Silver Lake Township Planning Commission
And Ad Hoc Committee

Present:  Kate Bouman, Larry Harvilchuck, Fran Fruehan, Jen Gregory, Tom Swan, Brian Gardner, Jerry Derham, Sandy Payne, Bud Sodon

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

Mr. Harvilchuck handed out the minutes from the March 25 meeting and the committee members approved them with corrections.

This work session was a continuance of the work being done with the SALDO.  Mr. Harvilchuck suggested that Mrs. Bouman’s comments be reviewed as well as any other comments and modifications from the committee members.  Mr. Gardner stated that he had talked with Bob Templeton at the Susquehanna County Planning Office and asked Mr. Templeton if he could recommend any specific changes to the current County ordinance. The County just adopted their new SALDO last year, and there were a couple items of note.  The definition of a “communications tower” should be carefully worded.  It was pointed out that FCC controls the regulations for cell towers and communication towers. The current definition does not set a minimum height for regulation, and only mentions setbacks. The point was raised whether or not Silver Lake wants to include a minimum height in order to be covered under the proposed ordinance.  There was discussion as to whether or not whoever is responsible for the tower should be required to post a bond if the tower needed to be removed. There was concern that if the company that owns the tower goes out of business, the responsibility of removing the towers falls on the landowner.  Mr. Gardner suggested including text in the ordinance to the extent that if the tower is abandoned for one year, it must be taken down unless the landowner is going to assume liability and maintenance. Mrs. Bouman said that the towers could pose a hazard. Mr. Fruehan read the section regarding the removal of towers in section 708.2D –which states that removal is required if the tower ceases to be a communication tower.  Mr. Fruehan said perhaps the landowner would want to try to convert the communication tower into a wind turbine tower or a deer stand, in which case it would fall under a different category.  The committee voted, by a show of hands, to maintain the current text as found in the proposed County version of the SALDO.

Mr. Gardner said it is also important to require that any submitted documentation be at a standard scale. Mr. Templeton told Mr. Gardner that he would be willing to attend a work session if the committee requested it. Mr. Harvilchuck thanked Mr. Gardner for his efforts in gathering the information.

There were two questions from the last meeting that were to be asked of the township solicitor—is it possible in a building permit ordinance to include setbacks for subdivisions as well as setbacks for preexisting lots?  Can there be different setbacks for commercial properties vs. residential properties?  Mr. Gardner did not yet hear back from the solicitor on these issues.

Regarding land contours, it was agreed that contour lines need to be at a minimum interval of 20 feet unless otherwise required by the Planning Commission.

What is a mobile home park?  Mr. Harvilchuck read the definition from the draft ordinance, where there is a whole section devoted to mobile home parks. The definition states two or more trailers on the same parcel.  Mr. Gardner asked if a farmer supplied housing to two of his employees, would this be considered a mobile home park?  Mr. Gardner suggested if someone is going to put another residence on their land, they come to the Planning Commission with a plan showing where the water supplies are, proposed buildings, and proposed septic. In this manner, all subdivision requirements are met so that if the property owner ever decided to subdivide, the arrangement would already meet all subdivision requirements. The additional residence would need separation distances from the main residence so that a lot could be generated around the existing residence.   This would preclude any major problems in the future.  A mobile home should meet all the same setbacks and address the same septic requirements as a house. Mr. Fruehan stated that he had reviewed the section on mobile home parks, noted that it is very comprehensive, and stated that anyone would probably have a hard time putting one in Silver Lake Township under the proposed regulations.

Residential Lot Size Dimensions and Density, as covered in Table VI of the proposed ordinance, were reviewed.  The current township SALDO is also Table VI, and it is important not to confuse the two.  On-lot sewer and on-lot water is 2 acre minimum lot size (87,124 sq. ft.).  On lot sewage and community water is one acre minimum lot size (43,562 sq. ft.).  If it has one requirement or the other – public sewer or community water – it could be one acre minimum.  Mrs. Bouman pointed out the when too many people are drawing water from the same area, people will have trouble with their wells.  Mrs. Bouman asked for a definition of community water, which is defined in the ordinance as something as simple as sharing a well. Mr. Fruehan pointed out that the DEP definition may differ, and that the application paperwork for a community water supply is extensive, after which the design goes to DEP for approval.  Changes may need to be made before DEP will give the final approval.  Mrs. Bouman asked what would happen to the people who are not drawing out of the community water source and their well goes dry.

Mr. Gardner also asked if a height requirement should be put on the second dwelling on a property.  If there are two dwellings on one property with on-lot septic should the minimum lot size be 4 acres so if in the future they want to subdivide they have got the minimum 2 acre requirement covered?

The proposed minimum lot size for community sewer and on-site water would be one acre.  For two families, this would require two acres.  For community sewer and community water, the proposed minimum lot size is one-half acre.  However, Mrs. Bouman said there are areas where the whole area is community sewer/water and that would mean everyone in those areas would have half acre lots.  She did not agree and felt this would make the area too dense.  This does not pertain to conservation districts which allows houses close together but also requires a large area for community use and may include wetlands and hiking trails.  These items will be considered about until the next work session.

Mr. Gardner will not be able to attend the next work session and wanted the committee to consider whether there should also be a minimum width requirement on parcels.  This would not allow the lots to be excessively deep, akin to a landing strip.  At a Township Planning Commission meeting, it had been discussed that they would use the setbacks of a one acre lot 60/15/30 and apply them on a two acre lot that has on-lot septic.  Mr. Fruehan pointed out that an area can have community sewage and not be a lake lot.  Mr. Gardner suggested that Table VI in the township’s existing SALDO and Table VI in the County’s existing SALDO be looked at carefully for next meeting.

Mr. Harvilchuck adjourned the work session at 9:15pm.