submitted to
the bureau in February of 2025, but the project that was originally submitted was not what's called an inclusionary project. And that's why the burrow did not include it in its housing element and fair share plan. By filing a challenge, this developer is seeking to
have its project included as uh part of the uh plan to satisfy its fourth round affordable housing obligations. This project was not included in the housing element fair share plan because originally it was not an inclusionary project
at that ocean and fourth site. The uh developer proposed a five-story building with 28 market rate units and ground level parking and then proposed a separate site for seven affordable units to be located at 10710th Avenue which
was not permitted under the affordable housing regulations. You can't build all market rate on one site and then on a separate site decide decide to put all your affordable housing units. So since it was not an inclusionary project, it was not included in the housing element and fair share plan. On August 29th,
2025, remember that was the deadline for challenges was August 31st, the developer filed a challenge to the burough's housing element and fair share plan with the revised project. This project included 30 units with six
affordable units located at the fourth and ocean site. This project was one four-story building with a parking garage located on the ground floor. On December 1st, 2025, the developer submitted a revised project to the
program, which is the entity that's making the determination as to the affordable housing obligations for the municipalities. And this project is a five-story building with 30 units with six affordable units, a ground floor parking garage, including 63 tandem parking
spaces. It's also representing that it would consider an alternate an alternative project of 4.4 stories, 4.5 stories with a rooftop amenity and adding 2500 square ft of commercial retail to the ground floor.
The only uh really sketches or renderings that Burroughs received for the project was from the 2025 uh the February 2025 project. And this was the rendering that was received for that initial project when it was first submitted to the bureau.
This is the proposed parking level on the first or the ground floor. This was the floor plan that was provided. And then when uh the redeveloper uh when the developer submitted its challenge in August, this was uh the revised um
parking plan on significantly different and also the floor plan which now included the affordable units grouped together at the back of the building. So what is the current status of the fourth round? The bureau is working
towards a resolution for its fourth round housing oblig uh affordable housing obligations. It is in ongoing negotiations with fair share housing center with 1014th Avenue with the special adjudicator and the program judge uh that's judge bookfinder.
The burough's plan includes um satisfying its realistic development potential with the project located at 7th Avenue and addressing the burough's unmet need obligation with an overlay zone. the next steps. One of them is on the
agenda this evening. As I mentioned, the uh bureau's considering adopting legislation required to finalize um the third round, which includes adopting the ordinance um for the amendment to the Seapport redevelopment plan for the 7th Avenue
project. That's on tonight's agenda. And also there's a session scheduled with the program tomorrow to present the bureau's plan to address the issues that have been raised by the challenges. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um I'm going
to add just go through a few things uh so I understand it completely. First I'm going to start at the very end. Tomorrow there's this um I'll call it a hearing with the with the program. What what is going to happen there and what might be
decided and uh is will it be decided tomorrow or do you think the judge will take time or just just give me an idea of what what we can expect tomorrow. >> So judge bookfinder can you guys hear me? >> Can you hear can you hear me now?
>> Okay. So, Judge Bookfinder is going to ask whether or not there's a settlement in this case. Um, we do not have a settlement. So, you know, we have been sending information back and forth to fair share in the hopes that we could settle with them. We have zero hope of
settling with 4th Avenue as we have and I want everyone to be well aware. We have stated under no uncertain terms that we are not interested in engaging in a project on Fourth and Ocean. So, I just want you guys all to know that the the governing body as well as
have said countless times that that is not something that we're willing to entertain that we'll take the obligation from that site and we'll address it elsewhere in a more appropriate location. So, I just before you guys get all up and attack me, just understand I'm on your side. Um, so what will
happen is he'll ask, "Are we ready to settle?" And we're going to say no. Um he's going to schedule another date. My guess is that this this they call them mediation sessions is going to last about 15 minutes because we are not
entering our settlement onto the into the record. He's going to schedule another time within the next couple weeks because this has to be done by December 31st. I'm hopeful that in those couple weeks we can at least come to a meeting of the minds with fair share and if we settle with fair share that's
great. If not, at that next date will be considered a quote unquote session where Francancy will put oral arguments on the record supporting the burough's position. Fair share will put their position on the record and Donna Jennings who represents 4th Avenue will
put her client's position on the record. End of story. Then the adjudicator here. >> Frank. Um so Frank will then provide not giving you know we'll ultimately get it but we have no input in it. He's going
to provide a recommendation to uh Judge Bookbinder and Judge Bookbinder will offer his recommendation to the Mount Laurel judge which here in Mammoth County is Judge Graasso Jones who as you know is been dealing with our third
round matter. And then nobody really knows what's going to happen after December 31st, whether there's going to be hearings, whether the M Laurel judge is going to make a decision on the papers and then ensuing litigation. So tomorrow is going to be did you guys
settle? Nope. We provided additional information to fair share. They're going to tell tell us they haven't had a chance to look at it. I guarantee it. And then they're going to schedule another time depending on his calendar. It could be next week. It could be the week after. I'm really hoping it's not
like December 31st. Just saying. Um but there is going to be no decision tomorrow. But I do want the public to know because I saw like on Facebook there was a lot of angst and concern about this for that project. I want everyone to be aware that these folks up
here as well as Francia and myself, we're not supportive of that project. So we're not here to convince you that's a good thing. We're fighting on your behalf to say this is not something that the burough is interested in engaging in and we definitely are not looking for a four or five story building on Ocean
Avenue which would be inconsistent with the the stretch. So that's basically what is scheduled to happen tomorrow. Judge Bookbinder is efficient. There are others that are a little bit more long-winded, but like he is very efficient. If there's no settlement, he's like great, here's the date. Have a
nice day. That's how it's going to be tomorrow. Okay. And ultimately when all all these mediations and other dates are done, assuming we're just left with the 4th Avenue project, which we're not going to settle on anything, what what ultimately
happens a trial? >> Well, like I said, I'm sorry again. >> Yes. No. No. >> Hello. I'm not very technologically advanced, so like I'm not understanding why it's working and not working. Um, so Judge Bookbinder is going to make a
recommendation. So my experience because I am an adjudicator in about 25 other towns obviously not here uh my experience is in the event that a municipality is able to settle with fair share even if there's an unhappy developer in those instances my experience has been that the judge
recommends to the Mount Laurel judge certification of our plan irrespective of the developer challenge. Um, so that really is a critical path for us over the next couple weeks is to get fair share on board because if we get them on
board and they're committed to settling, it puts the bureau in a much better position. Not to say if we don't settle with them, we're not in a good position. It will just go to the Mount Laurel judge. I cannot imagine that they're going to make a decision of this magnitude without at least hearing from
the parties. But the legislation stops December 31st. So like we don't really know how they're going to handle it. Um but and I also would venture to guess that January is going to be a pretty slow month because everyone's going to be getting all these recommendations and
their bearings and people are going to be filing litigation. So it probably won't pick up again until like Februaryish. Um, but yeah, that's generally what's going to happen is it's going to go before Judge Jones and then she's going to make which we've been before multiple times and she's going to make an
ultimate decision. >> She'll make that decision without without like a hearing. >> Well, nobody knows. That's That's good. Hold on. Hold on. I haven't You notice I haven't touched anything. I don't understand why it keeps going on and off because I don't touch any buttons. Um I
don't know what she's going to do. My guess is that Judge Jones is is um very thorough and so I can't imagine her making decisions on behalf of municipalities without at least
a one hearing. But it ultimately is up to the Mount Laurel judges. We don't really know. And even if I ask the program judges who are retired, they don't know what's going to happen past December 31st either. >> Okay. So, we don't we're in the dark as
far as that goes. But, I guess at that point, we would have to figure out what, if anything, we need to do if if the if the uh the judge says, "Oh, yeah. I'm going to approve uh this project to be part of your fourth round." And then and
then we'll have that take it from there. >> It's not just me. Just so you know, one has to stop or one can start. Yes. So, um, so yes, I just want to emphasize for everybody that's here, the reason why nobody really knows what's next is because this is unchartered territory.
This is this is a new program. The fourth round is not at all similar to the third round. So, this is all um a new program, a new process. So, that's why there's really no clear answer as to what happens next because no one's done this. Like, all the municipalities are in the same boat. They're going through
their conferences. They're going through their sessions, but no one really knows what the process looks like. Even the judges are still sort of sorting it out. So, but to answer your question, mayor, um yes, there will be uh the program Capital P makes the initial determination and recommendation. The
Mount Laurel judge makes her ruling and then that would be subject to an appeal. >> Okay. Um, and like uh we said already, you know, I know that I will never be voting for this project,
right? When if it comes in January, February, March, I mean, that is not going to happen. Not not for me. So, um, and I think, you know, I think at that point we'll I think hopefully we'll all be on board with with that decision. Uh
but again, you know, hopefully we won't get that far and we'll we'll we'll come to some agreement that this should not be built. Uh I I just want to go back for a little bit just to maybe for some of the people who aren't familiar with some of the terms and things that go on
and you can correct me if I'm wrong. At the beginning, we talked about the third round um judgment of repose and judgment and repose. And I think in my mind that's the the the the like certificate
that we get that says you know we have immunity correct that's >> yes >> okay so you know >> until until July of of 2025 so >> the fourth round has started >> the fourth round has started but we will have completed the third round which
started 10 years ago. >> Well it started in 2000. Well, it started in 2000, but we we have finally gotten the municipality to the point now where we're going to get, you know, like the good housekeeping stamp of approval and we've done everything we need to do.
