Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20070821_PC_mtg_min 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Libby Bacon Diane Schleicher Demery Bishop Charlie Brewer PLANNING, ZONING & ECONOMIC Barry Brown, Chairperson DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Sandy Chandler Brannyn G. Allen Bill Garbett John Major CITY ATTORNEY David Postle Edward M. Hughes Chuck Powell, Vice Chairperson MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2007 – 7:00 p.m. Chair Barry Brown called the August 21, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were Libby Bacon, Demery Bishop, Charlie Brewer, Sandy Chandler, Bill Garbett, John Major, David Postle, and Chuck Powell. Chair Barry Brown introduced Brannyn G. Allen who was hired as Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Director for the City of Tybee Island on August 20, 2007. Chair Barry Brown called for a motion on the Minutes of the July 9, 2007 agenda meeting. Chuck Powell motioned to approve. Demery Bishop seconded. The vote was unanimous. Brown then asked for a motion on the Minutes of the July 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Bill Garbett motioned to approve. The motion was seconded by Charlie Brewer. The vote was unanimous. Michael Godbee presented a Zoning Variance petition for Lot 121 Miller Avenue, PIN 4-0005-16-007A, Zone R- 2. Since the Planning Commission’s agenda meeting Godbee had amended his request to bridging of wetland in the unopened right-of-way of Miller Avenue only. The variance was from Section 5-010(K) of the Land Development Code, Prohibit Placing Materials in the Marshlands. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Commissioner David Postle recused himself. Following discussion, City Attorney Bubba Hughes said he recommended recusal because Postle had appeared at Public Hearings on this topic. It was agreed that Postle would not participate in the discussion or vote. Godbee said that after the agenda meeting he tried to put together a matrix but he had an enormous amount of information. He said that he wanted to go back to his original intent and request access to the lot to put a picnic bench or a tent on it. He said he would address building on it in the future. Godbee said that it was a manmade ditch. After talking about the ditch and area around it, Godbee asked if he could be landlocked by a manmade ditch. Charlie Brewer asked Hughes to summarize the City’s requirements to allow access. Hughes said that Godbee’s lot borders an unopened right-of- way and it is up to the City whether it will open or not open a road. He said if the City is not going to permit it to be opened, the better practice would be for the City to abandon its interest and sell it to the abutting owners, which would not solve this entire problem because there are wetlands and marsh included in the right-of-way that is subject to the jurisdiction of the City, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Corps of Engineers. Brewer asked if they were prohibited from denying Godbee access to his property. Hughes answered no. He talked about the alternative of declaring the road abandoned. After further discussion of the unopened right-of- way and the marsh, Sandy Chandler said the roadbed is cleared for 10 to 20 yards. He said that there is no marsh that would impact where Godbee wants to put the access. Brown said that further in there is marsh. Bill Garbett said that it is jurisdictional marshland because of the elevation and if the City had not continuously mowed, the typical vegetation would occur. He said the area is less than 5.6 feet below mean sea level; by definition that is coastal marshland. Garbett said that it being manmade is irrelevant. Brown asked if the City was mowing the marsh. Garbett said yes. John Major confirmed with Godbee that the DNR is waiting for a letter from the City stating that the request is not in violation of any City ordinances. Major said that Godbee’s request to the DNR was to build a bridge to cross the ditch and to build a house. He asked Godbee if he was planning to amend his DNR application to say that he is only interested because he may want to put a tent there, and has he thought through the consequences to that. Godbee said that currently that was his interest, and that he could 2 amend. He told Major to keep in mind that he made his request to the City before the ordinance passed giving the City authority with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Act. Libby Bacon referred to the August 15, 2007 letter from Godbee and asked Godbee if he was abandoning his request to bridge the ditch and if he instead wanted to put pipes in the ditch. Godbee said the City originally recommended he put pipes. He said that either pipes or an open bottom culvert would work. Bacon said that the second paragraph of the letter said that the City could request approval from the DNR. Godbee said no, that was for surveying and delineating. Bacon asked if Godbee was bearing the expense. Godbee said he could improve the ditch; he has to get access to his lot. Brown asked Godbee if he understood this had nothing to do with building on the lot. Godbee agreed. Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or in opposition to the petition. He closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Brewer motioned to approve Godbee’s amended request for access to the property with the stipulation that Godbee culvert the ditch at his own expense. Chandler seconded. Brown clarified with the Commissioners that the ownership issue brought up at the agenda meeting had been resolved. During discussion Garbett talked about the Commission having asked that the entire project be presented. Major said that at the last meeting when Brewer suggested that a matrix of all the issues be put together he thought that was a good idea so he created his own. Major reviewed things from the summary he had prepared. Chandler said Godbee had amended his request and was no longer seeking to build on the lot; he was seeking access to the lot. Chandler said that what Godbee may do in the future is none of their business until it comes up. Brown talked about areas affected by saltwater intrusion at high tide. Garbett agreed but said it was not coastal marshland because of the elevation. Brown called for the vote. In favor of the motion to approve were: Bacon, Demery Bishop, Brewer, Chandler, and Powell. Voting against were Garbett and Major. Postle did not vote. The motion to approve passed. Brown advised Godbee that he would go before City Council on September 13. Harold Yellin presented a Zoning Variance petition for Samuel Meyer and Anne Cabaniss at 1811 and 1813 Butler Avenue, PINs 4-0009-08-004B and 4-0009-08-004C, Zone R-2. The request was a front setback variance to relocate stairs. The variance was from Section 3-090(A) of the Land Development Code, Schedule of Development Regulations. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Yellin said that the addresses had recently been changed to 1813 and 1815 Butler Avenue. He gave a summary of the current stair situation and he said that the variance was appropriate because of noise and privacy. He said internal stairs were not an option because both units have two units, top and bottom. He said the properties were bought without declarations and there is nothing of record that governs who maintains the stairs, liability or insurance. Yellin said that the most important reason why the variance is appropriate is because the property is unique because in front of the property is an 80-foot right-of-way but the blacktop is 18 feet wide which means there is 31 feet in front of the property line. Yellin said that even with the stair addition they would be 35-1/2 or 36 feet from the blacktop of the road. He said they are willing to footnote the plan that should Butler Avenue be widened they agree to take the stairs down. Yellin talked about what applying the 200-foot rule would look like in relation to the proposed stairs and that the neighbors were closer to the right-of-way than the proposed stairs would be. Brown called for questions. Sandy Chandler asked Chuck Bargeron about the stairs if that portion of Butler Avenue was widened. Bargeron said that significant trees would have to come out before the stairway would. Chandler asked if Bargeron was comfortable with the position of the stairs. Bargeron said that was not his decision. John Major asked Yellin how this property met the hardship definition. Yellin cited it being a unique piece of property with unique circumstances. Referring to the site, he said that even without the stairs it violates the building setback. He recounted the points he had made prior to the call for discussion and concluded by saying the addition promotes health, safety and wellbeing. Yellin talked further about hardship, neighboring properties and that every property stands on its own. Bill Garbett said it would be feasible to put stairs parallel to the house that would not extend any further out than the present stairs. He asked the actual setback from the property line with the design. Brown said 3-foot, 9-inches. Yellin said that they are trying to rebuild something that is aesthetically pleasing. Garbett asked for the average setback within 200 feet in each direction. Yellin said that the neighbor next door encroaches 6 inches into the street. Garbett told Yellin he would have to include the three houses that are part of the property. Brown asked Bargeron if they would be allowed to come within 10 feet of the front yard setback if it met the 200-foot rule. Bargeron said that was the most that could be done administratively if the average allowed it. It was discussed that a survey had not been prepared that showed if the 200-foot rule applied. Chuck Powell asked if the stairs could be turned and not encroach so far. Lee Meyer, the project architect, said the reason for the double stairs was because if someone is sitting on the top or the lower porch they are looking straight out and if stairs go diagonally across there every time somebody runs up or down the steps the view is destroyed. Meyer said he wanted it to be symmetrical; asymmetrical would be out of balance. He said he was trying to achieve something that would bring back