IN THE Supreme Court of the United States - NAACP LDF Mount Holly Joint... · m ount h olly, et...

No. 11-1507

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States ___________

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, et al., Petitioners,

v. MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC. et al.,

Respondents. ___________

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

___________

JOINT APPENDIX ___________

M. JAMES MALEY, JR.* OLGA D. POMAR* ERIN E. SIMONE SOUTH JERSEY LEGAL EMILY K. GIVENS SERVICES, INC. MALEY & ASSOCIATES, PC 745 Market Street M. MICHAEL MALEY Camden, N.J. 08102 931 Haddon Avenue (856) 964-2010 Collingswood, N.J. 08108 [email protected] (856) 854-1515 jmaley@maleyassociates. DAVID C. FREDERICK com DEREK T. HO KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, CARTER G. PHILLIPS TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, BRIAN P. MORRISSEY P.L.L.C. JEREMY M. BYLUND 1615 M Street, N.W. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP Suite 400 1501 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000

Counsel for Respondent Counsel for Petitioners Mount Holly Gardens

August 26, 2013 * Counsel of Record [Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover]

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 11, 2012 CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 17, 2013

LYNN E. BLAIS MICHAEL F. STURLEY 727 East Dean Keeton Street Austin, Texas 78705 (512) 232-1350 SUSAN ANN SILVERSTEIN AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20049 (202) 434-2159 Counsel for Respondent

Mount Holly Gardens WILLIAM JAMES DESANTIS BALLARD SPAHR LLP 210 Lake Drive East Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 (856)-761-3483 Counsel for Respondent

Keating Urban Partners. LLC

GAETANO MERCOGLIANO SWEENEY & SHEEHAN Sentry Office Plaza Suite 500 216 Haddon Avenue Westmont, N.J. 18108 (856) 869-5600 Counsel for Respondent

Triad Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

United States District Court of New Jersey, Relevant Docket Entries .................. 1 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Relevant Docket Entries .................. 34 Declaration, and Exhibit H, of Andrew A. Beveridge in Support of Plaintiffs-Appel-lants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (excerpt of exhibit) ......................................... 40 Declaration of Gray Smith in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Prelimin-ary Injunction ................................................ 65 Declaration of Vivian Brooks in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Prelimin-ary Injunction ................................................ 91 Declaration of Santos Cruz in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Prelimin-ary Injunction ................................................ 101 Exhibit F, Minutes of September 16, 2002, Mount Holly Township Planning Board Meeting, of Declaration of Ogla D. Pomar in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction ............................ 108 Exhibit G, 2002 Redevelopment Area Determination Report, of Declaration of Ogla D. Pomar in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunc-tion (excerpts) ................................................ 123

ii

Revised West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan, Parts 1 & 2 (excerpt of part 2) ............. 193 Exhibit A, New Jersey Public Advocate November 2008 Report, Evicted From the American Dream: The Redevelopment of Mount Holly Gardens, of Supplemental Declaration of Ogla D. Pomar in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Prelimin-ary Injunction ................................................ 281 Certification, and Attachments, of Thomas Casey in Opposition to Plaintiffs-Appel-lants’ Application for Temporary Restrain-ing Order (excerpts of attachments) ............. 382 Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial ................................................. 387 (Second) Certification, and Exhibit R, of Marcia Holt in Opposition to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunc-tion (redacted) (excerpts) .............................. 451 Mount Holly Citizens in Action, Inc. et al. v. Township of Mount Holly et al., No. 08-2584 (NLH) (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2009) (order denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for preliminary injunction) ................................. 462 Declaration of Andrew A. Beveridge in Support of Defendants-Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment ................................ 474

iii

Declaration, and Exhibits A2 and A4, of Gray Smith in Support of Defendants-Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment (excerpts of exhibits) ..................................... 483

NOTICE The following documents have been omitted from the printing of this Joint Appendix. They may be found in the Petitioner’s Appendix to the 11-1507 Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari at the following pages:

Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly, 658 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2011) ................................................ 1a Mt. Holly Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly, No. 08-2584 (NLH) (JS), 2011 WL 9405 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2011) ............................................................. 30a Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly, 11-1159 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2012) (order denying re-hearing en banc) ........................................... 63a

1 U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [LIVE] (CAMDEN)

————

Civil Docket for Case #: 1:08-cv-02584-NLH-JS

————

MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC. et al

v.

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY et al

————

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE FILED # DOCKET TEXT

05/27/2008 1 COMPLAINT against TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, KATHLEEN HOFFMAN, BROOKE TIDSWELL III, KEATING URBAN PARTNERS, L.L.C., TRIAD ASSOCIATES, INC. (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 2013968.) JURY DEMAND, filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHE-VARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MAT-TIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN,

2


ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, LISSETTE RODRIGUEZ, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAG-MAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REY-NALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO, LYRA BAEDRESINGH. (SUMMONS NOT SUBMITTED) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (nf,) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

* * * *

06/10/2008 9 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DE-MAND FOR JURY TRIAL against all defendants all defendants., filed by MT HOLLY CARDENS CITI-ZENS IN ACTION, INC. (POMAR, Olga) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

* * * *

07/18/2008 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by CHRISTINE BARNES, BER-NICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GAR-DENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELI DA ECHE-VARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MAT-TIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA

3


NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, LIS-SETTE RODRIGUEZ, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO, LYRA BAEDRE-SINGH. (Attachments: #1 Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Declaration of Andrew A. Beveridge, Ph.D. with Exhibits A-J, #4 Declaration of Andrew A. Beveridge, Ph.D. Exhibits K-M, #5 Declaration of Gray Smith, AIA, AICP with Exhibit A, #6 Declaration of Gray Smith, AIA, AICP Exhibit C, #7 Declaration of Ana Arocho, Declaration of Vivian Brooks, #9 Declaration of Santos Cruz, #10 Declaration of Henry Simons, #11 Declaration of Dagmar Vicente, #12 Declaration of Alandia Warthen, #13 Declaration of Leona Wright, #14 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq., #15 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibits A-C, #16 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit D-1, #17 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar,

4


Esq. Exhibit D-2, #18 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit E, #19 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit F, #20 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit G-1, #21 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit G-2, #22 Declaration Dec-laration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit H, #23 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit I, #24 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit J, #25; Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit K, #26 Dec-laration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit L, #27 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibits M &N, #28 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibits O & P, #29 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibits Q R S T, #30 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit U, #31 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit V, #32 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibits W X Y Z, #33 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibit AA, #34 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibits BB CC DD, #35 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibits EE &FF, #36 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar, Esq. Exhibits GG HH El, #37 Certificate of Service for Electronic Filing) (PODELL, DAVID) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

5


07/18/2008 18 First MOTION to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction failure to state a claim by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, KATHLEEN HOFFMAN, BROOKE TIDSWELL III. Responses due by 8/4/2008 (Attachments: #1 Brief, #2 Certification, #3, Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, Exhibit, Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Exhibit, #12 Exhibit, #13 Exhibit, #14 Exhibit, #15 Exhibit, #16 Exhibit, #17 Exhibit, #18 Exhibit, #19 Exhibit, #20 Text of Proposed Order) (MALEY. M) (Entered: 07/18/2008

* * * *

08/07/2008 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) by KEATING URBAN PARTNERS, L.L.C.. Res-ponses due by 8/19/2008 (Attach-ments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Certificate of Service) (DESANTIS, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

* * * *

08/11/2008 29 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Judge Noel L. Hillman for all further proceedings. Judge Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez no longer assigned to case. Signed by ChiefJudge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 8/11/08. (js) (Entered: 08/14/2008)

6


08/14/2008 28 MOTION to Dismiss by TRIAD ASSOCIATES, INC., (Attachments: #1 Notice of Motion, #2 Order, #3 Brief Brief, #4 Certificate of Service, #5 Proof of Mailing, #6 Exhibit Exhibit A) (MERCOGLIANO, GAE-TANO) (Entered: 08/14/2008)

* * * *

08/19/2008 30 BRIEF in Opposition re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. (Attachments: #1 Certification of Kathleen Hoffman, #2 Certification of Marcia Holt, #3 Certification of Micheal Sencindiver, #4 Certifica-tion of Jim Maley, #5 Exhibit A to Jim Maley Cert, #6 Exhibit B to Maley Cert, #7 Exhibit C to Maley Cert, #8 Exhibit D to Maley Cert, #9 Exhibit E to Maley Cen, #10 Exhibit F to Maley Cert, #11. Exhibit G to Maley Bert, #12 Exhibit H to Maley Cert, #13 Certificate of Service) (MALEY, M.) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

08/19/2008 31 BRIEF in Opposition re 18 First MOTION to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction failure to state a claim, 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY

7


CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GAR-DENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVA-RIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VIN-CENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM RO-MERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (Attachments: #1 Cer-tificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 08/20/2008)

* * * *

08/29/2008 34 REPLY to Response to Motion re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CAL-HOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS,

8


WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO ARO-CHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (Attach-ments: #1 Declaration of Olga D. Pomar (Second), #2 Declaration of Gray Smith (2), #3 Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 08/29/2008)

08/29/2008 35 REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 First MOTION to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction failure to state a claim filed by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. (Attachments: #1 Certif-icate of Service For Reply Brief) (MALEY, M.) (Entered: 08/29/2008)

09/19/2008 36 RESPONSE in Opposition re 258 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant Triad filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CAL-HOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT

9


MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEO-NARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM RO-MERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA ARO-CHO. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

9/29/2008 37 Letter from M. James Maley, Jr.. (Attachments: #1 Ordinance 2008-25 Approving Redevelopment Plan, #2 West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan Part I, #3 West Rancocas Redevelop-ment Plan Part II) (Maley, M,) (Entered: 09/29/2008)

* * * *

10/09/2008 39 BRIEF Letterbrief to fudge Hillman Pursuant to October 3, 2008 Order filed by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. (Attachments: #1 Certif-icate of Service) (MALEY, M.) (Entered: 10/09/2008)

10/17/2008 40 BRIEF in response to Township Letter Brief filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS,

10


DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STAR-LING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADA-MES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (Attach-ments: #1 Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 10/17/2008)

10/17/2008 41 MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Complaint by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO,

11


HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STAR-LING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADA-MES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO

* * * *

10/28/2008 46 OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 10/28/08. (js) (Entered: 10/28/2008)

10/28/2008 47 ORDER granting in part and deny-ing in part 18 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 10/28/08. (js) (Entered: 10/28/2008)

* * * *

11/14/2008 52 RESPONSE to Motion mil MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Com-plaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Com-plaint Defendant Triad Associates, Inc.’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and Supplement Com-plaint filed by TRIAD ASSOCI-ATES, INC., (Attachments: #1 Cer-tificate or Service Certificate of Ser-vice, #2 Proof of Mailing, #3 Exhibit

12


A) (MERCOGLIANO, GAETANO) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

11/17/2008 53 BRIEF in Opposition re 41 MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Com-plaint MOTION to Amend/Correct Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Com-plaint filed by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (MALEY, M.) (Entered: 11/17/2008)

11/18/2008 54 MEMORANDUM in Support re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Requesting to Supplement Record filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CAL-HOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STAR-LING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADA-MES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO

13


AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (Attach-ments: #1 Declaration of Counsel, #2 Exhibit Public Advocate Report) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 11/18/2008)

11/24/2008 55 Letter from Plaintiffs Counsel regarding Preliminary Injunction Motion re 17 MOTION for Pre-liminary Injunction. (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 11/24/2008)

11/24/2008 56 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 41 MOTION to Amend/ Correct 9 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Com-plaint Replying to Defendant Triad filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CAL-HOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STAR-LING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADA-MES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN

14


TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO, LYRA BAEDRESINGH. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 11/24/2008)

11/24/2008 57 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 41 MOTION to Amend/ Correct 9 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 9 Amended Com-plaint Replying to Defendant Town-ship filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CAL-HOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STAR-LING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADA-MES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO

15


AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (Attach-ments: #1 Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 11/24/2008)

11/25/2008 58 Letter from M. James Maley in Response to re Memorandum in Support of Motion . . . (MALEY. M.) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

* * * *

11/25/2008 61 OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/25/2008. (gn,) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

11/25/2008 62 ORDER granting in pan and denying in part 41 Plaintiffs Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/25/08. (gn,) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

* * * *

11/25/2008 64 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs request to supplement the record advocates report, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/25/2008. (gn,)

* * * *

11/26/2008 65 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CAL-HOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ,

16


ELI DA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STAR-LING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADA-MES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, BROOKE TIDSWELL III, ANA AROCHO. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Law, #2 Declaration of Counsel, #3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Counsel, #4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Counsel, #5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Counsel, #6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Counsel, #7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Counsel, #8 Exhibit F to Dec-laration of Counsel, #9 Declaration of Plaintiff Nancy Lopez, Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

11/26/2008 66 Letter from Plaintiffs’ Counsel re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunc-tion, Order., (POMAR, OLGA) (En-tered: 11/26/2008)

11/26/2008 67 BRIEF in Opposition re 65 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order

17


filed by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. (Attachments: #1 Certifica-tion of M. James Maley, Jr., #2 Cer-tification of Scott Kipp, #3 Certifica-tion of Thomas Casey) (MALEY, M.) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

11/26/2008 68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Noel L. Hillman: Motion Hearing held on 11/26/2008 re.. MOTION for Temporary Re-straining Order filed by EFRAIM ROMERO, VINCENT MUNOZ, MT HOLLY GARDENS, et al. Ordered Motion Denied. Ordered preliminary injunction hearing set for December 5; 2008 at 3:00 PM. Order to be entered. (Court Reporter/Recorder Frank Gable.) (gn) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

11/26/2008 69 ORDER Denying, Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/26/08. (gn,) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

12/02/2008 70 BRIEF as a Supplement to the Township’s Motion to Dismiss filed by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. (Attachments: #1 Certification of Counsel, #2 Certificate of Service) (MALEY, M.) (Entered: 12/02/2008)

12/02/2008 71 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in compliance with

18


Court’s Order of 11-25-2008 (Docu-ments 61 and 62) against all defen-dants all defendants., filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GAR-DENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELI DA ECHE-VARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MAT-TIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIM-ONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO (PODELL, DAVID) (Entered. 12/02/20081

* * * *

12/03/2008 73 AMENDED COMPLAINT Re-Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in compliance with Court’s Order of 11-25-2008 (Documents 61 and 62) (Added new parties on Docket) against JULES K. THIESSEN, TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, TOWNSHIP

19


COUNCIL OF TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, KATHLEEN HOFFMAN, KEATING URBAN PARTNERS, L.L.C., TRIAD ASSO-CIATES, INC., filed by Maria Arocho, Vivian Brooks, Angelo Nieves, Dolores Nixon, Robert Tigar, James Potter, Phyllis Singleton, Flavio Tobar, Marlene Tobar, Rada-mes Burgos, Sheila Warthen, Alandia Worthen, CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STAR-LING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADA-MES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (PODELL, DAVID) (Entered: 12/03/2008)

12/04/2008 74 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Defendant Triad Associates, Inc. to

20


Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint by TRIAD ASSOCIATES, (Attachments: #1 Order, #2 Notice of Motion to Dismiss, #3 Brief in Support of Motion, #4 Certificate of Service Certifificate of Service, #5 Proof of Mailing, #6 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (MERCOGLIANO, GAE-TANO) (Entered: 12/04/2008)

* * * *

12/04/2008 76 BRIEF in Opposition re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JULES K. THIESSEN, TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, KATHLEEN HOFFMAN, BROOKE TIDSWELL III. (Attachments: #1 Certification Certification of Marcia Holt REDAC-TED,) #2 Exhibit Exhibits to Holt Certification REDACTED, #3 Cer-tification Certification of Thomas Mastrangelo, #4 Certification Cer-tification of Carlos Rodriguez, #5 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service) (MALEY, M.) (Entered 12/04/2008)

* * * *

12/17/2008 81 MEMORANDUM in Support re 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction in Response to Holt Certification filed

21


by CHRISTINE BARNES, BER-NICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GAR-DENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHE-VARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MAT-TIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, Maria Arocho, Vivian Brooks, Angelo Nieves, Dolores Nixon, Robert Tigar, James Potter, Phyllis Singleton, Flavio Tobar, VINCENT MUNOZ, Marlene Tobar, Radames Burgos, Sheila Warthen, Alandia Warthen, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STAR-LING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADA-MES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VI-CENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (Attach-ments: #1 Declaration of counsel, #2 Exhibit A) (POMAR, OLGA) (Enter-ed: 12/17/2008)

* * * *

12/30/2008 83 RESPONSE in Opposition re 74 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Defendant Triad Associates, Inc. to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

22


Complaint filed by CHRISTINE BARNES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, Maria Arocho, Vivian Brooks, Angelo Nieves, Dolores Nixon, Robert Tigar, James Potter, Phyllis Singleton, Flavio Tobar, VINCENT MUNOZ, Marlene Tobar, Radames Burgos, Sheila War-then, Alandia Warthen, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, EF-RAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

01/14/2009 84 Second MOTION to Dismiss Plain-tiffs’ 2nd Amended Complaint, Motion Date 2/17/09 by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, Responses due by 2/2/2009 (Attachments: #1 Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss 2nd

23


Amended Complaint, #2 Certifica-tion of Counsel, #3 Exhibit A of Cert of Counsel, #4 Exhibit B to Cert of Counsel, #5 Exhibit C to Cert of Counsel, #6 Exhibit D to Cert of Counsel, #7 Exhibit E to Cert of Service, #8 Exhibit F of Cert of Counsel, #9 Text of Proposed Order for Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, #10 Certificate of Service) (Maley, M) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

* * * *

01/20/2009 86 MOTION to Dismiss by KEATING URBAN PARTNERS, L.L.C. (Attach-ments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Certificate of Service) (DESANTIS, WILLIAM) (Entered: 01/20/2009)

* * * *

02/13/2009 94 OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 2/13/09. (is) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/13/2009 95 ORDER denying 17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 75 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 2/13/09. (is) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

* * * *

02/17/2009 96 RESPONSE in Opposition re 84 Second MOTION to Dismiss Plain-tiffs’ 2nd Amended Complaint, Motion Date 2/17/09, 86 MOTION to

24


Dismiss filed by CHRISTINE BAR-NES, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, MT HOL-LY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, Maria Arocho, Vivian Brooks, Angelo Nieves, Dolores Nixon, Robert Tigar, James Potter, Phyllis Singleton, Flavio Tobar, VINCENT MUNOZ, Marlene Tobar, Radames Burgos, Sheila War-then, Alandia Warthen, ELMIRA NIXON, LEONARDO PAGAN, ROSEMARY ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, PEDRO AROCHO, LISSETTE RODRIGUEZ, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, REYNALDO AROCHO, ANA AROCHO. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 02/17/2009)

* * * *

03/09/2009 100 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re Second MOTION to Dis-

25


miss Plaintiffs’ 2nd Amended Com-plaint, Motion Dare 2/17/09 filed by TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Ser-vice for Reply Brief) (MALEY, M) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

* * * *

10/23/2009 102 OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 10/23/09. (js) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/23/2009 103 ORDER granting in part and deny-ing in part and continued in part 74 Motion to Dismiss; 84 Motion to Dismiss and 86 Motion to Dismiss, etc. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 10/23/09. (js) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

* * * *

12/22/2009 106 BRIEF in Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion filed by ANA AROCHO, PEDRO AROCHO, REY-NALDO AROCHO, Vivian Brooks, Radames Burgos, BERNICE CAGLE, LEON CALHOUN, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, GEORGE CHAM-BERS, SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., VINCENT MUNOZ, ELMIRA NIXON, Angelo Nieves, Dolores Nixon, LEONARDO PAGAN, James Potter, ROSEMARY

26


ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, LISSETTE RODRIGUEZ, EFRAIM ROMERO, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, Phyllis Single-ton, JULES K. THIESSEN, TAISHA TIRADO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, RADAMES TORRES-MORENO, Robert Tigar, Flavio Tobar, Marlene Tobar, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WIL-SON, LEONA WRIGHT, Alandia Warthen, Sheila Warthen. (Attach-ments: #1 Statement Responding Statement of Material Facts, #2 Declaration Decl of A. Beveridge, #3 Exhibit Beveridge Exh A, #1 Exhibit Beveridge Exh B, #5 Exhibit Bev-eridge Exh C, #6 Exhibit Beveridge Exh D, #7 Declaration Decl of S Cruz, #8 Declaration Decl of K Pipes, #9 Declaration Decl of O Pomar, #10 Exhibit Pomar Exh A, #11 Exhibit Pomar Exh B, #12 Exhibit Pomar Exh C, #13 Exhibit Pomar Exh D, #14 Exhibit Pomar E, #15 Exhibit Pomar Exh F, #16 Exhibit Pomar Exh G, #17 Exhibit Pomar Exh H, #18 Exhibit Pomar Exh I, #19 Exhibit Pomar Exh J, #20 Exhibit Pomar Exh K, #21 Exhibit Pomar Exh L, #22 Exhibit Pomar Exh M, #23 Exhibit Pomar Exh N, #24 Exhibit Pomar Exh O, #25 Exhibit Pomar Exh P, #26 Exhibit Pomar

27


Exh Q, #27 Exhibit Pomar Exh R, #28 Exhibit Pomar Exh S, #29 Exhibit Pomar Exh T, #30 Dec-laration Decl of G Smith, #31 Exhibit Smith Exh A1, #32 Exhibit Smith Exh A2, #33 Exhibit Smith Exh A3, #34 Exhibit Smith Exh A4, #35 Exhibit Smith Exh A5, #36 Exhibit Smith Exh A6, #37 Exhibit Smith Exh A7, #38 Exhibit Smith Exh A8, #39 Exhibit Smith Exh A9, #40 Exhibit Smith Exh A10, #41 Dec-laration R 56(f) Decl of Pomar, #42 Certificate of Service) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

* * * *

01/19/2010 MOTION for Summary Judgment by JULES K. THIESSEN, BROOKE TIDSWELL III, TOWNSHIP COUN-CIL OF TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, TRIAD ASSOCIATES, INC. (SEE DOC. NO. 112 BRIEF/ CONVERTED SUMMARY JUDG-MENT MOTION (gn) (per Chambers of Judge Noel L. Hillman) (Entered: 10/04/2010)

* * * *

02/19/2010 111 Letter from Brief to Plaintiffs’ Responding Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment re 106 Brief

28


(Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K) (MERCOGLIANO, GAETANO) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

02/19/2010 112 BRIEF in Support of Summary Judgment filed by KATHLEEN HOFFMAN, JULES K. THIESSEN, BROOKE TIDSWELL III, TOWN-SHIP COUNCIL OF TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. (Attachments: #1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, #2 Certification of M. James Maley, Jr., #3 Exhibit A through E and G through P to Maley Cert., #4 Exhibit Exhibit F to Maley Cert., #5 Certificate of Service) (MALEY, M.) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

02/24/2010 113 AMENDED DOCUMENT by KATH-LEEN HOFFMAN, JULES K. THIESSEN, BROOKE TIDSWELL III, TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY. Amendment to 112 Brief, Amended Certificate of Service. (MALEY, M.) (Entered: 02/24/2010)

01/03/2011 114 OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/3/2011. (drw,) (Entered: 01/03/201])

29


01/03/2011 115 ORDER granting Defts’ converted motions for summary judgment 74, 84, & 112. The Clerk shall CLOSE this matter. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/3/2011. (drw,) (En-tered: 01/03/2011)

01/03/2011 ***Civil Case Terminated. (drw,) (Entered: 01/03/2011)

01/19/2011 116 NOTICE OF APPEAL by ANA AROCHO, Vivian Brooks, Radames Burgos, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, GEORGE CHAMBERS, SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NOR-MAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., Dolores Nixon, LEONARDO PAGAN, James Potter, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, Robert Tigar, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WILSON, LEONA WRIGHT, Alandia Warthen, Sheila Warthen. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0312-3520549. The Clerk’s Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. Appeal Record due by 2/2/2011. (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

30


01/19/2011 117 MOTION to Stay re 116 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) by ANA AROCHO, Vivian Brooks, Radames Burgos, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, GEORGE CHAM-BERS, SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, NANCY LOPEZ, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., Dolores Nixon, LEONARDO PAGAN, James Potter, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TA-ISHA TIRADO, LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO, Robert Tigar, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WIL-SON, LEONA WRIGHT, Alandia Warthen, Sheila Warthen (Attach-ments: #1 Declaration of Santos Cruz, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Declaration of Nancy Lopez, #5 Declaration of Counsel, #6 Exhibit A, #7 Exhibit B, #8 Exhibit C, #9 Exhibit D, #10 Exhibit E, #11 Exhibit F, #12 Exhibit G, #13 Exhibit H, #14 Brief in support of stay motion, #15 Text of Proposed Order granting stay) (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

1/19/2011 118 MOTION to Stay re 117 MOTION to Stay re 116 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) MOTION to Stay re 116 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice

31


of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) MOTION to Stay re 116 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) MOTION to Stay re 116 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) Certificate of Service by ANA AROCHO, Vivian Brooks, Radames Burgos, DOROTHY CHAMBERS, GEORGE CHAM-BERS, SANTOS CRUZ, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, NORMAN HARRIS, MATTIE HOWELL, NANCY LOPEZ, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., Dolores Nixon, LEONARDO PAGAN, James Potter, HENRY SIMONS, JOYCE STARLING, TAISHA TIRADO, LILLIAN TORRES—MORENO, Robert Tigar, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHARLIE MAE WIL-SON, LEONA WRIGHT, Alandia Warthen, Sheila Warthen. (POMAR, OLGA) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

* * * *

01/31/2011 121 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Denying 117 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/31/11 (js) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

02/03/2011 122 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by ANA AROCHO et al (UNNECESSARY FOR APPEAL PURPOSES) re: 16

32


Notice of Appeal (lee) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

03/16/2011 123 ORDER of USCA as to 116 granting a Stay and Injunctive Relief Pending Appeal. (Craven, Shannon) (Entered: 03/16/2011)

09/13/2011 124 USCA JUDGMENT as to 116 Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA), Notice of Appeal (USCA) filed by Radames Burgos, MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., Alandia Warthen, Robert Tigar, Vivian Brooks, ELIDA ECHEVARIA, LEONA WRIGHT, NORMAN HARRIS, Dolores Nixon, James Potter, LILLIAN TORRES—MORENO, JOYCE STARLING, SANTOS CRUZ, NANCY LOPEZ, MATTIE HOWELL HOWELL, LEONARDO PAGAN, ANA ARO-CHO, DAGMAR VICENTE, CHAR-LIE MAE WILSON, TAISHA TIRADO, Sheila Warthen, GEORGE CHAMBERS, DOROTHY CHAM-BERS, HENRY SIMONS (Attach-ments: #1 Precedential) (Craven, Shannon) (Entered: 09/13/2011)

03/22/2012 125 MANDATE of USCA reversing and remanding the District Court’s order entered January 3, 2011 as to 116 Notice of Appeal. (Craven, Shannon) (Entered: 03/22/2012)

33


* * * *

06/19/2013 183 TEXT ORDER: ORDERED that pur-suant to the March 22, 2012 Mandate of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing and remanding this Court’s January 3, Opinion &Order, the Third Circuit’s Mandate is implemented, and this action reinstated in accordance with the Mandate, re 125 USCA Mandate. Ordered by L. Hiflnn on 6/19/2013, (gn) (Entered 06/19/2013)

* * * *

34 GENERAL DOCKET

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ————

Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-1159 ————

IN RE: MT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS, ET AL

v.

TWP MOUNT HOLLY, ET AL

———— Appeal From: United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey ————

Docketed: 01/20/2011 Termed: 09/13/2011

———— MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC.,

A NEW JERSEY NON-PROFIT CORPORATION; PEDRO AROCHO; REYNALDO AROCHO; ANA AROCHO; CHRISTINE

BARNES; BERNICE CAGLE; LEON CALHOUN; GEORGE CHAMBERS; DOROTHY CHAMBERS; SANTOS CRUZ;

ELIDA ECHEVARIA; NORMAN HARRIS; MATTIE HOWELL; NANCY LOPEZ; VINCENT MUNOZ; ELMIRA NIXON;

LEONARDO PAGAN; ROSEMARY ROBERTS; WILLIAM ROBERTS; EFRAIM ROMERO; HENRY SIMONS;

JOYCE STARLING; TAISHA TIRADO; VIVIAN BROOKS; ANGELO NIEVES; DOLORES NIXON; ROBERT TIGAR;

JAMES POTTER; RADAMES TORRES-BURGOS; LILLIAN TORRES-MORENO; DAGMAR VICENTE; CHARLIE MAE WILSON; LEONA WRIGHT; MARIA AROCHO; PHYLLIS

SINGLETON; FLAVIO TOBAR; MARLENE TOBAR; SHEILA WARTHEN; ALADIA WARTHEN,

Appellants

35

v.

