Haddonfield Encouraging RESPONSIBLE Development

04/25/2025

BANCROFT / WOODMONT UPDATE:

On Feb 14, 2025, our lawsuit against the Borough for its fraudulent May 13, 2024, vote (the “Roche Vote”) to select Woodmont Properties to develop Bancroft culminated in an agreement nullifying the Roche Vote and requiring the Borough to conduct a “de novo” review of all of the proposals by Mar 10, 2025 -- at which time, they could have selected a less impactful proposal, or decided to reject them all (and just build the 10 required affordable units).

The term “de novo” in this context means that they were to review the proposals without any extra consideration for Woodmont based on any negotiations they’d had with Woodmont after the nullified Roche Vote.

They claim they conducted a bona fide de novo review, but their actions prove otherwise. We have in our possession a legally obtained Feb 26, 2025, text message (sent in the midst of the “de novo” review) from a Borough official stating that, “They are directing us to build Woodmont. Time is up.” We believe that the “They” in this message is Fair Share Housing Center, which was in litigation with the Borough for its failure to get the ten affordable housing units built at Bancroft.

Regardless of who “they” is, this text -- along with the Commissioners’ inability to clearly articulate how they did a de novo review (behind closed doors) and again selected the very unpopular Woodmont plan -- is clear evidence that there was no true de novo review. They selected Woodmont again because they’d already negotiated with Woodmont (a process which took months), and they knew they could get it done the fastest, in order to satisfy Fair Share.

The Borough denied us the outcome they’d agreed to in our lawsuit by conducting a sham de novo review. This is contempt of a lawful court order signed by Superior Court Judge Silverman-Katz. But, it gets worse…

On Mar 7, 2025 – three days before completing the “de novo” review and re-selecting Woodmont, the Borough entered an agreement with Fair Share which has had an absolutely chilling effect on our ability to cite their contempt and enforce our litigants’ rights regarding the de novo review. The agreement stated that if our lawsuit delayed the Borough from re-finalizing an agreement with Woodmont by May 12, 2025, then the Borough would automatically lose its immunity to Builder’s Remedy lawsuits.

If the Borough were to lose its immunity to Builder’s Remedy lawsuits, then builders could over-ride local zoning regulations and build massive high-density housing throughout the Borough. This outcome would be potentially catastrophic to the character, infrastructure, schools, and property values in Haddonfield.

Although we have iron clad proof that the de novo review was a sham, the Borough’s agreement with Fair Share moots our ability to pursue the Borough further in this case, because the outcome could then be exponentially worse for Haddonfield. Effectively, the Borough’s apparent collusion with Fair Share Housing Center has denied us our rights to Due Process as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

However, it leads to another path, which we are exploring at this moment. The Borough and Fair Share have violated rights guaranteed to us under the U.S. (i.e. Federal) Constitution – by colluding to deny us our due process. (NOTE: Our lawsuit was specifically cited by name in their agreement.) We have reason to believe that Fair Share acts not as the non-profit “affordable housing advocacy group” that they claim to be, but rather as a de facto agent of the State of NJ and/or of builders / developers in the state of NJ. Their non-profit tax filings show a significant uptrend in donations received over the past five years, but they are not required to disclose the source of those donations -- unless compelled to through a legal discovery process, as in, perhaps, a FEDERAL civil lawsuit.

So what next? At this point, we are “closing out the books” in our successful-but-now-unlawfully-mooted-lawsuit and are attempting to raise an additional $4,909 to pay the outstanding legal fees, (which totaled $27k over the entire lawsuit). Any contributions you could make towards that will be greatly appreciated, as we are personally on the hook for the balance.

We have had calls with two noteable attorneys versed in Federal litigation and NJ housing law and are evaluating the feasibility of action in Federal court, seeking to: (1) nullify the Borough’s agreement with Fair Share and gain an injunction against any action by the State of NJ to strip Haddonfield of its immunity to Builder’s Remedy; (2) nullify any action taken by the Borough regarding Woodmont since the Mar 10, 2025, completion of the sham “de novo” review; (3) force a true / bona fide de novo review by the Borough, WITH PUBLIC INPUT.

