Present:  Peg Miller, Brian Gardner, Terry Dugan, Fran Fruehan, Sandy Payne, Kate Bouman, Tom Swan, Jon Norton, Steve Whitmore.

The Silver Lake Township Planning Commission and Ad Hoc Committee held a work session on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at the Silver Lake Township Building.  In Mr. Harvilchuck’s absence, Mrs. Miller called the work session to order at 7:30 pm. 

This session finished up the Chapter XII - Administration Section.  Next meeting will focus on Chapters V, VI and VII.

Mr. Fruehan brought up an item of old business:  November 19 work session minutes – there was discussion as to whether a SALDO can regulate setbacks on existing lots.  There seems to be some confusion as to whether it can be done.  Mr. Fruehan would like it to be noted that there is disagreement whether the SALDO can do that.  There are different opinions.  Mr. Dugan spoke saying that it was his understanding that a SALDO can regulate setbacks but they have to be uniform setbacks regardless of the size or use of the property.  It is only through zoning that you can have different setbacks/sidelines for different uses.  Mr. Fruehan said there seemed to be a question as to whether it could regulate residential setbacks on pre-existing lots.  He would like it noted that there is different opinions.  This is something that continues to be asked and has not been resolved as yet.  Mr. Dugan spoke in relation to the existing township SALDO which seems to try to have uniform setbacks.  However, the chart that includes the setbacks is in the section that addresses subdivision.  There seems to be some confusion as to whether the chart dealing with setbacks applies to all lots or just the new subdivision lots.  Mr. Fruehan read a line from the November 19 minutes – Mr. Dugan spoke regarding this and it was the township solicitor’s opinion that the setbacks in the current SALDO only applies to new subdivisions and not to existing lots that were developed before the ordinance was passed.   Mr. Fruehan said he remembers that while Attorney Legg was still the township solicitor he agreed  that it may be difficult to enforce rather that flat out saying it wouldn’t apply.  This is something that continues to be brought up and one reason why a new SALDO is needed so that it can address this issue. 

Functions of the people who will be enforcing zoning.  Duties, qualifications, and the hearing board.   Mr. Fruehan spoke saying that the way the current proposed zoning ordinance reads if someone challenges the ordinance and the township prevails then the property/business owner would be responsible for all costs but if the property/business owner prevails he/she is responsible for their own attorney fees.  Mrs. Bouman said that her interpretation of the proposed ordinance was that the Planning Commission would be a reviewing body.  The Planning Commission would still be responsible for any subdivision.  Mrs. Bouman pointed out that the Zoning Hearing Board should have an alternate member(s) in the event someone needs to abstain because of a conflict of interest.  This is currently done with the Planning Commission.  It was noted that COG will not necessarily be responsible for enforcing the proposed zoning ordinance for Silver Lake Township.  It is possible that an individual could work out of the house and charge each time a zoning permit is issued.  Mrs. Bouman said there is a large RA (Rural Agricultural) area with conditional uses.  She asked if each conditional use would need to be approved by the Zoning Hearing Board?  Mr. Dugan said it was his understanding that it could be the Supervisors or the Zoning Hearing Board.  The current SALDO contains a commercial section but does not address site development. 

Cost was discussed.  Mr. Swan spoke saying he would like to see someone doing the job out of their home and that there are two townships in Wyoming County that the Zoning Officers charges $45 for each permit he issues.  Mr. Gardner said that would have to be someone that is retired and does not rely on the job as his/her sole source of income. 

Mr. Fruehan said he spoke to a former employee of COG and in the conversation the individual indicated  that COG made out well if they prevailed in a challenge.  COG made out real good. Mr. Fruehan interrupted that to mean financially.  It was the consensus of the Ad Hoc Committee that that would be very wrong.  Mr. Dugan said that no organization should be making a profit on a legal case.  It should only cover the actual legal costs. 

Schedule of Development Standards.  Mr. Gardner said there was conflicting information within the chart that needs to be straightened out.  The minimum lot size for Silver Lake is two acres.  A two-family dwelling mean a duplex or does it refer to two separate buildings on the same lot.  These are some items that need to be cleared up.

Mr. Fruehan said that in the Building Code for residential buildings can be a two-family dwelling but once it goes to 3-family goes into the commercial section.  Mrs. Bouman pointed out that individual residences with private well may have water problems if someone builds too close.  An individual may also have septic problem if they try to build on less that two acres and are not on the public septic. 

Mr. Dugan suggested some of the specific questions should be written down and they can be emailed to Carson Helfrich for explanation and clarification.

Mr. Gardner suggested a depth to width ratio in configuring the lot. 

Next work session will focus on Sections V, VI and VII.