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY;

TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, AS GOVERNING BODY OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT

HOLLY; KATHLEEN HOFFMAN, AS TOWNSHIP MANAGER OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY; KEATING URBAN PARTNERS L.L.C., A COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN NEW JERSEY; TRIAD ASSOCIATES, INC. A CORPORATION DOING

BUSINESS IN NEW JERSEY; JULES K. THIESSEN, AS MAYOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY

————

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE FILED DOCKET TEXT

01/20/2011 CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Note filed by Appellants Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action Inc, Pedro Arocho, Reynaldo Arocho, Ana Arocho, Christine Barnes, Bernice Cagle, Leon Calhoun, George Cham-bers, Dorothy Chambers, Santos Cruz, Elida Echevaria, Norman Harris, Mattie Howell, Nancy Lopez, Vincent Munoz, Elmira Nixon, Leonardo Pagan, Rosemary Roberts, William Roberts, Efraim Romero, Henry Simons, Joyce Starling, Ta-isha Tirado, Vivian Brooks, Angelo Nieves, Dolores Nixon, Robert Tigar, James Potter, Radames Torres-Burgos, Lillian Torres-Moreno, Dag-mar Vicente, Charlie Mae Wilson, Leona Wright, Maria Arocho, Phyllis

36


Singleton, Flavio Tobar, Marlene Tobar, Sheila Warthen, and Aladia Warthen in District Court No. 1-08-cv-02584.—[Edited 06/14/2011 by LML] (SLC)

* * * *

03/16/2011 ORDER (AMBRO and CHAGARES), Circuit Judges) granting Motion by Appellants for Stay and Injunctive and Expedited Motion, filed. Panel No.: GCO-057-E. Ambro, Authoring Judge (SLC)

* * * *

05/10/2011 ORDER (AMBRO and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges) denying Motion for Clarification. Our order granting of eminent domain actions in the Mt. Holly Gardens remains in effect pending review on the merits in our Court Ambro, Authoring Judge (SLC)

* * * *

05/27/2011 ECF FILER ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Appellants, filed. Cer-tificate of Service dated 05/27/2011 by ECF—[Edited 06/14/2011 by LML] (ODP)

* * * *

05/27/2011 JOINT APPENDIX on behalf of Appellants, filed. Volumes: 7 (Vol-ume 1 attached to brief). Certificate

37


of Service dated 05/26/2011 by US mail. (Brief contains parallel citations to the District Court docket)—[Edited 06/14/2011 by LML] (EMA)

* * * *

06/03/2011 ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC AMICUS BRIEF on behalf of United States of America, filed. Certificate of Service dated 06/03/2011 by ECF, US mail (AJA)

* * * *

06/07/2011 ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Appellee Triad Asso-ciates Inc. filed Certificate of Service dated 06/07/2011 by ECF, US mail. (GM)

* * * *

06/10/2011 ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Appellees Kathleen Hoffman, Jules K, Thiessen, Twp Cncl of Mount Holly and Twp Mount Holly, filed, Certificate of Service dated 06/10/2011 by ECF, (MJM)

06/10/2011 ECF FILER: LETTER on behalf of Appellee Keating Urban Partners Appellee Keating Urban Partners will adopt the Brief on behalf of Appellees Triad Associates Inc and Twp Mount Holly Certificate of Service dated 06/10/2011 This document will be sent TO THE

38


MERITS PANEL if/when applicable (WJD)

06/18/2011 ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC REPLY BRIEF on behalf of Appellants Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action Inc, Santos Cruz, Dolores Nixon, James Potter, Robert Tigar and Radames Torres-Burgos, filed. Certificate of Service dated 06/18/2011 by ECF. [Entry edited to reflect all appropriate party filers]—[Edited 06/21/2011 by EMA] (ODP)

* * * *

07/14/2011 Argued on Thursday, July 14, 2011 before SLOVITER, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges. M. James Maley, Jr. arguing for Appellees Kathleen Hoffman, Jules K. Thies-sen, Twp Cncl of Mount Holly, and Twp Mount Holly; Olga D. Pomar arguing for Appellants Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action Inc. (TLW)

09/13/011 PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram SLOVITER, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Total Pages. 27, Judge: FUENTES Authoring (SLC)

* * * *

09/27/2011 ECF FILER: Petition filed by Appellees Kathleen Hoffman, Jules K. Thiessen, Twp Cncl of Mount

39


Holly and Twp Mount Holly for Rehearing before original panel and the court en banc, Certificate of Service dated 09/27/2011P (MJM)

* * * *

03/13/2012 ORDER (MCKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISH-ER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HAR-DIMAN, GREENAWAY JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges) deny-ing En Banc Rehearing filed by Appellees, filed. Fuentes, Authoring Judge. (SLC)

03/22/2012 MANDATE ISSUED, filed. (SLC)

06/14/2012 NOTICE from U.S. Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Twp Cncl of Mount Holly on 06/11/2012 and placed on the Supreme Court docket June 13, 2012 Supreme Court Case No. 11-1507. (CRG)

06/17/2013 NOTICE of U.S. Supreme Court disposition at No. 11-1507. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Town-ship Council of the Township of Mount Holly granted on 6/17/13 limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. (CRG)

40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

————

Case No. 1:08-cv-02584 HON. JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ

————

MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., ET AL

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, ET AL. Defendants,

————

DECLARATION OF ANDREW A. BEVERIDGE, Ph.D

————

I, ANDREW A. BEVERIDGE, Ph.D. of full age, hereby certify as follows:

1) I, Andrew A. Beveridge, am Professor of Sociology at Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. My primary responsibilities at the college and Graduate Center are teaching statistics and research methods at the graduate and undergraduate level and conducting quantitative statistically based social research. Trained at Yale University, I have been employed in such a capacity since 1973, first at Columbia University until 1981 and since then at Queens College and the Graduate Center of CUNY. I currently am serving a three-year term as chair of the sociology department at Queens. My areas of expertise include demography, the statis-tical and quantitative analysis of social science data

41 sets, most particularly including Census data, survey data and administrative records. I am an expert in the application of GIS technology to the analysis of social patterns. I have analyzed the impact of neigh-borhood characteristics on educational outcomes and substance use. I have published results from my research. I have listed my scholarly publications on my resume, which is attached as Exhibit A. Some of these results have been widely disseminated by serving as the basis of articles in the New York Times, where I serve as a demographic consultant through an agreement between the CUNY Research Foundation and the Times. In addition, I publish a regular column on demographic topics in the Gotham Gazette, an on-line publication of Citizens Union. I have served as a consultant to a number of public and private entities, where I provide services related to demographic analysis in the area of housing, among other things. For instance, I was under contract to the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal in 2005 for an analysis of the “Fair Market Rent” (FMR) levels in Long Island, NY.

2) I have testified as an expert in demographic and statistical analysis in the following cases, including affidavit testimony and the filing of reports, among others: U.S. vs. Port Chester, (Report, Two Decla-rations, Deposition and Hearing Testimony, 2002-present, Southern District of New York, cited in preliminary injunction ruling); Martinez v. Kelly (Declaration filed in 2nd Circuit re: Peremptory Jury Strikes, 2006); Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Portillo- Chicas (Affidavit, 2006, Stafford County Virginia); Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Rogers (Report and Testimony, 2006, Stafford County Virginia); U.S. v. Margaret Torres (Declaration, 2006, Eastern District of Louisiana); U.S. v. Caldwell (Declaration, 2006,

42 Eastern District of Louisiana); U.S. vs. Darryl Green, et al. (Seven Declaration and Trial Testimony 2004-2006, Eastern Division of the District of Massachu-setts, citied in the opinion; Bergen Lanning Residents in Action, et al. vs. “Randy” Primus, et al. (Report re: Bergen Square Redevelopment in Camden, NJ, 2005, Camden County, N.J); Cramer Hill Residents Associ-ation, et al. vs. Melvin R “Randy” Primus, et al, (Report re: Cramer Hill Redevelopment in Camden, NJ. 2005, Camden County, N.J); People v. Tyisha Taylor (Trial Testimony, 2005, Syracuse, NY City Court); Hispanic Alliance vs. Ventnor (Report, Certi-fication and Testimony at Trial, 2004 to 2005, Atlantic County, NJ); Citizens in Action, et al. vs. Town of Mount Holly, et al. (Report and Certification, 2005, Burlington County, NJ); U.S. v. Skiba, (Affir-mation, 2004, Pittsburgh Division, Western District of Pennsylvania); Connie Forest, et al. vs. Mel Martinez, et al, (Report re: Brick Towers Demolition in Newark. 2003-2006, Essex County, NJ); New Rochelle Voters Rights Defense Fund v. City of New Rochelle (Report and Testimony, 2003, Southern District of New York, cited in the opinion); People v. Sweat (Affidavits, 2003, Broome County, NY); Montano v. Suffolk County Legislature (Declaration and Testimony, 2003, Eastern District of New York, cited in opinion); Rodriquez v. Pataki (Declaration, Report, and Deposition and Trial Testimony, 2002-2003, Combined Second Circuit, Southern District of New York Panel, cited in the opinion); Hines vs. Charleston Missouri Housing Authority (Report and Testimony at Trial, 2002 to 2003, Eastern District of Missouri, analysis cited in opinion); Reese, et al. vs. Miami-Dade County, et al. (Report and Testimony at Hearing, 2001 to 2002, Southern District of Florida). Virtually

43 all cases and testimony are listed in my resume attached as Exhibit A.

3) South Jersey Legal Services, Inc., the AARP Litigation Foundation, and Potter and Dickson, co-counsel for plaintiffs in this matter, have retained me. I have analyzed the impact of West Rancocas Redevelopment Project (“Project”) on the availability of affordable housing in Mount Holly and Burlington County more generally, as well as any disparate impact that its removal will have and is having on the African-American and Hispanic population in Mt. Holly Township and Burlington County, New Jersey.

4) To carry out this analysis, I had access to various documents and materials pertaining to housing in Burlington County, New Jersey. These included the following:

a) The West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan (WR Redevelopment Plan) adopted by the Mount Holly Township Council, as well as various implementing decisions by the Township Council and details of that plan as related to various groups by the developers through May 2008.

b) The “Workable Relocation Assistance Plan” (WRAP) submitted by the Township to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs on September 28, 2006 and approved in November of 2006.

c) A letter from M. James Maley to Brian Weeks, Deputy Public Advocate, date December 6, 2007.

d) The “Statement of Mount Holly Township to the Public Advocate on the West Rancocas Rede-velopment, December 12, 2007.”

44 e) “Statement of Mount Holly Township in Response to Questions of the Public Advocate, January 24, 2008.”

f) Responses from the survey conducted by Triad Associated, Inc. regarding residents of the Gardens, after the WRAP had been approved. The WRAP indicated that there were 169 responses, but I only was provided with 139 responses, upon which my analyses are based.

g) The Redevelopment Area Determination Report adopted by the Mount Holly Township Council in 2002.

h) Planning Expert Report on the Proposed West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan, prepared by Alan Mallach, dated February 2005, and a supplement to that report dated March 2005.

i) Transcript of testimony presented February 21, 2005 to the Planning Board of the Township of Mount Holly by Alan Mallach, AICP.

j) Written comments presented February 21, 2005 to the Planning Board of the Township of Mount Holly by Kenneth Goldman, South Jersey Legal Services.

k) Written comments presented March 14, 2005 to the Mount Holly Township Council by Kenneth Goldman, South Jersey Legal Services.

l) The complaint of Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc, et al, vs. Township of Mount Holly, et al. (Filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage.)

m) The Declaration of Gray Smith, AICP, AIA filed in this matter.

45 n) Census tabulations SF1 from the 2000 Census pertaining to Burlington County and Mount Holly, New Jersey, and various blocks which contain the Gardens. (Relevant Material Attached as Exhibits I.)

o) Income limits for various periods from HUD and from New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), used to set subsidy levels and give information on changing rent levels. For HUD, Burlington County is part of the Phila-delphia region for the computation of such rent levels. (See http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ pdrdatas.html.) (Relevant materials attached as Exhibit D.)

p) Data derived from the CHAS (“Comprehen-sive Housing Affordability Strategy”) Tables for various groups based upon the 2000 Census available from HUD on-line. (http://socds.huduser. org/chas/index.htm) (Relevant tables attached as Exhibit J, four tables. Material derived from those tables in Exhibits E1 and H1.)

q) An update to the CHAS Tables using the same methodology but based on the American Community Survey, 2006. (Relevant material in Exhibits E2 and H2.)

r) A Geographical Information Systems and Census Tiger (Topologically Integrated and Geo-graphically Encoded and Referenced) Files.

s) A letter by Brian M. Guest of Parker, McCay and Criscuolo, P.A. discussing the purchase of 62 units of the Gardens for $3,250,000.

t) An assistant and I made a tour of the Gardens and surrounding Mount Holly on August 7, 2005.

46 We carefully examined the relationship of the Gardens area and their distinctive development style with the geography of Census Blocks. We also made a very careful assessment of the rela-tionship of the Gardens to surrounding housing, facilities and business activity.

I. THE GARDENS PROVIDED AND CON-TINUES TO PROVIDE HOUSING OPPOR-TUNITIES IN BURLINGTON COUNTY THAT ARE AFFORDABLE TO THOSE HAVING LOW, VERY LOW AND EXTREMELY LOW INCOMES

5) The Gardens were developed privately in the early 1950s and consist of multiple attached housing units in configurations from four units to 10 units in one building. All units on North and South Martin Streets are Gardens units. Census Block 1003, which is bounded by Levis, North Martin and South Martin, consists entirely of Gardens units. The units on the other side of North and South Martin are in a large census block (1001) which includes the Anna Heller School and its playground area to the north, which is now part of the West Rancocas Redevelopment Area. Originally an elementary school, it served in 2005 as administrative offices for the Mount Holly School District, and some programs were located there. Also included in Block 1001 is Regency Park, which is a townhouse development; a large apartment complex 64 Regent Drive; and Olde Mill Village, also a townhouse development. To the South of the Gardens is a lumberyard, an auto body shop and a GEICO office. Units are on Levis Street, Saul Place, on Grant Street, on Brown Street, and on Joseph Place. There are 18 units beyond the redevelopment area on Brown and Grant Streets in Census Block 1008.

47 6) The units on Levis Street north of Grant Street

and the units on Saul Place share Census Block 1000 with single family housing on Devon, Bartram and Rutland Avenues. However, the Garden Units in the census block (1009) bounded by Levis, Grant, Brown and Rancocas share the block with only two single family units. Exhibit B shows the Census blocks involved, and identifies the Gardens location.

7) In 2000 information on the residents of the Gardens was gathered using a survey commissioned by the Township to which occupants in 157 units, or roughly half, responded. This survey is incorporated in the WR Redevelopment Plan. The residents’ tenure status, economic condition, age and family size are available. The survey did not collect information on race and Hispanic status. Due to the high response rate, the survey represents a reasonable depiction of the status of the Garden at the beginning of the redevelopment process.1 Furthermore, a reasonable estimate of the racial and Hispanic composition of the Gardens, just before redevelopment began to be contemplated, can be gained by using the composition of Census Blocks 1009 and 1003, where virtually all the units are Gardens. Together these two sources

1 Though the WR Redevelopment Plan survey did ask the

residents a series of questions about their housing preference, nowhere was there any indication that the residents were told that the new housing that would likely be proposed would cost on the order of four times what they are currently paying. To ask someone if they would like a new house or a set of new features for their house, but not ask them how much they are willing to pay for it, renders those aspects of the survey meaningless. Nonetheless, the demographic and statistical portrait of the Gardens units and their residents provided by the survey is very useful for assessing the impact of the WR Redevelopment Plan.

48 can give us a picture of the tenants and homeowners, who will be affected by the WR Redevelopment Project.

8) The Gardens consisted of some 329 units. Currently many of the units are vacant, and some 71 had been demolished and the vacancy rate as of December 2007 was approximately 65 percent. Indeed, each of the vacant units owned by the Township of Mount Holly has a large sign indicating that it is owned by the Township and is vacant. Since planning for the redevelopment began around 2000, the survey applies to 2000 as does the Census data, so it is reasonable to assume that all changes in the Gardens, including the purchase of units by the Township of Mount Holly, after that date were in furtherance of the redevelopment project.

9) Assuming a vacancy rate of about 12 percent (close to the average of the vacancy rates in Census Block 1003 and 1009 in 2000), the total available units in the Gardens would be 335. This also was close to the estimate of the number of occupied units provided by the survey, which was incorporated into the WR Redevelopment Plan. So I will assume that as of 2000 the Gardens consisted of 329 habitable units.

10) The survey reported that 50 percent of the units contained two bedrooms, 20 percent one bed-room, 29 percent three bedroom and one percent four bedrooms. Some 80 percent of units could accom-modate families with some children. Indeed, there were 12 percent one person households, 21 percent two person households, 29 percent three person households, and 38 percent four or more persons. Fourteen percent of the household heads were 65 or older. Sixty-three percent of units were rental.

49 11) According to the survey in 2000, all but one

household had an income of $60,000 or less, about nine percent had incomes between $40,000 and $60,000, 43 percent between $20,000 and $40,000, and 47 percent had income below $20,000. Using the definitions of extremely low, very low, and low income (less than 30 percent, less than 50 percent and less than 80 percent of area median) developed by HUD (the HUD Area Median Family Income or HAMFI) for 2001, virtually all residents of the Gardens would have been low income (the income limits varied from $33,650 to $63,450 depending on the household size), and almost all of these would have been classified as “very low or extremely low income.”2 (See Exhibit D, which includes the various income limits based upon HAMFI. Burlington County is considered to be in the Philadelphia area by HUD, for 2001 and for 2006. The income limits for the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing are also presented, and are quite similar to the HAMFI limits.) In short, the Gardens Residents were and are mainly a group of extremely and very low income homeowners and tenants.

12) Using information from the survey about ownership costs of Gardens Units, as well as reported rents in the Gardens, it is also obvious that the units were generally affordable either as rentals or as ownership units. Their monthly expenses are very low, and the rentals are among the lowest in Burlington County.

2 Exact estimates cannot be made because of the lack of

precise income data; however, most Gardens residents would have qualified for very low or extremely low income status, and most units would be affordable to such residents.

50 13) In 2006, as part of the WRAP, Triad Associates

completed a survey, which included questions regard-ing unit size, ownership and mortgage status, and rent. These data, along with calculations of what level of income would be required for units to be affordable, are presented in Exhibit C.

14) As the data demonstrates, Gardens units are affordable to families and other households with annual incomes of $20,000 to $40,000, except for the one ownership unit survey, where the ownership costs would require an income of $50,000 to be affordable. Many Gardens units are affordable to those with even lower incomes, especially the owner occupied units, where some of the residents have been there for years and have paid off their mortgage.

15) Thus, units in the Gardens were and are affordable to those households HUD classifies as “very low income or extremely low income” house-holds because their household income is less than 50 percent of the HAMFI. Those classified by HUD as low income, with income between 50 and 80 percent of HAMFI, would also be able to afford Gardens units. Thus, for families with limited means the Gardens represented a very attractive affordable housing opportunity.

16) It should be noted that the Gardens units were affordable either as rental or as ownership units. Furthermore, they are affordable for senior citizens and for families, so these distinctions will not be used in this report. Rather, the general patterns of afford-ability will be examined.

51 II. THE WEST RANCOCAS REDEVELOPMENT

PROJECT IS DESTROYING MOST AFFORD-ABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CURRENT GARDENS RESIDENTS AND WILL SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES IN BURLINGTON COUNTY

17) The WR Redevelopment Plan provides for 228 total units. Included is provision for 23 affordable units and 38 senior citizen units built in combination with 38 other units in townhouses. Except for the 23 units—which would be affordable based upon 80% of median income and targeting only those earning between $37,000 for a two person unit to over $61,050 for an 8 person unit (in 2000)—there is no provision for affordable housing. Further, except for the possibility of senior rentals, there is no provision for rental housing. Thus, there is no provision for family rentals.

18) Accordingly, the WR Redevelopment Plan’s proposed and continuing destruction of the Gardens has had and will continue to have serious consequences for almost all Gardens residents. As virtually all Gardens residents are low income, the WR Redevelopment Plan’s proposed 23 affordable units will not in any way accommodate the more than 300 families that were living in the Gardens as of 2000, which has resulted and will continue to result in their displacement from the community.

19) Further, the WR Concept Plan, which has yet to be formally approved, now provides for 520 total units. It includes provision for 56 affordable units based upon New Jersey’s Affordability Standards. Twenty-eight are to be rental units and the other 28 are to be owner occupied units. Except for these 56

52 units—which would be affordable based upon 80 percent of HAMFI (which are very close COAH income thresholds) targeting only those earning between $46,150 for a two person unit to over $76,150 for an 8 person unit (in 2006)—there is no other provision for affordable housing. While under the WRAP, there is some provision for relocation assistance, but it is woefully inadequate to make the new market rate units to be built in the Gardens or other market rate units in the area affordable to low-income households such as those living in the Gardens. (This is more fully examined below under Section, IV).

20) According to the Township Statement to the New Jersey Public Advocate in December 2007, the minimum price for such market rate units would be $200,000 and could be as high as $275,000. As such, they would be well out of reach of the current residents of the Gardens. One would find that the principal and interest would be $1,139.15 (this assumes a purchase price of $200,000, a mortgage of 6 percent, and five percent down). Add to this four percent of purchase price each year for taxes and other expenses ($666.67) and $100 per month for utilities, the cost of ownership would total $1,906 per month. For such units to be affordable would require an income of $76,240 or more. For larger units, priced higher, the qualifying income would be even more.

21) In Burlington County, according to the HUD CHAS Tables, as a whole there were 5,244 units of affordable housing for those with incomes of 50 percent or less of the HAMFI in 2000. However, a total of 22,302 households were in that income category, so 17,058 households, or, 76.5 percent of all “very and extremely low income” households, lived in housing that was not affordable and paid more than

53 30 percent of their income for housing. These data are based upon materials from the CHAS tables, which are reproduced in Exhibit J. The calculations are summarized in Exhibit E 1.

22) Using the 2006 American Community Survey, I replicated the data in the HUD CHAS tables for 2000 for 2006. Some of the results of that analysis are presented in Exhibit E2. That exhibit makes plain that the number of affordable housing units in Burlington County declined to 3,891 by 2006 (from 5,244) for those household with “very or extremely” low incomes. In fact, the estimate indicates that as of 2006, some 85.01 percent of such households are now cost burdened. Undoubtedly part of this increased burden was due to the vacant and now demolished units in the Gardens being removed from the housing stock. As noted, as of 2000, virtually all Gardens tenants were “extremely or very low” income.

23) Since the WR Redevelopment Project as it is currently being implemented would eventually destroy 273 units of affordable housing (329 less the 56 affordable units provided), it would eliminate 5.1 percent of the affordable housing stock in Burlington County as of 2000 that could be inhabited by “very low or extremely low income” residents.

24) In short, the WR Redevelopment Project has and will continue to remove from the current and past residents of the Gardens affordable housing opportunities, while forcing them to search, often in vain, for comparable housing. It will also continue to deplete the already limited stock of such affordable housing in Burlington County, and harm the life style of the current Gardens residents, while undercutting the life chances of their off spring by

54 forcing them to relocate from Mount Holly and the Mount Holly schools.

III. THE DESTRUCTION OF HOUSING IN THE GARDENS UNDER THE WR REDEVELOP-MENT PROJECT IS HAVING A SEVERE DISPARATE IMPACT ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND HISPANIC RESIDENTS IN THE GARDENS, IN MOUNT HOLLY TOWN-SHIP AND IN BURLINGTON COUNTY

25) As noted above the Census Blocks 1003 and 1009 were almost exclusively occupied by residents of the Gardens. Because of this, it can be used to reliably estimate the racial and ethnic composition of the Gardens as of 2000. As is shown in Exhibit F, Non-Hispanic African-Americans and Hispanics in Mount Holly are much more adversely affected by the WR Redevelopment Project than are other residents, including non-Hispanic whites.3

26) According to tl1e 2000 U.S. Census, Burlington County’s total population was 423,394. Of the total population, Non-Hispanic Whites comprised 323,171—76.3 percent; Non-Hispanic African-Americans com-prised 62,476—14.8 percent; and Hispanics com-prised 17,632—4.2 percent.

27) According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Mount Holly Township’s total population was 10,728. Of the total population, Non-Hispanic Whites comprised 7,101—66.2 percent; Non-Hispanic African-Americans comprised 2,231—20.8 percent; and Hispanics comprised 942—8.8 percent.

3 Figures from Census sources are given for non-Hispanic

African-Americans, so that Hispanic African-Americans are not double counted.

55 28) As discussed above, the residential section

of the Gardens redevelopment area corresponds approximately to Blocks 1000, 1001, 1003 and 1009 of U.S. Census Tract 7026.04, Burlington County, New Jersey.

29) Approximately 1,031 residents lived within the Census Blocks corresponding to the residential section of the Gardens redevelopment area. Within the residential section of the Gardens redevelopment area, Non-Hispanic Whites comprised approximately 203 residents—only 19.7 percent, compared to 475—46.1 percent—Non-Hispanic African-American residents and 297—28.8 percent-Hispanic residents.

30) Thus, Non-Hispanic African-American and Hispanic residents comprised the overwhelming majority-nearly 75 percent-of the residents living in the Gardens redevelopment area.

31) Further, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, the concentration of Non-Hispanic African-American and Hispanic residents in the Gardens was the highest of any neighborhood in Mt. Holly Township and much higher compared to Burlington County, while the concentration of Non-Hispanic Whites was comparatively much lower.

a) 46.1 percent of the Gardens redevelopment area was African-American, compared to only 20.8 percent for Mt. Holly Township and 14.8 percent for Burlington County.

b) 28.8 percent of the Gardens redevelopment area was Hispanic, compared to only 8.8 percent for Mt. Holly Township and only 4.2 percent for Burlington County.

56 c) Only 19.7 percent of the Gardens redevelop-ment area was non-Hispanic White, compared to 66.2 percent for Mt. Holly Township and was 76.3 percent for Burlington County.

32) In addition, approximately 31.5 percent of Mt. Holly Township’s entire Hispanic population and approximately 21.3 percent of Mt. Holly Township’s entire African-American population lived within the Gardens redevelopment area, compared to only 2.9 percent of the entire non-Hispanic White population.

33) According to the 2000 Census, in Census Tract 7026.04 containing the Gardens, the housing charac-teristics were as follows:

a) According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the median household income in Census Tract 7026.04 was only $30,104, while the median income for the Township was $43,284, and the median income of Burlington County was $58,608.

b) 50 percent of the households in Census Tract 7026.04 were renters, and 50 percent were homeowners.

c) 31 percent of the Non-Hispanic African-American households were homeowners while the percentage in the entire Township was 13 percent, and the percentage in the County was 11 percent.

d) 17 percent of the Hispanic households were homeowners while the percentage in the entire Township was 8 percent, and the percentage in the County was 2 percent.

e) 81 percent of the owner-occupied households in Census Tract 7026.4 had lived in their homes

57 for at least 9 years, while 72 percent of the renter-occupied households had lived in their homes for at least 5 years.

f) The median cost of homeownership for owner-occupied homes with mortgages in Census Tract 7026.04 was only $969 a month, compared to $1,536 for the Township and $1,393 for the County.

34) According to the 2000 Census, the Gardens neighborhood therefore had among the highest concentration of African-American and Hispanic homeowners in Burlington County.

35) Indeed, while only 2.73 percent of the non-Hispanic White households in living in Mount Holly in 2000 are or will be affected by the Gardens’ demolition, some 22.54 percent of the African-American households and 32.31 percent of the Hispanic households are or will be affected. Put simply, the African-Americans are more than 8 times more likely to be negatively affected, and the Hispanics are more than 11 times more likely to be negatively affected, than are non-Hispanic Whites.

36) Furthermore, Exhibit G, a map showing the percentage of minorities in each census block, demonstrates that the Gardens contains a highly concentrated minority population (African-American and Hispanic), indeed more so than any other area of Mt. Holly. As indicated earlier, while the percentage of minority households for Mt. Holly as a whole is only 24.9 percent, within the Gardens the percentage of minority households is 74.4 percent. (See Exhibit F). Thus, African-Americans and Hispanics living in the Gardens have been and continue to be especially hard hit with virtually no chance replacing their

58 current housing with housing equally affordable, resulting in their displacement and extreme difficulty housing outside of the Gardens.

37) Given the reduction in affordable housing opportunities for low-income households in Bur-lington County one can say the following: The destruction of the affordable housing in the Gardens and its replacement with market rate housing, will not only greatly negatively impact African-American and Hispanic households in the Gardens Mount Holly, but will also have a severe disparate impact on the African-Americans and Hispanics in Burlington County. While the WR Redevelopment Project will destroy 5.21 percent of all of the affordable housing stock in Burlington County inhabited by all house-holds in 2000, who made less than 50 percent of the area median, only 1.62 percent of such housing lived in by non-Hispanic White households will be lost. However, 16.44 percent of similar affordable housing inhabited by African-Americans will be lost, as well 33.49 percent of such housing inhabited by Hispanics. There are similar results when one considers the housing loss for all the low income residents, including those that make up to 80 percent of the HAMFI. All these figures are in exhibit H1.

38) Exhibit H2 presents similar figures based upon the 2006 American Community Survey data. It is provided to indicate that the need for affordable housing had increased. Due to the limited sample size in the 2006 ACS, the results should be seen as indicating the same pattern of results found in 2000 hold for 2006. A number of units in the Gardens are already vacant or demolished, so the percent affected for each group takes into account all of the units, and not just those that remain.

59 IV. THE RELOCATION ASSISTANTANCE PRO-

VIDED FOR IN THE WRAP DOES LITTLE TO MITJGATE THE SEVERE DISPARATE IMPACT ON AFRICANAMERICAN AND HISPANIC RESIDENTS.

39) The severe disparate impact with respect to Hispanic and African-American residents will hold no matter what modifications are made to the WR Redevelopment Project, short of a plan that replaces or rehabilitates the current units with other units that are affordable to “very low income and extremely low income tenants and homeowners.” The WR Redevelopment Project is having and will have a severe and consequential disparate affect on African-American and Hispanic low-income households in Mount Holly Township and Burlington County. For instance, it does not matter if all the housing in the WR Redevelopment Project was made rental for it would still destroy a significant number of affordable homeowner units, and as indicated earlier the Gardens contained the highest concentration of African-American and Hispanic homeowners in Mount Holly and Burlington County. A plan that makes adequate provision for affordable housing for residents such as are those in the Gardens would be needed to offset the adverse disparate impact.

40) The subsidies in the WRAP, when viewed in the context of the actual housing market in and around Mount Holly, make this plain. The WRAP will provide up to $15,000 of relocation assistance, as a grant, and an additional of up to $20,000 as a loan to be paid back, when the replacement unit is sold. For a rental unit, there is assistance up to $4,000 over three years as provided by New Jersey law and an additional amount up to $3,500 of rental

60 assistance. Assuming that this amounts to $7,500 and the tenant spends it over a three year period, it would come to $208 per month. For very low income tenants, this could easily lead to defaulting on rent after the three year period. Furthermore, since this is a one-time benefit, it is quite possible that a landlord would not agree to take a tenant in such circum-stances, since the tenant’s own income would not be enough to pay the rent without the subsidy.

41) Recently, homeowners in the Gardens received from the Township $32,000 for a one bedroom unit, $39,000 for a two bedroom unit, and $49,000 for a three bedroom unit. They also have access up to $35,000 in homeowner assistance to help them purchase comparable housing. To be able to purchase housing without any substantial increase in costs, he or she could spend up to $67,000 on a one-bedroom unit, $74,000 on a two bedroom unit, and $84,000 on a three bedroom unit. Based upon a visit to www.realtor.com on June 25, of some 429 single family homes, and 40 townhouses or condos available for sale in Mount Holly and its environs, only six were on sale at less than $84,000 and three of these had three bedrooms. So only three houses would be affordable for those living in three bedroom units. When one considers two bedroom and one bedroom units the situation is similar, there are three units that have at least one bedroom that are available under $67,000 and one other one bedroom unit at $68,900. For two bedroom units under $74,000 there is only one unit, but there are two three bedroom units available at $75,000. In short, there are very few units available in the area that would be afforda-ble to the homeowners in the Gardens, and the over-whelming of majority market rate units are far beyond their reach, even taking into account the

61 current provision of relocation assistance in the WRAP. (The listings from www.realtor.com for single family homes, and for townhouses and condomini-ums, are in Exhibits K and L.)