the ambiance of the old Tybee houses, and it was for the aesthetics. David Postle proposed turning the steps to come out on the driveway. He said otherwise 3 anyone parking would have to walk back out to the right-of-way to access the steps. He said that being inconvenienced by people climbing up and down the steps is a small price to pay, and since the people are moving they would impede the view of houses on the other side of the street very little. Postle talked about the double stairway coming within a couple of feet of the public right-of-way when it was really not necessary, and they could maintain the distance from the public right-of-way by turning the steps. He said he failed to see the hardship to justify building the duel stairway. Yellin said that one of the issues they are trying to address is privacy and noise. He said if the stairs were done as Postle proposed it would repair the privacy and noise issue for Cabaniss and would create it for Meyer. He talked further about the stairs, noise, privacy, and aesthetics. Charlie Brewer spoke of a rebuild at another house on the island that improved the look of that area. Brown asked if it would be practical for the steps to go west on the side of the house. Meyer said that was impractical. Libby Bacon asked if both sides were 2 units and if they were townhomes or condos. Sam Meyer said that there are three townhouses and two of them are duplexes. Brown said that they are flats; upper and lower units. Libby asked if they owned both the upper and lower units. Yellin said they could be conveyed that way because it is 1813A and 1813B, and 1815A and 1815B. Bacon said the existing stairs fit the overall building; the proposed stairs stick out and dwarf the rest of the building. Lee Meyer cited architectural design recognitions he has received and he said the aesthetics are very important. He said they are trying to enhance the visual impact. Powell asked if the existing stairwell encroached on anyone’s privacy or view. Lee Meyer said they are unsafe; the wood is rotted. Powell asked if they could be rebuilt. Lee Meyer said the stairs straddle the line. Bacon suggested an escrow account to maintain the stairs. Lee Meyer said that architecture should not be capricious or whimsical; there is an order to what they do for the aesthetics and to make it look like it has a sense of place and importance in a pursuit of happiness. Chandler said it was not their purview to talk about aesthetics. He said the 200-foot rule was being overlooked. He said it would be unfair to allow other people to encroach on the property line and then not allow Meyer to do that. Postle said it was a very generous offer on the part of Meyer that should the City widen Butler Avenue that they would do something about the double stairway. He asked what their Plan B would be if that happened. Yellin said they would have to come back before the Commission with a new plan. Postle asked what the stairway configuration would be. Yellin said he did not know the answer to that question. Postle asked if it was possible it would be a stairway that would parallel the front of the building. Yellin said they would certainly hope not. He talked about the unlikelihood that Butler Avenue would be widened. He referred to the deck on an adjacent property that encroached into the right-of-way, and that the proposed stairs would be totally within the property. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on the variance request. He closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Brewer motioned to approve the request based on it being similar to other properties on the street. Chandler seconded the motion. Brown called for the vote. Voting in favor of the motion to approve were Brewer and Chandler. Bacon, Bishop, Garbett, Major, Postle, and Powell voted in opposition to the motion to approve. Brown told the petitioners that the motion to approve was denied and that they would go before City Council on September 13. Lou Off presented a Zoning Variance petition for Chapel by the Sea at 809 Butler Avenue, PINs 4-0005-21-006 and 4-0005-21-007, Zone R-2. The request was for a front setback variance for a church entrance. The variance request was from Section 3-090(A) of the Land Development Code, Schedule of Development Regulations. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Lou Off gave the history of the church at the site and cited its current operational needs. Brown asked if there were any questions. When asked about future plans, Off said he did not foresee in the near future that the church would need any more room. Bill Garbett asked Off what the hardship was that would not allow an alternative that would not encroach further beyond what is currently there. Off said the main hardship was that they are going to give some protection to handicapped, old people and anybody else coming in from the rain. Garbett said that was not a hardship. Charlie Brewer said it was zoned R-2 and asked if the residential setbacks applied. Brown said it was a non-conforming use. Brewer said they are already in the setback. Brown and Off discussed that at one time the church did meet the 20-foot setback. