HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100720_PC_mtg_min
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Randi Bryan PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER
Jay Burke, Chair Jonathan H. Lynn
Rob Callahan
John Major, Vice Chair CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
July 20, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Jay Burke called the July 20, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other Planning
Commission members present were: Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Randi Bryan, Rob Callahan,
John Major, and Monty Parks.
Chair Jay Burke asked for a motion on the Minutes of the June 15, 2010, Planning Commission meeting.
Demery Bishop moved to approve. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. The vote in favor was unanimous.
Chair Jay Burke asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. Randi Bryan said that she would recuse
for item 2 as she was related to one of the parties.
Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance at 1514 Second Avenue, PIN 4-0008-08-
002, Zone R-2. The petitioner and property owner was Lori Golterman. The request was for a 3-foot
encroachment into the required 10-foot side setback for construction of a protective cover over a
heating/air conditioning unit. Jonathan Lynn explained that Golterman had been caught in February
working outside the scope of a mechanical permit that had been issued because she was putting a cover
that was attached to the house over the A/C unit. He said that according to the applicant it was done to
protect the unit from the elements. Lynn said that Golterman removed the cover and was now seeking a
variance. He said that Tybee’s building inspector thought it was a good idea although it was not
something the building code required and he did not think that the elements would deteriorate the unit any
more than normal. Lynn said that Golterman lives in Virginia and would not be attending the meeting
tonight. Randi Bryan asked if the unit was in the setback. Lynn said yes. John Major asked if what had
been there was a roof extension. Lynn said that it was attached to the house. Referring to the application,
Major said that it read 3-inches over the setback. Lynn said that it was 3-feet. He said that her hardship,
according to her, was protecting her equipment. Major said that under our variance clause that was not
one of the reasons for a variance. Lynn agreed. Demery Bishop asked if platforms and units were allowed
in setbacks. Lynn said the units themselves and whatever they are setting on are permitted; a roof system
is not permitted. Lynn and Bishop discussed. Burke called for public input. There was none. He closed the
Public Hearing and called for a motion. Monty Parks moved to deny. Rob Callahan seconded. Voting in
favor of the motion to deny were: Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Callahan, Major, and Parks. Voting against
the motion to deny was Bryan. The motion to deny passed with a 5-1 vote. City Council would consider
the variance request on August 12.
Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for Zoning Variance at 1310 Bay Street, PIN 4-0022-02-006,
Zone R-1. The petitioner was Barry Brown. The owner was Gary and Elizabeth Wisener. The request was
to relocate the existing single-family structure to one of the two lots it currently occupied which would
require a variance to allow the setbacks to be 11.5-feet on the rear, 6.2-feet on the west side and 6.8-feet
2
on the east side. The required setbacks were 20-feet on the front, 20-feet on the rear and 10-feet on the
sides. Randi Bryan recused. Jonathan Lynn explained that the house was currently straddling lots 5 and 7,
and the proposal was to relocate the house to be on lot 5; lot 7 would then be a vacant lot. Brown said that
the owner wants to preserve the cottage and be able to use his property. He described removal of tile and
vinyl siding. Brown said that the owner hopes to bring in another cottage or make a lot available for
someone moving a cottage. He said that there are four or five lots on that street that have been set up with
50-foot wide lots because those are substandard lots of record. Monty Parks asked if the variance request
was for the steps on the one side. Brown said that was correct. Parks proposed that the entrance be to the
front door and the side steps being taken out. Brown said that would eliminate parking under the house.
He said that the front door was on the side of the house by the steps. Parks said he saw a door on the
porch. Brown said there was door to enter the porch but that was not the front door. Parks and Brown
discussed. Demery Bishop asked if moving the structure west resulted in a 6-foot setback on the west.
