Mayor and Council - Regular Meeting

Adequate notice of this meeting of the mayor council has been provided to the co-star and the Asbury Park Press our official newspapers and notice of this meeting was posted on the Bolton board building. Councilman Donovan here. Counciloman Kenny here here. Council Rando here. Councilman Le here. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Please remain standing for a moment of silence for our troops, their families, and our first responders. Thank you. We're 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 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 part. Okay. So I'm turning it over.

Good evening. Fran McMan and Bowman. We serve as redevelopment council and affordable housing council to the bur.

Yeah. Yeah. So uh we service redevelopment and affordable housing council to the burough. 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 yeah, so 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 burough has a mandatory constitutional obligation to provide its fair share of affordable housing in its region. and just the bureau is 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 bureau now in this process? Well, the bureau's in the process of wrapping up or completing its third round for affordable housing. It was 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 burrow doing several things. First, adopting a spending plan for the bureau's affordable housing trust fund. That was done at the last meeting. [snorts] 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 bureaus 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. It's a much more compressed process than has ever been experienced in New Jersey. So far, the bureau has 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 bureau 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 burrow also adopted and endorsed its housing element and fair share plan on June 16, 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 in uh 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 burrow 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 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. [snorts] 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 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

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 [snorts] 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 perspective 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 burrow took what's called a vacant land adjustment to adjust its obligation for 43 units. That DLA then determines what's called the realistic development potential or RDP. And the RDP is the burough'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 has 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.

[snorts]

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 Leolce Vita Restaurant. This, as you can see, is a just a overview of the site location. This project was originally submitted to the burrow 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 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 fair share plan. On August 29th, 2025, remember that was the deadline [clears throat] for challenges was August 31st. The developer filed a challenge to the burough's housing element fair share plan with the revised project. This project included 30 units with six affordable units located at the fourth and ocean site. This [clears throat]

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 alternative 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 burrow. 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 when the developer submitted its challenge in August, this was uh the revised um parking plan significantly different and also the floor plan which now included the affordable units grouped together in the back of the building. So what is the current status of the fourth round? The burrow is working towards a resolution for its fourth round housing obl 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 let's see judge bookfinder. The burough's plan includes um satisfying its realistic development potential with the project located at 7th Avenue and addressing the burrow's unmet need obligation with an overlay zone. the next steps. [clears throat] One of them is on the agenda this evening, as I mentioned, the uh bureau's considering adopting legislation required to finalize uh 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 burough's plan to address the issues that have been raised by the challenges.

Okay, thank you for that. Um I'm going to 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 that a hearing 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? Is this not on? Can you hear me now?

Okay. So, Judge Bfinder is going to ask whether or not there's a settlement in this case. Um, we do not have 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 governing body as well as [applause] 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 [snorts] 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, who's the adjudicator?

Frank.

A 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 Mural 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, a fair share. They're going to tell tell us they haven't had a chance to look at it. Guarantee it. And then they're going to schedule another time depending [snorts] 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 a second. 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 board project. I want everyone to be aware that these folks up here as well as Francie 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 a little bit more longwinded, 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. 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, go like I said, I'm sorry again. [clears throat] Yes. No.

I'm not very technologically advanced. So, like I'm not understanding why it's working and not working. Um, so Judge Booker 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 little 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 till 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 the 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 be part of your fourth round

and then and then we'll have not just me 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. It's 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 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 if that's

yes okay so 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 no 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 keeping stamp of approval that 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.

Yeah. 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. The next round, fourth round ends in 2035. 35.

Okay. So, I don't want anybody coming 10 years from now when 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 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 Francis said our our present need is zero and our prospective need was 40

43 43 43. Now in my mind that means the perspective 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 affordable

house 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 in but that's our realistic development potential 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're 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 [clears throat] 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 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 [snorts] 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 of the 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 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 his 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 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 a petition submitted? No. Okay. Sorry. They don't care.

