Developer presents 4–5‑story, ~215‑unit apartment proposal for Montgomery Glen Drive

The McKee Group on July 28 presented a sketch plan to the Montgomery Township Board of Supervisors proposing a 4–5‑story apartment building on a 4.7‑acre parcel with access from Montgomery Glen Drive. John Iannuzzi, speaking for the developer, said the project would require a text amendment because apartments are not a permitted use in the site’s BP (Business Professional) and adjacent commercial zoning districts. "We respectfully request that you let us paint the full picture before we start dissecting it," Iannuzzi said.

Ron Klas of Boulder Engineering walked the board through the site, shown to the board as a U‑shaped, five‑story residential building with a roughly 430‑space structured parking garage. Klas said the team proposes roughly 215 units and an interior courtyard, and identified a nearby paper road (Elm Place) that could provide emergency access from Route 309. "We think we've addressed the one big issue that was discussed at some of the staff meetings, which was emergency access," Klas said.

Planner David Babbitt framed the proposal as consistent with county and township future‑land‑use guidance for higher‑density housing near commercial corridors. He presented fiscal estimates the developers provided, projecting about $24 million in assessed value, roughly 325 residents, an estimate of about 11 new public‑school students and net annual surpluses for both the township and the school district. "The proposed development is going to allow people to live there who have incomes less than half" the income needed to buy a typical single‑family house in town, Babbitt said, characterizing the product as targeted to young workers and empty nesters rather than families with school‑age children.

During public Q&A, residents and supervisors pressed developers for a traffic study, elevation views showing visibility from nearby neighborhoods (Hudson Estates, Pinecrest Court), clarification on unit mix, and details about tree removal. Developers acknowledged no traffic study has been completed and said they would commission one during land development. Colin Nolan (McKee Group) said a tree survey has been done and the team will address replacement requirements through the land‑development process.

Board members expressed mixed receptivity to pursuing a text amendment. Several requested a traffic‑study exhibit, a connectivity plan showing pedestrian links to nearby retail, neighborhood meetings with adjacent homeowners, and building elevations. The developers asked the board for direction on whether to continue staff review and pursue a legislative text amendment; the presentation concluded with the developers agreeing to return after addressing the board’s traffic, connectivity, tree, and elevation questions.

Next steps: the developer requested support to pursue a text amendment and to continue working with township staff, and the board asked for a traffic study, public outreach to adjacent neighborhoods, and visual elevations before any formal land‑development submission.