HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110215_PC_mtg_min.pdf
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Rob Callahan PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER
Henry Levy Jonathan H. Lynn
John Major, Vice Chair
Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2011 – 7:00 p.m.
Mayor pro tem Shirley Sessions called the February 15, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order.
Present were Marianne Bramble, Rob Callahan, Henry Levy, John Major, Tyler Marion, and Monty Parks.
Absent was Demery Bishop.
Mayor pro tem Shirley Sessions administered an oath of office to Henry Levy, John Major, and Tyler
Marion. Each had been appointed by City Council to serve a two-year Planning Commission term ending
January 31, 2013.
Mayor pro tem Shirley Sessions called for nominations for Planning Commission Chair. John Major
nominated Monty Parks. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. Voting in favor were Marianne Bramble,
Callahan, Major, and Tyler Marion. Henry Levy abstained. The motion to appoint Parks as Chair passed
with a 4-0 vote.
Mayor pro tem Shirley Sessions called for nominations for Planning Commission Vice Chair. Marianne
Bramble nominated John Major. The motion was seconded by Monty Parks. The vote was unanimous. The
motion to appoint Major as Vice Chair passed.
Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none.
Chair Monty Parks asked for a motion on the Minutes of the January 18, 2011, Planning Commission
meeting. John Major moved to approve the Minutes. Rob Callahan seconded the motion. Marianne
Bramble, Callahan, Major, and Tyler Marion voted in favor. Henry Levy abstained. The motion to approve
the Minutes passed with a 4-0 vote.
Jonathan Lynn requested that consideration of the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Committee be
moved up on the agenda as City Manager Diane Schleicher was in attendance to discuss the item.
Schleicher spoke of the City’s past history of forming ad hoc committees. She provided information about
the Memorial Park Ad Hoc Committee and the Public Safety Ad Hoc Committee. She explained that a
Resolution spells out the purpose of a committee, outlines the membership of the committee, and
establishes a time period for the committee to report to the City Council with a recommendation. Schleicher
discussed a provision for requesting an extension of time, if needed. John Major suggested this Committee
include representatives from the Planning Commissioners, City Council, the Beach Task Force, property
owners who would be impacted by the ordinance, and, since the Georgia Shore Protection Act provides for
2
assistance to municipalities drafting their own shore protection ordinances, contact with that person. He also
suggested Clark Alexander, not as a voting member but as a recognized expert. He asked how many
Planning Commissioners were designated to participate. Jonathan Lynn said Council did not want to limit
the number of people; anyone who might have an interest and some justifiable input ought to be allowed to
serve. After discussion among the group of the membership, voting members, and scope of work, Major
motioned that the scope of the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Committee would be to define the
objectives of Tybee Island’s shore protection, review the previous ordinance that was in place until August
2008, review the current ordinance, review the proposed ordinance, review the Georgia Shore Protection
Act which defines areas of operation, and then look at how each of those meets or fails to meet the
objectives. After discussion Tyler Marion seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The motion to
approve that the scope of the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Committee would be to define the
objectives of Tybee Island’s shore protection, review the previous ordinance that was in place until
August 2008, review the current ordinance, review the proposed ordinance, review the Georgia Shore
Protection Act which defines areas of operation, and then look at how each of those meets or fails to
meet the objectives passed with a 5-0 vote. Chair Monty Parks asked that they discuss length of term.
Following consideration by those present Rob Callahan moved that the committee do its work in six
months. Marianne Bramble seconded the motion. After discussions that included the ability to request an
extension from City Council and suggestions of three months and four months, Parks called for a vote on
the motion of six months. Voting in favor were Bramble, Callahan, and Tyler Marion. Voting in opposition
were Henry Levy and John Major. The motion to approve a six month length of time for the committee
to do its work passed with a 3-2 vote. Schleicher confirmed with the others that the recommendation for
membership of the Committee was the Planning Commission as a whole along with one or two members of
City Council, members of the Beach Task Force, impacted property owners, and, as advisory, Clark
Alexander from Skidaway and someone representing the DNR, perhaps Sonny Emmert.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Text Amendment to Article 5 – Procedures for
Administration and Enforcement, other than Sections 5-001, 5-002 through 5-008, 5-009, 5-010, 5-
030, 5-050, and 5-070, which were previously approved. Lynn suggested having public input first. Parks
called for public input. Freda Rutherford, 120 Eagles Nest Drive, expressed that Section 5-080, Site Plan
Approval, did not address under what circumstances such approval was required and there was no reference
to notification. She suggested adding to Subsection (A), Process, that incomplete applications could not
move forward. For Section 5-090, Variances, Rutherford proposed that Subsection (A), Standards, be
expanded to include an undue hardship to a property owner in the following circumstances and to existing
structures only: for safety, to allow a second set of stairs in a setback when no other alternative was
