Skip to content

Planning Board Agenda for Monday, January 10, 2022

Postponed until February 14th

This meeting will be in person.
Photo of property and documentation below.

Application is for this house at 303 Tenth Ave to be demolished,
the property divided into two lots, with a new single family house on each lot.

This is the letter sent to neighboring property owners.
Click the document to enlarge.

303 10th Ave Application
303 10th Ave Development Plan
303 10th Ave Subdivision Plan


  1. eugene creamer wrote:

    the public notice has the wrong meeting location

    Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:24 pm | Permalink
  2. Editor wrote:

    Thank you Mr. Creamer. I confirmed in an email with April on Friday that the meeting will be at Borough Hall in person.

    Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 7:51 am | Permalink
  3. eugene creamer wrote:

    Belmar Municipal Building is located at 601 Main Street.

    The application public notices (newspaper & property owners) have the address as 610 Main Street … a block away on the opposite side of the street

    Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:55 am | Permalink
  4. Editor wrote:

    Does this mean what I think it does?

    Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:41 am | Permalink
  5. Star Tover wrote:

    Do it right.

    Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
  6. Gerald Buccafusco wrote:

    Due to Covid 19 Borough Hall is closed as of tomorrow, Jan. 10, 2022. Shouldn’t the Planning Board meeting be conducted remotely to limit exposure of the board members and the public to the virus?

    Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 1:03 pm | Permalink
  7. Anonymous wrote:

    No no no
    Stop entertaining of all of these requests for variances and putting developers wants ahead of town guidelines – build a single family home and profit off of that and stop entertaining greedy requests from over developers !!

    Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 9:19 pm | Permalink
  8. Guest wrote:

    I agree with Jerry. The town has closed boro hall and rec programs are cancelled due to COVID surge so why is planning board meeting in person?

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
  9. sketcky sketchy wrote:

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
  10. Editor wrote:

    This was just forwarded to me from someone who emailed April today,
    this is her reply.

    The applicant’s attorney has decided to carry the application to February 14th and will renotice with the correct address.

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:14 pm | Permalink
  11. Anonymous wrote:

    From the info that I received, the rescheduling was due to an address typo in the notice that went out – nothing more. The existing building is a multi family. There will be two new single family homes being built in its place which will conform to all setbacks and will not require additional variances for their construction. This will remove the existing non-conforming use on the current property and actually increase the parking because both new houses will have their own driveways to accommodate parking for the amount of bedrooms to be built. The overall bedroom count for the new homes will reduce from what is currently there at that existing building. These lots will be significantly larger than what was approved around the block.

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:33 pm | Permalink
  12. Bob wrote:

    Based on the info that I received, the meeting was posptponed because there was an address typo in the original notice – nothing more. As for the project, the existing building is a multi family, which does not conform to the single family zone. The new homes will conform to all setbacks and have their own driveways with plenty of parking to accomodate the new bedroom count. The new bedroom count between both new homes will be a reduction in bedrooms from what currently exists at the multi-family. This will improve the parking situation for this location. Sounds like an improvement to the block, not a detraction.

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:51 pm | Permalink
  13. Anonymous wrote:

    Absolute nonsense. Bob let’s not pretend that this developer is here to improve the neighborhood by splitting lots into non-conforming sizes. Smaller lot sizes do nothing for the existing residents but increase congestion. Smaller neighborhood lot sizes does not translate to an increase in value for the existing residents. It only lines the pockets of the developer. You can obfuscate the reality of the situation around increased bedroom counts but It’s real easy…2 families is more than one. An additional curb cut will only further limit on street parking. While the boarding house across the street and the B&B on the corner already create high demand for on-street parking.

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
  14. Bob wrote:

    16. 303 is not a single fam. It’s a multi. Two driveways with less bedrooms adds parking. Two new homes add tax base and leads to lower taxes for residents. Also increased comps leads to higher values for surrounding properties adding equity for owners. Sounds like more bad than good.

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 6:28 pm | Permalink
  15. Anonymous wrote:

    Can you imagine the comp for a single family home on existing conforming lot? I’ll take that one over the 2 comps for the proposed houses jammed on non-conforming 45 ft wide lots.

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:31 pm | Permalink
  16. Bob wrote:

    19. If the new homes are conforming to current setbacks, nothing is being jammed. They will be slightly smaller homes I suspect. Do you live on 10th? I live real close to this proposed project and am not worried.

    Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
  17. Bob wrote:

    22. I believe the house has three total units cuttently.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:36 am | Permalink
  18. come on bob wrote:

    come on BOb, first posting the same thing under different aliases should stop.

    also you sound like the developer.