Below is a link to the GoFundMe page, and checks can also be sent to HERD c/o Chris Maynes at 7 Roberts Ave.

www.gofundme.com/f/save-our-schools-say-no-to-120-units-at-bancroft

The fight is not over for Bancroft. Please help, and don’t give up!

Send a message to learn more

03/14/2025

The Borough’s Poison Pill

We have reason to believe that as of February 26, 2025, at least one Borough official believed that the Borough was being directed to build Woodmont, which would support the assertion that the “de novo” review was, in fact, a sham. The evidence supporting this belief is in the possession of the citizens’ attorney as well as the Borough’s attorney, Sal Siciliano.

It would almost certainly blow up the Borough’s shameless actions over the past week, but it presents a conundrum…

Why does it present a conundrum?

Because on February 27, 2025, the Borough agreed to a su***de pact via a poison pill agreement with Fair Share Housing Center. That pact was finalized on March 7, 2025 – three days before they concluded their sham “de novo” review and re-designated Woodmont as the developer. The su***de pact includes the following provision:

“8. If a valid and enforceable Purchase and Sale Agreement or Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Bancroft site is revoked due to the outcome of litigation in Huehnergarth v. Bd. Of Commissioners of Haddonfield, the Borough’s immunity from Builder’s Remedy lawsuits shall be immediately revoked pursuant to this Order and any developer shall be entitled to bring suit.”

Stop, and think about that…

…Twelve days before the Borough’s due date for completing their “de novo” review of the RFP responses (a process which took nine months the first time, but less than three weeks this time), a Borough official acknowledges that the Borough is being directed to build Woodmont. Then, three days before the due date, the Borough jointly finalized an agreement with Fair Share that would bring builders remedy if the citizens’ lawsuit prevailed, which it likely would, given the evidence.

Our Mayor, Colleen Bianco-Bezich, and our Solicitor, Sal Siciliano, signed the Borough on to a su***de pact with Fair Share – insulating themselves against further action in the citizens’ lawsuit, despite how obvious it has become that their ‘de novo’ review was actually a fait accompli. They are willing to trade the fate of Haddonfield to protect themselves against an inevitable loss in court, and they should forever walk in shame through the streets of Haddonfield, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.

The 14th Amendment states: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Did the Borough of Haddonfield, Fair Share Housing Center, and the Superior Court of New Jersey deny the plaintiffs their 14th Amendment Rights to (a) Due Process and (b) Equal Protection of the Law?

03/11/2025

The Borough again voted for 120 units at Bancroft. Here's our postmortem on last night's meeting, and some thoughts on what's next? Please read and let us know what you think should happen next.

Last night, the three commissioners described the efforts they made in terms of a de novo review of the nine Bancroft RFP responses before voting for Woodmont. Below is our blunt take on all three, but first, it's important to note that the Borough's redevelopment attorney spent a great deal of time explaining the current Fair Share / builder's remedy timeline BEFORE the discussion of the de novo review began.

Why is this important?

Such a tight timeline was not in play in May 2024, and it became clear throughout the meeting that the Fair Share / builders remedy timeline (which was not in play in May 2024) drove the re-selection of Woodmont last night. Therefore, we did not get a true de novo review. Had that timeline been in play last May, it is much less likely that the commissioners would have chosen any of the six proposals (including Woodmont) that required altering the Redevelopment Plan with the major (and likely to be contentious) amendment of allowing rentals, as opposed to requiring owner-occupied. (Recall how the Planning Board recommended against this change, and the Borough did it anyway in a contentious meeting.)

But last night, they knew (1) the amendments were written and could be passed again quickly; (2) the deal with Woodmont was agreed to and could quickly be re-agreed-to, and (3) all they have to do to ensure they meet the timeline is to revote on everything they already voted on before. Again... not de novo.

Anyway, here's the blunt take:

Siedell went first and started out in campaign mode by reading many of his comments from the Nov 2024 election cycle and attempting to reconcile them with what he is doing now. Of particular note were his comments about his minimal impact approach, these comments being made mere minutes before he... voted for 120 units when he could have voted for smaller, less impactful projects such as the 84 condo Toll Bros proposal or Just Build 10. He then walked the audience through the quantitative analysis he conducted, the scorecards, factor weightings, etc. that helped him arrive at Woodmont as the clear winner.