Brown agreed. He said that there was a fireplace but the furthest extension into the setback would be the
steps. He and Bishop discussed the resulting setbacks. Bishop asked what alternatives existed. Brown said
that any steps into the front of the house would eliminate any parking under the house and what they were
trying to do was get the parking back under the house and bring it back into the cottage flavor. He said
that they looked at trying to put the steps in another location by eliminating the side steps and putting
them in the front but it would eliminate the parking and it would destroy the whole deck purpose because
they would have to go up under the deck area because of the 20-foot setback on the front. Bishop and
Brown discussed. John Major confirmed that both lots were substandard lots of record. He said in order to
build on a substandard lot of record there were three requirements: served by public water and sewer, can
only be single-family, and all minimum front, side and rear setbacks are met. He said that obviously
Brown cannot do that and do what he wants to do. Major said that the variance ordinance was very
specific about what constitutes a hardship on the property. He said that Brown said that the hardship was
that the house was sitting on the property line, and he wondered how that fit into Tybee’s definition of a
hardship. Brown said that in order for the owners to take full use of their property they wanted to have a
complete vacant lot that would require no variances and still save the little beach house. He said they
could tear it down and build something else but their choice was to try to save the house. Major and
Brown discussed the square footages of the existing house and of what could be built. Rob Callahan asked
if there were plans to develop lot 7. Brown said no. Callahan asked Brown if he would expect lot 7 to
need variances. Brown said no, but if somebody was trying to save one of the Tybee cottages, he did not
know what the future was going to bring. Parks said that the variance would add about 150 square feet to
the Wisener house that the neighbor on lot 7 in the future could not have if he respected the setbacks. He
said that if the two were placed up for sale at the same time, we would be granting an economic advantage
to lot 5. Brown said that all they were trying to do was save the cottage. He said that they could slide it
one way or the other if they wanted to do that. Parks and Brown discussed. Bishop said that the variance,
the hardship issue, the maintenance of the setbacks, and the fact that any alterations or substantial change
in a permanent location should and must, per code, comply with the current zoning ordinances regarding
setbacks; this proposal would not do that. He said that he did not know if there were other ways in which
the steps could be relocated to minimize that invasion in the required setbacks or not. Bishop said that he
agreed with the preservation but was concerned about the close proximity to lot 4. Brown said that was
merely the steps, not structure. He said that they looked at putting the steps in the middle of the building
but the depth of the porch would not allow them to run the steps up enough to get in the middle of the
building without destroying both sides of the porch. Bishop said that it appeared that there was an
ingress/egress at the rear of the structure at some point because there was a concrete pad. Brown said that
he did not know. Burke asked if there was any public input. Bob Smith said that he was resident of the lot
to the west; Holly Holt and he own the property. He said they were concerned about the move. He asked
who would want a house closer to them, and what would happen to their value in the future. Smith said
that it was primarily a rental property and unwanted noise would be even closer to them. He said that the
3
Wisener house has two outdoor porches, front and back. Smith said that his living area and bedroom are
on that side, and noise coming from that property was disturbing. Burke read from the Staff Report, “Staff
finds that the proposed relocation with the reduction in rear and side yard setbacks would not be
detrimental and would remain consistent with the adjacent development patterns and would be consistent,
if not less, with surrounding density patterns.” Burke closed the Public Hearing and called for a motion.
Bishop said that based on as presented with the current drawings and the questions, he would have to
make a motion to deny. Major seconded. Voting in favor of the motion to deny were: Bishop, Marianne
Bramble, Callahan, and Major. Voting against the motion was Parks. Bryan had recused. The motion to
deny passed with a 4-1 vote. Lynn said that it would be heard by City Council on August 12. Brown
began to ask a question. Lynn said that the Hearing was closed. Brown said that did not matter; he had a
legal right to ask why they voted against this project. It was restated that the Hearing was closed.
Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Land Development Code Section 5-
090(F), Compliance with Ordinances. Jonathan Lynn said that this was the same request that was heard
previously at the Planning Commission. He said that at the recommendation of the City Attorney they
were bringing it back as it was at the last meeting with the amended language. Lynn said that the intent of
this language was not to give forgiveness to after-the-fact variances; it would allow a variance to be heard
by Planning Commission and City Council if it was indeed an after-the-fact variance, however, the onus
still gets put on the applicant to prove why it was created, who created it, when it was created, to provide
all that information to Planning Commission and to City Council. He said that without this type of
language we are not permitted to even hear an after-the-fact variance according to the way our Code
reads. Lynn said that ideally this would have been something good to include with the Article 5 revision,
however, given the nature of what requests we were getting right now the City Attorney felt it was best if
we can just go ahead and get this language incorporated through its own Text Amendment. John Major
said that as amended the last sentence negated everything that Lynn just said he was trying to do. Lynn
said that this was the City Attorney’s language. He said that he believed the intent of that section dealt
with not getting a building permit. Major said that it did not say that. He and Lynn discussed. Lynn
advised that their motion could amend the language. After Major and Lynn discussed further, Randi
Bryan asked if they could motion to approve without the last sentence. Lynn said that was correct.
