HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110621_PC_mtg_min.pdf
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Marianne Bramble
Rob Callahan PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER
Henry Levy Ethan Imhoff
John Major, Vice Chair
Tyler Marion CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 2011 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Monty Parks called the June 21, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order. Other
Commissioners present were Demery Bishop, Marianne Bramble, Henry Levy, John Major, and Tyler
Marion. Absent was Rob Callahan.
Chair Monty Parks asked for discussion on the Minutes of the May 17, 2011, meeting. Marianne Bramble
moved to approve. Demery Bishop seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
Chair Monty Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance at 122 Lewis Avenue, PIN 4-0004-
14-004, Zone R-1-B. The petitioners were Cindy Kelley and Kenneth Zapp. The request was an after-the-
fact setback variance for a front stoop at a single-family dwelling. Ethan Imhoff, Planning and Zoning
Manager, said the applicants were requesting a variance for a stoop that was constructed without a
building permit. He said the applicants did receive several permits to remodel. He said the existing front
setback prior to construction of the stoop was 17.4-feet. Imhoff said the required setback was 20-feet so
the property was already nonconforming however with the addition of the stoop the setback was 13.5-feet.
He said there were not issues with the 50% substantial improvement requirement at this property. John
Major asked if during the permitting process drawings or plans were submitted that showed the stoop.
Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, said no. Petitioner Cindy Kelley apologized for not getting the necessary
permits; they made the assumption their contractor would get all the permits. She said the contractor
apologized and there was a letter from him in the Commissioners‟ packets. Kelley said they are interested
in having the overhang for the issue of rain as they go into the front door. She said the overhang was 4-
feet by 4-feet. She said it is a nonconforming structure and when they spoke with Otto she informed them
that one of the ways they would be able to maintain the overhang was to tear off the addition that was
probably done sometime in the „70s. Kelley said that would be a hardship for them; there is a large
fireplace that was built as part of the addition so they are unable to do that. She said majority of the homes
on the block have coverings over the doors or enclosed porches. She said they made a commitment to
improve the value of the property. She said it was owned by a bank that turned off the air conditioning
and mold took over and it was in rough shape. Kelley said it was difficult to do the construction given the
financial constraints of FEMA. She said she hoped they would accept their apology and take into
consideration the fact that they are newbies to Tybee and they were in error. Kelley explained that she
and Zapp were husband and wife. Zapp said they were sorry about doing this after-the-fact. He said they
directed the contractor to obtain all permits and that they wanted all workers to be documented. Zapp said
the contractor dropped the ball. He said they are not trying to make a profit on this; they are not going to
rent it. He said they are doing this for themselves. He said the stoop seems to be an expected part of a
2
house to protect people from rain and other weather when they are entering the house. Zapp said they
asked the neighbors to support them and everyone they talked to has given them support because of how
they have improved the image of the neighborhood. He said they were not trying to do anything wrong;
they apologize for making a mistake. Zapp said that reading the Tybee codes, the purpose of the
regulations is promoting public health, safety, morals, general welfare, convenience, and prosperity of the
citizens of the City. He said they think their improvement of the house, which given the FEMA
constraints has been a real challenge, they are making it better. Connie Haley, 130 Lewis Avenue, spoke
in favor of the request. Major asked for clarification on the size of the stoop. Imhoff said it was 4-feet by
4-feet. Marianne Bramble asked if there was a backup plan if this does not pass. Kelley asked Bramble if
she meant after she cries. She said they have not talked much about it; they know they need some kind of
overhang over the door so they would probably come back and speak with Otto about what might be
possible. Bramble asked the cost of the stoop project. Zapp said the contractor did it for $1,000 but work
had stopped on it. He said the edge of the stoop was 25-feet from the road so it was not like they were
overhanging the road. He said it was a significant setback and does not interfere with the commerce and
movement on the street. Parks closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Henry Levy said they
