Apartments Lawsuit Dismissed Against Council, Shifted to Zoning Board

A lawsuit to try to block a planned 152-apartment complex at the former Haddonfield Lumber site can proceed, albeit against the zoning board and not Cherry Hill's township council, as originally filed, a state Superior Court judge ruled Thursday morning.

At issue was which board was ultimately responsible—technically, township council's inaction on an appeal filed in December constituted an affirmation of the zoning board's decision, but because that hearing never took place and there was never anything on the record at the township council level, there was a certain amount of ambiguity.

Plaintiffs' attorney Lynda Yammamoto and deputy township solicitor Erin Gill spent about 20 minutes arguing before Judge Faustino J. Fernandez-Vina over which board should've been targeted, given that ambiguity, with Gill arguing it simply didn't make sense to sue the township council.

“I'm not trying to diminish their right to challenge a land use decision,” she said. “We can't defend the zoning board's decision...there's no record for council to defend.”

But, as Yammamoto pointed out, the statute said the council made a decision, despite not acting on the appeal in December.

“The council made the last decision, and I had to appeal the last decision,” she said. At the same time, she argued for the addition of the zoning board, saying there was no down side to bringing it into the suit.

Fernandez-Vina ultimately sided with the township council in dismissing it from the suit—“There's no record for me to review,” he said—but OK'd adding the zoning board, meaning the suit can proceed, once amended.

That has to happen within 15 days, and with response time for the zoning board and Buckingham Partners, the developers who are the other defendant in the suit, it could be weeks before the next court proceeding in the case.

“It is going to be into the summer, for sure,” Yammamoto said.

The decision was somewhat of a surprise, said Robert Shinn, one of the eight plaintiffs who filed the suit, given other attorneys had advised them the township council was the right target for the suit, but he said what ultimately mattered was that they were allowed to proceed with action against the zoning board.

Politics had to be at least a partial driver in the township council's move to divorce itself from the suit, Shinn said, given the stigma a lawsuit pending against council could throw on the incumbents.

“The council didn't want to be on the hook in an election year,” he said. “The good news is, we'll still get our day in court.”

About two dozen other residents of the neighborhoods affected by the apartment complex were in court along with Shinn, who pointed to that fact, as well as donations from nearly 350 people to the cause against the apartments, as evidence of strong support for their cause.

“It's not just the eight plaintiffs who have a stake in this,” he said.

Fundraising efforts have topped $15,000, and Shinn said those efforts will continue, given the potential for the court process to drag out over several months and possibly go beyond whatever's decided in the first round.

“It's enough to take this through,” he said. “We're still trying to raise enough money for an appeal.”