42) Using the maximum currently paid as reported by the Triad Survey for one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units and adding on $208 based upon the three year subsidy, the maximum rent would be $883 for a one-bedroom units, $1,058 for a two-bedroom unit, and $1,183 for a three bedroom unit. Using www.realtor.com of the 31 rentals availa-ble there was only one one-bedroom unit that was affordable by these standards (at $825.) There was one two bedroom unit at $950, and one three bedroom unit at $1,175. If tenants could not afford the maxi-mum rent or decided to use their relocation allowance for other purposes, then there are no units available. (See Exhibit M.)

43) Even with the assistance available in the WRAP, very few market units in the Mount Holly area are affordable to those who lived in the Gardens before the Project was begun in 2002 (or who are still living there). For this reason, the Project will con-tinue to destroy affordable housing for those with incomes below 50 percent of the HAMFI, as well as for those between 50 and 80 percent of the HAMFI.

44) In conclusion, there is a severe shortage of affordable housing in the Burlington County housing market for low, very low and extremely low-income residents. From 2000 to 2006, this shortage has intensified. The ongoing destruction of affordable housing by the WR Redevelopment Project has had and will continue to have serious consequences for all low income residents, most particularly including African-American and Hispanic residents of the

62 region, who are more likely to be low-income. Especially hard hit have been and will to be the African-American and Hispanic households, who had lived or are currently living in the Gardens. Such household have virtually no chance of replacing their current housing with housing equally affordable.

V. THE ALTERNATIVES OUTLINED IN THE DECLARATION OF GRAY SMITH, AICP, AIA, WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY LESSEN THE SEVERE DISPARATE IMPACT ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND HISPANIC HOUSEHOLD CAUSED BY THE WR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

45) Furthermore, I have reviewed the declaration of Gray Smith, AICP, AIA, where he outlines a series of alternatives that would have had and could still have the effect of both improving and preserving much of the current Gardens neighborhood, as well as providing new affordable housing opportunities for current residents and other similarly situated. It is my opinion that if these alternatives had been or were to be implemented, it would significantly lessen the adverse impact of the Project upon African-American and Hispanic households and families. Many Gardens residents would have been able to stay either in their current affordable units or move into newly constructed or substantially renovated affordable homes, and therefore not be permanently displaced from their community. In addition it would have significantly lessened the impact of African-American and Hispanic families in the region, since affordable housing opportunities for low income residents would not have been decreased.

46) Despite these alternatives, both the WR Rede-velopment Plan and current WR Concept Plan call for

63 the complete elimination of the Gardens neighbor-hood as it existed before the project commenced in 2002. The WRAP does not make the current or past residents “whole.” Rather, the WR Redevelopment Project serves to deprive disproportionately low-income African-American and Hispanic homeowners and tenants housing opportunities and a viable func-tioning community. If carried out, as currently contemplated, it will have the effect of permanently removing a large proportion of lower-income African-American and Hispanic residents from Mt. Holly and leaving them much worse off with no viable housing alternatives.

47) The foregoing statistical reporting is based upon my experience and qualifications as a social science and statistical data analyst utilizing data from the sources indicated.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the afore-mentioned is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

/s/ Andrew A Beveridge

Andrew A. Beveridge, Ph.D. Yonkers, NY July 8, 2008


DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

[Filed 07/18/2008]

————

MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., et al Plaintiffs,

vs.

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, et al, Defendants.

————

Case No.: 1:08-cv-02584

————

HON. JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ

————

DECLARATION OF GRAY SMITH

————

I, Gray Smith AIA AICP, of full age, hereby certify as follows:

1. I am an architect, licensed in New Jersey, Penn-sylvania and Delaware. I am also certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners. My profes-sional practice has included the design of numerous subsidized housing developments, and production of urban planning studies related to housing design, location and development. My firm has conducted feasibility studies, construction documents and con-struction monitoring for many residential projects, as well as conditions analyses for existing properties. Approximately half of my practice involves expert

66 analysis and testimony in zoning, planning, fair housing, construction claims, building codes and standards, and building conditions. In civic and pro-fessional affairs, I have been active in numerous organizations related to low and moderate income housing policy and programs.

2. In addition, I and my architectural and planning firm have directed and authored numerous urban redevelopment projects including those in predomi-nantly residential neighborhoods. My architectural projects have included a number of subsidized, low and moderate income housing developments, both new and rehabilitated. My firm has performed many housing and planning studies for government entities, non-profit and for-profit developers, community associa-tions and faith-based organizations. My office con-ducted and completed a Downtown Revitalization Strategy for the Township of Mount Holly in 1984, the study area of which is three blocks from The Gardens redevelopment area. Finally, I have been accepted in the Courts and administrative venues for expert testimony and analysis in cases related to zoning, community planning, housing and housing discrim-ination.

3. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

4. I have been retained by the Plaintiff’s in this litigation to provide an opinion regarding the effects of actions taken by the Township of Mount Holly (Township) to implement the West Rancocas Rede-velopment Plan (the Redevelopment Plan), which I have reviewed, and regarding alternative approaches to revitalization of The Gardens neighborhood.

67 5. Previously, in June of 2007, I had been retained

by Citizens in Action, then Plaintiff in other litigation in New Jersey Superior Court, to examine documents and visit the neighborhood known as The Gardens in Mount Holly, NJ and to provide an opinion regarding the effects of actions taken at that time by the Township of Mount Holly (Township) to implement the Redevelopment Plan. Further, I was requested to make an evaluation of the attached row of houses at 245-261 Levis Drive as to their physical condition and the impact of proposed demolition of those homes as part of the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. More recently, in May of 2008, I revisited The Gardens to evaluate neighborhood conditions, occupied houses and properties made vacant by demolition.

6. In June, 2007, I received and reviewed the following documents:

a. Letter brief filed in New Jersey Superior Court proceedings, Citizens in Action v. Township of Mt Holly, in support of plaintiffs-appellants motion for additional interlocutory relief pursuant to R.2:9-5(b), dated 02.16.07

b. Certification of Carlos Rodriquez.

c. Numerous Certifications by residents of The Gardens.

d. Report to the Court on the Status of the West Rancocas Redevelopment Project, dated 05.25.07, with Exhibits A through K, including the West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan (the Redevelopment Plan) by H2M Group, dated: Revised 02.21.05, and the Workable Relocation Assistance Plan (WRAP) by Triad Associates, dated September 2006.

68 e. Correspondence related to participation of Gray Smith AlA AICP as an expert in the pro-ceedings.

7. I have more recently received and reviewed the following documents provided for purposes of prepar-ing this Declaration:

a. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, dated 05.27.08.

b. Department of the Public Advocate-Mount Holly Gardens Public Hearing (of 12.12.07) Statement, undated.

c. Statement of Mount Holly Township in Response to Questions of the Public Advocate, dated 10.24.08.

d. Statement of Mount Holly Township to the Public Advocate on the West Rancocas Redevelop-ment, dated 12.12.07.

e. Letter: Report of Redevelopment and Relocation Activities for the West Rancocas Redevelopment Project, dated 12.06.07, by M. James Maley, Jr. of Maley & Associates, Counselors at Law.

f. Planning Expert Report on the Proposed West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan, dated February 2005, by Alan Mallach, FAICP, PP.

g. The Impact of the West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan on Affordable Housing Stock and African-American and Hispanic Households in Mount Holly Township and Burlington County, New Jersey, dated 08.15.05, by Andrew A. Beveridge, PhD.

h. Petition (to the Supreme Court of New Jersey) for Certification and Appendix on Behalf of Plaintiff’s Petitioners, dated 09.03.07.

69 i. Redevelopment Area Determination Report- Township of Mt. Holly, by Janice E. Talley, P.P., PA, dated 09.03.02.

8. I visited The Gardens community on 06.11.07, performed a neighborhood tour, visited 2 occupied properties and consulted with several community residents regarding the history and current status of the neighborhood.

9. I conducted a review of the 2002 Redevelopment Area Determination Report which concluded that The Gardens “Study Area” was “blighted”, in accordance with the “criteria” of Section 5 of the NJ Local Rede-velopment and Housing Law (LRHL). The Report was conducted when there were 327 houses in The Gar-dens in an area of 27.85 acres with “about 55 percent” rental occupancy and “about 18 percent” vacancy, according to the survey therein. The Report’s conclu-sions were used as one basis for the initiation of the Township’s Redevelopment Plan.

a. The Report characterizes the houses as “quite small, averaging between 600 square feet of living space for a one-bedroom unit to 1, 300 square feet for a three-bedroom unit on approximately 2,500 square foot lots.

b. The Report characterizes The Gardens as with “substantial density”, at 11.8 units per acre.

c. The Report characterizes parking as a “prob-lem”, apparently because the parking areas were on the streets and alleys and not on individual housing lots, or off-street.

d. The Study cites “excessive land coverage” of impervious surfaces due to some Rear Yard paving.

70 e. The Report concludes that the “general design of The Gardens development contributes to this concentration of crime by providing hidden, paved alley (sic) where activity can take place under cover.” f. Although the Report identities the neighbor-hood playground, in place at the time, the Report indicated that “no common spaces” are possible. g. The Report further states that “there is no established organization to deal with the neigh-borhood’s physical and social problems.” h. The Report declares The Gardens as having an “obsolete design and layout . . . (that) creates an environment such that light, air and open space is are lacking” (sic). “(E)xcess lot coverage”, and “a general lack of proper utilization of land” are cited in the Report. i. Utilizing the conclusions as to neighborhood conditions described above, the Report then goes block by block to declare each block as meeting the criteria for blight certification. By these sections, the Report repeats the author’s opinions related to “diverse property ownership . . . faulty arrangement and design . . . obsolete layout . . . presence of alleyways . . . lack of adequate off-street parking . . . improper utilization of land . . . lack of common space”, as examples of blight. The Report, in support of its conclusions of poor conditions, lists representative physical conditions at the residential properties in need of repair or correction: “fences . . . painting . . . yard waste . . . trash . . . clutter . . . yard maintenance . . . landscape design . . . brick cleaning and repair. . . stucco repair . . . awnings . . . porch awnings . . . soffits . . . windows.” The Report refers to these

71 conditions as “cosmetic”. The author of the Report did not visit the interiors of any house, occupied or vacant, and listed no interior defects and no structural deficiencies. The Report uses the term “dilapidated”, with reference to the houses, although specifies, other than those listed above, were not cited.

j. The Report declares The Gardens as physically contrary to the requirements of the R-3 Residential Zoning classification of the Mount Holly Zoning Code.

k. Finally, the Report concluded, based mostly on the 2002 opinions described above, that The Gardens met “redevelopment criteria ‘a’, ‘d’, ‘e’ and ‘g’ as established by Section 5 of the LRHR.”

10. According to documents reviewed, included in the actions seeking to implement the Redevelopment Plan, the Township engaged, by a non-competitive Redevelopment agreement, Keating Urban Partners, LLC in partnership with Penrose Properties (Keating/ Penrose) to redevelop The Gardens Redevelopment Area as defined geographically by the Redevelopment Plan. Generally, Keating/Penrose has proposed to develop new housing within the Redevelopment Plan’s boundaries, and some commercial areas. The detailed nature of the redevelopment has been continually evolving, however.

11. In the meantime, the Township, and Keating/ Penrose, and Triad Associates, (“Relocation” sub-contractors to Keating/Penrose) have been aggressively acquiring properties through outright purchase, vacating houses, and relocating residents out of The Gardens neighborhood. The Township has demolished several houses that it had acquired. Other houses

72 owned by the Township contain residential tenants: families and individuals. Several properties remain individually owned and occupied by long term residents. As a result, the resident population of The Gardens has been reduced. The number of vacant residential units has increased. Vacant land has resulted from several demolitions. Other Township actions and inactions have added to dynamic changes occurring in the neighborhood.

12. I noted from my review of the documents that several contradictions in policy and purpose appear in both the Redevelopment Plan and WRAP, not the least of which is the commitment (and reversal thereof) to the rehabilitation of existing housing for occupancy by current residents of The Gardens.

13. I also noted that there is the substantial differ-ence between the officially adopted Township’s Redevelopment Plan and current statements by the Township’s Redeveloper agents and the Township’s attorney regarding the proposed number of housing units and density. The original Redevelopment Plan established that 228 housing units, both new and rehabilitated, would be constructed. The (Keating/ Pennrose) Redeveloper proposes 560 new housing units, with no rehabilitated units, according to the WRAP. The most recent documents propose 520 units, also without rehabilitation. There is no indication in any of these documents that these substantial changes have been officially amended to the Redevelopment Plan by the Township.

14. Both the Redevelopment Plan and the WRAP discuss both retention of current residents in the neighborhood, and conversely, total relocation of the residents elsewhere. One adverse effect on The

73 Gardens community has therefore been the uncer-tainty created by this assortment of contradictory goals and plans. Earlier commitments of the Town-ship’s Redevelopment Plan and its Redeveloper, as described in the documents, and in meetings with neighborhood residents, have been overtly abandoned, creating more uncertainty.

15. A review of the documents, discussions with residents, and the June 11, 2007 site visit revealed the current general conditions in The Gardens neighbor-hood at that time:

• a relatively low-income resident population; • well-maintained homeowner housing units; • well to poorly maintained occupied rental

housing units; • a variety of housing units that are generally

affordable to the current residents; • vacant, boarded-up housing units with non-

structural deterioration; • vacant lots with weeds, trash and debris; • mature trees and landscaping; • aging but generally functioning infrastructure:

utilities; streets; • no public recreation or social services facilities; • resident interaction and a sense of community

among residents. 16. I determined in my review of the neighborhood

and the documents that the actions undertaken by the Township and the Redevelopers to implement the Redevelopment Plan had and are having two types of adverse effects on The Gardens community and its

74 residents: (1) those that are currently evident; (2) those that are historically predictable.

17. The currently evident adverse effects were as follows:

• a community of approximately 300 families of several sizes, incomes and ethnic backgrounds has been diminished by an overt relocation effort. The results are vacant buildings, vacant land, and the threat of geographically distant resident relocations without choice or conven-ience;

• unmaintained properties (buildings and yards) owned by the Township with potential for physical dangers, fire hazards, pest infestation, mold, attractive nuisances, and physical damage to adjacent occupied properties;

• reluctance of private property owners to maintain properly, invest in property or improve it;

• inability of private property owners to secure tenants, obtain financing, or secure insurance at reasonable rates, or to sell property at a fair price;

• lost value of privately owned property, with no concurrent reduction in property taxes;

• unilluminated, vacant Township-owned lots, promoting infestation, drainage problems, erosion, and trespass;

• deteriorated public sidewalks;

• unmaintained, non-functioning street lighting;

• unmaintained, overgrown street trees in need of pruning or elimination;

75 • loss of all recreation facilities for all age groups

including the Saul Place Tot Lot;

• loss of an operating Community Center;

• flooding of Joseph Street due to an unmain-tained, blocked storm sewer system;

• houses slated for demolition that appear from exterior inspection to be structurally sound, not constituting an immediate health or safety hazard - and suitable for rehabilitation;

• potential for uncontrolled airborne lead con-tamination and soil toxicity due to building demolitions;

• potential for damage and lost insulation value to adjacent occupied houses due to demolition;

• failure to implement Fire Code and Property Maintenance Code enforcement, particularly on Township-owned properties;

• lost real estate taxes revenue by converting private property to Township ownership;

• lost economic benefits from rents, mortgages, and buying power due to residential vacancy and population loss;

• anxiety in the community and residents caused by unannounced Police training activity of a violent nature;

• failure to post publicly any indication of a positive future for the neighborhood beyond the negative messages of vacancy, poor mainte-nance, and demolition;

• relocations of long-term friends and neighbors;

• dire warnings of “No Trespassing”;

76 • destruction and loss of the existing universe of

livable, affordable housing stock for low and moderate income families in the Township and the region;

• loss of an entry level labor pool to the Town-ship and the region.

18. I further noted an essential conclusion stated by the Township’s own planning consultant found in the West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan: “Over the past 30 years, the number of owner occupied housing units in the Gardens has declined so that today (February, 2005), the majority of housing units are renter occupied (about 53 percent), owned largely by absentee land-lords. This has had a destabilizing effect on the development, and has resulted in declined building maintenance and property upkeep. A number of units in the development (about 14 percent) have deterior-ated lo such a point that they are now vacant and either completely or partially boarded up. The increased level of criminal activity and decreased feeling of safety in the area have also been a destabilizing factor and further exacerbate problems in the neighborhoods.” (Emphasis added) Yet, in the 2 1/2, years since this declaration, the Township and its Redeveloper have not worked to overcome and reverse these destabilizing factors. They have not instituted policies or programs to increase homeownership, reduce vacancy, enforce property maintenance codes, or establish procedures to reduce the level of criminal activity. The Township has itself become the dominant absentee landlord of predominantly vacant, unmaintained properties.

19. Also on the contrary, the Township and its Redeveloper have furthered neighborhood destabili-zation by purposely:

77 • reducing homeownership; • increasing vacancy; • boarding up buildings; • failing to maintain properties; • failing to enforce codes.

20. I also determined that the actions of the Township and the (Keating/Pennrose) Redevelopers have predictable adverse impacts. Any loss of pop-ulation in a neighborhood, and the prospects of even more dissipation of residents, will have such pre-dictable effects:

• reduction of public services: Police; fire-protection; street cleaning; vacant lot mainte-nance; recreation; broken utilities repairs and replacement; trash collection transportation; school busing.

• inclination not to start-up essential social services: child care; health services; organized recreational activity and facilities; youth development; code enforcement; public safety, etc.

• loss and geographic dispersion of neighbors, friends and family members;

• loss of membership in local religious institu-tions;

• breakdown of sense of community and coop-eration among neighbors, particularly children;

• disruption of local school enrollment at the schools, and as it affects school children who are forced to move during a school year.

21. Based upon these observations, I formed the opinion, within reasonable architectural and urban

78 planning certainty, and based on my education, knowledge, experience, research and analysis, that the results of the Township’s adoption of the West Ran-cocas Redevelopment Plan and subsequent actions of implementation by the Township and its Redeveloper, Keating/Penrose/Triad, have been numerous adverse physical and social impacts on The Gardens residents, The Gardens community, the Township, and the Region. The impacts are contrary to the stated needs of the residents, contrary to several of the goals stated in the Redevelopment Plan, and contrary to Public Policy as adopted in the Redevelopment Plan, particularly those goals related to renovation of existing housing units, retention of current residents in the neighborhood, and provision of affordable housing.

22. Moreover, in my opinion, the continuation of that implementation and related actions will acceler-ate and increase those physical and social adverse impacts. The continued and accelerating vacating and demolition of housing units and aggressive relocation activities will result in continued loss of a valuable housing resource, as it is costly and difficult to replace this housing with units affordable to households at the income levels of current residents. This circumstance is especially true for homeowner units. As such, the Township’s actions are eventually likely to result in conditions that will make unavoidable the imple-mentation of certain aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, particularly the relocation of all residents out of the community and the demolition of all existing housing units- and make salvaging The Gardens community for its residents improbable.

79 23. On September 27, 2007, upon request of

Plaintiffs’ counsel, I conducted exterior and interior inspections of properties located at 245-261 Levis Drive.

24. I concluded, within reasonable architectural and urban planning certainty, and based on my education, knowledge, experience, research and analysis, the following:

• The houses were structurally sound with respect to all floors, walls, foundations, stairs, and roofs, and they were not a threat to health and safety.

• The extent of any unsafe conditions within the houses was solely a function of the careless-ness of illegal trespassers and the Township’s failure to secure and protect the houses adequately against trespass.

• Because of the value of existing, in-place structural components and the high costs of demolition, removal, recycling, disposal, and replacement of similar structural components of less quality, the houses were economically feasible to rehabilitate with or without new additions for enlarged living areas.

25. On 05.19.08, I revisited The Gardens neighbor-hood. Photographs were taken during the visit (Exhibit “C”). I interviewed residents. I examined conditions related to occupied houses, individual yards, vacant houses, vacant lots, and general neigh-borhood maintenance in public areas. It was noted that, with the exception of the occupied houses, the overall conditions of the neighborhood had further deteriorated and were neglected beyond that observed during the 2007 visits.

80 A sample of four occupied houses were visited:

• 154 Levis Drive—Anna & Renardo Arocho • 126 Levis Drive—Mr. & Mrs. James Potter • 208 Levis Drive—Leona Wright • 354 South Martin Avenue—Lissette Rodriquez

As the photographs indicate, each of the 4 houses and their yards were in good to excellent condition, as maintained by the owner-occupants. Plumbing, heating and electrical systems were functioning properly and all structural components were sound. There were no roof leaks. Each of the houses had been renovated, upgraded, repaired, painted and/or had new components added or replaced, such as windows, cabinets, carpets, ceramic tile flooring, water heaters, plumbing fixtures, appliances, window air condition-ers, and HVAC systems. Decorating schemes and furnishings reflected pride in culture and homeowner-ship. Front and Rear Yards were characterized by fencing, planned landscaping, paving, rear Decks and Sheds, and flowers.

Other homeowner properties were viewed as to their Yards including:

• 406 South Martin Avenue—Mr. Rosando • 320 North Martin Avenue—Owner unknown • 226 Levis Drive—Owner unknown

These sample yards were well maintained, exhibit-ing substantial investments in landscaping. They were similar to numerous other landscaped private yards.

On the other hand, there was new evidence of deterioration in The Gardens neighborhood since last I visited:

81 • Several houses had been demolished, including

245, 247, 249, 251, 253, 255, 257, 259 and 261 Levis Drive, the subject of my previous report of 10.11.07.

• The resulting vacant lots and several others were characterized by poor grading, muddy conditions and erosion of soil onto streets, alleys and adjacent properiies.

• The demolition included the removal of essen-tial, public, concrete sidewalks, creating unsafe pathways between the remaining sidewalks, and the elimination of walkway accessibility for disabled residents and visitors.

• Several existing public sidewalks had heaved because of overgrown tree root systems.

• Many street curbs were damaged, displaced, or missing.

• Cluttered and clogged stormwater inlets were evident throughout the neighborhood.

• Standing water was on depressed public side-walks.

• There was a broken underground public water supply piping with steady water flow at the curve of Martin Avenue.

• Large street trees were in serious need of pruning of dead and overgrown limbs resulting in dangerous conditions.

• Several vacant houses had open, unsealed accessways to crawl spaces—attractive nui-sances.

• Several vacant houses had precariously sagging overhangs, soffits, and porch roof’s (missing column supports).

82 • There has been a reduction in the resident

population.

It was apparent that the neighborhood conditions and adverse effects (#15 and #17 above) described in my earlier report and site visit of June 11, 2007 had not been corrected by the Township or the Redevelop-ers; and they were continuing to deteriorate further.

Also, as noted in my earlier reports, the predictable effects (#20 above) have continued to occur.

26. In my opinion, within reasonable architectural and urban planning certainty, and based on my educa-tion, knowledge, experience, research and analysis, that the Township had in 2002, and continues to have today, various options for rehabilitating and improving The Gardens neighborhood and eliminating or reducing the blighted conditions, without wholesale acquisition and demolition of all existing houses and relocation of all residents. The demolished houses were structurally sound. They could have been rehabilitated and modernized. The remaining houses are structurally sound. They could be rehabilitated and modernized. Through a program of grants and loans, including those programs available through the Township, State and Federal programs, homeowners could rehabilitate their homes that still remain. Houses could also have been, and can be, combined to make larger homes, and made more attractive through the addition of amenities such as landscaping, fences, Decks, Porches, pitched roofs, Storage Rooms, Bath-rooms and Laundry Closets. The Township could have also developed and implemented a plan for combining selective demolition and new construction with rehabilitation by a Redeveloper or Redevelopers. The opportunity remains for that approach. This approach

83 can also eliminate the adverse conditions that increased since 2002.

27. Other problems that the Township purportedly sought to address through the Redevelopment Plan, such as crime or lack of amenities, could have been and can be addressed through better crime prevention, code enforcement, sustained maintenance of the Township’s own properties and rights-of-way, and increased funding for community improvements and social services.

28. Such a rehabilitation plan would have pre-served, and can preserve, affordable units, could have minimized, and still can minimize, dislocation and hardship to residents, and result in much less costs to the Township and the Redeveloper. It would also be more consistent with the stated goals of the Redevelopment Plan.

29. The Mount Holly Township’s aggressive reloca-tion of low and moderate income residents, and demolition of several of the houses purposely made vacant by the relocation, has reduced the number of available affordable housing units in The Gardens neighborhood and the Township. Any fair and equi-table redevelopment plan should and can necessarily include affordable housing for a variety of family sizes, including single, able-bodied seniors. Affordable hous-ing that is currently occupied by homeowners could easily and economically be retained at little or no expense to the Township.

Moreover, there is in the neighborhood a supply of vacant, but structurally sound, existing houses that could be retained and economically rehabilitated- at lower cost than new construction- even with the additions of modem amenities (#26 above).

84 Finally, The Gardens neighborhood, regardless of

statements in the blight Report, is essentially of relatively low density. Several of the areas made vacant by the demolition, and nearby vacant land that is considered by the Township as part of the Redevelopment Area, are sizable and ideal for new infill houses and/or multi-family apartments. A fully developed Redevelopment Area could incorporate both market rate and below market (subsidized) housing units at a greater number than the 300-plus original houses in The Gardens—and still be maintained at a relatively low density. Any new Redevelopment Plan should include some neighborhood commercial uses, as well as open space and recreational and community facilities. Maintaining and repairing the existing street pattern and utilities systems would be sub-stantially less costly than the overt changes proposed by the Township’s current Redevelopment Plan.

30. Regarding the rehabilitation and new construc-tion of affordable housing; there are numerous local, state and federal programs available for support and financing to Redevelopers in The Gardens. Examples include:

a. The Mount Holly Rehabilitation Owner Occupied Program: Available to income—eligible, low-or-moderate income, single-family homeowners.

b. Mount Holly 2000: Established as a state-recognized Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) to ensure and administer the availability of affordable housing units through Article I, entitled Provision of Affordable Housing, and Article II, entitled Marketing of Affordable Housing, of the Mount Holly General Code.

85 c. The NJ Housing Affordability Service (HAS): which works with municipalities and developers of affordable housing to assure that their housing units are administered properly and effectively.

d. The NJ Council on Affordable Housing (COAH): which requires that all municipalities seeking COAH credit contract with an approved admin-istrative agent, and enforces the Uniform Housing Affordability Controls.

e. The NJ Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (HMFA): which administers many housing pro-grams funded by bond sales, including:

(1) The Multifamily Programs & Finance Division: assists in financing projects.

(2) The Division of Multifamily Lending/Pre-servation: develops financial feasibility strategies for existing rental properties.

(3) CHOICE: a comprehensive financing pro-gram for the development of new construction and substantial rehabilitation homeowner properties.

(4) The Refinance Rehabilitation Program: assists current homeowners by refinancing for home rehabilitation.

(5) The Urban Home Ownership Recovery Pro-gram (UHORP): provides assistance to devel-opers to help build for-sale housing for low-and-moderate income households.

f. Federal programs: including:

(1) Section 8: Provides rental housing subsidies from the U.S. Department of Housing and

86 Community Development (HUD) to private landlords.

(2) Low-income housing tax credits: provides accelerated depreciation for low moderate-income housing development by for-profit and non-profit developers.

(3) Section 202 and Section 811: provide funding for special needs housing for low-and-moderate—income seniors and persons with physical and mental disabilities.

(4) HOME Improvement Partnership Program (HOME): provides housing rehabilitation and production support to state and local govern-ments for a variety of housing assistance purposes.

g. The NJ Balanced Housing (Bal Hsg) program: supports housing rehabilitation and production, administered by the NJ Department of Commu-nity Affairs.

(Note: this list is not complete.)

31. To assure meeting of overall community devel-opment goals for The Gardens, at a minimum, the fol-lowing basic work would be part of the development.

a. Rehabilitation of all remaining houses in the neighborhood for homeowners and renters, including modest additions.

b. Inclusion of surrounding vacant land into the project area.

c. New infill houses and armaments -at least 150 to 200 new units—for various income levels including market-rate, developed by for-profit and non-profit developers.

87 d. Repairs and upgrades to existing utilities and introduction of new telecommunications services.

e. Repaving of existing streets and alleys with new curbs and storm water inlets, and designated bicycle paths.

f. Replacement of all public sidewalks in compli-ance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).

g. Replacement of all street lights with new low-level village-style light standards, including in the alleys.

h. Selective removal of aging trees and replace-ment with new street trees; pruning of all existing trees to remain; selective tree surgery and clearing of surrounding wooded areas.

i. Construction of a new Community/Recreation Center and Playground for all ages.

j. Construction of Neighborhood Commercial Cen-ter with an integral Police mini-station and parking.

k. Designated properly for construction of a faith-based institution.

l. Formation, recognition and funding of a local non-profit Neighborhood Civic and Improvement Association made up of neighborhood residents and local institutional representatives.

m. Availability of Social Educational and Health Service agencies with a shared office in the Com-munity Center.

The implementation of these activities initially requires a new Plan for the Gardens Rehabilitation

88 and Redevelopment, prepared by professional plan-ners, engineers and architects. The work of this Plan must include substantial involvement by neighbor-hood residents.

32. The alternative Plan for rehabilitation of The Gardens neighborhood can also eliminate the inci-dence of “blight” described in the Determination Report, as follows:

• The “quite small” houses can be increased in size with modest additions and by combining two houses as one.

• The density of 11.8 units per acre, although relatively low, can be reduced by the addition of surrounding vacant land for new houses and open space. It is noted that the Township’s Redevelopment Plan proposed a greater density than 11.8 units per acre.

• New housing can be provided with on-site parking spaces and garages, accessible from rear alleys. On-street parking on existing streets can be regularized by signage and designated spaces by street painting, and common off-street parking lots with 3 to 5 spaces each.

• The plan for rehabilitation and new construc-tion would necessarily include an engineered stormwater management plan to assure the appropriate amount of impervious surface and modem methods for dealing with on-site stormwater runoff. There is an existing storm sewer system.

• To the extent that it can be demonstrated that there is a direct relationship between alleys, street layouts and crime, then additional street lighting, signage and Police patrols and

89 a Town Watch system would be part of the Redevelopment. The neighborhood design principles stated in the definitive 2000 report by the New Jersey Office of State Planning, Designing New Jersey, encourage “Traditional Neighborhood Design” which includes layouts similar to that of The Gardens, and alleys as a valuable component. Those principles would be part of the new plan.