could indent the door into the house. He moved the request be denied. Demery Bishop seconded the
motion. He spoke of an exterior door on the north side of the house that also has an overhang that is not
connected to the ground. He asked if that would also constitute an expansion into the setback if it was not
connected to the ground as is the front stoop. Otto said the covering affixed to the house on the northern
side would be a portion of the structure and a portion of the footprint of that structure. She compared it to
a cantilevered deck or a bay window. She said anything that protrudes is required to meet set back
requirements. Otto said a roof is allowed to have a 24 -inch roof overhang that does not impact the
footprint or the setback. Bishop asked if the overhang was extending out from the front portion of the
house would that be allowed. Otto said if it was an extension of the roof structure it could overhang up to
2-feet. Bishop clarified that it must be part of the roof structure and not part of an additional item such as
a stoop roof. Otto agreed. She said she proposed that with the petitioners and they said given the slant of
the roof they did not want to do it the way Bishop was describing. Otto and Bishop discussed the option
of overhanging the roof structure to 24-inches which would not require a variance. Major said the cottage
was more beautiful with the stoop than it would be without it. He said we have an ordinance that is very
specific about when variances can be considered and about encroachment into the setback when
remodeling is done. He said on their application where it lists the different requirements for consideration
of a variance nothing was checked or identified. Major said they have a definition when a variance is
requested that there be a hardship to the property such as an irregularity of shape or narrowness or
smallness or something inconsistent with the surrounding properties. He said if this variance had been
before-the-fact it stood a pretty good chance of not being approved because it does not meet any of those
requirements. He said the only reason he could see that they would approve it is because it is there and it
looks good and the neighbors like it. Major said unfortunately our ordinance does not allow that and the
Mayor and Council may well look at it and, for the reasons he said, decide to approve it but he cannot
make a vote that would suggest that this complies with our ordinance because it does not. He said he has a
hard time distinguishing when a contractor forgets, does not know about, or just deliberately avoids a
permitting requirement. He said nine months ago they could not be requesting this; we had an ordinance
that required that after-the-fact variances could not be considered. Bishop said he wanted to second
Major‟s comments. He asked Otto if there were discussions with regards to the fix-ability of this issue
with the fact that it could be a 24-inch overhang to the existing roof line of the front portion of the house.
Otto said yes. Bishop said if that modification was made would that meet the intention of the LDC with
not requiring a variance. Otto said that was correct. She said it would require a permit before the work.
Bramble said it was unfortunate the petitioners hired someone and directed them to make sure all the
permits were taken care of but ultimately it was still their project. She said she cannot be against one
after-the-fact variance from a month ago and then be for this after-the-fact variance. Parks called for the
3
vote. The vote in favor of the motion to deny was unanimous. The motion to deny passed 5-0. The
Mayor and City Council would consider the request on July 14.
Chair Monty Parks opened a Public Hearing for a Zoning Variance at 301 Jones Avenue, PIN 4-0004-16-
004, Zone R-2. The petitioner was Patrick Fucci. The request was an after -the-fact setback encroachment
for a 10-foot by 14-foot roof structure attached to a single-family residence. Ethan Imhoff, Planning and
Zoning Manager, said the applicant had obtained a swimming pool permit and the roof structure was
constructed with that permit. He said the required side setback is 10-feet and the roof structure had been
built to the property line so the setback was now zero. Henry Levy asked what was under the overhang.
Imhoff said when the building official visited the property there was some mechanical equipment under a
small part of the roof overhang and the rest of it was empty. Levy asked if the mechanical equipment
sitting on the ground was in violation of the zoning ordinance. Imhoff said pool equipment does not have
to be elevated so it would not be in violation. Levy said he thought the idea o f the 10-foot setback was for
safety purposes to allow equipment to get in there to fight a fire. He said this would interfere with it. John
Major asked if the Stop Work order had not been issued would it have become more than a roof structure.
