Cherry Hill Dodge proposed expansion: "We cannot live here," says neighbor next to dealer's lot.

For years, Frank Maloney's home on Chambers Avenue in Cherry Hill has been hemmed in on two sides by parking at Cherry Hill Dodge. Now the dealership proposes extending its parking onto a vacant lot on the third side of Maloney's property.

Bright lights, bell ringing, panic alarms used to locate cars in lots all have made living next to the dealership difficult, Maloney testified after being sworn in at a virtual hearing of the Planning Board Monday evening. With the parking lot expansion, it will be unbearable, he said.

"We cannot live here," said Maloney, whose wife, Mariana Carosella Maloney, bought the 1207 Chambers Ave. home in 1985.

The dealership — facing Route 70 and founded and owned by Charles W. Foulke Jr. and run by his son, Charles "Charlie" Foulke III — applied to the board to expand the lot onto property it owns at Chambers and Wynnwood avenues, tearing down two homes in the Locustwood neighborhood.

That plan comes about three weeks after Cherry Hill Imports Auto Group won Zoning Board of Adjustment approval to expand its Land Rover-Jaguar dealership on Haddonfield Road next to the Locustwood neighborhood. However, the zoning board wouldn't permit the dealer to turn two residential lots on Wynnwood Avenue into parking for employees and its car inventory.

» MORE: Cherry Hill Dodge's application to expand.

It took three zoning meetings to reach a decision on the Land Rover plan. Monday evening's Planning Board meeting went past 11 p.m. and was adjourned to August 17 after lengthy testimony by Cherry Hill Dodge and irate neighbors. Planning and zoning boards are quasi-judicial bodies and, at hearings, everyone must present testimony under oath.

Mariana Maloney testified she bought the property with her first husband 35 years ago and when she was raising her children they often couldn't play outside because of paint fumes from the dealership. Her husband died of lung cancer, she said. 

Before she broke down and couldn't continue with her testimony, Mariana told the board she was fearful of one dealership employee, who she alleged followed her in his car on her walks; he would drive slowly and then accelerate. She did not identify the employee.

Her current husband, Frank Maloney, said he wasn't consulted on the plan. As exhibits, Maloney submitted photographs he took of the dealership's parked vehicles allegedly encroaching into a 25-foot buffer zone between the lot and his home.

Cherry Hill Dodge's lawyer, Kevin D. Sheehan of Parker McCay in Mount Laurel, will have the opportunity to address the neighbors' testimony at the August 17 meeting.

But, to Planning Board member Marlyn Kalitan, the testimony of the Maloneys and others was a showstopper.

"I'm getting nauseous listening to this....I don't how much more we have to listen," she said. This is about being a good neighbor, she told the board, asking fellow members how they could grant Cherry Hill Dodge's request.

"I'm appalled also," Township Council member Michele Golkow, who also serves on the Planning Board, said in response to Kalitan's statements. "Actions do speak louder than words," said Golkow, who added Cherry Hill Dodge apparently hasn't been a good neighbor based on what residents were saying.

Colleen Sullivan, who has lived on Wynnwood Avenue for 23 years, said three homes already had been demolished by the dealership in previous expansion projects. "My neighborhood is just going away," she said.

Sullivan submitted exhibits with her testimony that included photographs she said show dealership employees heavily parked on the residential streets rather than on the dealer's lot. She also submitted as exhibits videos she took of panic alarms going off at what she testified was the dealer's lot.

Neighbor Tom Quigley, who lives on Warren Avenue, presented a detailed drawing showing current lighting on the lot that he alleged was angled toward residences and spills over. His photographs of the LED lighting fixtures were accepted as exhibits by the Planning Board.

Quigley testified he measured the light intensity at the lot with an app on his phone and the lighting was far brighter than other commercial properties he sampled in Cherry Hill. The dealer's lot is "wastefully and obnoxiously overlit," Quigley told board members.

Cherry Hill Dodge's lawyer, Sheehan, objected to Quigley's testimony — questioning the quality of his drawing and saying the study wasn't done by a lighting engineer.

However, Quigley answered he is an engineer and certified by the Association of Energy Engineers.

Sheehan earlier in the meeting said the dealership seeks several variances, including setbacks  that don't meet the minimum required distances. He said lighting shields were being installed because dealership lights spill over to residential properties. 

During Monday's hearing, Charlie Foulke — who oversees Cherry Hill Dodge operations and seven other dealerships — testified the increased parking would allow the dealership to segregate a gated parking lot for employees only. Total parking — for customers, employees and new car inventory — would grow to 559 spots under the proposal.

An ongoing concern by Locustwood residents is dealerships unloading new cars on public streets, rather in their lots. Foulke testified his dealership never unloads new vehicles at the Route 70 location. Instead, the unloading is done at a dealership property on Route 38 in Maple Shade and employees drive the individual cars to Cherry Hill Dodge, he said.

Foulke also said his dealership's "test track" for trying out vehicles is a loop from Route 70 to Haddonfield Road to Chapel Avenue to Cooper Landing Road and back to Route 70. He said any employee permitting test drives elsewhere would be "written up."

Another Cherry Hill resident, Judy Amorosa, testifying at the hearing called for the members of the Planning Board to recuse themselves from a decision because most are members of the Camden County Democratic Committee, a recipient of political donations over the years from the Foulkes.

Board attorney James Burns said "there is no conflict" and objections raised by Amorosa were not relevant to the dealership's application.