Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20070618_PC_mtg_min 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Libby Bacon Diane Schleicher Demery Bishop Charlie Brewer Barry Brown, Chairperson Sandy Chandler Bill Garbett CITY ATTORNEY Susan Hill Edward M. Hughes John Major Chuck Powell, Vice Chairperson MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting June 18, 2007 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Barry Brown called the June 18, 2007 meeting to order. Other Planning Commissioners present were Libby Bacon, Charlie Brewer, Sandy Chandler, Bill Garbett, Susan Hill, John Major, and Chuck Powell. Demery Bishop was absent. Chair Barry Brown called for a motion on the Minutes of the May 7, 2007 agenda meeting. Chuck Powell motioned to approve. Bill Garbett seconded. The vote was unanimous. Brown then asked for a motion on the Minutes of the May 15, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Bill Garbett motioned to approve. The motion was seconded by John Major. The vote was unanimous. The first item was Special Review (Section 5-070) and Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) for a Residential Bed and Breakfast [Section 3-060(A)] at 8 Moore Avenue, Zone R-1-B, PIN 4-0002-03-020. The petitioner was Paul Wolff. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Wolff talked about the survey, parking, buffer, and that he lives onsite. He said the only thing in the Code that has limitations on occupancy for a B&B is that it can not have more than five guest rooms, and it needs two parking spaces for the owners and one for each guest room. He said he is trying to get approval to have six people to keep the family atmosphere. Susan Hill asked why it was changing from a rental property to a B&B. Wolff said an obscure section of Code appeared that stipulated that no more than five unrelated persons can live in a single-family house. He said he has been operating as a vacation rental but it is a single-family home that they share with guests. Charlie Brewer verified there were three bedrooms and two baths in the home and that Wolff was asking for the ability to have six guests. Brewer asked about usage of the living space as sleeping quarters. Wolff said he rents the downstairs as a unit. He said he meets the requirements for occupancy for six people. Brewer asked about the Health Department inspecting the kitchen and bathrooms. Wolff said that did not apply to a residential B&B. John Major asked Wolff if there would ever be people who did not know each other. Wolff said he did not foresee that. Brown asked if there was any privacy in the great room or a way of locking the door from other guests. Wolff said no. Bill Garbett asked City Attorney Bubba Hughes if he had any concerns. Hughes said it was not what you would think of when you think of a Bed and Breakfast but it was not necessarily inconsistent with the rental usage of property on the island. Brewer said that Planning Commission members have a concern about the health, safety and welfare of the island. He said they could have problems with the credibility of the B&B industry on Tybee Island because it is a nonstandard situation. Wolff said he talked to people that have B&Bs that have shared bathrooms. He said he would clarify with guests that it is a one-unit rental with a 6-person limit. Brewer asked Wolff if he was aware that a 3-bedroom rental in a private residence loses the Stephens-Day exemption. Wolff said he had heard it was 4. Hughes said he did not know. Chuck Powell said that the Code does not specify what a unit is or how private it is. Major asked if Wolff complied with everything that the Planning Commission had asked of him. Wolff said yes. He said he has been paying hotel/motel tax and has had a business license the entire time he has been a vacation rental. Hill asked about signage. Wolff talked about if there was a sign it would be no greater than 12 square feet, would be attached to the deck, and would include contact information. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the petition. Mack Kitchens said that about two months earlier he had written a letter to the City wondering why Wolff was able to operate illegally without the variance or until he got a variance, but he did not get a response. Hughes said he wrote a letter responding to that inquiry and forwarded 2 it to the City Manager. City Manager Diane Schleicher said she mailed it to Kitchens. Hughes said that until the process was completed on Wolff’s application, the City was not in a position to shut it down. Schleicher told Kitchens that she would resend the letter. Keith Gay said that a health department inspection of the kitchen is a requirement for all B&Bs. Brown closed the Public Hearing. Major moved to approve. Powell seconded. Garbett said he saw no reason not to approve. He said it violates the spirit of the B&B idea but it was certainly within the Code. Brown said it needs to be limited to bedrooms that can be locked. Major said Kitchens referred to it as a variance, but it is not a variance. Garbett commented that he has been in B&Bs that share common areas. Brewer asked if people were sleeping in the living room. Garbett said no. Brewer recommended approving it for four guests, not six guests. Major declined amending the motion. The vote on the motion was six in favor with Brewer voting against so the motion to approve passed. The item would be on the City Council agenda for July 12. Kevin Carpenter represented a Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) petition for 1605 Inlet Avenue, Zone C-1, PIN 4-0008-17-001. The request was to add outdoor seating at a takeout restaurant. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Bill Garbett verified they were approving the plan with five tables. He asked about a yellow highlighted area on the plan. Carpenter said that it was a wheelchair ramp. Garbett asked if it was outside the property. Carpenter said yes. Garbett asked if the roof line was within the property. Phil O’Dell, owner of the building, said that he would doubt that the roof line was completely inside the property but they were talking about making the wheelchair ramp detachable. He said that if it was concrete it would be approved, but since it is wood it either has to be detachable or not there. City Manager Diane Schleicher said if a deck is part of a building it has to be within the setbacks. She said if it was a sidewalk and a ramp then it would not be included in the setback requirements. She said that any of the decking that is in the right-of-way has to be removed. Schleicher noted that the C-1 zoning requires zero lot line. She talked about the City getting hold harmless agreements to allow portable seating on sidewalks. She said that Carpenter’s deck is attached to the building and can not be removed. She said it has to be modified so as to not encroach in the right-of-way. O’Dell suggested cutting it and then bolting or pinning it into place. Schleicher said that if it is part of the building it can not be in the right-of- way. Brown asked if the part highlighted on the plan would be removed. O’Dell said it would be cut so it could be moved if it needed to be. Schleicher said that was not what needed to be done. She said the City does not want decks in the right-of-way. Brown said that the retention was being relocated on the site. Schleicher said the as- builts would be checked when the drainage was completed. After discussion Brown asked if the deck was going to be taken off the right-of-way. O’Dell said they would take the deck off if the City would rather have concrete. Susan Hill said she did not think it could be concrete. O’Dell said that concrete was approved. Schleicher said it would have to be legal and done correctly. Garbett asked about the ramp on the south end. O’Dell talked about there being two service windows. John Major asked if there was a timeline for the modifications. Schleicher said 30 days at the most. Chuck Powell asked if a permit was issued to operate without Site Approval. Schleicher explained that they had a Site Plan without the picnic benches and this petition was because they want to have picnic benches. She said the deck was never on the original Site Plan. She said that when a plan changes significantly on the exterior they need to come back for approval. Schleicher explained that O’Dell put a cash down payment for the improvements and got a temporary occupancy, and the City has the right to shut it down if they do not get it done within 30 days. Brown asked if it was after-the-fact. Schleicher said it was not a Variance. The retention area, the benches and the decking were discussed. Brown asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. Keith Gay spoke in favor. Brown closed the Public Hearing. Charlie Brewer motioned to approve. Bill Garbett seconded. Sandy Chandler requested a stipulation that the decking would conform to the property line on the east side. It was discussed that the decking was already required to conform within 30 days. O’Dell agreed that the 30 days would be from the time the petition went to City Council on July 12. Garbett talked about the earlier Site Plan specifically excluding outdoor seating and about earlier meetings when no one showed up. Brewer complimented Carpenter for being able to add a restaurant at a time when some have closed. Brewer repeated that the motion was to approve with a stipulation that within 30 days of City Council on July 12 the deck will be modified to conform to the property line. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Attorney Harold Yellin represented petitioner Samuel Meyer for a Zoning Variance (Section 5-090) from the Schedule of Development Regulations [Section 3-090(A)] for stairs in a front setback at 1811 Butler Avenue, Zone R-2, PIN 4-0009-08-004B. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Yellin said that the petitioner would like to ask for a continuance. He said the neighbor next door would like to join the petition. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor or in opposition. Brown closed the Public Hearing. It was discussed that a new petition would be presented at the July Planning Commission agenda meeting. Brown called 3 for a motion. John Major motioned to continue. Charlie Brewer seconded. The vote was unanimous. The motion to continue passed. Ralph Douglas Jones represented a Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) for a commercial business at 1207 Highway 80, Zone C-2, PIN 4-0026-02-008. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Sandy Chandler asked Jones his intentions for the building. Jones said he intends to store materials and equipment in the building. Chandler asked if it would be an office or studio. Jones said he is going to make fish in it. John Major asked if it would be heated or cooled or have electricity. Jones said it would be a drop cord. Charlie Brewer asked if it was a temporary structure. Brown said that it was. Brewer asked how long it would be approved to be a temporary structure and how it would be secured to the ground. City Manager Diane Schleicher said it would be an accessory building and would be located there long-term. Susan Hill asked if the tents were going to be taken down. Jones said yes. He talked about a fence that will be around the perimeter. He said he wants to be uplifting to his neighborhood. Brewer asked about anchoring for the building. Chuck Bargeron said it would have to be anchored. Bill Garbett asked if it would be portable. Bargeron said foundation pads could be used with tie-downs. Jones said he was not pouring a slab. The size of 24 feet by 24 feet was verified. Chuck Powell read into the record a letter from Doyle Landscaping that supported the Site Plan including the fence and the building. It was clarified that a letter from Tom Beytagh, owner of the property, granting permission for Jones to pursue the Site Plan Approval was in the file. Brown asked about the hand drawn building on the survey. Bill Garbett said he felt it met the requirements. Brown suggested that surveyor Whitley Reynolds plot the building on the survey. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor or in opposition. Keith Gay, a partner of an adjacent property, said they have been concerned about the tents and things, and are pleased to see a more permanent structure. He said they are excited because they plan to come to the Planning Commission because they have a similar situation on their property. He said he wanted to be sure that as it relates to parking and restrooms that there were no criteria for them when they come as well. Sherry Simmons who has a business nearby said that when Jones is closed she has a decrease in business. She encouraged the Planning Commission to support the arts. Brown closed the Public Hearing. Garbett moved to approve. Chuck Powell seconded. Brewer asked that the motion be amended to include that the survey be amended as requested and that the City approve the construction of the building. Garbett agreed to the amendments to the motion. He said the motion was to approve with the stipulations that the surveyor put the building on the survey prior to the City Council meeting and that the structure meet all City Codes. Powell seconded the amended motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to approve passed. The petition will be heard by City Council on July 12. Michael Godbee represented a Zoning Variance (Section 5-090) from Section 5-010(K), Prohibit Placing Materials in the Marshlands, for Lot 121 Miller Avenue, Zone R-2, PIN 4-0005-16-007A. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Godbee explained that he got updated letters from the EPD and the DNR as requested by the Planning Commission at the agenda meeting. John Major said that at the agenda meeting they also asked that the Variance application be updated but the update that was submitted by Godbee was a Site Plan Approval application. Godbee said he amended the last application. City Attorney Bubba Hughes said that when Godbee initially approached the Zoning office he was led to understand that he needed Site Plan Approval. Hughes said that Godbee filed that paperwork but it became apparent that what Godbee needed was to petition to open Miller Avenue sufficiently to gain access to the lot and a Variance in order to fill wetlands. Hughes said he recalled from the agenda meeting that: Godbee needed to get updated letters as to whether the previous statements would be honored in reference to the structure, and the issue of whether he was going to have a Variance on Lot 121 that would involve filling wetlands so that Godbee would know if he was granted permission to get to the lot he would be able to do something when he got there. Major read from the agenda Minutes. Referring to the amended form being a Site Plan Approval application rather than a Variance application, Hughes said that when Godbee amended he used the original paperwork that had been submitted in error. He said that what Godbee was asking for was a Variance to fill the wetlands necessary to access Lot 121 and he was also asking to open a portion of Miller Avenue, which was not a Variance, but he needs a Variance because there are wetlands on Miller Avenue. Again referring to the amended application, Hughes asked Godbee if he did anything about the Variance on any wetlands that are on Lot 121. Godbee said that the three things he remembered were to amend the application and to update the two letters. He said he that over the years he has had a lot of applications and he thought he was doing what he was supposed to do. Major said it was a different form and that it was supposed to have been in by Thursday and it was dated Friday. Godbee said he was subject to the turnaround at DNR and EPD. Bill Garbett said that Godbee was not showing where he would impact wetlands on Lot 121. He said they asked Godbee to put the footprint of the house in relation to the wetlands that would need to be filled. Godbee said 4 that the Planning Commission had the survey showing the wetlands. Garbett said he did not show how the house would lay on the lot in relation to the wetlands. He said they asked for the entire project. Godbee said he did not recall needing a survey for the entire project; he recalled the two letters and updating the application. After discussion Hughes said that the full project could not necessarily be dealt with because of the engineering and other costs associated with it. He instructed Godbee to identify the wetlands on Lot 121 and include that in the application for the Variance so that he will know that he can get there and build on