Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor warns of tree loss as commissioners approve PUD setback changes for pools
Summary
A neighbor’s arborist report prompted questions about a proposed reduction in pool setbacks; commissioners approved several PUD revisions after staff explained technical details and homeowners and the applicant described mitigation and fence plans.
A neighboring homeowner told the Columbia County Board of Commissioners on July 7 that reducing a rear setback from 10 feet to 2 feet to allow construction of a private pool would likely kill mature trees and create future safety and liability issues.
"Changing the setback from 10 feet to 2 feet is overly aggressive," said Larry Carter, a homeowner who identified himself and gave his address. He said an arborist’s report shows critical root zones extend over the property line and predicted tree decline within one to three years, creating a falling‑tree hazard and future removal costs.
County legal counsel and staff responded that disputes over tree damage are typically civil matters, that injunctive relief is an option, and that liability often depends on whether a person knowingly caused damage. The county attorney said, in essence, the right remedy would often be a civil claim if a neighbor demonstrably destroys a tree.
Representatives for the applicant and other neighbors said the plans show the pool footprint does not run the full length of the property line and that construction will likely leave at least 4.2–5 feet in places. Tripp Nanny, speaking for the applicant, said the proposed project replaces a 35‑year‑old clubhouse, adds ADA restrooms and a larger pump house, and commits to an improved fence and landscaping buffer.
After consideration of staff explanations, the applicant’s presentation and neighbor testimony, commissioners moved and approved the PUD revisions for multiple parcels, with conditions that fencing and buffers be installed prior to certificate of occupancy where applicable.
Why it matters: The decision balances neighbors’ tree‑health and safety concerns against applicants’ needs to bring older facilities into compliance with current codes and ADA standards. Staff told the board that some areas meet existing setbacks while requested adjustments will allow necessary improvements.
What comes next: Staff will ensure conditions (fencing, buffer planting and construction staging restrictions) are met before issuing final approvals and certificates of occupancy.
