23 Orchard Road: The Redevelopment Designation and the Plan Still to Come

What is happening

23 Orchard Road is an office property at the southwest corner of Route 206 and Orchard Road, next to the Municipal Center. It is Block 28001, Lot 5.02. The township’s designating resolution describes it as “approximately 44 acres with a large office building and solar array structure.”

On April 16, 2026 the Township Committee designated the lot a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment and told the Planning Board to prepare a redevelopment plan. Six months later there is still no plan. On September 28 the Board hired an economic adviser, eConsult Solutions, Inc., to help it decide what the plan should allow. No one has been appointed on the record to write the plan itself, and no draft or date has been announced.

Not the road project. This page is about the office property. The township’s separate plan to rebuild Orchard Road, the street, with sidewalks and bike facilities, is covered in its own explainer. The two share a name and nothing else. For how the redevelopment law works in general, see this explainer.

How it got here

The building. The office building was built in 1979 and expanded in the 1980s. The March 23 Planning Board minutes describe it as containing “over 220,000 square feet, with roughly 169,000 square feet leasable.” Part of the original property was split off earlier for the township’s Round 3 affordable housing. The township’s slides list that completed project as “40 Affordable Apartments” and “112 Market Rate Townhomes.”

The numbers the township cites. The April 27 slides list “$6M (2021 sale),” a “$4.35M 2024 auction sale,” a “$10M 2024 assessment,” and “$5M and $4M (2025 & 2026 assessment following 2024 tax appeal settlement agreement).” They also state: “Currently pay $174,550 in property taxes.”

The housing plan. The site was in the township’s June 2025 Round 4 housing plan and was taken out of the amended plan. The slides label it “Previously Considered for Round 4 Plan; Not in Amended Plan.” The Planning Board minutes of February 9, 2026 record its removal.

The steps, in order:

Date	Step	Record
Oct 16, 2025	The Committee directs the Planning Board to investigate the site as a non-condemnation redevelopment area, 5-0, without discussion (Res. #25-10-329)	timeline, meeting
Mar 2, 2026	Clarke Caton Hintz, the Board’s planner, dates its investigation report	report
Mar 23, 2026	Planning Board hearing; no public comment; the Board recommends designation 8-0	minutes
Apr 13, 2026	The Board memorializes its finding	Res. #26-4-138 recitals
Apr 16, 2026	The Committee designates the site, 5-0 (Res. #26-4-138)	timeline
Apr 24, 2026	The state Department of Community Affairs receives the resolution	DCA letter
Apr 27, 2026	Planning Board information session; the vote to hire a plan writer is postponed	timeline
May 11, 2026	After a closed session, the Board decides to appoint an economic development consultant	minutes
Sep 28, 2026	The Board hires eConsult Solutions, Inc.	meeting

Why the site qualified. The planner’s case rested on one statutory criterion, long vacancy. The March 23 minutes say “The investigation focused on Criterion B,” and that the building had vacancy rates “of approximately 89% in 2023, 85% in 2024, and 75.6% in 2025.” Nobody from the public spoke. The designating resolution records that “no members of the public provided comment.” The Board’s eight members present all voted yes.

The April 27 information session. This was the first public discussion of what might be built. It was not recorded on video, according to The Montgomery News, so the minutes and slides are the record. The minutes say Planning Director Lori Savron explained “that the Township is considering transforming the long-vacant office building into an Innovation Center supported financially by the construction of luxury rental apartments.” The slides say “Owner has proposed luxury rental apartments” “To provide financial resources to update the office building.” They show apartment images but give no unit count. The minutes add that “external funding from NJEDA and Princeton University is not available.”

Two tenants, the building’s leasing manager and the owner, Tom Scannapieco, spoke in support of an innovation hub. Residents asked that the cost of upgrading the building be “clearly identified,” that the affordable set-aside “exceed 20 percent,” and that environmental requirements be strengthened. One resident said the hub should come first and the apartments second. Board member Paul Blodgett called the draft objectives “largely boilerplate.” He “expressed concern that revenue generated from the proposed apartments would not be sufficient to fund necessary upgrades to the existing office building” and recommended a request for proposals for a planner. The Board then postponed, unanimously, a “Resolution Authorizing Clarke Caton Hintz to Prepare Redevelopment Plan.”

The adviser. On May 11, after a closed session on a “Special Planning consultant,” Board Attorney Karen Cayci “summarized that the Board will appoint an Economic Development Consultant.” Four members were named to interview firms. On June 18 Savron told the Committee the adviser would help “REALLY FOCUS IN ON MARKETABLE USES FOR THE PLAN” (uncorrected captions).

