Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends Jones Creek pool-house plan revision with modified setbacks and buffer conditions
Summary
After hearing owners and neighbors, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a major PUD revision that would let Jones Creek replace a 35-year-old pool house with adjusted setbacks and buffer conditions; neighbors raised privacy and ADA-access concerns.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Columbia County Planning Commission on a voice vote recommended approval of a major plan revision that would allow the Jones Creek community to replace its 35-year-old pool house, subject to specified setback and buffer conditions.
Ms. Montgomery, a county planner, told the commission the existing pool area is nonconforming and that rebuilding would normally require strict compliance with county code: 20-foot structural buffers, a 25-foot building setback and a 50-foot pool setback. Staff recommended modified conditions: a 12-foot building setback from the northwest and northeast property lines, 25 feet from the other property lines, a 35-foot pool setback, and a reduced 10-foot structural buffer along 4165 Tyndall Drive provided the applicant installs landscaping and a privacy fence.
Tripp Nanny, president of the Jones Creek Homeowners Association, said the clubhouse and pool house are ‘‘approximately 35 years old’’ and in disrepair — listing a failing roof, noncompliant bathrooms, stopped-up drains and a pump room that must be enlarged to meet Georgia standards. Nanny urged the commission to allow a 10-foot building setback and a 6-foot privacy fence rather than staff’s recommended 12 feet and 8-foot fence, saying a larger setback would sharply reduce usable deck and meeting space and imperil the project’s viability in time for an April opening.
Adjacent residents urged caution. Larry Carter of 4165 Tyndall Drive told the commission he had not been informed of some applicant changes and said a proposed second-story party room and external staircase would ‘‘encroach on my privacy,’’ asking that any staircase landing be located toward the parking lot rather than the side of his house. Judy Brown, another neighbor, questioned whether an upstairs meeting room would be ADA accessible, asking explicitly whether an elevator was planned.
Board discussion centered on balancing neighborhood amenity benefits against privacy, access and code conformance. A commissioner moved to recommend approval of file RZ24-08-02 with the conditions presented; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Columbia County Board of Commissioners for final action.
Next steps: the county commissioners are scheduled to receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation on Oct. 1, 2024; the applicant and neighbors can expect follow-up during that hearing and during subsequent plan-review and permitting phases.

