North Bend planning panel rejects Gaston Oaks Phase 11 final development plan after residents cite landslide, drainage and safety concerns

The Village of North Bend Planning Commission voted to deny approval of the final development plan for Gaston Oaks Phase 11 — the Derbyshire/Glen Eagles condominium proposal — after extended testimony from neighbors, engineers and nonprofit hillside experts about slope stability, drainage and long-term public risk.

Planning staff and the applicant presented a revised plan that reduces previously proposed density and calls for 24 duplex buildings (48 total dwelling units). John Huth of Hamilton County Planning and Development told the commission the applicant had submitted a geotechnical report dated Sept. 4, 2024, revised grading and a new road alignment; staff concluded the changes supported approval, recommended conditions and set a maximum of 48 units.

Supporters, including the applicant's attorney Jamie Burley, said the proposal is smaller and less intense than earlier approvals for the same PUD and therefore “in accordance with the original concept plan.” Burley asked the commission to approve the final development plan subject to continued technical review with the village engineer.

Opponents included more than a dozen St. Anne’s Drive residents and independent experts who said the property has a documented history of slippage and that the latest geotechnical work did not answer key questions. Rebecca Simpson, an attorney representing multiple neighbors, said the geotechnical report the developer submitted was prepared for an earlier plan and “does not address the plan that has been submitted that you’re being asked to approve.”

Eric Russo, executive director of Hillside Trust, a regional nonprofit that studies landslides, described the regional risk and told the commission that owners and municipalities in the area can face large, uninsured costs when slides occur. “If you have a landslide, it’s your responsibility to fix it,” Russo said, noting that insurers in the region do not offer landslide riders.

Two technical witnesses gave competing assessments. Civil engineer and geotechnical expert Joseph Burkhart, who prepared the developer’s report, said subsurface borings showed relatively shallow bedrock in places and “residual soils are very stiff to hard,” and testified the plan could be engineered safely if recommended measures were followed (bedrock benching, keyways and construction observation). Burkhart reported draft slope-stability models run for commission members that produced factors of safety in the range of about 1.6 for the sections tested.

Neighbor-retained geotechnical engineer Jeffrey (Joe) Kowalski said the submitted reporting lacked a formal slope-stability analysis and broader borings coverage down the slope. Kowalski warned a full stability analysis should be completed before approval and explained why slope-stability modeling and on-site observation are critical when existing slides or colluvial deposits are present.

Village engineer Zach Williams told the commission his review focused on drainage, sediment-control and constructability and recommended inspection and adherence to the geotechnical recommendations during construction. He also encouraged on-site monitoring by geotechnical personnel and village oversight during earthwork and fill operations.

Residents gave multiple, first-hand accounts of past hillside movement and property repairs. Lot owners described foundation work, pier installations and repeated repairs to sanitary laterals and yards; one homeowner said he spent tens of thousands of dollars stabilizing his lot. Several witnesses showed photos and short videos demonstrating constrained fire-truck turning and existing road damage at the end of St. Anne’s Drive.

The applicant’s team emphasized that the property’s PUD zoning and prior approvals set the general envelope for development and pointed out that earlier concept approvals allowed substantially greater density. Burley told the commission the final development plan is narrower in scope than the 1999 rezoning and a 2005 final plan that previously permitted up to 80 condominiums on the north side of St. Anne’s.

After discussion the commission considered a motion to approve the final development plan “based on the findings in the staff report and staff report addendum, subject to compliance with all recommendations of the village engineer,” including staff’s numbered conditions (a maximum of 48 units, subdivision and condominium ownership of open-space tracts, temporary fencing to protect undisturbed vegetation during construction, and revision of building setbacks to meet the 20-foot required front-yard standard). The motion was seconded and then called to roll-call vote; the commission recorded four “no” votes and the motion failed.

The applicant’s attorney reserved the right to present further evidence and rebuttal testimony. No subsequent action was taken during the meeting to continue the hearing or schedule follow-up dates.

Why this matters: The commission’s denial leaves the applicant with the option to revise the plan, supply additional technical analysis, or seek further administrative or legal remedies. Neighbors said the vote reflected concerns that current technical submissions did not fully demonstrate that large-scale earthwork and construction on the slope could be executed without risking adjacent properties, village infrastructure or emergency access.

The hearing record includes statements from Hamilton County staff, the applicant’s geotechnical engineer, two independent geotechnical witnesses retained by neighbors, the village engineer, the Hillside Trust, and over a dozen residents describing prior landslide repairs and property damage. Several speakers urged a more conservative approach to protect public infrastructure and private property values.

No formal next step was announced in the meeting minutes provided at the hearing. The applicant indicated willingness to continue working with the village engineer; neighbors asked the commission to require additional technical study and stronger, enforceable protections before any approval.