Good evening, everyone.

Tonight is uh the zoning board of adjustments for Thursday, January fifteenth, twenty twenty-six.

Um I am Michael McEwen, Vice Chair, uh Shanna Adams, Garrett Craig, and Lexi Murphy are here.

Uh we have the staff, Joela Thomas, Aiden Denih, Becky Roll, and uh planning director, Julia Crane.

Uh one item for tonight, uh, as you can see, we only have four of the board members.

Uh, and so you have the option of deferring till the next uh board meeting uh for your decision or sticking tonight and having the four uh decisions uh for board members make the decision, it has to be a unanimous decision for uh the vote to go in or against for or against you.

Um so if there's anybody that would like to defer uh presenting let us know.

Tonight.

Respectfully, thank you.

You better since uh appeal twenty-five oh two has deferred to the next meeting.

We'll move on to the next item, uh, which is appeal twenty-five oh three.

Uh this is uh ready as Frost is appealing the zoning officer's determination, uh denying a variance application to construct in addition to the south side of an existing legal non-conforming structure in a C two zone.

Uh the property is I don't have an address, but two thousand located at two thousand Roberts Street.

Um is the applicant present?

Awesome.

And uh first we will have staff give the presentation.

Yes.

Thank you, Aiden.

All right, so this is appeal twenty-five-three for two thousand two thousand Roberts Avenue.

This is an appeal of the zoning officer's decision.

The applicant ready S.

Frost.

Oh, sorry, I'll wait till we're okay.

Um the appeal, the applicant is appealing the zone zoning officer's decision, denying a variance to build an addition on the south side of his residence, varying from conditions outlined in seventeen forty-eight thirty uses of land for and fourteen forty-eight forty buildings or structures of the Butte Silverbow Municipal Code.

174830 uses of land states no such nonconforming structure or non-conforming use shall be enlarged or increased nor extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the ordinance codified in this title.

174840 buildings or structures states no such structure may be enlarged or altered in any way which increases its nonconformity unless an enlargement or structural alteration makes the building more conforming or is required by law, but any structure or portion portion thereof may be altered to decrease its nonconformity.

The residential dwelling unit resides in a C2 community commercial zoning district, making it a legal non-conforming use.

According to the submitted residential building permits and supporting site plan, staff interpreted the addition would be approximately 400 square feet and be built within a 12-foot front yard setback and a two-foot south side yard setback.

The current impervious structures result in an approximately 50% lock coverage.

Was the start of building the addition.

You can just kind of see a front for you as well as the side yard setback to the neighbor's house.

So in order to be in compliance with the possibility of a variance, he did take down the start of that construction project.

Staff findings.54 Board of Adjustments of the Butte Silver Bow Municipal Code define the powers of the board as follows.

To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is no error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the enforcing officer in the enforcement of this chapter of this title, to hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of this title upon which such board is required to pass under such ordinance to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variants from the terms of this title and will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owning to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the title will result in necessary hardship, and so that the spirit of this title shall be observed and substantial justice done.

In exercising the above mentioned powers, such board may, in conformity with the provisions of this title, reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or modify the order requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order requirement decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer for whom the appeal is taken.

And that is the conclusion of this presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Aiden.

Board have any questions of staff.

No.

And uh the applicant wants to step forward to the mic and give their presentation.

Howdy, ready for us, 2000 Roberts Avenue.

Um did you all receive my uh my copy of my updated um uh um the uh the site plan, my updated site plan.

Um when I turned in my application for the appeal, I did send in a new site plan um, which I was hoping could address some of the concerns brought up by the uh the city.

And I uh apologize that I didn't realize those were going to be concerns when I first turned in my application.

Um feel like there's not a lot of guidance for citizens in this town.

That said, um with the the code violations brought up by the uh the city um the temporary structure that I erected, I did notify the city about when I was turning in my original plans.

It was I don't as a carpenter, I don't see how that would I put up, which was to abate water um intrusion into uh a controlled space inside my home with active electrical connections, which has been a fun time uh abating that could be misconstrued as actually framed um wood framed walls and the erection of trusses or other such load-bearing members.

Um I mean those were just scabbed together two by fours with plastic over it.

It's it's a temporary structure, but I did remove it and uh I also think the act of construction as defined in Montana Code is very ambiguous.

Um I uh also sent in an updated cover letter.

Um variance denial annotated 7625502, specifies the process and eligibility criteria for variance, qualify for variance, value variants must be con variance applications must be considered and approved with conditions before application or in conjunction with application for a zoning permit.

Variance may not be sought for an active project initiated prior to zoning board of adjustments for approval furthermore, MCA, 762502 40 of variants may not be granted if detrimental to public health and safety and general welfare, nature of encroachment.

I mean that's that, but pertaining to 7625-502, act of construction is not definitively defined in Montana Code or IBC code to properly exclude the stockpiling of materials, um which is in reference to the claim that I had residential trust components signifying that I was actively starting construction.