So, we have to pro we have to put forth a compliant plan. It's up to the burrow 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. [snorts] 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. [snorts] 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, traffic, parking, those are not uh impactful on the on these decisions.

Thank you. What else? I just it's fair to say that, you know, Marie 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? Take that straw poll. Absolutely. 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 paytoplay 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 look forward to seeing you guys in the audience getting up and making comments that would be appropriate. [clears throat] 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 tasked 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 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, 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 the Frank Banish. He's a special master who essentially is like an arm of the court 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, [snorts] 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 council members, I am going to uh 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, 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. 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. You said too stupid.

Too stupid. That's the signal for Neil Shack of Fourth Avenue. [laughter] 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 are already set in your opinion. So you still want to hear from us whether we are for or against it, right? Because 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 [clears throat] 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? They're brave enough to raise their hand. So, you know, I think we can assume that this is one of the larger crowds we've had in in in weeks uh for meeting in and 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 are we're not for it, I do think it has an effect. I'm hoping it will have an effect.

Yeah. 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 you don't have to convince us that it should be there. You're right. You're absolutely right. Or or to say what we think should be there. I mean I've got my own vision of what would be great there but there's no point. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Hi, I'm uh Jim Lan 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 fourth does or doesn't do? We've got our requirement. We met it.

So, we have been certified. We're still into mitigation. They filed a formal challenge. 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 of the committee, the the subcommittee as well as um Francancy especially to put [clears throat] 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 assign to it, and I feel like we're in a very strong position in the position that we're in uh when we calculate the four units. Um, but we've been very clear. There's we have no intention of completing the site. If we have to do something else, we will. And that's basically what we told them. So the question is if you've got a need and you met the need how often does a 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 proposed until 2035 and then in 2035 this I don't know what I'm hoping that I'll retire 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 and 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 bet you guess it's changed because 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 [clears throat] mayor had indicated we got for round three. Um, once we get that judgment of propose, 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 proposed. Last question, different topic. We have four third round just completed. Building will start at some point not too far. We go through this round is it 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 plan. I mean, they still would have to go to the planning board. It would be a

could be delayed for quite some time only because we've got buildings, massive building going on in the third round. Knowing this lawyer, I would venture to guess that'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 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. Thanks. Anyone else? [snorts]

Good evening, Carlos Montero, 7th Avenue. I just have a question. And in the event that the court or 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 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. the developer would make a little bit less and we could meet the right 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 that 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. Thank you. Claire Henry 18th and B. Um I 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 Republicans, and there was a lot of talk about uh Seport 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're at your home, we talked to people and nothing was mentioned about, you know, Fourth Avenues. Is there a reason?

Well, the the the um objection was only filed in in December, August 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 project. It wasn't compliant. So we didn't entertain it because it wasn't compliant. 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 those projects,

but but I want to stay 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 e courts or whatever the date was the the Tuesday after day when we looked on e courts 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. Wow. Yeah. Same. Oh, I was at the last meeting.

A lot of back and forth, you not that we had them and we weren't giving them. There's 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 an, 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 seventh Avenue plan, and then fourth Avenue plan were all um objecting to our plan. So that was like the starting point.

Okay. But mayor, you being so [clears throat] objecting against it also, I would have thought you would have filmed your counsel on it. Thank you. Um

well I think that respectfully I feel like given the fact that we pretty much anticipated this reaction to that plan it was not started 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 we filed our response. The bureau filed a response a couple days ago, 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 court. 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 don't 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. No, that's not. So, no. 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 Mam 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 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." 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, the judge? That's that's my question. We You want 14. You did all the work. That looks good. Everything. 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? Bookbinder. He's going to say to Frank Banish, "Do you agree with the analysis that the burrow 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.

Okay. And that's I mean we've said that multiple times and but we will not know ultimately whether or not what the court recommen what the program recommendation is to the Mount L 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 will 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. It's not just you need to go.

