Loading...
20120320_PC_mtg_min_.pdf 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher Randi Bryan Rob Callahan CITY ATTORNEY Henry Levy Edward M. Hughes John Major Tyler Marion Monty Parks MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting March 20, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. Chairman Monty Parks called the March 20, 2012, Planning Commission meeting to order. Mr. Parks thanked everyone who attended the pre-meeting workshop. Commissioners present were John Major, Henry Levy, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and Randi Bryan. Chairman Monty Parks asked for consideration of the Minutes of the February 21, 2012 meeting. Mr. Callahan moved to approve. Mr. Major seconded the motion. The vote to approve the minutes was unanimous. Mr. Parks asked if there were any Disclosures or Recusals. There were none. The first order of business is minor subdivision of land, John R. Benton, at 1306 Butler. Ms. Otto stated that the request is a minor subdivision of land at 130 Butler, and zoned R2. The property is owned by John and Joann Benton. Currently, it is a single family home on one lot. This proposal would subdivide into three lots with one of those three containing an existing single family home. Mr. Parks asked the commission for any questions from staff. Mr. Major asked if the proposal is that the easement drive be used as the front setback. Ms. Otto explained that was correct and common. The infrastructure would have to be laid in the travel way. The twenty foot access easement would serve as the 20 foot front set back. Mr. Major questioned the size of a structure for the property. Mr. Levy asked for clarification of the foot print with the easement and setback. Ms. Otto explained the structure would potentially be 23 feet. Ms. Bryan asked how many trees were on the property. Ms Otto stated that she would prefer that the applicant answer as the City does not have a tree survey. Mr. Bishop stated that there are already for sale signs on the property, indicating that the property is already subdivided and questioned if that was the case? Ms. Otto stated that the subdivision had not been approved and required the approval of the Mayor and City Council. Mr. Callahan clarified that the orientation of two new structures would not face Butler, but would face the access road. Ms Otto stated that she thought the front set back would be measured off of the easement, the south property line. Mr. Major asked if lots one and two would still have Butler Avenue 2 addresses. Ms. Otto explained that the current policy is that the addresses would be 1306A, B, and C Butler Avenue. She stated that the City does not add easements as road names. Mr. Callahan asked about the five foot pedestrian beach access, stating that there was no dune crossover. Ms. Otto asked that be addressed with the applicant. Ms. Otto further explained that DNR preferred a trail rather than a structure. Mr. Major asked if the two year old shore protection line was still valid. Ms. Otto explained that it did not have bearing on the subdivision request. Mr. Parks asked that the applicant come to the podium to address the Commission. Mr. John Benton introduced himself. He explained that the lot was originally a 160 feet lot divided into three lots, the property lines on the South. He only wants three subdivisions. He said that there are probably 25 trees and no one would cut them down. The lots are very narrow. Mr. Benton stated that he is not a developer. He plans on retiring and being able to afford living there. He is hoping that one person will buy both of the lots. He is marketing it this way to make it more appetizing to the person that might be buying it. As far as the signs out there, the real estate agent has an asterisk on the listing stating that the subdivision is subject to approval by the City of Tybee. No one is being presumptuous. He stated that he just wanted to get it on the market as soon as he could. Mr. Major asked if it would be possible to deed restrict the sale to protect the beautiful oak trees on the lots. Mr. Benton explained that the worst that would have to be done is to get an arborist in to look at a limb that may have to be trimmed, as it may interfere with someone trying to build. He said that he does not know for sure. The trees are really out of the way. Mr. Major asked if it would interfere with Mr. Benton’s view. Mr. Benton explained that he has the beach view. He does not want to disturb the beautiful oak trees. The lots are very narrow. He restated that he is not a developer, and trying to be able to afford to retire there. He said that he only wants single family homes there, not duplexes or condos. Ms. Bryan asked about the easement and trail for beach access. Mr. Benton explained that there is beach access through an agreement with the neighbors, via a wood walk way, not in the best of shape. The plan is just a walk way. He has had DNR there, and they prefer just a trail. There are no plans to disturb the dunes, but to preserve the area. Mr. Parks closed the