The Mayor went next. She told us how she did her review and she's explained her rationale previously, and she's the same person she was before, and nothing has changed, and so she's voting for Woodmont. Not much substance either way.

Lastly, was Troy. Troy gave what felt like a straightforward, matter-of-fact rehash of what he did in terms of a review, dusting off the bankers box of RFP material that's been in his attic, yellow-stickies and all, going through them again and still not having Woodmont as his first pick, but that it was in his top 3. He expounded on builder's remedy and why it would be bad. And that's the problem... He, in his honesty (and that's a sincere comment) also exposed that the re-selection of Woodmont now is not really being driven by the merits of its proposal, but that it is being driven now by the current builder's remedy timeline. In May 2024, there would have been some debate about this, public input, maybe a townhall to review the proposals, but last night, it was clear -- from the redevelopment attorney walking the commissioners through the builders remedy timeline before their discussion, to their comments about builder's remedy during and after the discussion -- that the current builders remedy timeline is what led them back to Woodmont.

So we're weighing our options, and here's where we'd love some input. We could:

a) Re-open the litigation, citing the clear evidence from last night that they are continuing with Woodmont because it, at this point, is the fastest option. This could also lead to contempt charges if it can be established that they were going to choose Woodmont all along (even if they felt they had no choice), thereby mocking the consent order which mandated a de novo review. Discovery and depositions would be needed to unearth the evidence to support this. This would require additional funding, and possibly some significant upfront financial commitments from other residents. Also, what would be the remedy? What could we expect to have happen if we were to prevail?

AND/OR

b) Seek justice by filing a complaint with the State Attorney General regarding the fact that Roche voted illegally and, possibly, Siciliano and Bianco-Bezich were complicit in failing to fulfill their duty to stop him. They knew it was an issue, and they could have and should have paused the vote and gotten a definitive answer before proceeding. Why not Troy? Troy was against the vote to begin with. We wish he'd stood stronger at that time, but it's understandable why he would have relied on Colleen (attorney) and Siciliano (attorney) and figured it must be ok to proceed. This option (b) might not change the outcome at Bancroft, but at least it might bring justice and dissuade future illegal behavior by our commissioners.

c) Let it all go and take no further action.

Let us know your thoughts...

03/10/2025

A MODEST PROPOSAL

HERD has been fighting for RESPONSIBLE development at Bancroft for over a decade. RESPONSIBLE development could include NO development, or it could include housing appropriate for the site. We believe that, due to the historical significance of the Bancroft site, its proximity to the Camden County Park, and a lack of park-space anywhere else in Haddonfield, that passive open space would be the best use of the parcel, aside from the 10 Affordable units which must be built there.

Unfortunately, we see these Commissioners as being hell-bent on developing the site regardless of what we, or the thousands of other residents who would prefer as much open space as possible, think.

With that reality in mind — AND WITH HEAVY HEARTS, after fighting for more than a decade for open space at Bancroft — we are shifting our efforts to the goal of getting the best possible development on the site, given the circumstances.

Of the nine proposals, only one — Toll Brothers — is even remotely responsive to the RFP and conforms to the unamended Bancroft Redevelopment Plan (the only version which may now be considered).

Unlike the other proposals, the Toll Brothers proposal includes owner-occupied, condo flats, in modest two story buildings (one unit atop another). It is age-targeted, and age-restriction is a possibility, which will eliminate impact on the school system (except for the Affordable units and ‘backfill’ from seniors leaving their current homes to move to the new development — which will be the case for all proposals).

Due to the units’ modest size (1600 - 2000 sq ft), they would be affordable for down-sizing seniors. The main shortcoming of the initial proposal is that the development, as situated, would require modification of the ‘berm’ between Kings Highway and the parcel. If the Borough could negotiate moving the development about 30’ further from Kings Hwy and reducing it by eight units, the plan could work without modifying the berm.

