HomeMy Public PortalAbout20090709CityCouncilMinutes
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 1 of 12
20090709 City Council Minutes
Mayor Buelterman called the Consent Agenda meeting to order at 6:30pm on Thursday, July 9,
2009. Council Members present were Mayor pro tem Wanda Doyle, Charlie Brewer, Barry Brown, Eddie
Crone, Dick Smith and Paul Wolff. Also present were City Attorney Bubba Hughes, City Manager Diane
Schleicher and Interim Zoning Administrator Diane Otto.
Mayor Buelterman listed the following items on the Consent Agenda:
Corrected City Council Minutes for 5/08/08
Alcohol License Application for Beer/Wine package sales only- Coastal Fishing Company and
Offshore Ventures, Inc. DBA Tybee Island Bait and Tackle-1A Old Tybee Road, Chestley Thomas
Cowling, Jr. Applicant.
A Motion by Councilman Wolff to go into Executive Session to discuss Litigation was seconded by Mayor
pro tem Doyle. The vote was unanimous.
A Motion by Councilman Wolff to return to Regular Session was seconded by Councilman Crone. The
vote was unanimous.
Mayor Buelterman adjourned the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Buelterman called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00pm. Those
present at the Consent Agenda were also in attendance for the regular meeting. Reverend Andy Lamon
gave the invocation and everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Mayor Buelterman announced the Better Hometown Visioning Workshop at city hall on July 27th 5-6:00.
Businesses, organizations and residents are invited to participate.
He also thanked the city staff for a safe and great July 4th Weekend
Citizens to be Heard
Bill Cannon from Tybee Beautification invited everyone to attend the Tybee Prom on Saturday July 18th
at 7:00pm. Tickets are $20.00. Raffle tickets $5.00
Debbie Kearney of the Marine Science Center thanked the community, volunteers and racers for their
support with the recent Sea Kayak Race. It raised over $11,000 for the center. She also presented a
survey for suggestions on the interior and exhibits or activities of the new center to be built at the North
Beach.
Consent Agenda:
A Motion by Councilman Wolff to approve the Consent Agenda was seconded by Mayor pro tem Doyle.
The vote was unanimous.
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 2 of 12
Public Hearings:
1. Zoning Variance (Sec 5-090). Schedule of Development Regulations, Petitioner Tom Waters for Ann
and Randy Thran/setback variance for addition & elevator –address: 10 Anderson Ct. PIN 4-0020-05-
035, Zone R-1-B.
Ms. Otto explained the setback would not exceed 10’ the required is 20’. Planning commission did
recommend approval unanimously.
Mr. Tom Waters explained due to the permanent physical handicap of Mr. Thran he is unable to be
mobile in his own home. A workman’s comp representative after inspecting his home made the
suggestions of the additions, changes & elevator.
Councilman Wolff made comment to have the planning commission during the update of the Land
Development Code, look into including “personal hardship” under the variances and not restricting that
to the property itself. This is an example; the Thrans should not have had to go through this process.
A Motion by Councilman Brown to approve was seconded by Mayor pro tem Doyle. The vote was
unanimous.
2. Map Amendment (Section 5-110) Text Amendment (Section 5-11 0) 1107 Butler Ave. PIN 4-0006-19-
014 & 015 Zone0 ) Site Plan (Section 5-080) Parking Lot Petitioner Mike Hosti , address:1107 Butler
Ave. PIN 4-0006-19-014&015 Zone R-2
Ms. Otto explained planning commission voted 3 to 2 in favor. On the text amendment was to allow
the following uses on all 6 lots, which would have to be recombined, in zone C2 conditional, gift shop,
grocery store, professional and office building, retail store and parking lot. What would be required
tonight would be consideration and a separate vote on each of the three items.
Councilman Wolff asked for clarification as during the staff review she had said the rezoning would
require a 20’ buffer according to code and he did not see that on the plat. Mr. Hughes clarified
commercial. If lots are currently zoned residential and are changed to commercial there would be a
buffer required.