We're getting our, you know, our judgment and as soon as we get our judgment, it starts all over again. Basically, that it started all over again. >> That's correct. So now we want to we want to go through the fourth round so we can get another good housekeeping, you know, seal of
approval and another judgment that says we're good for the next 10 years cuz that the next round fourth round ends in what 2035. >> 2035. >> Okay. So I don't want anybody coming 10 years from now and I'm 81 years old telling me, you know, how come you guys
didn't do it 10 years ago? But we're going to do it and hopefully we're going to do it this year. Um, I know some of the numbers can be confusing. They were very confusing for me and I'm going to try to just if for some of you to
explain it and you can you can interrupt me if I'm wrong but the the somehow some magic is performed and these numbers are created that says Belmar needs these many uh you know um present need and this many perspective need and as I
think Francie said our our present need is zero and our perspective need was 40 >> 43 43. Now in my mind that means the prospective need is if you have if you have a place to to build you can you
know you have to put in 43 43 units at least >> affordable housing >> moderate low and moderate income units. So the 43 is not total units it's low and moderate income units. Yes. So, and and then this other term vacant land adjustment that that goes for uh
municipalities, for example, that may not have any land to or have has little land to to build things. So, what they allow is for the municipality to do an adjustment, correct? That says, you know, oh yeah, we know we need 47, but
you know, based on the condition of all the different property in the town, you know, we only have room to put whatever. What did what did we say in our >> 14 >> 14 so that's and that's another term which I al used to get confused but
that's our realistic development potential you it only took me like two years to get this but the realistic development potential and what we tried to show tonight is that we are arguing that we've already met that realistic
development potential with the projects that that have been approved already. And that's going to be mostly the 7th Avenue project. So, we we should be good with that. Um, so I I just wanted to explain that a little bit so you don't get lost um in the numbers. Now, why did
we get this uh Fourth Avenue project in? And I think the the the the thing that we have to remember there, that's somebody who's coming in objecting to our plan and basically they're saying, "Oh, we can give you more affordable housing." Correct.
But you know, but for us to give you more, you know, we want to become part of this program and we want to become part of this program so that we can kind of like avoid the current zoning laws and we can, you know, negotiate with you
and come up with, you know, new laws that will just be adapted for our project. And that that's the simple way of looking at this. And this is how you know why developers get involved in affordable housing because then it
allows them to build things in areas where normally they wouldn't be able to build it due to the zoning restrictions. So, and that's the tact we're taking. We're saying we don't need this project. We have other ways that we can meet any other burdens that that are coming down the pike. So, you know, just let us
approve our plan and uh and let us get our uh certificate for the fourth round. But as you can see, it's it's fraught with um things going in and out of court, which is always not a great thing. Uh having worked in the courts for over 28 years, you know, everything
is delay delay and you you we lose control at that point. So, um you know, we we I would like to see it, you know, settled by developers saying he's not going to do this. That's my
that's my goal. And that's why I suggested that everybody come here tonight because uh this does not have to move forward. And um again, it's uh it's not in our position to say, "Oh, I'm not going to do it." But you know, there's
always an option for someone to say, "You know what? I changed my mind. I think I'm going to build something within the zoning uh that's already covering my property." and and that's what I you know I would hope that's going to happen. I don't think
realistically that that's going to happen, but I think um that's something that uh again you people you know coming here tonight and writing letters and whatever. I think you can um it shows that the community is against
this project and I think that's what we we have to keep doing because this is going to take a few more weeks, maybe longer. We don't know what the position is going to be of the courts. So, you know, I ask you to keep keep um keep it up, keep saying we don't want this
project. And, you know, we're going to do our side uh to do whatever we can legally to uh to stop it. Now, uh I'm going to allow questions at this point in the uh in the um uh workshop, but
first I'll ask the members of the council if they have any comments or questions. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, I know you've said before that judges tend to assume that the public is against a project because they are against affordable housing, but
since Belmar has put forth a very good faith effort to meet those affordable housing needs and because we have a history of um trying to prevent large developments on Ocean Avenue for environmental reasons, for aesthetic
reasons, would that hold more weight with the court with the petition submitted? No, >> sorry. I don't care. >> So, we have to prov we have to put forth a compliant plan. It's up to the bureau
how they satisfy their obligation. So, the argument is going to be over the vacant land adjustment and the 14 units. They're going to say that it's too low. We're going to say it's accurate. Um, but they don't care. They don't care if
we have sewer capacity. They don't care if the roads are congested. They don't care if you're not going to be able to get out of your driveway. They don't care. I mean, I don't I don't mean to be crass about it, but it they don't care. >> While it might not go to definitively towards their decision, if there is such
a petition or any sort of input from the um from the community, I would certainly convey that to the to the program as to what the burough's position is if there's something like that and make an application to submit that to the court. But to Jen's point, they generally they're they don't care as far as as
we've discussed before, water, sewer, park, traffic, parking, those are not uh impactful on the on these decisions. >> Just it's fair to say that, you know, Maria and I aren't going to be here in January, but is it fair to say that the three of you are against this project on
Ocean Avenue? Can I take that straw poll? Abs. I already said it. Absolutely. Absolutely. >> That's good because because the two new council people accepted a $500 contribution from the developer, making them ineligible to vote on this because it's a violation of our payto-play
ordinance. So, it's good to know that we have three on the council who will be against this all the way. >> Yes, we will. And uh we of course we would look forward to seeing you guys in the audience getting up and making comments that uh would be appropriate.
Uh one other thing I just wanted to clarify for some people who might not uh understand that fair share housing is a group is a nonprofit that the Supreme Court way back when test with the uh with the obligation to represent the the
all of the individuals that that would benefit from affordable housing. So they're the advocate for for affordable housing. So that's why you'll hear us always say fair share housing, fair share housing. You know, they're advocating for as much affordable housing as they can get, which is a good
thing because, you know, we all we all agree that it's needed. So, um, I just wanted to clarify that when you hear these terms bouncing around, uh, sometimes you might not understand what it is. So, it's, you know, in all of these, uh, uh, cases, there's always a number of parties. You know, you have
the fair share housing people, you have the municipality, and you have the developer. Uh, you heard Jen talk about Frank. Well, that was Frank Banish. He's a special master who essentially is like an arm of the court who who works and
and tries to resolve these things and reports back to the court as to to what happens. So these are the people, you know, that have been involved in in the third round things with us and now in the fourth round. So it's, as I've said before, it's like a it's like a three or
four-way negotiation. And unfortunately, we're probably in the weakest negotiating position of all the four people. But, you know, I know we're going to try to do the best we can to uh to uh you know, not have this project go
through. So, if there are no more questions from the council members, I am going to open it up to the public. Um, and I would only ask that, you know, make your comments quick because there's a lot of people here. And if you're going to just say the same thing as
someone else has said, you know, after a while, you just use your common sense and uh and let's not have a hundred people repeating the same thing. But um if you have any questions or comments uh
now's the time uh to ask and no question is too stupid. So just come on up and and I'll give you five minutes. Neil, maybe I'll give you six. I don't know. >> He said too stupid.
>> Too stupid. That's a signal for Neil Shack for Fourth Avenue. >> Hello. Hello. Hello. >> Uh, so the mayor said, "You want to know how how we feel about this, but then we're we're told that the judge doesn't
want to hear from us." And uh and you were already set in your opinion. So you still want to hear from us whether we are for or against it, right? >> Absolutely.
>> So people people shouldn't come up here. People shouldn't make repetitive speeches, but they should say whether they're for or against it if they want to be counted for or against. Right. >> Right. I mean, and we don't need to have everyone come up and say that. I assume that most of the people here are against
it. I'm I'm going to do something which I'm I'm sure people are not going to raise. Is there anyone here who's for it? If brave enough to raise their hand. Well, so you know, I I think we can
assume that this is one of the larger crowds we've had in in in weeks uh for a meeting and and I'm and again I thank you all for coming out because I asked you to come out at at the last meeting. So I I do think though that in a in our
community doing this and showing our the fact that we're we're not for it. I do think it has an effect. I'm hoping it will have an effect. Okay. Uh, so, so there's no point in us delineating why we don't think there
should be that development on 4th Avenue because you're already there's no >> Yeah. You don't have to convince us that it shouldn't be there. You're right. You're absolutely right. >> Or or to say what we think should be there, >> right? >> And I've got my own vision of what would be great there, but there's no point.
>> Right. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Neil. I'm uh Jim Leran from 1096. Uh thank you for the explanation, mayor, on the uh don't need them. I just want to get clarity on that. If we don't need fourth, right, that means we already
have everything else on the commitment. Then why are we worried about fourth? Is this because they bring another plan to the judge to say, "Hey, I can give you 10 more by the way, above what what's required." Why do we care about what for does or doesn't do? We've got a requirement. We met it. >> So we haven't been certified. We're
still into mediation. They filed a formal challenge and so they get a seat at the table. Um, and there's always push on behalf of Clearly the Developer as well as Fair Share Housing Center. More is better than less in their minds.