APRIL 24th DEADLINE & DE NOVO REVIEW

The Commissioners have been Court-Ordered to conduct a ‘de novo’ review of the nine proposals without any consideration for their prior selection of Woodmont. Their intent tonight is to re-designate Woodmont as the developer, claiming that they’ve conducted the review in good faith — despite having only published the RFP responses for public review days ago and having received zero public comment on the responses.

They will claim that they only have 45 days to get the property under contract, and that Woodmont is just the best proposal, despite the now obvious superiority of the Toll Brothers proposal. (NOTE: Troy voted against Woodmont last year, and Siedell promised to push for ‘minimal impact’ in the November election.)

In reality, 45 days is more than enough time to designate Toll Brothers as the developer and negotiate a Buy-Sell agreement with them - particularly since they will enjoy our support for this proposal.

By contrast, if/when our fears of a sham review are realized, the lawsuit will be re-opened, possibly with an added criminal contempt element to it. We sincerely hope that this does not happen, but based on the fact that they already have the
Resolution to rename Woodmont on tonight’s agenda — prior to any public comment — we think we know where this is headed.

After all, could a legitimate review of the largest development in the town’s history really take place in mere days with the decision arrived at before any public comment?

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

1. Please donate to our legal fund. Note that this entire legal effort is being funded by concerned Haddonfield residents who are seeking better for the town, and your support is vital.

2. Speak up. Encourage the Commissioners to table the Resolution tonight and pivot to the Toll Bros proposal.

3. Vote! Remember the actions of Troy and Siedell tonight when you cast your vote in May.

03/09/2025

The following is text of a letter sent today.

March 8, 2025

From: Christopher Maynes

To: Mayor Colleen Bianco-Bezich
Commissioner Frank Troy
Commissioner David Siedell
Solicitor Salvatore Siciliano

You are hereby notified of the following with respect to the Consent Order filed in the case of Huehnergarth and Maynes vs. Borough of Haddonfield on March 6, 2025:

1. The Consent Order requires the Borough to conduct a “de novo” review of the nine (9) Bancroft RFP responses, and that de novo review shall be based on the version of the Bancroft Redevelopment Plan which existed as of the date of the RFP’s issuance, without consideration of any subsequently adopted amendments to the Bancroft Redevelopment Plan.

2. The Consent Order further requires that the de novo review AND ultimate decision as to the RFP responses shall not incorporate any predetermined findings from its prior RFP response review and shall afford no additional weight or credibility to Woodmont’s response based on its prior selection, nor discount any of the other RFP respondents’ responses based on their prior non-selection.

Failure to conduct a bona fide de novo review could be considered Contempt per Section 2C:29-9 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, which states that a person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if the person purposely or knowingly disobeys a judicial order (such as the Consent Order).

The elements of Contempt include the following:

1. An Order of the Court has been entered, AND
2. The defendant knew of the existence of the Order, AND
3. The defendant purposely or knowingly disobeyed the Order.

Each of you is hereby on notice regarding #1 and #2 above. Regarding #3 above, I am fearful that you are on the path to knowingly disobeying the Consent Order, based on the fact that, as of March 7, 2024 – less than 24 hours after the Consent Order was finalized, the Borough had already placed the Resolution naming a conditional redeveloper for the Bancroft property on the agenda for the March 10th Commissioners’ Meeting.

While I am not privy to the contents of that resolution, since it has not been published for public review, I don’t see how you could have already accomplished a bona fide de novo review of all nine RFP responses, and you certainly couldn’t have conducted any meaningful follow-up discussion with any of the respondents or any in-depth financial analysis of any of the responses.

This leads me to believe that you may be planning a “dog-and-pony” show to satisfy the residents and the Court, by claiming that your two-hour closed session meeting on March 5, 2024, and/or your March 10,, 2024, Work Session discussion constitute a bona fide de novo review – before ultimately renaming Woodmont as the conditional redeveloper out of impatience, exhaustion, fear of builders remedy or some other factor or factors apart from the RFP process at issue.

I hope that my fears are misguided, but to rename Woodmont as the redeveloper would be prima facie evidence that they are not.