Mayor Pro Tem Doyle asked Mr. Hughes to clarify why we are asking for a C-2 conditional zoning when it
seems like it should just be an expansion of the use there for the parking lot. Mr. Hughes said the
market itself is on a parcel that is zoned residential. It is a long standing pre-existing non-conforming
use. The code does not permit expansion of non-conforming uses unless the council approves it. He
does not believe it is correct to approve expansion of a non-conforming commercial use into a
residential zoned conforming property. Whether or not the store is dealt in whatever action council
takes, that would need to be zoned as commercial of some sort to support the commercial use it is
attached to. The conditional was suggested as a way to hopefully eliminate as many of the concerns as
possible, of the residential properties that are nearby. To make it conditional gives council opportunity
to make requirements that may not already be required, like buffers, hours of operation, etc, that sort
of thing. Doyle asked, he can’t just get a variance to put the parking lot there. Mr. Hughes answered
no, not in his opinion. Mr. Hughes did look into it due to the length of time the store has been there. It
imposes a non-conforming use on to a conforming use. Doyle asked if it could be done with a Text
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 3 of 12
Amendment. Mr. Hughes answered, if you changed a text amendment, it would be hard to do one that
did not single out this piece of property. For example, if you wanted to address non-conforming uses
being allowed to expand into properties that are not zoned consistent with the nonconforming use.
That could probably be put it into a text but it would be very difficult to administer. It may also be
difficult to give the appropriate publications & notices because it would apply across the board.
Doyle then asked what the difference in this property and the American Legion is. When they went in
and did renovations and expanded their parking lot there. That is in an R-1 zone, this is R-2. Mr.
Hughes replied he could expand non-conforming use on to his own property. He does not know if the
legion added property to expand to or not. Mayor Buelterman said they did not get another piece of
property. Mr. Hughes stated it might have already been there. Councilman Brown and Mayor Pro Tem
Doyle stated yes they did. They purchased the piece of property to put the parking lot on. Mr. Hughes
replied he could not answer as he had not done research on this piece of property. Mayor asked how
long ago this was. Doyle answered, 2004, she has researched the last couple of days. Mr. Hughes
replied he would look at it.
Councilman Crone stated we have let parking lots open all over in R-1 what is the difference in giving
them a permit and letting them open and this petition by the grocery store, that this island really needs,
and we’re trying to stop him. We are letting private citizens open up all over the island for parking and
getting paid for it. We are going about this the wrong way.
Mr. Hughes clarified the American Legion is zoned an R-1 area and permissible uses include public
community buildings, libraries, recreation centers and museums. Part of the argument at that time was
the legion itself would fit that category. To answer Mr. Crone’s question, what we have been doing, in
effort to relieve safety and parking concerns on holiday weekends is to allow private parking in
residential zones to use, in certain hours, private property to relieve some of that pressure. That issue
has recently been sent to planning commission to determine if we need to extend those hours and
taken other things into consideration like buffers, and a whole list of conditions that could apply and the
possible situation of making it year round, like we are talking about here. We are not talking about the
safety of the island and the overflow of weekends and holidays like we were talking about then. We are
talking about rezoning a piece of property. Doyle stated there is a safety issue involved. Mr. Hughes
stated he is sure there is. Mayor asked Crone if his question was answered and he replied not really.
Jim Stone gave a presentation of the plans for the market and parking. Mr. Hosti has an agreement to
purchase the two lots next to his existing market, move the house on it to a different lot on Tybee and
increase the parking lot. Install a concrete center driveway and pavers for the parking spots. We are
overall widening all the parking spots including the existing spots and moving the handicap spots down
in front of the doors. The plan included angled parking spots, some are 10 feet and some 9 ½ feet. The
current plan is to allow the delivery trucks to unload and turn (DOT standard 22’ radius turn). Mark
Boswell the engineer helped us with this and he is here if council has any technical questions. Mike
Hosti is also present for any historical questions. The plan is to allow for unloading trucks in the back
and exit thru to Butler Avenue which will eliminate the heavy truck traffic on the north end of Lovell.
