Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20070809CCMinutes 20070809 City Council Minutes Mayor Buelterman called the Consent Agenda Meeting to order at 6:30PM. Present in addition to the Mayor were City Council Members, Sessions, Crone, Pearce, Williams, Doyle and Wolff. Also attending were City Attorney Bubba Hughes and City Manager Diane Schleicher. Mayor Buelterman listed Consent Agenda Items as; Joint Council and Planning Commission Minutes for July 11, 2007 Council Minutes for July 12, 2007 Council Special Meeting Minutes for July 19, 2007 Mr. Hughes requested the Ethics Ordinance and Marine Rescue Squadron Agreement be postponed until they are finalized and ready for council’s review. Ms. Schleicher said she made progress with Georgia Power and they were going to have an additional 5 man crew on the weekend. She said they will be working on the eastside from 7:30am to 5:30pm. She said Ga. Power conducted an electrical safety class about accident scenes and what to look for. She said that our Safety Officials attended and Todd Smith videotaped the evening session to share with future employees. Ms. Williams asked if Georgia Power had agreed to station a truck on Wilmington Island. Ms. Schleicher said no they are just running the 5 man crew working on weekends in the area but they will be able to break away and go in an emergency. Ms. Williams said until recently a truck was stationed on Wilmington Island. She said if a lineman had to be called in for an emergency he was just a few minutes away and it greatly reduced the response time. She said she doesn’t understand why they are so insistent on keeping their trucks on Kilowatt Road. She requested that Ms. Schleicher reiterate that Tybee wants a truck on Wilmington Island. Ms. Schleicher said she has made the request repeatedly and was told it is not in their business plan at this point. Mayor Buelterman closed the Consent Agenda Meeting. Mayor Buelterman called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00pm. City officials present at the consent agenda were still in attendance. Mr. Dan Snyder of All Saints Episcopal Church gave the Invocation and the Memorial Color Guard posted the Flag. Everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Buelterman presented Councilman Crone with a framed drawing of the Guard House. He said Mr. Crone had provided Mr. Jones the artist with a guided tour while he was visiting from Blowing Rock, NC. Mr. Greg Stoeffler of the Tourism Council introduced Alice Mulle’ as their new Marketing Coordinator and Director. Mayor Buelterman welcomed Ms. Mulle’ and said Tybee is looking forward to working with her. Mayor Buelterman opened the public hearing for a Shore Protection Variance for Lou Kietzman at 21 Pulaski. Mr. Harold Yellin representing Mr. Kietzman presented the petition. He introduced Mike Demil and Craig Jacobs who are Scientists with Environmental Services, Michael Saussy with Saussy Engineering, Jeff Cramer, Architect with Diversified Design and Whitley Reynolds, Surveyor. He said they were at the meeting to answer questions. Page 1 of 12 Mr. Yellin said they do not believe they need a variance. He said this property has been privately owned since 1946. He said at one time this Battery was owned by the Tybee Government and they conveyed it to the Fort Screven Development Company. In 1971 the property was purchased by Mr. Tuten and he built a four bedroom, three bath house. He said the concrete that Mr. Tuten added to stabilize the battery is still there today. He said the house was destroyed by fire in 1978 and was not rebuilt. He said this property is located in an R-1 zone and water, sewer and electricity are all stubbed to the site. He said the Shore Protection Line should be located on the Beach side of this property parallel to the Dune line because it is a dwelling. He quoted Georgia Law concerning Ambiguity and said Zoning Ordinances are to be strictly construed in favor of the property owner. He made comparisons between the shore line concerning Mr. Chu’s petition on the McNeil property and the deep v that was created because they didn’t build on the dune line. He said this property has that same v marking the shore protection line. He said they clearly qualify for a variance according to the code. He said a residence on this property does not negatively impact shore protection. He said if council truly believes that the line protects the shore than they need to close Pulaski Street because it runs right through it and they wouldn’t want cars, trucks and service vehicles running inside the shore protection line. He said Mr. Kietzman is proposing a new retaining wall to replace the back left side of the battery that is failing. He said they modified and tweaked the plan after the Planning Commission meeting to have 33 feet between the structures instead of 20 thereby protecting an existing Gun Turret. He described the uses of the other existing batteries. He said the one thing they all have in common is they are habitable structures except for Battery Backus. He said if council does not want a residence on this battery they need to condemn and buy it. He said to deny this property owner the use of this property based on the Shore Protection line is a disconnect. He said the ordinance was drafted for shore protection and not to stop a property owner from building a residence that in no way impacts shore protection or the dune sharing system. He said there is no Dune or Shore related reason to deny this petition. Mayor Buelterman asked if this plan was substantially different from the plan presented to Planning Commission. Mr. Yellin said the variance request is identical and the footprint is identical and the shore protection line is identical. He said they tweaked the plan to show more of the battery because a majority of people requested it. He said they are only requesting a shore protection variance and that line has not changed. He said the elevation may change many times before a final plan is presented. He said the only request before council is whether or not to allow a residence on this property. Ms. Schleicher asked if the plans had changed to include the replacement of the back side of the battery where it is failing. Mr. Yellin said the battery is not going to be demolished. Mr. Cramer said the back side of the battery has failed and that is why they need to put a retaining wall in to stabilize the