We're here to say no, we're going to give you exactly what it is that we're required to pursuant to the law. Um and we have worked very hard the committee, the the subcommittee as well as um
Francancy especially to put forth a plan that has the ability to utilize the 7th Avenue project which is in the redevelopment area west of Main Street. um that is giving us 10 10 affordable
units as part of that development through the negotiations and they're eligible for bonus credits due to the proximity of the train station so we can realize all 14 credits through that project. So when we say we don't need them in our minds we have a compliant
plan. They're going to keep fighting, fighting, fighting, saying that our evaluation of the number should be higher and therefore we should use that project. I can assure you that even if they are successful in convincing the court that the number should be higher,
I don't foresee that they would be able to convince them that it would be higher than like we're calculating four units being generated as an obligation out of that site. They're saying six. So if let's say they win and it is six, we still have the ability to address that
additional two units somewhere else. So it is ingrained in all the regulatory documentation going way back to the Fair Housing Act that it's a municipality's right to determine how to satisfy their obligation. Unless we lose immunity,
which we still have because we have been participating, we get to pick and choose how we satisfy the obligation. So, we have been very clear through the process that regardless of what number they assigned to it, and I feel like we're in a very strong position in the position
that we're in uh when we calculated the four units. Um, but we've been very clear there's we have no intention of including the site and if we have to do something else, we will. And that's basically what we've told them. So the question is if you've got a need and you met the need how often does a judge make
decision say we want more because we can get more. I mean how realistic is that? So once we get through this process and assuming we get a favorable recommendation to the Mount Laurel judge and the Mount Laurel judge certifies our plan then we have a judgment of proposal until 2035 and then 2035 this I don't
know what's I'm hoping that I'm retired by then but um just saying but we don't really know if you had asked me before this last the the legislation that came out last year if this is what this process would look like I would have said no. So, I don't really know what
the next round is going to look like. If you know if it's the same, if it's changed, I would venture to guess it's changed cuz it's been the worst possible experience ever. But, um, but once we we need that judgment of repose, once we get that, which is what the mayor had
indicated we got for round three, um, once we get that judgment of repose, then it doesn't matter what what they think. Now, they're subject to the current zoning. They do not get any beneficial status. and the negotiations are over. So, we have to satisfy Frank
Banish who's the special adjudicator on behalf of the court who is pretty favorable to the bureau and understands the the issues that we're dealing with as well as fair share housing center. If we do that, we're golden. So, that's kind of the goal over the next couple weeks to get that done um in order to
get a favorable recommendation so we get that judgment of propose. >> Last question, different topic. We have four third round is completed. Building will start at some point not too far. We go through this round with the 43 units we're committed to. >> Well, that's the obligation. We adjusted
it down to 14 and it ultimately is going to be if if the number holds, which we're very confident that it will. I mean, we're confident, right? Um uh and we're going to get four bonus credits to satisfy the 14 units. So, it
would be one project for this round. >> Okay. Got it. And that project could start eight years from now. We've got a 10 year. >> I mean, they still would have to go to the planning board. It would be a public hearing. >> It could be delayed for quite some time only because we've got buildings, massive building going on in the third round.
>> I mean, knowing this lawyer, I would venture to guess it's not going to be the case. >> My guess is that she's probably going to beat some of them to the finish line just because that's just her disposition and she's a little, you know, she is aggressive. So, um, but you know, once
like that 7th Avenue project is part of our fourth round. So, we would not be in a position to zone it until next year. We're not obligated to zone. Well, we're doing that tonight, right? We're doing that tonight. Sorry. >> Sorry. I've been doing this a long time.
Um, but they would have to then formulate site plans, submit to the planning board, get deemed complete, go through that process. But um but that is you know there's no like cue where like third round projects go first. It just
depends on who's ready, who has the zoning, and who has the plans. >> I only ask >> No, no. I I totally understand. >> If we're building the next two or three years massively around this, especially around this area, you would think realistically, I know they're not realistic, but you would think realistically you could push building
back some period of time because we just can't handle this kind of building in one spot. We don't have that ability to to dictate like when they start. Once they get through this process and they have all of the requisite, you know, ducks in a row, let's just say, then
it's on their schedule. >> Good. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Good evening, Carlos Montto, 7th Avenue. I just have a question. In the event that the cord for through settlement
negotiations, it's determined that we actually need more than the 14 uh units. Is the 7th Avenue project done? >> That's we've maxed out what what would be allowed on that property. >> Okay. So, we couldn't increase the
number. The problem with that site, I mean, we could always do that if they wanted to, but the problem with that site and the limitation on how much development they were able to get on the property was determined by the parking. >> I'm not talking about increasing the
number of units. I'm talking about increasing the number of uh the affordable housing. >> They will never do it. >> They would never do it. developer would make a little bit less >> and we could meet. >> No way. I I understand what you're
saying. I've been doing this for 30 years. I've never seen anybody do that ever. >> So, that's a done deal. We can't >> I mean, that was part of our negotiated settlement with to to get us a compliance judgment in the third round. So, yeah, that's pretty much done.
>> Okay. CL Henry 18th and B. Um see dates of February, see dates of August. Um my sister and I hosted a meet and greet um in October and we had members from the Democrats, members from the Republicans,
and there was a lot of talk about uh Seapport redevelopment, but there's no mention of this. Is there a reason why was this like a hush hush that there was no mention of it at all? I had a phone call today saying we were at your home. We talked to people and nothing was mentioned about, you know, 4th Avenue.
Is there a reason? >> Well, the the the um objection was only filed in in December, >> August 31st. >> August 31st because they waited till the very last day to file an objection. So
there was we had no we had no idea that this was on the radar. There was a project as as they said which was not an inclusionary project. >> It wasn't it wasn't a compliant. >> It wasn't compliant. >> So we didn't entertain it. >> It wasn't complant. >> So council wasn't even aware.
>> We didn't know until August 31st that there would definitely be another um person who would come in. >> And I I just want to say for the record, >> we didn't have renderings. We didn't see any of of this project. But but I want to state for the record because like I
said I I do this in a lot of towns both on the municipal side as well as on the adjudicator side. It is not atypical for someone to file a challenge that hasn't approached the municipality and asked to sit down and have conversations. I mean I represent a town in Somerset County. There's 12 challengers. We talked to
two. So 10 came out of the woodwork. We didn't know anything about it until September 1st. So, it's not atypical to I know there's a a plan in the PowerPoint that says February that came in. It was totally non-compliant with the regul the regulatory. So, it was not
even entertained because it was not regulatory compliant. We didn't hear about this new plan until September 1st when we looked on eorts or whatever the date was the the Tuesday after Labor Day when we looked on ECords and saw that there was a challenge there. >> Okay. My basic concern was the fact that
you know we invite people to our home. Um they ask questions and then you know this was >> clear as a member of council I saw those plans for the first time at the last meeting. >> Yeah. >> Oh at the last meeting
a lot of back and forth I mean not that we had them and we weren't giving them. There was a lot of back and forth with with the uh developer and and so on. I mean, so it's not something that we're going to bring out. Plus, we're in, you know, we don't know if we're going to be in a negotiating process or anything
like that. So, it's not really um there's really no advantage at that point like on September 2nd to say, "Oh, we got, you know, these three uh people that are three organizations that are um objecting to our plan because that's
what we had as of uh September 1st. There were three uh fair share housing, the 7th Avenue plan, and then fourth Avenue plan were all um objecting to our plan. So that was like the starting point.
>> Well, mayor, you've been so objecting against it also. I would have thought you would have filled your council. >> Thank you. Um, >> I think that respectfully I feel like given the fact that we pretty much anticipated this reaction to that plan,
it was a non-starter from the beginning. We basically have told this developers council from day one, no. So there's no reason to get you guys all up in arms if we're not even willing to entertain it. Um so and the mediation and those
sessions are not really open to the public. So you know there's there's legal parameters that we have to deal with. But the answer to them unequivocally from the first time we saw the challenge was no. So it wasn't like they were trying to hide something from
you. >> Yeah. And just to be clear, it's part of ongoing litigation. We uh until I think when we filed our response, the bureau filed our response a couple days ago and we were not going to present in in public session on matters that were were
um part of ongoing litigation. We were not going to discuss the bureau's approach, the bureau's calculations, anything that was relevant to that litigation. What's changed now is the burough filing um is public. It's part of e courts. So the documents are out there and it's um you know at least that
portion of the ongoing litigation is more public now but up until that point it was part of ongoing litigation. >> Okay. Thank you first Avenue. I just want to bring this down to my level. You're going to court because they want 43 units and we want
to give them 14. Oh, that's not so the DCA again with this microphone. I'm not loving these microphones, guys. Um, the DCA last October calculated
prospective need, which is new construction obligation for every town in New Jersey. That came out October in after Thanksgiving or right around Thanksgiving of last year. the the hard
data behind the numbers came out um and they said that our obligation was 43. >> In the regulations, there's a mechanism called a vacant land adjustment that most of the shore towns up and down here in Mammoth County utilize because there's not a lot, you know, we're not
up freehold, right? We don't have expansive farmland, etc. So, there is an ability to adjust the number using this vacant land adjustment, which is what we did. And our vacant land adjustments say that 43 is unattainable.
14 is the number that we need to satisfy in the fourth round. >> Do we need the courts to approve that? >> Correct. >> And what is the percentage of all your experience? Is that something does that look legit? >> I mean, like I said, we're very
confident in the calculations that we've done. We've used pretty uh reasonable uh numbers in the establishment of that determination. The majority of the number quite honestly 10 of the 14 units
that we're obligated to uh address come from the 7th Avenue site because that's the number of units that they're providing there in terms of affordable units. We so we went in at 10 and then when this new challenger came in on fourth a we had to adjust the number
because we don't want to put a project there but technically now the site is available for development because the owner of the property is making the request. So we evaluated the size of the property and calculated that an
additional four units would be required bringing our total to 14 which 100% is being addressed at 7th Avenue. So there's no other project. Now is this developer going to be happy with that determination tomorrow? Definitely not.
And they're going to try to poke poke poke to try to get leverage to get into the plan. Um, so that's why I've said that we need to get the special adjudicator and fair share on board with our analysis, which we've been very
successful in doing in the prior round. It took a while to get there, but we did get there. So, I'm confident in the numbers, but I'm also confident that if the numbers go up, it's probably going to go up by a factor of maybe two. We can address that somewhere else. Like I don't want you to worry that if the
number goes up a little bit we're going to cave in and say okay well now they have to do a project at Ocean and Forth. That is definitely not the disposition. I mean she's a lot nicer than me. I am not nice in these mediations. So you know I have been very clear that it's not happening. We'll figure it out somewhere else.
