HomeMy Public PortalAbout20130716_PC_Minutes.pdf
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY MANAGER
Demery Bishop Diane Schleicher
Tom Borkowski
Marianne Bramble PLANNING & ZONING MANAGER
Rob Callahan Dianne Otto, CFM
Tyler Marion, Vice Chair
David McNaughton CITY ATTORNEY
Monty Parks, Chair Edward M. Hughes
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
July 16, 2013 – 7:00 p.m.
Chair Monty Parks called the July 16, 2013, Tybee Island Planning Commission meeting to order. Commissioners present
were Marianne Bramble, David McNaughton, Rob Callahan, Demery Bishop, and Tom Borkowski.
Mr. Parks – The first order of business is the minutes of the June 18, 2013, meeting. Do I have any discussion on the
minutes? [There was none.] Do I have a motion? [Mr. Borkowski made a motion to approve as written; Mr. Callahan
seconded.] All those in favor please signify. [The vote was unanimous.]
No disclosures or recusals.
Special Review – Audrey Casey for Tybee Lights Condominium Association – 106 through 116 Butler Ave.; units A, B, C
Ms. Otto – This is a Special Review for the condominiums located at 106 through 116 Butler Avenue. There are eighteen
units there. The applicant is seeking to remove vegetation in the shore protection area. Tybee’s ordinance, Section 3-
100, requires the Special Review process in order to be approved to do that. In your packet is the DNR permission that
was issued in June for this project. The applicant is here this evening.
Mr. Parks – Any questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anyone that would like to address the commission?
Audrey Casey came forward and introduced herself. I’m representing the Tybee Lights Condominium Association
property owners. We are coming to the City of Tybee and the Planning Commission to ask for permission to eradicate
the noxious weed that is identified as tamarix. It has been identified as a nuisance plant in seven states along the coast.
This would be done as outlined by the DNR. It would be using hand tools only and the eradication process would
eventually remove the stump but we cannot dig up the stump; it would be on the surface only. The other part of the
petition was to include the permanent landscaping which consists of some pampas grass, maybe two or three of those,
and other shrubs such as oleander. This is in an effort to maintain the shrubs, not to cut them down.
Mr. Bishop – In the letter from DNR, it refers to the contact with the DNR Sea Turtle Cooperators Permit. Has that been
done?
Ms. Casey – It hasn’t been done. I’m waiting until I receive permission from the City of Tybee before we involve the
Turtle Conservatory only because at that point they would inspect the area before any removal or anything was done to
the property.
Mr. Bishop – Redirect to staff. Is that permissible with the Special Review, we don’t need that input in order to make
that decision tonight?
2
Ms. Otto – I agree with Ms. Casey. By the time this gets through Council and she schedules the work to be done, that’s
the critical point if there are any turtle nests in that vicinity at that time. Any agreement at this time that there was not
turtle activity would not be applicable.
Ms. Bramble – I’m wondering why this has to be done during a time that we have an ordinance for turtle nesting and it is
hurricane season also. Even if you plant new growth there, we’ve had some windy storms come in. Are you there part-
time during the year?
Ms. Casey – As far as planting new growth, there has been no actual plan to do that. This is just to eradicate the
nuisance plant and maintain what is there. As far as my time here, I have another home and I am able to travel and
come to meetings, or whatever might be going on through the Board, and also take care of my property.
Ms. Bramble – Why is it considered a nuisance plant?
Ms. Casey – It’s been around for hundreds of years but what it does is impact the native flora and fauna. It’s also
invasive; it can cover huge areas of land and property and does not add to the environment. It attracts different types of
insects, snakes, and that type of thing because it grows low to the ground. It’s something that overcomes what we want
to preserve. It’s like any other kind of weed that you pull out of your garden or at home. You’re not going to have a
successful looking landscape or property if you don’t eradicate the things that are taking over in a negative way.
Ms. Bramble – I think it is a critical dune area in front of your house and pulling out even nuisance plants is going to
disturb that little protection you have.
