Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salem Township Planning Commission elects chair, tables multiple land‑use applications
Summary
At its Jan. 7 meeting the commission elected Connie Mattei chair, confirmed officers, approved past minutes and tabled or recommended modifications for several land‑use applications, including a proposed wedding venue and multiple lot revisions.
Get email alerts on the Planning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Salem Township Planning Commission elected Connie Mattei chair and confirmed a slate of officers at its annual organizational meeting on Jan. 7, 2026, then reviewed several land‑use applications and tabled multiple plans pending additional information or supervisor action.
Connie Mattei was nominated and elected Planning Commission chair in a unanimous vote after saying she “appreciated being able to serve and would certainly serve again.” The commission also unanimously nominated Paul Holleran as vice‑chair and Kelly Otto as secretary. The commission approved the Dec. 3, 2025 meeting minutes by majority, with John Wright recorded as abstaining.
The commission considered four main development items. Property owner Donna Dunlap asked to withdraw her Lot Line Revision application after questions about a DEP “non‑buildable” waiver form; Solicitor Ryan Thomas and Township Engineer Doug Regola explained that the waiver language is a routine part of the township’s standard plan form and that a successful on‑lot sewage test could change a lot’s buildable status. The commission voted to accept the application as submitted at Ms. Dunlap’s request and then tabled the review; staff noted a withdrawal would require a new application and fees should the owner refile.
On the Penn Home & Farm Plan of Lots, the commission accepted the application as complete but flagged missing and incorrect information, including a missing tax parcel number and an acreage calculation error. Commissioners recommended the applicant submit a written modification request to the Board of Supervisors seeking to retain a 25‑foot setback under the Garden Court plan, where the subdivision ordinance requires 30 feet. The commission listed required plan corrections (owner name and address, corrected acreage, driveway permit, owner certification, revised plan note reflecting the township’s vacating of a prior 50‑foot roadway under Ordinance 02‑2025, and a revision/date block) and voted to recommend pursuing the setback modification to the Supervisors.
The commission reviewed a Schlemmer land development application to build a wedding venue off Hornock Drive. Applicant Bob Schlemmer told the commission the facility is intended to hold about 250 people; the submitted site materials left numerous technical items unresolved. Solicitor Ryan Thomas noted the parcel lies within an Agricultural Security Area but said that designation alone does not prevent development under the Agricultural Area Security Law (3 P.S. §§ 901–915). Staff and the township engineer asked for clearer mapping of tract boundaries, the professional engineer’s certification and license number on the title sheet, explicit identification of public water lines, specific front and side/rear setback lines for US Route 22 and Hornock Road, a driveway permit, off‑street parking dimensions and counts (parking stalls must be at least 9 by 20 feet and rows not less than 24 feet), and stormwater and erosion control approvals. The commission voted to table the Schlemmer plan and recommended the applicant address the listed technical and regulatory items before resubmission.
A Tresco lot consolidation application remained on the agenda but neither applicant nor agent attended; the commission voted to table the plan until the applicant or agent appears to accept conditions recommended for Supervisors’ consideration.
The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.; the commission set the next regular meeting for Feb. 4, 2026 at 6:00 p.m., if an agenda is posted. The commission recorded its actions in motions and votes for the Board of Supervisors to consider as advisory recommendations.