A bona fide de novo review of the RFP responses must include, among other things, a comparison of each of the responses’ conceptual plans to the parameters outlined in the RFP itself, which are largely based on the Bancroft Redevelopment Plan. Such a review – if done in good faith – would immediately result in the rejection of six of the nine responses – Alterra, DR Horton, Ivy Group, Petrucci, Sterling, and Woodmont – for failure to meet the Redevelopment Plan parameter specifying “market rate townhouses” or “market rate condominium flats.”

Subsequent to its now-nullified May 13, 2024, designation of Woodmont as the conditional redeveloper, the Borough amended the Bancroft Redevelopment Plan to add “market rate rental apartments” as an option. Per the Consent Order, this amendment may not be considered in the current de novo review, since it was made after May 13, 2024. And, although, the RFP does allow for revisions to the Redevelopment Plan if requested by a developer due to market and/or site conditions, there is no evidence of either market or site conditions warranting such a change. As such, the six rental apartment proposals MUST BE REJECTED.

Regarding the three remaining proposals, they each fail for other reasons and must also be rejected.

The Lennar proposal violates the 300’ EPA setback rule from Cooper River, and likely violates the setbacks required from the streets, given the height of the buildings (49’) and the requirement that two feet of additional setback are added for each foot of height above 40’. Aside from these quantitative shortcomings, the Lennar proposal, with its monolithic, “cookie cutter” design, fails to meet the RFP’s goals of “presenting pleasing architectural features given the visible location of the project, the inclusion of the Property in the Borough’s historic district, and minimizing any impact on existing residential properties.”

The Toll Brothers proposal, with 24 of its 84 total units abutting Kings Hwy East requiring modification of the existing berm between Kings Highway and the parcel, also fails to meet the goals of “presenting pleasing architectural features given the visible location of the project, the inclusion of the Property in the Borough’s historic district, and minimizing any impact on existing residential properties.”

The Scannapieco proposal, with its “impressive” 32 luxury flats in FIVE-STORY BUILDINGS WITH PARKING UNDERNEATH also fails to meet the goals of “presenting pleasing architectural features given the visible location of the project, the inclusion of the Property in the Borough’s historic district, and minimizing any impact on existing residential properties.” Further, its 36 mammoth 2,850 square foot multi-level townhomes hardly meet the goal of providing “age-targeted” and “affordable” housing for downsizing seniors.

Another element that is glaringly missing from this review process is a meaningful public comment period. You’ve been aware since February 14th that this review would be required. Yet you only published the responses days ago, on an obscure link on the Borough website, and you already have a Resolution on Monday’s agenda to name the redeveloper immediately after a single public comment period, during a Work Session, only days after publishing the RFP responses for the first time ever – 18 months after receiving them.

The RFP stipulates that “The Borough reserves the right to reject any and all proposals which, in the Borough’s sole judgement, is/are not in compliance with the terms of, or is/are not responsive to, the RFQ/P or any part thereof, or which is/are not deemed in the best interest of the Borough.” Were you to conduct a good faith de novo review, you could only conclude that this is your only option.

Many residents have been advocating for the Borough to initiate the process to build the ten required affordable units in order to eliminate the risk of “builders remedy” and then to initiate a secondary process, with community involvement, to determine the disposition of the remainder of the property. This secondary process could include a referendum on the question of open space vs further development, and it could be done thoughtfully and deliberately, without the sword of builders remedy dangling above our heads. It is a reasonable, logical, and most importantly, viable, path out of this situation, and it will likely garner widespread support and appreciation from a majority of Haddonfield residents.

I hope for your sake, and for the sake of all Haddonfield residents who have been so distraught by the Borough’s actions since last May, that you will come to your senses and heed the will of the people – which was so clearly conveyed in Commissioner Troy’s very own focus group – and seek a solution that is in the multi-generational long-term interests of Haddonfield and its residents.

Sincerely,

Chris Maynes

03/09/2025

Flashback 5/13/24
2C:2-6 LIABILITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF ANOTHER; COMPLICITY

03/08/2025

2C:29-9 Contempt

A person is guilty of a crime of the 4th degree if the person purposely or knowingly disobeys a judicial order.