Ms. Casey – I’m not aware that it is a dune area in front. This is west of the seawall where the tamarix is involved. We
would never want to disturb anything we have on the other side of the seawall like the sea oats. As far as disturbing the
dunes, I don’t feel that is an issue.
Mr. Parks – The salt cedar sends a tap root down into the water table and starts tapping and draining it. It also likes the
salt atmosphere and it dumps salt all around where it grows and other things would not be allowed to grow there. It has
some nasty habits. It’s a tenacious, tough-fighting, hard-to-kill sort of weed. That area is one of the first to lose sand in
any storm. It is west of the seawall but would it be possible to put some oats or something to anchor the sand that is
there?
Ms. Casey – Absolutely, as long as we have permission. We would be more than happy to consider that.
Mr. Parks – I notice that Section (B) allows for additional mitigation.
Ms. Otto – You’re referring to the DNR permit?
Mr. Parks – As I read through 5-070, Section (B), it allows for additional mitigation that we can request.
Ms. Otto – That’s Tybee’s ordinance.
Mr. Parks – Our Land Development Code.
Ms. Otto – I have experienced DNR working cooperatively with other homeowners on replanting of native species in the
shore protection to accomplish what you’ve described. I don’t see that as something they are requiring in this situation;
they only said any damages had to be restored. That’s not to say Tybee couldn’t request it.
Mr. Parks – Like she said, it is west of the seawall but that area is the first to go.
3
Mr. Borkowski – Why would you cut it down to the ground and treat the stump? Why not take the stump out to prevent
it from growing again? If it’s a noxious weed, why are you not getting rid of it altogether?
Ms. Otto – My understanding is that you want that root structure to stay in the sand to hold the sand dune.
Mr. Borkowski – It would be hard to plant anything if the roots are still there.
Mr. Parks – I don’t know.
Mr. Borkowski – I agree with them; I think it looks awful.
Mr. Parks – Just to the right and left of it are beautiful stands of sea oats. I think they are right in that zone where the
oats survive. Are there any questions for the applicant? [There were none.] Is there anybody else in the audience that
would like to speak to this?
Joe Porterfield came forward and introduced himself. My parents have had a place there since 1984 and it is really
getting out of hand. Between the seawall and the decks, it is right at 32 feet. This bush is already 25 feet in that
encroachment and you have to go around it. I don’t know how long you can let something like this go before eyes get
poked out. We just really need help up there and we’re hoping you will go along with what DNR proposes.
Mr. Parks – Are there any questions? [There were none.] Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to
comment on this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. I’m open to discussion or a motion.
Mr. Bishop – Motion to approve.
Mr. Borkowski – Second.
Mr. Parks – All those in favor please signify. [McNaughton, Callahan, Bishop, and Borkowski were in favor / Bramble was
opposed.]
Text Amendment – Section 4-050 – District Use Regulations
Ms. Otto – At the June meeting you voted for staff to bring this back to you with some further changes. You should be
looking at a document dated July 8, 2013. It was recommended, as I understood your suggestions at the last meeting, to
model the Maritime district similar to the Neighborhood Marina District. Rather than have all of those uses, which at
the last meeting were all listed under Uses Permitted after Special Review and Site Plan Approval, this now suggests that
there be three items that require Site Plan Approval and the remainder of the list would be items that would have
Special Review and Site Plan Approval. As noted at the last meeting, the current ordinance reads Uses Permitted by
Right, which is misleading to anyone that reads the Land Development Code because it is contrary to Section 5-020
which does require Site Plan Approval for any commercial developments. The original intent here, and continues to be
the intent, is to clarify for readers of only the Maritime District section that Site Plan Approval is required where if you
just read Uses by Right, you may have an opinion that you don’t have to have City approval for your development.
Mr. Parks – I think there was a fair amount of discussion about this last month. What have you specifically added?
