Silver Lake Township Planning Commission
And Ad Hoc Committee

Present:  Kate Bouman, Larry Harvilchuck, Fran Fruehan, Terry Dugan, Tom Swan, Peg Miller, Jerry Derham, Sandy Payne, Bud Sodon, Tony Trecoske, Bryan Young, Steve Whitmore

The Silver Lake Township Planning Commission and Ad Hoc Committee held a work session on Tuesday, April 21, 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 April 7 meeting and the committee members approved them with corrections.

Mr. Fruehan made a request to reopen the minutes from the March 11 work session.  The majority agreed to allow discussion related to the minutes.  Mr. Fruehan requested that the wording be changed relating to certain businesses.    Mr. Harvilchuck made a motion to strike the word “no-impact” from the record.  The sentence would read --
Mr. Fruehan suggested allowing certain businesses in the residential district; such as selling honey, maple syrup or firewood.  Mr. Harvilchuck made a motion to strike the word “no-impact” from the record, Mr. Derham seconded, approved. 

Mr. Swan spoke regarding the details of the minutes.  He felt the minutes were too detailed for a work session. 

Discussion continued on Article VI.  Revisions are being made during the work session on Mr. Harvilchuck’s computer.  There is still disagreement as to whether a SALDO can regulated setbacks on existing lots or if the setbacks apply only to new subdivisions.  Mr. Dugan asked members to please email him their questions and he would forward them to Mr. Helfrich for a response.  Mr. Templeton with County Planning and Development may be able to help clarify this.  Work continued on Table VI-1 – Residential Lot Size—Project Parcel Size with Community Water and Community Sewer.  The location of these dwellings cannot be regulated. Mr. Fruehan recommended reviewing Article VIII which deals with Land Conservation and Multi-Family Developments before lot sizes and density was decided.  Mr. Fruehan questioned whether the density factor was meant to apply to multi-family dwellings or townhouses. 
Townhouses – minimum lot size 4 acres with a maximum of 4 units.
Garden Apartments – minimum lot size 4 acres with a maximum of 4 apartments.
Apartment Buildings – minimum lot size 4 acres 4 apartments.
Mobile Home Parks – 

Building setback distances for single-family and two-family residential lots.  Mrs. Bouman said the Planning Commission had talked about the issue of making uniform setbacks.  The Planning Commission felt that people with large lots were being punished because their setbacks were more stringent.  The setbacks should apply to any structure. 

Mr. Fruehan pointed out that right now Silver Lake has three types of lots—pre-SALDO lots, the first SALDO Ordinance of 1976 to the adoption of the current SALDO Ordinance where there might be some smaller existing lake lots that may need a little bit more leeway and then the new subdivided lots.  Once again, Mr. Dugan pointed out that a new SALDO will not be able to regulate an existing lot, no matter what size it is.  Mr. Fruehan asked if an “existing” lot meant a pre-SALDO lot.  Setbacks will apply only to lots that have been subdivided since the existing SALDO was adopted.  Mrs. Bouman said if someone had 10 acres and they subdivided it into 2 lots, the setbacks would apply but if someone was not subdividing that 10 acres and wanted to build, they could build right on the property line if they chose.  Mr. Fruehan disagreed with this.  The question will be asked of the Community Planner.  Mr. Fruehan asked if setbacks on pre-SALDO lots could be controlled with a separate ordinance.  Mr. Dugan asked questions be emailed to him so he can get them to Mr. Helfrich.  Mr. Dugan will try to get the answers to questions before the next work session. 

Mr. Harvilchuck adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm. 

Next work session – Tuesday May 5.