03/07/2025

As predicted in yesterday's post, the Borough already appears to be violating the terms of the agreement signed just yesterday. They have already placed a resolution to "designate a conditional redeveloper" at Bancroft on the agenda for their March 10th meeting. Any guess as to which developer that will be?

Presumably, they are claiming their two-hour closed session RFP review on Wednesday was the "de novo" review required by the agreement. Or maybe they'll conduct a sham "de novo" review on Monday after public comment. However, no review could possibly lead to the selection of Woodmont if the review meets all three conditions of the agreement by being: (1) absent of any predetermined findings from its prior RFP response; (2) not affording additional weight to Woodmont based on its prior selection as the developer; and (3) based on the version of the Bancroft Redevelopment Plan which existed as of the date of the RFP's issuance, without consideration of any subsequently adopted amendments.

Why couldn't the review legitimately lead them to back to Woodmont? Because Woodmont's proposal does not meet the parameters of the Redevelopment Plan in that its units are not for-sale, and they are not age-targeted. The RFP allows for amendments to the Redevelopment Plan if merited by market or site conditions, but neither market nor site conditions merit such an amendment.

When they re-name Woodmont as the conditional redeveloper on Monday night, things will get very interesting -- particularly for those Borough personnel who participated in the ILLEGAL vote last May and then entered into an agreement yesterday which they had no intention of honoring.

What did they know and when? Perhaps we will find out in the coming months...

03/06/2025

Do you want the good news or the bad news?

Well first, the good news...

IT'S BEEN FINALIZED AS OF TODAY! ROCHE VOTE INVALIDATED... WOODMONT AGREEMENTS NULLIFIED... BOROUGH NOW REQUIRED TO CONDUCT REVIEW OF ALL 9 RFP RESPONSES!!!

The citizens' lawsuit against the Borough has been settled via consent order between the parties, with the Borough agreeing to the above, and the suit has thus been dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE -- meaning that if the Borough fails to hold up their end of the bargain, the suit can be re-opened.

Per the terms of the Agreement, the Borough is required to conduct a "de novo" review of the RFP responses "based on the version of the Redevelopment Plan which existed as of the date of the RFP's issuance, without any consideration of any subsequently adopted amendments to the Bancroft Redevelopment Plan." Per this provision, this means Woodmont's proposal CANNOT BE accepted because it does not conform to the Redevelopment Plan in that it proposes luxury rental units, rather than for-sale units. And while the RFP allows for amendments to the Redevelopment Plan if merited by site or market conditions, neither site nor market conditions merit such amendments. So Woodmont should be OUT.

Further, the "de novo" review "shall not incorporate any predetermined findings from its prior RFP response review and shall afford no additional weight or credibility to defendant Woodmont Properties, LLC's response based on its prior selection..."

So that's the GOOD NEWS. But here's the BAD news...

We already have reason to believe that the Borough has every intention of violating the terms of the agreement and re-selecting Woodmont anyway. Despite the FACTS that Woodmont's proposal does not conform to the pre-amended Bancroft Redevelopment Plan and is not responsive to the RFP, we believe, based on recent statements by and conversations with Borough officials, that they will only be doing a dog-and-pony show of a review of the 9 proposals, and are going to continue moving forward with Woodmont because they've already gone so far down the road with them.

Unfortunately, this is likely to result in the re-opening of this lawsuit, or the filing of a new lawsuit, and further delay in the building of the 10 affordable units -- and further risk of builders remedy.

Hopefully, we're wrong, but at this point, our prediction is that the Commissioners will meet on March 10th, listen to public comment, do their dog-and-pony show, and then ultimately move forward with Woodmont -- and then we're all back in court again. Not the outcome we're hoping for, but it's the reality that we expect at this point.

The Borough can reject all nine RFP responses, and Just Build 10 units, which will buy us time as a community to thoughtfully consider any possible future development on the site. And if future development does occur, we can make sure it's what's best for the citizens of Haddonfield, which would most likely be an age-targeted or age-restricted owner-occupied community for seniors.

Stay tuned, and pay attention...

And if you're so inclined, please donate to the legal fund that has been funding this action since last June. Donations can be made via check payable to HERD c/o Chris Maynes, 7 Roberts Ave, Haddonfield OR via our GoFundMe page.