HomeMy Public PortalAbout20060508_agenda_mtg
1
MINUTES
Planning Commission Agenda Meeting May 08, 2006 – 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Members present at the Agenda Meeting on May 8, 2006 were: Barry Brown, Sandy
Chandler, Bill Garbett, Honor Hutton, Chuck Powell, and Lawanna Tsoulos. Susan Hill, Gene Kindrick and
Rachel Perkins were absent. Building and Zoning staff present: Dee Anderson, Warren Millikan and
Dianne Otto. City Attorney Bubba Hughes was present.
Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos welcomed the attendees. She reminded the Planning Commissioners to
limit their questions as much as possible so the questions would be asked and answered at the Public
Hearing. Tsoulos said they would be looking at approving the Minutes from the April 10 Agenda Meeting
and the April 18 Meeting at the May 16 Meeting.
Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos said the first petition was a Zoning Variance in Zone R-1-B, 911 Lovell
Avenue, Gail Lamb, PIN 4-0003-17-005. Dee Anderson said Lamb asked to be pulled from the Agenda.
Ron Jacobs represented a Zoning Variance petition for owner Gilda DeMott for 606 Miller Avenue, PIN 4-
0005-13-003, Zone R-1. Dee Anderson said Tybee has its own Ordinance that prohibits filling wetlands
without permission so Jacobs was here to request permission to fill an old mosquito ditch on the back of
the property. Chuck Powell asked if it was considered a wetland by the Corp. Chairperson Lawanna
Tsoulos said EMC Engineering delineated the wetland found on the project, so it must be. Powell asked if
a portion of it had already been filled in. Jacobs said no. It was discussed that the area has standing
water in it. Bill Garbett asked about a flagged portion on the plan. Powell asked if it was a flagged
wetland. Jacobs said he was not sure; the only portion they are talking about filling was the ditch. Honor
Hutton asked about a pipe. It was decided that the pipe does not go anywhere. Chandler asked if the
City of Tybee Island was the first level that Jacobs needs to go to about this. Anderson said he thought
they are already talking to the Corp of Engineers. Jacobs said according to the EMC Engineering it did not
meet the acreage threshold to worry about filling in so they submitted a letter to the Corp. The letter was
in the packet that Jacobs had submitted. Tsoulos asked it there was anything else. Hutton asked Jacobs
to tell or show the Planning Commission how far they are going to fill. Jacobs showed Hutton the area.
Barry Brown asked if they were going to put in a culvert pipe. Jacobs said no. Garbett asked for
clarification on the other area. Jacobs said he would find out. Tsoulos told Jacobs the petition would be
on the Agenda for May 16.
Sam Liberti represented a Zoning Variance petition for Frank and Kim Nelson at 1409 Chatham Avenue,
Zone R-2, PIN 4-0011-09005. The request was for a front setback Variance. Chuck Powell said he looked
at the swimming pool regulations because this pool was going to be built right on the bulkhead, which
means they are going to excavate right next to the bulkhead. He asked if other than what is in Ordinance
about swimming pools being fenced, etc., was there DNR or anything else that prohibits them from
building right on the river. Liberti said he was 10 feet off the property line. Bill Garbett said he had to set
back 25 feet from water. Anderson said it was from wrested vegetation according to the EPD. Barry
Brown said it is deep water and the property line is the bulkhead. Garbett said it was land disturbing
activity within 25 feet of the water. Brown said he did not think there was a buffer on deep water land.
Tsoulos said they need clarity on that. Anderson said he would check. Anderson said Liberti’s request was
10 feet from the front setback. Powell asked Liberti to explain the hardship for the front setback when he
comes to the Hearing. Liberti said he could do that. Powell said the lot is cleared right now. Tsoulos told
Liberti the petition would be on the May 16 Agenda, and that Planning Commission is asking him for
clarification on the hardship and Anderson will check into whether or not there is a buffer there.