We feel this is an improvement for the neighbors on Lovell. There have also been some concerns about
night time parking; we are willing to put in an electronic gate that would shut off at 9:00pm that would
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 4 of 12
not allow anyone to go back and forth thru there. He then showed pre-fire pictures of the market
showing the parking and the entrance/exit at that time went all the way thru to Lovell. After he rebuilt
he built the market on the entire lot as the island was growing, and put all the parking to the front. He
showed growth reports from 1979 showing $230,000 and $1.07 million in 1989, the last pre-fire year, a
365% increase in 10 years. Tybee was definitely growing. After rebuilding, 1999 132% increase, 2008
65% increase and in 2010 predicting a 25% increase. According to census reports Tybee has grown from
in 1990 2842 residents 756 families, in 2000 3392 and projections for 2010 are 3832 residents. Mr.
Stone then presented the Goals of the Plan as follows:
Provide adequate safe parking for clients
Eliminate dangerous congestions on Hwy 80 at peak shopping times
Reduce truck traffic on Lovell Avenue
Widen all parking spots to reduce congestion and give more room for loading groceries
into vehicles.
Accommodate existing growth and provide for future residential and vacation rental
growth.
Provide a sustaining business model that promotes the continuation of one of Tybee’s
few remaining legacy businesses.
Keep money in the local economy.
Mr. Stone then presented a fact sheet including but not inclusive of 28 people employed, a 1972 blanket
rezoning was put in place to limit new businesses starting up in residential neighborhoods but was not
intended to restrict the growth of existing legacy businesses. Mr. Stone also read a letter from Mr. Jack
Daniels who is only 1 of 2 councilmen remaining alive from the time of the blanket rezoning stating what
the council’s intentions were at that time, the existing businesses were to be allowed to grow but no
new businesses were to be allowed into the neighborhoods. Mr. Stone then showed several newspaper
clippings from that time period. He closed stating we have a parking problem this can only help. A lot of
people support this and asked for questions. Mayor Pro Tem asked if there had been any consideration
given to only having one -way traffic exiting on to Butler, not on to Lovell, and putting more buffers in
the back on that side, just one way in and one way out. Mr. Stone answered that would not be
preferred, we need more parking but we are open to discussion. We think this is the smartest plan as it
eliminates the truck traffic north of the market on Lovell. It would also make the spots in the back not
ideal. This also would keep the motorized carts, electric cars, etc off of Butler for low speed vehicles.
Doyle asked about the lane behind being used for that and the front spots going in/out Butler. He
restated about the trucks turning into the lot and exiting to Butler. Councilman Brown asked about the
compactor in lot 34. Mr. Stone stated that could be moved. Brown then asked about eliminating a
planter and parking against the building you could angle the other parking to give them more room to
maneuver. Mr. Stone then replied you wouldn’t have the 24’ to back up. Mr. Brown stated you would if
you got rid of 37, 36, and 35. Mr. Stone replied he would have to ask Mr. Hosti but if that would mean
getting the parking lot he is sure he would be agreeable. Councilman Wolff asked if the compactor in
34 would mean the dumpster would be removed. Mr. Hosti answered the dumpster is a have to. He
has to have some means of disposing of raw garbage. The compactor is only for cardboard. The
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 5 of 12
Compactor could be relocated. The dumpster was originally inside the storage room but every time the
truck would come to dump, it would end up backing into the driveway across the street which was not a
good thing. The city said the only fix was to put it on the edge of the street and that is what he did. Mr.
Hosti said a lot of his problems or complaints from the neighbors are the dumpster being on the edge of
the street.
Mr. Wolff said another concern is the two-way traffic on North Side front causing more congestion. Mr.
Hosti said he has no problem putting a Right Turn Only sign up if he is allowed to let the trucks go thru
and turn left because they would be early morning when the traffic is low on Butler. Otherwise he has
no problem directing only right turns as that would make it safer and he is all about people’s safety. Mr.
