Zoning board approves facade-variance for Hillandale townhome project with 67% street-facing masonry requirement

The Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 18, 2025, approved a variance allowing the developer of the Hillandale site to use a mix of exterior materials on street-facing townhome facades while requiring 67% of the street-facing frontage to be brick or stone. The decision applies to the project at 5526 Hillandale Drive and was adopted by voice vote after public comment and staff review.

The board said the requirement for masonry on 67% of the street-facing facades will be a condition of approval; the board also allowed the use of board-and-batten and cementitious (Hardie) siding as part of the approved material mix. An earlier amendment that would have required 33% masonry on interiors of each unit and additional HOA/rental-monitoring conditions was withdrawn and not part of the final approval.

The variance was sought for a proposed mixed residential community that the applicant described as a 670-home, intergenerational development with a range of product types and roughly $3,000,000 in amenities the builder said it will add beyond zoning requirements. Jesse Clark, entitlement manager for NVR | Ryan Homes, told the board the site is a ‘‘unique project in the sense that it is a development of regional impact. It's 670 homes, and it will provide the rooftops that will allow the retail to eventually come here.’’ Clark said the developer is proposing a mix of brick, stone and fiber-cement siding and cited a hardship tied to a road alignment through the site that increased the amount of frontage the project must treat as roadway-facing. Clark said the donated road right-of-way added about 2,400 linear feet of publicly visible frontage, which he said would materially raise costs to meet the ordinance if only brick and stone were required at all roadway facades.

Pastor Jasper Williams of Salem Bible Church spoke in support of the project and described the church's history with the parcel and its decision to convey a road easement to the county. ‘‘We gave the road to the county because a whole lot was at stake. And human life nothing is no more important than that,’’ Williams said.

Opponents raised aesthetic and precedent concerns. Resident Dave Marcus asked why a road alignment should justify reduced masonry and urged the board to protect the city's visual character. Staff and the deputy director explained existing ordinance language allows a 60/40 split for primary versus secondary materials in some overlay circumstances; the board's 67% frontage masonry condition is stricter than that baseline.

Staff told the board that, if the variance is granted, the applicant must supply street-facing facade renderings and a materials list at the preliminary plat/land-disturbance stage so the planning review can verify the approved mix. The board and staff also discussed enforcement steps tied to the mandatory homeowners association referenced by the applicant; the board did not adopt the earlier, more prescriptive HOA/rental-monitoring language proposed during initial motions.

The board's approval does not authorize construction; the applicant must return to the planning review process with elevation renderings and material schedules for the preliminary plat stage and obtain any required permits and final approvals before building can begin.