All right. I appreciate all that. Take all the affordable housing out of this issue. There's still a project for 4th Avenue. I'm assuming where how does that h what where does where No, there is no project for if 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, which I mean I can't speak for the board, but I feel safe in saying it probably would 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 insurance. Okay, I think I got it. Thank you.

Hi. Hi. KJO 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, 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 is probably 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 the challenge in September or by August 31st or or 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 We'll 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 is there is a development plan 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 fam 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 Mount Royal Judge here in Mon 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 finder 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 an 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 frame and now we're like three weeks to the end of it. So, but I will definitely make the ask and we will report back through Kevin. 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 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. You signed up for um Have you ever signed up for the newsletter, the Nixel alerts? No. So, is that like April? Is there a place online where you can sign up for that? Yes. On the website? Where on the website is that? I think it's under the residents tab. We have a whole affordable housing page on our website too where we can post different documents. We'll post the PowerPoint presentation and any other documents that come up. Mayor,

um if you sign up for that the newsletter or alert, we can make sure that a newsletter goes out that will update you once there is something to update you with. Um, okay.

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, tapped 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 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 Belmar 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, 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 then next thing you know, there's a developer who wants to build build something there. So, I 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. [snorts]

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? No, we're we're we we're not going to do that. Why not? Because it's not up to us. It's really up to the the the housing authority commissioners.

Yeah. And 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 just 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 it just blows up.

Okay. 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 and the I think the law allows us uh as a as a municipality to um share 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 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 Belmar and that's really the the the crux of the problem. the last discussion there was 85 people on the list and there was not a Belmar resident on the list. But it's it's a 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. Sean Ker 284th Avenue. 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 [clears throat] times 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 six 10 12. it would never fly here because we have the subjector and we've used that density globally throughout when we've calculated it out. So, you know, their proposal is 30 units, 20% will 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 bureau 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 then? [snorts] fairshare they [clears throat] 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 round crediting, 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 [snorts] um and we can address it elsewhere. But 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 five 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 is forth that out? Yes. Well, I mean they're going to challenge us. I mean, so but we've met the we've met, [clears throat]

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 burrow in a much stronger position going to the Mount Laural 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 out 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 three 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 because 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 to increase the number from 10 to 14. Thank you. Anyone else? [clears throat]

Hi Kevin Brennan 605 fifth a first let me state that I am proaf affordable housing and I'm I'm just a little confused with the numbers not how we got there not if it's 43 not if it's 14 it's if it is 14 or 16 and we said that takes care of our obligations 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 just they just are coming around now. That's why you're aware of them. But they are 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 Markville 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. 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 No, I'm not looking for I honestly don't remember. But it's more than 14. That's a lot more than 14. It's above the 14. Oh, way more. That's also like the 90s it was like in the 90s or maybe 102 something of that nature.

Realistic development potential for the third round was 91 and those the Marbell project the Sackman project um Russo project and 61310th were sat 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 board. So those projects are done and moving forward to satisfy that 91 unit obligation from round three. Okay. Now

period moving on to round four. Now in round four we are the burough's 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. It's Yes. But you really I mean yes realistically you can combine them and 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 I understand where you guys are coming from. Yes. From us the net is about 100. It's cumulative. It's cumulative for sure. Thanks. [snorts]

Anyone else? Oh, I just want to clarify to you that 91 units that the satisfaction of those 91 units was not with necessarily 91 structure 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 migraine. 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. Um 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 what they call a mandatory set aside ordinance. So if a project and I'm not saying unlike the project 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 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 1 and a half% of the equalized assessed value of the project if it's non-residential it's 2 and a.5% 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 in

I 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, right? Yes. In this round

in round four. Yes. Thank you. Anyone else? Mike 311. Quick question. You've done a great job explaining the whole uh process, the disaster, and I have a pretty good understanding of planning board and zoning and a master plan. It almost seems can like these developers like hijacked his fair share act to try to get something approved that's not part of our planning board or master plan because I can't imagine that Belro would ever be okay with five stories on fourth and ocean. So, and and I'm sorry, real quickly. I'm sorry.

