Planning board approves Route 206 lot-line adjustment after easement and sidewalk conditions

The Montgomery Township Planning Board on May 11 approved a minor subdivision and lot-line adjustment for property on Route 206 (Case PBD-1-25), voting to condition the approval on memorialized access agreements and other technical clarifications.

The applicant’s attorney, Bill Robertson, told the board the application is a boundary-line shift that would transfer about 0.8 acres to Lot 20 (currently about 0.71 acres) from adjoining Lot 16 (about 3.153 acres) and that there is no development proposed now. Robertson said the owners discussed access and proposed a 20-foot easement across Lot 14; he asked the board to defer any sidewalk requirement until a future development application is filed.

Michael Ford, a licensed professional engineer and planner with Van Cleef Engineering, testified that adding roughly 0.85 acres to Lot 20 would cure an existing impervious-coverage nonconformity and that any future development would require a separate site-plan submission and adequate access. Board professionals reviewed the proposal and recommended a blanket access easement across both Lots 11 and 14 to ensure the rear lot would not remain landlocked. The board accepted that approach and made memorializing the access easement and satisfying technical plan details conditions of approval.

Board members and several residents urged care about existing trees, curb cuts along Route 206, and possible future traffic impacts. One resident noted tree clearing on Lot 20 and questioned whether an easement that opens through a service bay at a neighboring garage was appropriate; the chair and applicant said any final access would need to be formalized and approved by board professionals and noted that development would require traffic studies and additional permits.

The board’s professionals and the applicant agreed that sidewalks in this minor-subdivision context could be deferred to the time of a development application, when design, bonding and a cohesive frontage plan could be established. The approval was subject to conditions in the board professionals’ memos, the applicant’s agreement to record access rights, and technical notations on the deed/plans.

The board voted in favor of the motion to approve by roll call.

Next steps: The applicant must finalize and record the access easement(s) and address the technical clarifications in the board’s review memos; any future building or site improvements on Lot 16 would require a separate site-plan approval hearing.