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor or in opposition. He closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Garbett moved to approve. John Major seconded. Brewer said he was in favor of approving but coming on the heels of the last petition he wonders about their ability to look consistently at petitions. Brown talked about the 200-foot rule and that anything more than 10 feet had to come before the Planning Commission and Council. Brewer said this was an example of them not being consistent in their deliberations. Brown called for the votes. Seven of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion to approve and Chuck Powell voted in opposition. The motion to approve passed. The petition would go to Council on September 13. Margaret Stone presented a Zoning Variance petition for herself and Robert Parker at 29 Van Horn, PIN 4-0002- 18-001, Zone R-1. The request was a front setback variance for an entryway. The variance request was from 4 Section 3-090(A) of the Land Development Code, Schedule of Development Regulations. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Stone said that their request was to replace a stairway for safety reasons. She submitted a letter of support from neighbor Lynn Hamilton of 32 Van Horn. Brown asked if there would be a roof over the entrance and the proposed sidewalk. Stone said that it would be a covered porch, and the stairs would be partially covered. Stone said they are not coming out any further than the existing steps and they are taking out a cement slab. Brown asked how far they were coming away from the house. Stone said it would be out 7 feet. It was verified that that was the same distance as the existing stairs. Bill Garbett asked about the stairs going two ways. Stone talked about children coming from the park and using the back stairs. Demery Bishop asked about the slab being removed. Stone said her husband took it up and that they are replacing the lattice under the house with brick. Brown confirmed that the porch would be 29 feet wide and 7 feet deep. He asked if the roof would be over the porch or over the porch and the stairs. Stone said she did not know. Brown called for questions from the audience. He closed the Public Hearing. Bishop moved to approve and Garbett seconded. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Brown told Stone that Council would hear the petition on the 13th of the next month. Jim Marsh presented a Site Plan Approval petition for Shell Solomon at 802 First Street, PINs 4-0019-02-010 and 4-0019-02-036, Zone C-2. The request was for a two-story addition to an existing commercial building. Site Plan Approval is addressed in Section 5-080 of the Land Development Code. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. Marsh said that the proposal did not ask for any variances. He described the plan. Marsh said one limb of an oak tree would be trimmed and no trees would be removed. Brown asked if the bank would be located on the South Campbell Avenue side. Marsh said yes. He said that any renovations the bank may do, they would be back to talk about those. He said they did not do a parking plan but estimated that there were 48 to 50 parking places. Brown asked if the proposed front porch extended further than the existing ramp. Marsh said it did. Brown confirmed that the proposal went outside the existing footprint. Marsh said it went out about 3 feet. Chuck Powell asked the width of the deck. Marsh said 7 feet. Powell questioned if the oak tree would have to be removed. Marsh said no. David Postle talked about the width of the limb that would have to be trimmed from the oak. He requested an arborist opinion on the effects of trimming. Marsh said he would expect Solomon being open to that. Charlie Brewer clarified that the survey that was provided was of the existing site. The group noted that a 10-foot front setback was required in C-2. They requested a Site Plan showing the entire proposed structure, a parking plan and the trees. Marsh explained that there was not going to be any additional businesses at the site. He said there would be approximately 15 employees. He talked about the briefness of visits by people to the bank and the Visitor’s Center. Brown said that enclosing almost 1,000 feet would require a new parking plan and additional parking spaces. Brewer commented that a drive-through for the bank would take up space. A possible drive-through and the parking were discussed further. A recombination of the two lots was discussed about which City Attorney Bubba Hughes said that part of the building encroached on Lot 22. Marsh asked if that was a critical item. Hughes said that if Solomon owns both of them he could recombine them without a lot of effort. He recommended checking the parking plan to make sure that it was going to fit before doing the recombination. Brown asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. Greg Stoeffler, President of the Tourism Council, said that the board members of the Tourism Council endorsed the project. He talked further about the proposal. John Major asked Marsh their proposed