On September 28 the Board hired eConsult Solutions, Inc. of Philadelphia. The resolution read aloud says the subcommittee interviewed “THREE FIRMS.” It sets a fee “NOT TO EXCEED $65,500” and a term ending “DECEMBER 31ST, 2026,” and says the firm was procured “IN A NON FAIR AND OPEN MANNER” (captions). The township’s award notice gives the scope as “Consultative economic development advisory services associated with 23 Orchard redevelopment.” The notice prints the amount as “$65,0000,” a typo. One member said the Board had been shown “A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS REALLY DONE BY THE DEVELOPER,” and that eConsult has “NEVER WORKED FOR US. THIS IS INDEPENDENT FROM OUR NORMAL PLANNER.” Cayci said the money comes from “AN ESCROW FUND THAT HAS BEEN POSTED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION … SO THAT IT’S NOT PUBLIC FUNDS.”

What the designation does and does not allow

It does not allow eminent domain. The designation is non-condemnation. The township’s own Redevelopment Timeline says: “A non-condemnation designation does not authorize the Township to acquire property through eminent domain as part of the redevelopment designation.” The March 23 minutes say the same of this site: “meaning that the use of eminent domain would not be permitted if the designation is approved.”

One drafting point may catch a careful reader of Resolution #26-4-138. Its title designates the lot “AS A NON-CONDEMNATION AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT,” and paragraph 1 uses the same words. Paragraph 2 says the determination “shall authorize the Township of Montgomery to use all of the powers provided by the Legislature for use in a redevelopment area,” without repeating the eminent-domain exception. The state’s letter refers to the designation as “(Non-Condemnation).” The record as a whole treats it as non-condemnation.

It does not change the zoning by itself. Nothing new can be built under the designation alone. That requires a redevelopment plan adopted by ordinance (see below). The Planning Board chair said on March 23 “that there is no redevelopment plan for 23 Orchard at this time.”

It does open the door to the plan and to financial tools. On March 23 planner Michael Sullivan “emphasized that the designation provides access to financial and policy tools—such as redevelopment area bonding and payments in lieu of taxes.” The April 27 slides say “Redevelopment designation enables flexibility, public-private partnerships, and targeted local incentives.”

When it took effect. Paragraph 3 of the resolution says the designation “shall not take effect without first receiving the review and approval of the Commissioner” of Community Affairs, and is deemed approved after 30 days without action. In a May 18 letter the Department of Community Affairs said it received the resolution on April 24, 2026. It wrote that because the site is “in a PA-3 Fringe Planning Area with sewer service,” the determination “took effect after transmission to the Commissioner of DCA.” Paragraph 5 gave notified owners 45 days to challenge it.

The state’s one request. The same letter asks: “Please ensure that any resulting Redevelopment Plan gives proper consideration to the wetlands located on the southern side of the property.” The township’s slides describe the southern and eastern parts of the site as “constrained by a Bedens Brook tributary, freshwater wetlands, a flood hazard area, and a FEMA 100-year floodplain.”

What comes next: the plan

The township’s Redevelopment Timeline sets out the remaining steps:

Preparation. The plan sets “Permitted uses,” “Bulk standards (height, coverage, etc.),” parking, landscaping, design standards and a “redeveloper selection process.” Here the Committee assigned the job to the Planning Board.
Planning Board review. The Board “reviews and provides recommendations regarding consistency with the Master Plan.”
Adoption by ordinance. “The final draft of the redevelopment plan is introduced by the governing body as a municipal ordinance,” followed by a public hearing at the Committee.
Redeveloper agreement. “The Township selects or designates a redeveloper and enters into a Redevelopment Agreement.”
PILOT agreement (optional). See the next section.

What the plan might contain. The only draft content on the record is the 15 “Draft Redevelopment Objectives from CCH” in the April 27 slides. Objective 2 is to “promote full occupancy of the facility as an ‘innovation center’.” Objective 5 is to “Provide for new multifamily residential development that includes market-rate dwelling units and units that are restricted to occupancy by low- and moderate-income households.” Objective 12 is to “Protect existing stream corridors, freshwater wetlands, surface water quality, wooded areas and habitat.” The slides’ “Next Steps” were to “Finalize draft Redevelopment Plan” and “Present plan to Township Committee & Planning Board.”

None of that has happened yet. “23 Orchard Redevelopment” has stayed on the Planning Board’s list of future agenda items, most recently at the October 12 meeting.

What comes next: a PILOT?

A PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) is a long-term tax exemption. The developer pays an agreed annual charge instead of ordinary property taxes. The township’s Timeline lists it as an optional step after the redeveloper agreement and explains who gets the money:

PILOT revenues are shared between the municipality and the county, with the municipality typically keeping 95% of the payment, and the county receiving 5%. School districts do not receive a direct portion. However, municipalities consider potential school impacts carefully before approving any PILOT.

The Timeline says such agreements run “usually up to 30 years.” Montgomery has used them before. On October 16, 2025, the same night as the 23 Orchard referral, the Committee heard a presentation on PILOTs for Village Walk and took up two financial-agreement ordinances (meeting).

For 23 Orchard, PILOTs have been mentioned but nothing has been proposed. Sullivan named them on March 23. On May 11 a resident told the Planning Board, “I HEARD ABOUT THE PILOT PROGRAM THAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT FOR 23 ORCHARD” (captions). No PILOT application, financial agreement, redevelopment agreement or designated redeveloper for the site appears in the public record as of October 23, 2026.

What is not known

Who will write the plan. The resolution to hire Clarke Caton Hintz was postponed on April 27. No later appointment of a plan author appears in the minutes or notices.
What eConsult will deliver, and when. The notice gives a scope line and a December 31, 2026 end date. The proposal, the contract and the names of the other two firms interviewed are not posted. The notice says the contract is on file with the Municipal Clerk.
When a draft plan will appear. No date has been announced.
How many apartments, and what share affordable. The slides show images only. Residents asked for more than 20 percent affordable; no figure has been proposed.
How the building upgrade would be secured. Residents asked for the cost and for a guarantee that the building improves along with the apartments. No answer is on the record.
Whether a PILOT will be sought, and on what terms.
The escrow. The Board attorney said the owner posted an escrow. This site found no public resolution or agreement setting it up.
The legal owner. The March 23 minutes say the site is “owned by Orchard Road LLC.” The April 27 minutes call Tom Scannapieco “owner of 23 Orchard Road.” This site has not confirmed the owner of record from a deed.
A remark about taxes. On September 17, answering a resident about the Kenvue tax gap, a speaker from the dais said the Kenvue owner had told staff he would seek “A TAX REBATE,” and added, “AND WE ARE HAVING THE SAME WITH 23 ORCHARDS” (uncorrected captions). What that refers to was not explained. The slides already record a 2024 tax appeal settlement.
The September 28 minutes had not been posted as of October 23, 2026.

What residents can do

Watch the Planning Board. It meets on the second and fourth Mondays at 7 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 100 Community Drive. November 9 and November 23 are on the calendar. Check the board calendar for agendas.
Follow the Redevelopment page. The township posts the property’s documents on its Redevelopment page, under “Block 28001 Lot 5.02 Redevelopment (Non-Condemnation) 23 Orchard Road.”
Speak twice. A draft plan must go to the Planning Board for review and then to the Committee as an ordinance with a public hearing. Both are chances to comment on uses, the number of apartments, the affordable share, the wetlands and any tie between the apartments and the building upgrade.
Request records under the Open Public Records Act from the Township Clerk: the eConsult proposal and contract; the Planning Board’s September 28 resolution; any escrow agreement for the site; and any draft plan once it exists.

Why it matters for 199 Grandview

23 Orchard Road is the closest Montgomery precedent for the redevelopment study now under way at the Kenvue site. It is not the only one: the undeveloped part of Block 4020, Lot 1 was designated in June 2024. The parallels are close:

The same path. On September 17, 2026 the Committee sent 199 Grandview Road (Block 14001, Lot 2 only) to the Planning Board for a non-condemnation investigation by Resolution #26-9-260, 4-0 with one member absent (meeting). Like the 23 Orchard referral, it names Clarke Caton Hintz to prepare the study.
The same funding model. The 23 Orchard adviser is paid from the owner’s escrow. At Grandview the Committee authorized an escrow funding agreement with E. Kahn Development Corp. (Resolution #26-9-261).
The pace. 23 Orchard went from referral to designation in six months. Six months after designation it has no draft plan.
Where the public showed up. Nobody spoke at the 23 Orchard designation hearing. Eleven people spoke from the floor at the April 27 session, once the question was what would be built. At Grandview the designation hearing has not yet been noticed. That hearing is where objections to a designation become part of the record.
The Board’s own check. At 23 Orchard the Board postponed hiring its regular planner to write the plan and sought an outside economic view, after seeing what a member called the developer’s concept. Nothing comparable has been announced for Grandview.

The two sites differ in size, in owner and in what is on them. The record does not show how either one will turn out, and this site does not predict it.