Montgomery Promenade Phase II: The Subdivision Filing and the Neighbors' Agreements

What is happening

Two separate things are going on at the Montgomery Promenade, the shopping center and 34-home neighborhood at the corner of Routes 206 and 518.

A filing. The owner, TGA SJC Montgomery Promenade Owner, LLC, has applied to the Planning Board to divide the Phase II parcel into two lots. The case is PB-11-26. No hearing date has been set.

A dispute. Residents of the existing homes on Route 518 that back onto the project say the developer has not kept written agreements it made with them. They raised it at the Planning Board in March 2026 and at the Township Committee on October 15, 2026.

The two are linked only in time. The residents did not mention PB-11-26, and nothing in the record shows whether the agreements bear on the Phase II parcel.

How the Promenade got here

The township first adopted the zoning option for a large planned shopping complex at this corner in 2003 and amended it several times, most recently in 2017, according to the board planner.

• 2018. The Planning Board approved Madison Marquette’s project (MM/PG Montgomery Properties, LLC) on January 29, 2018, and amendments on November 19, 2018. The amended approval is Resolution PB-04-17, dated December 17, 2018. The township describes about 281,800 square feet of commercial space, a one-acre community space, loop roads to relieve the 206/518 intersection, and “34 single-family detached homes that buffer the existing homes on Route 518.”
• 2019. The board planner’s office reviewed revised plans for compliance with the 2018 conditions. It found the planning conditions satisfied in a December 20, 2019 memo. The planner’s project history lists no Board hearing on the project that year.
• 2021. SJC Ventures of Atlanta, through Princeton Promenade, LLC, applied as “the contract purchaser.” Its attorney of record was Eric S. Goldstein, Esq. On December 13, 2021 the Board approved building the project in two phases (case PB-05-21). The resolution was memorialized January 24, 2022. The SJC entity gives December 31, 2021 as the date it acquired the land.
• 2022. The Board heard final plans for both phases on August 22, 2022 (case PB-02-22). The township lists Phase II as five buildings of about 125,500 square feet. The 2026 filing gives October 10, 2022 as the date of this case’s variance approval.
• 2023. The Township Committee authorized the project’s Construction Sequence Agreement (October 5), its easement agreements (November 9), and a sewer capacity reservation that includes “7 existing residential lots along Route 518” (December 21).
• 2024–2026. The sequence agreement was amended in June 2024 and May 2026. On August 20, 2026 the Mayor reported that Whole Foods’ grand opening was set for the next morning. In September the Administrator said power hookups were delaying approvals other Phase I tenants need to fit out their spaces. In June 2026 the township recorded that Phase 2 plans “have been approved by the Township with construction to commence in early 2027.”

What PB-11-26 asks for

The application, signed September 18, 2026, covers Block 34009, Lot 1, 27.786 acres. It would create two lots:

	18.45-acre lot	9.33-acre lot
Buildings	7	5
Floor area	87,756 sq ft	125,514 sq ft
Height	under 35 ft	under 55 ft
Impervious cover	about 66.67%	about 91.13%
Parking	1,044 spaces	330 spaces

The five buildings and 125,514 square feet on the smaller lot match the approved Phase II program. The use is listed as “Mixed-Use - Commercial.”

The surveyor’s plat states: “No variances or waivers were required for this subdivision at this time.” Its bulk table shows “no change” on every line, because the township measures the shopping complex’s standards across the whole tract, not lot by lot. The plat’s legend includes a “proposed buffer screening area.” On the plat the parcel lies south of Nevius Boulevard, between Route 206 and the airport property.

Two things in the filing are worth noting. The application and the plat use the letters A and B for opposite lots; the acreages agree. And the application’s question about “existing or proposed covenants or deed restrictions on the property” is left blank. The 2021 and 2022 applications answered “N/A.”

The filing does not say why the owner wants two lots, and this site does not speculate.

What the neighbors say

All quotations below are the speakers’ own accounts. The developer has not responded on the public record.

March 9, 2026, Planning Board. During the hearing on the Promenade’s signage and model home (PB-06-25), five Route 518 residents spoke. The minutes record one asking for better communication with “those adjacent neighbors who have agreements with the Applicant regarding installation of improvements for sewer, water, fencing and sidewalks.” Another said “the fencing was installed improperly” on that resident’s property. All said they supported the project. In the uncorrected captions, the first speaker said the agreements were first worked out with Madison Marquette, and that after SJC took over, its attorney said on the record “that they would honor these agreements.” A Board member said, in the captions, “I didn’t know there was a lack of communications going on,” and called it “really concerning.” The Board approved PB-06-25 7-1. The conditions read into the record did not include the agreements.

October 15, 2026, Township Committee. One of the same residents spoke during public comment. In the uncorrected captions, the resident:

• said the neighbors were “very excited about this project” and “very happy about the ring roads”;
• said the developer has “kind of gone outside of the guidelines of the agreements that their attorney, Mr. Goldstein, back in 2019, I believe it was, when they took over the project, said they not only would honor to the letter, but also would be transferable” to future owners of the homes;
• described a dirt mound along the back property line where “construction screening” was expected, later removed “because they were building the berm in the wrong place”;
• said the boundary fence “was supposed to be installed at the same time or before the sewer line” but went in “a few months after”;
• said the fence “was not 24in off of our back property line as the agreement state,” “is the wrong style of fence,” and is not level;
• said a developer representative called the agreements “more of a guideline” and “not really a legal document,” and that the resident had retained another attorney.

A voice from the dais asked the resident to leave the agreements with the Clerk. The Committee took no action, as is usual during public comment.

