Salem planning panel tables Schlemmer wedding‑venue land‑development plan over parking, stormwater and plan revisions

The Salem Township Planning Commission voted on Jan. 7 to table a preliminary land‑development plan proposing a wedding venue after engineers and staff identified multiple technical deficiencies and potential encroachments across parcel lines.

The owner, Bob Schlemmer, and his agents with Cenkner Engineering presented plans for a facility they estimated would accommodate about 250 people. Township members and staff raised concerns that the proposed parking area appears to extend 15 feet into an adjacent parcel and that off‑street parking and loading details were insufficient to determine compliance with the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO).

Township Engineer Doug Regola told the commission that standard Land Development submittal items were missing or unclear on the plans, and Solicitor Ryan Thomas recommended that the applicant consider lot consolidation, a side‑lot addition or apply for a formal exception because the SALDO “expressly prohibits” constructing parking beyond required setback lines. Thomas later told the commission that, after reviewing applicable law, the parcel’s inclusion in an Agricultural Security Area does not, by itself, bar the proposed development under 3 P.S. §§ 901–915.

Engineers also flagged a range of additional requirements: a certified title sheet with the professional engineer’s certification and license number; clear exterior tract boundaries prepared by a professional land surveyor; identification of front, side and rear setbacks off Route 22 and Hornock Road; a labeled public water line and a MAWC verification letter confirming water availability; Township Engineer approval of the stormwater management plan; WCCD approval of erosion and sedimentation control and any required NPDES permit; and Sewage Facilities Planning (Component 2) approval.

Project agents and the owner were told to add a revision number and date to the plans, provide dimensions for the proposed building, show parking counts (spaces must be at least 9 by 20 feet per SALDO), label loading spaces and internal circulation, and address the apparent parking encroachment. The commission voted unanimously to table the application to allow the applicant to return with revised, stamped, and complete submittals.

The commission’s action preserves the board’s option to recommend conditional approval later; Solicitor Thomas and staff noted that tabling is not a formal approval and does not pause statutory review timelines unless a time extension is signed. The commission advised the applicants they could sign a waiver of the 90‑day review period if additional time were needed.

The Planning Commission will reconsider the Schlemmer plan when the applicant submits revised plans and required supporting approvals.