Salem Township planning commission tables some lot plans, denies Tresco application and recommends multiple SALDO exemptions

Salem Township Planning Commission members voted on several lot‑line and land‑development matters at their Feb. 4 meeting in Greensburg, tabling or denying incomplete applications and sending technical exemption requests on to the Board of Supervisors.

The commission unanimously approved the Jan. 7, 2026 minutes before addressing new business. The Ross & Steel lot‑line revision was tabled after the owner, John Steel, did not appear and the commission was not presented with a notarized affidavit authorizing Joseph Ross to act on Steel’s behalf; Paul Holleran moved to amend the agenda and then to table the application, seconded by John Wright, and the three commissioners in attendance—Wright, Holleran and Chair Connie Mattei—voted in favor.

The commission accepted the Jeffrey L. Demary lot‑line revision application as administratively complete and reviewed five exception requests to the Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO). Surveyor David Lentz presented the plan. After deliberation the commission voted to recommend seven specific modifications to the Board of Supervisors, including exemptions related to minimum lot size and frontage, front and side setback requirements for existing structures, a private right‑of‑way width reduction (from 50 feet to 40 feet), and allowance for the surveyor’s preferred drawing scale. Members also required plan corrections (instrument numbers, labeled water line as “public,” labeling of extinguished 35' right‑of‑way, courses and distances for the proposed 40' right‑of‑way), a site inspection by the Township SEO, and a revision date and number on the plan. The commission indicated the Non‑Building Declaration could not be signed until the SEO inspection was complete.

The Crum‑Prascus lot‑line revision, presented by surveyor Dennis Rosatti, was accepted as administratively complete. The commission recommended conditional approval to adjust the boundary between lots 21 and 22 to formalize an existing gravel drive and garage access; required items included a consolidated statement of purpose, metes and bounds for the side‑lot addition, utility locations, labeling Totteridge Drive as a private road, and specific notes clarifying the relationship of Totteridge private rules to township approval. Vote: unanimous.

The commission voted to deny the Tresco land‑development plan as administratively incomplete after Solicitor Ryan Thomas said the application was submitted under the name “Tresco Companies” while the recorded owner is Tresco Paving Corporation and the application lacked the owner’s signature and title. Related old‑business discussion of a previously tabled Tresco lot consolidation raised additional requirements: a deed transferring Plant Road (Tax Map Parcel No. 57‑04‑00‑0‑184) from Damimo Storage to Tresco Paving Corporation, a recorded easement to prevent landlocking of parcel 57‑04‑00‑0‑005, labeling of Storey Road right‑of‑way dimensions, and other plan corrections.

Other items: the Dunlap & Dunlap lot‑line revision and the Schlemmer land development (a proposed wedding venue) remained tabled pending revised plans and outstanding SALDO compliance issues (Schlemmer has a time waiver extending review to July 7, 2026). The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.; the next regular meeting is scheduled for March 4, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.

Votes at a glance: Approve Jan. 7 minutes — motion passed (Wright, Holleran, Mattei present); Table Ross & Steel — motion passed unanimously; Accept Demary application — motion passed unanimously and commission recommended seven SALDO modifications; Accept Crum‑Prascus application and recommend conditions — motion passed unanimously; Deny Tresco land‑development application (administratively incomplete) — motion passed unanimously; Table Dunlap & Dunlap and Schlemmer — motions passed/unresolved per time waivers.

The commission’s recommendations on SALDO modifications and requirements for recording deeds and easements will be considered by the Board of Supervisors; final approvals and any required recorded instruments must be provided before the Planning Commission can sign Non‑Building Declarations or allow recording of final plans.