Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sewage Permit Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Hageder’s sewage-permit appeal, tables Athena Drive consolidation for fixes
Summary
Salem Township supervisors denied resident Eric Hageder’s appeal of a sewage permit for an Athena Drive lot-consolidation plan and voted to table final approval of the consolidation until plan notes, septic documentation and survey details are clarified. The board said a written decision on the appeal will be issued.
Salem Township supervisors voted Aug. 20 to deny an appeal by resident Eric Hageder of the issuance of a sewage permit tied to an Athena Drive lot-consolidation plan and directed staff to issue a written decision on the denial.
The denial came after extended debate over whether to reopen the record after outside communications were received following a prior public hearing. Hageder said he should be allowed to respond to materials submitted after the hearing, asking, “Why accept the professional's response and not mine?” Solicitor Atty. Falatovich said the board will issue a written decision and circulate it to Hageder and involved parties; the decision will be public record.
Planning Chair Connie Mattei raised procedural concerns about the township SEO’s practices, including use of an outdated DEP form and a stated +/- 9-foot discrepancy in locating test pits on expert soil reports. Mattei said DEP should have been contacted to witness soil analysis and questioned whether the permit matched the lot-consolidation plan as submitted.
After the appeal vote (Bob Zundel and Ken Trumbetta in favor, Kerry Jobe opposed), the board separately voted to TABLE final approval of the Athena Drive consolidation plan until several conditions are met. The supervisors asked the applicant to revise plan notes to specify that the parcels will be consolidated “for the purpose of the construction of one (1) single-family home,” replace “approximate building footprint” with specific structure labels, show the location and purpose of any spring or groundwater conveyance, provide a survey stamp or dimensions for disputed features, and obtain written confirmation from the Township SEO on whether a DEP planning module is required.
Attorney Brian Almeter, representing the applicant, said the buyer might want flexibility for future improvements and was reluctant to restrict the recorded plan to a single-family home; the board said that if anything other than a single-family home is proposed, a planning module and additional EDU would be required.
The board also discussed that the record had been closed after last month’s hearing and that some participants submitted materials afterward; supervisors debated whether to reopen the record to admit those items or proceed on the prior record. Solicitor Falatovich summarized the options available to the board, and the supervisors chose to issue a written decision on the appeal and to table plan approval pending clarified and matching documents.
What happens next: the board will issue a written decision on the appeal and return the lot-consolidation plan to a future meeting after the applicant submits revisions and the Township SEO provides the requested written confirmation about planning-module necessity.
