Belmar leaders tell program judge they oppose 4th and Ocean Avenue project as packed meeting presses for action

Belmar Mayor Campbell and municipal officials told a packed council workshop that the borough opposes a developer’s proposed multi‑story project for 4th and Ocean Avenue and will urge the program judge and special adjudicator to uphold Belmar’s vacant‑land adjustment.

The presentation and public discussion centered on the borough’s transition from a third‑round to the fourth‑round affordable housing process. Municipal officials said the Department of Community Affairs calculated a prospective need of 43 new‑construction units for Belmar, and the borough’s vacant‑land adjustment reduced the realistic development potential (RDP) to 14 units. Officials said most of the round‑4 obligation (10 of 14 units) will be satisfied by the 7th Avenue redevelopment project the borough has negotiated.

Why it matters: A developer challenge to Belmar’s housing element gives the challenger a place at mediation and a chance to press for a higher unit count; if the borough lost immunity it could face ‘builder’s remedy’ litigation that would reduce local control over zoning. A program session was scheduled the next morning to ask whether the parties could settle; officials said they expected no decision at that session but planned to press their case and ask the adjudicator and program judge to support Belmar’s numbers.

Municipal officials said the borough will argue the 4th Avenue site generates four affordable units under the standard formula (acreage × density × 20%), and that any modest upward adjustment could be handled elsewhere — but they rejected undertaking the 4th Avenue project itself. “We are not interested in engaging in a project on 4th and Ocean,” a municipal official said, adding the borough would “fight on your behalf” to prevent a four‑ or five‑story building on Ocean Avenue. Mayor Campbell told residents, “I will never be voting for this project.”

Multiple residents asked how they could register opposition with the judge. Officials said the program mediation would run on Zoom and is not the same as a public courtroom hearing; they pledged to ask the program judge whether there is any mechanism to register the packed room’s sentiment and to post documents and updates on the borough website and newsletter.

Technical and legal points: Officials described the procedural path as the program judge making a recommendation, a special adjudicator reporting, and the Mount Laurel judge (the superior‑court judge assigned to Mount Laurel matters) making a certification decision. Key calendar dates cited by officials: the Aug. 31 challenge deadline (already passed), an information submission to the program due Dec. 31, 2025, and an amendment/adoption deadline cited as March 15, 2026. Officials emphasized the fourth round’s compressed timelines compared with prior rounds.

Public reaction and next steps: Residents repeatedly urged the council to continue public outreach and to sign petitions or submit a unified letter if the judge allows such input; officials agreed to post the presentation and related court filings on the borough’s affordable housing webpage and to notify residents via the newsletter. The borough removed one resolution from the consent agenda during the meeting and approved the remaining consent items by roll call; the council closed public comment and adjourned the session.

The borough will appear before the program judge the morning after the workshop; officials said they expected the judge to ask whether parties had reached a settlement and to schedule a further session if not. The council said it will report back to residents as soon as the program provides guidance or a recommendation.