Dianne Otto, Zoning Specialist, said Fucci expressed that the roof structure was designed and installed to
protect the pool equipment and he contended it was part of the swimming pool permit that had been
issued. She said Staff‟s position was that the roof structure was not part of that permit. Otto said Staff
asked that a lower, smaller structure be built if the pool equipment needed to be sheltered and Fucci was
not receptive to that concept. Fucci said he hired somebody to do a whole project: the pool, pavers, and
the pool equipment. He said he never was trying to be underhanded and w hen he got the Stop Work order
he had no idea what they were talking about. He said the project was supposed to be finished within a
month; four months later he ended up throwing the contractor off the property and finishing the project
himself. Fucci said the cover that was in question was a pool equipment cover and all the manuals he has
from the pool company tell him he needs to cover the equipment to keep it out of the sun so the motors do
not overheat. He said it is a Polaris system that runs around the pool and cleans it. Fucci said when he
hired the contractor he expected everything to be aboveboard and taken care of. He said six weeks after
the projects got done he did get a Stop Work order from the City, called Otto and asked what was going
on, met with her the next day, and he was told he was in violation of a setback . Fucci said for the cover
itself, there was a preexisting pad there and it was infested with termites and he took it down. He said it
was four posts and a roof. Fucci said he got a bit more elaborate with this cover and he attached it to the
house. He said he offered to unattach it from his house and then he talked to an engineer about the
problem. Fucci said he only has 10-feet on the side and the pump and all of the equipment has to be
within 25-feet of the skimmer for everything to run properly. He described that the roof structure was next
to the neighbor‟s backyard and he said he asked the neighbors, since they already had seen the structure
that was there for 25 or 30 years, if there would be a problem with him raising it up and they told him
there was not, but they are not the City. Fucci said he did not know how he got in this situation; he paid a
lot of money to get this project taken care of. He said the cover was to keep the heat off of the equipment
and he also moved a spa that he uses for hydrotherapy from his other house because he was going to cover
it and he spent over $2,000 to have a tub relocated which is also under the cover. He said it is a little bit
bigger than it was before; it is not four posts standing there with a roof over it. He said it is an attached
structure to the header boards and it is not going anywhere unless the City tells him he ha s to take it
down. Major discussed that Fucci indicated narrowness on the variance application and that in an R -2
zone the square footage requirement is 4,500. He said Fucci has 8,800 square feet. Major asked Fucci to
explain his hardship and how that applies to our requirement. Fucci said he thought everything he did was
within the City‟s standards and codes, trusting the contractor that he sent to City Hall. He said originally
he tried to put in the permit himself and the contractor told him that it had to come from the contractor.
Fucci said if he had come and talked to people he would not be standing here today and the pool would
have probably been relocated because on the other side he has a carport where he could have run the
4
equipment that was already covered. He said it was very, very bad guidance from a contractor. Fucci
explained that the day after the Stop Work was posted when he came to see Otto it turned out that the
contractor had only turned in about $30,000 for the project and Fucci got charged the additional fees on
the $43,000 project. Marianne Bramble asked what was Plan B. Fucci said to not use or recommend that
contractor. He said he did not know what his Plan B was. He spoke of the Stop Work being six weeks
after the project was done and that he did not understand why if someone saw this being built they could
not have put the Stop Work up during construction. He said he worked on it from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm for
almost a month and it was very visible; he was not trying to hide anything. He said he was willing to
unattach it and make it smaller. Bramble asked why Staff did not catch it and where was our building
inspector. Otto said our building inspector is from Chatham County and Wednesdays are the only days he
is on the island until 4:00 pm; all other days he is back in Savannah at 2:00 pm. She said there are a lot of
things that Staff does not catch. Tyler Marion asked Otto if she had offered an alternative to Fucci. Otto
said if the structure was not attached to the house and was considered accessory to the house it would
have a 5-foot setback requirement. She said she has not seen the equipment that the overhang is
protecting, but she proposed a small, lower shelter over just the equipment. Marion asked if that was not a
good option for Fucci. Fucci said he never said that; when he came to City Hall and he talked to people
about what the code is and what he did wrong, his first response was that he would unattach it if that was
the problem because now he was going back to an existing structure that was already there that he just
replaced. He said if they want it up on four pegs and just standing there it is not as safe as it is now but if
that was what had to be done that was what he would have done. He said he was not told that there was
any setback at all and that was why he missed the first Planning Commission meeting because he was told
if he unattached it, so he brought an engineer out there and asked him how to unattach the overhang.
Fucci said this is not his skill level; he did the best he could. He said the engineer told him to unattach it
but it would be four 4 by 4s and a roof setting on top of it like it was before. He said he did not feel that
was safe to himself or his neighbors. He said a 4 by 4 structure with that roof is goin g to end up in Ronnie
Tatum‟s yard with a 60 mph wind and he did not want to do that either. Chair Parks asked if anyone from
the public wished to speak. He closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Levy moved that it be
denied. Major seconded the motion. Bramble said it looks nice but she cannot approve this and deny any
other after-the-fact variances. Major said he is feeling not good about what they are looking at that. He
said the City is being asked why it did not catch him doing something wron g and now because of the
Planning Commission his neighbor is going to end up with this in his yard. Major said he feels bad about
that and he feels bad that a contractor was hired that did not follow the rules and did not report the right
amount of permitting, but we have an ordinance that says these are the circumstances under which a
hardship can be defined and a variance can be requested, and what has been presented here does not meet
that requirement. Demery Bishop said there are reasons for the LDC [Land Development Code] and
reasons we debate and discuss these types of petitions. He said setbacks are established for a number of
reasons inclusive of public safety which was raised earlier and is a very valid point, but because of the
nature of this and because there is a remedy and this is an after-the-fact, he has severe difficulty in saying
this is fine this time because that sets precedent and it negates the purpose and reasons behind the LDC .