Wolff also asked about the 20 foot buffer against the residential side. Mr. Hosti replied when he
discussed this in 2005, 2006 he was given the opportunity to use a 5 foot buffer with an 8 foot fence.
And that is what he went with this time. He is also putting vegetation all along the fence and the fence
would go completely around to the point of where the driveway is.
Councilmen Brewer asked if the concept is the truck traffic going out on Butler and limiting them on
Lovell. Mr. Hosti said yes. Currently they have to go all the way down Lovell to the old school before
they have enough room to be able to turn to get to Butler. This way they turn right at the market and it
keeps them out of the neighborhoods more. Mr. Brewer stated his concerns with trucks going thru the
parking lot being a safety hazard with pedestrians and other vehicles. Also the number of cars would
increase traffic on Lovell. He doesn’t see this as an improvement. Mr. Hosti stated if the mayor and
council doesn’t approve with the traffic going thru there we can live with that. He just thought it would
have been a help to the neighbors and be good to keep the trucks from going all the way down to the
school. Mr. Brewer said he agrees with the parking lot he knows it is needed he is just concerned with
the traffic on Lovell. Mr. Hosti said he doesn’t mind even a left turn only out of the back parking lot.
One of the other issues in opening out there was for small cars or electric cars and the elderly, keeping
them off Butler. Mr. Brewer also asked how many trucks in a day and Mr. Hosti replied on an average
no more than 10. Very seldom is it more. Most trucks are early in the morning but some are later. Mr.
Brown asked if this is a 60 foot lot. Doyle asked city manager about a truck route being specified. Mrs.
Schleicher responded the discussion has been about tour buses not trucks. Signs could be posted but
enforcement is difficult. It may work sometimes but not all.
Wolff asked about deliveries early in morning. Hosti stated that is difficult to put restrictions on them
due to their schedules already. Hosti stated he has asked drivers not to come around the building for
deliveries prior to 7:00am so as not to disturb people. Wolff also asked how many cashiers he is
running. Hosti stated five on every shift right now, four open and one relief.
Brewer asked if they would be adding more lighting. Mr. Stone answered yes, just enough low voltage
for safety. They are landscaping to reduce light intrusion. Mr. Hosti thanked the council and everyone
and stated he does not want to upset his neighbors and publicly apologizes for any inconvenience to
them.
Mayor announced a short break and then reconvened the public hearing.
Attorney Walter Hartridge of Bouhan,Williams, & Levy, of Savannah spoke representing aggrieved
citizens of Tybee. He stated he also has relatives that reside on Tybee. His clients are Gloria Leonard,
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 6 of 12
Debra Jean Brook, James and Carol Brown, Rusty and Martha Waters, Grey and Mary Woods, all
residents of Lovell Ave or Butler Ave. He then presented council with certified zoning and community
character maps of Tybee and Tybee’s Master plan. He stated all the residents think they are living in an
R-2 residential area. He stated the zoning map plays an important part in these proceedings, as it shows
the Tybee Markets proper position. It lies in the very heart of a residential zone. Even though the Tybee
Island Staff report prepared for the planning commission and the council hearing the proposal tonight,
indicates the Tybee Market is part of the Arts, Eats, Eco-Business Corridor on the Master plan. A close
inspection shows the Tybee Market is actually part of the Inland Cottage Neighbor in R-2. Hartridge
read the Land Development code’s description of a non-conforming use. He then stated Tybee Market
originally built in 1920’s pre-dates the Land Development Code and has been allowed to continue as a
non-conforming use in a R-2 residential zone. The age alone does not justify its expansion beyond its
original lot. The Tybee Island Land Development Code Sec 3-3-020 of 2009 provides that no such non-
conforming use structure shall in any way be allowed to expand or extend absent an act of God, such as
fire, flood, or hurricane that destroys the original structure. He further read that it then could not
extend beyond its original ground footprint. The petitioner now wishes to enlarge its original ground
footprint by expanding its parking lot. As the planning commission staff recognized, your 3-20 forbids
this expansion in an R-2 zone. In an effort to circumvent the Tybee LDC restriction on his grocery stores’
growth, Mr. Hosti has applied to rezone the 4 lots the market sits on as well as the 2 adjoining lots he