• “Common spaces” in the form of playground(s), a community and recreation center and tot lots would be part of any neighborhood plan.

• Aside from a responsible Township govern-ment as the primary “organization to deal with the neighborhood’s physical and social problems”, a local neighborhood civic organi-zation can play an essential role.

• To the extent that the current neighborhood design and layout is “obsolete”, only slight adjustments are needed to resolve obsoles-cence.

• The cosmetic features considered examples of “dilapidation” by the blight Report (fences; painting; yard waste; trash; clutter; yard maintenance; landscape design; brick cleaning and repair; stucco repair; awnings; porch awnings; soffits, windows) are all easily repairable—particularly in the rehabilitation plan. Wholesale demolition of houses to correct these relatively minor cosmetic issues is not necessary practical, or economically sensible. The basic structures and materials of the houses are sound, reusable and sustainable. Owner-occupied houses are in good condition.

90 • The current R-3 Residential Zoning scheme for

The Gardens and the Zoning Code allows for the existing houses to remain as pre-existing non-conforming structures, in accordance with Article X of the Zoning Code. It is noted that each of the Township’s Redevelopment Plans will require substantial Variances with the R-3 Residential limitations in the Zoning Code, or a Zoning re-mapping.

33. It is my opinion, within reasonable architectural and planning certainty, and based on my education, knowledge, experience, research and analysis, that the alternative neighborhood redevelopment plan proposed above, which includes rehabilitation of existing houses, construction of new housing units and additional neighborhood amenities, is viable and still implementable, regardless of the damages caused by recent Township and Redeveloper actions. Not only will the alternative plan meet the stated goals of the Township’s original Redevelopment Plan, such an alternative redevelopment will eliminate blight and comply with State and local Public Policy criteria. Therefore, the rehabilitation alternative is superior to the wholesale demolition proposal, in that it will be considerably less costly, easier to accomplish, will retain local residents, and provide modem affordable housing.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the aforementioned is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Date: 07.02.08

/s/ Gray Smith GRAY SMITH AIA AICP


DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

————

Case No. 1:08-cv-02584 HON. JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ

————

MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, ET AL. Defendants,

————

DECLARATION OF VIVIAN BROOKS

————

I, Vivian Brooks, being of full age, hereby certify as follows:

1. I am a resident of the Gardens. I am a member of Mt. Holly Citizens in Action (hereinafter CIA), and was one of the original members when CIA was formed during the civil rights era. I am African-American.

2. I own a home at 319 South Martin Avenue. I lived there with my husband for over 30 years and raised our children there. Our adult son Roosevelt, who was a very ill dialysis patient, continued to live with us after our other children moved out as they became adults.

3. In March 2003, our adult daughter, Rita Brooks, moved back into our home with her children and

92 grandchild. Rita was then working in Lumberton, about a ten minute drive from our house. Rita’s son Sterling was attending Burlington County Community College and her daughter Ebony was working at Virtua Memorial Health Center on Route 38 in Lumberton, about a ten minute drive from our house. Our great granddaughter Maykla also moved in with us.

4. My husband, Leroy “Buddy” Brooks, worked as a pipe grinder for Griffin Pipe in Florence for about 14 years, until he became disabled and had to retire. I retired after working 31 years at Virtua Memorial Hospital, first as a certified nurses’ aide and then as a medical coordinator for 15 years. I then worked part-time at Samuel Miller Christian Retirement Center on Clinton Avenue in Mt. Holly, which is about a five minute ride from the Gardens.

5. I always loved my home and was glad that I could provide housing to my children, grandchildren, and great grandchild. I also always loved my neigh-borhood as there is a strong sense of community here for us. We have known many of our neighbors for many years and we raised our families together. When my husband was ill and in the hospital, neigh-bors would always check on me and help me around my house. Over the years, I cared for my neighbors’ children, cleaned their homes when they were ill, ran errands for them, drove them to appointments, visited them in hospitals, cooked for them, and loaned them money. And they have done all those things and more for me and my family. In addition to lending a helping hand, we also supported each other emotionally and spiritually. Many of our neighbors have become our friends; we listen to them, talk to

93 them, and pray with them. We have solved many problems together.

6. Even before the redevelopment process got underway, it seemed to me that the Township officials did not care about the Gardens and did not try to work with the residents to make life here better.

7. We had some problems over the years with drugs being used and bought and sold in our neighborhood. I called the local police many times but sometimes they would not come even after the second call, so then I would call the State police. The local police would get angry with me when I called State police. There have been many times when I have confronted drug dealers myself. Rev. Thomas and I used to walk the neighborhood and tell the drug dealers to leave. They stopped selling drugs in front of my house because I would make them move on. I had to cut down a beautiful tree I had in my front yard because drug dealers would hide up there. I think the drug dealing problem became not as bad as it used to be in years past, but the police should never have let things get so bad as they did.

8. Many years ago, in the mid 1990’s, I served on the Town Watch Committee. I went to the meetings to help organize it, and I spent hours patrolling other areas in town but not in the Gardens. There were a number of people who wanted a Town Watch in the Gardens, but we were told it was too dangerous. I went before the Town Council and spoke my mind: I told them that if I was going to serve, I wanted to serve in my own neighborhood. I was told there could be no Town Watch in the Gardens, so I quit.

9. The house next door to us, at 323 South Martin, was a double unit which became vacant in approxi-

94 mately 2000 or 2001. When the Township was starting the redevelopment process in the Gardens, in approximately 2003, my husband wanted to buy that house for our daughter Rita and her children, but he was told he could not because the Township had bought it. The Township boarded it up and left it vacant.

10. The Township did a poor job of maintaining the property next door. When the family had moved out, they had left lots of trash in the house and in the yard. The Township did not clean up that trash for such a long time it began to stink and became rat infested. I saw rats in the back of that house almost every day. My husband started trapping them. The Township also knocked down a shed in the back yard of this neighboring house, but then just left all the debris and contents of the shed in a big mess for several months. People from outside the neighbor-hood would drive through and stop and dump their trash on top of this pile. It was a stinking, rat-infested mess for about four months, maybe longer. I finally complained to the Township, and they eventually cleaned it up.

11. Also, shortly after the house was boarded, we became aware that people were coming and going from the house. I called the police and reported the activity because I was worried that drugs were being used and sold in that boarded-up house. I was also worried that children are attracted to a vacant house. They came and played there, and the older ones would climb up on the roof. I had to scare them away because I was afraid they would fall. We also would see squirrels coming in and out of the house next door. We had to install metal sheets up near our roof to keep the squirrels out of our house.

95 12. When in 2003 we heard about the Township’s

plans for redeveloping the Gardens, tearing down all the homes and making all of us move, I was very upset. I went to many Township meetings at which other residents and I told the Township that we love our community and want to keep our homes.

13. I also became worried that I would have no place to live that I could afford. When my husband was alive, we had an income of about $38,940 annually. Our mortgage payment was about $425, out PSE&G bill ran about $200 monthly, and our taxes were about $108. We were able to afford where we lived. At the Township meetings, I heard that the new homes they are planning to build here will be much more expensive. At our age and with Mr. Brooks disabled, we could not start over and buy even one of the least expensive new houses.

14. After the Township adopted its redevelopment plan over our objections, the Township continued to buy up and board up more homes. The Township also started to demolish some of the vacant houses that it owned.

15. On March 25, 2004, after I was visiting my husband in the hospital, I came home and found that there was a hole in the wall of my house where the house next door was being demolished. The hole came right through the sheet rock of the wall in the upstairs bedroom. Pieces of sheet rock and dust and debris were on the floor and there was a large crack in the bedroom wall. I questioned my grandson who had been home, and he told me that the men doing the demolition had hit the outside of the wall with their bulldozer. My neighbors who witnessed the damage done to my home confirmed this information.

96 16. I went outside and asked the two men who

were working for the demolition company what happened to my house. They denied any knowledge of the incident or responsibility for the damage done. Their denials upset me a great deal because I felt that they were not telling me the truth and now I would have a fight on my hands to get my home repaired. That same day, I went to the town hall and spoke to Mr. Thomas, a housing inspector, and asked him to come look at my house. I also spoke to Mr. Archie Liston, who was then the Town Manager, whom I have known for many years. Mr. Liston refused to speak to me because there was litigation about the redevelopment plan pending at that time.

17. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Liston, and Mr. Burns, the head of the demolition company, and several other men did come out to look at my house. Mr. Liston remained in the car. They saw the damage that had been done both inside and out. The owner of the demolition company acknowledged that his workers had caused the damage. That was a huge relief to me. He told me to file a claim with my homeowners insurance company, which would then contact him. He said the damage would be fixed because he was heavily bonded.

18. The same day that the bedroom wall was cracked, I heard my grandson screaming upstairs. I rushed up there to see him ripping off his pants. He had been laying on the bed in his bedroom, near the room with the hole in the wall, and a mouse had climbed up the inside of the leg of his pants. The mouse bit him before he could get his pants off, so I had to take him to the hospital. In the thirty-one years I have lived in my home, I have never had mice inside my home. I am convinced the mouse came in

97 through the hole in the wall, which really disgusts me. Mr. Burns did pay for my daughter and her children to stay in a motel one night because of the mice.

19. I later found out that the demolition company was not insured. I have pursued a claim against the Township and the demolition company for the damages to my home.

20. I continued to live in my house in spite of the damage because I had nowhere to go. The year that followed was a terrible year for me. The house became more and more unlivable. We had rain coming in constantly where the walls and ceilings were damaged. We would have to use buckets to catch the rain and constantly empty them out. The rugs were constantly soaked. Insulation hung from the damaged ceiling. The walls started to crumble. Mold grew all over the walls. The whole house was drafty. We stopped using the second floor and lived only on the first floor. Eventually ceiling leaks developed in the living room downstairs.

21. My husband passed away during this time. I believe the stress of living the way we did, and having to worry about what would happen to us, affected his health.

22. My son Roosevelt, who was already in ill health, developed respiratory problems which I believe were related to the mold in the house. He had to move out because of these conditions.

23. Then, my grandson committed suicide. He had been depressed and upset over everything that was happening. I found him in the bathtub. After that, it was so hard for me to go into that room and to remain in the house.

98 24. After many months of living in these terrible

conditions, I spoke out about the situation at a meeting. The developers who were working with the Township offered to relocate me to another house in the Gardens. The Township was going to charge me rent but I refused to pay.

25. In August, 2006, my lawyer who is represent-ing me in my damages claim worked out an agree-ment with the Township. I entered into an option agreement to sell my house to the Township for $49,000 at the time when a new replacement home in the Gardens is constructed and made available to me. The agreement also provided that I would be temporarily relocated to a Township-owned house and could live there without paying rent, but I would be responsible for paying all utilities and to continue to pay the mortgage payments on my house. I felt I had little choice but to make this agreement because I had nowhere else to live at the time. I am afraid of not having any place to live that I can afford, and I do not want to leave the Gardens. I would like to be offered a replacement house in the Gardens that I could afford and that would not require me to take on new financial burdens.

26. I moved into the house I now occupy, 295 Grant Street, in September, 2006. I now live there with my daughter Rita and her son. My son Roosevelt passed away in 2007. I do not pay rent, but I pay all utilities and I still pay the mortgage and taxes for the house that I own but can no longer live in.

27. Conditions in the neighborhood have gotten much worse since the Township started to do this redevelopment. Now, most houses are vacant, the sidewalks are torn up, and the there are empty lots

99 where I remember there used to be houses. We have no playground or space for children to play.

28. My sister who lives in North Carolina comes to visit me, and she remarked repeatedly about how bad the boarded-up houses made my house look and made the whole neighborhood look. She said they looked awful, that it was a disgrace, and that she could not live in the Gardens since they started boarding up homes.

29. I feel the Township is trying to force us all out before it even tries to take legal action to take our homes. The Township has harassed the remaining Gardens residents who have not agreed to sell their properties by issuing citations and tickets for very minor violations. On the evening of July 1, 2008, I went to a meeting for Gardens residents organized by the New Jersey Public Advocate. When I came home, I found that one of my cars was gone. My neighbors told me that the police had come soon after I left my house and towed it.

30. I went to the Township municipal building and spoke to the police officer there. He told me that I had parked my car illegally on Township property, meaning the vacant, boarded up house next door. I have two cars that I have been parking in the area directly behind my house. My house is the end house on the row. I was parking one car directly behind my back door, and my second car on the side further away from Levis Drive and closer to the Township’s house. I parked it there to keep it away from the vacant lot that is periodically mowed and to make it less accessible to strangers who pass by on Levis Drive and who could steal or vandalize it. I had been parking that car in the same place behind my house for several months, and the police have driven by and

100 seen it many times. They have never asked me to move it or given me any kind of warning. I had never received any tickets for parking there. I have seen people park their cars and set up picnic tables right on the Township’s lot, and the police have driven by and done nothing. There is no fence or other marker showing exactly where the property line ends. There are no signs telling me not to park there. The only sign the Township put up is a “No Trespassing’ sign on the front of the house. I would have been glad to move my car if the police had given me some kind of notice that it may be parked illegally.

31. The next day, on July 2, I spoke to Police Chief Martin. He told me that I “was not alone” and that he had sent his officers out that evening to issue citations in the Gardens. I had to pay over $200 to get my car back, which was a hardship for me. I am contesting the parking violation.

32. I feel that it is very wrong of the Township to harass the residents by issuing tickets when it is the Township that has created such bad living conditions here. It seems to me that the Township is trying to make life as unbearable as possible for us so that we will all give up and leave and make it easier for them to do their planned redevelopment project.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Date: July 9, 08 /s/ Vivian Brooks VIVIAN BROOKS

101 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT

OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

————

Case No.: 1:08-cv-02584 HON. JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ

————

MT. HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTION, INC., ET AL. Plaintiffs,

vs.

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, ET AL. Defendants.

————

DECLARATION OF SANTOS CRUZ

I, Santos Cruz, being of full age, hereby certify as follows:

1. I am a resident of the Mt. Holly Gardens neighborhood in Mount Holly, New Jersey (“Gardens”) and Vice-President of plaintiff Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. (“CIA”). I am Hispanic.

2. CIA is a membership organization that originally formed during the 1970’s. I became a member some-time in 2003 or 2004, when the group became more active after residents heard about the Township’s redevelopment plan to acquire and tear down all the homes in the Gardens. Recently, on May 16, 2008, we incorporated the group, because there are no records of its prior incorporation. I am currently serving as Vice-President of CIA.

3. CIA’s mission is to engage in efforts to preserve and improve the quality of life in the Gardens com-munity, combat neighborhood deterioration, educate and inform residents, provide a democratic vehicle

102 through which the members can discuss, plan, and act on problems that effect the community, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination regardless of class, race, creed, sex, or national origin, and to carry out other activities that are not inconsistent with the charitable, educational, and non-profit purpose of the organiza-tion under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. CIA membership is open to all Gardens residents. CIA has not received any funding and does not own any assets.

4. I own two houses in the Gardens. I live with my family at 137 Joseph Place, and I own and rent out another house at 356 South Martin, which I am currently renting to my brother. I have lived in the Gardens for about 18 years and have owned my home for about 17 years. I live with my wife and my four children, three of whom are still in school. We have a 3- bedroom house with a large yard.

5. I like living in the Gardens because it is a place I can afford and have all the necessities of life. I love my neighbors and the neighbors have always been good to me. I chose this location because it is very close to my church. I also handpicked a neighborhood, through God, that is close to shopping centers, schools, and at the time I moved in, it was a great school district.

6. I have been active in CIA since the Township of Mt. Holly began discussing redeveloping the Gardens. In the beginning of this process, Township officials said that they were not talking about demolishing our homes and that they wanted the residents to be involved in the process. When they made public the first redevelopment plan in 2003, however, we learned that they planned to acquire and tear down every home in the Gardens.

103 7. Many other Gardens residents and I have gone

to several planning board and Township Council meetings at which Township officials reviewed and voted to adopt the proposed redevelopment plans for the Gardens. We objected to the designation of our community as blighted and to the proposed plans. The officials ignored our concerns and went ahead to adopt the plans and implement them.

8. A few years ago in 2004, the Township closed down the community center and took down the only playground that we had in the Gardens. They have never replaced it. There is no good place now for children to play outdoors.

9. When the Township started on this redevelop-ment project, there were very few vacant houses in the neighborhood. Since 2005, the Township has purchased and vacated many homes.

10. The Township has demolished some of the homes which it bought. The demolitions were very disruptive. Demolitions took place in the early morning hours, around 6:30 in the morning. The demolition activity was noisy and dusty. The demolition crew would leave their bulldozers and other heavy equipment on site for days at a time, making us feel that we were living on a construction site rather than in a residential community. The Township tore up and removed sidewalks when they prepared the site for demolition, and the sidewalks were never replaced. After the demolitions were finished, it would be weeks before the site was cleaned and restored. In addition, the demolitions were frightening and upsetting to us because we were afraid that homes could be damaged in the process and because it made the destruction of the neighborhood seem more imminent and inevitable.

104 11. Because of the Township’s actions, the Gardens

has become a health hazard. I, my family and the other residents live among boarded up houses that are full of rats and roaches and other vermin. Because the Township tore out the sidewalks, it is harder to walk around the neighborhood and we have to walk in the street, which is not safe, especially for children. It is also not safe for children to be out playing in vacant poorly maintained lots next to abandoned houses. We do not have as many neighborhood activities as we did before this redevelopment process started. It is harder for us to enjoy spending time in our yards and gardens because of the way the neighborhood looks.

12. All of these actions by the Township are causing us stress and anxiety. We feel that it is only a matter of time before the Township takes our homes and forces us to move.

13. Owners have been put in a very difficult situation in deciding what to do with their properties. If a house needs repairs or improvements, we are worried about investing more money and then losing the investment when the house is taken from us by the Township. But we face being cited for housing viola-tions if we do not do the repairs. And it is impossible to sell a house except to the Township. I have been concerned about all these issues because I am both a resident homeowner and a landlord here. I am fearful I will lose all the investment I have made in both of my properties, but my only choices are to sell to the Township at the low prices the Township is offering or maintain both of my houses.

14. This is the only place I know in this state where the properties have not gone up in value during the last few years, according to what the Township says. In addition, the Township has never considered giving

105 us a break in our property taxes. The Township has brought property values down but our property taxes have continued to go up.

15. The Township and its agents have also been pressuring people to move out. Triad Associates, the company hired to conduct relocation, set up an office at the former Heller School and has sent out various notices and letters to Gardens residents.

16. For example, back on January 31, 2007, I received a message on my cell phone from a Ms. Bathsaida at Triad Associates. She said in the voice mail that she had a lot of great housing opportunities and that I should contact her. I called her back and apparently she thought I was a renter because she told me that Triad had money that Keating had given them to relocate tenants out of the Gardens. She said I had to move now, however, because the money would not be around in the end. I asked her if the money was available now, why would it not be available later? She said something like “this is what Keating is telling me to say.” She never asked me if I wanted to keep living in the Gardens. When I told her I was not a renter but a homeowner, she abruptly cut me off. She told me to call Keating directly and speak with a Ms. Karen.

17. Homeowners have also received letters from the Township offering to buy their homes. The prices that the Township is offering are very low, between $32,000 and $49,000.

18. Sometime in 2006, I questioned the Township how these prices were determined. In response to a public records request, I obtained some appraisal documents, attached as Exhibit “A”. I believe the houses here are worth much more than the Township is offering. I have looked at real estate listings and

106 seen properties listed on Brown Street and Grant Street, in an area of the Gardens just outside of the designated redevelopment zone, priced two times more than the Township is offering for our homes. Attached as Exhibit “B” are listings I obtained close to the same time I was given the documents attached as Exhibit “A”. Houses in Mt. Holly that are farther away from our neighborhood are selling at even much higher prices.

19. Even though I know the relocation plan pre-pared by the Township makes a mention of a “right of first refusal” for new units and I have heard the Township representatives say that there may be some replacement housing offered to Gardens residents, neither the Township nor its agents have ever told any of us that we have a right to remain living in the Gardens until replacement housing is offered to us. They have also never encouraged us in any way to make plans to obtain a new unit here after the redevelopment project is completed. I have been told that if I use relocation assistance to move out of the Gardens, I will not get any additional money to help me buy a new ‘nit here later. In addition, most other Gardens residents and I have limited financial means. I would not be able to afford a new home at the price that the new housing is expected to cost — between $200,000 and $275,000.

20. All of these actions taken by the Township are causing residents to give up and move out of the Gardens, even though it is hard for them to find housing they can afford.

21. I am very sad to see the Gardens community being destroyed by the Township. I do not want to give up either of my properties. I would like to be able to

107 continue living in the Gardens and I would like to be able to pass on the houses to my children.

22. I was part of a group of residents who attended a series of meetings in the early part of 2006 with the developers the Township had selected for the redevelopment project. We presented our objections to the Township’s redevelopment plan and made recommendations for what type of redevelopment we wanted for our neighborhood. The developers told us they would consider our input, but when they returned to meet with us several months later, they only wanted to discuss relocation of all the residents out of the community.

23. I would like to see the redevelopment plan changed so that those of us who want to remain in the community are able to stay here, and get assistance with upgrading our homes or be provided a replace-ment home without any added financial burden. I would like to see more affordable for-sale and rental units included in the plan, including a first time homebuyer program to help renters purchase a house here. We residents should have first priority for any new housing built here. As an active member and Vice-President of CIA, and as a member of the group who met with the developers, I have gotten input from many Gardens residents and know that most of them would also like to see these changes to the redevelop-ment plan.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware if that if arty the foregoing state-ments are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

DATE: 07-17-2008 /s/ Santos Cruz SANTOS CRUZ

108 EXHIBIT F

Mount Holly Township Planning Board

September 16, 2002 7 30 PM

Mount Holly New Jersey

The meeting was held at the Rancocas Valley Regional High School in the auditorium.

Chairman Moore called the regular meeting of the Mount Holly Planning Board to order. The roll call for this meeting was:

PRESENT: Mr. Thiessen, Mayor Scattergood, Mr. Clarke, Mrs. Di Camillo, Mr. Samson, and Chairman Moore.

ABSENT: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Yeager, Mr. Penn-chief and Patrolman Seitz

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William Kearns, attorney, Barbara Sheipe, Recording Secretary, Edward Porr, engineer, and Janice Talley, planner.

INVOCATION Chairman Moore called for a moment of silence.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

VERIFICATION OF MEETING NOTICE: The Recording Secretary verified that notice of this meet-ing had been provided in accordance with the Open Public meeting law and a certificate to this effect is on file in the Planning Board Office.

APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS

Resolution No 2002-8, Resolution of the Planning Board of the Township Of Mount Holly Memorializing the Section of the Board on the Application of 121 Evergreen Street for approval of a garage for property

109 identified Block 11, Lot 10 and located at 121 Ever-green Street. The resolution was read by title.

Mayor Scattergood made a motion to approve Reso-lution No 2002-8, Mr. Clarke seconded the motion. At the call of the roll, the vote was:

YAYES: Mr. Thiessen, Mayor Scattergood, Mr. Clarke, Mrs. Di Camillo, Mr. Samson, and Chair-man Moore

NAYES: None

Resolution No 2002-9, Resolution of the Planning Board of the Township of Mount Holly Memorializing the Section of the Board on the Application of Ashurst LLC 139-141 Ashurst Lane. The resolution was read by:

Mayor Scattergood made a motion to approve Reso-lution No 2002-9 Mrs. Di Camillo seconded the motion. At all of the roll, the vote was

AYES: Mayor Scattergood, Mr. Clarke Mrs. Di Camillo and Chairman Moore.

NAYES: None

ABSTAIN: Mr. Thiessen and Mr. Samson.

OLD BUSINESS:

None

NEW BUSINESS:

Public Hearing on Resolution No 2002 166, Resolu-tion. Authorizing The Township Of Mount Holly Plan-ning Board To Undertake Investigation And Hold Public Hearings To Determine Whether Certain Areas Of Mount Holly Are In Need Of Redevelopment As Defined In N.J.S.A. 12-1 Et. Seq. As Amended (Mount Holly Gardens). Chairman Moore read the resolution

110 by title and requested that Mr. Kearns and Ms. Talley give comments before the public speaks. Mr. Kearns reviewed that the township council had requested by resolution for the planning board to investigate whether the area of the Mount Holly Gardens met the criteria for a redevelopment zone. Mr. Kerns discussed that the planning board’s only duty was to decide if the state criteria was met and then refer their recommendations back to the township council, who then would create a plan and hold hearings on the plan. Ms. Talley went over the map and review the area that is identified in the resolution. Ms. Talley reviewed that the criteria for redevelopment includes that the buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsani-tary, dilapidated or obsolescent, in any municipality which has been declared an urban enterprise zone, the land is owned by the municipality, the county, the local housing authority, redevelopment agency or redevelopment entity. Also the criteria includes a growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of title, diverse ownership of real property therein or other conditions, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land poten-tially useful and valuable for contributing to and serv-ing the public health, safety and welfare. Ms. Talley reviewed that the area is 31.03-acres, the residential area is characterized by blocks of attached brick housing units of one or two stories, with alleys behind all housing blocks. The majority of the homes are not owner occupied and are overcrowded. There is no common area or design and abandon units. Ms. Talley discussed that the Master Plan discuss the goals to improve the quality of life in the area and to use redevelopment as one of the tools. Chairman Moore thanked everyone for coming and that the public

111 should limit the time at the microphone so that every-one has a chance to speak.

Chairman Moore opened the meeting to the public.

Kathy Williams-124 Levis Drive discussed that the dumpsters that the township placed is not working and that she can discuss tins at this hearing because one of the objectives on page 10 of the report submitted by Ms. Talley is the trash and the unsanitary areas. Ms. Williams discussed that the landlords and the township should be made to take care of their proper-ties and that the township made a decision on the trash dumpsters without asking the residents.

Carlos Rodriquez-107 Levis Drive discussed that he worked for the Camden Horsing Authority and that the redevelopment means that the township can take over the residents properties through condemnation. Mr. Kearns reviewed that there is no plan and that the township is not discussing condemnation. Mr. Rodri-quez dismissed that the rumors are that the township will only give the assessed value of the homes and that he has four children and is a 13-year veteran and has the power to vote. Mr. Rodriguez inquired as to what the benefits to the homeowners would be in a redevel-opment zone. Mr. Kerns discussed that the benefits depend on the individual’s perspective. Mr. Rodriquez agreed that the area did meet the states criteria for redevelopment. Mr. Rodriquez also inquired as to what benefits come from the UEZ to the township. Mr. Kearns reviewed that the state authorizes special funding available through the tax collected for projects for the township, Mr. Rodriquez discussed that if the density was lower in the Gardens would it create redistricting of the children again for school. Mayor Scattergood discussed that it could affect the redistrict

112 of the children so that each school has equal number of children attending.

Chris Cummingham-335 S. Martin discussed that he had a good landlord and that the house next door to him at 337 is township property and in terrible shape and that he blames the township for lowering the prop-erty values.

Santos Cruz-137 Joseph Place agreed that the area does meet the state criteria and that if it meets the standards then why hold a public meeting when the outcome is already decided. Mr. Kearns explained that the state law requires a public hearing before the area can be declared a redevelopment zone and that all of the procedures must be met. Mrs. Di Camillo discussed that it may take more than one meeting to make a decision.

Jose Ramos reviewed the resolution and the study and discussed that not enough notice was sent to the public. There should have been the entire information translated into Spanish and any other language that is spoken in the area. There seems to be a confron-tational atmosphere and that no one on the board represents the community. Mr. Ramos discussed that a few uptown men were making the decisions for another neighborhood.

Charles Leek-147 Broad Street discussed that he is a landlord for a property on Brown Street and that many of the residents of the Gardens take care of their prop-erties. He moved to another town due to the high, tax rated Mount Holly. Mr. Leek discussed that the board can say that there is not a plan but there is one it is just not on paper. The plan is to get rid of the houses and make it industrial. Mr. Leek reviewed that the county did the same thing when they wanted to build

113 the new county building and parking lot on Rancocas Road. The county condemn the buildings and tore them all down. Mr. Leek suggested that the board not make a decision from behind the desk but get out into the community and come down to the gardens and talk to the people. Mr. Leek discussed that a plan by the government will not solve the problem only the people can do that. Also the crime is not stopped by police but by the residents of the community.

Angela Gonzalez-Latino Services-60 High Street dis-cussed that she has been working in the Gardens for over a year and has planted flowers and attempted to have families move back together for a sense of com-munity. Mrs. Gonzalez translated for the public what the hearing was about.

Pedro Vasquez-208 Starling Lane discussed that he brought pictures down to the township council about the township’s properties. Mr. Vasquez inquired as to how the township can expect the residents to take pride in the area and their homes if the township does not. Mr. Vasquez inquired as to where Ms. Talley lived and if she had ever visited me Gardens. Instead of redevelopment Mr. Vasquez would like to see the township fix their homes and resell them to the resi-dents.

Leroy Brooks-319 S. Martin discussed that he had lived in the area for over 30 years and that he does like the fact that Ms. Talley turned her back on the audience when giving her presentation. Mr. Brooks does not want any of the homes torn down. Township Council should help the residents not throw them out. Mr. Brooks discussed that everyone will answer to the Lord for their behavior. Mr. Brooks discussed that the residents are not trash and that even the Town Watch won’t come down to the Gardens so they started their

114 own. The Community Center in 1999 helped and than lost ground.

Reverend Anna Thomas-156 Grant Street started the center back in 1992 and that it was helping when it was at full capacity. Reverend Thomas is concerned about the senior citizens and inquired as to who was on the committee and that they have a right to know the plan.

Resident of 116 Joseph Place discussed that there is a lot of feeling about the relationships between land-lords and tenants. He feels that the flooding and sewerage is an issue. The resident also discussed that the street sweeper or the snowplow do not go through the area regularly. Parking is not an issue but that the homes do need repair and does the township have funds to fix the homes. Mayor Scattergood discussed that the Genesis and Mount Holly 2000 were not town-ship programs but done privately. Mayor Scattergood discussed that with redevelopment the township could get support from the state agencies

Pedro. Vacquez-203 Starling Lane discussed that Mount Holly 2000 did help residents obtain homeown-ership.

Lance Spencer-293 Grant Street discussed that he lives in the area and is a correction officer at the county jail. Mr. Spencer informed council that local businesses will not make delivers after dark to the area and that everyone should understand that not all residents are drug dealers. Crime rate is high and that the area does not get enough support to keep dealers out. Mayor Scattergood discussed that he understands and that the Gardens is not the only problem area in the township. The Mayor discussed

115 that the conned needs to improve the performance of the entire community.