Bishop said it is a very difficult situation because the wa y it was built is far superior to what it previously
was but as it exists with an after-the-fact, with the LDC, with our code; he would find it difficult to
approve this for those reasons. The vote in favor of the motion to deny was unanimous. The motion to
deny passed with a 5-0 vote. The request would be heard by the Mayor and City Council on July 14.
Levy and Otto discussed the location of the pool equipment.
The next item was a Text Amendment to Article 3, Section 3-160 – Protective Screening of Adjacent
Property Where Commercial Use and Residential Use Abut. Ethan Imhoff, Planning and Zoning
Manager, said this section had been to the Commission before and they made some recommendations to
the Council who had discussed it at their meeting. He said there had been enough changes recommended
5
that, in the opinion of the City Attorney, this particular ordinance needed to come back through the
Planning Commission and then back for a First and Second Reading to the City Council. Imhoff
explained that the changes define when this ordinance would go into effect. He said this was an ordinance
for protective screening between commercial and residential uses, not just zoning districts. He outlined
that items 1) through 3) in the ordinance spoke to when the ordinance would be triggered, and items (A)
through (C) were what would be required under this proposal. Imhoff said Council had put in for
discussion a 5-foot wide buffer and that would include a masonry wall as well as some vegetative
plantings. He said also included in the ordinance is a case of Special Review for plans that are incapable
of meeting the requirements. Henry Levy asked which side, the commercial side or the residential side,
would the buffer be on. Imhoff said it would be the side that is being developed. Levy asked if it said that.
Imhoff said the ordinance is triggered, “In cases where a residential use does or will abut a commercial
use and where: 1) New construction is proposed, or 2) Existing improvements are to be expanded by
enlarging the footprint of existing occupied or useable improved space, or 3) a change in the kind,
character or degree of use of improved property is proposed.” He said the onus on making the
improvement would be the property that is being developed or being changed according to these
definitions. Levy said it did not say that. He gave an example of a residence being built next door to
commercial property. He asked if the commercial property would have to put up a buffer. Imhoff said no,
the intent of the ordinance is that the residential property, in that instance, would have to install a buffer.
Levy said it was very unclear as to who puts it up. Marianne Bramble asked Imhoff to repeat what he had
explained. Imhoff said Levy had presented a situation of a commercial property and a residential property,
and the residential property is the one that is redeveloped or constructed upon, triggering the requirements
in the code. He said the residential property would be responsible for constructing the buffer between the
residential and the commercial properties. Chair Monty Parks said the buffer was to be measured from the
property line of the property being improved, and the person seeking to improve or to build has to put the
buffer up. Levy said because there is a commercial property the residence has to put it up when the
commercial property is the one that is causing the disturbance. Parks said if the commercial property is
doing the improvement they have to put the buffer up. Levy said suppose the residential property is doing
the improvement. Parks said they have to put the buffer up. Levy said that was putting the burden on the
residential property to protect themselves from something that the commercial is doing. Imhoff said he
would not disagree but it was his understanding that was the way Council wanted the ordinance written.
He said that was somewhat different from most buffering ordinances; usually the onus is on the
commercial property and if the residential property is to be developed there are not any requirements,
certainly they could put in a buffer but it would be optional and not required. John Major said where
commercial property abuts residential property, whether the residential is making improvement or not, the
residential is there. He said he agreed with Levy that the commercial property should be the one that
buffers from its nuisances. To clarify his understanding of Levy‟s and Major‟s comments, Parks said if a
residence is making an improvement on its property which abuts a business then the business has to put
up a buffer. Levy said that was correct. Levy motioned they reword it so the commercial property has to
put the buffer up. Demery Bishop asked Levy if it was a residential property that was being improved that
abuts commercial property, was he proposing that the onus be on the commercial, regardless. Levy said
that was correct. Parks said in addition to that not only would the commercial property have to put it up
but they would have to put it up on the residential property because the ordinance says, “The buffer shall
be measured from the property line of the property to be improved.” Levy said it should be reworded so
that the buffer has to be put up on the commercial property by the commercial interest. He said if
commercial abuts residential property they ought to put the buffer up when they build. Bramble said we
already have a situation just a block over, new commercial property that was to have a buffer in place.