dune. Mr. Hughes said in reviewing what had been submitted to the city, a copy of the DNR application states that no part of the battery will be altered. He said something is not the same. Mr. Yellin explained that the DNR line allows building within it but the Tybee line allows no construction without a variance. He said we have to ask for a variance no matter what the house looks like or whether or not it is two houses, it doesn’t matter. He said the plan right now is to do two single family residences 33 feet apart with as little demolition as possible and to put in a retaining wall because the structural engineer says so. He said after the variance is granted we will still have to come back to council to show our plans. Mr. Hughes said the June 18th survey of lot 7 says it is 5,977 sq. ft. He said the survey in August shows the lot size as 27,183 sq. ft. Mr. Yellin said the deed reflects that it goes to the high water mark. He said it should probably go back to the smaller numbers because they were taken from the 1946 plat and DNR would probably have issue with the plat going to the high water mark. Ms. Williams asked Mr. Yellin how long Mr. kietzman had owned this property because he stated that he had a hardship if the Tybee Shore protection Line applied to this property. Mr. Kietzman said he owned the property starting on March 30, 2007. Ms. Williams said she hoped Mr. Kietzman had the foresight to get a contingency clause in the contract concerning the variance. Mr. Yellin said Mr. kietzman chose not to have a contingency in the contract to purchase this property. He said Mr. kietzman believed that the Shore Protection line would not take a sudden V like the Bobby Chu/McNeil property. Mr. Yellin said there is no- Page 2 of 12 one in City Hall that can show where the shore protection line is. He said they drew the line based on the ordinance. He said they probably could have drawn the line using the battery but they would still have to be here tonight. Ms. Williams said basically a bad business decision is being presented as a hardship. Mr. Yellin explained that Tybee owned this property and sold it to a developer and it was developed into a residence. Mr. Yellin said Mr. Kietzman is saying he has property rights and why is he not allowed to build something on the battery as other people have been allowed to do. He asked why other batteries are allowed to be used as residences, social halls and restaurants but not this one. Ms. Sessions asked if this is a non conforming structure. Mr. Hughes said the time has passed that allows for a non conforming structure to be rebuilt after being destroyed by an act of god. Mr. Hughes said he doesn’t believe it is non conforming as it sits there today other than the square footage of the lots in the R- 1 zone. Ms. Sessions said the ordinance clearly states that a non conforming structure can be rebuilt within a six month timeframe after being destroyed by an act of god. She said the ordinance goes further and tells the owners what can and cannot be done. Mr. Hughes said when the house was built it was non conforming but it has been destroyed. He said the existing battery is not non conforming because it predates the existence of setbacks. He said the petitioner would have to build in compliance with existing rules or request a variance to make it a non conforming use. He said since the non conforming structure was not rebuilt you have to start over. He said the non conformity on the dwelling that was destroyed was it was over the lot line. Mr. Hughes said within reasonable application of the ordinance now; it is not a dwelling and does not set the Shore Protection Line. He said the only thing that can be built there now is a conforming structure unless you grant relief. He said the lots are sub standard lots of record in R-1 and if no variance was required could accommodate two single family homes. Ms. Sessions asked for clarification on whether it was one or two lots. Mr. Hughes said in his opinion it is two lots. He said it was created as two lots back in the 40s and has never been recombined. He said when the house was built it should have been required for the lots to be recombined but the plat clearly showed the lot lines and listed lots 6 and 7. Ms. Williams said Council has received a lot of new material that Planning Commission did not review. Ms. Schleicher said in her observation the biggest difference in the plan is the treatment of the battery. She said because shore protection is not just about that property but the property around it. She said the neighbors were concerned about what would happen to the battery and how that would affect their homes. Mr. Yellin said that is why he brought a scientist and an engineer with him tonight to specifically address their concerns. Mayor Buelterman said council respects the Planning Commission and their process of looking at everything in totality. He said he would like to get their opinion on the changed proposal. Ms. Doyle asked the engineer to explain what affect demolition and construction would have on the surrounding properties and their foundations. Mr. Michael Sikes with Saussy Engineering said it is typical in construction to establish seismographs around existing structures to record any type of vibration that may be registered during that demolition and construction process. He said they do it downtown in the Historic District. He said they take initial readings, photographic surveys and general surveys with the developer and property owners and try to record anything that could be questionable at a later time. Ms. Schleicher asked if they photographed existing cracks so that any subsequent cracks would be apparent. Mr. Sikes answered yes. Ms. Williams asked how large slabs of concrete could be removed from a sand dune without adversely affecting it. Mr. Sikes said it is possible. He said you have safeguards you have to adhere to and you have to have a good contingency plan. He said with every project there is some risk but you always try to minimize it. He said every effort will be put forth to stabilize and protect the dunes. He said the front of the battery across the top had fallen off many years ago. He said due to the age of the battery and the prevailing winds and all the other conditions; it has in his opinion stabilized and enhanced the dune renourishment. He said the left hand side that fell off several years ago is unstable in