Silver Lake Township Planning Commission
And Ad Hoc Committee

Present:  Brian Gardner, Terry Dugan, Fran Fruehan, Sandy Payne, Kate Bouman, Jon Norton, Jerry Derham, Tony Trecoske, Larry Harvilchuck, Bud Sodon

The Silver Lake Township Planning Commission and Ad Hoc Committee held a work session on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at the Silver Lake Township Building. Mr. Harvilchuck called the work session to order at 7:30 pm. 

Mr. Harvilchuck read the minutes from the February 11 meeting, which were accepted by all. 

Mr. Dugan had emailed Carson Helfrich a number of questions regarding Zoning and SALDO.  Mr. Helfrich’s e-mail response was printed and distributed to the committee. Mr. Dugan had given the committee his email address and asked if anyone had a specific question for Mr. Helfrich to please email him. He did not receive any questions from the committee, and put together a list of his own questions. After reviewing the questions and answers, if anyone has anything else please email Mr. Dugan and he will forward all other questions to Mr. Helfich for a response.

A SALDO can have uniform setbacks and sidelines, though a SALDO cannot regulate an existing lot.  Mr. Trecoske explained that in the past, the Planning Commission worked with people who could not meet setback/sideline requirements. Mr. Dugan replied that any past negotiations were informal and non-binding, and that the Planning Commission had no legal authority to enforce those informal agreements. Mr. Gardner asked if the setbacks were referenced in the current Building Permit Ordinance.  One question that arose for Mr. Helfrich: can the building permit ordinance specify setbacks for buildings on all lots, whether newly subdivided or not?  Mr. Dugan felt the answer would be no because it applies to the SALDO.  Mr. Gardner said he had talked to another planner who said it could be done.

Mr. Fruehan said at the work session that Mr. Helfrich attended it was asked if setbacks on existing lots could be done by separate ordinances and Mr. Helfrich said you could but said you might as well have a SALDO.  Once again, Mr. Dugan asked that all questions be forwarded to him while everything is still fresh and he would send everything to Mr. Helfrich for responses.  Mr. Harvilchuck closed the discussion for the evening regarding the responses received from Mr. Helfrich. 

Article V – Supplementary Regulations.  Mr. Gardner said that this section was very difficult to understand and it is something that he works with every day.  Mr. Fruehan suggested that perhaps this section could be put into a table for easier reading.  There was discussion regarding the setbacks for accessory structures as well as setbacks in flood plain areas.  The current maps for the flood plain are very inaccurate, resulting in significant additional burdens for those affected.  The proposed SALDO revisions still need to be reviewed. 

There was discussion on the definition of “no-impact” home occupations, where they are permitted, and the restrictions involved.  Most people in the area are indifferent to the current home-based businesses with items displayed and would not complain. Anything that already exists would be grandfathered in. The concern is with what constitutes a “no-impact” home occupation, and where the line is drawn between a “no-impact” home occupation and a small business. Mr. Fruehan pointed out that there were once businesses in the Laurel Lake area many years ago and how much it has since changed.  Mr. Dugan pointed out the changes that are headed this way with the gas companies coming into the area, and that things may not be the same in the future as they are now.

Mr. Fruehan said that as he talks to people when you mention zoning they think of quarries.  Their fear is that zoning would try to shut down quarries.  Zoning has nothing to do with the bluestone industry or the gas leases.  Both of these activities are primarily regulated by DEP. 

There was discussion on what the difference is between low-impact business and no-impact business.  A home occupation should not create a nuisance with excess traffic or noise.  This should apply across the board. 

The section on signs is still in the proposed ordinance.  Mr. Dugan agreed this should have been removed.  Mr. Harvilchuck raised the point that it would be advisable to regulate lighted signs and billboards, as this is a planning effort. To pass any ordinance or regulation after they have been erected is already too late.

Mr. Trecoske recommended that the ordinance be finished and then set aside in case it is needed in the future.  Mr. Fruehan agreed with him.  Mr. Fruehan said it should be finished so that it is suitable for our area.  When the gas companies start to come in and residents feel it is time to implement it, then it can be put into effect. 

Discussion on Artivle V will continue at the next work session. Mr. Harvilchuck recessed the committee at 9:00pm.