Montgomery zoning board denies Renard Management’s self‑storage plan near Rocky Hill

The Montgomery Township Zoning Board voted to deny Renard Management Inc.’s application for preliminary and final site plan approval and related variances for a 59,504‑square‑foot drive‑up self‑storage facility at 1026 County Route 518, the board announced following deliberations on Feb. 25, 2025.

The motion to deny — which the board moved and seconded during its closed deliberations — passed on roll call, and the chair stated that the denial rendered other zoning relief moot. The hearing record shows extensive technical testimony from the applicant’s design team and sustained opposition from Rocky Hill officials and area residents.

The applicant’s attorney, Chris Murphy of Murphy, Shiller & Wilkes, told the board the proposal had been substantially revised after prior hearings: “We have made significant changes to the proposed project to address concerns of both the board and the public,” Murphy said, citing elimination of a second building, a reduced building footprint and lower impervious coverage.

But the board and several municipal and neighborhood witnesses said the changes did not overcome the central legal hurdle of a D‑1 use variance. Michael Davis, Rocky Hill’s borough planner, told the board that, in his professional opinion, “the site is not particularly suitable for this development,” citing the property’s location near Rocky Hill’s historic village core and the borough’s master‑plan goals.

Technical witnesses for the applicant described specific design changes. Josh Sewell of Dynamic Engineering, the applicant’s civil engineer, said the revised plan reduced impervious coverage to about 38% (leaving more than 60% of the lot as open space) and increased the buffer to the Rocky Hill boundary to roughly 78.2 feet; he testified the revised drainage, landscaping and lighting plans reduce impacts compared with earlier submissions. “We’re about 38% impervious coverage,” Sewell said during his testimony.

Traffic analysis presented by Corey Chase, the applicant’s traffic engineer, also concluded the reduced building size substantially lowers trip generation and would not materially change level‑of‑service at the nearby Washington Street/Route 206 intersection. Chase said 14 parking spaces plus two loading stalls (16 total) were proposed and argued that number was consistent with comparable facilities and industry practice.

Despite those concessions and technical testimony, the hearing record includes repeated public objections focused on the facility’s scale, aesthetics and proximity to Rocky Hill’s historic district, stormwater and Superfund remediation issues on the site, and neighborhood quality‑of‑life concerns. Residents and local experts urged the board to preserve the gateway character along Washington Street and asked that the board hold the applicant to the township’s master‑plan vision for pedestrian‑oriented, mixed‑use development.

Several residents described a long list of practical worries, from tree loss and nighttime lighting to the risk of attractors such as large moving trucks. Elizabeth Palleus, a neighbor, summed up widespread local sentiment: “This is inappropriate, completely inappropriate,” she said during public comment.

The Rocky Hill borough planner also emphasized regional planning concerns, noting that the borough’s historic preservation policies and master plan treat the village core as a sensitive area where large, fortress‑like storage buildings would be incompatible with the existing character and pedestrian orientation.

After public comment and applicant closing remarks, the chair closed the hearing to deliberations. Board members expressed concern that the application failed to meet the heightened Medici/D‑1 standards — the legal burden for authorizing a prohibited use — and questioned whether the applicant had shown the special reasons and public benefits required under New Jersey law.

A motion to deny the D‑1 use variance and the related FAR relief was made and seconded; a roll call vote was recorded and the motion carried. The board’s recorded action denied the application, and the chair moved on to administrative business. The meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m.

The applicant indicated it would reserve the right to call rebuttal witnesses during the hearings but did not secure approval on Feb. 25. The denial concluded the Feb. 25 hearing; any additional appeals or revised applications would follow local procedures for re‑filing or administrative review.

What’s next: The board’s action was a denial on the record. The applicant may consider an appeal or filing a materially different proposal, but no further vote on this application was scheduled at the Feb. 25 meeting.