Clayton Long-9 Saul Place dismissed that what type of investigation is done for the resolution. Mayor Scattergood explained the investigation is actually part of the public hearing. Mr. Long discussed that there good people in the Gardens and that the town-ship needs to fix its properties.

Melvin Noriega-136 Joseph Place discussed that he lived there for twenty years and that the major problem is no recreation and no basketball courts for the teen-agers.

Ross-319 Martin Avenue discussed that the township should not label people. Why doesn't the board come down and visit the residents? We do not want to relo-cate and what happened to Mount Holly 2000 did the township take the money? Come to church and have dinner with the residents and please remove the dumpsters they smell and attract rats.

Nancy Lopez-319 Martin discussed that she is a Head Start Employee and that she is on the defensive side. The children were raised there and to please not tear down the homes. Ms. Lopez discussed that it should be a mutual decision between the board and the resi-dents but that she feels that the board has already made its decision.

Leonna Wright-208 Levis Drive discussed that she has lived in the area for over 33 years and raised her children here. Her children graduate from Rancocas Valley High School. Mrs. Wright discussed that she had helped start the Citizens Action Group of the Gardens and had type an application to get start and it was distribute to neighborhood. Mrs. Wright only received two responses and needs five members to

116 function. Mount Holly 2000 was not part of the township and that she was a member of committee and that it was funded by banks and private residents. Mount Holly 2000 had purchased homes and repaired them for resale but could not get any additional fund-ing. Mrs. Wright discussed that when Jim Smith was Mayor they had requested the dumpsters be placed in the alleys and that it has taken the township this long to do it. The town watch was once a part of the Gardens but interest died off. Mrs. Wright discussed that anyone can rim for political office and that she is a poll workers and does not see many of the residents of the Gardens come out to vote.

Gabriel Rivera-376 S. Martin- discussed that he is a maintenance man for EF & C that has rentals in the area and that he keeps up the properties. It is some-times a 67 hour week to just maintain the properties.

Phyllis T Singleton-128 Joseph Place discussed that she has been a 12-year homeowner and that she encourages anyone to run for office. Ms. Singleton discussed that redevelopment is a major headache and that the community should be held responsible. She has worked for the state for 22 years and knows that in government nothing is present without a plan. Ms. Singleton inquired as to how long before the matter would be referred back to council. Mr. Kearns explained that the planning board only make a deter-mination of the area meets the criteria and than recommends that township council accept the area. Ms. Singleton inquired if there is a certain time line for applications for redevelopment. Ms. Singleton discussed that the area does meet the criteria, but that she does want redevelopment in her area. Ms. Single-ton discussed the dumpsters and about the cost saving to the township and where will the money be spent

117 instead. Ms. Singleton stated that she does not trust anyone and will run for office

Robert Tress-213 Levis Drive discussed that he has been a resident for 1 year and used to be scared to go in the area but now realizes that it is a community. Ms. Talley discussed that the survey was completed two years ago. Mr. Tress discussed that the crime on the survey needs to be updated, as the new figures are not as high. Mr. Tress inquired if the township has funds for low income housing? Also that parking is a problem all over town. Mr. Tress also discussed that all of the UEZ always goes to the downtown business district that are not helping themselves. Mr. Tress would Ike to see the acorn lights in the Gardens entrances and exits. He does agree that the sewer lines are old and a problem, but that the houses are stable.

Brenda Hicks-335 S. Martin inquired, as to why Mr. Ferns is not looking at the audience and keeps playing on his computer and is not listening. Ms. Hicks discussed that the dumpsters are not located behind the homes and that senior citizens are not able to get the trash into the dumpsters. Ms. Hicks inquired as to why community service people could not be used to clean up the trash in the area. She also discussed that the council members only come to the Gardens when they are looking for votes. Ms. Hicks also informed council that the crime tip hot line is always full when you call and does anyone monitor the calls. Ms. Hicks also discussed the school district sending the children from the same neighborhood to different schools. Chairman Moore advised Ms. Hicks that some of her questions should be directed to the school board or to township council. Ms. Hicks requested that council not experiment with the residents of the Gardens and

118 that the residents care about each other and that she will call the TV stations if council attempts to condemn any homes.

Miguel Gonzalez-127 Joseph Place discussed that lighting is a problem in the Gardens and that everyone always talks about the money it will cost for the lights. The lights would save money due to less crime and officer being called. The police department-used to stop and talk to the residents but now they do not even get out of the cars. What can the police officer do to help if he is scared of the residents?

Robin Barnes-344 N. Martin discussed that she worked for Genesis and Mount Holly 2000 and that the area need some redevelopment. When Ms. Barnes talked with the Manager he stated that he wished to purchase an entire area of homes. Ms. Barnes discussed that 14 homes were done with Genesis and Mount Holly 2000 and that the townships way is not going to work.

Rebecca Gonzalez-147 Joseph Place discussed that at the first meeting two years ago at Saul Place there was not supposed to be a plan but yet there were maps and study done. Where are the pictures and plans now? Ms. Talley explained that the meeting two years was a different hearing than now. Mrs. Gonzalez inquired if the homeowners needed to get an attorney to fight the township Mrs. Gonzalez discussed that she used to receive the agenda for the township meetings but as not received any in the last year. Mrs. DiCamillo discussed that she is listening instead of talking. Mrs. DiCamillo also discussed that if Mrs. Gonzalez was not receiving the agenda than why wait so long to find out why, call the township and request that her name be added to the mailing list. Mrs. Gonzalez discussed that the area has been in need of signs for dogs and

119 that the residents need to work together. Mrs. DiCamillo discussed that if you need something from the township than call and [Illegible] Mrs. Gonzalez also discussed that the taxi’s bring the drug dealers to the area and that it is always report but by the [Illegible].

Steve Barnes-344 N. Martin discussed that the town-ship needs to fix their own properties and that he had presented pictures to Mr. Thiessen concerning the condition of the properties. The township houses are hurting the image of the area.

Pedro-371 N. Martin discussed that there is a big hole on the school property and that it is full of trash and mosquitoes and that the smell of the MUA is hurting the area.

Resident-312 N. Martin discussed that language is problem and that many residents speak only Spanish. The township should be proud of all the nationalities and to please not step on the Gardens There are drugs problems there, but don’t tear down the homes. The council, and the board are the problems don’t take away from the poor people. Let the residents be a part of the plan for real. He just prays that the government does the right thing and let people have a little hope.

Resident-122 Joseph Place inquired as to what would happen to the homeowners if redevelopment is approved. Mayor Scattergood explained that the coun-cil does not know the answer to that question until a plan is developed. The resident discussed that he can only afford to live in Gardens.

Kent Pipes-35 Mount Laurel Road discussed that lie owns properties in the Gardens and has listen to coun-cil for years on plans for the area. Mr. Pipes discussed that you cannot trust government; only the power and

120 the money get elected. Mr. Pipes discussed that he has been abused by council and their political powers for years. He disagrees that the area meets the criteria. The houses are safe, they are made out of brick, coun-cil, took away the open space with the selling of their own land to Haddonfield Lumber and yes it is a UEZ but also a residential district.

Carlos Rodriguez-107 Levis Drive discussed that he paid rent for four years and than bought his home from Mr. Pipes. He discussed that he works and sweats to keep his home clean and neat. Mr. Rodriguez talked about the police department and how the older officers like Fields, Baker and Mastrangelo used to stop and talk to the residents but now the new ones do not get of the cars and cannot even acknowledge with a wave or a nod of the head. Mr. Rodriguez requested a copy of the minutes for this meeting. He also inquired as-to what happened to the money that the township inspector took for his own house repair.

[Illegible] Zorrilla-371 N. Martin- inquired as to why the township can not find the time to address the branch pick and trash problems in the township.

[Illegible] Spencer-293 Grant Street inquired if Brown Street is a part of the redevelopment of the Gardens Ms. Spencer also discussed that the children are getting ringworm from the playground and that the sidewalks need repairs.

No one else from the public wishing to be heard, the public portion was closed.

Mr. Thiessen discussed that he beamed more from listening and that he takes redevelopment seriously. Mr. Thiessen discussed that public hearings were held on the Lippincott and Eagle area and that after several hearings the board decided not to declare the

121 area a redevelopment zone. Mr. Thiessen discussed that he had helped start a basketball program at the Heller School and was scared to death but that he bonded with the kids and it was worth the time and effort. Mr. Thiessen informed the audience that he is a member of council as well as planning board and that his number is in the phone book and that anyone interested in being on the planning board could send in a resume to council.

Mr. Clarke discussed that he was not aware of any plan for the area and that the community needed to be a part of the solution.

Mayor Scattergood thanked everyone for coming and that it is hard for everyone to understand that there is no plan. Mayor Scattergood discussed that one agency after another tried to help fix the homes and improve the area. Mayor Scattergood also discussed that the hoard was not the only people involved in the decision and that the area had been discussed for years.

Mrs. DiCamillo discussed that it is difficult to under-stand the redevelopment process. Mrs. DiCamillo discussed that her children walked to Holbein and RV schools and that she loves the township and has been a resident for 16 years.

Mr. Samson discussed that he had been listening and hearing what the public is saying redevelopment takes a long time and that it is a long road.

Mr. Thiessen discussed that he discounts the UEZ criteria but does agree that it meets all of the other criteria.

Mr. Thiessen made a motion to approve the recom-mendation of the area to the township council as an

122 area in need of redevelopment. Mr. Clarke seconds. the motion. At the call of the roll, the vote was:

AYES: Mr Thiessen, Mayor Scattergood, Mr. Clarke, Mrs. Di Camillo, Mr. Samson, and Chair-man Moore.

NAYES: None

MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC: None

MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE SOLICTOR: None

MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE BOARD MEMBERS:

ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Mr. Thiessen, seconded by Mr. Clarke.

AYES: Mr. Thiessen, Mayor Scattergood, Mr. Clarke Mrs. Di Camillo, Mr. Samson, and Chair-man Moore.

NAYES: None

Respectfully submitted Barbara A. Shope

123 EXHIBIT G

Redevelopment Area Determination Report

[Filed 07/18/2008]

————

Township of Mt. Holly, Burlington County, New Jersey

————

Case 1:08-cv-02584-JHR-AMD

————

Prepared for Mt Holly Planning Board

September 3, 2002

————

Prepared by

JANICE E. TALLEY, P.P., PA Community Planning Consultant

44 Godfrey Road Upper Montclair, New Jersey 07043

973-509-9555

————

The original of this report was signed and sealed in accordance with N.J.S.A. 45:14A-12.

Janice E. Talley Janice E. Talley, P.P. #5059

124 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW ........................................ 1

CRITERIA FOR REDEVELOPMENT AREA DETERMINATION ................................................. 2

EVALUATION OF STUDY AREA FOR CONFORMITY WITH REDEVELOPMENT AREA CRITERIA ..................................................... 3

EXISTING LAND USE ............................................ 3

ACCESSIBILITY ..................................................... 6

EXISTING ZONING ................................................ 6

RELATED PLANNING DOCUMENTS ..................... 7

MASTER PLAN-TOWNSHIP OF MT. HOLLY, NJ .......................................................................... 7

MOLINT HOLLY GARDENS ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ............................. 8

NEW JERSEY STATE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................. 8

BLOCK-BY-BLOCK ANALYSIS ................................ 9

BLOCK 12.05: LOTS 1-12 ....................................... 9

BLOCK 12.07: LOTS 24-33 ..................................... 9

BLOCK 12.07: LOTS 34-39 ................................... 10

BLOCK 12.07: LOTS 40-47 ................................... 10

BLOCK 12.07: LOTS 48-53 ................................... 10

BLOCK 12.07: LOTS 54-63 ................................... 11

BLOCK 12.02: LOTS 1-5 ....................................... 11

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 1-14 ..................................... 12

125 BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 2-11 ..................................... 12

BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 12-18 ................................... 13

BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 19-29 ................................... 13

BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 30-39 ................................... 14

BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 40-45 ................................... 14

BLOCK 12.05: LOTS 13-20 ................................... 14

BLOCK 12.05: LOT 43 ........................................... 15

BLOCK 12.05: LOTS 44-54 ................................... 15

BLOCK 12.05: LOTS 55-64 ................................... 16

BLOCK 12.07: LOTS 2-13 ..................................... 16

BLOCK 12.07: LOTS 14-23 ................................... 17

BLOCK 12.02: LOTS 6-15 ..................................... 17

BLOCK 12.02: LOT 16-23 ...................................... 17

BLOCK 12.02: LOTS 24-33 ................................... 18

BLOCK 12.02: LOTS 34-40 ................................... 18

BLOCK 12.02: LOTS 41-49 ................................... 19

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 49-56 ................................... 19

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 57-68 ................................... 20

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 69-78 ................................... 20

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 79-88 ................................... 20

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 15-24 ................................... 21

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 25-33 ................................... 21

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 34-36 ................................... 22

BLOCK 12.03: LOTS 37-48 ................................... 22

BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 46-55 ................................... 23

126 BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 56-55 ................................... 23

BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 66-77 ................................... 24

BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 78-86 ................................... 24

BLOCK 12.04: LOTS 87-97 ................................... 24

BLOCK 12.05: LOTS 21-24 ................................... 25

BLOCK 12.05: LOTS 25-32 ................................... 25

BLOCK 12.05: LOTS 33-36 ................................... 25

BLOCK 12.04, LOTS 1 AND 1.01 AND BLOCK 12.07, LOTS 1, 1.01 AND 64 ............................. 26

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 27

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY

APPENDIX B: PARCEL BY PARCEL ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C: PHOTO ANALYSIS

127 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to determine whether the area of Mt. Holly Township, as shown on Map 1: Redevelopment Study Area, qualifies as a “redevelop-ment area” as defined in the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (P.L. 1992, Chapter 79). This report is written pursuant to Section 6 of the LRHL, which provides for the following:

No area of a municipality shall be determined a redevelopment area unless the governing body of the municipality shall, by resolution, authorize the planning board to undertake a preliminary investigation to determine whether the proposed area is a redevelopment area pursuant according to the criteria set forth in Section V . . . The governing body of a municipality shall assign the conduct of the investigation and hearing to the planning board of the municipality. After completing its hearing on the matter, the Planning Board shall recommend that the deline-ated area, or any part thereof, be determined, or not be determined, by the municipal governing body to be a redevelopment area. After receiving the recommendation of the Planning Board, the municipal governing body may adopt a resolution determining that the delineated area, or any part thereof, is a redevelopment area.

The Mt. Holly Township Council, in Resolution No. 2002-166 dated July 22, 2002 (see Appendix A), requested that the Planning Board:

1. Conduct a preliminary investigation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6 to determine whether the area . . . . qualifies as a redevelopment area according to the criteria set in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5;

128 2. Make a determination, after conducting a

hearing and completing the investigation, as to whether or not the delineated area, or any part of it, is an appropriate redevelopment area in accordance with the statute; and

3. Report that determination to the Township Council.

This report serves as the “statement setting forth the basis for the investigation” which is required by Section 6(b) of the LRHL.

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW The Mt. Holly Gardens development, located in the

northwest comer of Mt. Holly Township, is a residen-tial area comprised of 327 attached housing units built in the early 1950s. As shown in Map 1, the area includes the following roads: Levis Drive (between Rancocas Road and the now abandoned George Avenue); North and South Martin Avenues; Saul Place; Joseph Place; and a portion of Grant Street.

The Mt. Holly Gardens have been designed as low-rise, garden apartment-style housing, accessed by a system of roadways and alleys. The housing units are unique, as they were constructed in blocks of attached units (generally eight to ten units per block), but are under fee simple ownership. Unlike condominium developments, there is no common property among homeowners in the Gardens.

Over the past 30 years, the number of owner occupied housing units in the Gardens has declined so that today, the majority of housing units are renter occupied (about 55 percent), owned largely by absentee landlords. This has had a destabilizing effect on the development, and has resulted in declined building maintenance and property up-keep. A number of

129 units in the development (about 18 percent) have deteriorated to such a point that they are now vacant and either completely or partially boarded up. The increased level of criminal activity and decreased feeling of safety in the area has also been a destabiliz-ing factor and further exacerbates problems in the study area. CRITERIA FOR REDEVELOPMENT AREA DETER-MINATION

The criteria contained in Section 5 of the LRHL that were considered in evaluating the Study Area were the following:

a. The generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated, or obsolescent, or possess any of such characteristics or are so lacking in light, air, or space, as to be conducive to unwholesome living or working conditions. b. The discontinuance of the use of buildings previously used for commercial, manufacturing or industrial purposes; the abandonment of such buildings or the same being allowed to fall into so great a state of disrepair as to be untenantable. c. Land that is owned by the municipality, the county, the local housing authority, redevelop-ment agency or redevelopment entity, or unim-proved vacant land that has remained so for a period of ten years prior to the adoption of the resolution, and that by reason of its location, remoteness, Jack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, topography, or nature of the soil, is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital. d. Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, over-crowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of

130 ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excess land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or wel-fare of the community. e. A growing lack or total lack of proper utiliza-tion of areas caused by the condition of title, diverse ownership of real property therein, or otl1er conditions, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety and welfare. f. Areas, in excess of five contiguous acres, whereon buildings or improvements have been destroyed, consumed by fire, demolished or altered by action of storm, fire, cyclone, tornado, earthquake, or other casualty in such a way that the aggregate assessed value of the area has been materially depreciated. g. In any municipality in which an enterprise zone has been designated pursuant to the ‘‘New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zones Act,” P.L. 1983, c.303 (C 52:27H-60 et seq.) the execution of the actions prescribed in that act for the adoption by the municipality and approval by the New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone Authority of the zone development plan for the area of the enterprise zone shall be considered sufficient for the deter-mination that the area is in need of redevelopment pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of P.L 1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-5 and 40A:12A-6) for the purpose of granting tax exemptions within the enterprise zone district pursuant to the provisions of P.L. 1991, c. 431 (C.40A:20-1 et seq.) or the adoption of a tax abatement and exemption ordinance pursuant to the provisions of P.L. 1991.

131 Furthermore, Section 3 of the LRHL permits the inclusion of parcels necessary for effective redevelop-ment by stating:

A redevelopment area may include land, buildings or improvements which of themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found necessary, with or without change in their condition, for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part.

EVALUATION OF STUDY AREA FOR CONFORM-ITY WITH REDEVELOPMENT AREA CRITERIA

A careful analysis of the Study Area’s existing land use, physical characteristics and accessibility was conducted using tax records, public information and visual inspection. The 31.03 acre study area, which is delineated on the Study Area Boundary map, contains two distinct subareas. The major subarea is a resi-dential neighborhood commonly referred to as The Gardens. This 27.85 acre area is characterized by blocks of attached brick housing units of one or two stories, on curvilinear streets, with alleys behind all housing blocks.

The second subarea is a 3.18 acre industrially-zoned area that fronts on Rancocas Road. This area contains a warehouse, several small parking lots and a stretch of vacant land that abuts the rear yards of the housing units located on the west side of Joseph Place. This subarea is integrally related to The Gardens because it abuts the residential neighborhood, establishes the southern gateway to the neighborhood along Levis Drive, and provides a buffer between the neighborhood and the wastewater treatment plant located on the south side of Rancocas Road.

132 Existing Land Use

The existing land uses in The Gardens and the environs is illustrated on the Existing Land Use and Zoning map. The Gardens is comprised of housing blocks that contain any number of housing units between three and 14, but in most cases have between eight and 10 single family units per block. Each hous-ing unit is of fee simple ownership and is generally located on a very narrow lot. Residences are quite small, averaging between 600 square feet of living space for a one-bedroom unit to 1,300 square feet of space for a three bedroom unit on approximately 2,500 square foot lots. There are a total of 39 housing blocks, consisting of a total of 327 housing units, establishing a density of 11.8 units per acre.

Mt. Holly Township owns several of the lots in The Gardens. The Township has acquired 23 lots that con-tained dwelling units through foreclosure. Of these 23 properties, 2 units have been demolished for health and safety reasons. The remaining 21 properties con-tain dwelling units but are vacant. The Township owns a 14,100 square foot property that contains a playground, and has adapted another dwelling unit to provide a community center. Finally, the Township owns two additional properties that are vacant.

In addition to the reported overcrowding within individual residences, the large number of attached housing units on very small lots contributes to the substantial density of development in the study area. Hence, the neighborhood has a problem with parking, which has led to many rear yard areas being paved over to provide additional parking where possible. Because each lot is under private ownership, there is no consistency to rear yard parking areas leaving an unattractive and haphazard pattern of paved, gravel,

135 and compacted dirt spaces. This further contributes to the unkempt appearance of rear yards and contributes to the drainage problem experienced by most of the housing blocks, according to a Township housing inspector. The combination of building coverage and rear yard impervious surfaces results in excessive land coverage. This, with the lack of adequate common recreational areas and safe open space, is detrimental to the safety, health, morals and welfare of this com-munity.

The majority of residences in the study area are not owner occupied, as indicated on the Occupancy Char-acteristics map. About 55 percent of the units are renter occupied and about 18 percent have experi-enced such decline that they are vacant and partially or fully boarded. The increase in absentee landlord-owned property has corresponded, according to Town-ship staff, with the decline in housing unit repair and maintenance and yard up-keep. This has led to the study area showing significant signs of blight includ-ing boarded up residences, exterior building code violations, and poor home and yard maintenance. The Mt. Holly Master Plan specifically commented on the poor appearance, condition, and image of the Gardens and recommended that this area be redeveloped.

Crime, including drug trafficking, is also a problem in the study area. Table 1 shows 1999 statistics related to Uniform Crime Reporting—Part 1 crimes. In 1999, the Gardens area accounted for 28 percent of the Township’s Part 1 crimes, even though it is only accounts for 1.5 percent of the Township’s total land area. The general design of the Gardens development contributes to this concentration of crime by providing hidden, paved alley where activity can take place under cover.

137 Table 1

1999 UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING—PART 1 STATISTICS Township of Mt. Holly, Burlington

County, New JerseyPart 1 Crime Study Area Mt. Holly

Township Murder 0 0Rape 0 0Robbery 12 41Aggravated Assault 25 85Burglary 50 99Theft 48 270Motor Vehicle Theft 17 47Total 152 542Source: Mt. Holly Township, NJ Police Department

The vacant wooded areas have also been identified as places of criminal activity and are less than safe for residents’ recreational enjoyment. In addition, the fee simple ownership status of the development allows for no common spaces and makes coordinated improve-ment efforts difficult since there is no established organization to deal with the neighborhood’s physical and social problems. Thus, land that could improve and be contributing to the community’s health, safety and welfare, is left useless.

Overall, the area meets the redevelopment criteria “a”, “d”, “e” and “g” as established by Section 5 of the LRHR as a Redevelopment Area. The obsolete design and layout of this development creates an environ-ment such that light, air, and open space are lacking. This design and the property ownership structure, in today’s world, also contribute to excess lot coverage, criminal activity, and a general lack of proper utiliza-tion of land. Finally, Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community which by statute is considered

138 sufficient for the determination that the area is in need of redevelopment pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of P.L. 1992, c.79 (C.40A:J2A-5 and 40A:12A-6).

Accessibility

Roadways within the study area are local streets serving primarily to provide access to individual properties, with the exception of Levis Drive, which serves as a collector street leading to either High Street/Route 541 or Rancocas Road. All streets within the study area are curvilinear in nature and provide on-street parking opportunities. Two roadways, Saul Place and Joseph Place, are cui de sacs and have no through capabilities.

The study area is situated in the northwest portion of Mt. Holly Township and lies between two important commercial areas: the downtown business district and the Fairgrounds Plaza shopping center area along High Street/Route 541. The downtown business district is within a mile to the southeast and can be easily accessed via a number of local and collector streets. Direct access to Route 541, via Levis Drive, provides further access to the New Jersey Turnpike, which is about three miles away from the study area. Although direct access is blocked, the western edge of the study area is adjacent to the Mt. Holly By-pass, which connects Route 541 to the north and Route 38 to the south. Residents can get to the Mt. Holly By-pass easily, however, with a short drive by way of Rancocas Road. New Jersey bus transit service is also available to the area.

Of note is the Garden’s network of alleyways, which allow rear access to every property in the study area. Originally designed to open at two points for easy flow through, the alleys on North and South Martin have been cut off by the creation of the Mt. Holly By-pass.

139 The alleys now culminate in a small turn-around area and have only one ingress and egress point.

Existing Zoning

The existing zoning for the study area and its environs is shown on the Existing Land Use and Zoning map. As indicated, the Gardens is zoned R-3-Residential District. The R-3 zone is designed for single-family residential dwellings. Of the four resi-dential districts, R-3 provides for the smallest single family lot size, although the intent” of this district appears to be for detached dwellings. Permitted uses include single family dwellings, public uses and build-ings, non-illuminated temporary signs, private garages, certain home occupations, parking and parking facilities, limited rooming or boarding, and private swimming pools. Conditional uses include certain home occupations and small duplex developments. The bulk requirements for the R-3 zone are shown in Table 2.

Although the R-3 district provides for single family dwellings, the bulk regulations require two side yards. Not one housing unit in the study area meets this requirement because all units are attached. The majority of study area housing units are attached on both sides, with a minority of units having only one side yard. In addition, the vast majority of units do not meet the 50 foot minimum frontage requirement of the R-3 district. Of the few lots that do meet this require-ment, the majority of these do so only because two lots (one usually a corner lot) have been combined.

The other properties in the study area are zoned I Limited Industrial. Permitted uses in this zone include industrial and wholesale uses and government and public utility uses. Residential dwellings are specifically

140 prohibited in this zone. The bulk regulations of the Limited Industrial zone are also shown in Table 2.

Table 2ZONING REGULATIONS

Township of Mt. Holly, Burlington County, New Jersey

RequirementStandard R-1 Zone I ZoneMinimum Lot Size

5,000 square feet

Minimum Frontage

50 feet

Minimum rear Yard

35 feet 40 feet

Side Yards Two side yards required

Two side yard required

Minimum Side Yard (one side)

6 feet 20 feet or half the building height, whichever is greater

Minimum Com-bined Side Yard

30% of lot widthat building

Front Yards 40 feetMinimum (with no established setback line

25 feet

Minimum with established setback line

20-35 feet, conform to established line

Maximum Height

2.5 stories or 35 feet, which-ever is less

75 feet

Source: Mt. Holy Land Use Code

141 RELATED PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Master Plan—Township of Mt. Holly, NJ

The Master Plan, dated April 2000, sets forth 17 goals upon which the comprehensive master plan is based. Among these goals are:

Goal 1: To improve the overall quality of life for Mount Holly residents.

Goal 6: To upgrade the “Gardens Area.”

Goal 17: To utilize the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law to Mount Holly’s best advantage.

Within the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan is a specific recommendation to redevelop and revital-ize the Gardens area:

“Redevelop/revitalize the Gardens Area. The Mount Holly Gardens is an older post war housing development located off of Levis Drive. The condition of the “Gardens Area” was a recurrent theme throughout the Master Plan hearing process. The area is characterized by small semi-detached dwelling units with units in various stages of disrepair. Maintenance ranges from good to very poor. However, on average, the sense is that the area is “run down.” The majority of the units are in fee simple ownership; however, the tenancy is primarily renters versus owner-occupied housing. In addition to the physical condition of the units, overcrowding was a problem that was identified.

Given the disparate, absentee ownership pattern, one of the few mechanisms to implement change is the use of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. Conceptually, all or part of the Gardens Area could be acquired, assembled and

142 redeveloped. This would allow for a reduction in density, a modernization of the housing stock, and an improvement to the overall perception of the area.

Additionally, consideration should be given to public investment in the Gardens Area to provide for a higher degree of amenity, including the possibility of parks, community facilities and improvement streetscape.”

A large portion of the study area is also identified on a map of potential areas in need of redevelopment. In addition, the majority of the study area falls within the Township’s Urban Enterprise Zone.

Mount Holly Gardens Acquisition and Development Plan

The Mount Holly Gardens Acquisition and Develop-ment Plan was a document prepared for the Mount Holly Gardens Revitalization Association, an organ-ization interested in rehabilitating rental units within the Gardens development. Although the plan is dated (completed in 1989), it does document the overwhelm-ing majority of rental units, absentee landlords, necessity for rehabilitation of structures, poor con-dition of public infrastructure, presence of crime, and need for redevelopment. The problems documented in this study have not improved since this plan was completed. In 1989 dollars, the plan estimates rehab of 225 rental units, plus site and infrastructure improvements, to cost $13,304,873. The plan recom-mends a number of strategies to accomplish their goals including:

1. The Township should create a redevelopment agency to acquire 225 rental units through condemnation;

143 2. The eventual mix of homeownership and rentals should be two-thirds homeowners; and

3. A community association, made up of homeown-ers and tenants, should be formed.

New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan

The New Jersey State Development and Redevelop-ment Plan (State Plan) is a strong supporter of redevelopment, particularly in the State’s older urban areas such as Mt. Holly. One of the main goals of the State Plan is to revitalize the State’s towns and cities. The goal is to protect, preserve and develop the valuable human and economic assets in cities, towns and other urban areas while planning to improve their livability and sustainability by investing public resources in accordance with current plans which are consistent with the provisions of the State Plan. The Plan calls for leveraging private investments in jobs and housing; providing comprehensive public services at lower costs and higher quality; and improving the natural and built environment. Finally, the State Plan tries to level the playing field in such areas as financing services, infrastructure and regulation by reducing the barriers which limit mobility and access of city residents, particularly the poor and minorities, to jobs, housing, services and open space within the region.

BLOCK-BY-BLOCK ANALYSIS

Following is a discussion of each block in the study area, which summarizes the characteristics of the par-cels for that block. The study area has been delineated into 41 blocks—39 being blocks of contiguous housing units, one being a park/playground and one being

144 industrial zoned properties located along Rancocas Road. A more detailed analysis of each parcel is pro-vided in Appendix B and includes information on ownership, occupancy, land use, assessed value, lot dimensions, zoning, a brief description, and the num-ber of code enforcement actions taken (since October 1996). Photographs of representative structures from each block are provided in Appendix C.