Ms. Otto – Following the Neighborhood Marina District, which is also in your packet, it has the Uses by Right after Site
Plan Approval for the three uses of boat launch facilities, bait shops, and retail sale of boating provisions. In the
Neighborhood Marina district, those were Uses by Right after Site Plan. In the proposed changed Maritime district
version, you will see those three still under the initial category that says Uses Permitted after Site Plan Approval. The
remainder of the uses in the Maritime District have been put into a second section which is Uses Permitted after Special
Review and Site Plan Approval, which is comparable to what you see in the Neighborhood Marina district. The final
sentence at the bottom of the page clarifies what is included in other zoning districts that are commercial, that if you are
4
doing internal changes to existing structures, there is no Site Plan or Special Review required. It’s when it is external
changes to an existing structure that this is triggered and for any proposed new structures to be built.
Mr. Parks – Questions for staff? [There were none.] By internal changes, you don’t mean to exclude exterior changes to
an existing building such as a new roof or air conditioning?
Ms. Otto – If there is an existing vacant structure that had previously been a restaurant and a new restaurant wants to
come in and their only need is to modify the inside to suit the new business, they would not need to go through Site Plan
or Special Review. If their proposal was to add a deck or change the way the windows or doors are on the exterior of the
building, then they would need to come and have that heard by you and approved by Council before a permit could be
issued for that type of project.
Mr. Parks – Do we have anybody from the public that would like to address the commission at this time?
Pat Mathews came forward and introduced himself. I run the shrimp dock on each side of the bridge. I was curious to
find out the changes. Is it just on new construction or is what we have grandfathered in now?
Ms. Otto – What you have is already considered existing and approved. This would definitely be for new construction
and it would also apply if you wanted to modify the outside of one of your existing buildings such as add a front porch or
a side addition, anything that would change the exterior. You can do whatever you choose to on the inside with just a
building permit.
Mr. Mathews – I was thinking about adding some parking behind the shrimp dock. We’ve already discussed it and I
haven’t got the permit yet. I did notice it was in there about parking areas without a Site Plan. If I was to make more
parking on the property that I have, that would still require a Site Plan and a permit?
Ms. Otto – I’m not seeing the parking listed here.
Mr. Mathews – I think there was something in there about using your parking area for doing other things.
Ms. Otto – You would be triggered to have a parking lot review if you added another building there and we needed to
determine that you’ve got enough parking to cover all of your uses there. You could do your parking lot now with just a
permit because you’re not triggered by having a new development there.
Mr. Mathews – Okay.
Ms. Otto – If you decided you wanted to build a restaurant back there, we would determine, based on the size of the
new restaurant and your other businesses, that you’ve got adequate parking and that’s where we would look at the
parking lot. If you just want to improve the parking lot, you’ve already got that.
Mr. Mathews – Everybody is concerned about access to the parking area and making it less stressful on the road coming
in with the other traffic going to the other facilities. That might be a plus for me having another access road by the sign
when you turn in.
Mr. Parks – Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the Maritime District? [There were none.] At this time I will
close the public hearing. Is there discussion or a motion at this time?
Mr. Borkowski – I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Callahan – Second.
5
Mr. Parks – Those in favor of approval please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Section 3-100 – Beach, Dune, or Vegetation Disturbance/Crossover Maintenance and Construction
Ms. Otto – This is the same ordinance that Tybee Lights just had Special Review considered and you granted approval of
her request. This section, it was learned recently, back in 2011, when there was a change made to the second part of
the first paragraph where it talks about dune crossovers, the wording was tweaked that if you were only replacing the
supports, deck boards, and pilings, that was considered maintenance and you didn’t need to get Special Review. When
that action happened in 2011, we are unable to locate the advertising that is required in the Savannah Morning News
for that public hearing. Therefore, it is before you to properly adopt this. This will be advertised for the Council meeting
as required by the State’s Zoning Procedure law and Tybee’s Public Hearing law. What is before you is a simple adoption
with no changes. Since it is here, I don’t know if any of you have any opinions because we just went through an invasive
species that had to go through Special Review, if there is any type of language you would incorporate at this time to
allow removal of invasive species without Special Review. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other. If you have no
wording changes to suggest, this is simply a re-adoption.