it, or that they voted against it. He said it would be easy to show where the wetlands are on Lot 121 and where the footprint of the house would be. After discussion of the wetlands, mitigation, and the footprint of the structure, Godbee said he wants to fill the whole thing on Lot 121 and be within the setbacks. A discussion of when Godbee purchased the property concluded with him stating that he purchased it before August 19, 2003. Brown asked if Godbee owned Lot 122. Godbee said he did. Brown asked if it was all wetlands. Godbee said it has some upland and that could be a mitigation. Brown asked if Godbee anticipated having a Variance for the 25-foot buffer for the house. Godbee referred to the letters concurring that he could build within the 25-foot setback. Hughes said that the EPD concluded that as long as Godbee used certain construction techniques, any disturbance within the buffer would be considered minor land disturbing activity. He explained that the letters were written before the City was the issuing authority for Land Disturbing Permits. Hughes said that, as was the case with Bernie Goode, Godbee was entitled to have that determination recognized. Referring to one of the letters that Godbee had received since the agenda meeting, Hughes said that now that Tybee is the issuing authority it would be in charge of the pre-construction meeting related to the alternative construction techniques used to minimize impact in the buffer. Brown asked if the state was standing behind their earlier decision giving Godbee permission to build in the 25- foot buffer. Hughes said that was correct. Brown and Godbee discussed using lot 122 as mitigation or putting it in conservation. Charlie Brewer talked about the issues of crossing the ditch to access the property and opening the road. Major said that according to Chatham County’s records Godbee purchased the property August 25, 2004. Discussion of the property and the letters continued. Garbett said Godbee was asking to fill in wetland and they need to wait for a current delineation by the DNR. Brown asked Godbee if he expected the City to provide the bridge to access the property. Godbee said that according to Bob Thompson [former City Manager] the City would provide the gravel road and the pipe. Godbee talked about a nationwide permit to fill the fresh water spot and it being a Corps issue. The ditch and the tides were discussed. Regarding the request to open a portion of Miller Avenue, City Manager Diane Schleicher said it would basically be functioning as a driveway, not as a road, and it was not in the City’s interest to improve someone’s driveway access. She said that City Council would decide whether or not they would allow the road to be opened for a driveway. Godbee said he was comfortable with that. Major asked if Godbee intended to fill tidal marshlands in addition to the fresh water spot. Godbee said no. Major asked if the date Godbee purchased the property could be confirmed. Hughes said that the determination would belong to the property as opposed to the individual. Brown asked if anybody in the audience had any comment. David Postle talked about a Corps of Engineers form, Godbee’s description of the depth of the ditch, and the effect of the tides on the property. He requested that Hughes cite the court ruling or state regulations that require a community to grant access to property that people buy when they have no assurance at the time that they will ever be able to get to it. The group discussed land-locking, lots of record, unopened rights-of-way, and the marshes. Godbee said the reason he bought the lot was because of the EPD, DNR and the prior letters to cross the ditch. He talked about elevations. Brewer asked if Godbee was paying taxes on the property. Godbee said he was. Brewer said he has water in his backyard and he would not want anyone condemning his property. Brown closed the Public Hearing. Brewer motioned to approve contingent on Godbee paying to fill the roadway at his expense, that the DNR re-flag the marsh boundaries, and that he continue with the due process of the next steps of building approval. Sandy Chandler seconded. Brewer added conditional on using either of the methods for crossing the ditch. Brown commented that it was a manmade ditch. Powell asked if they were being asked to approve access to the property only. Hughes said the only part of the petition before them concerns the right-of-way and access to the lot. He said he did not think it addressed the wetlands on Lot 121. Hughes agreed with a comment from Major that they had asked Godbee at the agenda meeting to request the filling of the wetlands on Lot 121. Susan Hill said that the revised request did say Variance to build on Lot 121. The form was discussed. Hughes reviewed that the motion by Brewer was limited to access. He said Godbee would have to address fill on the Lot separately. Garbett said it would be inappropriate to approve as they are awaiting a revised delineation. Following discussion the vote was Brewer and Chandler in favor of the motion with the other five voting Commissioners opposed. Garbett moved to continue. Libby Bacon seconded. The motion to continue passed with five voting in favor. Chandler and Brewer voted against. Godbee said it was his understanding that the fill on the lot was a Corps issue. Godbee was advised by Brown to get with Staff to clear up any questions. 