feasible; health, to allow an elevator or lift in a setback with documentation from a physician and when no
other alternative was feasible; historic preservation, to preserve or restore the historical integrity of a
property on a current or new site as attested to by the Historical Society; and to save a tree that meets the
significant tree definition. Referencing Subsection (B), Height Variances, Rutherford proposed that a
petitioner be required to give something back to the community in return for a variance. She gave examples
of requiring removal of non-pervious surfaces, xeriscaping, and removal of irrigation systems. As
Rutherford concluded her comments she recommended that Subsection (F), Compliance with Ordinances,
be modified to include that Staff schedule a hearing only when a genuine hardship of a property or resident
exists. Section 5-060, Public Hearing Requirements, was considered by the Planning Commission. Lynn
said he met with the City Attorney about O.C.G.A. § 36-67 which deals with campaign disclosure
requirements. He said they found that Tybee’s ordinance was incompatible with state law. He said the five
days prior to a hearing requirement only applies to a rezoning action and only to those in opposition to a
request. Lynn recommended adding as the first sentence of Subsection (A)(5): “In the case of a rezoning
application the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 36-67 shall apply.” From the last sentence of that paragraph,
Lynn recommended striking “…five days prior to the official public hearing.” Also recommended was
3
changing of “applicant” to “speaker” in (b), (c), and (d). After discussion, Lynn explained that seven or
eight days prior to each Planning Commission meeting Staff would have an advertisement published in the
Savannah Morning News which would include wording that anyone wishing to speak in opposition to a
rezoning request that has contributed an aggregate of $250 or more within the past two years to any current
elected official must submit a Campaign Disclosure form to City Hall five days prior to the hearing. It was
agreed to add the wording to the agendas. Parks clarified that the five calendar day requirement applied to
rezoning actions, not to variances or site plans, and it was only for those that wanted to speak against
rezoning requests. Lynn confirmed that for a variance or site plan request, submittal of the form was
required prior to a speaker getting to the podium. Following discussion of the proposed changes, Lynn
stated that the form was required only if someone had contributed $250 or more; someone wishing to speak
in opposition who had not made such contributions would not be required to submit a form. After
discussion, Marianne Bramble asked if submitted forms would remain on file. Lynn said no, they would be
hearing specific. After further deliberations, Lynn said the proposed revisions to Section 5-060 would be
prepared by Staff and would be submitted for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting.
After discussion of “a minimum of ten-minutes” within the last sentence of 5-060(A) it was unanimously
agreed to strike the sentence. Moving to Section 5-040, Application for Permits or Actions Under this Land
Development Code, Lynn conveyed that it was City Council’s wish to strike Subsection (H), Administrative
Approval of Minor Subdivisions. He said that it did not include recombinations or duplexes which are
addressed in another section. Henry Levy so moved. Major seconded. The vote in favor was unanimous.
The motion to delete Section 5-040(H) passed with a 5-0 vote. The language of Section 5-010, Permits
Required for Construction, Subsection (B), Relocation Permit, was affirmed. In Section 5-020, Permits or
Actions Required by this Land Development Code, Subsection (I)(1), Land-disturbing Activity Permit
(LDAP), was reworded to: “…any land disturbing activity on land over 1 -1/10 of an acre or any land
disturbing activity within 200 feet of state waters…” Major motioned to approve. Levy seconded. The vote
was unanimous. The motion to approve the rewording of Section 5-020(I)(1) passed with a 5-0 vote.
Major asked why the proposed revisions to Section 5-020(F), Subdivision of Land, had been deleted. Lynn
explained that the provisions were covered in the sections referenced in the last sentence of the paragraph.
Major asked if the first sentence was accurate. Lynn said yes. The paragraph was revised to: “Whenever a
lot, parcel, or tract of land is divided into two or more parts, the owner must submit a preliminary
subdivision plan to the designated City official in compliance with Sections 5-040(A) and (G), and Sections
5-130, 5-140, and 5-150.” At Major’s suggestion Lynn agreed to add the major and minor subdivision
definitions. Tyler Marion motioned to approve as amended. Callahan seconded. The motion to approve
Section 5-020(F) as amended passed with a 5-0 vote. Lynn said the City Attorney suggested the addition
of Section 5-041, Lot Recombination, with the wording: “Recombination of lots in their entirety may be
approved by Staff so long as there is no creation of a nonconforming lot or structure.” After discussion,
Lynn said the section would be discussed at the next meeting.
Henry Levy spoke of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure stating that an abstention counted as a
vote in favor of a motion. He said he objected to that. John Major said it was a City Charter issue. Chair
Monty Parks asked how to approach amending or changing it. After discussion of abstentions and recusals
and Robert’s Rules of Order, it was requested that Staff put the topic on the Planning Commission’s next
agenda.
Jonathan Lynn said this would be his last Planning Commission meeting. He thanked the Commissioners
and wished them the best of luck.
Rob Callahan motioned to adjourn and Tyler Marion seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and the
meeting was adjourned.