Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Salem supervisors grant SALDO exemptions, conditional and final plan approvals for local subdivisions

Salem Township Board of Supervisors · February 18, 2026
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

The board approved seven SALDO modification requests for a commercial/residential subdivision, granted conditional plan approval for a Totteridge lot-line revision and gave final approval to Penn Home and Farm LLC lot additions after applicants met drafting conditions.

Salem Township’s Board of Supervisors on Feb. 18 approved a series of land‑use actions, including exemptions from the Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) and both conditional and final plan approvals.

Supervisors unanimously approved seven modification requests for the property owner Jeffrey L. Demary that exempted standard SALDO requirements for lot size, frontage, setback, private right‑of‑way width and survey scale because the lots and structures predated the current ordinance and were legally nonconforming. Planning Commission Chair Connie Mattei provided background stating the business has occupied the site for years and the subdivision serves to move an existing easement.

The board granted conditional approval to the Crum‑Prascus lot‑line revision in the Totteridge Unit No. 3 subdivision, listing 13 requirements—such as consolidated statement of purpose, lot numbering, utility locations, private road labeling and signature blocks—that applicants must meet before final sign‑off.

Finally, the supervisors granted final approval to the Penn Home and Farm LLC plan adding two small side‑lot parcels (0.1617 and 0.09127 acres) after the applicants satisfied required owner certifications, added a note regarding a 25‑foot setback carried forward from the Garden Courts plan, and included a revision number and date.

The board emphasized preference for “clean” plans at final approval and asked planning staff to ensure the listed drafting and notation conditions are met before signing.