Loading...
20080722_PC_mtg_min 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Libby Bacon Diane Schleicher Demery Bishop James P. Boyle PLANNING & ECONOMIC George Dausey DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR John Major, Vice Chair Brannyn G. Allen Anne Miller David Postle Chuck Powell, Chair CITY ATTORNEY Whitley Reynolds Edward M. Hughes MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 2008 – 7:00 p.m. Chuck Powell called the July 22, 2008, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Commissioners present were: Libby Bacon, Demery Bishop, James Boyle, George Dausey, John Major, Anne Miller, David Postle, and Whitley Reynolds. Chuck Powell welcomed George Dausey as a member of the Commission. Dausey would be serving the remainder of Sandy Chandler’s term. Mayor Jason Buelterman had been sworn him in on July 8, 2008. Chuck Powell asked for corrections or additions to the Minutes of the June 17, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Libby Bacon noted that she did not vote on the May 28, 2008, Minutes because she was not present at that meeting. Demery Bishop moved to approve the Minutes with the correction. David Postle seconded. The vote was unanimous. Chuck Powell asked if there were any Disclosures. Whitley Reynolds said that he had surveyed the 211 Butler Avenue property although the submitted Site Plan did not look like his. He also said he had worked with the present owner on this and other properties. Reynolds said he also surveyed 210 Butler Avenue for a previous owner and petitioner Greg Stoeffler was using that drawing. Powell disclosed that he lived within 500 feet of the area potentially impacted by the proposed Shore Protection Ordinance. For that same Ordinance, John Major disclosed that he owned property. Powell said that Anne Miller lived within 500 feet of the same area. Major moved that Reynolds be able to hear the 211 Butler Avenue and 210 Butler Avenue agenda items. David Postle seconded. The vote was unanimous with Reynolds abstaining. James Boyle motioned that Major, Miller and Powell participate in the Shore Protection Ordinance item. Reynolds seconded. The motion passed. Major said that there was an Ordinance that all of them had an interest in regarding the Planning Commission. He asked if there was any issue there. City Attorney Bubba Hughes said that it was a Text Amendment and was a legislative proposal so he did not believe those rules applied. Chuck Powell opened the Public Hearing for a request from Virginia and John Duncan for a Zoning Variance (Section 5-090) from Section 3-090, Schedule of Development Regulations, for 1429-E Estill Avenue, PIN 4-0022-01-356, Zone R-2. The request was for a side setback variance to construct stairs at an existing duplex unit. The proposed stairs would encroach into the existing 10-foot setback by 3 feet, 4 inches. After summarizing the request, Brannyn Allen said that the explanation of hardship on the application spoke to a second means of egress from the dwelling. John Major asked if there was room behind the house for the stairs without encroaching into the 25-foot marsh setback. John Duncan spoke of a porch overhang that already encroaches on the 25-foot setback. Whitley Reynolds said that the subdivision plat clearly showed the buffer line was against the building. Demery Bishop asked if other 2 locations for the stairwell had been considered. Duncan and E.T. Smith, Duncan’s contractor, spoke of various alternatives and the reasons they were not workable. Bishop asked if a spiral system could be used. Smith spoke of impeding brick columns that gave 36 inches of clearance. Reynolds asked if the stairs shown in the photographs at other duplex units were add-ons and if they were in the 10-foot setbacks. Duncan said that they may be, and they were only asking for what their neighbors already have. Libby Bacon asked if the columns supported the exterior porch. Smith said yes. Bacon asked if there was any place from the rear porch to put a spiral staircase. Smith said there were not any good places. Bacon asked if the deck was 6-feet wide. Smith said yes. Bacon asked Allen if anything had been proposed to require two means of ingress and egress for new construction. Allen spoke of the status of an amendment to the Land Development Code that the Commission would see in the future. Bacon asked if it was only for future development or would it give a reason for people to ask for Variances. Allen said that as she understood the request from the Planning Commission, it would address both existing and new construction. David Postle said they were told that a Variance could not set a precedent. He said that apparently some of the neighbors have stairways in side setbacks and the Duncans were asking only for what some of their neighbors have. He asked if they were into a precedent-setting situation or were they to judge each case individually. Allen said they were to judge each case individually. She said she did not have surveys that showed that the neighbors’ stairs encroached into the side setbacks. Allen said that from the photographs and looking on the ground it appeared that they do. She said that Staff researched and when the project was initially approved stairs were not shown encroaching into the setbacks and there was no data to support that the City issued a permit for the stairs or issued a variance. Postle said that they were not able to walk the property because