The Silver Lake Planning Commission, Supervisors and Ad Hoc committee met on Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at the Silver Lake Township Building.  Laurence Harvilchuck called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

There were handouts consisting of all the current township ordinances, all the proposed zoning districts and what township they would be located in and the minutes from the last two meetings.  Mr. Fruehan asked that a correction be made to the September 10 meeting.  Toward the end of the meeting Mr. Fruehan did find the section that he believes indicates different setbacks can be required for different uses under a SALDO.
He referred Carson Helfrich to Planning Series #8 – Subdivision and Land Development in PA , page 5 & 6 , Land Development Absence of Zoning which states
"Different types of development require different standards. Unfortunately, many ordinances do not include separate development standards for an office complex, shopping center or multifamily residential construction. Standards should be established for each type of land development. …."
He was not familiar with the provision and told me he did not think that was correct.
The minutes of the September 3 and the September 10 meetings were approved with the above amendment.

Mrs. Kublo provided the committee with her written comments from the first three meetings.

Mr. Harvilchuck tabulated the land-use surveys that he received back to day.  The results were reviewed.  As additional surveys are returned the results will be updated.  An average distance for each use was calculated -- 0 to 249 feet would be residential permitted, 250 to 500 feet would be RA permitted and residential conditional, 500 and 749 feet would be RA conditional and 750 to 1,000 feet would be either village commercial or commercial industrial.  The results from the survey were consistent with what was proposed in the ordinance. There was discussion that depending on the size of the establishment might change your opinion as to how close you would want it to you as well as how it is used.  The size may put the use into another type of category.  The survey results were reviewed line by line. 

It was recommended that the committee go back to the proposed ordinance that includes everything before it can be decided what could be eliminated.  A number of definitions have been omitted.  Carson will be contacted to see if he can provide a copy of the previous proposed ordinance showing the lined out items.  It is important not to cut pages for the sake of making the ordinance shorter.

Review of the survey results will be completed at the next session.