Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission recommends Koenig lot split but flags septic and use limits

Salem Township Planning Commission · November 6, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Salem Township Planning Commission recommended approval of a split creating Lot 4 (8.4801 acres) from John R. Koenig’s property, but required an amended Statement of Purpose and noted uncertainty about a previously installed septic system and a limiting "storage" note on the plan that constrains future uses.

The Salem Township Planning Commission on Nov. 6 recommended approval of a subdivision that would create one new buildable lot (Lot 4) of 8.4801 acres from the lands of property owner John Randall Koenig (Tax Map No. 57-09-00-0-110).

The commission required the plan’s "Statement of Purpose" be amended to explicitly state the creation of Lot 4, and asked that a revision number and date be shown on the plan. The recommendation was made by Paul Holleran and seconded by Connie Mattei; both voted in favor.

Koenig described the parcel’s history, saying a pole barn once intended as an indoor riding arena was removed, and that he subsequently operated a drilling business there. He said a septic tank and leach field were installed around 2000–2001. Township Solicitor Gary Falatovich noted a prior "storage" note had been placed on the plan to limit use and to allow enforcement related to the sanitary sewage facility, while the Township SEO office (Dave Jobe’s office) reported no record of that installation.

The commission clarified that if the parcel’s use changes beyond storage the owner must return with a land‑development application and soil testing, and that any malfunction or change in the sanitary system would require review. The decision to recommend approval was conditioned on those clarifications and the requested plan corrections.

The commission’s recommendation does not itself record the subdivision; final approvals and any required land‑development review would occur later if the use changes.