there was a continuous fence. He asked how they could deal with that in the future. Powell said there were two dogs that prevented him from entering the property. Bishop asked if some form of a spiral could alleviate the emergency exit issue. Smith said that he could put a spiral on the side that would come out 3-feet, 8-inches or less but that would still be in the setback, or he could do the same thing on the rear of the house but it would be in the marsh setback. He spoke again of the columns and also of a sprinkler system under the porch. Major asked if the request met the requirements for a Variance as stated in the Land Development Code. Allen said that the request did not meet the strictest interpretation of the requirements for a Variance. Major asked if there was an interpretation that she could apply that would meet it. Allen said that would probably require a Text Amendment. Powell asked if anyone from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Duncan said that he had a bad foot, wore a brace and was afraid of not having a second exit. He said it should be a requirement to have two exits. He said they have never rented the house but did give it to friends, relatives and business associates, and if it caught fire they could be sued for not having a respectable exit. Duncan said that the door that they have was three inches from the kitchen. Powell closed the Hearing. Reynolds moved to approve. James Boyle seconded and he said it seemed to be a sensible accommodation. Anne Miller said that they could figure out another way besides the side setback. Voting in favor were Boyle, George Dausey, and Reynolds. Voting to oppose were Bacon, Bishop, Major, Miller, and Postle. The motion to approve failed. Powell said that it would go to City Council on August 14. Virginia Duncan asked why the Commissioners could not get into the property. The issue was discussed. A Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) request from Chris Chandler for 1126 Highway 80, PIN 4-0026- 11-023, Zone C-1, was the next item. Brannyn Allen said that the property was currently used as a special events facility with approval for it granted in 2007, and Chandler was asking for an expanded use to include special events and a bed and breakfast (Section 3-060). John Major asked if the fifteen contingencies had been met that were imposed when the current use was approved. Allen said there had been some issue with the offsite parking but the petitioner was able to come into compliance as part of the business license for 2008. She said the parking was revisited every six months. Anne Miller asked if this was the one that allowed people that got married to stay. That issue was discussed. Demery Bishop 3 asked if there had been issues associated with ingress or egress. Allen said not to her knowledge. Whitley Reynolds said that a bed and breakfast would be less demanding on the neighborhood than would be a special event. David Postle asked if Staff requested information on a parking plan and how many rooms were going to be added. Allen said that the existing parking plan accommodated the number of rooms, and Staff did want clarification on the total number of rental units. Those issues and the total occupancy were discussed. Anne Miller asked if the owner would be staying in the house. Allen said that it would not be owner-occupied. Powell asked if there was anyone that wished to speak for or against the petition. Chandler said that when people have an event they liked to stay that night or the night before. He said it was a 3-bedroom, 2-bath house. James Boyle asked if that answered the question about how many rooms. Chandler said there were two king beds and a futon. He said 5 or 6 people. Boyle asked if it was 3 rental units. Chandler said yes. He said there were two couches and that he had 13 onsite parking places. Powell asked the maximum number of people that could spend the night. Chandler said 8. Allen said that if there were three units then Chandler had more than enough parking. George Dausey asked if the people would be charged to stay there. Chandler said yes and that he would comply with the City tax structure. Miller asked about the 1:00 a.m. curfew. Chandler said there was a sound ordinance. He said he was not monitoring the people at 2:00 a.m. but they would be inside the house. He said he was not renting it to college fraternity parties or anything. Chandler said it was primarily a wedding event site but he had also had seminars and a wine tasting. Powell closed the Public Hearing. Miller motioned to deny. Postle seconded. Postle asked why Staff needed a parking plan. Allen said there had been some challenges with the parking plan for the special event facility and she was probably being overcautious when she added it to the Staff Report. She said the petitioner had demonstrated that he had enough onsite parking to support the request. Reynolds said it appeared it would work but he wished they had had a better application to begin with. Major asked if the petitioner would be willing to stipulate no more than 3 rental units. Miller said she would not withdraw her motion. Postle withdrew his second to the motion. There was no other second to Miller’s motion to deny so the motion died. Major moved to approve with the stipulation that no more than 3 rental units be allowed and that the parking be verified by Staff as being adequate for the combined bed and breakfast, and special event