5 * * * * * Attorney Harold Yellin represented petitioner Lou Kietzman for a Zoning Variance (Section 5-090) from Section 5- 010(J), Shore Protection with Variance Clause, for 21 Pulaski Street, Zone R-1, PIN 4-0001-02-016 and 4-0001- 02-017. The request was for two single-family residences. The Public Hearing was opened. Yellin discussed the state’s and Tybee’s Shore Protection Lines. He said Tybee’s ordinance wipes out the use of the bunker as a residence. He talked about Tybee’s ordinance stating that a Variance may be granted where there are unique physical circumstances or conditions beyond that of surrounding properties or because of such physical circumstances or conditions that the property cannot be develop in strict conformity with Code without undue hardship to the property. Yellin described the property as the Buster Bunker, that it is physically unique, and that in 1946 the U.S. Government sold it to a private citizen who put up a residence which burned about 17 years ago. He said that without a Variance the owner will not be able to use it as a residence or be able to do anything with the property. He said the V-shape tells him that it is a Shore Protection Line in name only and has nothing to do with shore protection. He said Pulaski Street goes through the Line. Yellin reviewed the previous and the current versions of Tybee’s ordinance. He read and discussed the definition of dwelling as being any building or structure or part thereof primarily used and occupied or intended to be so used. Yellin said the bunker has water and sewer. He said it was a structure used for habitation and the Tybee Line should include it. He said Kietzman had two choices: ask for a Variance assuming that the Code section applies, or submit a building permit which could have led to litigation. He said their position is that a Variance to the Shore Protection Line does not apply. John Major said that at the agenda meeting Yellin had said that this was one time when the DNR line and the Tybee line were one and the same, that the jurisdiction line did not follow the bunker because it was not a habitable structure, and that the Shore Protection Line would not change because it was not a dwelling. Major asked what changed. Yellin talked about the plans presented by Kietzman’s architect and by his surveyor, and a letter from Ann Thran that confirmed the DNR line. Yellin said that his comment that the lines are the same was correct assuming that the bunker was not considered to be a dwelling. Yellin said the ordinance says that a dwelling is something that is intended to be habitable. He talked further about the meaning of the word dwelling. He said that after reading the ordinance carefully he came to a different conclusion. Sandy Chandler said it was no longer a residence. He said it in no way could be intended to be a residence as it sits. Chandler said it is a monolithic concrete structure. He said the DNR and the Tybee lines are precisely what are called for in this situation. Yellin referred to the definition of dwelling including “intended to be so used.” Chandler said that could be said of a vacant lot. The two discussed the issue further. Chuck Powell noted that there was not a structure on the monolithic. The survey from Whitley Reynolds was discussed. Bill Garbett asked if the Variance was granted how far back Kietzman would go. Yellin said they are bound by setbacks and the toe of the dune. He said the intention is to build above the footprint of the bunker. City Attorney Bubba Hughes said it would be dealt with by the setbacks from the toe of the dune. The setbacks were discussed. Chair Barry Brown asked if they were substandard lots of record. Hughes said that when the prior house was built the lots should have been required to be recombined. The group discussed the lots. Chandler said the City has a compelling interest in turning this down because it is a historic structure and it would be a mistake to allow Kietzman to essentially demolish the structure. He said it is a gun platform and Kietzman is anticipating destroying both of the gun mounts. Major verified with Yellin that Kietzman would not be requesting a height variance and that the height of 35 feet would be measured from Pulaski Street. Cullen Chambers, Executive Director of the Tybee Historical Society, said there is tremendous economic value in Variances. He said if Kietzman flips this property having received this Variance he would receive far more value for the property than exists without the Variance. Chambers said he hates seeing Variances given but on occasion the City receives something in value back. He gave examples of Variances that gave value back to the City. He said in the Kietzman case the City is getting absolutely no value. He said the only value remaining in Battery Backus is its existing character and condition, much of which was destroyed by the house being built on it. He said the intent of the Shore Protection ordinance is to not allow construction in all areas of Tybee for the protection of Tybee. After talking further about the battery and value, Chambers said that he would rather see it torn down than modified beyond recognition. Lola Garrett said that the Garrett’s have owned 29 Pulaski Street for over 50 years. She talked about a time when it was tried to tear down part of the battery structure. She also said that it was a one-family dwelling and that they do not want more than one family there. She talked about the prior home that burned. She said they are not in favor of demolishing anything on the fort. She said she hates to see the character of Tybee changed for greed. Ed Cawley distributed a handout. He talked about a letter he sent to DNR and to the Zoning