On the date. The resident placed the attorney’s promise in 2019, with the words “I believe it was.” In March the same resident placed it “a few years ago when SJC Ventures had taken over this project.” The posted record shows the SJC entity’s first application in October 2021, with Mr. Goldstein as attorney, and its first hearing on December 13, 2021. That hearing’s video has no captions, and its minutes are not online, so the record does not show what was said.

What the township record says about the agreements

The agreements themselves are private and have not been made public. The township record touches them in a few places:

• A condition of approval. The board planner’s 2022 memo quotes Condition 7 of the December 2021 approval: “The applicant shall comply with any agreements with neighboring owners regarding installation of sewer.” The planner deferred comment on it “to the Township Attorney and Township Engineer.” Condition 13 keeps “all conditions of the Prior Approvals” in effect. This is the only approval condition found online that mentions the neighbors’ agreements. Its words cover sewer installation. Whether the Board meant it to cover the fence, berm or screening is not shown.
• Sewer capacity. The township’s 2023 sewer agreement with the owner reserves capacity for the seven Route 518 lots.
• Recorded easements. The 2023 easement resolution lists recorded easements or deed restrictions for “landscaping buffer and/or screening” among others, “as applicable.” Which ones were recorded along the Route 518 lots is not posted.
• A buffer guarantee. In December 2025 the Committee extended the developer’s “Stage 1: Landscaping Buffer Guarantee” to December 15, 2026. A guarantee is money or a bond the township can use if required work is not finished. What this one covers is not posted.
• Engineering reviews. The board engineer’s 2022 memo discussed an 8-foot stockade fence, a 6-foot board-on-board fence around the new northern home lots, and a fence inside a 20-foot sanitary sewer easement behind new Lots 6 through 20. These are lots inside the project. The memo does not say whether they are the fence and sewer line the neighbors describe.

How conditions are enforced

A Planning Board approval comes with written conditions. Montgomery’s code gives several officials the job of making sure the work matches them.

• The Zoning Officer must “inspect the uses, land and structures in the Township and order the owner in writing to remedy any condition found to exist in violation of … any variance, subdivision and/or site plan approved by the Planning Board … including any conditions of approval written in the approval resolution” (§16-10.3). The notice goes by certified mail with a deadline. If the owner does not comply, the Zoning Officer refers it to the Administrator, Township Attorney and Construction Official.
• The Township Engineer inspects site improvements against “all aspects of the approved subdivision and/or site plan,” including “any imposed conditions.” If work does not conform, the Engineer can issue a stop work order or refer the matter to the Planning Board “for its review of the matter and reconsideration of its prior approval(s)” (§16-10.3).
• Certificates of occupancy require that the needed approvals and “developers agreements” be in place. A temporary certificate can issue before every condition is met, but only with a time limit and a guarantee (§16-10.3).
• Court. Using land contrary to an approved site plan or subdivision “including any conditions made thereto” is a violation. The township may go to court to stop it, and the code does not stop “any other person” from bringing an action to “restrain, correct or abate a violation” (§16-10.5, §16-10.6). Fines run up to $1,000 per offense, with each day after notice a separate offense.

What these routes do not cover. They enforce the code, approvals and conditions. A private agreement between neighbors and a developer is a contract between them. The township can enforce its terms only where they were written into a condition or a township agreement. The resident’s statement that they have retained an attorney reflects that private route. How much of the neighbors’ agreement falls within Condition 7 or any other condition cannot be judged from the public record.

What happens at a new application. The posted reviews show the practice. When the developer came back in 2021 and 2022, the board planner’s memo had a section titled “Compliance with Resolution PB-05-21” that rated each prior condition, for example “NOT SATISFIED” for electric-vehicle charging. The board engineer asked the applicant to “provide testimony as to the status of compliance with all conditions of the prior approvals.” Expect the same kinds of memos for PB-11-26. The PB-06-25 memos were posted on the project page a few days before that hearing.

What is not known

• The text of the agreements and whether they were recorded against the properties.
• The full text of Resolutions PB-04-17, PB-05-21, PB-02-22 and PB-06-25. None is posted online.
• Planning Board minutes from 2018 through 2022, and what the developer’s attorney said at the December 2021 hearing.
• Whether the Construction Sequence Agreement sets when the boundary fence and screening had to go in.
• Whether any notice of violation has been issued along the Route 518 boundary.
• The developer’s response to the residents.
• What the township did with the agreements left with the Clerk on October 15. The minutes of that meeting were not yet posted on October 19.
• When PB-11-26 will be heard, and why the owner wants two lots.

What residents can do

• Watch for the hearing. PB-11-26 is on the Planning Board’s future agenda list. The Board generally meets on the second and fourth Mondays at 7 p.m. (board calendar). Check the agendas and the township’s Public Notices page. Owners within 200 feet must get notice by certified mail or personal service at least 10 days before the hearing.
• Read the reviews. The application and plat are on the project page. The Board’s review memos are posted there before a hearing; for PB-06-25 they appeared three days ahead.
• Speak at the hearing. The Board takes public comment on each application.
• Ask the Planning/Zoning Department at 100 Community Drive, Skillman, about conditions of approval and possible violations. The application packet lists the Planning Office at (908) 359-8211. Board resolutions are filed there and can be inspected during business hours.
• Request records under the Open Public Records Act from the Township Clerk:
  • Resolutions PB-04-17, PB-05-21, PB-02-22 and PB-06-25, and the minutes of those hearings;
  • the Construction Sequence Agreement (Resolution #23-10-277) and its two amendments;
  • the recorded landscaping buffer and screening easements;
  • the Stage 1 Landscaping Buffer Guarantee;
  • any Zoning Officer or Township Engineer notices, inspection reports or stop work orders for the Route 518 boundary.