    Too much over building in belmar. lets stick to some conforming structures and follow what we have in law, stop making the life and pockets of developers better at the expense of others.

    he could easily update this house and property and still make a profit, albeight not as large as he would want

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 7:52 am | Permalink
  19. Bob wrote:

    24. Not meaning to post under different aliases. I’m older and not good with computers, so I posted a few things twice because I did not see my original post up here when I first did them.

    And no, I am not the developer. I do not even know him.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:00 am | Permalink
  20. Editor wrote:

    To my readers, thank you so much for visiting The Belmar Blog.
    Comments do not appear automatically, which is why you do not see them right away. I must review them and approve them.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:27 am | Permalink
  21. Anonymous wrote:

    And the self righteous rule in their commentary above. No wonder Anonymous has the most posts.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:57 am | Permalink
  22. Editor wrote:

    Asterisks in #24 are mine.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 10:09 am | Permalink
  23. Anonymous wrote:

    For everyone that wants to tell the owner of the property or buyer of property how exactly you like their property and to keep an old house and bring it to code because you like the looks of it. You all realize that if you felt that strongly then buy it yourself and keep it exactly as is, restore it, etc. You can’t tell people they have to keep their property exactly the same or how to restore it, even if the board doesn’t approve the subdivision the owner has the right to tear down and rebuild something.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 10:27 am | Permalink
  24. Anonymous wrote:

    #30 There is another recourse other than buying the property ourselves actually. In order to keep/create the type of neighborhood and properties the community finds desirable we create a plan or code and strictly enforce it. We don’t have to buy the property, we can create guidelines and simply follow them. That is what I would like. Follow the code and plan. Follow the rules and stop granting exceptions solely for the benefit of a developer.

    Otherwise where do we draw the line? At what point do we say “that lot is too small”. If 45ft is ok, why not 40? Why not 30? or 20? We could subdivide every lot in town and raise the tax base!

    Believe it or not we thought about this exact question long ago. And we already figured out where the line should be. It’s 50ft! Anything less isn’t conforming and should not be allowed because those are the rules of the game we all agreed on.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
  25. Crazy wrote:

    It’s funny to me. People are opposed the condominium building proposal at the Belmar Inn property on 12th avenue and want single family homes. On 10th avenue this developer is proposing 2 single family homes on an oversized lot. No one is ever happy in this town!

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
  26. Progress wrote:

    #25- I’m not Bob.
    #30- the ‘buy it yourself’ argument is just silly. Of course most of us can’t afford to do that. And if the developer doesn’t get the variance to subdivide (the only thing being discussed) then he can tear down and build one house. No one would say peep about it.
    #32- that’s an exaggeration. The only reason there is push back from the citizens of this town is because most of Belmar’s problems lead directly back to bad decisions and poor planning years ago. We just don’t want to see it happen again. People, with your similar attitude, also thought that Jane Jacobs was ‘never happy’. She wound up saving Manhattan.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
  27. Anonymous wrote:

    #32- Do you prefer one house on a conforming property or two houses on two non-conforming properties. Thank you. Enough with lining the pockets of these greedy developers at the expense of ALL of the residents, some of which have been here for 50 plus years. Go develop Asbury Park and stop trying to change existing laws in order to get rich. We need more of those older stately homes left alone, not less of them.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:09 pm | Permalink
  28. Guest wrote:

    Well said #32!

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
  29. Anony wrote:

    35 and 32, don’t belittle the legitimate concerns of residents. People in this town are consistent in their opposition to overcrowding proposed by developers under the guise of improvement. Nobody is saying 303 or any other property in Belmar should be treated like a museum, but there is absolutely no reason to make concessions for a developer who, if turned down on this division proposal, will just build one really nice home instead of two and make a profit. It is not like he is going to renovate it as a multifamily and rent out units. He got such a sweet deal from the elderly prior owners that he could flip it right now for a profit.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 10:57 pm | Permalink
  30. Guest wrote:

    #36 states, “People in this town are consistent in their opposition to overcrowding proposed by developers under the guise of improvement.” I don’t think that the same 20 people that continually show up to these meetings in opposition of all development represent the majority opinion of this town of 5k+ residents

    Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:13 am | Permalink
  31. Anonymous wrote:

    Those Sob sisters and a brother, with green eyed envy, can’t stand any improvements in town. Their media performances clearly projects their individual annoyance at the temerity of others being successful, amazing.

    Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:58 am | Permalink
  32. Anonymous wrote:

    If this is allowed, what would stop every lot >50ft with a back house or garage apartment from subdividing into two lots and building two houses?

    I’m not against people’s success, and not against improvements. I’m against not following the rules. I’m against taking a single conforming lot and breaking it into two non-conforming lots that we will be stuck with forever.

    Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 10:53 am | Permalink
  33. Anonymous wrote:

    The house and garage apartment are both dumps that have lived out their life expectancy I have no problem with two houses on 45’ lots with the appropriate set backs and I have no financial interest in this project other than being a resident we have been getting some quality residents that have buying these homes.

    Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
  34. Anonymous wrote:

    #40- Do you have a problem with two houses on 42.5 feet lots? How bout 40 foot lots. 36? Where do YOU draw the limit? Well, there is a limit, and it’s 50 feet. PERIOD

    Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
  35. Well put wrote:

    U said it 41!

    Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
  36. Anonymous wrote:

    #39 it’s not a conforming lot if it has more than one dwelling, it is considered a multifamily dwelling where a single family is allowed.

    Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
  37. Anonymous wrote:

    #40 I said I was okay with that property being 2 x 45’ the next project that comes up I will let you know if I am okay with the lot size. Question if your house burns down on one of our hundreds of non conforming lots you’re okay with not allowing that house to be rebuilt.

    Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
  38. No Parking wrote:

    This would require a 2nd curb cut further reducing on street parking. How can you have a home on a 45 foot wide lot with a driveway?

    Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:54 am | Permalink
  39. Anonymous wrote:

    #44 So why not fix that problem without creating two new ones? The solution to a nonconforming lot use is not to create 2 nonconforming lot sizes that will forever be that size.

    #45 while you may be ok with 45′ lot widths, the borough is not. the borough requires 50′. If you want to change the minimum lot width to a new value, we can do it, but lets make the same rules for everyone, not pick and choose winners and losers. Also, if a house burns down, that is the type of undue hardship that the law has in mind to allow exceptions. Not the fact that a developer is only going to make 1 million, when they could have made 1.8 if they didn’t have to follow the rules.

    Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:24 am | Permalink
  40. Anonymous wrote:

    #40- How bout letting him have three non-conforming lots so he can make another million. 30 feet. Are you OK with that? And then let that happen all over town and watch your property values plummet. Are you OK with that??????? And don’t forget to allow him to put converted garages behind those three houses on the 30 foot lots. You OK with that? Where does it end in this town. Greedy landsharks.

    Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
  41. Anonymous wrote:

    #48 My modest proposal. Why not subdivide the 90′ lot into 1 conforming 50’x150′ single family house. Then make the second lot 40’x150′ a single Town House. Someone needs to check me on if a Town House would be another conforming use.

    Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
  42. Anonymous wrote:

    # 49 you are way off sorry but for one there is no such thing as one single town house that’s called a single family home;

    Townhouses are not a conforming use in that zone or that section.

    Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
  43. Anony wrote:

    I would love to see an update on the 10 townhomes that they plan to build on 11th Ave, next to 7-11 and Rt 35. The plan demolishes 5 single family homes. The first plan had problems but I can’t seem to find any updates.

    Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 10:16 am | Permalink
  44. No cookie cutters! wrote:

    It’s not good to divide this lot but if it does happen, I would hope the front porches would be the full with of the front of the house as most of the houses on 10th Ave are. The porches shown in the rendering aren’t large enough for anything but an oversized entrance. Keep our front porches true porches.

    Friday, January 28, 2022 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
  45. Editor wrote:

    #54 Thank You.
    New documentation has been added to the original Planning Board post for 303 10th Ave. It will be reposted with the February 14th Planning Board Agenda.
    Click the link.

    Friday, January 28, 2022 at 2:59 pm | Permalink
  46. Bob wrote:

    I just don’t see how this will become one large house on that lot if not approved for the two. I can’t see those numbers working. I would think that it will just become another 3 unit summer rental. Imagine the potential of what those renter vehicles will do to the parking on my street; the existing house is huge and I can’t imagine what that occupancy is – I for one definitely do not want that! Sounds like the two homes on 45’x150′ lots is a better option.

    Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
  47. Anonymous wrote:

    #56 Bob, I see what you are saying, but I don’t think it is the job of the town or the planning board to make the numbers work for the guy that bought this property. I know it is rare, but people do take 2 family houses and convert them back to single family, and I think it is most likely going to be even more common with the local market the way it is.

    Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.