Block 12.05: Lots 1-12

This block is located on the north side of Grant Street directly across from Joseph Place. Each of these 12 residences is single-family dwellings. The two units on each end (four units total) are one story and the remaining middle units are two stories. Only two of the 12 residences are owner occupied, with eight as rentals and two units vacant. The front of this block is in fair condition, requiring some painting. Two units are boarded on the front and back. The rear of the block is in fair to poor condition, requiring painting, yard waste and trash removal, and fence repair. Twenty-three code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the lots in this block meet the frontage, side yard and lot size specifications of the R-3 zone. The block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as the block is one of several containing substand-ard and dilapidated units, thereby conducive to unwholesome living conditions in the general neigh-borhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, lack of adequate off-street parking, and vacant/boarded units. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially

145 related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.07: Lots 24-33

This block is located on the west side of Joseph Place, beginning at Grant Street. The block contains nine residences, of which only one is owner occupied and eight are rentals. In general, this block is in fair condition, with most improvements being cosmetic in nature including some painting, landscape mainte-nance, rear yard maintenance, and significant fence repair. Trash and clutter removal is necessary in both the front and rear of the block. The block presents a negative visual image due to the lack of consistency in front yard fencing and notably conflicting landscaping. Sixteen code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

All residences are attached and, therefore, none meet the R-3 zoning requirement for side yards. Only Lots 24 and 32/33 meet the frontage and lot size zoning requirements of the R-3 district. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of and, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.07: Lots 34-39

This block is located on the west side of Joseph Place, just at the cul de sac. Six residences make up this block, of which two are owner occupied and four

146 are renter occupied. The center four residences are two stories each and the two end units are one story each. This block is in relatively good condition, with rear yard maintenance being the most significant problem. Although in good condition, front yard fencing detracts from the block’s appearance, as does the right-of-way maintenance of grass utility strips, sidewalks, and curbs. Sixteen code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties in this block meet the side yard, frontage and lot size zoning requirements of the R-3 district. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.07: Lots 40-47

This block is located at the end of Joseph Place, facing the cul de sac. The block is comprised of eight two-story residences, of which two are owner occupied and six are rentals. The block is in fair condition, requiring improvements on both the front and back related to fence repair, door awning repair, landscape and yard maintenance, trash removal, and painting. The block presents a negative visual image due to the lack of consistency in type and maintenance of front yard fencing and notably conflicting landscape designs. Thirty code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

147 None of the properties in this block meet the side

yard, frontage and lot size zoning requirements of the R-3 district. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off—street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.07: Lots 48-53

This block is located on the east side of Joseph Place, just at the cui de sac. Six two-story, attached residences comprise this block, with one unit owner occupied, three units renter occupied, and two units vacant. The block is in mixed condition with some lots in fair condition and some in poor condition. The two vacant housing units are boarded and have a very negative visual impact from both the front and back of the block. Brick cleaning, clutter/trash, rear yard mainte-nance and fence repair require attention. Thirty code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties in this block meet the side yard, frontage and lot size specifications of the R-3 zone. The block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as the block is one of several containing multiple substandard and dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living condi-tions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, multiple

148 vacant/boarded properties, and lack of adequate off- street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and Jack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.07: Lots 54-63

This block is located on the east side of Joseph Place, beginning at Grant Street. The block is comprised of 10 residences, of which six are owner occupied, two are rentals and one is vacant and boarded. This block is in fair to poor condition, requiring fence repair, brick and stucco repair, painting, yard maintenance, alleyway maintenance, missing gutters, fascia repair, and significant trash/clutter removal from both the front and rear yards. Of note is that the renovated residence at 147 Joseph was never fully completed, as is evidenced in the back where the lower portion remains without stucco. Twenty-two code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties in this block meet the side yard, frontage and lot size specifications of the R-3 zone. The block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as the block is one of several containing a substandard and dilapidated unit, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant/boarded property, and Jack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets

149 criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.


This block is located on the west side of Levis Drive between North Martin Avenue and the Anna Heller school site. The block is comprised of five two-story residences, of which none are owner occupied, three are rentals, and two are vacant. This block is in fair to poor condition, although the front facade has a fairly good appearance. Improvements include some trash/clutter removal, painting and rear yard mainte-nance. One vacant unit has been boarded, but only on the back of the building. Seven code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties in this block meet the side yard, frontage and lot size specifications of the R-3 zone. The block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as the block is one of several containing substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilap-idation and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant/boarded property, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.


This block is located on the west side of Levis Drive between North Martin and South Martin Avenues.

150 This is the largest block in the study area and is comprised of 13 residences, of which four are owner occupied, seven are renter occupied, and two are vacant. The two units on either end (four units total) are one story in height and the remaining middle units are two stories. The unit located at 254 Levis Drive is owned by the Township and is used as a community center. This block is in fair to poor condition, requiring fence, soffit, porch/awning, and window repair, as well as painting, yard maintenance, and trash/clutter removal. Thirty-four code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties in this block meet the side yard, frontage and lot size specifications of the R-3 zone. The block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as the block is one of several containing substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilap-idation and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant/boarded property, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.


This block is located on the west side of Levis Drive, close to Rancocas Road. The block is comprised of nine residences of which three dare owner occupied and six are renter occupied. The two units on either end of the block (four lots total) are single story in height and the

151 remaining middle units are two stories. This block is in fair to good condition, with only cosmetic issues, such as painting, some trash/clutter, and rear yard maintenance, to be addressed. Twenty-nine code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Lot 11/12 is the only property on the block to meet the frontage requirement of the R-3 zone and lots 11/12 and 2 are the only ones to meet the lot size requirement. None of the properties, however, meet the side yard zoning district requirement. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 12-18

This block is located on the west side of Levis Drive, mid-way between Rancocas Road and Grant Street. The block is comprised of seven residences, of which one is owner-occupied, five are renter occupied, and one is vacant and boarded. The majority of the residences are two stories, with only the end units having one story. This block is in fair to poor condition, with some soffit and fence repairs needed, as well as painting, rear yard maintenance and some trash/clutter removal. Although only one unit is vacant, two units are boarded up in the back. Twenty-four code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

152 None of the properties in this block meet the side

yard, frontage and lot size specifications of the R-3 zone. The block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as the block is one of several containing substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilap-idation and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant/boarded property, and Jack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and Jack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 19-29

This block is located on the west side of Levis Drive, across from Grant Street. The block is comprised often residences, of which four are owner occupied, four are renter occupied and two are vacant. The two end lots at either side of the main structure contain single story residences, with the remaining middle resi-dences being two stories. In general, this block is in fair conditions, requiring mostly minor work to fences and soffits, as well as rear yard maintenance and trash removal. There are some very well maintained prop-erties within this block. The two vacant residences are both boarded up in the back, but only 204’ Levis is boarded in the front. Twenty-nine code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Only lot 19/20 meets the R-3 zoning district stand-ards for frontage and lot size. None of the properties in this block meet the side yard specifications of

153 the R-3 zone, as all units are attached. The block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as the block is one of several containing substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant/boarded property, and lack of ade-quate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 30-39

This block is located on the west side of Levis Drive, between Grant Street and Saul Place. This block is comprised of eight residences, of which four are owner occupied, three are renter occupied and one is vacant. The two residences on either end of the block are one story in height, while the middle housing units are two stories. In general, this block is in good condition, with the exception of one property that needs painting, wood replacement and soffit repair. Residences on the north end of the block have an attractive appearance from the front Minor attention is needed at the rear of the block for yard maintenance. Twenty-one code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Lots 30/31 and 38/39 meet the R-3 zoning district standards for frontage and lot size. However, none of the properties in this block meet the side yard specifications of the R-3 zone, as all units are attached. Although many of the residences in the block appear to be well maintained, the block contributes to the

154 study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several con-taining substandard units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 40-45

This block is located on the west side of Levis Drive, beginning at South Martin Avenue and heading south. The block is comprised of six two-story residences, of which two are owner occupied, two are renter occupied and two are vacant. In general, this block is in good condition, with only minor cosmetic improvements needed and some rear yard fence repair and minor clean up at one residence. Fourteen code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Lots 40 and 45 meet the frontage and lot size requirement of the R-3 zoning district. None of the properties, however, meet the side yard zoning district requirement, as all residences are attached on one or both sides. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block

155 meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.05: Lots 13-20

This block is located on the east side of Levis Drive, between Grant Street and Saul Place. Eight residences make up this block, of which one is owner occupied and seven are renter occupied. The majority of the residences are two stories; with the end housing units being each one story in height. This block is in fair to poor condition, requiring painting, soffit repair, rear yard maintenance, and trash removal on several lots and window repairs on one property. Twenty-one code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996. Lots 13 and 20 meet the frontage and lot size requirement of the R-3 zoning district. None of the properties, however, meet the side yard zoning district requirement, as all residences are attached on one or both sides. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.05: Lot 43

This property is located on the east side of Levis Drive, on the north corner of Saul Place. The property is maintained by Mount Holly Township as a play-ground. It is centrally located within the Gardens development and is in fair to good condition, requiring minor trash removal, improved lawn maintenance at the property boundaries, and limited equipment

156 repair. The site, however, could be better utilized adding more and more diverse equipment, as well as improving seating areas, adding walking paths, and improving safety measures around equipment.

This property does not meet the criteria for a redevelopment area. It is, however, necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire tract as it is located in the middle of the residential neighborhood and is an integral part of the quality of life of the area. Section 3 of the LRHL, permits the inclusion of parcels necessary for effective redevelopment by stating:


Block 12.05: Lots 44-54

This block is located on the east side of Levis Drive, just north of the playground. The property is com-prised of ten residences, of which two are owner occu-pied, three are renter occupied, and five are vacant. The two end lots on either side contain residences of one story and the remaining middle residences are all two-story dwellings. None of the vacant residences are boarded on the front, leaving a better impression of the block’s condition from the street than actually exists. In general the block is in poor condition, requiring painting, minor shutter repair, fence repair, signifi-cant rear yard maintenance, and rear yard trash/clut-ter removal. Thirty-eight code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

157 All of the residences are attached and, therefore, are

not in compliance with the side yard requirements of the R-3 zone and only lot 53/54 meets the zone dis-trict’s standards for frontage and lot size. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilap-idation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, numerous vacant and boarded properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.05: Lots 55-64

This block is located on the east side of Levis Drive, across from North Martin Avenue. The block is com-prised of ten residences, of which one is owner occupied, six are renter occupied, and three are vacant. The two lots on either end of the block (four lots total) contain single story dwellings and the remaining middle residences are two-story dwellings. In general, this block is in poor condition, requiring graffiti removal/ brick cleaning, soffit/fascia repair, painting, signifi-cant rear yard maintenance, fence repair, and trash/ clutter removal. All of the vacant residences are boarded in the back, but only one is boarded in the front, leaving an impression from the street view that the block is in better condition than it actually is. Forty-eight code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

158 None of the properties meet the R-3 zone district’s

standards for side yards, frontage and lot size. This block significantly contributes to the study area meet-ing criteria “a” as one of several containing multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilap-idation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, numerous vacant and boarded properties, and Jack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and Jack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.


This block is located on the east side of Levis Drive, north of Rancocas Road. The block is comprised of ten, attached residences, of which four are owner occupied and six are renter occupied. In general, this block is of mixed condition, with several residences in fair condition, and a few in good condition. Improvements to be made to tl1e block include painting fence repair, yard maintenance, trash removal, brick/mortar work, and minor porch maintenance. Twenty-five code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Lots 2/3 and 12/13 meet the R-3 zone district’s standards for frontage and lot size. However, none of the properties meet the R-3 district’s requirements for side yards. This block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing a sub-standard and/or dilapidated unit, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the

159 general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, pres-ence of alleyways, vacant and boarded properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.07: Lots 14-23

This block is located on the east side of Levis Drive, just south of Grant Street. The block is comprised of nine residences, of which four are owner occupied and five are renter occupied. All housing units are two stories, except for the two lots on each end of the block, which are one story. This block is in fair to good condition, with some notably well-maintained lots. The presence and inconsistency of front yard fencing does detract from the overall appearance of the block. Improvements are mostly related to rear yard maintenance, trash/clutter removal, fence repair, soffit repair, porch maintenance, and awning repair. Fourteen code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Lots 14/15 and 23 meet the frontage and lot size requirement of the R-3 zoning district. None of the properties, however, meet the side yard zoning district requirement, as all residences are attached on one or both sides. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of

160 land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.


This block is located on the north side of North Martin Avenue, just west of Levis Drive. The block is comprised of eight residences, of which one is owner occupied, five are renter occupied, and two are vacant. One of the end units has been acquired by the Township and demolished for public health and safety reasons. The block is in mixed condition, with the remaining vacant end unit in very poor condition (including problems with graffiti, fascia/soffit, yard maintenance, trash, and peeling paint), while the remainder of the block is in fair to good condition. Some attention is needed related to soffit repair, front yard clutter, and minor rear yard maintenance. Thirty-two code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Lot 14/15 meets the R-3 zone district’s standards for frontage arid lot size. However, none of the properties meet the R-3 district’s requirements for side yards. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing mul-tiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living condi-tions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, multiple vacant and boarded properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of

161 common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.02: Lot 16-23

This block is located mid-street on the north side of North Martin Avenue. The block is comprised of eight residences, of which one is owner occupied and seven are renter occupied. The six middle housing units are two stories in height and the units on either end of the block are one story. In general, the block is in fair to poor condition, requiring most improvements in the back of the residences to include yard maintenance, soffit/fascia repair, sagging eaves, doorway porch/ awning maintenance and trash removal. Nineteen code enforcement actions have been taken on proper-ties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s standards for frontage, side yards, and lot size. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.02: Lots 24-33

This block is located mid-street on the north side of North Martin Avenue. The block is comprised often residences, of which two are owner occupied, five are renter occupied, and three are vacant. Four lots at either end of the block (two on each end) contain single story residences (three of which are vacant and boarded) and the remaining middle residences are two

162 stories. In general, this block is in poor condition, requiring soffit repair, painting, fence repair, yard maintenance, and trash removal on several properties. Fifty-nine code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s standards for side yards, frontage and lot size. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several con-taining multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrange-ment and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, multiple vacant and boarded properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets cri-teria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, espe-cially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the b. lock meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.02: Lots 34-40

This block is located mid-street on the north side of North Martin Avenue. The block is comprised of six residences, of which one is owner occupied, four are renter occupied, and one is vacant and boarded in the back. In general, this block is in fair to poor condition, requiring some moderate work on the rear of the resi-dences including eave/soffit repair, minor awning/ porch repair, yard maintenance, fence repair, and trash removal. Eleven code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

163 None of the properties on this block meet the R-3

zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage and lot size. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing a substandard and/or dilapidated unit, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and boarded properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.02: Lots 41-49

This block is located on the north side of North Martin Avenue where David Street is blocked. The block is comprised of eight residences and one vacant land parcel at the rear of the block. Three of the residences are owner occupied and five are renter occupied. In general, this block is in poor condition, requiring significant porch repair (especially mid-block in the front), some painting, brick/mortar work, yard maintenance, and trash removal. There is some evidence of a caving roof. The presence and diversity in front yard fencing also negatively affects the block’s appearance. Forty-seven code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage and lot size. This block contributes to the study area

164 meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing sub-standard units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neigh-borhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and substandard properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This, block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.03: Lots 49-56

This block is located where South Martio Avenue and North Martio Avenue meet. Lots 49-53 have South Martio Avenue addresses and lots 54-56 have North Martin Avenue addresses. The block is comprised of eight residences, of which none are owner occupied, five are renter occupied and three are vacant. The block is in poor condition, although the front fa9ade has a good appearance With the exception of visually intrusive fencing and window boarding. While all three of the vacant properties are boarded in the back, only one is boarded in the front. Most other improve-ments are minor and are related to rear fence repair and some rear yard maintenance. Thirty-six code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Only lots 49 and 56 meet the R-3 district’s standards for lot size and frontage. None of the properties on this block, however, meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, as all units are attached. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing

165 multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, multiple vacant and substandard properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land.

Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community. Block 12.03: Lots 57-68

This block is located on the south side of North Martin, toward the west end of the street. The block is comprised of 11 attached residences, of which one is owner occupied, eight are renter occupied, and two are vacant. This block is in fair to poor condition, requir-ing painting and soffit repair on several properties, fence repair, rear yard maintenance, and trash removal. The vacant residence on lot 67/68 is a partic-ular eyesore with boarded up windows/doors, dangling fascia, yard maintenance needs, and trash. Thirty-six code enforcement actions have been taken on proper-ties in this block since October 1996.

Lot 67/68 meets the R-3 district’s standards for both lot size and frontage and lot 57 meets the standard for lot size only. None of the properties on this block, however, meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, as all units are attached. This block signif-icantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conductive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general

166 neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, multiple vacant and substandard prop-erties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utili-zation of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.03: Lots 69-78

This block is located mid-street on the south side of North Martin Avenue. The block is comprised often residences, of which one is owner occupied, six are renter occupied, and three are vacant. The two lots on either end of the block are one story in height, while the middle blocks are all two-story dwellings. In general, this block is in poor condition, requiring improvements to soffits, fences, porches, trash removal, graffiti removal, some exterior wiring; and yard maintenance. There’s some evidence of possible roof repairs also needed. Forty-one code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several con-taining multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrange-ment and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, multiple vacant and substandard properties, and lack

167 of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.03: Lots 79-88

This block is located on the south side of North Martin Avenue, toward the east end of the street. The block is comprised of eight attached residences, of which two are owner occupied, four are renter occupied, and two are vacant. In general, this block is in poor condition, requiring porch, fence, brick and potential roof repair; rear yard maintenance; and trash removal. The vacant, boarded residence on lots 79/80 is a notable eye sore. Fifty-one code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size, except lot 79/80 which has adequate frontage and lot size. This block significantly con-tributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neigh-borhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and substandard/dilapidated properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and Jack of common land. Finally,

168 the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.03: Lots 15-24

This block is located on the north side of South Martin Avenue, toward the east end of the street. The block is comprised of nine attached residences, of which four are owner occupied, four are renter occupied and one is vacant. The residences in the middle of the block are two stories in height and the housing units at either end of the block (four lots, three units total) are one story in height. In general this block is in fair to poor condition, requiring painting and some yard maintenance on both the fronts and backs of several residences. Some fence repair, out building repair, trash removal, yard maintenance, and soffit/fascia repair is also required. Of note is a large hole in the fascia on the side of 309 S. Martin. Forty code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

Lots 23/24 and 15 meet the R-3 district’s standards for both lot size and frontage. None of the properties on this block, however, meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, as all units are attached. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, espe-cially related to lot size, presence of alley-Ways, and lack of adequate off street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and Jack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

169 Block 12.03: Lots 25-33

This block is located mid-street on the north side of South Martin Avenue. The block is comprised of nine two-story, attached residences, of which two are owner-occupied, one is renter occupied, and six are vacant. In general, this block is in poor condition, requiring painting, porch repair, soffit repair, and yard maintenance throughout. Trash and poor yard maintenance are prevalent in the rear yard areas, and some fascia and fence repair are also needed. Thirty-nine code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several con-taining multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrange-ment and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and substandard/dilapidated properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land; especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.03: Lots 34-36

This block is located mid-street on the north side of South Martin Avenue. The block is comprised of three attached, two-story residences, of which two are owner occupied and one is vacant In general, this block is in

170 mixed condition. The two end units are in good condition, but the middle vacant unit is in need of a number of repairs including painting, soffit repair, yard maintenance, and fence repair. Thirteen code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing a substandard and/or dilapidated unit, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and substandard property, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.03: Lots 37-48

This block is located on the north side of South Martin Avenue, toward the west end of the street. This block is comprised of 11 residences, of which three are owner occupied, four are renter occupied, and four are vacant and boarded. In general, this block is in poor condition, requiring awning repair, soffit repair, yard maintenance, some trash removal, painting, and fence repair. A dangling awning on the front of 367 S. Martin is particularly noticeable. The back of the residences show more problems than the front of the structure. Fifty-two code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.


zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size, except lot 47/48 which has adequate front-age and lot size. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrange-ment and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and substandard/dilapidated property, and Jack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 46-55

This block is located on the south side of South Martin Avenue, toward the east end of the street. The block is comprised of ten attached residences, of which three are owner occupied, three are renter occupied, and four are vacant. This block is in poor condition, requiring cosmetic work to occupied residences, including some painting, some shutter maintenance, and rear yard maintenance. All of the vacant proper-ties are boarded in the back, but only one is boarded in the front. This property, 306 S. Martin, is a particular eye sore with broken windows, poorly boarded up front windows, trash, fence repair needed, peeling paint, trash and rear yard maintenance required. Thirty-nine code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.


zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block significantly contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several con-taining multiple substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrange-ment and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and substandard/dilapidated properties, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 56-65

This block is located mid-street on the south side of South Martin Avenue. The block is comprised of nine attached residences, of which two are owner occupied, five are renter occupied, and two are vacant and boarded in the back. In general, this block is in fair to poor condition, requiring fence repair, graffiti and sig-nificant trash removal, porch repair, painting, some door repair, and rear yard maintenance. Thirty-four code enforcement actions have been taken on proper-ties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing a substandard and/or dilapidated unit, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by

173 reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and substandard property, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 66-77

This block is located mid-street on the south side of South Martin Avenue. The block is comprised of 11 residences, of which five are owner occupied and six are renter occupied. In general, this block is in fair condition, requiring some painting, porch repair, fence repair, rear yard maintenance and trash removal. Twenty-seven code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size, except lot 67/68 which meets the lot size requirement. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and Jack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 78-86

This block is located on the south side of South Martin Avenue, toward the west end of the street. The

174 block is comprised of nine attached residences, of which four are owner occupied, four are renter occu-pied, and one is vacant and boarded up. The property under renovation bas significant trash and clutter issues, which are assumed to be temporary. In general, this block is in fair to good condition, requiring cos-metic improvements, such as painting trash removal and some yard maintenance. Thirty-six code enforce-ment actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet theR-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing substandard and/or dilapidated units, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and dilapidated/ substandard property, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “en due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04: Lots 87-97

This block is located on the south side of South Martin Avenue, toward the western end of the street. This block is comprised of seven attached residences and three vacant lots. One of the seven residences is owner occupied and six are renter occupied. The hous-ing units on this block are two stories in height, except for two one story units at the south end of the block. Two single story housing units were removed entirely

175 from the north side of the structure, leaving a vacant lot that is now in owned by the adjacent homeowner. This block is in fair condition, requiring minor fence maintenance, painting, and trash removal. Twenty-seven code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This blade meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.05: Lots 21-24

This block is located on the south side of Saul Place. The block is comprised of four two-story, attached residences, .of which one is owner occupied, two are renter occupied and one is vacant and boarded. In general, this block is in fair to poor condition, requiring yard maintenance, fence repair, minor awning maintenance, and trash removal. Twenty code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing a substandard and/or dilapidated unit, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by

176 reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and dilapidated/ sub-standard property, and Jack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.05: Lots 25-32

This block is located on the east side of Saul Place. The block is comprised of eight attached residences, of which three are owner occupied, four are renter occupied, and one is vacant. In general, this block is in fair condition, with some nicer properties. Most improvements are cosmetic in nature including minor fence repair, trash, and yard maintenance. Some soffit repair and downspout maintenance are also needed. Fifteen code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block contributes to the study area meeting criteria “a” as one of several containing a substandard and/or dilapidated unit, which is, in turn, conducive to the unwholesome living conditions in the general neighborhood. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, dilapidation, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, vacant and substandard prop-erty, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse ownership and lack of common land. Finally,

177 the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.05: Lots 33-36

This block is located on the north side of Saul Place. This block is comprised of four attached, two story residences, of which two are owner occupied and two are renter occupied. In general, this block is in fair to good condition, requiring cosmetic improvements to the rear of the block including fence repair, trash removal and some painting. Some properties are notably well maintained. Ten code enforcement actions have been taken on properties in this block since October 1996.

None of the properties on this block meet the R-3 zone district’s requirements for side yards, frontage, and lot size. This block meets criteria “d” by reason of faulty arrangement and design, and obsolete layout, especially related to lot size, presence of alleyways, and lack of adequate off-street parking. This block also meets criteria “e” due to an improper utilization of land, especially related to the block’s diverse owner-ship and lack of common land. Finally, the block meets criteria “g” as Mt. Holly is an Urban Enterprise Zone community.

Block 12.04, Lots 1 and.l.01 and Block 12.07, Lots 1, 1.01 and 64

Block 12.04, lots 1 and 1.01 front on Rancocas Road and contain a parking lot. Block 12.07, Lot 1.01 contains a large recently-built warehouse for storage and distribution of sheetrock and other building materials. Lot 1.01 is used a parking lot for employees of the warehouse, while lot 64 is vacant.

178 Block 12.07, Lot 64 is the only property that meets

the criteria for redevelopment. This property meets criteria “c” because it is unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of ten years prior to the adoption of the resolution, and that by reason of its location, remoteness, and lack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality, is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital.

The other properties do not meet the criteria for a redevelopment area. They are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire tract as they provide an effective buffer from the wastewater treatment plant and create the gateway entrance to the residential neighborhood from Rancocas Road. Section 3 of the LRHL, permits the inclusion of parcels necessary for effective redevelopment by stating:


CONCLUSION

Based on careful consideration, study and evalua-tion, it is concluded that the study area offers signifi-cant opportunity for redevelopment. The diversity of ownership, blighted condition of structure and streetscape, faulty design of the development, excess land coverage, poor land utilization, and a concentra-tion of crime are all detrimental to the safety, health, morals and welfare of the community. The desire and need for the redevelopment of the Gardens has been

179 well documented through the current Township Mas-ter Plan, past studies, and public comment. The study area meets the redevelopment criteria “a”, “c”, “d”, “e” and “g” as established by Section 5 of the LRHL as a redevelopment area.

* * * *

193 WEST RANCOCAS REDEVELOPMENT

PLAN

Township of Mount Holly

Burlington County, New Jersey

February 2005

Revised: September 18, 2008

H2M ASSOCIATES, INC. [logo] H2M H2M Architects & Engineers, Inc.

Engineers | Architects | Scientists | Planners

119 Cherry Hill Road Suite 200 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054

Surveyors

194 West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan

Township of Mount Holly Burlington County, New Jersey

February 2005 Revised September 18, 2008

The original of this report was signed and sealed in accordance with N.J.S.A. 45:14A-12.

/s/ Janice E. Talley Janice E. Talley, P.P. #5059

195 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN STATUS ................ 1

CONTENTS OF A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN . 2

PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ...................... 3

GARDENS AREA .................................................. 3

VACANT AREA .................................................... 3

PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............. 6

GOALS ................................................................ 6

OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 6

Land Use and Design - Residential ............. 6

Land Use and Design - Commercial ............ 6

Community Facilities and Recreation ......... 7

Parking and Circulation - Residential ........ 7

Parking and Circulation - Commercial ....... 7

Crime and Public Safety .............................. 7

LAND USE PLAN ............................................... 8

PLAN OVERVIEW ................................................ 8

Townhouse Residential................................. 9

Apartments/Flats ......................................... 9

Commercial ................................................... 10

DEFINITIONS ...................................................... 12

PERMITTED USES AND BULK STANDARDS .......... 12

DESIGN STANDARDS ....................................... 16

GENERAL ........................................................... 16

196 RESIDENTIAL .................................................... 16

COMMERCIAL ..................................................... 18

LANDSCAPING .................................................... 18

CIRCULATION PLAN ........................................ 20

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ................................ 22

COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLANS ............. 23

COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLANS ............. 23

MOUNT HOLLY MASTER PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE ....................................................... 23

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................ 26

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS ................................................. 26

PHASING ............................................................ 30

RELOCATION ...................................................... 30

PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED .............................. 30

AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ........... 30

DURATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN .............. 30

CONVEYANCE OF LAND .................................... 30

ATTACHMENT A. WORKABLE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN (WRAP) ............................ 31

197 INTRODUCTION

During the past several years, the Township of Mount Holly has focused its efforts on improving the problems and negative image of The Gardens neigh-borhood and the greater West Rancocas Area. An important component of The West Rancocas compre-hensive revitalization strategy is the redevelopment process.

The Township has determined that one of the most effective planning and implementation strategies is the use of the redevelopment process in accordance with State statute. The first step is designation of “an area in need of redevelopment.” By Resolution 2002-166, the Township Council authorized the Mount Holly Planning Board to undertake an investigation to determine whether the area is in need of redevelopment.

The Township Council formally designated the area as an ‘area in need of redevelopment’ pursuant to Resolution 2002-217. The redevelopment designa-tion has been upheld by the New Jersey Superior Court.

This report is written pursuant to Section 40A:12A-7 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (the “LRHL”) which provides that “no redevelopment projects shall be undertaken or carried out except in accordance with a Redevelopment Plan adopted by ordinance of the municipal governing body upon its finding that the specifically delineated project area is located in an area in need of redevelopment or an area in need of rehabilitation or both . . . .” according to criteria set forth in Section 5 or Section 14 of P.L. 1992, C79 (C40A:12A-5 or 40A:12A-14), as appropriate.

198 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN STATUS

On March 15, 2005, the Township of Mount Holly adopted the West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan by Ordinance 2005-07. In February 2006, the Township executed a Redevelopment Agreement with Keating Urban Partners, LLC (“Keating”) to implement the West Rancocas Redevelopment Plan. Keating devised a series of concept plans for the Redevelopment Area based on a comprehensive review of the environ-mental and geotechnical site issues, community feedback from two public meetings in 2007, and on-going discussions with Township Officials.

This amended Redevelopment Plan provides a revised plan for redevelopment, and associated zoning controls and design standards consistent with the Redevelopment objectives of the Township.

199 CONTENTS OF A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Redevelopment Plan will become the formal planning document for revitalization of the West Rancocas neighborhood. According to state statute, the Redevelopment Plan shall include an outline for the planning, development, redevelopment or rehab-ilitation of the project area sufficient to indicate:

1. Its relationship to definitive local objectives as to appropriate land uses, density of population and improved traffic and public transportation, public utilities, recreational and community facil-ities and other public improvements;

2. Proposed land uses and building requirements for the project area;

3. Adequate provision for the temporary and permanent relocation as necessary of residents in the project area including an estimate of the extent to which decent, safe and sanitary dwelling units affordable to displaced residents will be available to them in the existing local housing market;

4. An identification of any property within the Redevelopment Area which is proposed to be acquired in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan;

5. Any significant relationship of the Redevelop-ment Plan to the master plans of contiguous municipalities; the Master Plan of the County in which the municipality is located; and the State Development and Redevelopment Plan adopted pursuant to the “State Planning Act,” P.L. 1985, C398 (C52:18A-196 et al.),

200 6. As of the date of the adoption of the resolution finding the area to be in need of redevelopment, an inventory of all housing units affordable to low and moderate income households, as defined pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1985, c.222 (C.52:27D-304), that are to be removed as a result of implementation of the redevelopment plan, whether as a result of subsidies or market conditions, listed by affordability level, number of bedrooms, and tenure.