>> And is that your authority that judge? That's that's my question. We you want 14. You did all the work. That looks good. everything went these people came in sneaky last minute said here we have more you know now we can raise the numbers and is is the is the question
that you're doing your thing or is the judge going to say oh they're giving you more affordable housing so they have to go go ahead >> no the judge is not going to make that determination at all what's going to happen is she's going to say to Frank Banish oh he's bookender right bookfinder he's going to say to Frank
Banish do you agree with the analysis that the bureau did. If Frank says yes and fair share says yes, then the judge is going to is going to act favorably. That's what we're kind of dealing with tomorrow. I mean, the developer is
always going to argue argue argue and then they're going to try to pick apart other things in the plan. So because they want leverage, but >> I wanted to be abundantly clear even if they're successful in driving the number up a little bit. It will not be up go up by a substantial amount and it
definitely will never achieve that 43 number at all. But if it goes up a little bit, we have we have advised the judge as well as the adjudicator and fair share that we will address the we will address that increased obligation somewhere else. Yes.
>> And that's I mean we've said that multiple times and but we will not know ultimately whether or not what the court recommend what the program recommendation is to the Mount Laurel judge probably until very close to New
Year's because there were 426 municipalities in the state that filed plans on June 30th. 400 of them were challenged by either just fair share or a litany of other people and there's
seven program judges managing 400 cases. So, you know, it's it's been since September 1st, it has been crazy. And so, we won't we probably won't know until very close to the end of this this
calendar year what the situation is. And that's just that's a case for every town. Not just unique to Belar, >> right? I appreciate all that. Take all the affordable housing out of this issue. There's still a project for Fourth Avenue, I'm assuming. Where? How does that happen? What? Where does
>> No, there is no project for Fourth Avenue happening. There's no >> if they don't get into this process, which we're steadfast against, they would have to file for a use variance before the zoning board and come in for a use variance, which I mean, I can't
speak for the board, but I feel safe in saying it probably wouldn't be met very positively, but they don't get any benefit on their development by filing. If they if we say no and they still want that project, they have to go for a use.
Hi. Hi. Uh, KJFO, 305 Ocean Avenue. So, you asked for people to come. People came last minute, scrambled, got here because they thought it was important and we feel strongly about this, but you also have us telling you telling us that the the courts don't care.
>> That's not what that's not what I said. I think you guys are misunderstood. The question was because the burrow has routinely fought against dense development on Ocean Avenue. Does the court take that into consideration? No, they don't. >> So, what can we do? I mean, that's the
point. Like, I'm not I'm not questioning I'm not trying to be >> No, no, I understand. I mean, >> what all of these people are here and they're they they want to do something. So, what can what can we do? What is effective? You know, if petitions aren't effective, >> you should probably ask tomorrow. I mean
what I would recommend because I will tell you that the program would not allow if you were not part of the program meaning you didn't file a challenge in September or by August 31st or our municipality or fair share they
really won't allow additional people to enter the process just because of the strict time frame. But what we can do is when we're before the judge >> tomorrow which I think we're at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning on Zoom. So we're not even in court, right? So we're on
Zoom. Um we will represent Francancy we the royal weight Francie will represent to the judge that you know we had a room full of people that you know it's just we're not just taking this position being difficult because people are opposed to affordable housing which is
typically the go-to immediate response and that's not the case. But the case is is that there's there is a development plan, an aesthetic uh to of being on Ocean Avenue. I recognize it. I
understand you guys recognize it. And um the room was packed standing room only. And the residents want to know if there's a mechanism by which they can whether it's you know one letter that you all sign that gets you know uploaded
through something. We'll have to ask, but I will definitely make sure we ask because, you know, it's important for uh the program as well as fair share, I think, and Frank to know that it's not just us being difficult. It's, you know,
we're trying to address the obligation the best way we can, right? Comply with the constitutional obligation, which is never easy. I'm not going to lie. It's never easy. But we want to make sure that we're not doing it in a way that let's just say the word and I've heard this before and this is something that's
important drastically alters the character of a community that is and and I have heard Judge Jones say that multiple times throughout the time that she's been the moral judge here in Mammoth County when you have developers pushing for things that are really
inappropriate and she has stated a lot of our a lot of your neighbors you know have had these various problems. Um and she has stated that I can't even tell you how many times. So we will ask judge bookbinder what mechanism would be available to enable that you know you
were asked to come out on short notice on a freezing cold night. Um the room is packed you know standing room only. I'm assuming that the majority of the people here are here because of this issue and that we will let him know and we will ask him if there's a mechanism and
available like an available avenue um for some kind of participation. It may have to wait until it gets to the Mount Laurel judge just because of the aggressive time frames and now we're like 3 weeks to the end of it. So, but I will definitely make the ask and we will
report back through Kevin. and I'm assuming you're going to be on the call tomorrow. Um, >> and then how will we how will we get that information? I think that for some of us it feels like I'm not saying that anyone was trying to hide information, but we feel a little blindsided by this. And maybe that's a sign that we're not
as connected as a town as we should be, but like how is this information then going to be relayed to to all of the people here so that we can do whatever needs to happen because like a last minute Facebook frantic post. >> No, I get that part of it. I don't know. We can work. I can work.
>> Are you signed up for um have you ever signed up for the newsletter or the Nixl alerts? >> No. >> Okay. Um April, is there a place online where you can sign up for that >> on the website? >> Where on the website is that?
>> It's under the residents tab. But we have a whole affordable housing page on our website too where we can post different documents. will post the PowerPoint presentation and any other documents that come up. >> Mayor, is it
>> um if you sign up for that the newsletter or alerts, we can make sure that a newsletter goes out that will update you once there is something to definitively update you with. Um >> Okay. I >> I just want to say that there were two reasons really why it was important that
everybody come here tonight. My one of my first reasons was I wanted everyone to get good information. uh you know uh I'm not crazy about you know Facebook being the news media and lots of times you know things get misinterpreted or they're you know tap
into doesn't doesn't say things that are particularly accurate. So I I want people to be able to come to a meeting like this and hear it, you know, firsthand uh from our experts who have the training and the experience to do
that. So to me, I think that's that's a benefit. The second thing is I think by all of you coming here, you're you're setting a tone for the future for the future developers who may have in the back of their minds, oh, Belmar needs
another, you know, such and such on Ocean Avenue or maybe one block in from Ocean Avenue or, you know, something else. And and what you're doing now is you're setting the tone basically saying, you know what, if somebody else tries to pull something like this, we're
going to speak up because we're not going to keep, you know, uh, having these developments being built that we don't want. And it also sends a message to our boards, our planning board and our zoning board that you know what uh
you know do what's right but you know uh take into account that you know as you said we want to keep the character of Belmore the way it is. We don't need you know construction that is going to change the character of our town. So you know it's very important that you're
here. It's going to be great. Hopefully this will be, you know, uh, in the newspaper, um, and, you know, people will hear about it, but you're sending a message out there to, you know, the developers that are hovering in all of the towns, not just Belmar. You know, they're
looking for places because you don't know what might happen. You know, four or five people up on Ocean Avenue might decide, oh, they're going to sell, you know, and the next thing you know, there's a developer who wants to build build something there. So, I think you're sending a message and I think that's a very important thing for us to
do as a community because it's so hard to to do that sometimes, you know, on our own. So, um I don't want you to feel like you wasted your time coming here tonight. Uh I think you you were giving you information and we're going to keep giving you information and I think you're providing a great service to our
community by being here and by, you know, saying, you know, you don't agree with stuff like this. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. Mark O'Neal, 11th Avenue. Uh, a while back there was discussion of potentially claiming some units in the senior
building and I know some of you on up there supported it, some didn't. Is that something that we could revisit because a lot of the discussion on that seemed like it was the against were just ridiculous discussions?
>> We're we're we we we're not going to do that. Um because it's not up to us. It's really up to the the the housing authority commissioners. >> Yeah. Um the commissioner said he couldn't manage two lists. That would be too hard. I forget what the other reason
was that we're going to throw out senior citizens. You're not going to throw out anybody. I mean, it >> it's something that, you know, uh we were able to to do what we needed to do in this time without even having to consider that. Um and and quite frankly,
that's a very hot button issue. Um, you know, you mention anything about senior citizens and you know, it it just blows up. But um you know it would be up to the commissioners of the Baltimore housing authority because there will
come a time when we will have our affordable housing trust fund and the in the I think the law allows us uh as as a municipality to um share in some of those funds with our housing authority.
The the crux of the problem is though that the the the housing authority then would have to become part of the of the section that we're in our our affordable housing section which is Mammoth Ocean and Mercer counties. So there would be a
portion of that building then that would have a list for people outside of Delmare and that's really the the the crux of the problem. last discussion there was 85 people on the list and there was not a donor resident on the list. >> It's uh it's something though that
really has to be initiated from the from the housing authority and have their support before we would even consider it. How how opaque is the calculation? Like how much wiggle room is there? We're saying 14 units like is it how much is
left up to interpretation? So the different the the variable factor in that calculation is acreage time density time 20%. Right? So the acreage and the 20% is a fixed entity. So the the
variable is the density. I will tell you that we use 32 units of the acre. So that's a pretty high density. I see towns using 6 10 12. it would never fly here because we have this objector and we've used that density globally
throughout when we've calculated it out. So, you know, their proposal is 30 units, 20% would be six affordable. But when you take the size of the property, multiply it times 32 units to the acre and then you multiply it by 20%. It
comes out to four. So we feel very strongly in the calculation because we're not trying to manufacture a lower number by using an unrealistic density that fair share and the court would never approve. Go ahead. >> Go ahead.