As a carpenter, I regularly find myself in possession of surplus building materials that I stockpile on my property and give to friends for use on their projects.

There's certainly no way to prove that the trusses in the public right-of-way are intended for the proposed construction project.

Uh I've sought a variance for the only erected structure, has been a temporary tent for mitigation of the water infiltration into the basement.

I have demoed the tent even though it was viewed and approved by BSB building inspector Rusty prior to any permit application filings.

Um that was on August 13th, 2025.

Came over and visited the property and inspected it after receiving a complaint about that same tent.

He did not issue any citations, and um when asked for guidance about it, he said that I should send in photos of the state of the property, which I did with my initial appeal application, um, and I also uh tried my best to communicate what I was dealing with to the city.

Of which I was on that project and installed all of the exterior sheeting and vapor barrier, which did pass all of its uh all of its inspections.

So this will provide a five-foot clearance between the two buildings while also allowing for roof to shed water away from the basement.

Furthermore, on the footprint um increase, I don't I don't really understand how the footprint of a building which is already constructed and elevated out of the ground.

I can't I can't grow a lawn on that.

Any method of sealing the top of that concrete lid, which is less than a one percent grade away from my home.

Um that's why it's why it's degraded.

It doesn't have the drainage.

And in fact, over there's a large boiler or decommissioned boiler, concrete bunker-esque out building that connects to the basement.

Um that slopes back towards my home.

So uh any way to abate those would still increase even an inch in height and be flammable.

I mean, tarring it, that's that's a flammable substance, which I mean I hate to cut you off.

I guess ask some questions from the board of you.

Um I haven't seen I reviewed your your uh submitted applications and documents and appeal and very well written.

Um I have not seen an and I don't know if anybody else did an updated schematic showing a five-foot setback.

Um so that would be my first question to you is uh do you you have plans to change the construction to include a five-foot setback with the fire resistance um materials as well as accounting for drainage that could go into your neighbor's yard?

Um yes, so it wouldn't be a full five-foot setback from the property line, which runs um right on the uh the edge of that basement.

To put trusses over it, I need to have a bearing point on one of the foundation walls, and to run 29 foot trusses or 36 foot trusses would be very difficult, and I'd have a lot of weight um in uh less spread out around it.

So with a six-foot um six foot space.

I can I show you I have it on my phone right here.

I can pass it around to the I would like to.

For that, I would like to ask uh the planning director for her input if she can illuminate some issues for us.

Thank you, Chairman McEwen.

Uh this is regarding uh Mr.

Frost's appeal.

Uh I want to clarify the nature of this appeal for the board and what your vote would be for this evening.

Um we are not discussing the merits of his construction project as proposed.

Um when this appeal was filed, this project was in progress, and we cannot authorize seeking a variance while a project is in progress and is currently in active violation of code.

So the nature of this appeal is not whether or not his project should be um approved or denied, but you would be if you voted in favor of his appeal, it would be allowing him the opportunity to apply for a variance to resolve the challenges to his property.

Thank you for that clarification.

That uh makes a lot more sense.

I think at this point we've probably heard what what we need to in regards to that aspect of it.

Um there are any proponents or you can have a seat ready.

Any proponents or opponents of this project present?

I don't see any.

Um I guess I should have you come back up because I didn't ask the board if they had any questions of ready beyond what I had asked.

I don't see any.

Um given that, I think is there uh close the open comment period and uh put it up to discussion for the board or a a motion.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, maybe maybe this is a question for staff, but I I I guess I'm just maybe a little bit confused on you know the the denial and then the the appeal um and then the applicant stating that there's been a revised site plan since then.

Does that are the are are we still voting on his original appeal or I I'm just a little confused on the process there.

Uh Mr.

Chairman Member Craig Craig, members of the board.

Uh this is so the challenge that we have here is that in the interim time between when Mr.

Frost appealed and now he has disassembled his process his project.

So he has submitted a revised site plan to our department, but in order for us to allow the expansion of a legally non-conforming use, he requires a variance from this board.

And until we have a variance approved by the board, our staff cannot evaluate the application that he has submitted because it is not currently permitted.

Does that am I am I being clear?

Okay.

So the options that we have are approve them approve his appeal and then he gets to move on or agree with the denial and he gets to start over.

Mr.

Chairman, I think the appropriate approach would be that you agree with his appeal and it would allow him or afford him the opportunity to apply for a variance.

Correct?

Right.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um given that um is there a motion?

I guess um I I guess kind of my opinion.

Just because I'm a little just unclear on the history would I mean I guess saying uphold the appeal and allow you know this to allow the opportun uh applicant an opportunity to submit a variance, you know, according to the correct process.

Is that a motion?

No.

No, If um if no one else has any inner comments, I'll make a motion.

Um with that, I would make a motion to um uphold the applicant's appeal twenty-five-three.

