Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2 <br /> <br />Mr. Marion – There would be an official liaison. <br /> <br />Ms. Otto – Yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bramble – I would prefer that a representative speak to it. <br /> <br />Mr. Borkowski – What would they be saying to you or what question would you have? <br /> <br />Ms. Bramble – It’s the first statement, “To employ persons to carry out the responsibilities of the Commission.” Why do <br />they feel the need to employ someone? Everything on Tybee is volunteers on every committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Borkowski – I think that is a good point. <br /> <br />Mr. Marion – Dianne, is it appropriate to move forward and open it to the public? <br /> <br />Ms. Otto – Since it was advertised you should ask for public comment. <br /> <br />Mr. Marion – Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak to this? [There was none] At this time I will close <br />the public hearing. We would like to have this continued until the next meeting and have someone from the <br />Commission come to speak with us. <br /> <br />Mr. Borkowski – Who wanted that particular point put in there? <br /> <br />Ms. Otto – The Historic Preservation Commission as part of the requirements in order to form a Downtown <br />Development Authority. <br /> <br />Variance – Roy Ogletree – 13 T. S. Chu Terrace <br />Ms. Otto – This is a Variance request for 13 T.S. Chu Terrace. The applicant is Roy Ogletree. This is <br />consideration of a height variance request in a C-1 zone. This home was issued a permit to elevate. It had been <br />below base flood elevation and is now under construction and being renovated to meet Tybee’s 1-foot freeboard <br />requirement. After elevating the home, the structure is now exceeding the 35-foot height limit which is island- <br />wide. The request before you is to have a Variance approved to allow the height to exceed 35 feet rather than <br />requiring that the roof be removed down to a 35-foot limit. In your packet are renderings of the existing prior to <br />the recent elevation and then the proposed elevation. With the elevation of the home to 1-foot above base flood, <br />the structure is now at 36-feet 4.1-inches which is 1-foot and 4.1-inches above the 35-foot height limit. When <br />this project was permitted it was done with plans to reduce the height of the roof which would have removed 1- <br />foot 8.8-inches to bring it down to 35 feet. The applicant is now requesting rather than doing that project, to <br />allow the roof structure to remain as it is currently. There are photographs in your packet, provided by the <br />applicant, of adjacent structures and what it looks like in comparison to those with the higher structure that it is. <br /> <br />Mr. Borkowski – In reading through this, there is an email that stated that the roof was going to be modified to <br />meet the 35-foot height limit. Why didn’t that occur? <br /> <br />Ms. Otto – It is still an open permit. If this Variance request is not approved, that would still be required under <br />the open permit. As they have phased into the work they have accomplished getting the house elevated, are <br />now rebuilding the stairs and doing some other work. Through this process if that request is not approved to <br />leave the roof as it is then they would follow through with the original intent which was to reduce the height. <br /> <br />Mr. Borkowski – It was in the middle to keep going with construction and now it is done? <br /> <br />Ms. Otto – It is not done; it is ongoing. It would continue to be part of the project as permitted to reduce the <br />roof if this Variance is not granted. <br />