Board approves contested 15‑foot height variance for Montage Mountain townhouse plan after extended testimony

The Zoning Board approved a request to raise the maximum height for four townhouse buildings on a parcel near Montage Mountain from the 25‑foot standard in the city zoning ordinance to about 40 feet, a difference the board and witnesses described as a roughly 15‑foot (about 60%) increase. Attorney Angelo Torana (speaker 16) presented the application and contended the topography and a desire to limit impervious surface justify the taller building forms. "The proposed buildings are 40 feet. Your ordinance creates a maximum of 25 feet," Torana said while introducing the variance request.

Multiple technical witnesses testified at length. Civil and structural witnesses described a sloped site with a 20‑foot grade difference and adjacent cliffs; the applicant’s engineer and architect said the design—six units per building with a 39‑foot peak—would allow less pavement than a lower, wider plan. Architect Nehal Zaveri (speaker 15) explained the building sections, floor heights and the choice of materials, and acknowledged that lowering roof pitch could reduce measured height.

Opponents pressed that the application asks for higher density and aesthetic preference rather than a strict necessity tied to an inability to use the land under the ordinance. Planning consultant Thomas J. Shepstone (speaker 2) argued the variance criteria require the least modification necessary and said he saw no unique physical constraint meriting a 60% height increase: "You're not there to increase density. You're not there to increase profits... You're there to allow a land owner to make useful, make use of their property." He recommended denial.

Board members discussed conflicting guidance in the ordinance (a 25‑foot cap cited in the application versus other sections referencing 35 feet or 35 feet/2.5 stories) and whether walkout basements would change the measured height. After deliberation and motions based on the application as presented, the board vote recorded in the transcript was 3–2 in favor of approval. The board’s decision was accompanied in the record by statements emphasizing permit and design compliance as construction moves forward.

The transcript reflects both technical and policy arguments: applicant witnesses emphasized topography and engineering tradeoffs; opponents highlighted established local two‑story precedent and urged the board to preserve neighborhood character. The planning expert concluded that precedent and existing Glenmarra development patterns meant the project could be built without the requested height increase, while applicant witnesses countered that design choices (including roof pitch and use of a walkout basement) affect measured and perceived height.