Demery Bishop asked about the wording, “the violation status remains until such time as the condition is
rectified and placed in conformity with the Ordinances.” He also read a portion of the last sentence that
Major had been speaking about: “No variance may be granted.” Bishop said that he was not connecting
the dots here. Lynn suggested he fix the dots. Bishop and Lynn discussed. Monty Parks said that he read it
to say that just because you got a variance does not mean that you are excused for a violation. Lynn
agreed. He said that by allowing the ability to be heard for a variance it should not necessarily
automatically be assumed that variances were going to be granted to everybody; that would be at the will
of Planning Commission and City Council. Rob Callahan suggested that the sentence that had been
deleted from the existing ordinance weakened it considerably. He read: “Property must be brought into
conformity with existing ordinances in order for an application to be filed and processed or for a variance
to be granted.” He said that strengthened the whole section tremendously. Callahan said that he would like
to see that sentence reinserted. Lynn said that he and the City Attorney discussed that and both of their
opinions were that if that sentence was in there, there was not a need for a variance because the property
was brought into conformance. He said that language could be amended or added. Major suggested
wording of last sentence be that a variance granted does not retroactively excuse any of the enforcement
provisions or penalties that have been issued. He asked if they were saying that change of ownership
forgives nonconformities. Lynn said that it does not forgive them; they would still have to seek a variance
and if the variance was not granted it had to be brought into conformity. Major said that there were no
guidelines on when you would and when you would not give it, and we end up looking at some tough
situations. Lynn said that was why he was glad they make those decisions. Major said that they do not
4
make any decisions. Major, Parks and Bishop discussed. Bryan suggested leaving the last sentence out.
Language and motion options were discussed. Burke called for public input. There was none. He closed
the Hearing and called for a motion. Major moved to approve with clarification to the last sentence to
more clearly state the intent. It was proposed that Lynn consult with the City Attorney on changing the
last sentence from “No variance may be granted which retroactively excuses a prior violation of an
Ordinance” to “A variance that is granted under this ordinance does not excuse prior violations including
those that have resulted in enforcement action by the City of Tybee Island.” Parks seconded. Bishop said
that it would simply allow a petitioner to be heard which does not exist under the current ordinance. Lynn
agreed. Voting in favor of the motion were Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Bryan, Major, and Parks.
Callahan voted against the motion. The motion to approve with changing of the last sentence from
“No variance may be granted which retroactively excuses a prior violation of an Ordinance” to “A
variance that is granted under this ordinance does not excuse prior violations including those that
have resulted in enforcement action by the City of Tybee Island” to be reviewed by the City
Attorney passed with a 5-1 vote. The item would be considered by City Council on August 12.
Chair Jay Burke opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Land Development Code Article 3,
General Provisions. Jonathan Lynn said that he did not have the dates of the numerous times it had been
bounced back and forth with Council and Planning Commission but the process had taken about twelve
months. He noted there had been a Commission workshop on June 29 and those recommendations were
compiled by the City Attorney, sent to Lynn, and were incorporated into the version that they had and he
put the notes from the City Attorney at each of their chairs for tonight’s meeting. John Major asked if this
was the extent of the notes from the meeting that they would be given. Lynn said that was the extent; we
did not take formal notes or record the meeting but his notes did match with the City Attorney’s notes. He
said that if there was something that was left out he was not sure what it would be so please let him know
and we could see if we could get it amended before it gets to Council. Major said that he thought there
were things left out but he thought it was intentional. Randi Bryan said that under the bed and breakfast
inns it did not get added that it was commercial districts only. Lynn said okay. Bryan asked if they were
going to vote on the areas that they did not agree on at the workshop. Lynn said that in terms of a vote it
would be on the article as a whole and if there were areas that needed to be amended that would just be
put in the motion and voted on at that point. Bryan said that a lot of the things they talked about in the
workshop were not in the information that Lynn gave them from the City Attorney. Lynn asked which
part that would be. Bryan spoke about if a nonconforming structure was destroyed and about pools and
spas. She said that Major had thirteen things. Rob Callahan said that he did not know what to expect
tonight but he thought that what they were going to do was revisit the areas of contention and then either
resolve them or vote for and against each of those controversies and then come up with a complete
ordinance. Lynn asked if was possible to vote on the entire document as a vote but in terms of the items of
contention raise their hands if they agree and keep it running like that. Callahan said that the trouble was
he was not sure that anybody knew what the areas of contention were; nobody captured them all. Lynn
