Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission completes Component 4A for Daniels Concrete plant, flags DEP and water‑usage inconsistencies
Summary
The commission voted unanimously to complete and sign Component 4A for the Daniels Concrete Batch Plant planning module while asking the chair to draft a letter listing DEP‑identified inconsistencies, and reviewed a resident’s septic and lot‑line questions. Water‑usage figures cited in supporting materials were noted as unclear.
At its Feb. 4 meeting Salem Township’s Planning Commission voted to complete and sign Component 4A section C of the planning module for the Daniels Concrete Batch Plant project, while documenting the commission’s concerns about missing permits and timeline discrepancies identified by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The motion, made by Paul Holleran and seconded by John Wright, passed unanimously. The commission noted that the previously submitted Component 4A had been rejected by DEP and directed Chair Connie Mattei to draft a letter outlining the commission’s identified inconsistencies — including an unclear timeline, missing approvals (highway occupancy permit, NPDES/stormwater permits), and the absence of an approved land development plan — to be attached when the form is submitted again.
Member John Wright raised questions about water‑use evidence submitted with the planning module. He cited meeting notes with DEP indicating a 35‑gallons‑per‑day standard based on one employee and said the supporting documentation included two water bills that appeared inconsistent: one bill showing 559,000 gallons (attributed in the minutes to the batch plant meter) and another showing 4,000 gallons over three months (about 43 gallons per day). The commission did not resolve the discrepancy and recorded that further clarity from separate meter records and DEP follow‑up is required.
Separately, resident Justin Lilienthal raised septic and lot‑line questions about properties he owns on Ada Lane, including whether he needs additional Component 1 testing after a lot‑line revision; a township representative advised that backups are required only if a new buildable lot is being created. Lilienthal will consult with Jones Consulting and follow up with township staff.
Next steps: the chair will draft the inconsistencies letter to accompany Component 4A; DEP review and any additional evidence on water‑meter separation or usage will determine whether plan approvals or further permit conditions are required. The motion to complete Component 4A was recorded as unanimous.