his opinion. He said there appears to be a lot of voids under the slab. He said you either have to fill them in or put a retaining Page 3 of 12 wall to hold it back and keep it from falling off any further or you remove it or a part of it because you have public and private safety you have to protect. Ms. Schleicher asked if there would be a solid battery wall for residents to protect them from storm surge. Mr. Sikes said he understands that they are not proposing to take the entire piece of concrete out but just enough to stabilize it. He said what is there is in a stable condition and it is protecting the dune and the front of this battery. Mr. Mike Demil with Environmental Services said he has been working with Natural Resources since 1987. He said he has worked with the state of Georgia since 1992 and has dealt with these type of issues for many years. He said he wanted to talk about the question Ms. Williams asked earlier about protecting the Dunes. He said they are certainly talking about sand but using the word Dune envisions a dune system. He said there is sand underneath this structure that was put there for the structure to be built on. He said it is not necessarily a sand dune but a sand berm that was probably part of the original construction. He said the right side of this structure has an intact concrete wall and does have a sand dune pressing up against it. He said the topographic information says there is a 22-24 foot elevation in front of the right side. He said when you look at the side that has failed there are elevations of 15.6 and 17.2 so there is not actually a dune on this side but a trough and he doesn’t know if it is manmade or natural. He said in response to Ms. Williams question of whether construction will cause harm to the dune; there may be alterations to the sand that is adjacent to this but there is 5 or 6 feet of difference between the left and right side. He said the new wall will actually be a place for the dune if it wants to migrate. He showed a series of slides that they reviewed and found a common point to put a measurement on to find what is going on with the Dune Field in front of this structure. He said in 1938 there was approximately 53 feet from the structure to the rock wall that used to be there. He showed a 1960 slide with a measurement of 73 feet with shading that reflects dune grass. He showed the next slide from 1997 with a measurement of 159 feet. He said these photographs demonstrate that the dune field is growing. He showed a slide from 2004 and said it reflected 163 feet out to the edge of the grass and a distance total of 234 feet. He said the last slide shows the distance of 168 feet to the edge of the grass and a total of 278 ft. He showed a picture labeled Dune going up from Pulaski Street and said it showed natural dune vegetation but no one in the room could say if it was an actual dune or not. He said the proposed construction would actually create a more solid surface to protect against storm surges. Mr. Cullen Chambers said as you walk through all of the batteries that comprise contributing structures in the designation of the Fort Screven National Historic District. He said Mr. Yellin talked about how each battery had been changed and modified and tried to relate those changes to Mr. kietzman’s position that battery backus was intended to be a dwelling. He said he feels compelled to give a warning to Mayor and Council and all of the property owners in the Fort Screven National Historic District. He said the government gives and the government takes away and if you reach a certain threshold where you have negatively impacted a significant number of structures that make up a National Historic District; that designation can be taken away. He said to have that designation taken away will negatively impact all of the homeowners in the Ft. Screven Historic District that might have had the opportunity to utilize tax credits, tax freezes and exemptions from certain FEMA rules and regulations which directly apply to being listed or eligible to be listed on a National Register. He said once the designation is taken away everything has to revert to the review process which would involve homeowners paying consultants to re-designate individual properties and it is quite expensive. He said Battery Garland, built in 1899, is one of the only remaining ante cot batteries that is intact. He said the Historical Society maintains that battery as their museum. He said Battery Brumby, built in 1898 has been significantly impacted by the Shrine Club and the private residence on gun pit 4. He said its historical integrity and context has been jeopardized. He said Battery Fenwick has a complete structure, dwelling-home on it and has been completely distorted and has no historical context whatsoever. He said Battery Backus is in question and in jeopardy. He said Battery Gant currently has a residence built above it and its historical context has been destroyed. He said Battery Habersham is one of two remaining batteries that are basically intact and can qualify as contributing buildings. Mr. Chambers said strictly speaking as a citizen; if Tybee Island starts allowing an ala carte interpretation of our ordinances; you will have ambiguity in the courts that will create utter and total chaos. He said he believes the intent of Council when they enacted the Shore Protection Act; it was to protect potential new Page 4 of 12 development but more importantly those already in existence. He said the intent was to protect the majority of citizens. He said a lot of times in a majority society; individuals are penalized but it is not necessarily illegal. He said even though forty years ago a dwelling was allowed on Battery Backus things have changed such as coastal erosion. He said within 1 and ½ years we’ve forgotten about Katrina. He said the intent of the governing body to develop the Shore Protection Line was because of massive catastrophic events like Katrina. He said it will take one Katrina to erode that growing Dune line. He said he has witnessed that firsthand. He said this council is the most responsible on protecting everyone’s property rights that he has seen in his 14 year association with Tybee. He said he is sorry that Mr. Kietzman’s property rights may be infringed upon in some way but the property rights of the majority must be protected. Mr. Chambers said he was directly involved with the relocation