activities. Reynolds seconded. Bishop asked if they could cap the number of individuals. Powell asked Major to amend the motion. Chandler said he would cap the number of people at 8 or 6. Major agreed to amend the motion to approve with conditions of limiting the number of units to 3, parking spaces had to be ample, and capping the number of people staying at the bed and breakfast at 8. Libby Bacon seconded. Voting in favor were Bacon, Bishop, Boyle, Dausey, Major, Postle, and Reynolds. Miller voted against the motion. The motion to approve a commercial bed and breakfast with the conditions of a limit of 3 units, ample parking, and a limit of 8 guests passed. The Planning Commission next considered a petition from Jeff Cramer for Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) for 211 Butler Avenue, PIN 4-0004-08-004, Zone C-1. The request was for a new commercial building. Brannyn Allen said that it would negate the Site Plan that was approved for the billboard. She said the petitioner was requesting to use about half of the lot for a new retail facility and parking to support it. David Postle spoke of a City Council action at the time of the billboard request regarding testing to be done at the site to see if the ground was buildable. He said tests were run from items picked up out of the street and no grounds were found to determine that the ground was not buildable but he did not believe any core testing inside the fence had been done. He said the property was used for years as a construction dump. Postle asked if core testing was done. Allen said the testing that Staff was instructed to do was not to test for stability or buildability of the site. She said there were concerns about materials that had been dumped and if they were contaminants. Allen said that they did test within the City right- of-way, on all sides of the lot; all of the tests came back clean. She said it would be up to the petitioner to determine if the ground was sound to be built upon. John Major asked why the number of lost parking meters on Butler was undetermined. Allen said that the City had not gotten the final determination from 4 DOT as to how many spaces they would like the City to remove. Major said that the Staff Report stated that the Site Plan met all the requirements and then it said that we are working on the drainage plan and the erosion and sedimentation, and we do not have the DOT, so they really had not met all the requirements yet. Allen said that we go through that with every Site Plan. Major said that we do and it was just as relevant every time. Allen agreed. She said that Staff began talking with the petitioner about the Site Plan in December. She said the Commissioners could see by the Staff Report that she had some serious concerns about the project. Allen said that they had worked through many meetings to try to reach some common ground and what they had before them was where they ended. Chuck Powell asked if the curb cut on Lovell was required; did they have to have both a front and back entrance. Allen said they did not; they had to have room to maneuver within the lot. She said she had serious concerns about loading commercial traffic onto a residential street. She said they talked about a variety of ways that they could reconfigure the building, reconfigure the site, that would not involve Lovell or Third, and that was not amenable to the owners. Whitley Reynolds asked if the employee parking being 3-deep was something they could live with. Allen said that it was not something she had seen before. She said that stacked parking was normally 2-deep, and 3-deep was not something she was thrilled with. Postle said that some of the neighbors had concerns about runoff from the higher-level property. He asked if the curb cut facing those homes would exacerbate more flooding. Allen said that it would not exacerbate the flooding. Powell asked if anyone from the public wished to speak for or against the petition. Jeff Cramer, architect of the project, said the retail center would be for one tenant only. He said they put the building on one side to put the parking and the front of the building in the center of the lot, which was the most non-intrusive. He spoke of the arboreal landscaping around the street to buffer the residential uses. He said they met with DOT and they needed the curb cut on Butler to be across from the DeSoto parking lot for safety reasons. Cramer said they assumed it would lose four parking spaces on Butler. He said the retail center was 6,600 square feet and they had the required number of parking places. He said that after working with DOT they put the curb cut where they wanted it on Butler, but they still think they need a second curb cut on Lovell, mainly because of emergency vehicles getting in and out. He said it was zoned commercial; the proposal was by right and according to all the Ordinances. Cramer asked for support for the project. Marianne Bramble, 215 Lovell Avenue, said that on the corner of Lovell and Third she was sure that some of the trees were within the tree ordinance and they were a natural habitat for birds. She said the lot was completely surrounded by residential areas. She said the DeSoto had done a fine job keeping up their building and it looked great. Bramble said that the lot had been used and filled in since the early ‘50s. She said the property used to be owned by a mayor of Tybee who used all the debris from Tybee to fill in the lot, and