>> I just want to note too that fair share uh this was the same density that the burough used for the third round that fair share agreed to and the court approved in the third round. So they're being we're being consistent with what was used in the third round and the fourth round. What what exactly is fair share's challenge in that?
>> Fairshare they a lot of the stuff that they want is just additional information. So there's a lot of requirements to be included in the plan in terms of you know an update on your third rounding. Um how you plan to meet your unmet need,
what kind of zoning you're proposing. Are you meeting your micro requirements? Having 50% of your units as family units, 25% of the units as family rentals. No more than 30% of the units provided as senior. Like there's all these little things that they're
checking to make sure we've done. I think we're pretty much there on all those items. I think like this is the last piece of it to you know we have been very clear as I said that you know we're going to take whatever the obligation generated off this site which
we feel very strongly is for um and we can address it elsewhere. They they can't prevent us from doing that, but they could argue with us that they want the calculation to be at a higher density, which we would argue because as Francie said, we've been using that
density consistently for like the past what 5 years. >> Yes. So if they agree, will they withdraw their challenge and then there's no >> what would happen is we would enter into a settlement with them >> and then for that out. >> Yes. >> Well, I mean, they're going to challenge
us. I mean, so >> but we've met the we've met, >> right? So we would we would so what will happen is we would probably have a hybrid settlement which is what the program judges are calling it where we would settle with fair share but then obviously forth a would be annoyed that
they would not be included so they would continue to challenge but it puts the bureau in a much stronger position going to the Mount Laurel judge because they really do defer to fair share on whether or not a municipality has complied with all the regulatory requirements. So,
they're still going to fight us. We're still going to get a challenge in in superior court before Judge Jones on fourth a unless they give up. Um, but I doubt it. But at the end of the day, you know, I feel very confident in the work
that we've done to say, okay, this was not a site that we even entertained because it has an active business on it. And oh by the way, it came to the board of adjustment 3 years ago for an approval to combine the businesses with the pro the property next door. Um so why would one think that it would be
available for this development so soon after going through that process? We did look into it to see whether the the restaurant owner was even aware that this was happening cuz sometimes they're a tenant, not the owner. I wasn't aware he is the owner of the property and is
part of this process. So I I didn't know that. Um so we we did all that digging to to figure out where we were. We recognized that the site now technically according to the regulatory requirements is available and that's why we did the calculation and increased the number
from 10 to 14. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Hi, Kevin Brennan 605. First, let me state that I am pro affordable housing. And I'm I'm just a little confused with the numbers, not on how we got there.
None of it's 43, none of it's 14. It's if it is 14 or 16. And we said that takes care of our obligation. Is that for all the developments that are going on or is it just for one particular site? I know we've got like three or
four developments going on all over the place. >> So I can answer that easily. So the other projects that you're referring to are round three projects. This is a round four project. So we were we didn't really finish round three or we're
almost done. We're not we're not done with round three. Um which technically ended July of 2025. So, we're finishing round three. So, those other projects that you're referring to went to address our third round obligation.
July 15th, the 15th of 2025, round four started. So, this is 7th Avenue is the project that satisfies our round four, which is the 14 number. >> Those other projects are for the prior round. They're just they just are coming
around now. That's why you're aware of them, but they're to satisfy. And just for the edification of everybody here, round three went from 2000 to 2025. That was a 25 year period, which is why the numbers were so much bigger because there was a lot of issues with the
regulations over that over that 25 year period of time, which is what necessitated the Supreme Court to step in in 2015 and take over. So those projects that you're referring to like Mark Belt or Sackman or Russo that I
know have come around, I don't know what stage they're in, but those are round three sites. Those are not round four sites. >> So we could have more affordable housing because of those. >> No. So they satisfied our round three. We got our compliance, our conditional compliance. So that's done. That round
is done. Round four is what we're dealing with now. Once we get a judgment of compliance in this round, which we're hoping will be in early 2026, we're set until 2035. After 2035 is the next round, and who knows what it's
going to look like at that point in time. >> Okay. >> So, I feel like I'm stupid asking this question. >> It's okay. No, it's fine. >> And and I it's just not 100% clear to me. So, at the end of the day, at the end of round four, >> Yes.
>> is it 14 plus the other guys? Well, I mean, it's all cumulative, right? So, round three will happen >> and then our round four is in addition to round three. It's not it's not swapping it out. It's we had an obligation in round three and those projects that you're referring to
satisfy round three. >> How many of those were Maybe that's the question about >> I I honestly don't remember. >> It's more than 14. >> Oh, it's a lot. It's a lot more than 14. >> It's above the 14. >> Oh, way more. Wasn't it like uh 90 something
>> 90s or maybe 102 something of that nature realistic development potential for the third round was 91 and those the Mark build project the Sackman project um Russo project and 61310th were s you know were the projects that
uh generated affordable housings to meet the third round obligation. So those projects have already been negotiated. Uh redevelopment agreements have been executed for them. Some of them have already been to planning boards. So those projects are done and moving forward to satisfy that 91 unit
obligation from round three. Now >> period moving on to round four. Now in round four we are the burough is taking the position that its obligation in round four is 14 units and that that obligation is going to be satisfied by one project on 7th Avenue.
>> Okay. So it's 91 plus the 14, the 16, whatever that turns out to be. >> Yes. But you really I mean yes realistically you can combine them, but in our heads we're very definitive like that's round three, that's over. Round three doesn't bleed into round four and vice versa. So it's >> understand where you guys are coming
from. Yes. From us the net is about 100. >> It's cumulative. >> Anyone else like to just clarify to that 91 units that the satisfaction of those 91 units was not with necessarily 91 structured
constructed units. Bonuses go in to resolve that as well. I can find the number of units, but it's not 91 new constructed units. There's some bonuses that are going to be um addressing that number as well. Okay. >> Barry Luben, 15th Avenue. Um, in my
dream, um, clarifying his question, um, going forward, not being to against affordable housing. Um, the affordable housing fund, >> the trust fund,
>> the trust fund um, can be used. Uh what also we have a new ordinance saying if uh five units are built in a unit or in a >> development >> in a in a development something goes
towards the trust fund. >> No, it says we have because we also took a vacant land adjustment in the third round. We were obligated to adopt an what they call a mandatory set aside ordinance. So if a project and I'm not saying unlike the projects that we
negotiated and etc. If a project comes to the zoning board, the planning board and it has five or more units, 20% of the units proposed have to be affordable, >> right? >> So they don't have to pay into the trust fund if they're providing actual units. >> Provide or
>> so no, if it's five or more, they have no choice. 20% have to be affordable >> one or two or >> whatever the 20% is. If it's, let's say they come in with four units, then they will pay into the trust fund, >> okay? >> Because they don't click over into that five or more and then it's so that's one
and a half% of the equalized assessed value of the project. If it's non-residential, it's 2 and a half%. And that goes into the trust fund as well. >> But okay, but the answer there is additional units will or can be built
going forward. Now it might go to around five if there is >> I could so yes but the so when you adjust the number right so we adjusted the number from 43 down to 14 the balance of the 43 doesn't just go away
it becomes what they call unmet need which is why these zoning alternatives in terms of the mandatory set aside or the overlay zoning along Main Street is those units that are generated at whatever point let's Say we have a couple of five unit projects and we get
like one or two units here or there. That goes against the unmet need. >> Okay. That goes against the previous. >> No, it goes against the difference between 43 and 14. >> Yes. >> In this round >> in round four. Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Mus 31 with that. Quick question. done a great job explaining the whole uh >> disaster. Yeah, >> disaster too. >> And I have a pretty good understanding of planning board and zoning and master
plan. It almost seems can like these developers like hijack the fair share act and try to get something approved that's not part of our planning board or master plan because I can't imagine that Del would ever be okay with five stories
on fourth and ocean. So, >> and and I'm sorry, look. >> Go ahead. >> And by now proposing something that we wouldn't accept, now we almost have to come up with six units because something that really would be available, but he almost hijacks his fair share act. It
almost forces our hand now to come up with six units that aren't even allowed or I shouldn't say aren't allowed, but would never get approved as to our as for our master plan. or can they force it down our throat and say, "Well, he's gonna propose this and now you have to come up with that." I know you said
we're going to come up with another option and say, "Hey, if it's four, we'll find it elsewhere." But now we have to come up with four only because he came in the day before and said, "Hey, I'm available. I'm going to put what if he said I'm going to put 100 units up on seven stories. Now we got to come up with 20 units."
>> Well, no, because it would be the same formula. Acreage times density >> time 20%. So, like we're not obligated to just accept whatever they're proposing. I think the mayor said it earlier that the process is not very municipal friendly. It never really has
been very municipal friendly. Um so the short answer is had they not come in we would be sitting at 10 an obligation of 10 but them coming to the table and us taking the position that we're not even going to negotiate with them because
it's inappropriate. The development is not located in the right place. It's o it's too big. The massing is too big. it's overdevelopment, whatever. Now, we're obligated to figure out how many units through our process, not through their process, through our process would
we think should be could potentially be there, not that we would put it there, and that's why we have to address it elsewhere. Now, that's not to say someone can't come in, like I said earlier, and go to the zoning board and try to get themselves an approval. I don't see the success in that avenue.