of Cape Hetaeras and in fact wrote the governors position paper. He said he understands there is a horizontal and vertical erosion factor. He asked Mr. Kietzman’s engineer what kind of sampling had been done to determine the structural integrity of Battery Backus. He said he disputes their ruling that the southern section has stabilized. He said because of horizontal and vertical erosion that section will be in a constant state of motion. He asked what kind of testing had been done to determine the structural integrity of Battery Backus as a whole. Mr. Sikes responded that at this point they have done no structural testing. He said it is his opinion that the area has stabilized. He said if you look in the cracks you can see debris that has been there 10 or 15 years and if it is still moving why is that debris still there. Mr. Ed Cawley of 14 Pulaski Street requested that City Council deny this shore protection variance petition for the following six reasons; Lot size in Tybee’s R1 zone is 12,000 sq ft., Lots of record exist in areas that will never be allowed to be built upon, Battery Backus is an essential and indispensable part of the sand dune system, demolition of any of Battery Backus will have a catastrophic effect on nearby property owners, allowing this variance could open a Pandora’s box of destruction in Fort Screven and Battery Backus is an irreplaceable link to our past. Mr. Cawley said for over 40 years Battery Backus was one house with one pin number being 4-0001-02-001 and the legal description included lots 6 & 7 with over 12,000 sq ft. He said he believes the intent was to combine these lots to meet the lot size requirements for Tybee’s R-1 zone. He said if the lots were not combined; how could one house have been built straddling both lots. He said in the past undeveloped substandard lots of record in Tybee’s R-1 zone had been required to be combined to conform to the 12,000 sq ft limitation. He said the R-1 designation and 12,000 sq ft requirement was set to limit population density in the northern residential area of the island to prevent the overdeveloping that was occurring on Tybee’s southend. He said previous council’s had failed in their stewardship of this intention by allowing rampant island wide overdevelopment that resulted in overstressing our resources including the demands we place on our water supply. He showed a diagram of property that is on the curve on Butler Avenue. He said the several lots shown are located within the Shore Protection line and will never be allowed to be built on. He said Mr. Kietzman knew battery backus was located within the shore protection line before he bought it. He showed a picture of battery backus in 1938 that had water coming over the seawall and approaching the battery. He showed a picture of battery backus in 2004 and said thanks to years of renourishment the dunes have grown over three sides of the battery. He said it would take only one significant storm to erode the dunes back to the non existent 1938 level and water will be running down Pulaski Street if this battery is damaged. He asked that Council request an engineering study prior to granting approval of this request; to determine if the removal of the proposed sections of the battery will undermine the remaining portions. He showed a picture of a piece of the battery that had broken away during the last attempt to remove the battery and how close it was to the neighbor’s property. He said he has heard when this concrete was broken it shook the lighthouse and nearby houses and forced the developer to abandon the demolition. He showed a picture of the houses on Pulaski Street that are built on one continuous slab and are concrete block houses. He said the equipment that must be used to remove this steel reinforced concrete battery will likely set up harmonics with the concrete slab and sand itself and could undermine the foundations and damage the walls of most of these homes as well as many others in the immediate vicinity including his. He asked who will post damage bonds sufficient to protect the rights of all the existing property owners that could be affected. He said heavy equipment required to remove tons of concrete will most certainly damage the street itself and Page 5 of 12 negatively impact the quality of life for everyone that lives near the demolition. He said allowing any portion of this battery to be torn down and allowing multiple homes to be built upon the substandard lots of record will open Pandora ’s Box. He said there are other pieces of property located on multiple lots of record that are built on other batteries and portions of Ft. Screven. He said council’s approval of this will give a green light to other developers wanting to tear down homes and pieces of the fort that they are built on; thereby destroying more of Tybee’s unique history to make a dollar. He said battery backus is a ruin but could be preserved and interpreted for generations to come. He said in 1896, Ft. Screven was ordered to be built on the north end of Tybee Island to provide a more modern system of seacoast defenses. He said from 1847 to 1947, Fort Screven was an integral part of America’s coastal defense system. He said in 1982 Fort Screven was nominated to the National Register of Historic places as an area of national significance. He said he has a copy of the original nomination and Fort Screven had a lot of things in 1982 that are not there now. He read a letter faxed to him today from the U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service in Washington DC. It read; Dear Tybee Island City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to address your deliberative body concerning the crucial and important nature of the contributing resources to the Fort Screven Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This military complex and landscape achieved the ranking of national significance. I understand that since that evaluation and listing in 1982, several of the key contributing resources have been lost. Furthermore Battery Backus was one of the six batteries that witnessed the sea coastal defense of the Savannah River. Of the four criteria used to characterize Fort Screven for its national significance and preservation priority all four were met, this is remarkable. The history of the site is rich and varied and of particular note is a national register nomination in section 8 that states “Fort Screven is significant because it constitutes a virtually intact turn of the century federal coastal defense installation”. It is very concerning that such a key character defining feature like one of the last remaining batteries might be at risk. The loss of this kind of military structure and defense and the landscape setting have a direct and dire impact on the premise of listing the historic district at all. At some point loss of historic fabric may indeed result in the loss of the districts listing. On the local level you are perhaps far more aware than I am of the losses in the district since 1982 and can consider the loss of the gun battery’s impact on this military vestige. Historic districts that are well preserved have economic value. I am happy to send you examples of the financial value of historic places and jobs, amenities and tourism revenue. This site appears to still be eligible for a federal grant program. The Save American’s Treasure Grant can help communities identify, delineate and preserve the very precious historical resources. Please feel free to contact our office if we can be of assistance in applying for a community grant to help protect your historic district. Many of our military historic districts are now under extreme stress and threats from development. Our patriotic and military past requires stewardship on a local level where recreation, open space and tourism is most valued. I look forward to encouraging your city in preserving those dwindling resources, Sincerely, Christian L. McMasters. Archeological Planner and Grants Manager for the American Battlefield Protection program. Mr. Cawley said he had spoken to Ms. McMasters at length and she is very concerned that if battery backus is lost then Fort Screven may lose its historical designation. He said she is offering to help us if we choose to preserve it. Mr. Dan Snyder said there is a plat that has been filed with the Clerk of Superior Court showing this as two lots but prior to that it was one lot. He said the sagis map shows it as one lot. He showed the plat of the original subdivision that showed lot 6 and 7 with a small triangular portion to the lefthand side showing it as actually three lots. He said the plat filed by Mr. Kietzman in June of 2007 was intended to illustrate two lots. He said if you look at the two lots carefully the boundary is in a bolder line. He said the line showing the triangular portion is lighter and shows no bearings or dimensions. He contends that the plat is intended to show two lots and basically consolidate that triangular portion with lot 7. He said the boundary for a lot of record is shown in a dark line with bearings and dimensions delineating that boundary. He said this document was intended to show two lots and not three. He showed the plat that was filed in 1971 just prior to construction of the house using the exact same graphic conventions that we are still using today. He said it shows one lot that has a dark boundary line around the entire perimeter; it has bearings and dimensions for that property line. He said it shows a lighter line between lots 6 and 7 that’s called out as lot Page 6 of 12 line. He said he believes the intention of this document was to make one lot of record that was filed in plat book U, page 221 with the Clerk of Court in Chatham County. He said he doesn’t believe that the light lot line showing the small triangular piece of property is trying to make a new lot. He said that light lot line is only trying to show as is the case with all three documents, the physical boundary in the field relative to the historic plats and is not intended to show multiple lots. He said both plats were done by the same surveyor with the same graphic conventions from 1971 all the way up to 2007. He said he believes it was intended to make one lot because in 1971 they were going to build a house on it. He said in 1973 he worked for a land surveyor and he used to draw these plats and used the same graphic conventions before computers. He said in his mind there is a plat recorded at the court house subdividing this property into two lots forever. He said he feels we need another plat recorded at the courthouse returning this to one lot. He said the process for this particular lot relative to what has occurred, which is a subdivision, has not been duly followed. He said he feels the process needs to be followed so that a correct representation is recorded at the courthouse. Mr. Hughes said he has reviewed this with a surveyor and apparently this was common practice at the time and was not a recombination of lots 6 & 7. He said it has been carried on the sagis map as lots 6 & 7 even though it was under one pin number and pin numbers do not control lot lines. He said the surveyor is deceased but he believes it would have been uncommon for this particular surveyor to have platted two lots and not have called it a combination or a recombination. He said based on what he has seen it is two lots. Mr. Snyder said it is coincidental here that both lots 6 & 7, if you overlook the triangular portion, the boundary lines coincide with the boundary lines of the consolidated lot. He said it is more apparent in the other instances because the lot lines have changed. He said on this one the lot lines do coincide. Mr. Hughes said he respectfully disagrees and in his opinion it is still two lots. Ms. Sessions asked Mr. Hughes how this affects our ordinances on minor subdivisions. Mr. Hughes said this is not a minor subdivision and lots 6 & 7 remain two separate lots and that was not changed by what was recorded in June. He said the interesting part is the triangular piece and how it got added into this and he doesn’t have the history on that. He said it was the historic lot line from 1946 when the original plat was recorded. Mr. Hughes said the plat says lots 6 & 7 and does not say recombination which is what surveyors ordinarily do. Mr. Wolff said the former owners of this property were at the Planning Commission meeting and maybe we should ask them directly. Ms. Sessions asked about the intent if it’s a new subdivided property. Mr. Hughes said you can’t create two new lots that didn’t previously exist without going through the subdividing process. Ms. Sessions asked Mr. Hughes if he believed like everyone on the front row that this was already subdivided and the argument by Mr. Snyder is it wasn’t. Mr. Hughes said it is his