that was in the ‘60s. She said it would cause an impact on the drainage; it did already. She said the lot needed to be leveled down two or three feet before it could be built upon. She said that on the north side the tree ordinance also would be impacted. Bramble said that all she was asking was that the owners level it out to a level that was comparable to the neighbors around them, which it originally was when she first bought the property across the street in 1982, and she has photos to show that. She spoke further about the property. Referring to Staff, Bramble said that obviously they had issues with it that had not been taken care of, so the Commissioners could not vote on it if they were not satisfied and she was not satisfied. She said the only people that were going to be satisfied were the owners. She said that they had to respect people who had lived there for many years. Powell closed the Public Hearing. Major moved to table until the things Staff was waiting for had been put together. Postle seconded. Libby Bacon asked what additional information they were looking for. She asked if pervious parking would improve the drainage and not impact the neighborhood as much. Allen said that she did not need any more technical information to conduct the review. She said the Staff Report finding was based on the overall project, not a lack of information. She said waiting on information from DOT would not substantially change the Site Plan. Major said that they did not have the drainage plan. Allen said that Staff did have the drainage plan; they did not have it at the time the Staff Report was written. Major asked about the erosion and sedimentation plan. Allen said that Staff 5 had it. She said that when the Planning Commission was asked to look at a Site Plan it was not at the technical level of detail that Staff looked at. Bacon said it was in keeping with the C-1 District and Allen said she had everything she needed so why did Allen recommend denial. Allen said that the curb cut on Lovell was intrusive into a residential neighborhood, the employee parking being stacked 3-deep was intrusive, the petitioner was unable to answer questions about the future development area, the petitioner was asked to define the parking spaces currently being used as a private parking lot and did not do that, and they also could not identify what that area would be used for in the future. Allen said they were not hung up on technicalities; it was simply a review opinion. Major withdrew his motion to table. Postle withdrew the second. James Boyle said that there was a third curb cut; a dumpster facing Third Street. He asked if there was anyplace else to put that dumpster other than facing a residential area. He said it was a big lot. Referring to previous meetings with the petitioner, Allen said that Staff asked similar questions. Boyle said it was a commercial enterprise, for profit. He said to let them look at the dumpster. Powell called for motion. Bacon asked if the City had asked the petitioners to remove the fill. Allen said that they have asked them to demonstrate that they can manage their storm water onsite, which they have done. She said the City had met with Bramble and made some recommendations for things she could do to her lot and the City was considering any and all options to alleviate flooding island wide. Major moved to deny. Dausey seconded. Reynolds said that maybe they should continue it; the petitioner had a lot more work to do to satisfy Staff. Major was asked by Powell to withdraw the motion. Major did not withdraw. Voting in favor of the motion to deny were Bacon, Bishop, Dausey, Major, and Postle. Powell stated that the motion was denied. The next item was Conceptual Site Plan Approval (Section 5-080) for Greg Stoeffler at 210 Butler Avenue, PIN 4-0004-06-001, Zone C-1. Brannyn Allen said that this was not a Public Hearing; the petitioner was looking for feedback. She explained that the proposal was to add six units in front of an existing bed and breakfast. David Postle asked how the ingress/egress would be handled on the narrow lane. Allen said that the petitioner had agreed to expand the existing access easement. She said that there was room to increase the 10-foot lane to a 20-foot lane. Whitley Reynolds clarified with Allen that there were going to be hotel rooms connected to the front of the bed and breakfast. Demery Bishop asked if it was a historical structure to some degree. Allen agreed. Bishop confirmed that the existing porch facing Butler Avenue would be destroyed and that the new units would extend to the existing block wall. Chuck Powell asked for public comments. Greg Stoeffler, owner of the bed and breakfast and the DeSoto Beach Hotel, spoke briefly about his Conceptual Site Plan. Speaking of the existing bed and breakfast, Libby Bacon said it was not going to look anything like it did now. Stoeffler said that was not true; they were going to maintain the old cottage look. Bacon asked about stucco. Stoeffler said no, they were going to match the siding. He said they plan to have the suites face Butler. Bacon asked about parking in the existing building. Stoeffler and she discussed it. Bishop asked if the overall design would maintain the façade currently at the B&B. Stoeffler said absolutely. Powell called for a non-binding vote in favor of the conceptual plan. The vote was unanimous. Chuck Powell said that he was taking the Chairman’s prerogative and