wishes to purchase depending on the outcome of these proceedings. On June 16, 2009, we submit the
Tybee Island Planning Commission improperly recommended rezoning these lots from R-2 to C-2 by a 3-
2 vote with 1 abstention and adopted conditions. This council, we submit is not bound by the planning
commission’s recommendation and should deny this application because zoning six lots surrounded by
residential lots on all sides in the middle of the Inland Cottage neighborhood would be inconsistent with
the Tybee Island Master Plan and would confer a special privilege on Mr. Hosti at the expense of
neighboring property owners and would constitute an illegal and unconstitutional spot zoning under
Georgia law, the constitution of the state of Georgia and the constitution of the United States of
America. I know this is not a court. But under the law I am required to raise that issue here and now
and I am doing so. We submit that spot zoning would constitute a manifest abuse of the rezoning power
and it would be a violation of due process to manifestly abuse the rezoning power to the oppression of
the neighbors. What we have here is a classic spot zoning situation. There is no way around it because
of the language of your own master plan and ordinances of this island. Mr. Brown asked if presentation
boards could be moved to give him the view of the other side of the room.
Mr. Hartridge then reviewed the Tybee Island Master Plan Zoning Classifications of R-2 and C-2 on
presentation boards and what the classifications said was the purpose of each.
He also pointed out what the master plan recommended for development strategies and zoning
considerations with the emphasis on the zoning considerations allowable uses in R-2 to be strictly
enforced to protect the character of this neighborhood. Mr. Hartridge respectfully submits that to do
what is being requested by the petitioner would violate all of that. He understands what Mr. Stone
presented but we are in a legal frame work that the property owners are allowed to rely on. They are
taxpayers and are immediately adjacent to this property. We submit all of this is governed by the
master plan and ordinances. There are eight factors under the land development code that would
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 7 of 12
mandate denying the request for potential rezoning with respect to existing land use pattern, the
possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent nearby districts, changing conditions,
adversely influence existing conditions in the neighborhood, and so on. We respectfully submit that the
zoning scheme in a very special place does not permit this as a matter of law.
Councilman Crone asked if Mr. Hughes wanted to address any of this prior to the citizen’s comments.
Mr. Hughes replied he preferred not at this time. Councilman Wolff commented if Mr. Hughes wanted
to wait he understood but we did have written opinion from our planning commission and zoning
department that this is not spot zoning and did Mr. Hughes concur with that. Mr. Hughes replied a
couple of things have happened here. The petition and public hearing advertising only dealt with the 2
lots (residential lots). The Tybee market (a non-conforming use) itself sits on 4 lots. The discussion
evolved into correcting the non-conformity as part of this process. Mayor Buelterman stated it was not
advertised for. Mr. Hughes replied it was not advertised for re-zoning of the grocery store property. So
the only issue with respect to re-zoning is the residential lots. Hughes said he agreed with what the
consultant said about the conditional zoning being kind of the antitheist of spot zoning. If it were not for
the fact that the Tybee Market sits next door he would agree with what Mr. Hartridge said that this was
singling out one item or one parcel. But the fact is that the non-conforming business use is there. In his
view if it is a conditional use tied to this it would not be spot zoning. Mr. Wolff then stated based on
what Mr. Hughes said and on advertisement requirements we cannot do what planning commission did
because it has not been advertised correctly. Mr. Hughes said yes, he would not recommend council
doing that. There could be problems with enforcement of the zoning on the market property.
Jimmy Brown, resident of Lovell Ave, spoke against the petition. Councilman Crone excused himself and
left the meeting during Mr. Brown’s address to council. Mr. Brown stated he and his wife were against
the variance due to several reasons such as noise, expansion of intrusion of non- conforming use in a
residential area, reduction of property value to surrounding area and future development into the area,
traffic congestion, etc. He also stated signs would not work. He gave parking suggestions along Butler
and Lovell.