understanding that it was two lots from 1946 forward so when the survey was recorded in 2007 it was not re-subdividing any property. He said if it was one parcel as Mr. Snyder believes and they attempted to divide it into then that would be a subdivision. Ms. Williams said she would hope that given the questions about this issue that we would do further research and get other surveyors opinions and ask them what their interpretation is. She said its very important for this case and future cases that we have this straight. Mr. James Carter said he is of the opinion that the defacing of battery backus is yet another brick in the wall separating long time citizens and locals from what Tybee has always been and hopes to continue to be for our locals, citizens, youths and visitors. He said at two days old he was introduced to Tybee Island and holds it very dear. He will forever look on Tybee as his home and the ground and foundation from which his roots sprang and grew. He said in 1890 a man came to Tybee and with eleven votes was elected Tybee’s first Mayor. He said this man came to Tybee as did many City Council’s and citizens, with a vision of what the character of Tybee Island should be for its citizens, part time residents, youth, visitors and anyone seeking the simple relaxing and entertaining pleasures of life. He said this man of vision was Alexander Omar, his Great Grandfather. He said through his excellent leadership, the many fine councils, managers, citizens and planners during and after his death in the Hurricane of 1893; his vision not only survived but Page 7 of 12 flourished. He said Savannah Beach, Tybee Island became a much envied destination for all seeking rest, relaxation, amusement and recreation not to be had on the hot, humid and dusty streets of Savannah. He said Tybee remained this premiere island get away for over seventy years. He said it remained that way until his departure in 1959 to fulfill his honorable obligation of defending his people, his country and his island in the United States Marine Corps. He said he felt that the simple down to earth vision died in 1962 when the pier and the center of entertainment containing the skating rink and bowling alley burned. He said he believes with mediocre vision and concern for our visitors, citizens and youth these profit yielding structures could have been reconstructed for the social and entertainment enjoyment of everyone on Tybee Island. He said he is afraid we have come to far too ever capture this vision again. He said it takes a glance to see the great deal we have lost and the little that we’ve gained. He said he hears people continually complain that we do not have entertainment on Tybee but there is a skating rink with a floor suitable for skating. He said it is located in the White Elephant brick building located 30 yards from City Hall that is virtually vacant about 95% of the year. He said why after numerous requests for skates Council has refused the purchase. He said gone are the much needed bowling alley that was highly entertaining and physically attractive to youth and adults along with the amusement park, boardwalk and arcade. He said Putt Putt is gone and the waterslide is gone along with dogs on the beach. He said ownership of Horses for rental and evening beach rides are gone along with his right to own pet rabbits or a duck for his grandkids. He said done is the Old Desoto Hotel. He said all of these are gone due to the Powers that be have covered just about the entire island with unaffordable duplexes, town homes. He said town homes belong in town. He said million dollar houses, condos and concrete is exactly why we can’t find a place for a small skate board park. He said the fort is another brick in the wall. He said all citizens concerned with where we are and how we got here need an official Tybee creed that we earnestly believe in and faithfully live by and it’s long overdue. He said in 2002 he created such a creed that separates the earnestly concerned from the positively could care less. He said the only two copies he has given out have been to Diane Schleicher and Mayor Buelterman. He said the creed states “ I would rather be truly loved for the ambitions I have abandoned than be adamantly hated for a heritage I helped to destroy. Mr. Henry Levy said it is obvious from the discussions and the new plans presented that this whole petition should be referred back to the Planning Commission to again come up with a recommendation and explain to City Council why they came up with the recommendation. Mr. Levy said there is no question we have two lots here and they are both sub standard lots of record. He said the R-1 district calls for a lot of 12,000 sq feet to build. He asked Mr. Hughes how they can build on those lots. Mr. Hughes said there is a specific code section in our ordinance that allows sub standard lots of record to be built on if they can meet setbacks for single family homes only. Mr. Levy said so Mr. Kietzman can build two houses. Mr. Hughes said yes if there are two lots. He said as of 1971 there is a specific section that allows single family homes to be built on sub standard lots as long as they are accessible by road and they can be serviced by utilities. Mr. Levy asked about the greenspace requirement. Mr. Hughes said the greenspace requirement is not specifically addressed in that ordinance but he thinks it would be required. Ms. Schleicher asked for clarification about one variance being requested. She asked if he would require a height variance. She asked if their floor elevation would start at the battery. Mr. Yellin said the only variance before council tonight is the shore protection variance and if they ask for any other variance they would have to come back. He said Mr. Hughes made it very clear at an earlier meeting that the ground elevation would be established from the grade of Pulaski Street. He said their current plan does measure from the grade of Pulaski Street. Ms. Schleicher said one thing the council doesn’t want to do is a variance this month and a variance next month and then another variance the month after with the same property. Mr. Yellin said Mr. Kietzman would not want all of these people coming back for each individual variance. He said it just happens that the threshold issue of shore protection has been so controversial and so difficult to understand that they felt they should address this one first. He