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 wouldn't 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 per our ma as per 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 a 100 units up on seven stories. Now we got to got to come up with 20 units."

Well, no, because it would be the same formula. Acreage times density time. So, like we're not obligated to just accept whatever they're proposing,

right? 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, [snorts] 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. 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 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 bureau 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, not not allowable through our planning board, they can jam it down our throat. Hey, too bad. Make it happen.

Y All right. Thank you. Hi, uh, David Wilkins 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' already said like that's not your per. That's the board. My the housing committee, the housing board, who appoints them? Is that county commissioners? Are they elected? Maybe weird commission uh the commission is is a mix. Uh one commissioner is is appointed by the governor for the community affairs. 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 Well, we have a number of them coming up at the end of the year. So, there'll be some some different commissioners. Um, does 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 other in actual the process uh no anyone else

this is a K first Avenue. Um this is a issue that goes 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 seventh Avenue project as the council, excuse me. And when we submitted it, we submitted it by site plan and we had started two and a half years ago. We came in and met with the mayor and then nothing We tried to intervene. Uh we were denied intervention. We tried 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 seport development 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 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. 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 and just kind of direct them so they didn't waste time or money. But we also wanted it [clears throat] to people be aware of it and and you were the only members of the governing 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 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 what but I know from memory what it said was that the uh site plan uh the application for redevelopment and this was I think it was 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 projects German general compliance with blah blah blah the 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 become a matter for the public to know about. And you know, I saw the wife of one of my book club mates posted last night, which she read um I guess tap into that she found out for the first time both about the seventh 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 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 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 we couldn't submit directly to the planning board. Notwithstanding 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. A favorable review of the application, negotiation of a draft redevelopment agreement with a prospective developer,

adoption of resolution, mayor and council, designated prospective developer, authorizing the execution of redevelopment agreement, all of 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 know 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. I don't 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 everything we submit should be submitted to all of you. You you're you have no different strengths and weaknesses under our form of government other than the mayor has executive authority. Other than that, you're all members of the council of even stature. So, whatever gets submitted, it should get submitted to all of you. You should all be aware of it upfront by initial contact. [snorts] 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 of site [snorts] plans

we've filed um for without 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 everybody 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 you shouldn't know about 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 if you want to take me up on that or not but let me know.

Thank you. 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 C4 redevelopment plan itself but we'll keep you posted. Hi. Um, I'm Leila Mark, 605 Ocean app. I have a really straightforward question about tomorrow's hearing. Sure. Um, I'm gonna 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 I think that came up earlier and I think there was a commitment to do it through like the newsletter or and the website, but I just wanted to clarify that it's definitely not much. Definitely not.

Okay, great. Thank you. Could we put it out on our social media somehow and update? No, the streaming is from the judiciary. No, I'm not talking about the streaming about the results. I mean, you got to be careful. This is pending litigation, so you [snorts] can't just stream all of it. That's why I'm asking. 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 to go to the public, but it won't be tomorrow afternoon. There will not be results tomorrow. Yeah. Okay. There will be no results posted tomorrow. So we'll be the hearing will be held and then um there will be that was unclear. Yeah. Exactly. So there will be no results or decision made 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. Again, thanks to everyone who came out tonight. Uh I know I appreciate it. I think all the other council members appreciate it. And um have a very happy holiday who are leading at this point. Thank you. Okay. April. Uh any petitions? Am I done now? Are we done?

Thank you.

I have First time I was there was 1999, but I lived for a while and I was there about 10 years now. Of course I know. Oh, well, I'm Francancy McMan. It's very nice to meet you. So, I've been there a while. Yes. I will definitely. Yes, of course. Yes.

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? Second. Councilman Donovan. Yes. Council Kenny Mayor. Yes. Councilman Council.

Hi. I just wanted to thank everyone first for coming out. Um, a little too much. A little too much. I have the opposite problem.