Department. He said he has lived across the street since 1979. Cawley commented that the prior house burned prior to 1979. He said that when he moved in, high 6 tide was about 25 feet from the base of the battery. The battery, beach renourishment and numerous photographs were explained by Cawley. He ended by saying that to protect the sand dunes and preserve the historic integrity of the island they should not do anything with the battery. James Maury, owner of 27 Pulaski, said he has owned his property since 1989. He said he invested considerable money to bring his home up to Code and enhance it. He said he restored the block walls. He said part of the petition is to demolish the gun turrets. He said that under previous attempts at demolishing the fort considerable damage was experienced in the neighborhood. He said he is 15 feet from some of the concrete that would have to be excavated. He asked how the City was going to protect his property from the destruction of the battery and who was going to compensate him if there was damage. He said if the concrete area was removed it was going to create an opening in the dune structure that would jeopardize them at storm surge. Maury talked about maintaining the integrity of an R-1 neighborhood, one house rather than two, tourists that come to look at the battery, the effects of demolition, and damage to other properties. Dan Snyder said he hoped they do not approve the Variance but in case they do the issue of it being one lot or two lots should be discussed as part of the process. He talked further about the parcel. He talked about the prior home being a single-family residence and whether it was on one lot or two lots. Brown and Snyder discussed lots of record. Rachel Perkins talked about the history and methodology of the state and the Tybee lines. She said thoughts of building in front of the Shore Protection Line need to wait. Beth Hodges, a resident on Dogwood Avenue, said it has been at least 26 years since there was a house on Battery Backus. She talked about the Shore Protection Line and dune buildup being vital to the protection of the island. She asked if there have been engineering studies to determine the strength and stability of the battery as a foundation for new building. She said the battery is separating in several areas. She talked about setbacks, height, quality of life, vibrations, noise, closing of the street and damage to homes during construction, and that the battery was not originally built to be a dwelling. Dave Postle said trying to demolish 20% of the battery runs the risk of damaging nearby structures and the street. He said if they want to presume that a structure that was built over 100 years ago to fulfill a military purpose was a dwelling they could then say that the chassis of a 1901 car with no engines, tires, upholstery, windows, or top could still be called a car because it looked like it used to if you didn’t look too close. Postle talked further about the word dwelling. Florence Cawley said she loves the bunker. She talked about the battery and tourists that stop to see it. She talked further about the property and the number of proposed houses. Jane Garrett talked about the Garrett property. She said they need to keep the little bit of Tybee that is left. Brown closed the Public Hearing. Libby Bacon said the plan showed the extension toward the east as greenspace but the other plan did not show that it was being removed. She said that building on structures in the past does not mean that it is right to do it now. Bacon talked about historic Savannah. John Major said that on the application the petitioner had written “none” for hardship and that at the agenda meeting Kietzman was asked to amend that. It was clarified that a 3-page fax from Yellin was the amendment. Brown called for a motion. Chandler motioned to deny. Bacon seconded. Charlie Brewer said that it is a historic structure in the hands of a private citizen who has all the risk of people climbing on it and crossing it. He asked why the City has not purchased it and moved forward with protecting it. Brewer talked further about the battery. Chandler said the point was that the structure falls outside the Shore Protection Line. He said the Line is there to protect Tybee and property. He said that just because people own property does not guarantee that they will have the opportunity to either reach it or build on it. Brewer said that the Board of the Marine Science Center is preparing to do a feasibility study to build on the ocean side of the bunker in front of the Shrine Club. He compared that project to Kietzman’s. Brown said there is a Subcommittee preparing to make recommendations to change the Shore Protection Line. Major said the Shore Protection Line was in place when the property was purchased. Bill Garbett said they are confusing the applicant’s request for a Variance from the Shore Protection Line with the protection of a historic structure. He said they need to separate the two issues and plead with City Council and the citizens of the island to look into protecting this property but he could not use the Shore Protection Act to do so. Major said that Yellin said at the agenda meeting that the two lines are one and the same. Garbett said that the structure is not a dwelling. The vote on the motion was six in favor with Garbett opposed. The motion to deny passed. Yellin was advised by Brown that the matter would go to City Council on July 12. Bill Garbett motioned that the meeting adjourn. Charlie Brewer seconded. The vote was unanimous