Ron Jacobs represented a Zoning Variance petition for Lot 12 North Wave Subdivision, Zone R-2, PIN 4-
0022-01-031. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos said the Planning Commission had seen this one before. She
said it looks like he has got everything delineated. She asked if there was anything anyone would like to
have added to it. Brown said they were asking for 5 feet into the front setback and were encroaching 10
feet into the DNR buffer. It was asked when the DNR line was revised. Anderson said it was revised from
the original survey in 1997 by the DNR. Tsoulos asked if there was anything anyone would like to
request. There was not. She told Jacobs the petition would be on the Agenda for May 16.
2
Tom Waters represented a Major Subdivision of Land (16 lots) for Robert Chu at Eighth Street and Butler
Avenue, Zone R-2, PIN 4-0005-20-006. Waters said this was a conceptual sketch plan review. He said
these are lots of record on the existing space. He said they would put a road in as shown on the drawing.
Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos asked if they are existing lots of record. Waters said yes. Dee Anderson
asked Waters if he was sure. Waters said he believed so but he was not 100% sure. Chuck Powell asked
if it was R-2 or R-1. Anderson said R-2. Anderson said Waters will have to bring something regarding the
lots of record. Waters said he would. Anderson said it was his understanding that Chu was going for a
Major Subdivision and a Variance to the right-of-way requirements for this number of lots. Anderson said
Ordinance calls for a 60-foot right-of-way and he is asking for a 40-foot right-of-way. Barry Brown asked
Waters to have Mark Boswell put the dimensions on the lots. Waters said okay. Powell asked if other than
the development directly across from the Tybee Market, are there any other subdivisions like this on the
ocean side of Butler. Anderson said he thought that [Tybee Straits] is the only one, and that was what
Chu is trying to imitate, except those are all duplexes and these would be single family. Sandy Chandler
asked if the easement was 40 feet from the projected road. Chandler and Anderson discussed the plan.
Brown asked if there is a driveway there now. Anderson said yes. Chandler said they look like square lots.
It was decided the lots were not square. The Commissioners asked Waters that a readable scale be put
on the plan. Waters agreed. Tsoulos told Waters he would go on the Agenda for May 16.
Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos asked about Site Plan Approval for 1605 Inlet Avenue, Phil O’Dell, Zone C-
1, PIN 4-0008-17-001. Anderson said he was told by Kern-Coleman that we will have everything by the
next day, including drainage. Tsoulos asked if it could be put in the Planning Commission box and an
email sent telling the Commissioners that it is there. Anderson said yes. Bill Garbett asked Anderson to
ask Kern-Coleman to have the actual measurements of the building on the drawing because O’Dell had
told him that the roof did not overhang in front of the projections at the bottom, but the roof sticks out
well beyond the base of the structure. Anderson said O’Dell just had the property surveyed and that was
what the engineer had been waiting on. Anderson said he is hoping they will transpose the building onto
the survey. Chuck Powell said he would like an answer of what the driveway is; what its function is. He
said it looks like it is for driving up to the drive thru window and O’Dell says it is not, but it goes right
pass the drive thru window and O’Dell should come prepared to explain that. Barry Brown asked how
long O’Dell had to leave the building sitting there. Anderson said he is probably past due. Tsoulos said it
would go on the Agenda.
Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos said the Dark Sky Initiative will be presented Tuesday night by Henry Levy.
She said Levy went before City Council, and Council recommended he bring this to the Planning
Commission. City Council Member Kathryn Williams said when Levy discussed the Dark Sky Initiative with
Council the first recommendation was to set up a committee, but Levy felt that most of the issues could
be addressed through our Ordinances, so that was why it was coming to the Planning Commission.
Williams told the Commissioners that if they happen to have a chance to go on the website. She said it
was very interesting information. Tsoulos said she is assuming the reason that Council wanted it to come
before Planning Commission was because that there are some Ordinance issues. Williams said that was
right.