public hearing as there was no one else from the public that wished to respond to the request. Mr. Parks asked for discussion prior to a motion. Ms. Bryan expressed concern for the trees and cutting of the limbs. She asked if there was any way that it could be deed restricted. Mr. Parks asked Ms. Otto if the tree ordinance would require mitigation of an oak tree. Ms. Otto explained that there is nothing in the tree ordinance that would prevent the removal of a tree. If it is an oak, it is a significant species. There are one of three ways of mitigating, inch for inch replacement of oak trees; paying $50 per inch to the Palms Up fund; placing more than one tree on the property under protection. Mr. Major stated that Mr. Benton indicated that he would be willing to deed restrict the property to protect the trees. Ms. Otto stated that it would be an option. Mr. Parks said that it appeared to be the only option to protect the trees. Ms. Otto stated that the restriction could be in the motion to carry through to Council and Council could put it in, requiring it prior to approval of the subdivision. Mr. Benton does not want this to be a hindrance for selling. 3 Mr. Parks stated that he is not concerned so much for the trimming as for removal. Mr. Bishop asked if deed restriction was by tree or totality of trees. Ms. Otto explained that it is hard without a tree survey. Mr. Bishop asked how it is handled and asked if it couldn’t be deed restricted based on significant trees as stated in the ordinance. Ms. Otto stated that deed restrictions will overrule any construction. Mr. Major stated that he knew the applicant was in a hurry, but a tree survey would really be the answer. Ms. Otto said that he was nearly there with the survey and the surveyor could do a tree survey, so that the trees could be seen in the footprint. The survey could be in the motion. Mr. Callahan asked if the City had the authority to require a property owner to make such a deed restriction. Ms. Otto explained that, within the subdivision process, it could be included as a part of the restriction based on trees as approval or denial. Mr. Bishop asked if we had the luxury of a delay or reconsideration of a survey. Ms. Otto said the applicant would have to answer. Mr. Bishop asked Mr. Benton if a tree survey would impede a time frame on sale. Mr. Benton said that there is no buyer. He stated that he does not want trees to go and that he doesn’t want to get so deep into it that it will scare a buyer off. Mr. Benton discussed various trees on the lot and whether he would have to pay for a tree survey. Mr. Benton doesn’t want to pay the survey to have someone come in and count the trees. He said that he is willing to sign something to state that he won’t cut the trees or something like that. Mr. Parks called for a motion. Mr. Major made a motion for approval, subject to deed restriction that would prohibit removal of any of the live oaks on the property. Mr. Parks called for discussion. Mr. Bishop asked which trees, all trees, or those only. Mr. Major withdrew the motion. Mr. Benton asked if it could be a significant live oak, six inches in diameter. Ms. Otto said that water oaks were a significant species. Ms. Bryan stated that she didn’t see how we could go forward without a tree survey. Mr. Bishop explained, from a planning perspective, we need to know what trees we are dealing with. Mr. Benton said he is not trying to build. He is confused on it. He isn’t trying to build, only to subdivide. Ms. Bryan said the Commission is charged with a master plan, which included protecting the trees and, without a survey, we don’t know what we are dealing with. 4 Mr. Benton said, according to ordinance, he can get a permit to cut them down now. Mr. Major discussed the tree ordinance. Mr. Benton further explained that he is only trying to subdivide, not cut trees. Mr. Major said that this was the best opportunity to protect the trees and to protect the applicant. Mr. Bishop asked, without a survey, whether or not the Commission can make a deed restriction on diameters. Ms. Otto explained that a tree survey would tell all information needed for a footprint. Mr. Major asked if the surveys or site plans were required. Mrs. Otto said they were not. Mr. Parks asked for a motion. Ms. Bryan made a motion to deny. There was no second. The motion did not carry. Mr. Major made a motion to move to approve, pass to Council, with a tree survey which would indicate which trees would stay and which would not stay, with the absolute objective of protecting the significant trees with the absolute maximum. Mr. Levy questioned that if this passes and there is a significant tree in the way of building, will this prevent someone from building. Ms. Otto said, with the motion, it will not prevent building, it would just identify trees. Ms. Bryan seconded the motion. Mr. Callahan voted against, all other Commissioners voted to pass. The motion carried. Ms. Otto read the motion: The motion was to approve with recommendation that a tree survey would be provided that would indicate which