Could Haddonfield get anymore ridiculous? The notion that the massage parlor is selling sexual services just made me spit my coffee out. Out of all the absurd things I hear about this town, this takes the cake. Those businesses have just as much right to take up downtown as a dress shop or an antique store. What more does Haddonfield need anyway? Most of the specialty shops are overpriced and boring.

Actually, there is nothing ridiculous about use restrictions in any commercial zone and the only valid criticism would be why it took so long to implement these. For a retail area to maintain its critical synergy, it requires compatible uses that feed off of each other. Personal services have their place in a commercial zone but invariably are placed away from "50 yard line" positions. Personal service uses are typically destination uses and are believed to be far less likely to stimulate cross-shopping. This is an example of Haddonfield leadership doing the right thing, but of course they are doing so far later than would have been ideal.

Therapeutic Massage is one of the cornerstones of preventative medicine. Critical synergy comes from a diversity of businesses, especially one that belongs to the healing arts.
As a therapeutic massage specialist working at Occupational Therapy in Cherry Hill, I do everything from relieving senior citizens with a lifetime of neck pain to relieving connective tissue spinal tension on patients with Parkinson's. I'm still waiting to find the Doctor who can do that one.
If Haddonfield is so worried about its image they should start by cleaning up the downtown area.

That's not the point of this at all. This is a basic retailing concept implemented by just about all successful retail managers. It is not about excluding personal services uses, it's about locating them in appropriate positions within what should be a dynamic retail mix. Not everybody may realize this legitimate and responsible reason, but that's the fact of the matter. For example, while we are not the cherry hill mall, you will notice that you won't see nail salons or massage parlors next to the gap and the Apple Store. They are instead located along side corridors, etc. That is responsible management of the retail zoning in order to help ensure its viability and competitiveness. Similarly, a more obvious restriction is that office and residential uses are only permitted on the 2nd floor within the primary retail zone in question. Nobody flipped out over those restrictions, even though the purpose and intent is similar. These are accepted retail real estate industry and zoning practices. Understandably, not everybody realizes that. But once they do, it makes perfect sense.

It is a little troubling that town ordinance will now determine what is a "good" retail business and what is a "bad" retail business. I guess it is fortunate that Caravelli's Barber Shop opened 110 years ago. In 2013 they would have been sent packing.

OK, here we go again with an anonymous poster saying outrageous things and hiding behind their anonymity. This has absolutely nothing to do with race, of course, and making such accusations is ridiculous and irresponsible. Enough on that....
Haddonfield's downtown may not be perfect, yet it has withstood the test of time and continues to win awards and attract people to enjoy it's unique ambiance and character. Retail failures are commonplace at all levels along the business spectrum and profile. Haddonfield is not at all unique in that regard, positively or negatively. Zoning is the common way to try to achieve objectives and the Borough is well advised to pursue the path they are on, lest they lose their unique role on the region. My recollection when I purchased and managed a major retail center in Cherry Hill years ago when I was in acquisitions was that Cherry Hill had full approval control of whatever use was proposed for any space within the center. It did not matter what the use was, Cherry Hill had to approve it. In this case, the Borough is conducting a less invasive, yet prudent zoning control to prevent the loss of the critical synergistic retail mix. Criticize them all you like, but this is what is needed to prevent serious issues that can come with losing that. Retail is very fragile because once that synergy starts to be lost, it can fall apart at an accelerating pace, never to recover.

Part 2
Surely we all have seen countless examples of once vibrant retail nodes or centers that have lost their retail identity only to be taken over by destination uses. These uses include examples such as nail salons, massage, offices, offices, karate studios, etc. These are all perfectly fine as ancillary uses on the fringe of the main retail node, but they do NOT belong the very heart of it and certainly not in high concentrations percentage-wise. Argue all you want, but who you cannot realistically argue with is the experts in the industry who have proven success in this regard. I'm going to follow their lead any day before the notions and ramblings of those who have essentially no knowledge or track record to point to. Luckily, our Commissioners have chosen to do the same. Having said that, I will reiterate that this should have happened sooner.

Can we get a Wawa to replace the Starbucks? I'm getting pretty sick of the pretentious hipster yuppie element.

If you have enough money and political power in Haddonfield you to can open whatever you want. If you do not ... Then get every twinkle light, neon sign, outside sign, inside sign, out of there!!! What's right or what's wrong?? The questions do not really matter. Going to Partnership meetings is like going back to high school a place where bad dreams flow like honey..... Bully's Are Us and so on.

I am very glad that excessive signage and neon signs are prohibited in our unique and historic downtown, and I'm sure that applies to everyone. If you can cite specific examples that back up your claims of permitted abuses for connected people, then let's spell them out right now and get them dealt with. If not, then please refrain from making unfounded claims.