timetable. Marsh said that it should be complete by the end of the year. Stoeffler said there is urgency so they can start 2008 with a new Visitor’s Center. Brown explained that the City needs to see a Site Plan showing the parking spaces that are needed to meet the square footage of the entire building. Stoeffler asked if they could have that prepared for Council in September. Brown said that would be up to the Commissioners. Brown explained that they also needed on the Site Plan the proposed deck and the location of the oak tree. Cullen Chambers, board member of the Tybee Tourism Council, said he would plead that they grant approval to fast track it in order to get the building operational by the next season. He talked further about the proposed project. Marsh said they could have the Site Plan the next week. Brown closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Major moved to approve with stipulations that the petitioner prepare a parking plan and a tree plan, that the lot recombination take place, and that the deck configuration as it relates to the oak tree all be prepared on a new Site Plan to the satisfaction of the Zoning Director. Chuck Powell seconded. He asked if an arborist would be certifying that the tree would survive the expansion. Major stated that the ordinance calls for a tree removal plan, a tree protection plan and a tree establishment plan. Brewer asked about the schedule. Marsh said the plan was to start mid-September and be complete by the end of December. Brewer said that there were some serious issues. He talked about increased traffic in the area. He questioned whether the Planning Commission was doing their due diligence. Brown called for a vote. Voting in favor were Libby Bacon, Demery Bishop, Sandy Chandler, Bill Garbett, Major, 5 Postle, and Powell. Brewer voted against the motion. The motion to approve carried. Brown told Marsh that City Council would hear the petition on September 13. Harold Yellin presented for Lou Kietzman a Zoning Variance petition for 21 Pulaski Street, PINs 4-0001-02-016 and 4-0001-02-017, Zone R-1. The variance request was from Section 5-010(J) of the Land Development Code, Shore Protection with Variance Clause. The request was to build two single-family structures. Chair Barry Brown opened the Public Hearing. David Postle recused himself for the same reason as given during the first Public Hearing. Yellin explained that they had been sent back to the Planning Commission by City Council. He said that the only matter was a variance from the Shore Protection Line. He said there are other things that may come before them later in the process. He said he was not satisfied that they need a variance. He talked about Tybee’s Shore Protection Line ordinance, the definition of dwelling and the history of the property. He said that the Georgia Supreme Court has said that zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed in favor of the property owner and any ambiguity in ordinance language is resolved in favor of free use of the property. He talked further about Tybee’s Shore Protection Line ordinance, the Variance process and the Kietzman property. Yellin discussed photographs of the uses of other batteries on the island. He said that if the City does not want a residence on top of the battery, the remedy is to buy it. He said Tybee was using a Shore Protection ordinance to deny the use of property. He said there was no shore-related reason to deny the petition. Sandy Chandler said there was not any ambiguity in the Code. He said that the battery has not been a dwelling since the 70s; it was a fort before that and a piece of scrubland before that. Chandler said that what they are talking about is right now. He said the site is beyond the Shore Protection Line, the toe of the dune wraps around it and Tybee has a compelling interest to protect existing historic sites. He asked why it would not be up to the owner to check out what the regulations were before he spent the money on the supposition that it was going to be passed. Yellin said if he wants to know where the DNR line is, he goes to the DNR and they tell him. He said there is no one who will show him where the Tybee line is; they have to guess where it is. Yellin said DNR is a jurisdictional line; it is not a no-build area. He said that Tybee says it is a no-build area unless you get a variance. Chandler said that Tybee has the right to be more restrictive than the state. Yellin discussed Tybee’s Line as it affected a different property and the Pulaski Street property. Chandler commented that the two were entirely different situations. After Yellin and Chandler discussed further the ordinance and the Kietzman property, Chandler said that the structure was collapsing because of misguided efforts to remove sand. Chuck Powell read from Land Development Code Section 3-020, Continuance of Nonconforming Uses/Structures. He said that it states that if a structure is destroyed by fire and not replaced, then it cannot be put back because it would be a nonconforming use. Powell said that when the Line was drawn there was no house. He said there is a study committee looking