Back in March 2023, Urban Edge, the owners of the Marlton Commons Shopping Center which contains ShopRite, Kohl's, Petsmart, a now defunct Friendly's and a few other stores, appeared in front of the Evesham Township Zoning Board seeking final approval to build a new pad site containing four stores, including Cava and First Watch. Urban Edge had previously received preliminary approval back in 2021 and had an additional hearing in January where the board raised additional concerns. For this hearing, the applicant was presenting their new plan that they felt answered the concerns of Board members and the Township Professionals that were raised during that January hearing.
1) Submit basically the same plan with a few small changes, hoping for the different outcome, since the vote was extremely close (and one Board member who denied the application stated he was on the fence, that he was '51 to 49%' leaning towards denial).
2) Submit a new plan with a somewhat smaller footprint. The original application was for an outparcel building to replace the Friendly's that would be big enough for 4 stores. If they shrank the building a bit to fit only 2 or 3 stores, that perhaps would allow for additional parking and/or traffic flow changes that would satisfy the Board.
What I hadn't considered was a third option, that the property owner would sue the Zoning Board claiming the applicaiton was improperly denied. This third option is what happened though, according to an article that has appeard in the Courier Post. According to that article, Urban Edge is claiming "the disapproval was arbitrary and improper because its application conformed to township ordinance standards. It accused the board of basing its denial on 'mere sentiments' by the public and board members, ignoring the conclusions of the applicant's traffic engineers and other experts."
It is not unusual for an applicant to bring a suit. In Evesham, an applicant filed suit in 2016 regarding a denial to build 56 homes on a plot of land just south of the Beagle Club on Elmwood Road, when only 32 were allowed by ordinance, claiming the denial was 'arbitrary and capricious'. The Township and the applicant eventually came to an agreement to allow 42 homes, which brought the lawsuit to a close.
More recently, in Voorhees, an applicant sued the Planning Board in 2021 after denial of a new shopping center and a local court overturned the denial, with the judge rerversing the denial "was improperly based upon concerns with existing off-site traffic...." The attorney successfully arguing that case is the same attorney that represented Urban Edge in front of the Evesham Zoning Board back in March.
This is why it is important for the Zoning Board members and the attorney representing the Township to be concise about why a denial is being issued.
Before speculating on what still lies ahead in the future, lets take a look at the plan that was presented and the changes to the parking lot that were proposed. The hearing in March 2023 was actually the third hearing on this proposal. The owner received 'preliminary approval' back in 2021 to build this outparcel building, with the understanding that parking and traffic flow issues would need to be worked out in order to receive final approval. In January of this year, the applicant showed their proposal that they hoped would satisfy the board.
 |
| January 2023 proposal - after entering from 70, the left turn indicated by the yellow arrow would be barred |
The application in January 2023 removed the option to make a left turn after you had entered the parking lot from 70. You would enter the shopping center via the long black arrow (in picture above) from 70, but you would not be allowed to make the left turn (shown with the yellow arrow above). There was some pushback from the board regarding that, as you would then force anyone planning to shop at PetSmart or WineWorks to go straight and then make a left and travel along the road just in front of the stores, where all the pedestrians would be. This was seen as an unnecessary safety hazard.
There was also some concern from Board members that vehicles trying to turn where the blue arrow indicates would back up into the intersection. A board member suggested barring the left turn into the parking aisle shown in blue (and the next parking aisle as well).
After a long meeting, the applicant agreed to make additional changes to the proposal and come back for another hearing.
 |
| March 2023: Proposed changes on top. Current parking lot on the bottom. The yellow arrows indicate changes and are numbered and explained below |
There were three big changes from the plan presented in January that were meant to address the concerns of the board.
1) Currently, there is an exit from the shopping center on to Route 70 at the western-most part of the parking lot. To address concerns about backups at the main entrance, as well as to appeal to customers going to WineWorks and Petsmart, the applicant agreed to petition the State Department of Transportation to allow them to add an entrance at this location. The applicant's traffic engineer felt they had a 'very good chance' of prevailing with that petition, but it was in all likelihood a year-long process.
2) The new proposal in March added back the left turn that had been removed in the January 2023, but you would only be able to travel in to the first row of parking spaces before being forced to turn left or right. This would allow you to get to WineWorks and PetSmart without travelling in front of the stores (by following the blue arrows), though the extra turns required for that were met with skepticism from one of the board members.
3) A raised curb would be added to the parking lot to prevent the left turn into the first row of parking spaces
At then close of the hearing, the Evesham attorney summarized the proposal, which included the applicant agreeing to comply with the written concerns by the Township professionals. Looking at the official minutes of the meeting, the "applicant agrees to comments and recommendations" of the Fire Marshall and the Township engineer. Ultimately these additional changes were not deemed sufficient by the board and the application was denied by a vote of 4-3. The concerns of the board were the fact that there was no approval from the State to allow an entrance at the western edge of the property, that new parking spaces at the back on the building for employees were not well thought out, and the general traffic flow through the center of the parking lot.
An additional concern was raised by a board member that with the new traffic patterns, delivery trucks would have to alter their path through the parking lot and be forced down the center roadway (perpendicular to 70). I'm not sure I understand that fully, because I think that's what they do now. For deliveries today, I think trucks generally already take the path shown by yellow arrows. I'm not certain whether any trucks today are making that initial left and following the blue path. This was not brought up previously during the meeting so I'm surprised it was brought up during the vote.
The next step is either a hearing or a compromise. I'll keep you posted.