Ms. Bramble – I think they should all come through Special Review whether it is invasive or not. Even if it is close to the
seawall, it’s still very critical in that area. Our dune system, whether it is back a few feet or not, I think the Special
Review would be critical.
Ms. Otto – I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other. I thought I would mention it if it was something you were
interested in. Otherwise this is just a formal adoption under proper advertising to have this Land Development Code
adopted.
Mr. Parks – Are there any questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anybody from the public that would like to
address this? [There were none.] At this time, I would like to close the public hearing. I’m open to discussion and/or a
motion.
Mr. McNaughton – I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Parks – Those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Section 9-050 – Technical Codes Adopted
Ms. Otto – In our Article 9, there is a list of the many codes that the City has adopted. Most of those are International
Codes, some are National Fire Protection. One we have not adopted, that was recently published by the ICC, is the
International Swimming Pool and Spa Code. It is not a big book, but it brings everything together into one manual.
Currently it is divided into the Residential Code and the Plumbing Code, and it has many places mentioned of swimming
pool regulations, but this would bring it all into one, easy to refer to, document. What is before you this evening is a
request to add the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code to the many codes that the City enforces.
Mr. Parks – Does this make it tougher for the average homeowner to put in a pool or spa?
Ms. Otto – No, it’s the same regulations. The codes are spread out in various areas in the Plumbing Code, Life Safety
Code, Residential Building Code; this just puts them in one place. Swimming pools are very critical. We take them very
serious in our office. Of all the other permits that we issue, other than new construction, they probably have the most
public safety dangers. We stick with the contractor or the homeowner to the bitter end and enforce compliance to get
that pool installed safely and guarded safely to protect the homeowners and the neighborhood children. We take it all
very seriously and this will help us by having one source to refer the contractors to of how we’re going to require those
pools to be installed.
6
Mr. Bishop – In several municipal codes that I looked through in preparation for tonight, not one single code that I
looked at for various cities of different sizes omitted this. This was inclusive in ten to twelve other municipalities that I
looked at online. It is fairly new but one of the main reasons, from a litigation perspective, is that the liability has been
attached to municipalities for failure to adopt this. Some cities that did not adopt this have been found of being the
approximate cause of the liability and the negligence. This is definitely timely if not overdue.
Ms. Otto – I appreciate that input. I wasn’t aware of that. We are ahead of Chatham County. Their intent is to adopt on
January 1st of 2014. I see no purpose for delay and I recommend that it be adopted now.
Mr. Parks – Is there anybody with a swimming pool under construction that this would impact?
Ms. Otto – Not currently. If you recall the bed and breakfast that you approved on Officers Row, they installed a pool
and the contractor needed some guidance on what we require. This is a better source than referring them to the
plumbing aspect of it. It’s more technical information about how to safely install a pool. We used the codes we adopted
but I think this will make it easier next time in that situation. I don’t think we have any other pending swimming pools
that this would affect.
Mr. Parks – Other questions for staff? [There were none.] Is there anybody from the public that would like to address
this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have discussion or a motion?
Mr. Callahan – I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Parks – All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Section 5-010 – Permits Required for Construction
Ms. Otto – This was approved by Planning Commission in 2011. When it went to City Council the structure of it
significantly changed. Council struggled with those changes and it was sent back to staff for further refinement and it
never saw the process through. Section 5-010 is one of Article 5 that has not been adopted and we’ve been trying to get
updated. What is before you is fundamentally the same version that the 2011 Planning Commission had considered.
Rather than send it to Council since the Planning Commission approval was so old, I wanted to bring it back to the
current Planning Commission for review. If you have any input on changes we would send it to Council as a fresh
recommendation from Planning Commission for their consideration.
Mr. McNaughton – Question about (E). An electrical permit is needed before installing or replacing any electrical wiring
or fixtures. Is that part of the current code?
Ms. Otto – Yes. What you have before you, the black text is current, and the red are proposed changes.
Mr. McNaughton – If someone wants to replace a ceiling fan, they have to get a permit?