Just right. It's just me. Don't worry. Sy'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 Bingo, 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 hyped that 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 shop 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 mess them with. Gone. Um, and also critically, it would take

away our right to go to court for 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 collaboratively 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've secured a C3 for 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 that continues to make a cleaner and more beautiful lake for all of you. Thank you. 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 and Sunday on the 14th and 11:00 to 4. And the Holly Jolly Trolley, which is a trolley that's going to go around, look at all the houses in town and goes starts at Cafe Dilla from India, 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 Belmore chamber of commerce website about the um Holly Jolly trolley and the manora lighting is also this Monday at 6:30 and also on piano. Uh the next J tree Christian meeting is this Thursday at 6:30. The next ADA meeting is going to be in the first uh in January when this ID. Um couple things around schools. St. Louis 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 our 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 at how we can do that. I think you have to do that at Belmar Elementary School website Wednesday. Um the winter band at Belmar Elementary, their choir band and chorus concert is this Thursday, 6:30

and uh last day of school for everybody is December 23rd and they go back on the 5th. So merry Christmas everybody and happy holidays. Thank you, 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 Raptor Martin did a wonderful job, 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 Dao 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 on Facebook. So, I'm not sure if he posted through his

personal account or through the um fire department's account, but it's findable up there as well. Wonderful. And quite common, I don't think the house was a total loss. I heard from friends at Glendola, who was also there 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. Do do we know anything as far as any need um currently with the resident or anything like that? I I don't I know there's been some contact, but I I don't have any details.

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 BHA 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's office and spoke to Joe Schlater 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 holidays 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 [clears throat] 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. [laughter] 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 in uh getting the tree up and whatever. And uh it was the Selmer 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. If anyone has a comment or question about a resolution on the agenda, please step forward, state your name and address.

Thank you.

Fourth Avenue. Uh I have comments on resolution 2025-218. Uh the municipal public access plan and uh resolution 2025 26. [snorts] I I printed a copy of the municipal public access plan and uh thank you very much. You know, looks like a lot of work went into this uh doing an inventory of public access points within the burrow. Uh but I did uh I do have some comments. sticking to my fingers.

Mr. Kramer, if I may, before 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

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 five years to change to get it approved. 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. [laughter]

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 to me. I have

for the same for the same reason that 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 DP 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 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. Here we go with the microphone. Um we're going to have to do this again in another five 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 updated last night. Thank you. I'm still going to make my comment unless you know there's some rule against that. No, there's no rules against that.

On page number five, municipal public access goals and objectives. about the middle of the page you're see 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. And by the way, the reason 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 car an unobstructed eastern horizon very rare and uh and I'll get to Mama County here in a moment but Mr County prides itself and our beachfront and the visual access that the public has has I don't know how many times I've seen the Belar beach and the fishing club u on M County calendars many times. It's 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? U [snorts] there's no

Verizon towers for 1.3 miles and I I just I I I really do want to compliment Mar County. U 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 dusk to dawn lighting all up down uh the boardwalk right at the edge of of counties right away [snorts] 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 weren't down there. Actually I believe there's northern lights tonight but you have a dark sky very little in the way of u blank pollution. And by the way, I do also want to point out that when there wasn't very much interest in town here about taking on Verizon, M County did. And I guess from our perspective, um, we're kind of happy that there's no progress with the horizon. in order to halt it.

I'm going to correct you there on the horizon. 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 it was an issue. Uh and uh even though there was a consent judgment entered. Uh it it was the uh the 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. Okay.

And they took it. I just want to make sure that furrow is not undermining what the county absolutely not is trying to preserve

and uh excuse me access locations. It does state here the BMAR provides unbroken visual access from North Boulevard to the south to first avenue in the north. Visual access continues along the entirety of one portion. I wasn't trying to say that the public access plans did not take into consideration visual access to the water borders there. On page uh number 11, public restrooms, it says there are six temporary public bath bathroom trailers located at 3r, 6, 8, 11, 16th, 19th. I think we all know that 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 CAFRA commit that was issued to the burrow and the CFA commit which allows the installation of trailers on on the boardwalk. Um 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 here 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 here. I think you have the surfing camp up there and actually that's the widest

beach in the town. Um the beach By the way, 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 it goes from from south to north is that nowadays it seems that the Army Corps of Engineers has to dredge the inlet just to so that they're 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 which gets narrower as you go south and the last replenishment project went from 9th Avenue and went all the way south. The beaches is very narrow and the D permit recognizes that's a high risk area. Um I guess [clears throat] 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 um

yeah, there there are also upcoming issues, Mayor.

