Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and developers spar over pool setback reductions in Jones Creek PUD revisions
Summary
The board approved several PUD setback revisions for pool construction after planning staff briefed commissioners; a nearby homeowner warned a requested 2-foot setback would damage mature trees, citing an arborist report and raising potential future liability and safety concerns.
The Columbia County Board of Commissioners approved several planned‑unit development (PUD) revisions July 7 that reduce rear‑setback requirements in order to allow homeowner pools in multiple parcels, but the approvals followed detailed input from planning staff and an extended public exchange about tree health and liability.
Planning staff explained each requested setback adjustment, buffer and build-line change, noting some of the existing pool facilities were constructed before current code and therefore cannot meet current standards without a formal PUD revision. Commissioner motions to approve the revisions included standard conditions from the June 18 planning commission report.
Neighbor Larry Carter (S15) testified that one requested change — reducing a 10‑foot rear setback to 2 feet at a specific property line — risked “severely” damaging large, mature trees adjacent to his property. Carter said an arborist’s report documents an extended critical‑root‑zone that would be harmed by excavation and predicted tree decline within one to three years if the pool were built so close. He asked the board to deny the reduction and request further independent evaluation.
County legal counsel (S16) and staff said the county’s land‑use authority is limited and that disputes over tree damage typically become civil matters between property owners; counsel described the ‘‘dangerous tree’’ liability framework and noted that if a tree is diseased and a neighbor had notice, remedies could follow. The applicant’s representative (Tripp Nanny, S13) and planning staff said the pool alignment is not uniformly two feet from the line, that construction plans show variable distances (planning staff cited a 4.2‑foot dimension in plan drawings), and that conditions such as fencing, landscape buffering and a construction staging plan are required prior to a certificate of occupancy.
Commissioners balanced those concerns with staff recommendations and the planning commission’s prior recommendation; they approved the PUD revisions with conditions requiring compliance with planning report items, fences and other mitigation measures. Staff and commissioners agreed civil remedies remain available to property owners if tree damage occurs after construction.
The board also approved a related PUD revision for Jones Creek pool‑house improvements (ADA restrooms and pump‑room expansion) after the applicant described plans to rebuild aging facilities and to start construction in September with an anticipated opening before April. The applicant said construction staging agreements with the parking‑lot owner and HOA commitments were in place or forthcoming.