trees are in the foot print with the objective of protecting the significant trees with the absolute maximum. Mr. Benton expressed his concerns that the motion indicates that he is cutting the trees. Mr. Major explained the motion to Mr. Benton. If approved, it will state which trees can be cut and applicant will be able to move forward. Mr. Parks moved on to the next item on the agenda: Item 2 Minor subdivision of land on 3 Neptune Lane. Ms. Otto stated that it was comprised of three lots. The packet contains a current subdivision plat showing that 26A extends from Chatham Ave to the Back River. A retention pond is included on that property. To the north is lot 26B and lot 26C, between them is another retention pond. This request from Mr. Moses is to reconfigure the property such that the retention pond that is on lot 26A would be on lot 26B. 5 Mr. Bishop advised that when he went to the property on 26A, he saw the retention pond. He asked where the pond would be moved when there is already one there. Ms. Otto advised that just the property lines are being moved. Mr. Major asked, when the property lines are moved, if the property would be like a big figure eight. Ms. Otto confirmed. All the access easements, utility easements, drainage easements remain the same. It is just who owns the property. The plat has all property owners’ signatures. They all agree with this proposal. Mr. Parks asked Mr. Harry Moses, applicant, to come to the podium. Mr. Moses stated that he has owned lot 26B for 6 years and bought lot 26A this past year; the house on the water side in the back. When it was built in 2006 or so, only three houses were allowed and still all that is allowed. He said that his intention is to sell lot 26A and the house that is on it. His purpose in taking the eastern half of that property is to prevent any future development on that eastern portion. He said that it would crowd our neighborhood. There are three homes there now and it is just right. He wants to sever off that eastern portion, keep that eastern portion in his name so that the future buyer couldn’t build anything back there. Mr. Major asked if there was a listing for 3 Neptune for sale. Mr. Moses confirmed. Mr. Major asked what exactly 3 Neptune Lane was. Mr. Moses advised that it is the entire long lot, including the retention pond. Mr. Major said that if there were to be development on those lots, there would be some wetlands issues. Mr. Moses explained that if he sold lot 26A as it is, somewhere down the road someone might find a way to get around the current prohibitions on development or spinning it off and selling it. He wants to stop that right here. Mr. Parks asked the applicant what would stop him from spinning it off five years from now and subdividing lot 26B into two sections. Mr. Moses said that it is his understanding that once a minor subdivision has created three lots, one cannot further subdivide it. It said that it is also his understanding that the previous owner of 26A tried to do that but was stopped. Mr. Major said that he thought there were more EPA regulations of the wetlands and asked what would stop Mr. Moses right now. Ms. Otto stated that it is a drainage area right now and that Mr. Moses is correct that it could lead to a problem down the road if not protected now. Mr. Downer Davis spoke. He said that this project did not drain, to the roadway drainage. Based upon the impervious area of the three residential dwelling units and the land area, the storm water of the retention basins, don’t have outfall. There are basins the water is supposed to perk in. The southern one that is going to be on 26B does function better than the one on the property line between 26B and 26C. Someone could come in and do some drainage improvements but it would involve conveyance lines to the project, making sure they were the size to carry to the outfalls. The cost is so prohibitive that even on Tybee, in really good times; Mr. Davis doesn’t see how they could accomplish that. He further stated that he thinks Mr. Moses is correct. It is not going to happen. From an engineering standpoint, Mr. Davis doesn’t see how they could make the numbers work. There were no more questions for the applicant. Mr. Parks called for any other members of the public to comment on this. Ms. Sherry Stiff came to the podium. Ms. Stiff lives at 26C. She stated that she and her husband will likely be most impacted by lot 6 26B and are fine with what Mr. Moses is proposing and appreciate that he is trying to preserve that property. She said that they are in favor of what Mr. Moses is trying to do. Mr. Pierce Reeve came to the podium. He is managing member of ownership of 26A. He stated that he is here to support the effort of Mr. Moses. Mr. Parks closed the public hearing. Mr. Bishop made a motion to accept. Mr. Major seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Otto advised that it would be on Council agenda on April 12. Item 3 on the agenda is a zoning variance, by both the City and Mr. Michael E. and Karen Leonard, Polk street right of way. Ms. Otto