making a change in the agenda to move Ordinance 19-2008, Article 11, Planning Commission, to the next order of business. Adoption would amend Land Development Code Section 11-030, Membership, and Section 11-050, Filling Vacancies. Powell asked if it was a Public Hearing. Brannyn Allen said that it was. Powell explained that the amendment was proposed by City Council and it would change the number of members of the Planning Commission from nine to seven, and offers, as a way to affect that, to abolish the Planning Commission and reappoint with seven members. From City Attorney Bubba Hughes, Libby Bacon asked the history of it, the reasoning behind it, and what was meant by abolish and immediately reappoint. Hughes said a motion was made at Council to reduce the number of Commission members to seven from nine. He said there was an effort being made to make the various bodies that are appointed 6 by Council uniform in size and procedure. He said the idea of abolishing and reappointing was to avoid having to select two to be removed. Powell said you would still be selecting two to be removed. Hughes said that the bottom line was you would end up with seven. Powell said or you would be removing nine. Hughes said you could remove nine and replace it with seven brand new. He said that everything was on the table at this point. Hughes said that one discussion was held about having the reduction occur as the result of the normal attrition as terms expire. He said that was why they had Public Hearings and why the Text was in front of them; to review and get comment and make a recommendation, if any, that they felt was appropriate as a body. Bacon asked if the reason given by the Councilperson who made the motion was to create uniformity or save money. Hughes said that money was mentioned as a result of training costs and that sort of thing. He said that he did not think money was necessarily the most significant thing. He said he did not presume to speak for either the Councilmember that made the motion or anybody else about what they were thinking. He said that his understanding was that the goal was to achieve uniformity with respect to the boards and commissions that are appointed by the Council. Powell said they were pretty shocked that City Council made such a monumental decision to change and abolish Planning Commission without first meeting with them. After further speaking of the matter, Powell said that to abolish the Planning Commission to accomplish this was especially shocking. He said it was a check and a balance; the Planning Commission was set up with staggered terms for a reason: so no one City Council might be able to dominate the Planning Commission for the entire 2-year term of their office. Powell discussed the staggered terms. Speaking to Hughes and referring to George Dausey, John Major said it seemed inconsistent that at the same meeting that you proposed reducing the Commission by two that you added one, and he would question the thinking behind that. He spoke about ways to be more efficient and concluded by saying it was not going to save any money by abolishing the Planning Commission. Demery Bishop said that from the time standpoint, he understood the reduction in numbers, but he took issue that they were not included as a body with the abolition of the sitting Commission. He said he took affront to that because of the time and effort they have spent on behalf of the citizens of Tybee. Bishop went on to express that efficiency would be to allow the terms to expire January 31, 2009. He said it was somewhat indicative of the fact that Council was not pleased with what the Planning Commission had done and perhaps a veiled effort to conceal their true agenda. After Bishop concluded his comments, Whitley Reynolds said this was their opportunity for input and they served at the pleasure of the Council. He said the Planning Commission did not set the rules for Council; Council sets the rules for Planning Commission. David Postle asked the difference between a Text Amendment and an Ordinance. Hughes said that a Text Amendment was an Ordinance. He said it was a legislative act as opposed to a semi-judicial act, and there was a great deal of significance to that distinction. He said that legislative decisions could be made based on information obtained from any source. Hughes said that the prohibition on ex parte communications, for example, that applied in some zoning context would not be applicable to a legislative act. He spoke of a legislative act where they all would have the potential for a conflict. He said that Council would have the same conflict voting on a millage rate; they pay taxes too, but it was a legislative act that addressed the City, island wide. He said the Ordinance they were considering fell into that category. Hughes said that this was not something Council voted on; it was voted to put the idea out. He said they should not accept it as a predetermined conclusion. Postle said the Text Amendment said immediately abolish the Planning Commission, no date was indicated, immediately resurrect the Commission, and appoint seven new members. Postle asked if there was precedence that they had to publish vacancies to give citizens a chance to apply. Hughes said that was the procedure that had been followed. Postle said that was not what the Text Amendment said. Hughes said that it was not intended to cover that; it would have to be addressed in connection with