Butte Silver Bow Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 18, 2025
Butte Silver Bow Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 18, 2025
The Butte Silver Bow Zoning Board of Adjustment met on September 18, 2025, at 11:28 p.m. (start time noted as 23:28) to consider six agenda items, including one variance and five special use permits. All items were approved unanimously by the board after staff presentations, public testimony, and board discussion.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Special Use 25-14 (1925 Sampson Street): Neighbors Holly Hamilton and Michael Gabbard spoke in opposition, citing ongoing harassment, aggressive dogs, parking issues, and retaliation from the applicant (Nicole Stewart). The applicant, also a police officer, responded with detailed accusations of neighbor harassment and dog aggression. The board characterized the dispute as a private civil matter.
- Special Use 25-15 (517 South Clark Street): John Printy of 509 South Clark raised parking concerns due to adjacent clinic traffic. Andy Durkin of 514 South Clark spoke in support, noting the applicant’s community involvement and the property’s proximity to St. James Healthcare.
- Variance 25-7 (West Porphyry): James Maddison of 116 West Silver Street spoke in support, stating the vacant lot had been a problem for 25 years.
Discussion Items
- Variance 2508 – East Park Street Multifamily Development: The board heard a presentation from Planning Director Julia Crane on an application by Lizzie Load LLC to develop two 1,539-square-foot threeplexes and one 2,052-square-foot fourplex on a nearly 16,000-square-foot parcel at 400 East Park Street in the R2 zone. The request sought variances for front, side, and rear setbacks and accessible parking. Staff found the proposal consistent with the 2021 Comprehensive Plan and historic density patterns. The applicant, a local developer, expressed commitment to high-quality construction. No public opposition was voiced.
- Special Use 25-17 – 2951 Baird Street Amendment: Staff presented an application by Hey Kids LLC (Lucy Hansen and Heidi Gray) to amend an existing special use permit (24-1) to allow more flexible tenant types without further board approval. The property, a former preschool and church in an R1 zone, would accommodate professional office, daycare, art studio, medical therapy, and recreational uses. No changes to the exterior were proposed. The applicants stated the amendment would streamline tenant turnover. No public comments were made.
- Special Use 25-13 & 25-14 – Short-Term Rentals by Nicole Stewart: Two separate applications were considered. For 1166 Evans Avenue (25-13), a neighbor letter of support was submitted. For 1925 Sampson Street (25-14), significant opposition was presented as detailed above. After board discussion, members concluded the neighbor disputes were not within the board’s purview and approved both permits with standard conditions.
- Special Use 25-15 – 517 South Clark Street Short-Term Rental: Staff presented an application by Mary Jennifer Callahan to operate a short-term rental in an existing residence in the R2 zone, located within the Economic Driver place type. The board noted that parking issues are common in Uptown Butte. The applicant’s spouse spoke briefly, and a neighbor praised the applicant as a good neighbor.
- Variance 25-7 – West Porphyry Single-Family Dwelling: Staff presented an application by Big Fish LLC (Buddy Fisher) to construct a 1,550-square-foot single-family home on a 4,872-square-foot vacant lot in the C2 commercial zone. The request sought variances for minimum lot size, lot width, and setbacks. Staff found the proposal consistent with historic mixed-use character and the North Corridor place type. No opposition was raised.
Key Outcomes
- Variance 2508 – Approved unanimously.
- Special Use 25-17 – Approved unanimously with conditions of approval as outlined.
- Special Use 25-13 – Approved unanimously with conditions.
- Special Use 25-14 – Approved unanimously with standard conditions; board determined neighbor disputes are a civil matter outside zoning purview.
- Special Use 25-15 – Approved unanimously with conditions.
- Variance 25-7 – Approved unanimously.
All applicants were informed they would receive an approval letter from planning staff. The meeting was adjourned after the last item.
