Demolition equipment on May 1 outside one of the two homes on Wynwood Avenue next to Cherry Hill Dodge that would be razed to add to the dealership's parking lot.
The lawyer for Cherry Hill has called for a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by Cherry Hill Dodge that challenges the Township's right to rescind permission to expand a parking lot at the Route 70 dealership.
The car dealer, long at odds with homeowners in the Locustwood neighborhood, in 2020 was granted permission by the Township Planning Board to demolish two homes for the expansion as long as it abided by specific conditions.Â
After continuing battles over using car alarms to locate cars in the lot, taking test drives on residential streets and unloading cars and other products on busy Fulton Street — all covered as conditions of the Planning Board approval — the Township canceled Cherry Hill Dodge's demolition permits in late April.
Dealership owner Charles Foulke Jr. filed suit in U.S. District Court in Camden on May 9, asking the court to order the Township to reissue the permits for the 56-year-old company.
Foulke also seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees.
Requests by 70and73.com for comment by Foulke or his lawyer have gone unanswered.
Dismiss case, Cherry Hill says
Cherry Hill maintains that Foulke's case should not go before the U.S. District Court.
"Simply put, plaintiffs are clogging this court's already over-crowded docket with a matter that belongs in state court, not federal court," the Township's lawyer, Eric J. Riso, of the Cherry Hill law firm of Zeller & Wieliczko, wrote in a May 30 letter to U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb.
The letter is a request to Judge Bumb to dismiss Foulke's complaint. Part of the issue cited by Riso is whether zoning permits "rise to the level of a fundamental property interest worthy of protection under the Fourteenth Amendment."Â
Foulke's lawyer, Laura D. Ruccolo of the Mount Laurel firm of Capehart Scatchard, responded last Tuesday, June 6, and told the judge in a letter that the dealership opposes Cherry Hill's request.
"Defendents (Township) have deprived plaintiff (Cherry Hill Dodge) of their Constitutional rights and now the defendants want to deprive plaintiffs of the ability to have their claims heard in this court. Defendant's proposed motion to dismiss is without legal basis," Ruccolo wrote the judge in a letter.
Residents organized, and watching
Residents of the Locustwood neighborhood behind the dealership have held meetings about Cherry Hill Dodge over the last couple of years. The contentious case also has drawn the attention of other Cherry Hill residents and neighborhood associations.
Many homeowners have used their cell phones to collect videos of the dealership's activities. One active resident has said the ultimate goal is to have Cherry Hill Dodge abide by the conditions it agreed to in the Planning Board resolution.
After listening to neighbor testimony about Cherry Hill Dodge's behavior, a lawyer representing Cherry Hill Dodge at the Planning Board hearing in April 2021 acknowledged to board members that neighbors' complaints "are serious, they're valid concerns and they need to be addressed."
At the epicenter of the controversy has been resident Frank Maloney, whose family home fronts on Chambers Avenue and is bordered on the other three sides by Cherry Hill Dodge property.
Maloney, who is targeted in the Foulke lawsuit, is one of many property owners who have complained at Township Council meetings, testified at the Planning Board meetings and collected information on the dealership.
Videos by neighbors have shown test drives, recorded car alarms going off and product unloading on Fulton Street.Â
The two residential homes on Wynwood Avenue, at the end of the dealer's property, would be demolished under the Planning Board approval. The homes have been stripped of their siding and some of the windows have been removed.
Cherry Hill Dodge's allegations
In his civil lawsuit, Foulke and his company Lenny Reality LLC repeatedly mention Maloney.
In the May 9 civil complaint, they allege that "Maloney for years has tried to extort plaintiffs into paying well over market value for his home."Â
The car dealer, noting that it has been in business on the highly commercial Route 70 since 1967, said other dealerships such as Subaru, Kia and Mitsubishi are nearby on Route 70.
"Maloney and his cohorts appeared at the (Planning Board) meeting complaining that in their opinion Cherry Hill Dodge was not a 'good neighbor,'" Foulke's complaint noted. "In addition, Mr. Maloney has engaged in a concerted campaign of disinformation provided to Cherry Hill Township in an attempt to stop plaintiffs from utilizing their property for commercial use even though said property is zoned for commercial use."
The suit states that there is no legal basis for the Township "to insist upon these business operational conditions (in the Planning Board resolution) which are permitted by right in a B2 zoning district."
"However, Mr. Foulke had no choice but to agree to the conditions, as otherwise the properties would be rendered useless for their intended purpose, which was to improve operating conditions at Cherry Hill Dodge."
One condition in the resolution seeks to keep busy Fulton Street next to the dealership clear and prevent the unloading of cars from carriers or the parking of trucks making deliveries to the dealership.
Fulton Street is used as an exit from Route 70 to connect to Haddonfield Road. Cherry Hill's on-street regulations prohibit stopping or standing at any time on Fulton Street between Route 70 and Wynwood Avenue, the stretch that runs the length of Cherry Hill Dodge's property.
The conditions are described in the 27-page Township resolution, which is available for download with this article. Other documents also appear below.
Planning Board's Cherry Hill Dodge resolution, with conditions
Foulke lawsuit complaint
Cherry Hill dismissal request
Foulke response to dismissal request