stated, as in the staff report, that accompanied the documents for this request, both the City and the Leonards are in need of a variance to place materials within the marshland which is prohibited by section 5-010k. The current right of way of the south end of Polk Street and the property owners’ driveway flood on a very regular basis. They are low and have not been maintained over the years. High tides do affect access to the property. It is that reason that both the city and the Leonards are seeking approval from DNR to make improvements on the street and the driveway. If this variance is approved by the City, then the City would be able to right a letter to DNR stating that it does not violate any of Tybee Island’s zoning ordinances and has received a variance from this particular section. Ms. Otto stated that Mr. Davis is heavily involved in this project, if there are any questions. Mr. Major stated that under ordinance section 5-090, driveway high tides are not a reason to request a variance. There are very definite definitions of a hardship. Mr. Major asked if this represented a hardship. Ms. Otto explained that the ordinance talks about topography and this does have a low elevation. Mr. Major asked if the roadway is raised, what is going to be put in there. Mr. Davis said that one of the things that was agreed to with Council, before being able to retain a consultant to guide through the process with the Corp and the DNR, that this would be a single lane road as it is now and that it would be raised to an average elevation of 5.6, sea level. The tides can get up to 7 or more feet. Right now parts of that are 4’8”, 4’9”. The Leonards have to park their cars at the road during certain spring tides. The Leonard’s have had damage to their cars due to excessive salt water use. They are not looking for total relief. They are looking for partial relief and wanting the City to work with them us raise the City right of way, the Leonards raise their driveway, so they can get to their lots most of the time without having to drive through salt water. They have expressed concern about emergency traffic. Raising it to 5’6” would really minimize any hardship. Mr. Major asked if it would be widened. Mr. Davis explained that there is about a 9’ width now, trimmed down to 8’ drive, 2’ shoulders for safety and 2 and half to one slope. Normally there would be a 3 to one slope. It is being steeped up to try to minimize any impact. This is the least that can be done to get by. Ms. Bryan asked what materials were being used to raise it. Mr. Davis stated that earth and stone would be used. It is earth now, some remnants of stone. He said that Joe Wilson has talked about putting a 7 geomat down to minimize any further sinking of stone into the ground. It is a driveway lane with, not treacherous, but somewhat steep slopes on the side. It is merely elevating what is there. Mr. Callahan asked where 318 Polk Street was located. The only numbers he could find were 602A and B. Ms. Bryan stated that it was Salt Meadows. Mr. Callahan said he found the property, but there is no 318. He also asked if there was concern or the need for any cross drainage after this is elevated. He asked if the marsh was affected if a dam is down the middle. Mr. Davis said that would be a question for the DNR and CORP. It will all be interconnected once high tide comes in. It will be a peninsula at certain high tides, but it is going to be subsurface. It is possible that CORP or DNR will ask for cross drains. We are not asking for that. Mr. Parks asked if it would come back to the commission or is this only shot. Ms. Otto said that this is the only change. Once permitted by DNR, it becomes just a street maintenance project. Mr. Leonard took the podium. He explained that when he bought the property, it was just Salt Meadows, had a street sign on 80 that said Salt Meadows. About 3 years ago, he received a letter from the City that he now lived at 602A and B. and he had to put signs up. He said that he did. Recently Mr. Brown called and said he would be at 318 for 911 purposes. Mr. Parks closed the public hearing and called for other discussion. Mr. Callahan moved to approve as presented. Mr. Bishop seconded. The motion to carry was unanimous. Ms Otto said that the item would be on the Council agenda April 12. Mr. Parks stated that Item 4 on the agenda was a text amendment, Article 16 on storm water management. Ms. Otto stated that this item is a speedier path and is on the agenda for this Thursday, March 22, for the first reading and has been duly advertised. Mr. Davis explained that this ordinance is in response to the Federal governments continued delivery of requirements to the states for conformance to the 1972 Clean Water Act. This latest round addresses water quality a lot stricter than it has in the past. It has been coming for a while. There have been modifications to it. Mr. Davis said that he has attended meetings on behalf of Tybee in Macon and Atlanta, video conferences with DNR trying to mitigate the impacts to the cities and has been