Meeting Transcript
Yeah, I can't say must have noticed it, but it never really registered. Registered, yeah. I seriously am not always been up there, so maybe you're not an elements. Justin DeShazzo, Heidi Rosenleaf, Garrett Craig, Lexi Murphy, and Shanna Adams will be joining us shortly. Uh the staff is Aidan Denigy, Joella Thomas, and Julia Crane, planning director, and Becky Roll. Uh the first item on the agenda tonight is the variance 2508. Does the applicant present okay? Uh is there a presentation from SCAF. Yes, Vice Chair McEwen. Uh, we have a prepared uh presentation for this evening. Um would you put the the screen down to block the light? It didn't work for Charles. Oh, it wouldn't work. Over on that side, the we're good. I'll just do this. Okay. Uh thank you, uh Chairman McEwan. Thank you members of the board. Uh tonight we're here to discuss variance 258, which is a project proposed on the 400 block of East Park Street. Um, and this is a variance um by applicant Lizzie Load LLC seeking a variance to develop a multifamily development on a nearly 16,000 square foot parcel on East Park Street. The development features two 1,539 square foot three plexus and one 2,052 square foot fourplex. A little background about this proposal. East Park Street area of Butte, uh generally the area east of Main Street near the Berkeley Pitt was a neighborhood that featured a mix of commercial and residential development dating back to the turn of the century. Much of the historic neighborhood has been lost due to fire demolition and mining expansion throughout the 21st century or the 20th century. The proposal before the board is an info housing project adjacent to existing utility infrastructure and is proposed density similar to the historic development pattern of this area of Butte. The proposal requests to build three multifamily buildings, which are not permitted normally in the R2 zone. The project requires variances for the front and side and rear setbacks and is also requesting a variance for the provision of accessible parking. You can see here the plan view. Zoning is used to segregate lands that are intended to prevent conflict between those uses. Following much of the deindustrialization in Butte, this area was seeing a very rapid decline and demolition of its properties. And to not only slow that demolition but to provide improvements to land, there was a proposal to increase the density of housing in this area. In 1995, Butte Silverbow, following the adoption of then growth policy, established the East Butte RRA, a tax increment financing district, which contributed tax increment funding to the redevelopment of East Butte. It led to the development of many of the commercial properties that you see in that area today, and generally encouraged and contributed to the trend away from residential development toward commercial development that we have seen in the last 25 years. Then in 2021, the Butte Silver Bow Council of Commissioners adopted the 2021 Comprehensive Plan, which set the future land use map for Silver Boat County, indicating that the East Park Street area and much of the area surrounding it would be called the Uptown Edge Place type, which was designed to provide a transition from the heavily dense central business district to the less dense neighborhoods that are adjacent to the uptown area. And this would facilitate the incorporation of commercial and multifamily development. In terms of public interest, the proposal does appear reasonable and consistent with the 2021 comprehensive plans goals and the intent of the place type as well as the intent of the R2 zone to encourage multifamily development and to slow sprawl. The historic development pattern provides no consistently observable setbacks, but most recent development adjacent to the property is situated on front of lot line with some accommodation for side lot lines to meet building code. In the code, we have the opportunity to average the front lot lines of those neighboring businesses. And when we look at both the historic development pattern on the block as well as the new commercial development that has occurred in that area, there is no observable consistency between front, side, or rear setbacks. But rather, in this particular instance, the average would allow for a minimum or a map a minimum of a seven-foot front yard setback. And so the request to vary to eight feet rather than 20 feet does seem reasonable. The proposed setbacks on the side and rear lot line help to accommodate the grade significant debris that is on the site from previous fires and demolitions. And do and are so requested to accommodate not just building maximum to the lot line, but also to account for the integration of the stormwater drainage pipe infrastructure, the stormwater detention pond, the landscaping and the parking requirements that are required for commercial development of this scale. The reintroduction of neighborhood density emulating historic development necessitates potential conditions to ensure the integration of historically compatible architectural features. Within the growth policy or the comprehensive plan, the infill that is required in this area should emulate the historic development pattern and the architectural features of those buildings. And so we have requested two conditions, one of which requests a variegated parapet, which is kind of the customary step-up, step-down parapet at the top of the building, and also the incorporation of brick and brick-like veneer on the facades of the buildings to allow for integration and complementary infill, as well as historically appropriate balustrades and balusters to emulate the historic design of multifamily developments in the area. The parking that is proposed on the site is private and solely private and will be assigned, and should the variance be granted, certain conditions are appropriate in that event. Those conditions should indicate that there is no public parking on the site, and that that public park that the provided parking is assigned by unit and is not variable or cannot be shared or borrowed by others. Here's some information as it relates to just giving you an idea of the historic density pattern. On the right hand side, you can see the 1951 sandborne maps, which were the fire insurance maps.
openpublica.com