at Tybee’s Shore Protection Act, and until that it is done it is defined from dwelling to dwelling. He said when the property was purchased that Line existed and it could have been discovered and its implication understood. Yellin said that houses that are burned that are nonconforming do have the right to be built within a certain period of time. He said at the time the house was built it predated the ordinance. Yellin talked about the definition of dwelling including “intended to be so used.” Yellin and Powell discussed the issue further. Powell said it would be dangerous precedent to use a dwelling that no longer existed. Yellin talked about the property having remnants of being a dwelling. John Major said that in June, Yellin said that the DNR and Tybee lines were the same, and he did not say that someone had to guess where the Tybee line was. Major and Yellin discussed a handout of a PowerPoint presentation from the last City Council meeting which showed two different Tybee Lines. Charlie Brewer asked how the Coastal Protection Subcommittee’s potential recommendation of 10-feet from the toe of the dune would affect the property. Following discussion with Brown, Brewer said the issue may or may not be resolved once the Subcommittee brings its recommendation to Council. Brown asked Yellin if he was aware of the Subcommittee. Yellin said they were. He said that it may be that if the Planning Commission denies, as they did before, and they go to Council, and if they feel the need to have a court decide they will, if not, they won’t. He said that the law that governs this petition is the one that is before them now, not the one that they might adopt in the future. Brewer talked about the property. Brown commented that, compared to the first drawing, the second drawing lowered the first floor by about 6 feet by removing the slab that was poured in the 70s. He asked if there was any way to preserve the battery. Yellin said they are trying to preserve as much as they can. He suggested that a remedy would be that Tybee buy it. Chandler and Yellin discussed areas to be demolished at the site. Brewer talked about homes that were built on other batteries. He asked if there was a compromise that could both give an architectural/historical solution but also the right for Kietzman to build on property he has acquired. Referring to the proposed destroying of the two gun turrets, Demery Bishop cited a letter in the packet dated June 18, 2007, from Environmental Services, Inc. that read, “no permanent alteration to the existing surroundings is proposed.” Bishop also cited a document in the packet from Whitaker Labs. Mike DeMell, Office Manager of Environmental Services, said that the document does say that there would be no demolition to the 6 structure and that was an error after which they found out through the architect that there would be some demolition. He spoke further about the document, the dunes near the battery, the project, and the structure of the battery. Bishop said it was a substantial typo. DeMell agreed and spoke about the historic integrity of the structure and preserving it in perpetuity. Chandler told DeMell that the assurances did not match up with what the Planning Commission had been given to review. He said there was no clarity and a 40-page submission was a lot of razzle-dazzle. DeMell said the document was what the State requires so it was not intended to impress the Planning Commission or for them to be using for their decisions. The representation of Kietzman by DeMell was discussed by DeMell, Chandler and Bill Garbett. Brown asked, if the intent is to preserve the historical battery, was it feasible to maintain all three gunnery rings and proceed with the houses above that. DeMell said that the architect, who was not present, would be more qualified to answer that question. Kietzman said that whatever could be preserved would be preserved. Brewer suggested lifting the height variance slightly to allow preserving the base. Brown referred to the drawing that showed the two structures below 35 feet. Garbett said that once houses are allowed to be built on the structure there would be no historic value left. He recommended either preserving it or allowing two nonconforming structures to be built. Brewer asked what they were trying to accomplish. With respect to the proposals of a height variance and of saving the three turrets, Yellin offered to return with a new plan. Brown opened the Public Hearing for comments. Cullen Chambers, Executive Director of Tybee Island Historical Society, talked about the construction techniques of batteries from the Endicott period when Battery Backus was built in 1898. He explained that the structural integrity of the wooden platform below the battery is in question and should be considered. He asked City Attorney Bubba Hughes if a variance was granted and structural deficiencies were found, what recourse the City would have in preventing demolishing more, if not all, of the battery. Hughes said it would depend on the terms of whatever variance was granted. He said the only legal issue is the Shore Protection ordinance, not the