7. A plan for the provision, through new Con-struction or substantial rehabilitation of one comparable, affordable replacement housing unit for each affordable housing unit that has been occupied at any time within the last 18 months, that is subject to affordability controls and that is identified as to be removed as a result of implementation of the redevelopment plan. Dis-placed residents of housing units provided under any State or federal housing subsidy program, or pursuant to the “Fair Housing Act,” P.L.1985, c.222 (C.52:27D-301 et al.), provided they are deemed to be eligible, shall have first priority for those replacement units provided under the plan; provided that any such replacement unit shall not be credited against a prospective municipal obligation under the “Fair Housing Act,” P.L.1985, c.222 (C.52:27D-301 et al.), if the housing unit which is removed had previously been credited toward satisfying the municipal fair share obligation. To the extent reasonably feasible, replacement housing shall be provided within or in close proximity to the redevelopment area. A municipality shall report annually to the Department of Community Affairs on its progress in implementing the plan for provision

201 of comparable, affordable replacement housing required pursuant to this section.

202 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

GARDENS AREA

The Mount Holly Gardens, located in the northwest corner of Mount Holly Township, is a residential neighborhood that was originally comprised of 307± attached housing units built in the early 1950’s. As shown on the Redevelopment Area Map and the Aerial Photo, the area includes the following roads: Levis Drive (between Rancocas Road and George Avenue); North and South Martin Avenues; Saul Place; Joseph Place; and Grant Street, between Joseph Place and Levis Drive.

The Mount Holly Gardens were designed as low-rise, garden apartment-style housing, accessed by a system of roadways and alleys. General access and on-street parking is provided by the roadways in the area. The alleys, which are located in the rear yards of the buildings, provide access to rear yard storage areas and serve as parking areas. The housing units are unique, as they were constructed in blocks of attached units (generally eight to ten units per block), but are under fee simple ownership. Unlike condominium developments, there is no common property among homeowners in the Gardens.

Pursuant to the 2005 Plan, the area is currently undergoing redevelopment through site acquisition by the Township.

VACANT AREA

Located north of and adjacent to the Mount Holly Gardens area, a vacant area of land lies east of the Mount Holly By-Pass (C.R. Alt 541) and west of Levis Drive. It is zoned for Office and Light Industry (OLI). The land is vacant and underutilized, which is the

203 basis for its designation as an area in need of redevelopment.

To the immediate north of the redevelopment area is a small neighborhood of relatively new attached housing along Regency Drive and Parliament Drive, Just north of this neighborhood is a commercial center accessed from Burlington-Mount Holly Road (C.R. 541).

North of and adjacent to the Gardens residential area lies property of the Mount Holly Board of Education, which contains the former Heller School, now used for administrative offices by the Board of Education. Behind this site lies the vacant OLI-zoned land fronting on the Mount Holly By-Pass. This vacant land was recently subdivided from the Heller School property, which remains in an Residential (R1) zone. North of the Heller School property is residentially zoned land that is to the immediate south of the Regency Drive housing development.

Just across Levis Drive from the Heller School property lies the Mount Holly Middle School, which is not part of the West Rancocas Redevelopment Area.

206 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals and objectives for this project were determined through a comprehensive community outreach effort. The purpose of this effort was to include the residents of the Gardens neighborhood and the Township in general in the planning of the redevelopment process for The West Rancocas Area. The process included a kickoff meeting with neighborhood residents that was held on July 12, 2000, followed with a neighborhood survey, which was completed in mid-July, 2000. Public meetings with the entire Township community and smaller meetings with the Gardens residents were held through 2006 and 2007 to review various concept plans for redevelopment and to hear public input as to possible plan options.

GOALS

To create an attractive, safe and cohesive residential neighborhood that provides a variety of housing options, recreational amen-ities and services that meet the needs of the Mount Holly community.

To provide opportunities for commercial estab-lishments that will serve the immediate area and the larger community with compatible uses that increase the tax base of the Town-ship and provide new employment and entrepreneurial options for area residents.

OBJECTIVES

Land Use and Design - Residential

1. To create cohesive, attractive and safe resi-dential neighborhoods.

207 2. To improve the appearance of the neighbor-hood through common maintenance of building facades and open space by a homeowner’s association.

3. To permit new construction of housing units so as to achieve and sustain design compatibility.

4. To increase the number of owner-occupied dwelling units by increasing homeownership opportunities for existing and future residents.

5. To provide larger dwelling units that meet the space needs of modem households.

6. To provide additional space for interior and exterior storage.

7. To ensure that new dwelling units remain affordable.

8. To provide a location for a child care center.

9. To provide a location in close proximity to the residential neighborhood where residents can operate businesses.

Land Use and Design - Commercial

1. To promote the establishment of a viable and attractive commercial center, including con-venience uses for area residents. The design should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, include shared access and shared parking, and utilize a common design theme that will integrate the appearance of buildings, signs, lightings and on-site amenities.

2. To provide for adequate buffering, safe and convenient access, and attractive landscaping.

208 3. To provide new opportunities to utilize Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) advantages.

Community Facilities and Recreation

1. To provide for increased recreational facilities for all residents of the neighborhood.

2. To provide for a handicapped accessible play-ground.

3. To provide space for community activities.

4. To integrate pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout the redevelopment area.

Parking and Circulation - Residential

1. To eliminate the alleys because of problems with garbage, loitering, crime, and speeding.

2. To ensure that a sufficient amount of parking is provided in close proximity to the entrance of each unit.

3. To slow down traffic on Levis Drive.

4. To discourage outsiders from loitering within the neighborhood.

Parking and Circulation - Commercial

1. To provide controlled and safe access to and from new commercial uses with adequate roadway and intersection facilities and improve-ments.

2. To provide for adequate parking and safe on-site circulation for vehicles and pedestrians.

3. To provide adequate facilities for safe pedes-trian connections between the new commercial uses and nearby residential uses.

209 Crime and Public Safety

1. To eliminate conditions that are conducive to drug activity, such as areas that are difficult for residents and businesses to monitor and control.

2. Provide for a neighborhood design where common areas (roads, sidewalks, parks and public open space) can be easily monitored by the community and local police.

3. To improve lighting throughout the area.

4. To rename the neighborhood and roads in order to reduce associations with past problems in The West Rancocas and provide the area with a positive new image.

210 LAND USE PLAN

The Area shall be redeveloped in accordance with the standards detailed in this Redevelopment Plan. In order to implement the Redevelopment Plan consistently with the established goals and object-tives, the Plan supersedes the use; bulk and design standard provisions of the Township’s Zoning Ordinance unless specifically referenced. Other standards and submission requirements relating to all zones in the Township and not specifically enumerated within this Plan shall apply.

Any deviation from standards of this Plan that results in a ‘d’ variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70d shall be addressed as an amendment to the Plan rather than via variance relief from the Township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment. ‘C’ variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c and design waivers may be addressed by the Planning Board through the development application process. All developments must be approved by the Planning Board and shall be submitted through the normal site plan and subdivision procedures identified by N.J.S.A. 50:55D, et seq.

PLAN OVERVIEW

The Plan proposes to create safe and attractive residential neighborhoods through new residential and commercial development. The Plan proposes a variety of uses on the tract, including apartments, townhouses, a commercial center and recreational open space.

Overall, the Plan is anticipated to produce a maximum of 520 dwelling units and 54,000 square feet of commercial space on 48.9 acres, as indicated in Table 1.

211 Table 1

LAND USE PLAN Mt. Holly Township, Burlington County, New Jersey

LAND USE AREA ACREAGE BUILD-OUT Commercial 5.6 54,000 sq. ft Residential 43.3 Max. 520 units Townhouse Max 75% of

units --

Apartments Max 50% of units

--

Recreational Open Space

Min 4.33 acres

Total Land Area

48.9 acres

The Plan also includes design standards that reflect current development trends, family needs and market conditions. The design standards, in concert with the use and bulk standards, will address the specific objectives of the Plan. Rear yards shall be landscaped and used as private and semi-private open space, thereby providing for more open space for each individual dwelling unit. The internal circulation network will be similar to a grid pattern, thereby reducing the volume of cut-through traffic, slowing down traffic speeds, and creating a roadway network that is more appropriate for a residential neighborhood.

Townhouse Residential

Up to 75% of the residential units may be town-houses. The townhouse community will largely span the entire southerly portion of the tract and the north easterly portion of the tract, west of Levis Drive. The townhouse development of 3.5-story, architecturally-varied units will offer an appropriate scale of

212 development for the area, which is adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood to the east. Off-street parking will be provided through attached garages, with some units having front-loaded garages and others having rear-access garages. Semi-private open space will be provided in the rear yards. The open space landscaped areas and building exteriors shall be maintained by a homeowner’s association.

Examples of townhouses with garages in the rear.

Apartments/Flats

Apartment units may comprise up to 50% of the total residential units and will be located within the northerly portion of the tract, adjacent to the easterly side of the Mount Holly Bypass and just south of the Regency Park townhouse community. The three story ‘walk-up’ buildings will be positioned on the site to maximize the amount of common open space areas for residents. Parking for residents will be provided in a series of nearby parking lots.

Residents will also have access to shared recrea-tional amenities such as a clubhouse and a swimming pool.

213

Example of 3-story apartment building.

Example of apartment buildings, with attractive facade treatments and landscaping

214

Community pool and recreational area

Commercial

This Plan proposes a well-designed commercial center that is accessible to nearby residents and the greater community. Commercial uses can include a mix of retail, service, and office but the design of these spaces must be done in a comprehensive manner.

The commercial area is oriented to the Mt. Holly By-Pass, a busy arterial roadway that forms the western border of the Redevelopment Area. This area will provide a buffer between the traffic activity on the Mt. Holly By-Pass and the redesigned residential neighborhood. In addition, a landscaped buffer will be provided between the commercial development and the residential neighborhood.

Safe and attractive sidewalks and footpaths will offer internal connections between the residential neighborhood and the commercial center.

The uses planned for the commercial area include a variety of office and larger-scale commercial uses.

215 One use that is particularly encouraged in this area is a child care center.

A large number of small-scale commercial retail uses are not permitted at this location in order to maintain the viability of the downtown commercial district. The Township is well-served by a reasonable inventory of small-scale retail stores located downtown and in the small shopping centers located on High Street, north of the Mt. Holly Bypass.

However, some small-scale spaces are encouraged in order to accommodate neighborhood convenience uses for the redevelopment area and its environs.

217 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions apply to the use require-ments of this Redevelopment Plan:

Flat/Apartment: A dwelling unit located in a structure where more than two dwelling units share a common horizontal separation.

Townhouse: A one-family dwelling in a row of at least three (3) such units in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more vertical common fire-resistant walls.

Lot Coverage: That part of one or more than one lot that is improved or is proposed to be improved with buildings and structures, including but not limited to driveways, parking lots, pedestrian walkways and other man-made improvements on the ground surface that are more impervious than the natural surface.

Small-Scale Commercial Use: A retail, service or office use in an enclosed structure that is designed and operated as a single business establishment and contains less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area.

Floor Area Ratio: Represents the gross floor area of all buildings or structures on a lot divided by the total lot area.

PERMITTED USES AND BULK STANDARDS

The following uses and bulk standards apply to each land use category.

1. Residential

A. Principal permitted uses:

218 1). Townhouse residential. Townhouses shall account for no more than 75 percent of the total dwelling units in the development.

2). Apartments/Flats. Apartment units shall account for no more than 50% of the total number of dwelling units.

3). Public schools and offices of public agencies shall be permitted in the Residential area.

B. Accessory uses: Accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses including enclosed and surface off-street parking, fences and walls, private recreation and open space, a swimming pool, a clubhouse, utilities and main-tenance buildings and storage facilities for the maintenance and operation of the development.

C. Maximum density: A maximum density of 12 units per gross acre of residential land area is permitted; in no case shall there be more than 520 dwelling units throughout the 43.3 acres of residential land area.

D. Open Space: A minimum of 10 percent of the gross residential tract area (measured by sub-tracting the total area dedicated to commercial purposes from the total redevelopment area, including roads and right-of-way) shall be dedicated to recreational purposes, whether active or passive. Active Open Space areas may include tot lots, ball fields, tennis courts, basket-ball courts or open grassed areas that may be used for recreational activities. At least one area shall contain a handicapped accessible playground. Passive Open Space may include walking trails, bike paths or landscaped sitting areas. Open space shall be provided in each of

219 the residential phases and all areas shall include sidewalks and lighted pedestrian paths connect-ing them to adjacent residential and commercial areas.

E. Bulk Requirements

1). Townhouse Residential:

a. The minimum width of a townhouse unit shall be 20 feet where the unit has driveway access from the front yard. Where driveway is in the rear of the unit, the minimum width of the building shall be 18 feet.

b. Maximum height: 3 1/2 stories or 45 feet, whichever is less.

c. Maximum lot coverage: 60 percent.

d. Minimum setback from all streets: 20 feet, except where a driveway is located within the rear of the unit, the setback from the front street shall be 10 feet.

e. Minimum setback from all property lines: 10 feet.

f. Maximum number of units per structure: 8.

g. Minimum distance between buildings: 10 feet.

h. The minimum distance between drive-ways shall be 4 feet. The area between driveways shall be adequately landscaped.

i. Off-street parking: Number of spaces is as required in the New Jersey Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS). At least one

220 parking space per dwelling unit must be in a garage.

2). Apartments:

a. Maximum building height: 50 feet or 3 stories, whichever is less. Apartment buildings that are located within 50 feet of an off-tract residential structure shall have a maximum height of 3 stories or 40 feet, whichever is less.

b. Minimum setback from all streets: 10 feet.

c. Minimum setback from all property lines: 15 feet.

d. Maximum number of units per structure: 36 units

e. Minimum distance between buildings: 20 feet

f. Bay windows, roof overhangs, balconies, chimneys and similar appurtenances may extend not more than two (2) feet into a required setback other than the minimum distance between principal buildings.

g. Off-street parking: Number of spaces is as required in the New Jersey Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS). Parking areas shall be shaded by large broadleaf-canopied trees placed at a rate of one (1) tree for each twelve (12) parking spaces. Parking shall be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses.

2. Commercial

A. Principal permitted uses:

221 1). Banking and fiduciary institutions

2). Child care centers

3). Professional and business offices

4). Retail sales and personal services, provided no more than 20% of all such uses are small-scale commercial uses

5). Pharmacy/drug store

6). Restaurants

7). Drive-through uses

B. Accessory uses: Accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses including off-street parking, fences and walls.

C. Maximum floor area ratio: A maximum floor area ratio of .22 is permitted.

D. Maximum height: One and one-half (1-1/2) stories or 25 feet, whichever is less.

E. Minimum front yard: ten (10) feet.

F. Minimum side yard: There shall be two (2) side yards and each side yard shall be not less than ten (10) feet.

G. Minimum rear yard: ten (10) feet.

H. Parking Requirements:

1). Parking shall be provided at a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of leasable floor area.

2). No parking shall be nearer than five (5) feet to any property line, nor five (5) feet to any building.

222 3). Parking areas shall be shaded by large broadleaf-canopied trees placed at a rate of one (1) tree for each twelve (12) parking spaces.

4). Parking shall be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent residential uses.

I. Signage. A complete signage program shall be provided indicating a coordinated signage theme for the entire tract, including residential and commercial signage, and shall include main entrance signs, directional signs, canopy signs and building signs. These signs shall be of a uniform design and color scheme, compatible with the project architecture and shall be as follows:

1). Main entrance signs: There may be one (1) main entrance sign at each major entrance area from Rancocas Road and the Mount Holly By-Pass, but not more than three (3) such signs. Main entrance signs may be a maximum of sixty (60) square feet in area and ten (10) feet in height.

2). Commercial wall mounted signs: A maxi-mum of thirty-six (36) square feet in area and not more than one sign per storefront.

3). Commercial canopy signs: A maximum of three (3) square feet in area.

4). Directional signs: Directional signs may be provided for Commercial and residential areas and shall have a maximum area of six (6) square feet.

223 DESIGN STANDARDS

Good subdivision and site design can create a functional and attractive development that is an asset to the community. The purpose of design standards is to ensure that new development is designed to provide a human scale. The Planning Board may waive any of the design standards provided in this section of the Plan as may be reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the redevelopment plan if the literal enforcement of one or more provisions of the ordinance is impracticable or will exact undue hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to a specific piece of property.

GENERAL

1. The entire area must be developed with a common architectural theme reflected through the choke of building materials, architectural style, sign controls and/or color coordination.

2. No use shall obstruct the natural ventilation of adjacent uses. Further, no air conditioners or exhaust fans shall be permitted to discharge air unless setback from all property lines ten feet or more.

3. Effort should be made to incorporate storm-water management area features into the overall landscape design. Shape and design of the stormwater management area shall be subject to development review.

4. All storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall be maintained within the confines of an enclosed building or structure and shall be reasonably accessible for vehicular collection on the

224 site and/or shall be appropriately screened and landscaped where outdoor storage is necessary. Screening elements can include decorative fencing and walls, earthen berms, landscaping and archi-tectural treatments.

5. All new utility transmission lines shall be placed underground.

RESIDENTIAL

1. Each dwelling unit and combined complex of dwelling units shall have a compatible architec-tural theme with variations in design to provide attractiveness to the development. This shall include consideration of landscaping techniques, building orientation to the site and to other structures, topography, natural features, varied dwelling unit widths, staggered unit setbacks, a mix of compatible exterior materials, frequently interrupted and varied roof lines and roof designs, subtle differentials in building heights and diverse yet compatible types of windows, shutters, doors, porches, colors, and vertical or horizontal orienta-tion of the facades, singularly or in combination for each dwelling unit.

225 The varying roofline, combination of materials and recessed garages lends visual interest to this townhouse development.

2. Design features should be incorporated to reduce the appearance of building mass and bulk. Building facades should have offsets and step-backs, particularly above the first floor. Gables, building projections and articulation should be used to break up long, horizontal eaves and roof elements across the facade and should extend beyond the main facade to increase building artic-ulation (2’ minimum recommended). Architectural features such as bay windows, balconies, entry stoops and porches are encouraged to provide human scale and to break up building mass and bulk.

3. The appearance of the side and rear elevations of buildings is important. Therefore, guidelines for the fronts of buildings shall also apply to the rear and sides where visible from a public street. The design of corner buildings and buildings that terminate the street view can be unique and incorporate special features such as towers, corner bays and gables.

226 The side of this townhouse has been carefully designed to provide an attractive face to the street.

4. Where townhouses are built with front-loaded garages, the garage should not be the dominant visual feature. Garage doors should be recessed beyond the building face, if possible, and in no instance may extend more than five feet from the face of the first story.

5. The townhouse structure must have no more than two individual garage doors in succession on the street facing facade. Garage doors shall have extensive fenestration, including panels, trim details and windows, and paired, single-car garage doors are encouraged.

6. The minimum roof pitch shall be 7:12 and the type, shape, pitch, texture and color of a roof shall be architecturally compatible with the building style, material, colors and details.

7. The following types of roof line variation shall be considered for all multifamily and townhouse development: vertical offsets; gables; false facades; exaggerated cornices; dormers; vegetated terraces; and other architectural features such as trellises, cornices, portals or porches.

227 Designs in which the garages extend from the front facade are discouraged because the garage becomes the prominent feature from the street.

8. In order to provide useable, semi-private open space at the rear of each unit, garages and off-street parking should be designed for access from the front or side of each townhouse or within the front and side yards of townhouse units with rear garages and multi-unit structures that lack garages.

Open space area for townhouse residents is virtually walled-off from their use.

9. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be sepa-rated from automobile traffic through the use of lighted pedestrian paths, sidewalks, and cross-walks.

10. Signs identifying the main entrances may not be internally illuminated and must be constructed of stone, brick or wood materials. Ornamental downlighting and ground-mounted lighting shall be permitted.

228 11. The grounds and exteriors of all buildings under condominium or townhouse ownership shall be maintained by a homeowner’s association.

12. The required recreational park shall contain trees, shrubs, raised planters and areas for sitting. Landscaping shall contain a mixture of trees, shrubs, bulbs, perennials and ornamental grasses so as to provide year-round interest. As a security measure, shrubs shall be planted and kept trimmed by the homeowner’s association to provide for attractive landscaping while avoiding creation of hidden spaces.

13. Outside storage of materials and personal belongings shall be strictly regulated and enforced by the homeowner’s association. Adequate acces-sory storage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit.

COMMERCIAL

1. All buildings shall be designed with a parking area and access to a public street.

2. Loading areas and access to loading areas shall be provided and shall be separate from parking areas and aisles.

3. A landscaped buffer with fencing, plantings and/or berms shall be provided between com-mercial and residential uses. This buffer shall be a minimum of 30 feet in depth and include a solid fence at least 6 feet in height, of a natural color and shall be constructed of a high-quality wooden material.]

4. The buffer area shall contain a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees sufficient to screen the

229 commercial use from the adjacent residential development.

LANDSCAPING

1. All areas of the site not occupied by buildings, required parking, driveways, or walkways shall be landscaped according to an approved landscaping plan. These areas may also incorporate hardscape for patios, plazas and courtyards.

2. Landscaping and furniture in common areas should be planned to maximize its use and to com-plement the design, form, scale, color and texture of building facades in the area.

3. The landscape design should allow adequate sunlight to open spaces and pedestrian areas, and provide shade and protection against wind, rain and noise.

Example of a coordinated landscaping and street tree for a townhouse development.

4. Landscaping shall be provided to buffer off-street parking areas from public view, to the maximum extent possible, without creating large secluded spaces (50 square feet or more), which

230 may be conducive to loitering and potentially illicit activities.

5. Single-stem trees shall be a minimum caliper of 3 inches. Multi-stem trees shall be a minimum of 12 feet in height.

6. Street trees shall be planted along all roadways with a maximum spacing of 35 feet on center.

231 CIRCULATION PLAN

One of the primary objectives of the Plan are to improve public safety in the neighborhood while pro-viding adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation. It is anticipated that Levis Drive (north segment) will be the access drive to the northern residential area while access to the southern part of the redevelop-ment area will be from Levis Drive (southern seg-ment) at Rancocas Road and Grant Street.

It is anticipated that a neighborhood parks, recrea-tional and open space will be located conveniently and within short walking distance to all residents of the Townhouse and Apartment residential areas. Visible, well defined and well lit pedestrian connec-tions between and through the neighborhood parks shall be provided.

Access to the Commercial area will be provided from the Mt. Holly Bypass. This intersection will be located approximately mid-way between Burlington-Mount Holly Road and Rancocas Road.

Access to the residential area will be provided a new signalized intersection from The Mount Holly Bypass. Minor streets or common drives will provide access to individual units and multi-unit buildings. The precise layout of all circulation facilities shall be determined during the site plan review phase of this redevelopment project.

233 AFFORDABLE HOUSING

As of October 2002, the date when the West Rancocas Redevelopment Area was first designated as an area in need of redevelopment, eleven (11) housing units were deed restricted affordable housing units. All eleven (11) of these units are anticipated to be removed as a result of implementation of this Redevelopment Plan.

In September 2006, the Township completed a Workable Relocation Assistance Plan (WRAP) pur-suant to State law. The WRAP has been approved by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. The WRAP includes surveys completed of residents of the Gardens and contains statutory provisions for relocation of all residents, including residents of deed-restricted affordable units. A copy of the WRAP is attached hereto as Attachment A. A copy of the underlying survey of residents completed in 2006, indicating income levels, rent or mortgage payments and number of bedrooms is attached as Attachment A.

Currently, the Township’s affordable housing obligation is governed by the Third Round Final Judgment of Compliance and Repose entered by the Honorable John A. Sweeney, A.J.S.C. on February 16, 2006. However, the Township specifically recognizes that the current state of municipal affordable housing obligations is in flux as a result of several new rules and statutes that have been recently adop-ted, as well as litigation involving the same. Thus, it is recommended that the Township periodically revisit its affordable housing obligation and revise this portion of the Redevelopment Plan as necessary. If determined to be necessary and appropriate the Township could, in its discretion, utilize an in lieu

234 payments to supplement the affordable housing pro-vided under this Redevelopment Plan.

It is anticipated that the eleven (11) deed restricted affordable units will be replaced with newly con-structed deed-restricted affordable housing units in compliance with legal requirements. Anyone dis-placed by the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan who had been occupying any of the eleven (11) deed restricted affordable units will have first priority for these eleven (11) replacement units in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7(a)(7). In addition to these eleven (11) replacement units, forty-five (45) new deed restricted affordable units will be construc-ted as part of the project. These affordable units will contain a range of affordability, including units affordable to very low income households, low income households and moderate income households in accordance with legal requirements. The exact mix will be determined based on the Township’s legal compliance requirements as negotiated with the Redeveloper.

235 COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLANS

MOUNT HOLLY MASTER PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE

The Mount Holly Master Plan identifies the need to revitalize the Gardens area. One of the goals of the Master Plan, adopted in April 2000, is upgrade the “Gardens Area.” The Plan specifically supports the need to revitalize the area, as follows;

One objective of this plan is to upgrade the quality of the units and character of the area. Measures should be taken to reduce the overall density in the Gardens Area and to rehabilitate deteriorated units. Additional amenities in the form of parks and other community facilities should be provided. This Area may require the use of the redevelopment statutes since the overwhelming majority of the development is privately owned. (Mount Holly Master Plan, p. 4).

It is specifically recognized that portions of this Redevelopment Plan are not substantially consistent with the Mount Holly Master Plan, as stated above, one objective of the Master Plan is to reduce the overall density of the Gardens Area and to rehab-ilitate the deteriorated units. Under the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the existing units within the Gardens Area will be replaced with new units rather than be rehabilitated. It should, however, be noted that the density within the Gardens area will decrease. The density of the Gardens at the time the area was designated as a redevelopment area was 11.8 units per acre. Under this redevelopment plan, the density in the Gardens section of the redevelop-ment area will decrease because it is designated for townhome development at a density of less than 11

236 units per acre. The density of the entire residential portion of the redevelopment area, which includes an additional 15.4 acres outside of the Gardens Section of the redevelopment area, is 12 dwelling units per acre, created by the inclusion of the higher density apartments located in the additional 15.4 acre area.

N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7.d provides that a redevelop-ment plan may be adopted which is not consistent with or not designed to effectuate the master plan if the redevelopment plan is adopted by affirmative vote of a majority of the municipal governing body’s full authorized membership and the reasons for adopting the inconsistent redevelopment plan is specifically set forth in the redevelopment plan.

It is appropriate for the governing body to approve this Redevelopment Plan, notwithstanding its incon-sistency with all portions of the Mount Holly Master Plan because the overarching goal of upgrading the quality of the units and the character of the Gardens Area cannot be achieved with a redevelopment plan that is consistent with every goal of the Mount Holly Master Plan. Private investment is necessary in order to ensure that the redevelopment project is built. Economics and housing market demands dictate the type of housing in order to ensure that a redevelopment project within this area is successful.

In addition, the current configuration of the exist-ing buildings within the Gardens do not lend them-selves to being rehabilitated, except with great difficulty because the existing units are small from a market standpoint and the conditions of many of the units are such that gut rehabilitation would be required simply to bring the units within existing building code standards. Moreover, new construction is generally preferred over rehabilitation because of

237 its greater efficiency, cost and schedule predictability, and in many markets, higher per square foot selling price. When compared to gut rehabilitation, new construction tends to be less expensive per square foot.

In order to entice private investment to undertake the revitalization of the Gardens and to meet the other goals of the Mount Holly Master Plan, namely to upgrade the quality of the units and character of the area, and to provide additional amenities such as parks and community facilities within the area, it is necessary to deviate from the Master Plan goal of rehabilitating units within the Gardens.

The commercial component of the Redevelopment Plan) is necessary to meet the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, namely to provide sufficient space for businesses that provide services to the neighborhood. Development of commercial, office, and residential uses in the Redevelopment Plan will help advance the following Master Plan goals:

- Promotion of beneficial economic development

- Utilization of the Urban Enterprise Zone to Mount Holly’s maximum advantage

- Upgrade the Gardens Area

- Utilize the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law to Mount Holly’s best advantage

There is consistency with the current zoning for this area because it is zoned for a mixture of office/light industry and high density residential use.

WESTAMPTON ZONING ORDINANCE AND MASTER PLAN

Zoning across the Mount Holly By-Pass is governed by Westampton Township. The area directly opposite

238 the redevelopment area in Mount Holly is zoned for single-family residential use (R2) and is fully developed with single-family homes with their rear yards facing the By-Pass.

The By-Pass itself provides a significant separation between land uses in Mount Holly and Westampton. The Township’s planning consultant verified that no land use changes are being considered for this area of Westampton. Thus, no adverse land use impacts to uses are expected on either side of the municipal boundary.

NEW JERSEY STATE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOP-MENT PLAN

The New Jersey State Development and Redevelop-ment Plan (SDRP) fully supports the concept of concentrating resources within developed cities and neighborhoods to make them more livable. The SDRP supports redevelopment of existing areas to provide new opportunities for development as follows:

Development and redevelopment—be it resi-dential, commercial, industrial or institutional-should be planned, designed and constructed to contribute to the restoration and creation of healthy, diverse, environmentally integrated, compact, mixed-use, human-scale communities-livable communities. (New Jersey Development and Redevelopment Plan, Executive Summary, p. 4)

The State Plan’s goal for housing is as follows:

Preserve and expand the supply of safe, decent and reasonably priced housing by balancing land uses, housing types and housing costs and by improving access between jobs and housing.

239 Promote low- and moderate-income and afford-able housing through code enforcement, housing subsidies, community-wide housing approaches and coordinated efforts with the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing.

This Redevelopment Plan furthers the State Plan’s housing goal by providing a variety of housing types and housing costs and by providing a mix of com-mercial and residential land uses within reasonable proximity to each other promoting a compact, mixed-use and human scale community. The promotion of affordable housing is also furthered by this Redevelopment Plan through the provision of 45 new deed-restricted affordable housing units and replacing the 11 existing but substandard deed-restricted affordable housing units with new and modem deed-restricted units.

240 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Mount Holly West Rancocas area has been the focus of the Township’s redevelopment efforts over the past ten years. In 1989, a report was prepared for the Mount Holly Gardens Revitalization Association entitled “Mount Holly Gardens Acquisition and Development Plan.” Since 1989, the Township has completed the redevelopment process, litigation over the redevelopment designation and the RFP process for selection of a Redeveloper. The redevelopment is underway.