But but the benefit that Belmar has now having battled its way through the third round and gotten the the the judgment of compliance is we have immunity from what they call builder's remedy which would prevent a builder from coming in anywhere within the burrow and saying I
want this project here. So when that happens and it has happened to some of your neighbors. So it does happen then you lose control. you lose control of your zoning. You're now playing defense instead of offense and you're basically forced to engage and give them
something. Probably not everything they want, but probably more than we would want. So that's why it's important to adhere to all these timelines and and continue through the through the mediation process because we want to
make sure that no matter what we maintain our immunity. So that protects the burrow from things like that happening. >> But had we not had the the option to offer four units elsewhere, could they force us then to say, "Hey, you got to
you got to allow this to happen even though it's not part of our master plan." >> Yes. >> Not allowable for a planning board jam down. Too bad. Make it happen. Yep. >> All right. Thank you. Hi, David Wolf, 10th Avenue. Um, kind of
following up on a couple of points other people have made and really I want to ask a quick question which is if it might benefit us to have more somehow affordable housing credits or units in
our back pocket. I'm bringing up the senior housing now. The senior housing, you'd already said like that's not your curve. That's the board. My uh the housing community, the housing board. Who appoints them? Is that county
commissioners? Are they elected? With the commissioner, it's a it's a mix. Uh one commissioner is is appointed by the governor with community affairs. uh one commissioner is appointed directly by me and the other commissions are are
appointed by me with the advice and consent of the council. So that's >> how >> well we have a number of them coming up at the end of the year. So there'll be some some different commissioners.
>> The public have any input on any of these? Um not generally not in the not in the um sense of picking individuals. I mean we do always ask people if they want to be on certain boards and things like that you know uh but uh other in
actually the the process uh no anyone else. This is a Ken Pringle First Avenue issue that kind of deals with both the ordinances on later and now. Um I think one of the
issues I I I have is the lack of transparency with respect to when a proposal is made. I I when I we submitted our proposal and my wife and I and some partners um are doing the 7th
Avenue project as the the council, excuse me. And when we submitted it, we submitted it by site plan. We had started two and a half years ago. We came in and met with you a mayor and then nothing happened. We tried to intervene. Uh we were denied
intervention. We try to intervene again later to get in because we thought we our proposal could add um affordable housing units that would help you meet your third round need. Um but what happened when we finally just
gave up and filed a site plan application um it was sent back to us um on the ground that it didn't comply with the consistency review requirement of the site plan review and and when I looked at it I I was kind of struck
because it was very different than I had remembered it uh when we developed this the um SE port redevelopment plan originally and what what I found was that in 2011 the application for redevelopment
section 1.1 review of applications for redevelopment says that the application for redevelopment shall first be reviewed by the mayor and council for consistency determination which shall include but not be limited to a review of the project to determine general compliance with proposed development
uses of the parcel related standards in the plan etc. And and I recall that we did that originally because we didn't want a a a property owner to propose something in the redevelopment area that was entirely inconsistent with what we
wanted. And we wanted to let them know right off the bat, off the bat, that that they were on the right track or they were on the wrong track, but just kind of direct them so they didn't waste time or money. But we also wanted it to people be aware of it. and and you were the only members of the governing of of
the municipal establishment that are subject to open public meetings act unless it goes to specifically to some board. So it it started it would start there it would become a matter of public record and people if they didn't learn about it automatically at least would be
able to open it and find out something that's going on. um in 2012, March uh 2nd I believe of 2012, an amendment was it was revised and and and I I even asked uh uh April to give
me the actual ordinance because I was looking for the specific change of language to see. Of course, I don't have it. Um but but but I know from memory what it
said was that the uh site plan uh the application of free development and this was I think March 2nd 2012 if I'm not mistaken um but but when it was changed it was just the whole new version was submitted so you weren't able to look at it and see usually we
underline or cross out so you can see exactly the language that was changed. It says the application free development shall first be reviewed by Burough staff and professionals for consistency determination which shall include but not be limited to review the project general compliance and then blah blah
blah same rest of the paragraph. Um and when that process the beginning of that process changes like that it disappears. It doesn't become part of the public record and available for any citizen to become aware of it unless and until
someone decides within the government that it should be become a matter for the public to know about. And you know, I saw the wife of one of my book club meets posted last night when she read um
I guess tap into that she found out for the first time both about the 7th Avenue project which has been talked about um but also about the Fourth Avenue project and and for a town where at least years ago if someone said something at first
and a or sneezed at first and a someone on Surf Avenue would say, "God bless you." Um, it's it's we we do communicate pretty well as a community. And to go that long and not hear about something um is of concern. the the rest of it the
track that that the each project follows I got a engineers letter review letter actually when the original thing we submitted got sent back to us literally the whole application got returned to us saying that you know they didn't think
we complied so we you know we couldn't submit directly to the planning boardwithstanding both the redevelopment statute and our ordinance says that you file the application by submitting a site plan application So, we finally got that figured out or they figured it out
and we resubmitted it as a site plan application, but we still got a letter from the engineering firm saying it had to go through all these steps, some of which were they're in here, but in no particular order.
Um, a favorable review of the application, negotiation of a draft redevelopment agreement with a prospective redeveloper, adoption of resolution, mayor and council, designated prospective developer, authorizing the execution of redevelopment agreement, all that stuff. It just never gives you
the timeline of when each step happens. So, it could go on forever. Ordinances could change in the meantime. Um and it doesn't give the developer a chance or more importantly the public a chance to say hey this is a really bad idea which which in
turn could give the developer a chance to say okay let me modify it maybe they want to push forward maybe not but it doesn't get sprung on everybody at some point months or years later at a time when then you have people putting stuff on the on the on the the blog saying you
know is someone's >> you pocket getting mined or you know is this corruption or things like that. I mean we don't need that. Um and and and more importantly I think you know we we've gotten along very well about working together. We're about to have a very
divided council. You know not that I mean that means you're not going to agree but it's going to be three to two. So you know it should everything we submit should be submitted to all of you. you you're you have no different strengths and weaknesses under a form of government other than the mayor has
executive authority. Other than that, you're all members of the council of of even stature. So, whatever gets submitted, it should get submitted to all of you. You should all be aware of it up front by initial contact. I' I'd love to offer to work with whoever you
would like me to work with, but I'd like to lay out my ideas for how we can do this in a way that makes it a fair, completely transparent process. Our our 7th Avenue project to this day, two and a half years into it, isn't listed
anywhere on all the projects that you guys have listed on your website. We've we've filed I can't tell you how many sets of of site plans we we've filed. um for without having wisdom. So, you know, I think we have to get over that
and and build some trust with people that what happens is a process is done the same way for everyone. Maybe there's a variation if it's a legal issue or a litigation issue. You might say we can't talk about it, but that doesn't mean you
you shouldn't know about it. and and you can say when you might be able to talk about it or you can say this is what we can say the rest we can but it's important stuff and um so I don't know who if you want to take me up on that or
not but let me know thank thanks we will we'll look at it um we have a bunch of things we want to look at one of them being the seport redevelopment plan itself but we'll uh keep you posted Hi, I'm Leila Mark 605 Ocean app. I have
a really straightforward question about tomorrow's hearing. Sure. >> Um I'm going to assume that some of the other people here are like me. They have a smartphone and they have access. Is this something that's streamed on MJ court? >> No, >> it's not. Okay. >> So, we would hear about it from the media.
>> Well, I think that that I think that came up earlier and I think there was a commitment to do it through like the newsletter or the website, but it's not open to the public. Yeah, that is definitely not live. >> Definitely not. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Could we put it out on our social media somehow and update the
>> No, the streaming is from the judiciary. >> No, no, I'm not talking about the streaming. I'm talking about the results. >> I mean, you got to be careful. This is pending litigation. So, you can't just stream all of it. >> Yeah, you have to be careful. There's there's going to be a time and place, but you know, the the
process of the mediation is litigation. So, there's going to be a time when that's going to be available to go to the public, but it won't be tomorrow afternoon. >> There will not be results tomorrow. >> Yeah, >> there will be no results to post tomorrow. There will be the hearing will be held and then um there will be
>> that was uncertain. >> Yeah, exactly. So, there will be no results for decision tomorrow. >> Yeah. Once we once we get it resolved, we'll make it known one way or the other that you know what the outcome of that was. >> Anyone else? If not, we're going to uh move on with
the rest of the agenda. Okay. Again, thanks to everyone who came out tonight. Uh I know I appreciate it. I think all other council members appreciate it. And um have a very happy holiday to those of you who are who are leading at this
point. >> Okay. April. Uh any petitions? Looks like we have a petition. We'll give everybody a few minutes to meet you. >> How are you? Anyway,
>> moving on. >> Yeah. Why don't we move on to the approval of the minutes? >> Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of the November 25th meeting? I'll make a motion. Second. Councilman Donovan. >> Yes.
Council McKennus. >> Yes. >> Council Monzero. >> Yes. Council >> Le Council Dunovan. >> Hi. I just wanted to thank everyone first for coming out. Um, a little little too much. A little too much. I have the opposite problem.
>> It's just me. Don't worry. Well, Sandy's always mentioning that we don't speak loudly enough into the microphone, so I happy to oblige. Um, I want to address one thing, which is I think that erosion of public trust in
our our government is uh both a local and national problem and has been for years and years and years. Um, and I I think one of the most critical things that we can do up here is not only promote transparency, but also collaboration with with all of you. And
so I think it's really critically important that we do that whenever we can. Mayor Pringle, I'm happy to work in within your suggestions to see what we can do to um highlight the work that we're doing here. Um, so that being said, speaking of which, I do have a
Verizon update for those who are interested. Um, for those who are not, because I've got a microphone, um, the FCC, which is the federal agency that oversees telecommunications, put out a request for comments, which means that
they are contemplating changing the rules that govern, for instance, how and when a telecommunications company can put up a poll, which if you've been following is something that we are pushing back on on Ocean Avenue. Um, in
the proposed rules, the language echoes very closely language we've seen in telecommunications own court filings about what they want. This includes things like eliminating the shock clock even further, which means that when they submit an application to the
municipality, right now they have 90 days. Um, and if we miss it, they get what they want. This would go down to 30. We cannot deny based on these rules based on aesthetics. We can't even, you know, those when you're driving and you see those weird pine tree looking things that they try and mask them with. Gone.