Ms. Otto – Based on this change, yes. Those of you that were on Planning Commission at that time, we had workshops
and hammered through the language. All of this is open for revision, but at that time the “or replacing” was inserted.
Mr. Borkowski – That is a ceiling fan inside your house?
Ms. Otto – Yes, sir.
Mr. Parks – That really wasn’t the main sticking point. I think it was whether or not you are replacing a bulb.
7
Ms. Otto – This was not the bulb; this was the fixture. Frankly, I can’t say we get many applications for those.
Mr. McNaughton – It would be very difficult to enforce, would it not?
Ms. Otto – It likely would be. Since we don’t have a lot of inspections on them, I haven’t seen a high failure rate. The
next column, the plumbing, you would be amazed at the hot water heaters and toilets that fail inspections. There are
standards to be met when either of those is installed and it’s more so than electric installation.
Mr. Borkowski – Somebody has to get a permit and then somebody from the City has to inspect it afterwards?
Ms. Otto – Final inspection, yes. If you’re doing the work yourself, it’s your own liability. If you hired a contractor to do
the work for you, we always recommend that you not make final payment to your contractor until you’ve got that pass
inspection because it is challenging to get them to come back if an issue is found during that inspection.
Mr. Bishop – On (H), with the addition of ‘grubbing’ or where “A permit is required for grubbing or the clearing of trees.”
What was the intent with grubbing?
Ms. Otto – I do not recall; that has been so long ago.
Mr. Parks – Grubbing is an actual defined term in coastal marshland protection.
Mr. Bishop – Grubbing is defined as to clear or root out by digging. If I am clearing out or rooting out by digging in a
large garden bed where you have perennials, annuals, palms, and other such ornamentals, and I want to change some of
that by grubbing top soil, do I have to have a permit?
Ms. Otto – If it were the typical size garden or landscaping area, no. I don’t know what you are defining as large.
Mr. Bishop – A garden on a residential lot that is 25 by 25.
Ms. Otto – You’ve got a perimeter. Ideally the perimeter would be grassed and you are not going to have erosion
control issues because the grass around that area is going to filter that. It probably would not need a permit.
Mr. Bishop – If you are digging or landscaping, you are technically grubbing because you are clearing or rooting out by
digging in some way.
Ms. Otto – I don’t think this is the intent. The intent is for excavation for coming development. If that is not clear
perhaps we need to insert some language to make it so.
Mr. Bishop – It simply says, “A permit is required prior to grubbing or the clearing of trees, topsoil, or water on any parcel
of land.”
Mr. Parks – Is it the difference between cultivating and grubbing?
Mr. Bishop – I don’t know what the intent was when ‘grubbing’ was added. Are people going out and destroying their
garden areas or is it more because you are going in and bulldozing and backhoeing?
Ms. Otto – It’s the second group.
Mr. Borkowski – Maybe they could remove ‘grubbing’ or say something to the effect of major clearing of trees,
vegetation, or something to that affect where it is not so subjective.
8
Mr. Bishop – The second sentence says, “A drainage plan with supporting calculations is required prior to the issuance of
any permit for all new construction. The plan and calculations shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed by
the state to provide such services. Furthermore, there shall be no excavation or addition of soil, trees, or water until all
proper permits are obtained.” The intent, in my opinion, is certainly not the average everyday homeowner and
gardener. I think you are correct in that we could modify it to say it is required prior to substantial grubbing.
Mr. Parks – I think the intent is if you’ve got an acre of property that is in brush and woodland, and you go in and clear it,
that is what requires a permit.
Mr. Bishop – Grubbing is generally to clear or root out by digging. You could do that in a garden plot.
Mr. Parks – I think the motion should include that recommendation.
Mr. Callahan – There is the possibility that a site was previously permitted and clearing took place but no grubbing. The
next person that owns it sells it to a developer who wants to come in and begin the building process and the first thing
he does is grub. He needs to remove all the roots so he can clear the site. It is a land disturbing activity just to grub. I
think the distinction you are trying to make is small versus large areas.
