Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose rezoning request tied to retroactive grading at Cape Breton property; council delays decision
Summary
After extensive public testimony alleging illegal grading, erosion and neighborhood impacts, council continued to a date uncertain a contested application from the owner of 650 Cape Breton Drive that would rezone an HPD site to planned development to permit a retroactive grading permit and a small covered carport.
A contentious agenda item at the Feb. 25 meeting centered on a rezoning, development plan and specific plan application for 650 Cape Breton Drive after a 2021 unpermitted grading event. Community Development Director Samantha Updegrave told the council the city issued a notice of violation related to removal and relocation of roughly 100–300 cubic yards of sand and soil and that, under the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) rules, the property owner must apply for a PD rezoning, a development plan and a specific plan to obtain a retroactive grading permit.
Neighbors gave extended, often emotional testimony describing repeated unpermitted uses, noise and alleged intimidation; several residents reported property damage and drainage problems they attribute to the grading. Public commenters pressed the council to deny rezoning, saying approval would “reward a violation” and could set a precedent allowing other HPD sites to seek similar relief after improper work.
The applicant, represented by Bernard Deos, said the illegal work was performed by a former project manager who has been removed and that the owner is working with staff to remediate impacts and comply with conditions. Staff described technical steps already taken (erosion measures were installed and verified in 2025; geotechnical testing found soils below residential screening levels) but said the municipal code requires the PD pathway for retroactive grading in the HPD overlay.
Council and the Planning Commission debated alternative remedies, including variance pathways and more prescriptive improvement agreements. Commissioners recommended denial, citing inability to make required findings and concern about precedent; staff recommended approval of the PD rezoning, development plan and specific plan as the legally required route to issue a retroactive grading permit. After lengthy deliberation and direction to produce more accurate driveway and retaining‑wall renderings (and to show the relationship of the new work to the nearest neighbor windows), the council voted to continue deliberations on the appeal to a date uncertain so staff and the applicant can provide additional materials. A robust improvement agreement requiring bonds and site‑stabilization security was requested by the commission and discussed by council to ensure protections if construction stops mid‑project.
