Holiday council denies neighbor appeal over PUD setbacks despite tree concerns

The Holiday City Council denied an appeal from neighbors who challenged a planning commission decision approving a planned-unit development and flexible setbacks at a property that abuts their lot.

Christian Hansen, who lives next door to the proposed development, told the council the planning commission’s approval rested on incomplete and misleading information: a tree survey that omitted 14 mature trees along the shared northeastern border and an apparent reliance on an existing, nonconforming accessory structure (a shed or garage) to justify a 4-foot side-yard setback. Hansen urged the council to correct the record and direct the planning commission to apply a 10-foot average setback on that border or, at minimum, to treat secondary structures per the correct lot-size table.

John (planning staff) told council members the file shows the project was reviewed at meetings on May 6 and July 15 and that the materials presented included aerial imagery and civil drawings. Staff said the planning commission noted preexisting, legal nonconforming conditions and treated the existing accessory structure as a preexisting condition when granting flexibility in setbacks.

Applicant Dee Renny said the subdivision and PUD materials were prepared with a surveyor, civil engineer and architect; she said the Hansen lot is not in the subdivision and that trees reportedly on the boundary may not be entirely on the applicant’s parcel. Renny said her team did not plan to remove healthy trees and that any future replacement of the existing shed would have to comply with current code and permitting.

Council discussion centered on the legal standard the council must apply in an appeal of a planning commission decision: whether the planning commission had ‘‘substantial evidence’’ on the record such that a rational mind could reach the same conclusion. Multiple council members expressed sympathy for the appellants’ concerns about tree protection and setbacks but concluded that the planning commission had evidence before it and that the council could not substitute its policy judgment for the commission’s. Council member Gray apologized to the Hansons for the frustration they experienced but said the council lacked authority to grant the relief they requested.

A motion to deny the appeal was moved and seconded; the council voted to deny the appellants’ appeal and uphold the planning commission’s PUD approval. The mayor announced the council would move on to the next agenda item.

What happens next: the planning commission’s approval stands. If the shed or any accessory structure is demolished in the future, staff said replacements would have to meet current setback requirements and permitting standards; any further tree removals for development would be governed by the city’s tree preservation requirements and would require documentation (arborist certification) if removal were proposed.