Having said that above, to be fair, on a different topic but similar the theme you mentioned, I will say that I directly witnessed Brandywine Assisted living getting "special treatment" in their dealings with the Borough. So I will have to admit that it does happen. Specifically, the Planning Board Chair bent over backwards at the first meeting and afforded this big-time company all kinds of latitude and special treatment that was not given to the residents themselves or even the HPC Chair. See for yourself if you are so inclined on the video coverage of that particular meeting. The bias in favor of the proposal and against the concerns of the neighbors and the HPC was obvious by the PB chair, Ed Borden, John Stokes, etc. It was obvious as an observer but it's all there on tape and hopefully that captures it as well as being there, although possibly it does not show folks getting shut down who wanted to speak, , etc. Someone might suggest that any one of the many actions during the meeting in and of themselves is not so bad, but taken in totality, the bias and unfairness was clear.

Not quite like living in Mayberry is it ?

as per Bills suggestion, I viewed the video and agree with the statements made by, "I checked the facts in Haddonfield". It is unfortunate, Bill, that your desire to prove your point is in no way supported by the actions of the Planning committee. If you have issues with events in the town then perhaps you should make your voice heard at the meeting instead of rambling messages that a handful of people read on the patch.

Here we go again with the people who are afraid to stand up and lack the courage to sign their names to their posts. Anything said by someone who hides in the shadows carries almost no weight with me and with most informed residents who I know. I was at the first meeting and was hoping that the video might have captured the special treatment that the applicant received in relation to the residents. Whether the angles and process frustration was captured, there was no doubt in the minds of any of the affected residents and it was entirely obvious that the HPC representative did not appreciate the ridiculous treatment she and her Commission were receiving at the hands of the Planning Board Chair. Her comments were cut short repeatedly. The materials were not available to the public until people really started getting upset, the exhibits were positioned so that the public could not see them, the applicant was permitted to drone on and on while the public was given a very short leash, the applicant got to keep lobbying long after the time that was closed to public comment so that the public could not refute or question anything. Also after the public was no longer permitted to speak, Ed pulled out some nonsensical logic about the property only having to "conform to itself" and he failed to even read the whole portion of the ordinance he was basing this interpretation on. That Ommission changed the meaning but nobody could say so.

Part 2
The applicant kept getting their licks in over and over but the public AND the HPC Chairwoman were completely stifled and could not say anything. I missed the second meeting because it was obvious where this was heading. But it was the process that I found to be disturbing.

Brandy resident - you better sign your actual name to your post or else all that you have typed out here will not even 'carry any weight' with Bill. He won't even consider your comments because you choose to 'hide in the shadows'. I think Bill's mind is in the shadows because it's buried so far up his ........

Alright folks, for all we know, you are the same person with different hidden names. Whatever the case, what you definitely are is afraid. What you definitely lack is courage. Those are facts or you would not continue to hide with made up names. Criticize me all that you want but what we don't share is your fear.

Haddonfield does not need a bunch of nameless people taking potshots at each other. PATCH is a good thing, but this feature of their service is not good at all. They have a different agenda that is profit based and far bigger than Haddonfield, so timid keyboard slingers can run amok as long as they like here.

As for that first PB meeting, let me reiterate that I was and am very much in favor of a rebuilt facility. What I take issue with and agree with the neighbors about was the piggy, profit driven excessive density grab that took place. How our boards rolled over and played right into the hands of the developer and ignored the pleas of the neighbors. That is a black eye for our town and gives me great fear for where we may be headed in the future on similar high density proposals in sensitive areas. But to ANYONE who attended that meeting was entirely obvious that an approval was certain to come in short order. It was a close vote with several PB members trying eagerly to vote for the facility without any changes at all. Several members who voted against it made it VERY clear from their narrative that they would be ready to vote for it on the next meeting with just a minor effort by the applicant to make a few small changes. The obvious mood by the team of Brandywine people was to high five each other once nobody was looking and conversely, the neighbors were leaving upset. I know this as I spoke to them afterward. The arguments made by the secret poster about the denial are ridiculous under the circumstances of what I observed. The subsequent facts bear this out as almost nothing changed and the plan was approved next time through.

Joe T, several of us have tried to get PATCH to change the rule, but the local people have no say whatsoever about this because they are part of a huge corporation. In a small community, civic discourse is far more civil and reasonable and even more accurate when people stand behind their comments. Our public meetings require it as well. You have to say who you are and what your address is. When we are talking about land use like this in a residential historic, as just one example of how Haddonfield is worse off , I'm sure we have people who stand to benefit financially interfering with our resident discussions pertaining to the best interests of our community's future. That to me is not a good thing.

And yes "joe Taxpayer" while you have had some things to say that seem quite reasonable, in my view and the view of others I have spoken to, there is always a cloud over whatever a fake name person says when it relates to local issues. Their credibility and reputation is not on the line at all. They also could be profiting from making false or misleading comments. Who knows, if for example you work for the company who makes the artificial turf and you live elsewhere and are arguing for turf. There are many, many reasons to distrust people who argue local issues behind hidden names and yes, I and others say that their comments generally have less value and trustworthiness.

Hey Joe, the Patch does a better job than The Sun at digging in to stories. The Retrospect is paid circulation and has no loyalty except for the reader. Nice thing about our local press (esp. the Patch) is the facility to extend the story through blogging and commenting.