Montgomery board continues hearing on Reynard Management self‑storage plan after hours of testimony on traffic, parking and FAR relief

The Montgomery Township Zoning Board continued consideration of a proposed self‑storage development at 1026 County Route 518 after more than three hours of testimony on site drawings, traffic impacts and zoning relief.

Reynard Management Inc. is seeking a D1 use variance and D4 floor‑area‑ratio relief for two climate‑controlled self‑storage buildings totaling roughly 107,000 square feet on a remediated site that the planner said cannot support many conventional commercial or residential uses. Lisa Lamelo, the applicant’s attorney, introduced the case and witnesses, including architect Louis Vanderloo and traffic engineer Corey Chase.

"For the weekday evening and the Saturday midday peak hours, the self storage facility is projected to generate a maximum of 18 trips," Corey Chase said, citing the traffic impact study and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (11th ed.). Chase testified the site will use a single driveway on County Route 518 with a channelizing island that will prohibit left‑turn exits and that any modest additional delay at the nearby signal could be addressed by minor signal‑timing adjustments.

Planner Craig Ranckamp told the board the parcel is a difficult, constrained site — remediated with ongoing monitoring — and argued self‑storage is a use that can fit those constraints. "We found a use that can work with this site that's perfectly happy to be a destination kind of use that isn't worried about having frontage on Route 206," Ranckamp said, explaining why the applicant seeks a FAR substantially higher than the 20 percent the zone allows. He noted the proposed FAR was reduced in the last revision to 0.83 from earlier, larger figures.

Several residents and municipal representatives questioned the market justification and neighborhood impacts. Neighbors asked for additional sight‑line cross sections showing views from yards and for landscaping overlays; the architect agreed to provide revised exhibits that add a section through a gap at the shopping center and a version with proposed landscaping. The applicant also agreed to submit a unit‑mix chart for the board record; the architectural plans displayed at hearing indicate 743 total units across the two buildings, with approximately 87 percent of units concentrated in five smaller size categories.

Parking and truck access were central topics. The applicant proposes 16 parking stalls and two internal loading stalls. Board reviewers raised the Institute of Transportation Engineers' guidance to consider the 85th‑percentile parking demand, which in the reviewers’ calculations would yield a much larger parking requirement than the applicant's proposal. Chase defended the proposal as consistent with recent multi‑story climate‑controlled storage projects and said large box‑truck visits are expected to be infrequent, estimating one to two SU‑30‑type vehicles per week.

Residents and officials pressed for operational safeguards. The applicant agreed to provide a proposed tenant lease showing prohibited items and other restrictions; Ranckamp and counsel said typical storage leases would ban hazardous materials and the applicant agreed to submit a lease draft for board review. The applicant also agreed to limit exterior roll‑up access hours and to implement electronic locking so exterior doors are not freely accessible 24 hours a day.

A neighbor raised a separate access concern: use of a paved rear area to stage materials to reach a private backyard. The applicant agreed on the record to permit coordinated staging access for certain neighboring properties if the board makes that access a condition of approval; counsel said they would memorialize the agreement in a follow‑up letter.

No final vote was taken. After scheduling discussion the board and applicant picked Aug. 27, 2024 as the continuation date. Because the board’s statutory decision deadline for the application would otherwise expire July 30, the applicant consented on the record to extend the decision period to Oct. 31, 2024.

What happens next: the applicant will submit revised exhibits (additional cross sections and landscaping overlays), a unit‑mix summary, and a proposed lease with prohibited‑materials language. The application will resume at the Aug. 27 zoning board meeting; any final action will address the D1 use variance and the D4 FAR request and could include conditions addressing parking, hours, security and neighbor staging access.