Rusty Waters spoke against variance. He stated there were other requests in the variance, not just
parking lot. He suggested swapping the campground for the grocery store since it was so profitable.
Gloria Leonard spoke and remarked she did buy her home where the market existed but at that time it
was a quaint little store. When Hosti rebuilt she did not try to prevent the building of the larger store
because she was already there. But now the traffic is terrible and Hosti is not a good neighbor. She
cited problems with the dumpster, trash, employee parking, etc. She asked council to deny the variance
so these problems will not be increased.
An eighty-four year old resident also requested council deny the petition. She loved the market and the
Hosti family but did not agree with this. She later stated it would decrease the value of her property.
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 8 of 12
A resident of 1105 Lovell Ave spoke against the petition. She cited the road was only 20 feet wide not
50 or 60. Trucks will be hitting her yard. She spoke out in his behalf in 2006 but she is not in favor of a
road coming thru. The noise is already a problem. Trucks will cut in her yard if they are turning there.
Councilman Crone commented if the city took the 30 foot right-a-way in front of her yard and across the
street we would then have a 80 foot street and maybe Mr. Hosti would not need another parking lot.
That would settle everything.
Attorney Hartridge said the Supreme Court has defined spot zoning as” the process of singling out of a
small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the
benefit of the owner of such property and the detriment of other owners. Spot zoning is the antithesis
of planned zoning. Eastland vs Floyd County 244 GA 761 1979.”
Councilman Brown commented he does have his yard torn up by the big trucks but that is city right-of-
way. He has also been upset about this but it is the city’s right-of-way.
Weston Johnson spoke in favor of the proposed project. He cited the traffic congestion but thinks this
will improve it. He also spoke on Host’s caring of his neighbors and asked for council to move forward
and approve the proposal.
Paulette Hosti Fisk, 2A Kingry St. Commented she looks at a parking lot every morning. There is a
restaurant there. It was not there two years ago. She did not complain because everything changes
when a community is growing. Tybee is growing and changing.
Martha Waters, 1103 Butler Ave., spoke against the 5 foot buffer and car lights shining into her house.
This is not going to make the problems better, it will make it worse. What is going to happen in the
future? Look down the road. What do we want for Tybee?
Mr. Stone commented regarding the conditional zoning. Hosti was asked to change and request that
when he originally came to the city. He was seeking originally for the two lots and just to get permission
for the parking lot. The conditional zoning was suggested to him as a proper way to follow the codes
that Mr. Hartridge educated us on tonight. Mr. Stone submitted Tybee Market is a critical business.
Tybee has grown and Tybee Market needs to grow. This is a very special circumstance.
Doyle asked if the one-way with nothing on Lovell, and a buffer going all the way across the back, and
the removal of 34,35,36,37 parking spaces, she cannot see the trucks being able to turn, is this a
possibility? Mr. Hosti responded the exit on to Lovell is critical. There is an existing entrance there
already if he can’t widen it for the trucks then at least leave that so he can use it for safety reasons. He
would also leave the gate. As far as the parking in the rear, he had a sign one time that stated additional
parking in the rear and the city marshal made him take it down. He said he really didn’t have the
parking in the rear. People use it because there’s room.
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 9 of 12
Mr. Brewer asked about the need for additional parking and if he is going to be able to accommodate
inside the additional people this will bring in. Mr. Hosti replied he has already determined the aisle floor
displays may have to be removed. Also there is an additional cash register in the office where the florist
used to be, that is not being utilized now and that may have to be brought in to use. Mr. Brewer stated
his concerns about the traffic congestion on Butler. Mr. Hosti stated making the one exit right turn only
would really help this. It is not really possible to add more buffers without destroying the parking plan.
Mr. Stone addressed the issue of the trucks turning and said this is what the DOT mandates for the
radius. State legal tractor trailers can make it with 20 foot 2 foot radius. They went back and revised
all of that. The exit has 24 foot which is two 12 foot lanes which is standard roadway width. The trucks
can make that turn.