She asked how this would affect that property; would it be retroactive where they are going to have to put
this buffer up when it abuts residential on three sides. Imhoff said no, it would not be retroactive. He said
it would apply to projects after this is approved by Council. Major asked the arguments in favor of doing
6
this as it was written. Imhoff said the argument was that many times a commercial use is established so
you may have a longtime commercial use and then maybe a property that had one single-family home on
it and it gets purchased and somebody decides to tear down the single -family and build apartments so
perhaps the residential use could intensify which would create a need for a buffer. He said also there was
a sense of fairness; if you are going to require a commercial property to install a buffer, if you are a
residential property owner and you are moving in on a commercial property, likewise, you would be
responsible for the buffer as the property owner. Imhoff said there was an element of not just putting the
onus on the commercial property owner, but the commercial and residential property owners sharing the
burden of that equally. Major asked if he has a house next to a commercial building and he wants to add a
deck, he also has to put up a privacy fence, plant some trees, and have a lawn. Imhoff said if Major put in
a deck that would be enlarging the footprint of the existing space, so yes, that would be required. Bishop
read from the proposed ordinance, “In cases where a residential use does or will abut a commercial use
and where: 1) New construction is proposed...” Bishop asked if “construction” was defined and if “new
construction” meant residential and/or commercial. Imhoff said “construction” was not defined in Article
2 and it would be added to the ongoing list of definitions that needed to be included. Levy said the onus
should be on the commercial property to build a buffer when they first develop irrespective of the fact that
the residential property may not be built upon and the [ordinance] is flawed unless it calls for that. He said
the residence is not creating the noise; the commercial is creating the disruption. He moved to ask Staff to
reword it. Imhoff asked Levy to clarify if he meant to reword it so the residential properties are no longer
responsible. Levy said he moved to reword it so the commercial property owner has to erect the buffer.
Imhoff asked if that was even in the instance where the residential property owner is developing his or her
property. Levy said the commercial should put up the buffer when he firsts builds; the onus is on the
commercial property and the ordinance should reflect that. Imhoff asked about a case when there is an
existing commercial property and a residential property develops next to that. Levy said the onus ought to
be on the commercial to erect a buffer. Parks said if he understood the motion correctly, in the case that
Major gave of a deck, the commercial develops the buffer on their property. Levy said yes. There was not
a second to Levy‟s motion. Parks asked for another motion. Major requested clarity that this was coming
from Council, not Staff. Imhoff said the Planning Commission had worked on this, then Council
discussed it, and the City Attorney had rewritten it to reflect Council‟s considerations at their last
meeting. Parks said part of where it came from was the discussion of bed and breakfasts. Major asked if it
went back to the pig and shrimp thing. Parks said partly there and also the shark. Major said their options
are either to accept this or disapprove. He said he was not comfortable with building a deck and having to
build a fence and trees and all that, nor was he comfortable with a small restaurant next door suddenly
incurring great expense which may put them out of business to build a fence and trees. Major said it may
not be well thought out. He gave an example of putting in an arboreal, landscaped buffer as part of a
subdivision next to a commercial business not being a problem, but a 4- by 4-foot stoop that expands a
footprint being expensive based on the wording of this ordinance. Imhoff said the role of the Planning
Commission was to review things like this to make comments to the Council so if there are comments
those certainly can be transmitted to Council. Parks said there have been some good comments made.
Major moved this be returned to Council with the comments, particularly the areas of concern. He said his
motion was that they neither say don‟t do it nor do it, but maybe think it out a little more. Major asked if
that was going far enough or did they need to rewrite it and submit a revised version to Council. Imhoff
said they all have made their concerns known about placing the burden on residential property owners for
constructing the buffers. Parks asked Major to restate the motion. Major said he moved that without
voting yes or no that with their comments be sent to Council for reconsideration with explanation of the
significant concerns that were brought up. Tyler Marion seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
The motion that, without voting yes or no, Section 3-160 be sent to Council for reconsideration with
the Planning Commission’s comments and explanations of significant concerns passed with a 5-0
vote. Section 3-160 would be on the July 14 City Council agenda.