Mr. Bishop – Absolutely. I don’t have any problem with a large area.
Mr. Callahan – If we add language that makes the distinction that exceptions can be made for residential garden plots or
landscape areas.
Mr. Bishop – We need to because regardless of the use of land, that is the first clause of that sentence.
Mr. Callahan – The way the discussion was going it seemed like you were headed for eliminating the word ‘grubbing’.
Mr. Bishop – No, I said that was a possibility.
Mr. Callahan – I would object to that. I don’t think we should remove it.
Mr. Bishop – I think we need to modify it. Could we define ‘grubbing’ in the definition section?
Ms. Otto – We have a long list of definitions that are going to be coming when Article 2 is done.
Mr. Parks – I’m not finding ‘grubbing’ in the definitions.
Ms. Otto – I will add it to my list.
Mr. Callahan – Generally on big developments, what they do is attach a huge rake to the back of a bulldozer and bring
up the roots and then burn them along with everything else.
Ms. Bramble – They are also using ‘grubbing’ in (K) for the marsh materials being placed and prohibited in the
marshlands.
Mr. Bishop – I think ‘grubbing’ could be defined, since it is multiple use, and not include average homeowner gardening
activities.
Ms. Otto – For activities in the 25-foot buffer, I’m throwing this out as a reference point, one hundred square feet is
tolerable. Anything exceeding that is not, but that is some type of guideline for what is considered a minor area.
9
Mr. Parks – Include a phrase that says this isn’t intended to impact homeowners and normal landscaping/gardening
activities.
Mr. Parks – I would like to draw attention to Section (D), Demolition Permit. I think in the original there was no time set;
this has a 45 day alternative. This is for historical?
Ms. Otto – We just worked on Article 14. It is still 45 days for demolitions and relocations. It might be good to reference
that section here.
Mr. Parks – It might be good to say it has to be in line with Section 14 generally and tie it in with the historical.
Mr. Bishop – Under (I), a tree removal permit is required if a person intends to remove a tree or any number of trees.
Does that include pines?
Ms. Otto – Yes.
Mr. McNaughton – I would like very much to see in Section (E), the words ‘or fixtures’ removed. It would read, “An
electrical permit is needed before installing or replacing any electrical wiring. This permit may not be needed if a building
permit has already been issued on a structure.” Replacing a light fixture or a fan is not very difficult and clearly there is
no way it could be enforced anyway.
Mr. Parks – Read through again what you are proposing.
Mr. McNaughton – I’m proposing, Section (E), that the words “or fixtures” be removed at the end of the first sentence.
It would read, “An electrical permit is needed before installing or replacing any electrical wiring. This permit may not be
needed if a building permit has already been issued on this structure.”
Mr. Parks – I agree with ceiling fans and light fixtures but what about heat pumps?
Mr. McNaughton – That is not a fixture. Is it by definition?
Mr. Borkowski – What about wall plug-ins?
Mr. McNaughton – That is not a light fixture.
Ms. Otto – If you are installing outlets you are doing the wiring that this could capture.
Mr. Borkowski – That is considered wiring.
Ms. Otto – I don’t have great concerns over this suggestion.
Mr. Callahan – There is one possibility that comes to mind in that somebody without much knowledge might try to
replace a fixture with a larger fixture and create a situation where they have overloaded a circuit. I don’t agree that we
would eliminate that. It’s the issue we originally discussed where we were trying to get a distinction between something
major or relatively minor. I think we were discussing the use of the word ‘maintenance’. To me, if we make any change
it should go in that direction. I would hate to remove the words ‘or fixtures’ because people are trying to do their own
home improvements and some people just don’t know what they are doing all the time.
Ms. Bramble – If you were to replace an outside fixture on your house, you wouldn’t necessarily have to pay for that
permit, correct?
10
Ms. Otto – A homeowner doing their own work, if it is less than $500, there is no charge for the permit. We do issue a
permit.
Ms. Bramble – They know that it is not any additional wiring but just replacing the fixture that held the floodlight for
twenty years.