Um, and also critically, it would take away our right to go to court with them. And instead of going to court, instead it would go to an arbitration, which would be very industry friendly. So, this is incredibly alarming to us up here. It should be alarming to all of
you. We have submitted comments through our attorney to the FCC and are working collaborative with other towns um right now along the shore hopefully nationwide to continue to push back on that more locally um our softball fundraising
is continuing for the softball field on 13th in Maine. Um we had are actually meeting with a expert tomorrow to mark out the field. We're hoping we can push forward with um that project in the spring. Um and we have secured a C3 for
f further fundraising and have met with um an accountant for that project. So that work is continuing and we're really optimistic about it. Um finally, the environmental commission. We have that almost half a million dollar grant from the Army Corps of Engineers. We had a
meeting just today about it. Um and so the work there continues to make a cleaner and more beautiful lake for all of you. Thank you. Counciloman Kenny. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, recreation, the Christmas market is this weekend. I believe this is the first ever Christmas
market that we've had or at least not in a long, long time. Saturday on the 13th in Piano Plaza from 11 to 8:00 and Sunday on the 14th from 11:00 to 4:00. And the Holly Jolly Trolley, which is the trolley that's going to go around, look at all the houses in town and goes
starts at Cafe De La Familia, starts uh the 13th. There's several times available starting at 5:30 at night. Tickets are like running out though, so if you're interested, please go and look up on the um is it the chamber website?
I believe it's the chamber, the Belmar Chamber of Commerce website about the um Holly Jolly Trolley. And the Manura lighting is also this Monday at 6:30 and also in Piano Plaza. Uh the next Shade Tree Commission meeting is this Thursday
at 6:30. The next ADA meeting is going to be in the first uh in January. We're going to set a date. Um couple of things around the schools. St. Rose High School's Christmas concert is also this Thursday, 700 p.m. at the gym. Basketball season has started in full swing. Varsity, girls, boys, junior
varsity basketball. You can find their schedules on St. Rose High School NJ.com under the athletics page. Tickets can be sold at the door. And if you would like to follow the girls and boys basketball programs, you can do so on Facebook and Instagram. Uh Belmar Elementary School
eighth graders are selling raffle tickets. They're for the prize money will go to well the the funding will go towards the eighth grade school trip. It's a great prize. Yeti cooler, two ramblers, two beach chairs, two beach shells, and two beach badges. The drawing is December 23rd. So get your
tickets for that. I'm going to look on how we going to do that. I think you have to do that at Belmar Elementary School website. Um the winter band at Belmar Elementary, their choir band and chorus concert is the Thursday 6:30 and uh last day of
school for everybody is December 23rd and they go back on the 5th. So merry Christmas to everybody and happy holidays. >> Thank you uh Council President. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I just wanted to first acknowledge um our Belmar Fire
Department, EMS, um, OEM, uh, and our surrounding towns, uh, for their heroic action. Uh, we did have a house fire on Brierwood on Friday and, um, I was actually able, it's right in my neighborhood, so I walked up the
street. Um, and I've never seen teamwork like that. Um, that was really, it was very touching. Um we had um the firefighters from Neptune City, Avon, Spring Lake Heights, including uh
Councilwoman Donovan's husband um was there. We had um volunteers, people who might have um volunteered at other firehouses who were just there to make sure if there was anything residents needed um that they would be there for
them. Um I know Rob Martin did a wonderful job. Um, but it was extremely touching. Thankfully, there were no fatalities. There were two dogs that were rescued. Um, and uh, but there is someone right now, one of our residents,
uh, Denise Dowl without a home. So, um, if there is anything um, that you would like to do, I know that she has lost her the possessions that she did have in the home. Nothing can make up for that. Um there is a GoFundMe drive though um to help Denise rebuild after the fire. So
if you go to I think it's gofundme.com and you look up um Denise Dou de Eza Oo um you'll be able to find that and hopefully we can find out some information um if there's anything that the
community can contribute as far as things items um we can find that out and maybe we can post that. I believe Chief Pringle also posted the GoFundMe on Facebook. So, I'm not sure if he posted it through his personal account or through the um fire department's account, but it's findable up there as
well. >> Wonderful. And Katherine, quick comment. I don't think the house was a total loss. I heard from friends at Glendola, who was also there, Wall was also there, that I don't think the house was a total loss, which is good, but it's still it's still a heartbreaking situation.
Campbell, do do we know anything as far as any need um currently for the resident or anything like that? >> I I don't I know there's been some contact, but I I don't have anything. >> Okay, great. I would just say if the Red Cross hasn't been contacted, if we could contact them too to see if there's
anything um that they could possibly offer them. But thank you so much. Very much appreciated. I've never seen anything like the police, EMS, firefighting, and neighbor volunteer response as I did last Friday. Okay. Uh
BJ had their meeting December 1st. Um they will be receiving new bids on um partial reconstruction for the facade. Um so hopefully we'll be able to start work sooner than later on that project.
I did reach out um to um Congressman Chris Smith's office and spoke to Joe Schloder who was very helpful. Um, so I'm hoping that um they may have some opportunities um or or some access to funding um as
well as our state legislators um that you know I know I only have a a few more weeks on on council, but I promise every single day of it um I I'll be advocating for those residents and we'll pass along whatever I have um to the mayor. Um, and
then with the library, um, they are collecting books with the Friendly Sons of Challe for new and unused children's books. Uh, those donations go until December 17th. You can bring them to the library. Um, also, there is a concert on
Thursday. Hopefully, you got your e tickets um for holiday concert with Zach Alexander at the Taylor Pavilion at 6 p.m. Uh but guests without e tickets will be asked to wait until 6 p.m. to see if there's any available seats. So, you never know. You never know. Um, and
then lastly, one of my very favorite events of the season is a local resident who's very well known. His name is John Walsh. Um, puts on the B Street carolers um, every year. And um and that's at
11:01 B Street, December 21st at 700 p.m. Please come out for carolling. Come out for some hot cocoa and sometimes Santa Claus comes to that event. Um more importantly, I will be singing at that event. Um so please join us. It's so
much fun. >> That's it. >> I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Council Le >> uh I I'm just going to make it quick. Uh I attended the tree lighting ceremony. It was it was very beautiful. Uh I thank
DPW for their hard work and uh and getting the tree up and whatever. And uh it was uh the Delmore Elementary School uh choir did a great job. The I don't know what you call them from St. the bell um
>> the bell choir and the uh the few members of the band uh played a song. So, it was all in all I think a good evening and the the weather was nice. It was clear. It was cold. So, good way to start the holiday season. And that's it
for me. All right, let's move on to um public session on the resolutions. Anyone has a comment or question about a resolution on the agenda, please step forward, state your name and address. >> Thank you,
Jean. Uh, I have comments on uh resolution 2025-218 uh the municipal public access plan and
uh resolution 2025-26 I I printed a copy of the municipal public access plan and uh thank you very much. Uh you know looks like a lot of work went into this u doing an inventory of public access points within the
burrow. Uh but it did u I do have some comments. those little sticky things to my fingers. >> Mr. Kramer, if if I may before you you start, um I I I was kidding around April that I was emulating you when I was
going through that this past week. Um and I submitted a lot of potential changes that could be made because there's references to 2023, 2024, some other things which I'm assuming you'll bring up because they're in there. Um, and I spoke with uh Christine Bell
>> Christine Bell who called me very concerned and she said basically that she has been trying to get the D to approve this plan for over four years and we keep there's such turnover there that they keep having different people review it who have different comments
and she basically said to me we can make changes but then it might take another 5 years to change to get it approved. D and once this one is approved, we have to submit another one in 5 years anyway. So, if that gives you any edification, I
thought I would let you know. >> I also want to add >> I'm not sure I'm going to be around here another five years. >> Oh, I hope so. >> But I also want to add that this plan was adopted last night at the planning board meeting as part of the master plan. So, this is just a resolution endorsing it. The the plan was adopted
last night. >> Excuse me. Were there any >> I wasn't there. >> I was there. >> Okay. >> Were there any changes made? >> There were no changes made. >> For the same for the same reason as Councilwoman Donovan said, it's this has been a multi-year project that she's
been working on and uh again due to changes at D. Uh it's taken a long time to do this and she was so happy that she could finally get it approved by the planning board last night. So, um, you know, I I I think we got it in and now
as as you said, changes I guess we can work on for the future as it goes. >> I think that that's a good idea to, as you said, we're going to have to do this again again. Here we go with the microphone. Um, we're going to have to do this again in another 5 years. So, any kind of changes that we need to
incorporate should be done then. And I think a lot of those references to older dates or because this has been hanging around for so long. Um, but it was approved last night. This is the last step in the process. It has been a long time coming and this is just an endorsement of what the planning board
approved last night. >> Thank you. >> I'm still going to make my comments unless uh you know there's some rule against that. >> Oh, there's no rules against that. On page number five, municipal
public access goals and objectives. About the middle of the page here, C. Uh, one of the goals and objectives is to preserve and enhance views of the coastal landscape to en enrich aesthetic
and cultural values and vital communities. emphasis on visual access. if you would. And by the way, the reason I'm I'm bringing up visual access is that uh
we're blessed with a 1.3 mile beach, uh which provides the passer by or anybody driving in their car an unobstructed eastern horizon. Very rare.
And uh and I'll get to Mammoth County here in a moment, but Mammoth County prides itself and uh our beachfront and the visual access that the public has has uh I don't know how many times I'
I've seen the Belmar Beach and the Fishing Club uh on Mammoth County calendars many times. is one of the most scenic uh roadways in in the state of New Jersey. There's no overhead
wires, not a single one for 1.3 miles. There's no traffic controls for 1.3 miles. Okay. Uh there's no Verizon towers for 1.3 miles.
