Montgomery zoning board continues hearing on proposed 107,000‑sq‑ft self‑storage project after market and FAR disputes

The Montgomery Township Zoning Board on Aug. 27 continued a high‑profile hearing on an application by Reynard Management Incorporated to build a multi‑story, climate‑controlled self‑storage facility at 1026 County Route 518 (BA Tech04Tech23). The applicant seeks a D1 use variance and a D4 FAR variance for a development the team described in testimony as roughly 107,000–107,000+ square feet across two buildings.

Why it matters: The proposal would place a modern, multi‑story self‑storage facility in a commercial edge of Rocky Hill/Montgomery that residents said is adjacent to residential properties. Board members pressed the applicant’s experts for an "apples‑to‑apples" comparison of FAR and market supply data to evaluate whether the project’s size and floor‑area ratio are appropriate for this setting.

What the board heard: Applicant counsel Chris Murphy said the project team would present architectural, market and planning testimony. Architect Louis Vandellish testified the smaller building’s exterior overhead doors were removed, reducing the total unit count from 743 to 739 and shifting entrances to a central loading bay; he also described materials and earth‑tone canopy colors. "Originally, there were 743 units. We're now at 739 units," Vandellish told the board.

Market witnesses Christopher Otto and Connor Monferrat testified the local submarket (a five‑mile radius) contains about 83,000 residents and four existing self‑storage facilities; using standard industry metrics they calculated current supply of roughly 4.2 square feet per person occupied and said adding the subject property’s ~107,000 sq ft would raise the market to about 5.5 sq ft/person, still below state and national averages. Monferrat summarized: "We identified ... the population, household income, and competitive facilities within the market" and concluded there is demand for the use in this market.

Disputes over FAR and comparables: The applicant's analysts testified the proposed FAR is 0.83 (83%). They also presented statewide FAR data from a 197‑facility sample showing that recently built facilities on lots under 5 acres often have much higher FARs; in their analysis properties under 5 acres averaged about 1.05 FAR. Several board members and the objector’s counsel asked for a breakout by urban/suburban context and for the underlying list of comparable facilities. Objector counsel Andrew Schrager and multiple residents queried use of commercial data services (Yardi) and why a public user might see dozens of facilities in a broader query; the market witness said the team used a five‑mile submarket and proprietary sources and said public snapshots can be misleading without radius/context.

Planner’s presentation: Planner Craig Rancamp delivered a FAR spreadsheet of 36 climate‑controlled, multi‑story projects the applicant’s team had worked on and told the board that 23 of those projects had FARs above 0.90 (90%). He explained that lower FARs in some approvals could be explained by environmental constraints or on‑site outdoor RV/boat storage; he said the proposed 0.83 FAR ‘‘is not out of line’’ with many comparable approvals the applicant has obtained.

Public comment and procedural next steps: Residents questioned drive times, proximity to homes, and national headlines suggesting self‑storage development is cooling. Market witnesses said demand drivers (population, household formation, employment) remain strong but that development activity is constrained currently by higher interest rates and capital availability. After a straw poll and discussion the board continued the hearing to Sept. 26, 2024, and asked the applicant to submit the full market study, the FAR dataset and supporting exhibits in advance (the board requested at least 10–21 days’ lead time). The applicant confirmed it had extended the decision deadline to Oct. 31 and the board noted the applicant would consider an extension to Nov. 30 if needed.

What to watch: The board requested an "apples‑to‑apples" FAR breakout (urban vs. suburban/rural, net FAR excluding constrained land) and a clearer set of local comparables; those data will be the central material for the Sept. 26 continuation.

A selection of direct quotes from the hearing: "We have 4 facilities within 5 miles ... the existing supply is 4.2 feet per person." — Connor Monferrat, real‑estate market expert "The proposed FAR of this facility is 83%." — Chris Murphy (applicant counsel, restating witness testimony) "Of the 36 projects on our list, 23 have floor area ratios above 90%." — Craig Rancamp, planner

The hearing was continued; the public and experts may present supplemental materials at the continued session on Sept. 26.