said if this council says no variance there is no need to come back with anything else. He said if they were to ask for additional variances they would bundle them. He said they don’t have final design plans. He said the drawings shown Page 8 of 12 were for illustrated purposes only. He said the likelihood is that they will ask for no other variances but he doesn’t want to foreclose them from coming back if there should be an issue that arises from the design work. Ms. Garrett said she may be considered an outsider because she doesn’t live on Tybee all the time but her family has owned property since Fort Screven sold it to them 50 something years ago. She said there are about 40 people in the Garrett Family that share the house. She said their house is two houses from the fort at 27 Pulaski Street. She said her concern is the demolition. She said the steps that are there now are the same steps that they were trying to demolish before and they were tearing everything else up on that street. She said that’s why the steps look like they do because they had to stop. Ms. Beth Hodges said she lives on Dogwood Ave. that is one street over from Pulaski. She said just because so many changes have been made to the batteries and other historic properties on Tybee it does not mean they should continue in that direction. She said maybe back in 1946 if the Tybee Council could have seen the future they would have kept more of the fort as city property. She said she feel we need to enforce the shore protection act. She said it was written to protect the natural resource system of sand dunes that in tern protects personal property and natural habitats of birds and plants from erosion and natural disasters. She said tonight’s vote is on one variance; however it is also a vote on whether or not to protect our neighborhood and our island. She said we have a responsibility to conserve our natural resources not only for now but for the future. She said building inside the shore protection line is harmful to the dunes and the natural habitats. She asked council to please enforce the shore protection line and protect our neighborhood and our island. Ms. Joan Garrett said she has crawled over the fort for many years and it has changed a lot. She said the biggest changes have been to the dunes. She said they used to have to go down to the sea wall that was depicted in one of the earlier photos and walk down 10 steps to get down to the beach. She said all of that became covered with sand when they put the rocks up on the corner. She said if we have a big hurricane the rocks could go away and it would disintegrate back to what it was. She said she hopes to never use the 10 steps again. She said the existing dunes on the front and back of the battery were not depicted in the plan drawing that was shown. She said if we are protecting the dunes shouldn’t they be shown on the drawing. She said considering the battery wall that exists now is at 27 feet she doesn’t understand how a house can be constructed within the 35 foot limit. She said part of that fort will have to be torn down and when it is it will tear down her house also. She said her house was shown in the pictures presented and described as latrines. She said they have preserved their house and kept it the way it’s supposed to be for their children and grandchildren. She asked that council not let the petitioner destroy it. Mr. Tom Sullivan asked council to keep in mind that everything they consider cost developers lots of money. He showed a simple drawing depicting the DNR line and said he admired council for wanting to protect the shore more than the DNR limit. He said to v in where Mr. Kietzman’s property is and actually cross the street and then v back out is taking property that could be lived on unless there is a legitimate reason for taking that property. He said Tybee is doing the same thing where Mr. Chu’s property is and it is going to cost the city a fortune to fight those legal battles. He said Mr. Yellin made an excellent argument earlier saying because this had been a home previously this may not even qualify as a variance because there should not be a v there in the first place. He said council needs to make the decision tonight so that Mr. kietzman can move forward. He said Mr. Carter made an eloquent statement tonight. He said he fought for the country like a lot of us did and we are asking for the same rights that everyone else has. He said they need and deserve a decision when they come before council. Mayor Buelterman closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Pearce said he thinks this is a changed plan from what was presented to the Planning Commission. He motioned to send it back to the Planning Commission for them to review the new plans, Mr. Wolff seconded for discussion. He said there is too much new information coming before them and too many questions Page 9 of 12 remain unanswered. He said the recombination question needs to be settled once and for all because obviously when the house was built something was filed at the courthouse. He said he doesn’t want to make a decision with incomplete data. He said if they were going to rule based on the shore Protection Ordinance they would have to deny. He said because there are unresolved issues the Planning Commission should consider everything the council has been given since the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Sessions said what she has heard tonight is that the information that has been given does not negate the fact that they are still looking at the shore protection variance. She asked Mr. Hughes if he agreed that none of the new information submitted since the Planning Commission is directly related to the shore protection variance. Mr. Hughes said he didn’t say that and he only agreed that in his opinion this is two lots. He said he does not agree that there have been no changes that impact the variance issue. He said they have changed the portion of the battery that are going to be moved and that alone indicates further review. Ms. Doyle asked for clarification of the Tybee Shore Protection Line and the DNR Line on the drawing presented to council. She said when looking at the drawing on numerous occasions she thought the v part indicated the Tybee Shore Protection Line. Ms. Schleicher said this is one of the times when they are the same. She said if they received a variance from the city then