successful in getting some conditions. The State has been successful in getting some accepted by the Federal Government. Bottom line is, in the simplest form, this affects projects that disturb an acre of land or more or result in an end product of over 5000 square feet of impervious area. Mr. Davis gave an ‘infomercial’ to Council two weeks ago. The Funky Fish and Waves on Highway 80 are 4000 square feet buildings. The one on Butler has somewhat of a pervious surface and has less than an acre, so it would not be affected. So you can get an idea of the magnitude of how big a project and would not be affected. On the other hand, over on highway 80, that has the jaws statuette that you can get your picture taken in has an asphalt parking lot conforms to our current ordinances, but under the new one, which is mandated by the state, the parking lot would bring it over the 5000 square foot of impervious area and would have had to be more of pervious surface. Under this new ordinance, it does solidify for 8 projects that disturb over an acre or 5000 square feet of impervious surface, it does qualify what the impervious surfaces are. It does not allow white rock it talks about concrete, the modular brick pavers. This ordinance is not perfect, none ever are, but then State has given mandates, the other cities and counties are tweaking them some. He is recommending that it be tweaked, none. It can always be added to it later, but if add to it now, we have to get permission from the State to change it later. He recommends that the Commission take it in its simplest, most basic form and adopt it and rock on for a couple of years and see how it affect projects and see what tweaks are needed then. He would not recommend that we add anything to it now. That is what most places are doing. It will affect the plan review process for projects such as the Brass Rail Phase I. They would be subject to this ordinance if it was going in today. The State gives tools that you can use for compliance to make it easier. They give spreadsheets that you can use. We will be using that spreadsheet and checking against that. It will allow petitioners the possibility of going through a simplistic check list and meeting the criteria for meeting water quality. They do have alternates to put in expensive water treatment quality units, but they are very expensive. The last project that we have seen that would come under this guideline would be Captain’s Watch 3 or 4 years ago. The subdivision behind Island Style would have been subject to it. It has nothing to do with proximity to the water and being within 200 feet of State waters. The minority of projects will be subject to it. As Mr. Davis told Council, there is no plan B. The government has said "you will do it." Mr. Parks asked who drafted this, Federal or State. Mr. Davis stated that it was the EPD. They did it to comply with Federal. Every state will look different. This is Georgia’s draft. It is Mr. Davis’ opinion that the State has not put anything more on the local municipalities than required to by the Federal government. Mr. Parks asked if the Commission had seen this before. Mr. Davis said that they had not. It is the first time. Mr. Davis further stated, "If you ask me what you can change in it, in my opinion, it is nothing.” You can make it stricter, but he does not recommend that at this time.” Mr. Major said that we currently have an ordinance, in interim ordinance form, Article 8, flood damage prevention. Just wondering if there is anything in this that is inconsistent with or in conflict with this, as ours is a pretty hefty ordinance. Mr. Davis said that he did not believe that the ordinances were in conflict at all. The way this ordinance is written gives you options on ways to comply with storm water quality. We already address water quality on Tybee. We have our pervious driveway ordinance for new residences. We are a little more flexible in outfall considerations which lead to people having large storm water retention and detention projects than you would see in most areas which lead to better water quality. The storm water detention at Funky Fish was designed for over the 25 year storm. Most places go to the requirement and then stop. We already do a lot of additional things. He is not worried about how Tybee treats its storm water. This ordinance mandates that we document before we give a land disturbing permit on a project that is over an acre and that the best management practices possible have been enacted to control the pollution going to the state waters. Tybee is different because most state waters are fresh. We are completely surrounded by salt. Our storm water system is salt. Ms. Otto said that, if adopted, this will be Section D in Article 16 which is Storm Water management. 