City Attorney Bubba Hughes said Dee Anderson asked him to come down and speak. He said Council has
been talking for awhile about a joint work session. Hughes said in the past there have been questions
about what is being asked of Planning Commissioners. He said he wanted to talk briefly about what
information the Planning Commission may have, and what information they may not have and want to
get. He said Council has always tried to appoint people who will have some level of expertise to be on the
Planning Commission so the Council will get the benefit of the Commissioners expertise. Hughes said on
the other hand a lot of what the Commissioners are asked to do is almost impossible in that the
Commissioners have got to disassociate themselves from everything they know when they come to
review. He said they deal with matters that are legislative in nature, like questions about whether
property should be rezoned, and they deal with matters that are administrative in nature, like subdividing
or variances. Hughes said the distinction is hard to make sometimes but it is important. He said the
Planning Commissioners’ discretion is a lot broader on any legislative decision. He said Code sets out
standards; for example for a zoning change, the same standards apply to anything that is a legislative
decision. He said a legislative decision was like what they just got about the Dark Sky Initiative in that
that would be adopting some legislation. He said they are really unrestrained: they can take into account
3
any and everything they want to, however, when they get to the Public Hearing stage they are
theoretically and ideally supposed to make their decision based on what is presented at the Public
Hearing. He said that does not mean they have to empty their heads of everything they already heard or
know, but it is important that the record reflect that their decision is based on what was presented at the
Public Hearing and the information and the comments. He said each is a different application and needs
to be considered individually. Hughes said they hear all the time: we set a precedent. He told them to
forget all of that: every one of the applications lives and dies by itself. He said “precedence” is the kind of
a word they ought to avoid, and so is having any opinions about anything before they have the Public
Hearing. Hughes said it would be a mistake to indicate that they will never approve a front yard setback.
He said the applicant is entitled to a fair Public Hearing and if they dig up a statement the Commissioners
made like that and they voted consistently with that, they are going to call that into question. He said
even though the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Council, it is important the whole
process be handled as objectively as possible. He said we all have opinions; when people are running for
office they make promises but once they get elected it is a whole new game. He said the important thing
is how the Commissioners vote, not what they say they are going to do. He said if it is their belief or
opinion that they will never grant a front yard variance, hold and keep that to themselves, and vote them
all down; just do not say it. Hughes said to take into account what is presented at the Hearing and if it
will not overcome their predisposition, then vote with their heart and mind. He said that is for legislative-
type things but it overlaps into the administrative-type things too. He gave an example of a subdivision,
and said that if it meets all of the Ordinances the applicant is entitled to the permit; the Commissioners
can not tell them no because they do not like what they are doing. He said they rarely have a subdivision
that is that cut and dry though because of all the overlap in storm water, and road size and lot size
requirements. He said the legislative end works itself into that because the Planning Commission is
relieving the applicant from some other legislative requirement, so they would have discretion about that
sort of thing. Hughes said it is important that their ultimate decision is based on what is presented at the
Public Hearing as opposed to anything that might have been said, even at Agenda Meeting. He said it is
important that they reflect that they always have an open mind, even if they might feel that front yard
variances are the worse thing possible and they would never approve one. He said they have got to
address each applicant with an open mind. He said there might be unique circumstances that might
change their mind, and that is the importance of the process. Hughes said he assumes they all have the
Planning Commission Ordinance, have taken the Oath, and have read the Land Development Code about
Public Hearing requirements for the Planning Commission and for the City Council. He said every
community is unique in that regard; Savannah is different then here and they make a lot of final
decisions on their own. Hughes said it is hard to incorporate something learned from somewhere else and
apply it here because Ordinances are different everywhere and procedures are generally different except
for those mandated by state law, and that is when they get into the zoning procedure law and the
conflicts of interest in zoning. Hughes said he and Lawanna Tsoulos have talked several times about
issues of who might have an interest that should prohibit them or disqualify them. He told them to not
hesitate to call him if they get uncomfortable. He said he would give the best answer he can. He asked if
the Commissioners got the articles that Frank Jenkins wrote. Tsoulos said she has those and could share
them. Hughes said it would be a good idea. He said the bottom line is to keep an open mind for every
applicant.