historic factor. He told the Planning Commissioners that because of the variance standards and the uniqueness of the property they are entitled to take all of those into consideration. In answer to Chambers’ question Hughes said that it would probably require additional Public Hearings and revisiting the variance. Chambers said that he is a volunteer preservation advisor to the City. He talked about a situation where someone wanted to restore a structure in order to keep the original footprint and the building was structurally unsound and not saved but benefited from use of the footprint. He cautioned the Commissioners of granting something that might be a moot point when they discover structural deficiencies. He said that once you impact a structure to the degree Kietzman is proposing it no longer has historic integrity. He said there was no value to preserving something out of context; it no longer has a historical context. Chambers said that he would now speak as a citizen, and he asked Hughes if the Shore Protection Act was ambiguous. Hughes said he did not think the Act nor the definition of dwelling were ambiguous as applied to this property. Chambers and Hughes discussed ambiguity. Chambers asked if the City has in place a mechanism for a buyer to approach a City zoning official and ask how a proposed purchase would be affected by Tybee’s Shore Protection Act. Hughes said he was puzzled by Yellin’s comments on that. He said he gets questioned all the time about issues like that and where the line would be. Chuck Bargeron recounted that Kietzman was the third person that had approached the City about purchasing the property. He said Kietzman asked some questions Bargeron answered to the best of his ability and he asked Kietzman if he had attorney, and Kietzman said he did so Bargeron asked Kietzman if he would mind if he spoke with that attorney. Bargeron said that he and Yellin talked and Bargeron told him that he had 3 problems that he could see off hand: elevation or the height of the structure, setback issues, and Tybee’s Shore Protection Line. Bargeron said that the day they stood on the battery with Hughes, Kietzman, Yellin, and their architect they did discuss the Shore Protection Line and he gave his best opinion of where it was and it was almost the identical line that they are looking at now. Yellin said that Bargeron’s is a best guess as opposed to the DNR that says this is the line. He said that is a difference. He said it is more subjective on the Tybee no-build line versus DNR, which is a jurisdictional line. Chambers told the Commissioners to please not violate the existing Shore Protection Act or add to the violation by discussing increasing height that would violate a longstanding doctrine on the island that protects all of us. Ed Cawley of 14 Pulaski Street recounted the history of the site and listed 6 reasons to deny the variance. He talked about other batteries being utilized but never even partially being destroyed. He talked about the battery and the dunes. He requested an engineering study to determine if the removal of the proposed sections would undermine the remaining portions. Cawley pointed out the locations of concrete of the battery in relation to proposed garages. He talked about an earlier failed attempt to remove the battery, and collateral damage from Kietzman’s proposal. After Cawley spoke of establishing historical interpretation at the site, Brewer asked who should do that. Cawley said that two weeks ago he formed a nonprofit organization with that purpose. He read a portion of an August 9, 2007, letter from Kristen McMasters of the National Park Service. Brown asked Cawley how long he has lived on Pulaski. Cawley said he bought the property in 1979 and moved there in 1987. Brown asked why nobody has offered to clean up the battery. Cawley said that it was owned by someone besides him. He said he cut the grass, 7 kept the tourists off of it, and discouraged people from using the interior. He said Miss Howard used to own the property and she asked him to help her take care of it and he did so for about 20 years. Brown and Cawley discussed the property further. Brewer talked about Article 14 of the Land Development Code, Historic Preservation, which Chambers explained established a Historic Preservation Commission to develop local historic districts. He said that because the City Council did not pass local historic districts the Commission ceased to exist except for responding to demolition requests. He talked about preservation efforts on the island. He and Brewer discussed Article 14. Brown closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Chandler moved to deny. Major seconded. Brewer, Garbett and Brown commented about various aspects of the discussion during the Public Hearing. Brown called for the vote. Postle had recused himself from the vote. The motion to deny passed with the 7 remaining Commissioners voting unanimously for it. Brown told Yellin that the petition would go before Council on September 13. Chair Barry Brown called for a motion to adjourn. Bill Garbett so moved. Chuck Powell seconded. The vote was unanimous.