implementing the change. Postle spoke of it being his honor and a privilege to perform his Planning Commission work, he said he could not help but feel that five members of the City’s government were the tail wagging the dog of the entire community. Powell asked that they not get to far a field. Major and Hughes discussed the topic. George Dausey asked if they could table it. Powell said it 7 would go to City Council August 14, regardless of what they decided. Boyle asked the effective date. Hughes said that there was no effective date. After discussion, Hughes said that if it was the will of the majority of them, that their recommendation be to reject it entirely, or that it be reduced as a result of expiring terms, or that they go through the process of accepting applications in advance of the effective date of the Ordinance. He said the floor was open to them to make additions, deletions, recommendations, or just reject it. This was followed by a lengthy discussion of the topic, which was followed by Powell stating that cutting from nine to seven would save the City $350.00 on average. He asked for public input. Annie Estes, Cedarwood, said if they serve at the whim of Council she did not see any checks and balances, and if there are hidden agendas, no one could tell that. She suggested that there be a referendum in November asking the people of Tybee what they preferred. She said it was important for the public to have more say. Susan Arden-Joly, Shirley Road, expressed gratitude to the present and past Planning Commission members. She said she was shocked at the proposal. After further comments she said that the citizens would be very opposed to this kind of change done in this manner. Jane Feiler, 4 Ninth Street, requested that a break not be taken after this Public Hearing. Powell closed the Hearing. Reynolds moved to send it to City Council as written. Boyle seconded the motion. Miller suggested having it expire January 31. Reynolds declined amending his motion. Hughes said that if that was a motion to amend and it was seconded, it could be taken first, and then they could go to the main vote. Miller moved to amend. Boyle seconded. Miller said it was fine to have seven members, but it needed to be done when the terms expire. Staggered terms were discussed. Major suggested adding that any vacancies between now and January 31 not be filled. Miller asked if they could lawfully be done. Hughes said that it could. Postle asked if appointed members could be removed only for cause. Hughes discussed Postle’s question. Powell said that the amended motion was that the five Commissioners terms be allowed to expire in January and then City Council would appoint three people, and that Council would not replace any member that rotates off between now and January. Voting in favor of the motion were Bishop, Boyle, Dausey, Major, Miller and Postle. Opposed was Reynolds. Bacon said she did not vote because she was not going to vote for any of this because she thought there should be nine people. Powell stated that the other motion before them was to send it to City Council as is, made by Reynolds and seconded by Boyle. Reynolds voted in favor of the motion. Opposed were Bishop, Boyle, Dausey, Major, Miller, and Postle. Bacon did not vote. Hughes said that they needed to do another motion that dealt with the Ordinance somehow. Miller motioned to send the Ordinance to City Council with the recommendation that the terms for five of the Planning Commissioners expire as scheduled on January 31, 2009, and City Council would then appoint three Commissioners rather than five, as well as the recommendation that City Council not replace any member that leaves the Commission between now and January 31, 2009. Boyle seconded. Voting in favor were Bishop, Boyle, Dausey, Major, Miller, and Postle. Bacon and Reynolds voted against the motion. The motion to send the Ordinance to City Council with the recommendation that the terms for five of the Planning Commissioners expire as scheduled on January 31, 2009, and City Council would then appoint three Commissioners rather than five, as well as the recommendation that City Council not replace any member that leaves the Commission before January 31, 2009, passed. The next item was Ordinance 11-2008, Shore Protection, and the Shore Protection Areas Map. Adoption of the Ordinance would repeal Land Development Code Section 5-010.J, Shore Protection with Variance Clause. Brannyn Allen said that she and City Attorney Bubba Hughes received feedback from John Major and most of it had been incorporated into the document. She offered to go through the changes or have Major summarize them. Major said he did not have them with him. Allen explained that the first change dealt with establishing the area for Special Review in the North Beach and South Beach Zones where dunes were not present and then Hughes read it: for areas of operation determined by reference to the ordinary high water mark, such area shall be identified before the renourishment plan for 2008-2009 and the area established as the area of operation shall remain the same regardless of the 8 renourishment. Whitley Reynolds asked how they were going to preserve that line; were they going to map it or monument it. Hughes said that it would have to be surveyed. David Postle commented on the DNR line and Tybee line being synonymous on the north end of the island. Allen spoke of that being in an earlier draft but that it was