Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders Signal Hill project revised to conform to prior direction on Connell House footprint and scenic easement
Summary
After appeals and public comment, the board directed staff to return with a date-certain resolution requiring the Signal Hill replacement home to conform with the board's earlier direction: the replacement should fit within the Connell House footprint and comply with the board's scenic-easement parameters; staff will return Aug. 26 with formalized,
The Monterey County Board of Supervisors on July 8 issued direction to county staff after a contested hearing on appeals to a planning-commission approval for a new home on Signal Hill Road in Pebble Beach.
The case stems from the Connell House, a historically significant dwelling that was later damaged and demolished; the board in 2023 approved demolition but directed a replacement that would adhere to a reduced-project approach (called Alternative 6), generally described at that time as staying within the Connell House footprint and avoiding a ridgeline effect. Planning commission review of a new proposed design led to three appeals citing size, visibility and tree-removal concerns.
At Thursday's hearing appellants and community speakers highlighted that the replacement design was substantially larger than the Connell House, added outdoor decking that extended beyond the historic roof footprint and altered prior tree-screening that had been required after unauthorized removals. The planning commission had expanded a conservation scenic easement area as a condition; the applicant appealed that expansion and others raised procedural concerns.
After public comment and attorney arguments, the board agreed to restate its earlier direction: the replacement residence should be within the historic Connell House footprint (as interpreted in the 2023 board action) and the scenic-easement treatment should conform to the prior board decision rather than the planning commission's expanded easement. The board directed staff to return with a date-certain resolution formalizing those directions and to present the amended permit language; supervisors set a return date in late August for a resolution and vote.
No immediate final design was approved at the July 8 meeting; the board's direction requires the applicant and staff to prepare plans that meet the board's conditions and to return with a formal resolution for action.