Ms. Otto – The motivation here is to have it inspected by somebody to see that it is done correctly.
Mr. Borkowski – According to Google, a light fixture or light fitting, is “an electrical device used to create artificial light by
use of an electrical lamp. All light fixtures have a fixture body and light socket. They may also have a switch to control
the light. Fixtures require an electrical connection to a power source.” That’s putting in any kind of lighting device in the
ceiling, like recessed light, and I wouldn’t do it. It seems like you would have to have a proper person, an electrician, do
it. I’m not trying to oppose you. If you’re going to have a permit to do proper wiring in a house, that seems to be part of
it. The same with a fan, a licensed person needs to come and do it.
Mr. McNaughton – Speaking from experience, there are a lot of lights and ceiling fans on Tybee Island that wear out and
are replaced by someone other than an electrician. The comment I would like to make is the instructions for lighting
and fans are so simple and explicit today a child could do them.
Mr. Borkowski – Myself, I wouldn’t do it.
Mr. Parks – I’m concerned about the legal thing that if the City says it’s okay, anybody can replace any fixture. That is
basically opening it up.
Mr. McNaughton – And it’s not being done now?
Mr. Bishop – I don’t see this as addressing whether an electrician has to do this or it can be done by a homeowner. This
is strictly that if you’re going to do so, regardless of who does it, an electrical permit is required. We’re not addressing
whether it’s a novice, an amateur, or professional. We’re just talking about the permitting.
Ms. Otto – That is correct. There is a different fee if it is a homeowner versus a contractor doing the work.
Mr. Bishop – This is strictly for the permit to do the work regardless of who is doing it.
Mr. Borkowski – That differs from (F) where you say a plumbing permit is needed whenever a plumber installs plumbing.
To me they both should read the same way.
Mr. Bishop – (E), as it is currently written, is not addressing an electrician. If you’re going to put a ceiling fan in, you have
to have a permit to do it. We don’t care who does it.
Mr. McNaughton – That doesn’t change my standing on it.
Mr. Bishop – I don’t think you were addressing whether it was an electrician or an individual. It was just the fact that
you were going to put a fixture in.
Mr. McNaughton – That does not change my position.
Mr. Borkowski – Unfortunately, I didn’t probably research this enough. What do other cities require for construction,
like Atlanta or New York?
Ms. Otto – I have not done that research either.
11
Mr. Borkowski – I’m not smart enough to do this kind of stuff myself so I always get somebody that I feel like I can trust
and check them out before they do it because I don’t want to burn my house down.
Mr. Parks – This isn’t addressing that. This is just saying get a permit.
Mr. Borkowski – But it does in plumbing and mechanical. It should say electrician or get rid of the plumber. Be
consistent.
Ms. Otto – I have not caught that difference.
Mr. Parks – It’s got to be one way or the other.
Mr. Borkowski – I think it should be consistent for all.
Mr. Parks – Particularly, (F) and (G) are saying if you do it, you don’t need a permit.
Mr. Borkowski – Right. It’s only if you hire a plumber or a mechanical contractor.
Ms. Otto – As Mr. Borkowski just suggested, I would like to work on this some more.
Mr. Parks – Okay. Do I have a motion to send this back to staff?
Mr. Callahan – Motion.
Mr. Borkowski – Second.
Mr. Parks – All those in favor please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Text Amendment – Section 3-070 – Permissible Structures per Lot; Accessory Structures
Ms. Otto – This request is a Text Amendment to Article 3, General Provisions, Section 3-070, which is the section about
Permissible Structures Per Lot; Accessory Structures. What is proposed is this new Section G that would be added to the
end of the current 3-070. This would address what are commonly called a ‘pod’ or ‘go-mini’; the small commercial
storage units that people rent for various purposes and place on their property. All of this is new text; there is nothing
currently in our code that talks about these temporary types of structures. As you will see in item 4, this is only for
residential. Any commercial use of these types of units would be subject to Site Plan Approval. This would provide
opportunities for people who are bringing these types of units onto the island. Currently they are not regulated and it
has been challenging to determine how long they can be there without being anchored and this would give the
guidelines as needed for staff to regulate these types of units. I am surprised, they come and they go, they are here and
they are gone. It’s not necessary that staff understands why they are here just as long as we know they are here,
especially during hurricane season since they are not anchored. What is before you is modeled after Chatham County’s
ordinance with some tweaking to make it more general to Tybee’s circumstances.