they would go and get a permit from the DNR. Mr. Hughes said that is correct and the lines are the same in this instance. Ms. Schleicher said Mr. Sullivan’s argument does not hold up in this case. Ms. Williams said she agrees that enough new information has been provided that we should send this back to the Planning Commission. She said she hopes that in the future when a petitioner has submitted a significant number of documents after the planning commission that their petition would be pulled off of the agenda to eliminate having to discuss items an additional two hours when it isn’t necessary. Voting in favor of the motion were Pearce, Wolff, Doyle, Williams and Sessions and Crone voting in opposition. Ms. Schleicher announced the extension to the Master Plan Survey until August 28th and requested for everyone to fill out their survey card and return it. She said the stakeholders meeting on the 29th will give them preliminary results of the survey. Ms. Sessions asked if this information has been issued in a press release to the newspaper and TV stations and put on the water bills. Ms. Schleicher said they would do a subsequent press release. Ms. Williams requested banners to be placed at the entrance to Tybee and at the park to get this information out. Ms. Schleicher said she would do a shortened version on the banners and post them. Ms. Schleicher presented the Resolution for the Ad Hoc Committee for the Memorial Park Master Plan Committee. She said in reviewing the draft minutes and synopsis and trying to limit the number of participants because we didn’t want an auditorium full for a committee. She limited the committee to 9 true voting members and maybe have some advisory people working with us. She said the proposed membership is; Tybee Island Residents not to exceed 9 voting members and 2 advisory members. She said the 9 voting members shall represent the following organizations and groups; The Tybee Island Veterans Memorial Circle of Freedom Committee, Tybee Beautification, YMCA Board, Dog Park Committee, The Garden Club, 2 neighboring property owners and 2 residents at large. She said 3 non voting members shall be representatives from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Tybee Island Planning Commission and Skate Board Group. She said the resolution states in preparing the report the panel shall interact with City Council, City Manager, Public Works Manager, Chief Financial Officer, Director of Planning, Zoning and Economic Development, YMCA Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief and any other sources of input deemed appropriate. Ms. Schleicher said in regards to the Skate Board Group, Mr. Gary Sanders owns property on Tybee but does not live here and therefore does not meet the criteria for the panel however he could serve as an advisory member and represent the skate group and he volunteered to participate Page 10 of 12 because of his many skills he could lend to us. She said the resolution authorizes the City Manager to form the citizen panel and that way it doesn’t have to come back to council. Ms. Schleicher said the various groups would submit the name of the group member they want to participate on the panel. Ms. Williams said she agrees that Ms. Schleicher should set up the committee and that Mr. Sanders will be an excellent resource but she thinks it’s important that a skater be a voting member and it could be someone other than Gary Sanders. Ms. Schleicher said she would locate a skater resident to add to the list under the residents at large. Mayor Buelterman said they would leave that to Ms. Schleicher’s discretion. Ms. Schleicher asked if Ms. Williams wanted her to take off the member of a skate boarding group and put that one of the resident’s at large should be an avid skate boarder. Ms. Williams said yes. Ms. Williams said she proposes to change it to; two neighboring property owners and one resident at large and one skater resident. Council agreed. Mr. Wolff moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Ms. Williams seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Ms. Sessions moved to approve the Memorial Park Ad Hoc Committee Resolution with the changes that were discussed, Ms. Williams seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Pearce moved to approve for 2nd Reading the text amendment to include the 19th Street beach rental location, Ms. Sessions seconded and the vote was unanimous. Ms Williams moved to approve the 2nd Reading of the text amendment to the animal control ordinance to allow amusement ponies at Birthday parties, Mr. Wolff seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Ms. Williams moved to approve for 2nd Reading the provision to include Road Warranties in the code, Mr. Pearce seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Mayor Buelterman explained that this provides that any work done on our roads is repaired to our specifications. Mayor Buelterman gave an update on the Emergency Alert System. He said they are looking at Locations Island wide where new devises will be installed to alert people of pending storms or whatever. He showed an overview of the island depicting the four locations and said the new system will accommodate having voices on it. He said he witnessed someone being struck by lightning at North Beach last week and if this system was in place they could have warned people to get off the beach. He said he understands that the City is applying for a grant for this system. Mr. Wolff said there are all kinds of homeland security grants in place in case the first one doesn’t come through. Mr. Hughes said on July 19th at a special meeting the council approved task orders for Eric Olson for the borrow site. He said Mr. Olsen was sent task order number 2 for up to $300,000 but not the 1st one for $17,000 for testing. He said it just needs to be signed and sent to him. Mr. Pearce moved to go into Executive Session to discuss pending and threatened litigation and Real Estate transactions, Ms. Sessions seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Wolff moved to end Executive Session and return to Regular Sessions, Mr. Pearce seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Pearce moved to adjourn, Ms. Williams seconded and the vote was unanimous. Page 11 of 12 ___________________________________ Mayor Jason Buelterman ___________________________________ Vivian O. Woods, Clerk of Council Page 12 of 12