not practical for the North Beach Zone. She said that the North Beach Zone had been amended to effectively be identical to the South Beach Zone. She said it took the DNR line out of the North Beach Zone. Postle spoke about the State’s and the City’s lines being synonymous at Battery Backus. Allen said that was under the existing Ordinance. She said that the purpose behind the proposed Ordinance was that the City would have a line that would be drawn differently than the DNR line. Postle said that they had not seen where the new lines would exist if the Ordinance were adopted. Allen reviewed the North Beach Zone section of the proposed Ordinance. To further questions by Postle, Hughes referred to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control and the Coastal Marshland Protection Act. Bacon asked that those be referenced in the proposed Ordinance. Postle asked if there were to be no-build zones or was everything subject to Special Review and Variance approval. Allen said that effectively it created a no-build zone within 10 feet of the toe of the dune however, there was a provision for a Variance, knowing that they could not anticipate every eventuality in the future. Postle spoke of dynamic dunes. Chuck Powell spoke of the Ordinance addressing both static and dynamic dunes. Bacon suggested that the word Coastal be changed to Shore on Page 5. Anne Miller said that they needed to let the State take care of it. Bacon said it was good for municipalities to have their own Shore Protection Act. She said the majority of the Georgia coast was undeveloped, and the State’s document was very broad. Miller and Bacon discussed the DNR. Demery Bishop requested that Code cites be added to Sections B.3 and C.3. Allen explained that Page 5, Paragraph B, would be amended such that permit approval would be subject to the restrictions of the other provisions of this Ordinance. Hughes said that was dealing with an existing structure. Major made reference to the word may in the document to which Allen said it would be changed to hereby. Allen said that the last paragraph on Page 7 had been changed to read routine maintenance activities. Postle spoke about the basis of DNR’s line and of Dr. Clark Alexander of the Skidaway Institute being a supporter of Tybee having its own Shore Protection Ordinance. Bacon said that she was concerned about there being a lack of definition for the no-build zone. Allen read from Page 3 where the no-build zone was discussed. Bacon and Allen discussed landscaping. Powell asked for public comment. Ed Feiler, 4 Ninth Street, commended the Commissioners for their service. He said that he had served on the Coastal Zone Management Advisory Council. He recommended that where a 20-foot tree existed that it be an exception to the toe of the dune line. Mallory Pearce, Sixth Street, said it was an excellent Ordinance and one thing that was good was the 250-foot rule. He said the reason the tree was eliminated was because of the eroding beach. He said nobody would want to build where a house was going to be washed away. Pearce thanked Allen for removing landscaping. He said the dune vegetation should be left alone. He said he would presume that maintenance referred to walkovers. He said the Weed Ordinance kept people from cutting dunes and marsh areas. Pearce recommended the Commissioners pass the Ordinance. He spoke of eroding beaches. Allen said she would defer to the DNR to determine if it was an eroding beach. Ed Cawley, Pulaski Street, said there was a seawall in the north beach area and if they were going to utilize a seawall as a delimiter in one area they should probably put it in anyplace where the seawall happened to be. He said the Ordinance was mostly pretty good. He asked if approval of the Ordinance would allow the demolition of Battery Backus or not. Hughes and Cawley briefly discussed the issue. Powell closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion. Postle spoke of a petition that was going to be heard by the DNR Shore Protection Committee this Thursday. Major moved that the Ordinance be approved with the changes discussed during this meeting and if there was evidence of seawalls on the north shore that that be considered for addition. Reynolds seconded. Bacon said that any mention of the seawalls was taken out of the South and the North Zones. Allen said that it was; the only reference to seawalls was in the Front Beach area where the Charter provision applied. Reynolds said they needed to caution Council to move quickly on marking the pre-renourishment high water line, and they needed to consider a way to 9 monument it or determine the coordinates of the break points. Voting in favor of the motion were Bacon, Bishop, Boyle, Dausey, Major, Postle, and Reynolds. Miller voted in opposition. The motion to approve passed with the changes discussed during this meeting and if there was evidence of seawalls on the north shore that that be considered for addition. Anne Miller spoke of the Planning Commission packets being lacking. She said that if they were going to be that way, she would want to have an agenda meeting again. Brannyn Allen said that there was some information that the Commission should be made privy to outside of the public meeting. Whitley Reynolds asked about an item in the packet related to Variances for substandard lots of record. Chuck Powell said that it had been requested at a previous meeting. Chuck Powell adjourned the meeting.