Mr. McNaughton – Would this cover cargo containers?
Ms. Otto – Those would not meet the sizes that are stated here and those would not fall under this temporary low cost
permit. They would have to get a full blown accessory structure permit for those.
Mr. McNaughton – They are not governed by City ordinance now?
12
Ms. Otto – They would be treated as accessory structures elsewhere in this code section as permanent accessory
structures.
Mr. McNaughton – In paragraph ‘A’, “No unit shall remain at a site at a residential use in excess of 30 days, twice within
a calendar year.” Is the thirty days spread over two or is it sixty days over two?
Ms. Otto – They could be concurrent where you would do thirty and then another thirty and then you are done for the
year.
Mr. Parks – If you have two units and they stay thirty days each at the same time, you’re done?
Ms. Otto – No, you can have two units for a total of sixty days.
Mr. Borkowski – Each.
Mr. Parks – Okay.
Mr. Bishop – In subparagraph G(4), under commercial uses, I think it would be a little more clear instead of saying “At all
commercial uses units,” I would strike ‘at’ and just start off, “All commercial use units shall be subject to Site Plan
Approval.”
Ms. Otto – That was a singular use – not plural?
Mr. Bishop – All commercial use units. I know it requires Site Plan Approval and I understand it, but would it be clearer if
we said, “All commercial use units shall be subject to Site Plan Approval prior to any onsite location?” and “See Section 5-
080.”
Ms. Otto – Prior to any onsite location.
Mr. Parks – How did you arrive at 8 by 20 by 8?
Ms. Otto – I checked two different providers which are PODs and Go-Minis. That is their standard size unlike the cargo
containers which are much larger. This is the largest size available from those two companies.
Mr. Parks – Do we say anything about a base that it should be on or if it should be leveled? Should we allow signage or
advertising on it?
Ms. Otto – They come that way.
Mr. Parks – What if it says, “Eat at the Crabshack?”
Ms. Otto – That would fall under our sign regulation.
Mr. Parks – Okay. It’s not lit so it doesn’t have electricity, right?
Ms. Otto – They don’t come with electricity that I am aware of. I don’t think the providers would want you wiring their
units. These are used by multiple people. Some of their purposes are that they can be loaded and they will come and
get them, take them to your new location, or store them until you are ready for them to come back.
Mr. Parks – It’s not meant for a temporary workshop.
13
Ms. Otto – No.
Mr. Bishop – What if I have one of these and the item I want to store in it requires climate control. Do they make these
pods with a reefer unit or a cooling unit like a semi-tractor trailer?
Ms. Otto – They can take them to their facility and put it in a climate controlled room or warehouse but they don’t come
that way.
Ms. Bramble – They have little lights in them, like small flashlight lights.
Mr. Parks – Battery powered lights. Any other questions or comments? [There were none.] Is there anyone wishing to
speak to this? [There were none.] At this time I will close the public hearing. Do I have any discussion or a motion?
Mr. Bishop – Motion to approve with changes.
Ms. Otto – The only change I have noted is in Subsection 4, Commercial Uses: “All commercial use units shall be subject
to Site Plan Approval prior to any on-site location.”
Mr. Bishop – Motion to approve as modified.
Mr. Callahan – Second.
Mr. Parks – Those in favor to approve the motion as modified please signify. [Vote was unanimous.]
Mr. Parks – Do I have a motion for adjournment?
Mr. Callahan – Motion to adjourn.
Mr. Bishop – Second.
Mr. Parks – Meeting is adjourned.
Meeting ended at 8:12 PM
Minutes by Jerris Bryant