As readers of the Mount Holly Reporter already know, back in May Mount Holly received “Resolutions of Support” from Hainesport and Lumberton for our “Pass Through Truck Ban”, otherwise known as ordinance 2022-10.
See “Truck Problems Nearly Solved”
https://themounthollyreporter.substack.com/p/truck-problems-nearly-solved
Unfortunately, during May the Eastampton Council stated that it did not have enough information to offer a Resolution of Support to Mount Holly for resolution 2022-10. After that, The Reporter learned that our Chief of Police reached out to his Eastampton counterpart and found there was no objection from a policing perspective. The lack of support apparently hinged on technical arguments being made by the Eastampton planner whose comments were documented by Eastampton Council meeting minutes as follows:
The Mount Holly Reporter has also been in touch with County Engineer Brickley. The process as attributed to the Eastampton Planner is not so narrowly defined by road structure. The rules allow for other considerations to enter the argument. The Reporter reached out to Mayor Rodriguez and Council Members with the following correspondence. We requested a reply and will report to you if and when one is received.
Dear Mayor Rodriquez,
As you probably recall, back in May of this year, Eastampton said it did not have enough information to provide a resolution of support to Mt. Holly for its ordinance to stop “pass through” large trucks. Your meeting minutes show a somewhat technical regulatory argument provided by Planner Remsa was relied upon by Council to withhold support. I respect the Council’s decision that it needed more information. Accordingly, I have communicated with the County Engineer on these technical points and would like argue that the regulatory picture drawn for you all [at least as described in the minutes] was somewhat incomplete. As Engineer Brickley stated to me, when considering whether truck traffic can be banned on 500 and 600 series roads, the “Structural issue is not a lone criteria”. Sure, the construction of the road may be able to handle the weight without cracking up, but there are other regulatory arguments to consider. Such as road width, pedestrian traffic, number of intersecting driveways from housing and other factors that would allow Mt. Holly to send trucks to a “truck route” such as Route 38. I am sure you can appreciate that having tanker trucks “short cutting” through central Mt. Holly is not sensible. Yet this happens literally every day. And traffic volume is always increasing, with the County planning documents showing that 537 in Mt. Holly is nearly a “fail” right now. I say with no doubt that it is just a matter of time before the volume and trucks taking “short cuts” result in a tragedy. I witnessed a “near miss” just a few days ago with a person on a bicycle entering a “600 series” road as a massive truck was passing. Luckily, the truck was able to swerve because oncoming traffic was missing. I invite you to view this incident which I captured with my phone as I was preparing to write an article about the situation.
A MATTER OF WHEN
On October 1, 2025, The Mount Holly Reporter was capturing video of heavy trucks when a biker entered the eastbound lane of Garden St from Buttonwood St as a truck approached. The truck, which appeared to be traveling about 30 mph, swerved into the westbound lane to avoid the biker. Luckily, there was no opposing traffic. Had conditions of traffic and s…
Please, please reconsider the Resolution of Support for our ordinance. It does nothing to put Eastampton in any regulatory peril and it is up to the County and the State to enforce whatever technical issue they may have with our ordinance. Please let me know that you have read this and whether Eastampton will reconsider.
Regards, Nick Sodano 47 Garden Street, Mount Holly