Mr. Brown asked what the width of #34 & #35 spaces. Mr. Stone replied 9.5 feet. Mr. Brown asked
what the shrub area is. Mr. Stone replied 5 feet. Mr. Brown then confirmed that is 14.5 more space in
the parking lot if that area was to disappear. Mr. Stone agreed.
Jimmy Brown spoke again and restated the measurements and argued it would not work.
Mayor Buelterman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hughes clarified one or two points. The petition originally dealt with the rezoning of the residential
lots. Mr. Hartridge made the point about spot zoning; I make the point about conditional zoning. What
he (Mr. Hughes) had suggested at the time was that all six be combined to correct the non-conforming
use. Because of the way the advertisement was done, I don’t think it would be appropriate for council
to take that up. You do have three different issues. The code section about zoning ordinances or map
amendments 5:110 that does consider the master plan. Mr. Hartridge did make a point about that and I
think the map depicting the business area is inaccurate. Councilman Wolff clarified that the map is a
suggestion from the DCA resource team who did the character map originally before it was incorporated
into the master plan and what they were calling the “arts, eats, eco-business” area along Butler in R-2
was actually the Tybee Cottages, that little former hotel that is now co-operatively owned, and that map
may be wrong.
Mr. Hughes said one reason to consolidate everything was to avoid as best we can the spot zoning
issues. The record needs to reflect the zoning map is in the room. One of the considerations is an
amendment to the zoning map to make the residential property C-2 conditional. The planning
commission addressed conditions with respect to the market property and again that is not part council
should address. You may think it all needs to be addressed at one time and should come back. If you
want to move forward on any of the issues the proper order would be the map amendment in respect
to the 2 lots 4-0006-19-014 & 015 as conditional and the Text amendment that goes along with that.
The text amendment would require a second reading and the conditions are an important consideration
in all of this. Another factor is Mr. Hosti does not presently own this property. The map amendment
should not, if passed, take effect, along with any conditions being imposed, until Mr. Hosti made the
purchase.
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 10 of 12
Mayor Buelterman asked Vivian Woods, Clerk of Council to read into the record a letter dated June 15,
2009 from Camille Ward of 1203 Lovell Ave (letter attached as part of these minutes) opposing the
variance request of Mike Hosti. She cited this is further intrusion of a commercial business in a
residential area. This would increase noise, traffic congestion, trash and other debris in the
neighborhood and she strongly opposes this variance request.
A Motion by Councilman Crone to approve with the conditions with council talking about it before.
Mayor Buelterman then clarified Mr. Crone’s motion was on the map amendment conditional zoning for
the two lots where the parking lot is proposed. It was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Doyle.
Doyle asked on the map amendment, if we approve to rezone only the residential lots where the
parking lot is proposed, when we make the motion to make it C-2 Conditional can we or should we put
the words ”parking lot only”? Is this part of the text amendment? Mr. Hughes said it is part of the text
but because of the nature of the map amendment as compared with the text amendment he would
recommend that the motion include to the extent possible; understand that the conditions have to
come back, written out for the second reading, in a form of at least a resolution; but the motion would
be, if it is conditional on the property being used as a parking lot and the parking lot being used in
conjunction with the adjacent non-conforming use--or something of that nature.
Mayor Buelterman, on suggestion from Mayor Pro Tem Doyle, asked Mr. Crone if he would consider
amending his motion to reflect what Mr. Hughes had just recommended. Crone agreed he would
amend the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Doyle seconded the amended motion.
Doyle asked Hughes if it is true we cannot do anything with the lots that the market sits on because it
was not advertised and he responded yes.
Brown told Hughes, he doesn’t see any point to rezone, as conditional zoning has not done anything to
help, and if Mike owns the lot, under the current rules and what we have been doing all over the city,
why can’t he remove that house and go in there and use it for overflow parking, or week-end parking, or
year round parking, is that not an accurate statement. Mr. Hughes said no, he does not think it is
accurate because those are residential lots that have been permitted to do that on special occasions the
council has established. Those lots are not serving a commercial establishment. That is a whole
different animal. Mr. Crone said that is why he made the motion like he made it.