Sandy Chandler asked Bubba Hughes if someone were to say that they believe in upholding the Code,
would that be not appropriate. Hughes said he was having a hard time putting that into context because
the Code provides for Variances. Chandler said it does, but he has heard often times that Code is the
excuse for not granting a Variance, like if a Commissioner does not believe there is a hardship. Hughes
said Chandler was right and determining whether or not there is a hardship is a pretty subjective
analysis. He said everybody’s opinion about something might be different but the standard for Variances,
he thinks, is really a good idea. He said Council always has a folder in front of them when they are
dealing with zoning issues and it has the standard for a zoning change and the standard for a Variance.
He said as long as they take those into account they are pretty much safe from a legal standpoint, even if
they disagree about what is a hardship. He said the other requirement for a Variance is the unique nature
of the property or something about it being oddly configured that creates the hardship, or instances
where somebody might have a physical handicap. He said that is not what the Code addressed. He said
that is a hardship but it is not what the Code is talking about for a Variance. He said a Variance is dealing
with a hardship to the property: it can not be developed in the way it should or could be because it is
4
oddly shaped, like a triangle or something like that, so they could not put a building on it without
encroaching on the setback requirement. Chandler said he was not suggesting no Variances. He said it
sounds like squishy ground, not the Code so much, but that anyone could possibly have complaints about
the way they vote. Hughes said they always do. He said it is pretty much a thankless job they have, and
some of them have been doing it a good while and know that. Hughes said it is important though.
Chandler said he realizes the only reason they are here is Variances and he was just talking about public
perceptions and things like that, which seems to be the basis of what Hughes is saying. Hughes said no,
he only looks at it from a legal standpoint, and that they vote their heart and their mind, the way they
see it. He said his concern would be that it be based on the standards that are set in the Ordinance, and
that they avoid comments like “we would never do that.” Chandler said he would never make a
statement like that. Hughes said he has made several that have come back to haunt him. He said they
have a hard job but it is not unappreciated. He said he knows Council appreciates it. He said they are
going to do what they can to improve the communication so when Council asks Planning Commission to
do something they will have a clearer picture of what it is Council wants the Commissioners to do.
Hughes said if they look back at the Ordinance at what the Planning Commission does, it is a pretty
broad task, but he is available if they have questions. Hughes told Dee Anderson if he wanted him to
comment on any particular issues to let him know. Barry Brown asked if they were protected under the
insurance of the City if somebody decides to sue the Planning Commission members. Hughes said it is
not an insurance policy; it is a risk management pool of various governments. He said as long as they are
acting within their capacity as a City official or appointee they would be covered. He said every coverage
agreement has loopholes and the coverage is not all encompassing. He said any immunity they might
enjoy could be destroyed by personal vendettas, for example. Hughes said since he has been here no
Planning Commission member has been sued in their individual capacity. Hughes said the main thing was
always keep an open mind. Hughes said he generally recommends that the Planning Commissioners stay
away from meeting the developer or applicant or his neighbors on the property. He said they could go by
and look but he would rather they did it without the applicant there. He said they were perfectly free to
do that on a legislative matter but they are not supposed to do it on an administrative matter, and
sometimes it takes a judge to say which is which, so it would be easier for him and them to just avoid
that all the time. He said if anybody asks what they think tell them you will look at it at the Hearing.
City Council Member Paul Wolff said when a petitioner asks him what he thinks he says, “I can not
express a firm opinion outside the Public Hearing, but I would be more disposed to be favorable if…”
Wolff asked Hughes if that was okay. Hughes said it was in a legislative process, and most of what they
have been dealing with, in his view, are legislative questions; they are changing something in the Code to
deal with that particular project. Wolff said that as far as just a standard variance, they should not.
Hughes said no, not just a setback variance, which to him is pretty clearly an administrative petition.
