Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Wedding Venue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed Schlemmer wedding venue raises parking, plan and permitting questions; Planning Commission tables project
Summary
The commission reviewed a proposed wedding venue by Bob Schlemmer, noting the parking lot appears to encroach across parcel lines, incomplete site plan details, and multiple required approvals (stormwater, NPDES, sewage planning, MAWC water verification); the commission voted to table the application pending corrections and required permits.
Get email alerts on the Land Development Wedding Venue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Salem Township Planning Commission reviewed a land-development proposal from property owner Bob Schlemmer on Jan. 7 for a wedding venue proposed on several parcels off Hornock Drive and U.S. Route 22. Applicant representatives from Cenkner Engineering said the facility would hold about 250 guests; engineering estimates put parking demand at roughly 133 spaces plus four ADA spaces.
Township officials and the professional engineer flagged multiple deficiencies. The proposed parking lot appears to extend 15 feet into an adjacent parcel, which would require lot consolidation, a side-lot addition, or an exception because the SALDO prohibits parking spaces beyond setback lines. The commission also identified missing professional certifications on the title sheet, incomplete site plan details (exterior tract boundaries, front/side/rear setbacks, water line identification, driveway permit), insufficient information to determine off-street parking and loading areas, and required approvals including township stormwater management, Westmoreland County Conservation District erosion and sedimentation control and NPDES permitting, sewage facilities planning (Component 2) and MAWC water availability verification.
Solicitor Ryan Thomas confirmed the parcels lie within an Agricultural Security Area but said that designation alone does not prohibit development under the Agricultural Area Security Law (3 P.S. §§ 901–915); additional conservation easements or Clean and Green participation would impose greater restrictions. The commission voted to table the application pending revised plans, required certifications, and the listed regulatory approvals. Solicitor Thomas and staff recommended the applicant consider a time-extension agreement because tabling does not stop the statutory review clock.