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Purpose of the General Development Plan Provisions

The Township of Mount Holly has determined that its goals and objectives for the Redevelopment of the West Rancocas Redevelopment Area are in accord with the provisions of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq. Although the Municipal Land Use Law, (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1, et seq., provides General Develop-ment Plan approvals are only available for parcels in excess of 100 acres, it is the intention of the Redevelopment Plan to provide specific authority for General Development Plan approval for the West Rancocas Redevelopment Area in order to provide for an orderly and consistent planning of the Area.

This Plan incorporates the review criteria and procedural requirements of the statutory general development plan approval to provide a flexible procedure for review, consideration, and hearings for the West Rancocas Redevelopment Area. It is the intent of this Redevelopment Plan to adopt a similar,

241 yet distinct, procedure to recognize that the process may involve conditional use approval, site plan approval, subdivision approval and additional affirm-ative findings by the Mount Holly Township Planning Board (“Board”) with regard to planned develop-ments. The authority for the general development plan process does not arise from the MLUL, but rather arises from the governing body’s authority to adopt a Redevelopment Plan pursuant to the LRHL.

Applicability

Any redeveloper of a parcel of land located in the West Rancocas Redevelopment Area, (“WRRA”), zoning district and for which the redeveloper is seeking approval of a planned development, pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan, may submit a General Development Plan, (“GDP”), to the Planning Board in accordance herewith. Any project proposed as a GDP under this Redevelopment Plan shall follow the appropriate zoning requirements of the Township of Mount Holly and the applicable subdivision and site plan requirements. To the extent that the procedures, design standards, uses and zoning regulations set forth in this Redevelopment Plan conflict with other provisions of the Township Zoning Regulations, the provisions of this Redevelopment Plan, including but not limited to the GDP provisions, shall apply.

Requirements for General Development Plan Approval

1. Submission Required. Any redeveloper of a parcel of land for which the redeveloper, as applicant, is seeking approval of a GDP, including authorized representatives of all lands within the subject planned redevelopment tract, shall submit a GDP for the entire parcel of land for review and approval by the

242 Planning Board prior to, or simultaneous with, any application(s) for preliminary and/or final site plan or subdivision approval(s) for any portion of the proposed redevelopment, All references to N.J.S.A. 50:55D-45.1 et seq. are for guidance and instruction only. Any approval of a GDP shall be obtained pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan and shall be governed by the requirements of this Redevelopment Plan.

2. Contents of GDP, The GDP shall be drawn by a professional engineer and/or land surveyor licensed to practice in the State of New Jersey in accordance with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.1.a and shall bear the signature, seal, license number and telephone number of the said professional engineer and/or land surveyor; provided, however, that all engineering data shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer and all surveying data shall be signed and sealed by a professional land surveyor. All GDPs shall include the following:

(a) Land Use Plan. A land use plan submitted in plat form at a scale of one inch equals 100 feet for a tract up to 150 acres and one inch equals 200 feet for a tract of 150 acres or more. The land use plan shall include all of the information required to be included in a general land use plan as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2.a;

(b) Circulation Plan. A circulation plan showing all of the information required to be included in a circulation plan as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2.b;

(c) Open Space Plan. An open space plan showing all of the information required to be

243 included in an open space plan as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2.c;

(d) Utilities Plan. A utilities plan indicating all of the information required to be included in a utility use plan as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2.d;

(e) Stormwater Management Plan. A storm-water management plan setting forth all of the information required to be included in a stormwater management plan as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2.e;

(f) Environmental Inventory. An environmental inventory, including all of the information required to be included in an environmental inventory as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2.f;

(g) Community Facilities Plan. A community facility plan indicating all of the information required to be included in a community facilities plan as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D.45 2.g;

(h) Housing Plan. If applicable, a housing plan containing all of the information required to be included in a housing plan as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2.h;

(i) Local Service Plan. A local service plan containing all of the information required to be included in a local service plan as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2,i;

(j) Fiscal Report. A fiscal report containing all of the information required to be included in a fiscal report as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.2.j;

(k) Proposed Timing Schedule. A proposed timing schedule in the case of a planned

244 redevelopment whose construction is contem-plated over a period of years, indicating the areas to be redeveloped in each stage, the priority of each stage and the anticipated completion dates, as well as any terms or conditions which are intended to protect the interests of the public who occupy any section of the redevelopment prior to the completion of the redevelopment in its entirety;

(l) Redevelopment Agreement. A fully executed Redevelopment Agreement setting forth the rights and obligations of the redeveloper and the Township shall be a condition of final approval of any GDP;

(m) Certification that the redeveloper/applicant is/are the owner(s) of the subject land or is/are a properly authorized agent, or that the owner of a property has given his/her consent under an option agreement, contract to purchase or other enforceable proprietary interest of the land;

(n) Certification from the Township Tax Collector that all taxes and assessments have been paid to date; and

(o) A title block in accordance with the rules governing title blocks for professional engineers (N.J.S.A. 45:8-36).

Planning Board Action on Applications

1. Review of Plan. The Board shall act upon the application after the Board and its professionals have sufficiently reviewed the application, and the applicant has had sufficient opportunity to present its request for redevelopment approval to the Board, and that the concerns of other interested persons

245 have been considered. All hearings held on any application for GDP approval shall comply with the notice requirements set forth in the MLUL.

a) Redevelopment Agreement. The Board shall confirm that the applicant has executed a Redev-elopment Agreement with the Township. If a Redevelopment Agreement has not been executed at the time of Board approval of a GDP, approval of the GDP shall be conditioned upon the execution of Redevelopment Agreement with the Township upon terms which are acceptable to the Township.

(b) Term of GDP. The term of the effect of GDP approval shall be determined by the Board in consultation with the Township Council, except that the term of the effect of the approval shall not exceed twenty (20) years from the date upon which the applicant received final approval of the first section of the planned development. In making its determination regarding the duration of the effect of approval of the GDP, the Board and Township Council shall consider the number of dwelling units and the amount of nonresidential floor area to be constructed; prevailing economic conditions; the timing schedule to be followed in completing the redevelopment and the likelihood of its fulfillment; the redeveloper’s capability of completing the pro-posed redevelopment; the contents of the GDP and any conditions which the Board attaches to the approval thereof.

2. Board Approval or Denial. The Board shall take action on the application for GDP approval in accordance with the applicable requirements of the MLUL, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1, et seq., within the timeframe established in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.3, or within such time as may be consented to by the

246 redeveloper/applicant. Upon failure of the Board to act within the aforementioned time periods, the Board shall be deemed to have granted GDP approval to the site plan.

3. Findings for planned unit developments. Prior to approval of a GDP for a planned unit redevelopment, the Board shall find the following facts and conclusions:

(a) That departures by the proposed redevelop-ment from zoning regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property conform to zoning ordinance standards adopted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-65c of the MLUL;

(b) That the proposals for maintenance and con-servation of the common open space are reliable, and the amount, location and purpose of the common open space are adequate;

(c) That provisions through the physical design of the proposed planned unit redevelopment for public services, control over vehicular and pedes-trian traffic, and the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment are adequate;

(d) That the proposed planned unit redevelop-ment shall not have an unreasonably adverse impact upon the area in which it is proposed to be established;

(e) In the case of a proposed planned unit redevelopment which contemplates construction over a period of years, that the terms and conditions intended to protect the interests of the public and the residents, occupants, and owners of the proposed redevelopment in the total completion of the redevelopment are adequate.

247 Effect of Approvals

1. Redevelopment of the Project. The project shall be redeveloped in accordance with the GDP approved by the Board notwithstanding any provision of the MLUL or of any ordinance or regulation adopted pursuant thereto after the effective date of the approval, subject to the following:

(a) Once the GDP has been approved by the Board, it may be amended only upon application by the applicant to the Board.

(b) All variations in the physical features of the project after the GDP has been approved shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.5 and 40:55D-45.6.b.

(c) Upon completion of each section of the redevelopment as set forth in the approved GDP, the redeveloper shall notify the Township Clerk by certified mail that the redeveloper/applicant has fulfilled its obligations under the approved GDP. For purposes of this section, “completion” of any section of the redevelopment shall mean that the redeveloper has acquired a Certificate of Occu-pancy for every residential unit or every nonresi-dential structure as set forth in the approved GDP and pursuant N.J.S.A. 52:57D-133. If the Township does not receive such notification at the completion of any section of the redevelopment, the Township shall notify the Redeveloper/applicant, by certified mail, in order to determine whether or not the terms of the approved GDP are being complied with.

2. Modification of Time Schedule. All modifications of the approved timing schedule shall comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.4.

248 Termination of GDP

An approved GDP may be terminated as follows:

1. Failure to Comply With Project Schedule. If the redeveloper/applicant does not complete any section of the redevelopment within the time required in the Board’s approval of the GDP, or if at any time the Township has cause to believe that the Redeveloper is not fulfilling its obligations pursuant to the approved GDP and the Redevelopment Agreement, the Township may take steps to terminate the GDP approval in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.7.

2. Failure to Apply for Preliminary Site Plan Approval. If the Redeveloper/applicant does not apply for preliminary approval for the planned redevelop-ment which is the subject of that GDP approval within five (5) years of the date upon which the GDP was approved by the Board, the Township may terminate the GDP approval.

3. Completion of the Project. The GDP approval may be terminated prior to the end of the term approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.a.

Survival of GDP Approval

In the event this Redevelopment Plan is Amended and the terms of GDP approval within the Amended Plan are amended and/or repealed, all GDP approvals obtained prior to such amendment or repeal shall survive and all rights and obligations of the Redeveloper/Applicant shall remain in place until completion of the Redevelopment project pursuant to the GDP approval and the applicable Redevelopment Agreement.

249 PHASING

This project may be developed in phases. The phasing may include start and completion dates among the various land use components as well as internal phasing schedules within sections.

RELOCATION

The Township’s Workable Relocation Assistance Plan (WRAP) was approved by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs on November 3, 2006. Relocation is proceeding in accordance with this State-approved plan, See Attachment A.

PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED

This Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Township of Mount Holly to acquire all properties in the redevelopment area through the use of eminent domain in accordance with the LRHL and eminent domain law. The Township, however, plans to continue working with affected property owners and businesses to promote appropriate redevelopment of the parcels within the redevelopment area.

AMENDING THE. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

Upon compliance with the requirements of applicable law, the Township Council of the Township of Mount Holly may amend, revise or modify this Redevelopment Plan, as circumstances may make such changes appropriate.

DURATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

This Redevelopment Plan, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of approval of this Plan by the Township Council.

250 CONVEYANCE OF LAND

The Township Council may sell, lease, or otherwise convey to a redeveloper for redevelopment, subject to the restrictions, controls and requirements of this Redevelopment Plan, all or any portion of the land within the Redevelopment Area which becomes available for disposal by the Township as a result of public action under this Plan. The Township reserves the right to formulate an agreement under any of the above referenced arrangements and to enforce resale covenants.

251 ATTACHMENT A: WORKABLE RELOCATION

ASSISTANCE PLAN (WRAP)

260

WORKABLE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN

October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2009

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY

WEST END REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Township of Mount Holly 23 Washington Street Mt. Holly, NJ 08060

SEPTEMBER, 2006

[logo] TRIAD Associates

Over A Quarter Century of Service

715 Twining Road Suite 215 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 576-1950 Fax: (215) 576-1940

238 W. Chestnut Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (856) 690-9590 Fax: (856) 690-5622

www.triaidincorporated.com

261 WORKABLE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY WEST END REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I Summary—DCA Form 101 Project Description—Attachment to DCA Form 101

II Housing Resource & Requirements—DCA Form 102

III New Construction—DCA Form 103 IV Business Displacement—DCA Form 104

Business Displacement Narrative V Estimate of Relocation Costs—DCA

Form 105

APPENDICES:

Appendix A Sample General Information Notices Appendix B Sample Relocation Assistance Flyers Appendix C Sample Residential & Business Site

Survey Appendix D Community and Supportive Services

Plan Available Housing Resources Plan

Appendix E Site Acquisition Map

262 WORKABLE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN

Agency: Township of Mount Holly

Division: Township Manager

Relocation Officer Kathleen D. Hoffman

Telephone: 609 845-1100

Address: 23 Washington Street, PO Box 411 Mount Holly, NJ 08060 Displacement Period

From: October 1, 2009

To: September 30, 2009

Code Enforcement

Individuals Families Businesses

No. Displaced Previous Period

N/A

No. Cases in Existing Rental Assistance Workload:

No. to be Displaced in this Period:

Acquisition Individuals Families Non-Profits/ Businesses

No. to be Displaced

28 149 2

263

Other Displacement Programs within Municipality Program No. of Families /

Individuals No. of Businesses

N/A

264 The above agency or unit of government has the authority to conduct this program pursuant to the Relocation Assistance Law (P.L. 1967, c.79; N.J.S.A. 52:31B-1 at seq.), the Relocation Assistance Act (P.L. 1971, c.362; N.J.S.A. 20:4-1 at seq.) as amended, and the Regulations for Provision of Relocation Assistance (N.J.A.C. 5:40-1 et seq.).

Date: M. James Maley, Jr. Chief Legal Officer

Signature

I have prepared and will implement this plan in accordance with the Rules and Regulations adopted by the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to the Relocation Assistance Law (P.L. 1967, c.79; N.J.S.A. 52:3113-1 at seq.) and the Relocation Assistance Act (P.L. 1971, c. 362; N.J.S.A. 20:4-1 at seq.) as amended. A copy of this plan and supporting documentation will be available for public inspection during regular hours.

Date: Kathleen D. Hoffman, Relocation Officer

Signature

I certify that this plan has been prepared and will be implemented in accordance with the relocation laws and regulations. Until approval by the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs of this plan, no involuntary displacement will occur and in the

265 event of an emergency, the Commissioner will be notified prior to any displacement.

I fully understand that filing of this Workable Relocation Assistance Plan for approval by the Commissioner is not a request for state financial assistance to assist in funding relocation costs which may be engendered by the estimated displacement contained herein.

Date Brooke Tidswell Ill, Mayor

Signature

266 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

(Attachment to Form DCA 101)

I. Introduction—Purpose of Relocation Plan

The Township of Mount Holly (Township) adopted the West End Redevelopment Plan on November 9, 2004. The plan was amended on December 20, 2004. Located within the West End Redevelopment Area is the Mount Holly Gardens, a residential neighborhood originally comprised of three hundred seventy nine (379) attached housing units, was built in the early 1950’s. The area includes the following roads: Levis Drive (between Rancocas Road and the now aban-doned George Avenue); North and South Martin Avenues; Saul Place; Joseph Place and Grant Street, between Joseph Place and Levis. The Mount Holly Gardens were designed as low-rise, garden apart-ment-style housing. Over the past thirty years, the number of owner occupied housing units in the Gardens declined to the point that the majority of the housing units were renter occupied, owned largely by absentee landlords. This has had a destabilizing effect on the development and has resulted in declined building maintenance and property up-keep. The Redevelopment Area also includes a commercial area which is located north of and adjacent to the Mount Holly Gardens. This land is vacant and underutilized.

Approximately one-hundred seventy-seven (177) households currently reside in the complex. In addi-tion, there are two transitional housing homes, licensed by the New Jersey Department of Com-munity Affairs, operated by a non-profit agency. There are no commercial businesses located in the targeted neighborhood. The units contain a mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with rents ranging between $400 and $950 per month.

267 The goal of the Redevelopment Plan is to create an

attractive, safe and cohesive residential neighborhood that provides a variety of housing options that meet the needs of the Mount Holly Community and to provide opportunities for commercial establishments that will serve the immediate area and the larger community.

In order to proceed with the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, the Township of Mount Holly entered into a redevelopment agreement with Keating Urban Partners, LLC (Keating). The agreement was signed on February 15, 2006 and designates Keating as the redeveloper of the site and the lead entity in the project Keating Urban Partners is a limited liability corporation. Keating contracted with Triad Associates to prepare a Workable Relo-cation Assistance Plan for the project in accordance with the requirements of the New Jersey Relocation Assistance Act. Triad Associates is a Community and Economic Development Consulting firm with exper-ience in the management and implementation of residential and business relocation programs and has a long standing relationship with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs.

In order to permit the redevelopment of the area in accordance with the goals of the redevelopment plan, the Township intends to acquire all the units in the Mount Holly Gardens, which will necessitate the relocation of its residents. The Township’s decision to select the Mount Holly Gardens complex is reflective of an opportunity to substitute new development for an aging and declining complex, which would require substantial property investments to restore it as an attractive and functional market rate housing com-plex. The relocation plan for the residents and the

268 redevelopment plan proposed by the redeveloper have been developed in consultation with the existing residents to create a plan that incorporates the specific relocation needs of the residents and offer meaningful and viable relocation options.

The redevelopment of the area will include approx-imately five hundred sixty (560) units of mixed-income housing and a commercial area.

The Township of Mount Holly, Keating, and Triad Associates are committed to making the relocation process as anticipatory and responsive as possible for the displacees, while ensuring that all persons displaced as a direct result of the West End Redevel-opment Project are treated fairly, consistently and equitably so that they will not suffer disproportionate or unsatisfactory treatment. The Township is com-mitted to the following:

Seek out and incorporate the views and preferences of community residents

Promote Housing choice, for those who want to remain in the area and for those who choose to relocate outside of the area

Provide families and individuals with a genuine choice of quality, appropriate and healthy relocation home options and to offer such options at the same time that relocation offers are presented

Ensure that the vast majority of families and individuals will not be involuntarily required to relocate multiple times

Provide individuals and families with access to appropriate social services both before and after their relocation

269 Help families and individuals avoid predatory

lending practices and support efforts that prevent such practices from taking place

This plan and the accompanying Community and Supportive Services Plan have been designed to accomplish that goal. Once the relocation plan has been approved and the redevelopment plan has been finalized, the relocation of the tenants currently residing in the Gardens will proceed.

II. Characteristics of Displaced Households

In order to identify the residents and develop a dialogue with them as to their relocation needs, Keating initiated a survey in March 2006 and held three public meetings with the residents. The public meetings were held on March 9, March 23, and April 5, 2006 in the Heller School located in the Gardens. The purpose of the public meetings was to allow the residents of the Mount Holly Gardens to comment upon the proposed redevelopment and to ask ques-tions regarding the project and potential housing options. The survey was designed to gather infor-mation from residents that would assist the Township and Keating in planning for the relocation process, particularly planning for the needs of residents throughout the process. The survey was completed by Triad Associates in June of 2006. Of the originally estimated one hundred seventy-nine (179) households, Keating and Triad successfully surveyed one hundred sixty-nine (169) households, represent-ing a 95 percent response rate. Four (4) households refused to complete the survey and another six (6) households were unavailable. The table below provides a summary of the households.

270

[illegible] Home-owner

Renters Non-Profit/ Transitional Housing

Total Renters and Owners

Surveyed 60 107 2 169 Refusals 0 4 0 4 Not Available

3 3 0 6

Total Eligible

63 114 2 179

Vacant Units

- - - 123*

Total Units

- - - 302

*116 are vacant and boarded up by the Township; 7 units appear empty upon external inspection.

III. Summary of Survey Results

107 of the surveyed households, (62 percent) are renters; 60 of the surveyed households (38 percent) are homeowners

47 of the surveyed households (28 percent) are households with children headed by a single parent.

45 of the surveyed households (27 percent) are families with children

25 of the surveyed households (15 percent) are elderly households.

21 of the surveyed households (12 percent) consist of a single, non-elderly resident.

26 of the surveyed households (15 percent) are comprised of two or more non ¬elderly adults.

The survey form provided to the households contained six potential options. All the households

271 responded, however, numerous households selected more than one option. The following tallies included all responses.

80 of the surveyed households (48 percent) expressed an interest in purchasing a new home in the Mount Holly Gardens if it was affordable

40 of the surveyed households (24 percent) expressed an interest in renting a new home in the Mount Holly Gardens.

31 of the surveyed households (19 percent) expressed an interest in purchasing a new home in a different neighborhood

33 of the surveyed households (20 percent) expressed an interest in renting in a neighborhood outside of the Mount Holly Gardens

54 of the surveyed households (32 percent) requested that the unit they currently reside in be renovated

8 of the surveyed households (24 percent) expressed an interest in selling their property.

IV. Preparation for Relocation

General Information Notices regarding potential relocation benefits will be sent to all households. All notices will be personally served or sent by first class mail, in English and, as necessary, Spanish. A relocation case manager will be assigned to each household, an initial interview conducted, and a case file established. A copy of the General Information Notice letter is attached to this Plan in Appendix A.

272 The initial interviews will be conducted to discuss

the tenant’s relocation needs and to prepare an individual Needs Assessment for each family. Each household will be assigned a case manager to follow them through the relocation process and to complete the Needs Assessment. The relocation case manager will be responsible for ensuring that residents are relocated according to the New Jersey State Relo-cation Law requirements. During the interviews the relocation case manager will explain the effect of the pending acquisition and explain that relocation benefits will be available once the property acqui-sition process has begun. A copy of the flyer, Relocation Assistance to Tenants Displaced from Their Homes or Relocation Assistance to Home-owners Displaced from Their Homes, will be reviewed with each tenant during the interview. Copies of the flyers are attached to this plan in Appendix B. The Residential Site Survey—Needs Assessment Form will be completed at each interview. A copy of the Residential Site Survey—Needs Assessment form is attached to this plan in Appendix C. Spanish speaking case managers are currently on staff; translation services for additional languages will be provided on an as needed basis. In addition, a social service case manager will be assigned to each household to identify their individual social service needs, provide resources, and ensure that supportive services, that are currently available to them, will also be available, wherever the displacee opts to relocate within the 50 miles relocation assistance service area.

Information collected in each interview will include:

273 The current composition of the affected house-

hold, as well as contact information, employer name and location, income, and welfare status, as applicable.

The number of rooms, types of rooms, monthly rent and utility costs, occupancy date, and lease information for each household.

Information on mode of transportation to work and the distance traveled.

The household’s financial preparedness for relocation, along with their preparedness for the timing of the relocation.

Relocatee’s needs relative to location, size, type, amenities, and cost of comparable replacement housing, as well as, health, transportation, religion, and education services.

Triad Associates, in coordination with Keating shall utilize the Heller School, located in the redevelopment area to hold Community Meetings, as needed, and establish a relocation project field office. The field office will be used to conduct tenant interviews and to house the .project’s relocation staff so as they are available to answer tenant’s questions. This field office shall be open set hours each week that are conducive for the tenants and shall remain open until the project has been closed out.

V Eligibility Determinations

Based on the information provided to the relocation case manager during the individual needs assess-ment, the case manager will make a determination of the resident’s anticipated eligibility for relocation assistance.

274 Official Notices of Eligibility for Relocation Assist-

ance will be sent to the tenants upon completion of the individual needs assessment. All tenants and homeowners in residence on August 1, 2006 shall be deemed eligible for relocation assistance. The Official letters will include flyers outlining the specific relocation assistance benefits available to all tenants and will identify at least two (2) comparable replace-ment units. Ninety (90) and thirty (30) day Notices to Vacate will be sent subsequent to the Official letter, as needed. A copy of the flyer, Relocation Assistance to Tenants Displaced from Their Homes, is attached to this plan in Appendix B. On a case by case basis, the Township may approve supplemental benefits for residential tenants. The supplemental benefits would be above and beyond the benefits required per the New Jersey Relocation Assistance Act. They are in-tended to ensure that sufficient relocation resources are allocated to the project to help families find replacement housing, within the redevelopment area or outside of the area.

Supplemental Benefits include:

Additional financial benefits for renters—additional assistance above and beyond the amount mandated by the New Jersey State Law up to a maximum of $3,500.00. The additional benefits may be used for rental or downpayment assistance. This amount when combined with the maximum $4,000.00 man-dated by State law increases the total amount potentially available to each tenant to $7,500.00.

Homeowner benefits—additional assistance available to homeowners above and beyond the amount mandated by the New Jersey State Law up to a maximum $20,000.00. This

275 amount when combined with the maximum $15,000.00 mandated by State law increases the total amount potentially available to each tenant to $35,000.00. The Supplemental assist-ance will be provided in the form of a zero (0%) percent loan due when title to the property changes.

The replacement housing payment, rental assist-ance payment, and down payment assistance pay-ment will be calculated as necessary for each displacee. Triad staff will then review the calcula-tions with each affected household. Staff will then prepare all required documentation necessary to secure approvals for the payments to each displace; including moving expense payments, tenant rent supplement payments, etc. Triad will obtain three moving cost estimates for households requesting actual moving costs in lieu of the fixed fee moving allowance. Estimates will be reviewed with the household. Triad will work with Keating and the Township to establish a payment system to ensure the timely disbursement of funds.

Triad Associates and Keating will coordinate with the Township the procedures for identifying and assisting in the relocation of tenants that are not officially eligible for relocation assistance. Such tenants will include those that were not in residence on August 1, 2006 and those that may have moved into the complex, legally or illegally, after eligible tenants have been relocated.

Tenants who hold Section 8 vouchers or tenants that move into a dwelling unit that is subsidized by any governmental program on the basis of a tenant’s income shall not receive any rental assistance payment. However, security deposits that are not

276 part of the subsidized program and that are required to occupy the dwelling unit are considered eligible payments under the relocation assistance program.

In cases where two families are sharing one home, relocation benefits may be either split between the two households or each household may receive full relocation benefits based on their individual circum-stances. However, only one of the split households will be eligible for homeowner benefits if they currently own the property.

Homeowners or tenants submitting claims for relocation benefits for moving outside the State and farther than filly (50) miles away from the unit from which he or she was displaced will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

VI. Replacement Housing Sites

Triad Associates will work with the homeowners and tenants on an individual basis to assist them in locating replacement sites for their housing from the local Mount Holly housing market or assist them and advise them as to their opportunity to purchase or rent a home in the area once it has been redeveloped. Potential landlords will be contacted and local real estate agencies will be enlisted to assist in finding replacement units. All replacement units will be inspected to ensure they are comparable, decent, safe, and sanitary.

Triad Associates will develop a list of realtors who are knowledgeable about the needs of relocating resi-dents and who will be able to assist them in finding replacement homes. In addition, a list of preferred lenders will be established to ensure that residents are working with responsible community lenders and are not subject to predatory lending practices.

277 VII. Relocation Within The Complex - Right

of First Opportunity

To ensure that adequate housing is available to those who choose to return to the redeveloped Gardens area, the Township and Keating have established the following guidelines:

Relocated households will be asked by their relocation case manager whether they want to return to the redeveloped Gardens area. In addition, all relocated households will be mailed information announcing the availability of new housing.

Relocatees must meet any eligibility require-ments associated with the new rental units (ex. Income limits for subsidized rental units; good credit history; etc.) or for-sale housing (ex. Ability to qualify for a first mortgage; income limits for affordable units: etc.)

This “right of first opportunity” for new housing will be offered at least three months in advance of construction completion and must be exercised at least two months prior to the completion date to ensure the developer has occupancy upon availability. During this pre-public marketing phase, returning relocatees must indicate their interest in the new housing and be screened for eligibility. If the number of eligible relocated households exceeds the number of available units, first preference will be given to those with the longest residency in the Gardens. Residency will be determined by title to the property or lease dates.

Temporary Relocation options will be eval-uated as construction plans are finalized.

278 Homeowners and tenants temporarily relocated will be required to pay a fair market rent for the unit until their permanent replacement site has been completed.

Due to the amount of tenants requiring relocation and the need to coordinate relocation activities with the redevelopment plan, it is anticipated that the relocation process will take approximately eighteen months to two years. This will provide time for the construction of new units, allow time for new rentals to open up in the Burlington County area, and allow time for the completion of First Time Homebuyers training and counseling for residents wishing to purchase a replacement home.

The attached Available Rousing Resources Report (See Appendix D of this plan) includes an inventory of replacement units and a listing of potential sources for locating additional units.

VIII. Payment Guidelines

Relocation payments will be paid in a lump sum. Payments for security deposits will be processed on an as needed basis and will be deducted from the lump sum payment.

IX. Ongoing Communications Strategy

Keating arid Triad Associates will continue to work closely with the community to seek its input on the redevelopment plan and to provide feedback an open dialogue on how the relocation process progresses and the need to alter or clarify relocation policies, practices, or benefits. Triad Associates will maintain their field office and continue to be open to residents to stop by should questions arise. Special meetings and/or workshops will be scheduled to review how relocation benefits will be calculated, what assistance

279 will be provided in locating replacement sites, pur-chasing or renting opportunities in the redevelop-ment area.

X. Step by Step Timetable for Homeowner Relocation

Step 1: General Information Notice (GIN) - This is the first formal notice sent to the occupants indicating the acquisition and relocation process is starting. The occupants are cautioned not to move until they receive further notice and are given the name of their relocation counselor.

Step 2: Public Information Meetings on Relocation Assistance

Step 3: The Township Notifies the Occupants of Its Intent to Purchase the Property—This letter will indicate the Township’s interest in acquiring the property. The letter will contain contact information and advise you of appraisal procedures.

Step 4: Meet with Relocation Counselor and Social Services Advisor

Step 5: The Township issues a Written Offer to Purchase the Property

Step 6: Official Letter of Eligibility for Relocation Assistance

Step 7: Locate Replacement Home or Advise Case Manager Interest in Renting or Purchasing a New Unit in the Gardens

Step 8: Settlement on Your Current Home

Step 9: 90 Day Notice to Vacate (If needed)

Step 10: Settlement on your Replacement Home

Step 11: Submit Claims for Housing Supplement and for Moving Expense Payment

280 XI. Step by Step Timetable for Renter Relocation

Step 1: General Information Notice (GIN) - This is the first formal notice sent to the occupants indicating the acquisition and relocation process is starting. The occupants are cautioned not to move until they receive further notice and are given the name of their relocation counselor.

Step 2: Public Information Meetings on Relocation Assistance

Step 3: Meet with Relocation Counselor and Social Services Advisor

Step 4: Official Letter of Eligibility for Relocation Assistance

Step 5: Locate Replacement Apartment or Advise Case Manager Interest in Renting or Purchasing a New Unit in the Gardens

Step 6: 90 Day Notice to Vacate (As Needed)

Step 7: Execute Lease on Replacement Apartment or Settlement on Replacement Home

Step 8: Submit Claims for Rental Assistance or Down payment Assistance and for Moving Expense Payment

XII. Project Funding

Funding for this project, including acquisition, demolition, and relocation assistance benefits paid to the displacees, will come from the Township of Mount Holly. No application will be made to the State for reimbursement of 50 percent of the costs incurred. The Township of Mount Holly will be responsible for all relocation costs incurred under the WRAP.

* * * *

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States - NAACP LDF Mount Holly Joint... · m ount h olly, et...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE Supreme Court of the United States - NAACP LDF Mount Holly Joint... · m ount h olly, et...