Wolff said he was primarily talking about the buffer and asked if that was legislative. Hughes said he
thinks it is legislative. He said the Planning Commission is subject to the open meetings law so minutes
have to be kept of all the meetings and every time a quorum gets together the agenda has to be posted.
Tsoulos asked if as far as legislative matters, ex parte communication might be appropriate at times.
Hughes said yes, on a legislative matter. He said if someone is talking about rezoning a tract of land that
is a legislative matter. He said the problem is when it is not purely a rezoning, and most of what they
deal with is a mix, like a rezoning or a partial rezoning or expanding the text to allow something. He said
if somebody applies for a use variance, that is a text amendment, not a use variance. He said if
something is not permitted in an R-1 zone they do not get a variance to allow it; they would have to
rezone that property, and that raises issues about spot zoning. Tsoulos asked if the situation with IGA
where they want to make a parking lot in an R-2 zone was a variance. Hughes said he had been sent
something about that today and asked that Tsoulos let him hold off answering. Tsoulos said she has been
confused about this since it first came up. She said the use is there and how do you vary a use. She said
when she goes to conferences they say you do not give a variance for use. Hughes said that is right, that
is a text amendment or a map amendment. He said the IGA is a unique situation and he is not that
familiar yet with the history of it. He said he read the minutes from when it was addressed at the
Planning Commission and he had not had a chance to research it to give an opinion. Hughes said he
thought IGA was doing site plan approval. Anderson said it was special review. Tsoulos said IGA is taking
a lot that is currently residential, moving the house away and turning it into a parking lot, and that was
changing the use because in R-2 there is no provision for a commercial parking lot. Tsoulos asked
Hughes for his email address. Hughes said it was bhughes@cbrhlaw.com.
5
The group discussed public hearings and parliamentary law. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos said when she
opens a public hearing that means they will address the petitioner. She said the petitioner will make their
presentation, she will ask if anyone wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to the petition, and then she
will close the public hearing. She said once she closes the public hearing they do not address the
petitioner; the Planning Commission will discuss the petition amongst themselves. She said from that
they get a motion and a second, and then they can discuss it. Tsoulos said they can amend the motion or
vote the motion. Council Member Paul Wolff said they need to be sure their questions are direct and
asking for a specific fact rather than being subjective. Chuck Powell said sometimes they get hung up
when it appears it is not going to pass and one of them turns to the petitioner and asks if they would be
willing to lop that deck off. He asked how they handle that once a motion has been made to approve or
deny. He asked if they want to approve with a condition do they have to ask the petitioner if they will go
along with the condition or do they just pass it. Tsoulos said no, if they want to amend a motion they
should just amend it. She said they do not have to get permission. Powell asked if he could ask for the
condition during the public hearing. Tsoulos said absolutely. Tsoulos said once a motion is seconded it
belongs to the floor, so anyone can amend that motion but it has to be germane. She said if the motion
is to approve a variance then it could not be amended to deny or to put a driveway in another place
because that is not germane or applicable to the variance. She said an amended motion has to have a
second. She said if the motion to amend alters the main motion they would vote for the amendment and
it might not be necessary to vote for the main motion, but generally they would. Tsoulos said there is
“call the question” and it is something they do not want to use a lot but if they feel they are beating a
dead horse they can make a motion to call the question. She said it has to have a second and has to
have a two-thirds vote. She said to use that judiciously because what they are doing is cutting off
somebody’s right to talk. Tsoulos said they should run the meetings as close to parliamentary law as they
can, but the main purpose of them being here is to serve the public so she did not think they should
make parliamentary law so rigid that it impedes them doing what they are here to do.