9 Mr. Davis explained that this ordinance would be going through in some fashion and Chatham County adopted a form that is different than most everyone else’s about 4 years ago. They started enforcing it about a year and half ago. Savannah adopted theirs this month. Another local municipality adopted one in this form about a year and a half ago. Garden city did theirs about four months ago. He wanted to see how other municipalities were doing theirs. Tybee’s looks pretty much like theirs. The tweaks are minor. A view Mr. Davis shares with the City attorney is that he doesn’t like to change something just to make it more readable. He likes to use the states model ordinances. Our salt erosion control ordinance looks just like the state’s model just with our name put in it. It is the same with this one. To Mr. Davis, we should not monkey with someone’s ordinance when they know more about it than we do. The tweaking that others have done doesn’t really give any relief to developers. Mr. Davis recommends that we adopt it in its pure form. Mr. Callahan stated that toward the end of this maintenance of records is mention and asked if we have a plan for them? Mr. Davis said that in any five year period every private storm water management facility on Tybee has to be inspected. We’ll be doing our annual storm water report in the next couple of weeks. Our public works department already does the testing during construction and measurement of storm water runoff on our outfalls. This ordinance is really to promote post construction BMPs. After construction, it means that they have a development that is sustainable in the form that it treats the storm water to the maximum extent possible before it goes into the creeks. Some people meet these requirements by buying expensive treatment units. That may happen on Tybee. They have the flexibility to do that. A preferred way is to have grass filter strips, bio retention, and infiltration basins. This ordinance does not dictate what they do. Our ordinances do allow people to put natural treatment methods in the buffers, not state water buffers, but ours. Mr. Callahan asked if this was going to be division D Article 16 and is it going to apply only to new projects? Mr. Davis said only to new projects and to projects that are disturbing an acre or more or result in 5000 square feet or more of disturbed area. It is not retroactive. It helps us with enforcement. Mr. Parks referred to page 24, 6.1 maintenance responsibility items 5 and 6. He asked if this is a fund already in existence. Mr. Davis clarified that it is a homeowners association. The fund has to be acceptable to the city of Tybee. Mr. Davis clarified a part of the ordinance that if someone wants to refurbish a big parking lot, for example, and tear it down and put it back up again, this manual does take something away. It says that on redevelopment, it calls or reduction of impervious material. Yu cannot put it back 100% impervious. Mr. Davis said that we shouldn’t fight this battle alone. Let the State requirements stand and change it later if necessary. Mr. Parks asked for comments from the public. There were none. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Major motioned to approve it and pass to Council. Mr. Callahan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Parks asked what the next item was on the agenda. 10 Ms. Otto said that another state practice was that each municipality review their practices and codes to determine if there were any impediments to having green building practices. The Commission packet has the blank worksheet. Since the packet was prepared, the review as required by the state has been completed. Mr. Davis is here to share with you the ordinance review. Mr. Davis stated that they did not want us to make changes, but to review and see where we stood. They may make comments back and may have questions for us. They are really asking us to look over the next two years to see what we can do to reasonably improve our ordinances. This check list was prepared by people, one size does not fit all, and they give you credits for things, green growth. It is guiding us toward, where we have a certain density; it is guiding us toward clustering and has benefit of better green space. We can accomplish some, some, we cannot. Ms. Otto said that Tybee scored 76. We wanted you to know about it. Mr. Davis said the point system does not fit Tybee very well. For example, impervious materials are already required. Mr. Callahan said we should double points. The commission discussed the point sheet. Item 6, Shore Protection Ms. Otto said that shore protection was dealt with last fall and left hanging and requested that it be brought back to the Commission for consideration. It is in Item 4; paragraph B at the top of page 2 in the ordinance in the packet. In the prior version that was considered in September, the last two sentences were requested rewritten or clarified. It read: Whether this dune line falls within or outside DNR jurisdiction line. In rare cases a satisfactory dune line may not be found. A suitable setback will be arrived at on a case by case basis. In these cases, either an existing sea wall or a high water line may need to be used as set back reference points. That has been modified too. The presence of a sea wall is not a factor in connection with this ordinance