A request from Cherry Hill Dodge's owners to the Township to reinstate two demolition permits so they can raze homes for a parking lot was denied on Thursday night.
The Cherry Hill Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to affirm that the Township's zoning officer in April had sufficient evidence that the Route 70 dealership violated the conditions of a Planning Board resolution that gave it the go-ahead to demolish the houses and add parking spaces on Wynwood Avenue.
In 2020, the dealership agreed to stop using car horns and alarms to locate the vehicles in its parking lot, to stop taking customer and service department test drives in the Locustwood neighborhood and to prevent delivery trucks from stopping in the busy Fulton Street exit from Route 70.
But, in February, a Township zoning enforcement officer documented 28 incidents of employees using the remote car horns over a two-week period and notified the dealer of the violations. Neighbors of the dealership also presented evidence of the use of remotely triggered car horns and Fulton Street still being used for unloading.
After hearing neighbor complaints at a Township Council meeting, meeting with a neighborhood group and considering the zoning enforcement violations, the permits were rescinded.
Dealership owners Charles Foulke Jr. and his son, Charles Foulke III, filed with the zoning board to have their permits restored so they could move on with building the parking lot. They now can sue over Thursday night's decision, but the dealership already is separately suing the Township for the same rescission in federal court.
Board Chair Jonathan Rardin, a lawyer, and board lawyer Eric J. Riso, of the Cherry Hill law firm of Zeller & Wieliczko LLP, faced off with two lawyers representing the dealership in the rare case of an enforcement appeal rather than the usual requests from residents and businesses that go to the board.
Each took exhaustive steps to explain the proceedings to other board members, and they often sparred with the dealer's lawyers.
Representing Cherry Hill Dodge, Peter A. Chacanias, of Hyland Levin Shapiro of Marlton, wanted the public banned from speaking at the meeting.
"Whatever the public might say or might not say is not a part of the record," he told the board. Chacanias said public testimony was "not permitted" because the hearing was not on an application for development.
"The record is what the record is. It can't change," Chacanias said.
His demand to gag the public at the meeting drew fire from Rardin and Riso.
"It's a public hearing and public hearings involve the public," Rardin told him. "It is important to the board as representatives of the public to hear what they have to say and to know where they're at."
Added Riso: "I would hate to have to say to members of the public 'You can't be heard.'"
Several neighbors in the Locustwood neighborhood testified, limiting their comments to what occurred before the April rescission, but the other dealership lawyer, Laura D. Ruccolo, of Capehart Scatchard Mount Laurel, objected to all.
The objections were sustained by Rardin and board members said they limited their decision to the evidence on the record and provided ahead of time to Cherry Hill Dodge.
At one point in the arguments, dealership lawyer Chacanias maintained that the conditions the Planning Board had set when it approved the parking lot expansion were not intended to be in effect until the parking lot was done and therefore any alleged violations before then should not be considered.
All six zoning board members spoke briefly about their votes and focused on the evidence that Cherry Hill Dodge had violated the conditions, with member Rob Connor noting that public testimony on Thursday night did not play a role in his decision.
Another member, Nacovin Norman, said the dealership did not put forward a sufficient argument to overturn the zoning officer's decision to rescind the demolition permits. Gregory Bruno, another board member, said he trusts all those working in the Township Community Development Department and believed the evidence to be "truthful and sufficient."