Barry Brown said it would be in their best interest to put on the agenda to bring up hand sketches. He
said there are things begin sketched by homeowners that are not to scale. Chuck Powell said they can
not make a decision based on them. Brown said the Commissioners do not know what the petitioners are
asking for. He said it needs to be more professional. He said if they want a variance it is not a hardship to
get a drawing. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos asked what they would have to do to impose that. City
Council member Paul Wolff said they would have to have a text amendment. Wolf said he agreed with
Brown in principle but if somebody does a scale drawing on a survey they can do it themselves. He said a
lot of variances are getting shot out of the water and they are paying just to apply for a variance, and he
hated to ask them to cough up any more money. Brown said if they have a survey they can have the
surveyor hash in where they want the addition or whatever, but it be done in such a form that if it comes
back later they are going to have something other than a hand-sketch that is not very thorough to start
with. Sandy Chandler said they have no idea what the as-built is going to look like. Tsoulos suggested
they put this on the agenda to be discussed Tuesday night and to make a recommendation to Council.
She said of course it would be Council’s decision because it requires a text amendment.
Chuck Powell asked if they could also add another one to that. He said it is the one they all got trapped
on one meeting where somebody brought in a new drawing at the hearing the Commissioners had never
seen. He said all of them have been conscientious enough to read what the petitioner submitted, go look
at the property, and now here was something brand new or modified. Chairperson Lawanna Tsoulos said
she did not run that meeting and she could guarantee Powell that it would not have been heard. Powell
said they were novices that night. Tsoulos said the person running the meeting was too. She said
certainly that should not happen and if somebody does that she would suggest that somebody make a
motion that they table it. She said it is not fair to the Planning Commission and it is certainly not fair to
the public or to the people that they are supposed to be giving recommendations to. Barry Brown said it
should not be put on the agenda if all the information is not there. Tsoulos said in this case they came to
the agenda meeting and it appeared they had everything, and then they showed up at the regular
meeting with a change, and one copy. Bill Garbett said the drawing they presented was an improvement.
Powell said that was what swayed them; they saved a bunch of trees and made it more attractive.
Tsoulos said it was very unfair and in the future they need to get the information ahead of time. Powell
asked if it was only a 30 day delay. Tsoulos said yes.
6
City Council member Kathryn Williams said a month or so ago they talked about generating a checklist for
the zoning requests. She said it is hard when they are going through the plans: have they met the
greenspace requirement, have they met the setbacks. She said if they could come up with a checklist,
drawn to scale could certainly be one of them. She said until everything is checked it does not need to be
put on the agenda. Williams said that would make everybody’s job so much easier and then they can
make sure that items are not slipping through the cracks. Tsoulos said that was a good idea. Sandy
Chandler said it could be part of the application. Bill Garbett said he thought we already had a checklist.
Williams said it would help if all of them could give input, or at least once it is generated have input
before it is finalized. Paul Wolff said he did not know if it was implicit in the Code the way it is written but
he would like it to say that any approval subsequently granted by Council will be contingent upon the
plans as presented; that they can not come in after they have gotten their approval and change anything
on the plans; if it does not meet the as-built based on what they bring to us, it does not fly. Brown said
they are getting a lot of variances from people buying property and they are going to have a current
survey in most cases. He said it would be nothing for them to go to a registered surveyor and say hash
this out. Wolff said let’s make any approval contingent upon those plans. Wolff said without coming back
through, the plans will be an integral part of any approval; they can not change what is written without
coming back through Planning Commission and back to City Council. Tsoulos said if they are remodeling
or adding a deck there is no as-built. Wolff said that may be something they want to talk about too. He
said he knows there is an as-built for new construction but there needs to be for remodeling because a
lot of stuff is getting remodeled that comes out completely different. Chuck Powell asked if there are city
personnel that periodically drive around the island to look for illegal building activity. Wolff said that was
one reason the Deputy City Marshal was added to staff. Powell talked about a work site where no permit
sign was posted. Williams recommended to Powell that he email Dee Anderson.
Kathryn Williams, City Council member, said City Council has approved a new Ethics Advisory Board
Ordinance and has appointed members. She said the Ordnance calls for a member of the Planning
Commission to serve on the Ethics Advisory Board. She asked that they be thinking about that and when
they have everybody in attendance see who might be interested. She said it would be a liaison because
things will impact the Planning Commission. She said they are also asking for a member of the Audit
Committee to serve.