and its application and a buffer required by the Charter, where applicable, is also not impacted by this ordinance. Mr. Parks asked if these were the total changes. Ms. Otto stated that was all the changes in this 10-5 version. Mr. Parks said that he believed the change came from Council review and has come back to the Commission. Mr. Major and Ms. Otto agreed that they came from the commission. Ms. Otto said when the Commission approved the version before you that night, it included modifying that last part of section 4-B. It went to Council in October and they took no action. Subsequent meeting minutes are in your packet. Mr. Major asked about 6b2 on third page says “if an applicant is seeking special review,” what would be the threshold for seeing special review? He said that he doesn’t remember it being in there. Ms. Otto said, for example, in R1, if you wanted a guest cottage and you were in an area impacted by shore protection, it would require special review. Mr. Parks stated that he does like the suggestion that if we do draft an ordinance that it be in multiple segments and Council should be aware that there are three distinct areas in shore protection on the beach and that they should enact a section at a time. Mr. Major asked which section this would cover. 11 Mr. Parks replied that it would be the front section. Originally there were four sections; it would not cover the Back River. It is not built into the ordinance. Ms. Otto said that from the earlier version, it addressed from north federal groin to the south federal groin. Ms. Bryan asked for a definition of vacant. She asked if we were meaning abandoned? Ms. Otto said undeveloped. Ms. Bryan said 7-2 says vacant use. Ms. Otto said the code section referring to 30-20, a nonconforming structure. Ms. Bryan said she thought it meant vacant. Ms. Otto read Section 30-20 reads that whenever a nonconforming structure or use of structure becomes vacant or remains unoccupied owing to abandonment or discontinuance for a period of six months, such structure shall thereafter be made to conform to the provision of this land development code. Ms. Otto stated that she is not necessarily asking for a motion, but for direction. Mr. Parks said that there were a couple of options. One would be to send on to Council, another is to convene with a special meeting. A lot of time has been spent on this and it has been gone over. Mr. Major said there was a committee that met last year and it has been gone over extensively. He feels it is okay as it is. Mr. Bishop concurs with Mr. Major and believes that it should be sent on to Council. Mr. Major made a motion with clarity about the area covered by this and the concern that we have a back river and a north end that might not fit this that we send it on to council with our recommendation that we accept. Mr. Bishop seconded. Ms. Otto asked if this version written is between area between north and south federal groins. It was agreed that was in the meaning. The motion passed unanimously. It will be on the agenda April 12. The last item on the agenda is Article 6, sign regulation, signs on vacant property. Ms. Otto said that she apologized for misguiding on the one page item in your packet regarding item 6- 08-0F. This should have read consideration only. One option would be to delete this section from the sign regulation. Another would be to leave it alone; another would be to require special review as site plan given our current ordinance on site plan. This came as a result of the last request heard for a billboard on north end. In that particular area there was discussion the perhaps Tybee didn’t want any more bill boards. It can be heard on case by case or leave it alone. Mr. Parks asked if by deleting this does I mean no billboards. 12 Ms. Otto confirmed that was the case. Mr. Bishop asked if no billboard ordinance and someone wanted to erect a billboard, what would prohibit them from doing so. Ms. Otto explained that if there is no ordinance, no design standard.no allowance for them. It can be more specific and use this code section to prohibit them, or move it to the prohibition standard within the sign regulation. A text amendment could be written to prohibit billboards. Mr. Major said that there was a lot of good in the ordinance and asked if the Commission could add to the ordinance that Council could approve or deny based on site plan. Council can approve or deny. Mr. Parks stated that we do have a charrette this next week that may impact the zoning. Ms. Otto said the she would like to get the verbiage and bring it back. Mr. Major said that we do not need it back if the intent is clear. Mr. Major made a motion: Based on individual characteristics that Council has the right to approve or deny, in addition to site plan. The motion was read back; based on neighborhood characteristic, Council may approve or deny, with a site plan. Mr. Bishop seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Bishop made a motion to adjourn, Ms. Bryan seconded. The meeting was adjourned. Minutes prepared by Sharon Shaver