said that he would hope that if they had an area of contention they would remember it and bring it up and
talk about it. He offered an amendment to the swimming pool, spa and sauna section (3-190) to say that if
one is put on an existing platform of some sort there would be no drainage plan required. Major asked
what the “wetlands protection district” in Section 3-240 meant. Lynn said that it was a Corps of Engineers
district, not a Tybee Island district. Major asked if the Georgia Shore Protection Act or the Marsh
Protection Act refer to it. Lynn said that if there is an activity that involves wetland disturbance the Corps
of Engineers gets involved. Major asked if it was still the intent to look at the shore protection act more
formerly. Lynn said yes, that would be in Article 4. Callahan said that an example of something they had
talked about which he thought they had agreed on was Section 3-110; there were sections addressing
street access, electrical and sewage, and he had questioned why there was not one that addressed water,
and he thought they had agreed that it needed to be added but he did not see where it was added. He said
5
that was just one example. Monty Parks said that if they were going to review the entire LDC in this
manner they were going to have to find a more expedient way of doing it. He suggested that Lynn get
together with the Chairman of the Planning Commission and they hammer out something. He said that he
did not know what it was but something that better suited everybody’s needs: Lynn’s and the members of
the Commission. Parks said that he understood Lynn’s need for speed and the need for accuracy, and he
was sensing a conflict. Lynn said we had emailed it a month before a meeting, tabled it at a meeting, had a
workshop, and there might be a stalemate now. He said that if they could suggest a way to better handle
that he would be more than willing to accommodate. He said that expediency is going to be a key because
there were going to be a lot of things coming through. Referring to Section 3-070(B)(4), Major said that a
rewording that he thought Lynn had said made sense was, “No detached accessory structure will reduce
the amount of available parking to less than that required for the commercial site.” For the table in Section
3-090(B), Callahan said that the asterisks did not match up with what they were supposed to and he
thought that all agreed that the columns “Front,” “Rear” and “Side” needed the word “Setback” added to
them. Lynn said that if they wanted to go through section by section, he was writing the notes. Major,
Lynn and Callahan discussed further. Bishop offered that it would have to reflect any suggested
amendments and the only way to accomplish that was to have them inserted in some manner so that they
could be read and determined, otherwise they were going to go through each and every one tonight and
make additional amendments. Lynn said that he had a list of three of them. Referring to the workshop,
Bryan said that they were here for two-and-a-half hours and it was her understanding that what was taken
from the workshop would be incorporated and come back to them. She said it was like they wasted their
workshop. Major asked if changes that were made as a result of the workshop were identified as changes.
Lynn said that they were either red or green. He noted a change about the width of modular homes in
Section 3-110. Bryan suggested sending it to City Council. Lynn asked for guidance on Section 3-090
regarding the setback of a commercial use abutting a residential use. Bryan said that they discussed that
and came to leaving it as it was. She and Lynn discussed that and the C-1(A) setbacks. Bishop said he did
not see how they could vote on a Text Amendment until everything that was presented at the workshop
has been incorporated for review into the document. Major said that could not happen; it was gone. Burke
suggested another workshop. Bishop asked if the document reflected the input from the workshop. Bryan
said some of it but not all of it. Bishop asked how the Planning Commission could vote without a
complete document. Lynn asked if those concerns could be addressed here. Bishop asked about the
setbacks that Lynn and Bryan had discussed. Lynn said that with the workshops, Minutes are not
recorded, they are advertised and open to the public, everybody is there for discussion as opposed to
taking notes. Bishop and Lynn discussed. Major suggested that each member of the Commission send
Lynn their notes. Lynn said that sounded like a plan to him. After discussion, the consensus was that each
would send their notes to Lynn within a week-and-a-half. It was discussed how to handle the
recommendations after Lynn received them. Referring to Councilman Bill Garbett in the audience,
Callahan asked if they could ask his opinion. Garbett said that as a citizen he would like the Commission
to adopt a procedural option whereby they do not take the ordinance up in its entirety but take it up
section by section. The group discussed Garbett’s opinion. Burke closed the Hearing and called for a
motion. Marianne Bramble asked Lynn his drop-dead date to get this completed. Lynn said that he would
like to have Articles 3 and 5 done and officially part of the code by October/November. After discussion,
August 6 was determined to be the date by which the Commissioner’s should submit their comments for
all of Article 3 to Lynn. After discussion, Lynn said that he might try to redo the document using a new
color for the comments from the Commissioners. Bishop motioned that the Planning Commission’s
amendments and/or revisions be presented to Staff on or before August 6 for review at the August
Planning Commission meeting. Callahan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Rob Callahan moved to adjourn. Monty Parks seconded. The vote was unanimous and the meeting
adjourned.