And uh I just I I I really do want to uh compliment Mammoth County. Uh Ocean Avenue is perhaps the only road that in town that I can safely drive my Corvette on. There's no potholes.
There's no patch pavements. They keep fantastic care of the highway. The town has also done its part also. Uh we have uh dusk to dawn lighting all down uh the
boardwalk right at the edge of of Mammoth Countyy's right away and that's all down lighting. So that when you take a walk on the boardwalk unless you you get close to a pavilion at night if you went down there. Actually, I believe there's
northern lights tonight, but you have a dark sky. Very little in the way of u light pollution. And by the way, uh I do also want to point out that when there wasn't very
much interest in town here about taking on Verizon, Mammoth County did. And I guess from our perspective, um, we're kind of happy that there's no progress with Verizon. In other words,
things are halted. >> I'm I'm going to correct you there on the Verizon. It's not that we didn't take any interest in it. It was that the the application that was made was inadvertently made to Belmar when when the the Catholic permit had to be signed
by the county. So I just want to refresh your memory that we were the ones who found out that there was an issue. Uh and uh even though there was a consent judgment entered uh it it was the uh county took over what it was that was
its responsibility which we're very thankful for that they did that but we gave it to them >> and they they took it. I just want to make sure that burrow is not undermining what the county >> absolutely not
>> is trying to preserve and uh excuse me access locations. It does state here the burl of Belmar provides unbroken visual access from North Boulevard uh to in the south to 1 Avenue in the north. visual
access continues along the entirety of Delta Ocean on the sideboard. I I wasn't trying to say that uh the public access plan did not take into consideration
visual access to water. On page uh number 11, public restrooms, it says there are six temporary public bath bathroom trailers located at 3r, 6,
8, 11, 16, 19th. I think we all know that uh Third Avenue has not had a bathroom for two or three years now. So, we don't have those things now. And quite truthfully, I I did review the
Caffer permit that was issued to the burrow and the Caffer permit which allows uh the installation of trailers uh on on the boardwalk. U
it it didn't mention Third Avenue. Third Avenue got lost someplace. And uh that's about the only beach I get really close to down there and have the opportunity to speak to the badge checkers and uh they've been screaming
for uh actually I guess for the last two years or so that there is an actual need there. And I think you have the surfing camp up there and there's actually that's the widest beach uh in the town. Um
the beach By the way, the the width of the beach at the northern end is as wide as it has ever been historically. The it the what they call the latoral
drift which washes sand along. The proof that uh it goes from from south to north is that nowadays it seems that the Army Corps of Engineers has to uh dredge the
inlet just to so it could be navigable and that's because I should say the result is that the beach at the northern end can accommodate more people uh than anywhere else in town. Uh reach
gets narrower as you go south and uh the last replenishment project went from 9th Avenue and went all the way south. The beaches uh is very narrow and the D permit recognizes that that's a high
risk area. Um I guess >> can I can I ask you you know respectfully we've been here for a while. Can you we can keep the comments for the for the plan to another meeting if if you'd like, but um you know I'd
like to to move on if we could because we know that there are issues in there that have to be fixed. So >> yeah, there there are also upcoming issues, Mayor. >> Okay, here's another uh place here where
Third Avenue just mention another place where Third Avenue is mentioned as having a a restroom. Uh on this page number 20 21 having to do with signage.
Um, what I've noticed the last couple years especially is that we have a lot of visitors to B market that just don't speak English. Um, they don't speak English. They have countries around the
world. uh perhaps uh should give some thought to uh international pictorial uh signage that no matter what where they come from pictorially they understand
uh what what the sign means. Uh, and I bring this up because we've actually had I guess the last I did hear about the the fatality that we had um this past year except he was
from I believe New York City. Uh but a couple of years ago uh we actually named a u a park in town over at 15th and East Street. And uh you people didn't speak English. You
might as well put a sign up there that says swim at your own risk. When most adults can't define risk if you ask them what does risk actually mean? Uh, I'm going to I'm going to have to ask you to to uh to hold I want to see if anybody
else has any any comments tonight. You you know I didn't want to limit you to five minutes. I haven't even been keeping track, but it we can't we can't just keep going on uh I have to let other people if they want to speak speak
>> I'll cut right to uh >> cut to the chase as we say in the movie industry. >> Okay. Yeah. res resolution awarding contract for new bathroom at 16,000 each. U this
is the elevated classroom where there's going to be high demand when we have a storm uh a hurricane in town. Everybody's going to be Oh my god, we have an elevated bathroom that we're going to be able u to go to. This is nonsense.
Total nonsense. The D approved uh the the legitimatizing of the trailer bathrooms within 90 days. This approval here
uh so 180 days. That's a strong indication that this was a bad idea right from the beginning. Uh Mr. mayor and uh why can't you take that $1.5 million and spend it on redatizing put
proper foundation in for the trailers. Uh trailers are a whole much better. Uh it's just like a hospital. You you don't build the emergency room on the top floor. You build it at the grade level, not elevated. I'm an expert with this
with the wheelchair and if I have a problem by like I've only been in power pavilion one time because it's only accessible uh by going up ramp and uh it it's just a bad idea. Uh the other thing is is
you want to make it year round, we're going to run gas out there and uh we're ending up uh you know creating a uh what would you call it? An energy pig right on the beach.
And maybe you don't believe in in in climate warming. Um but one rising sea level >> I I appreciate your comments but we've we've moved beyond we've discussed all
these things uh a long time ago when we first got the grant and uh it was decided by you know our engineers and that this was something that we wanted to do. So there's no there's no turning back at this point. But um you know do
you have >> mayor have the people across the road have you figured out the impact on property values that this thing people currently in the condominium complex right across the street from where this is going to be constructed. Uh they're
going they're going to go from ocean view to the back of the building. What's the what's the what's the property damage there? Are is the municipality going to compensate these people for spoiling their their ocean view? People pay a
premium for that. They pay >> I all I can say is we've had we've had this, you know, shown at public hearings and whatever. And to my knowledge, no one has has complained to me about about the uh about the view or their property
value or any of the issues that you just brought up. >> Yeah, mayor. I can't even figure out from the uh drawings here what the elevation at the top of this building is going to be. >> We can we can answer that question at the next meeting. And I can have I can
have the the engineer tell you exactly what the dimensions are, but I'd like to move on. Do you have another um >> real real quick question? Is it going to be higher in the uh uh the floor level going to be higher than the Taylor pavilion or the tentac?
>> I don't know if you know that. Well, we have our engineer here. I don't know if he knows what the top of his head said. >> Yeah, Mr. there. It It's going to be very similar in height as the Taylor pavilion in terms of the steps up from the board. I think it's one more step up. >> Similar to the Taylor pavilion, one more
step up. So, >> I figured it had to be higher because others are going up. >> No. Well, obviously. >> So, >> it's not. So, I can only assume when the Taylor Pavilion was built, they were using the flood maps that were the
preliminary firms that came out right after Sandy and those were significantly higher. And then you might recall there was a time when they actually lowered the flood elevation back down. So, right after Sandy, the elevations were much higher than the standards that are being
built to today. the real rule, which is what we're in complian with, now brings it up closer to that preliminary firm elevation. >> Same as the tail of you. >> Yeah, if you're going to be within I think one step higher than the tails
we're doing. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Please step forward. Hey, April. >> I have a motion to close the public session. >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> Favor.
>> I >> I have a motion uh to amend the consent agenda to remove resolution 2025206. Motion. >> I'm getting a refund, guys. That's why we have to do that. >> All in favor? Yes.
>> Uh, next. Can I have a motion to adopt resolution 2025 206? >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Councilwoman Kenny, >> yes. >> Mayor Becca Fusco, >> yes. >> Counciloman Rodo, >> yes.
>> Councilman Le, >> yes. >> Now, can I have a motion to approve the rest of the consent agenda resolutions? Move the motion. Second. Councilman Donovan, >> yes. >> Council McKenna,
>> yes. >> Mayor Benson, >> yes. >> Council Rando, >> yes. >> Councilman Levice, >> yes. >> Uh, next we have the public hearing and second reading on ordinance 202523. This is an ordinance adopting an amendment to the redevelopment plan for
the SE port redevelopment area. It's open for public comment. Um, if you're going to speak on the ordinance, please remember to state your name and address. None. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion >> second. >> Favor.
>> And a motion to adopt ordinance 202523. >> A motion. >> Second. >> Councilman Donovan. >> Yes. >> Council McKenna. >> Yes. >> Mayor Buzzkill. >> Yes. >> Council Monzero. >> Yes. >> Councilman Levis. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now we have the regular public
session. If anyone would like to speak, please step forward. State your name and address. >> 18. Are we having our annual candy cane hunt for the um house decorating contest this year? >> I don't know.
>> No. On the candy cane hunt. I've not heard about the no on the house rating apparently. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I will be brief. Neil Sheek, 4104th Avenue. Uh, Councilwoman Donovan brought up the FCC
and it proposed new rules that could take away our right to go to court and mention how it's a very industry friendly FCC. Now, in the past,
uh the mayor and the burough attorney have spoken to the to the uh general effect that we're not here to talk about national politics. We're supposed to talk about matters before the council.
But this just shows how national politics of Texas right here in Belmar, the FCC, is part of the most corrupt administration in American history,
uh, run by a president who is a convicted criminal and a notorious con man. And this is a sort of effect that has throughout American society. Thank you.
Anyone else? >> Okay, on that note, >> can I have a motion to close the public session and adjourn the meeting? >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. All >> in favor? >> I >> Thank you.