Promenade Neighbor Says Longstanding Property Agreements Are Not Being Honored

Nicholas Mistretta

MONTGOMERY, NJ — A Route 518 resident brought concerns over construction screening, fencing and longstanding agreements connected to the Montgomery Promenade development before the Township Committee on Oct. 15, telling officials that he and neighboring property owners believe commitments made during the project’s development have not been fully honored.

Jeremiah Obert, who lives along Route 518 adjacent to the development, was the lone resident to speak during the meeting’s public comment period. Obert made clear at the outset that he and his neighbors support the Montgomery Promenade project. “We’re very excited about this project,” Obert told the Committee, adding that residents are also pleased with the new loop roads associated with the development. His concerns, he said, center instead on agreements involving properties bordering the project and how several construction-related commitments have been carried out. Montgomery Township identifies SJC Ventures as the developer of Montgomery Promenade, a mixed-use retail development under construction near the intersection of Routes 206 and 518.

Resident Points to Earlier Agreements
Obert told the Committee that agreements with neighboring property owners predate the current stage of construction and were intended, in his understanding, to remain attached to the affected properties even when ownership changed. He said an attorney representing the developer had stated during earlier proceedings that the agreements would be honored and would remain transferable to future neighboring property owners. Obert alleged that, once construction began, several aspects of the work did not conform to those agreements. Among the concerns he raised was the absence of construction screening along the rear property line. Obert said residents had expected screening that would shield neighboring homes from construction activity but instead saw a large mound of dirt placed near their properties. According to Obert, the dirt was later removed after construction personnel determined that a berm had been placed in the wrong location. He also described work associated with installation of a sewer line, saying excavation in the area extended approximately 30 feet deep.

Fence Placement and Design Questioned
Much of Obert’s public comment focused on fencing installed along the boundary between the residential properties and the Promenade development. He said the fence was supposed to have been installed at or before the time sewer work began but was not placed until several months afterward. Obert further alleged that the completed fence does not comply with the agreement governing its location or design. According to Obert, the fence was supposed to sit 24 inches from the rear property line, but he said its actual placement varies along the boundary. He also told the Committee that the installed fence is a different style from what had been agreed upon. “The fence not only wanders back and forth from our back property line,” Obert said, but also varies in elevation as it crosses the properties. Those assertions were presented by Obert during public comment. The underlying private agreements were not reviewed publicly during the meeting, and no representative of SJC Ventures responded to the allegations during that portion of the meeting.

Obert Says Attempts to Resolve Issues Have Continued
Obert said he has communicated with Sean MacLaurin of SJC Ventures regarding the concerns and provided photographs documenting the fencing and property-line issues. According to Obert, those discussions have not resolved the dispute. He told the Committee that he has since retained another attorney, resulting in additional legal expenses as he continues seeking resolution. Obert also attributed a statement to MacLaurin characterizing the neighboring agreements as more akin to guidelines than binding legal documents. That characterization, as presented during the meeting, was Obert’s account of their discussions and was not independently addressed by the developer during the meeting.

Committee Accepts Document
As Obert reached the end of his allotted public comment time, he told officials he had brought 12 copies of the agreements with him. The Committee asked him to leave the documents with the municipal clerk so they could be distributed for review. Mayor Singh told Obert that township officials wanted to make sure residents received support and that the materials would be shared.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mistretta/headlinenewsmontgomery.com