Okay, here's another place here with Third Avenue. [cough] Another place where Third Avenue mentioned as having a restroom on this page number 20 21 having to do with signage. Um what I've noticed the last years especially is that we have a lot of visitors to Belmore that just don't speak English. U they don't speak English 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 didn't hear about the the fatality that we had um this past year except he was from I believe New York City. Um, but couple of years ago uh we actually named a a park in town over at 15th and East Street and you people that 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 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. I'll cut right to u cut to the chase as we say in the movie industry.

Okay. Yeah. Res resolution awarding contract for new 16,000 each. uh just the elevated bathrooms where there's going to be high demand. When we have a storm uh hurricane in town, everybody's going to be Oh my god, we have an elevated bathroom that we're going to be able uh to go through. 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 Mr. And uh why can't you take that $1.5 million and spend it on redigmatizing put proper foundation in for the trailers. Uh trailers are a whole much better. Uh it's just like a hospital. 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 the way, I've only been in power one time because it's only accessible by going up ramps and 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, you know, creating a what would you call

it? An energy pig right out of the beach. And maybe you don't believe in in climate warming. um rising sea level. 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. [snorts] But um you know do you have

mayor [clears throat] have the people across the road have you figured about the impact on property values that this thing people people currently in the condominium complex right across the street from where this is going to be constructed. Uh they're go 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? Is the municipality going to compensate these people for spoiling their their ocean view? People pay a premium for that. Thank you.

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, mayor, I can't even figure out from the 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. I can have I can have the the engineer tell you exactly what the dimensions are. But I'd like to move on. We have another um

real real quick question. Is it going to be higher than the uh uh the floor level going to be higher than the Taylor pavilion or the 10 pavilion? I don't know. I don't know if you know that. We have our engineer here. I don't know if he knows off the top of his head. Yeah, Mr. Mayor. It it's going to be very similar in height. uh as the Taylor pavilion in terms of the steps up from the border. 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 those levels are going up. No, [snorts] 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 element. Same as the tail. Yeah, if you're going to be within, I think one step higher than the tail pavilion. Okay, thank you.

Any other comments? Please step forward. Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public session? I'll make a motion. Second. All in favor? [clears throat] Okay. Can I have a motion uh to amend the consent agenda to remove resolution 2025206? Motion.

That's why we have to do that. Okay. All in favor? Yes. Uh, next I have a motion to adopt resolution 2025 206. I'll make a motion. Second. Councilwoman Kenny, yes. Mayor Busco, yes. Councilman Rando, yes. Councilman Levis, yes. Now, can I have a motion to approve the rest of the consent agenda resolutions? Motion. Second. Councilman Donovan, yes. Council McKini, yes. Mayor McCusker, Council Moniro, yes. Councilman Levis, 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. See none. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion. Second. In favor. And a motion to adopt ordinance 202523. A motion. Second. Councilman Donovan. Yes. Council McKini. Yes. Mayor Buseska. Yes. Council Ronzero. Yes.

Councilman Le. Yes. Okay. Now we have the regular public session. If anyone would like to speak, please step forward, state your name and address. Are we having our annual candy cane hunt or the um house decorating contest this year? I don't know. No candy cane hunt. have not heard about the No, we have received professional. [laughter]

I will be brief. Neil Shek, 410th 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 bureau 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 affects us 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? Motion. Motion back. All in favor? I. Thank you everyone. Have a very merry Christmas. Happy holidays.