Mayor Buelterman asked Mr. Hughes if the conditional zoning as Mr. Crone stated earlier would only be
for the parking. That would be the only allowed use.
Mr. Hughes said this is a tough situation; this has very unique issues, with the non-conforming use and
using the rezoning to assist that. The condition would be that it would only be available for parking for
adjacent non-conforming use, such as it would ever stop.
Mayor Buelterman stated what the planning commission approved was different there were other
things in there and Mr. Hughes answered yes.
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 11 of 12
Mr. Crone stated that the parking lot needs to be there for that stores’ parking. It is a public safety.
Somebody is going to get killed there. Everyone on Lovell knew that store was there and it has been for
years.
Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Hughes had completed his statements prior to the Mayors interruption.
Mr. Hughes stated this is a complex situation there are a number of things being considered, the map
amendment, the conditions in the text and the site plan. You’ve had a lot of discussion about the site
plan. All of these things are married together. Maybe the mistake was taking it with addressing the
map amendment before the site plan, it sounds like a lot of the concerns the council has are with the
site plan. There are issues with the zoning and conditions but the plans with the exits and turns, etc, are
the site plan. Under normal process that would be the last thing to take up. In his opinion it doesn’t
make any sense to make the map amendment with the condition and not be able to come to a
consensus with the site plan.
Brown asked if rezoning is done and changed to a C-2 and down the road the grocery store ceases to
exist, how do you go about changing it back and what legal ramifications or going to be there if
someone opposes you changing it back. Mr. Hughes replied the change is subject to what the law is at
that time which would also include having to comply with the zoning restrictions like is what is now in
place. I do not think you can make it an automatic trigger-if the grocery store changes—it automatically
changes. It would have to go through the process to be rezoned.
Brown confirmed once it is changed it would be a legal issue to change it back. Mr. Hughes concurred.
Brewer read an excerpt from the Gray Planning Services consultant stating the most recent conditional
zoning request is for the property adjacent to the Tybee IGA. The two parcels are currently being used
as a single family residence and under this proposal would become additional parking and a loading area
for the market. If the application is amended to request the rezone of the 4 parcels containing the
market, in addition to the 2 parcels containing the single family house, the rezoning would eliminate the
non-conforming, would not result in downsizing and would allow the city to establish conditions.
Based on that statement he does not think we can deal with just the two lots. Doyle stated Mr. Hughes
just stated we cannot deal with the 4 lots because of the way it was advertised that is why we are only
looking at the 2 lots. Councilman Wolff stated his concerns with the site plan and the advertising
situation and thinks it needs to be re-advertised, sent back to planning commission. Doyle asked if it
would have to go back to planning commission and if it is Mr. Hughes recommendation this needs to be
considered as all six lots together. He said, yes he thought it should be considered as a whole. Mayor
Buelterman confirmed it did not have to go back to planning commission with Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes recommended council take action on this petition as a package but said the public hearing
notices did not include the entire package and therefore City Council should have it re advertised
correctly to come back at a future meeting in order for them to consider the entire request.
Prepared7/22/09dw Page 12 of 12
Councilman Crone withdrew his motion on the advice of the attorney. Mayor pro tem Doyle withdrew
her second.
A Motion by Councilman Smith to place this petition on the table to come back on the 1st Council
meeting in August was seconded by Councilman Brewer. The vote was unanimous.
Executive Session
A Motion by Councilman Wolff to go into Executive Session to discuss Personnel and Real Estate was
seconded by Councilman Smith. The vote was unanimous.
City Council excused Diane Schleicher and Vivian Woods from the Executive Session on Personnel.
A Motion by Councilman Wolff to go back into Open Session was seconded by Mayor pro tem Doyle.
The vote was unanimous.
Adjournment
A Motion by Councilman Wolff to adjourn was seconded by Mayor pro tem Doyle. The vote was
unanimous.
__________________________________________
Mayor Jason Buelterman
______________________________________
Vivian O. Woods, Clerk of Council