7
* * * * *
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, 5-020, 5-030, 5-040, 5-050, 5-060, and 5-070 which
were previously approved, was next on the agenda. It was agreed to spend 20 minutes discussing it.
Ethan Imhoff, Planning and Zoning Manager, said that Downer Davis, the City‟s consulting engineer, had
some input on Section 5-080, Site Plan Approval. Davis commented on the second sentence of the first
paragraph following Section 5-080(A)(4) having “imposition” and “imposed” in the same sentence. The
sentence was reworded to, “Buffering requirements beyond those expressly identified may also be
imposed.” John Major commented that this proposed ordinance was a major change in direction of what
Site Plan review is. He said under the prior ordinance a Site Plan came to the Mayor and Council and the
Planning Commission when it was in compliance with all the ordinances, or there may be a variance
attached to it, and basically it was held in order to educate the City and the surrounding neighbors of
something that was about to happen. Major said the words “approve” or “deny” did not appear in the
ordinance. He said they needed to be aware that this was a much stronger ordinance from the City‟s
perspective in terms of the requirement that a Site Plan was just a request for something that meets all the
requirements. He said it almost makes a Site Plan review like a Special Review. Imhoff said anytime you
have greater clarification and more information that is usually a good thing. He sa id if the applicant is
presenting a Site Plan beforehand and it is detailed, that is going to be less work they have to do on the
tail end with their as-built plan, so it is information they are going to be providing at some point in time
and it makes the process easier for everyone the more information that we have upfront. Major said the
big difference was this stating that the Mayor and Council can deny or modify the Site Plan request. He
read, “If all the foregoing requirements have been satisfied and further if the Mayor and Council find that
the benefits of and need for the proposed use and project are greater than any possible depreciating effects
and damages to the neighboring properties, the application may be granted.” Major said if an application
meets every requirement it could still be turned down because somebody thinks it does not do something.
He said it seemed subjective. Imhoff offered to check with the City Attorney and see what the reasoning
for that clause was. Demery Bishop asked if “depreciating effects and damages” was defined. He agreed
that was subjective. Marianne Bramble said they need definitions. Bishop said either definitions or
deletion of those terms that are subjective. Imhoff agreed that the definition section of the Land
Development Code could be improved upon. He said Staff has been compiling a list for Article 2. He said
there are a lot of words that carry a lot of weight and meaning that are not defined so there is no ambiguity
or confusion. Bishop said they have done that during the course of this review and this is another example
of that. Chair Monty Parks referred the group to Section 3-080(A)(1), (2), (3), and (4). He asked if that
was an attempt at a definition of “depreciating effects and damages.” Imhoff said there is more specificity
in the paragraph Parks mentioned. He said scale and mass, availability of utilities, consistent with the
Character Area, density – those things are tangible and can be measured whereas “possible depreciating
effects and damages” is less quantifiable. Imhoff offered again to check with the City Attorney. Major
asked for an explanation of the last two sentences in paragraph (A), Process. Davis said in the past the
Mayor and Council would approve a plan but might have one or two minor engineering issues to address.
He said it would not be material; everybody would feel good about it being easily achievable, but then the
owners would drag out or their engineers would not respond or the owners would not give their engineers
authorization to make a minor change, and it would be three or four weeks later and another Council
meeting might occur and there would be complaints that Council approved it, why isn‟t it getting out of
Planning and Zoning. Davis said it seemed appropriate that while a plan can move beyond the Planning
Commission with a few minor issues, all should be in order and the Site Plan approved by himself, Public
Works, Water/Sewer, and everybody before the Council acts on it. Parks asked Imhoff if he would have
8
time before the next Planning Commission meeting to get with the City Attorney to clarify a “possible
depreciating” situation. Imhoff said sure.
The final item was an update on the Shore Protection Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Committee. Chair
Monty Parks said tonight was the last meeting for the Committee. He said a summary of the
recommendations and findings was available if the Commissioners would like to review that. He said the
next step was to present the findings to Council on July 14. He said that would conclude the official
business of the Committee which was done on time and delivered as promised.
Demery Bishop motioned to adjourn and John Major seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and
the meeting was adjourned.