I'll second.

Thank you, Member Craig and Member Murphy.

Um we'll now put it to a vote.

So it is unanimous in favor of the motion uh to allow you to uh work towards compliance and get a variance application put in.

Thank you.

Next on the agenda is special use uh application twenty-five twenty-four, which is a special use application by Matt Williams and Corley Phaelon to locate a short-term rental in an existing condominium complex in accordance with the requirements of section seventeen thirty-eight eighteen of the SBMC.

The property is located at seven oh one South Arizona, unit number three hundred two, and I believe we're going to wrap this in with uh the next item, special use permit twenty-five twenty-five, uh, which is a special use application by Wonderland LLC owner Allison Miles to locate a short-term rental in the same condominium complex located at seven oh one South Arizona Street, this one being unit two oh one.

Um does the staff have a presentation.

Yes, we do.

So this is for special use twenty-five-24 and twenty-five for seven oh one South Arizona Street, units two oh one and three oh two.

The applicants are Carrie Feelin and Matt Williams and Wonderland Wonderland LLC and Allison Miles.

The proposal is to locate a short-term rental in an existing residential condo complex per section seventeen thirty-eight one eighty.

Special use is allowed in the Butesilverbow Municipal Code.

The property in question is legally addressed as seven oh one South Arizona Street, units two oh one and three oh two.

Um lodging provided by a homeowner for compensation is risk recognized as a special use allowed in any residential zoning district.

The special use provides for review of public input, a measure of the potential impact of the proposed use on the surrounding neighborhood and compatibility of the proposed use with the adjoining neighborhood.

Um to provide the board with more information about the proposed special use, the applicant and planning staff have responded to an established 20 questions.

This is an aerial view of where the condominium complex is located.

You can see it's in the CM zone.

Nearby there's an M2L zone.

This is outside the complex.

The property is located in a CM commercial and light industrial zone.

The existing building was granted a variance to allow for residential uses in 2021, and that is variance 21-2.

The surrounding area consists of residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

These include Casagrande Steakhouse, SJ Perry, RR Electric, Steeles Furniture, and many other residential uses.

Proposed vehicle access circulation and parking.

Vehicle access to and from the property is acceptable for the proposed use.

Access to the front of the residence is provided via on-street, that should be on-street parking.

Um via South Arizona Avenue.

Aluminum Street also features on-street parking options for guests.

Neighboring residents have expressed a parking concerns in the past.

Planning staff recommend incorporating specific parking instructions in rental listings, including no parking in front of adjacent residential properties.

There appear to be no handicapped specific parking areas.

Planning staff also recommends the applicant provide detailed description of the parking accommodations in the rental listing.

Potential nuisances.

A primary concern is the potential for increased traffic in the area.

However, if the occupancy of the condo is in conformance with the residential building code, renting out the units in question on a short-term basis should not considerably increase traffic more than what is expected.

Short-term renters may be less concerned about creating excessive noise within the dwellings.

Staff would suggest the applicants enforce rules through online hosting programs that do not allow for parties.

Conditions of approval.

Any remodeling of the existing residence performed to accommodate the proposed business will be required to be all building code, health code, and fire codes.

The property must be the property address must be visible, including past dark and entrances must be clearly identified.

The applicants will be limited specifically to the business as stated and approved.

Any future business expansions changes in business or building expans expansions will require further review by the zoning board of adjustment.

The applicants will be required to obtain a Butte Silver Boat business license.

In conclusion, based on the information provided in the application, staff's analysis of the review of criteria and any public opinion as it relates to the criteria.

And that is the conclusion.

Thank you, Aidan.

Do we have app the applicants present?

I guess who wants to go first?

Can you hear me everybody?

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, board.

My name is Matt Williams.

I'm here with my wife, Carrie Phelan.

Just wanted to uh request your consideration in the uh the approval of this application for special use.

Um we're committed to uh reinvesting in uptown Butte.

Um we're lifelong Montanans.

We're not from California.

So I just would graciously hope that you guys would consider our application for approval, please.

Have you had an opportunity to review the board uh planning department's conditions of approval?

Uh yes, sir.

And so we already have a plan in place to uh uh do the parking recommendations and then the no parties thing, like that's uh part of the plan that we already have in place.

So no issue with no issues.

Nope.

Uh does the board have any questions of this applicant?

Are there any opponents, proponents for this application?

Uh at unit 201, or excuse me, 302.

None.

Um with that I will close the comments.

The board has any discussion.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

I think similar to past short-term rentals um that we've approved.

No, no difference, um, no um heartburn on my end approving this one.

Thank you, Mr.

Craig.

Uh I'll have the next applicant step up.

Good evening.

Hi, I'm Alison, uh single member owner of Wonderland LLC.

I am nervous to be up here, but I appreciate this.

I live in Gallatin County in Belgrade.

The short-term rentals are very disruptive in the neighborhood that I live in, and so I appreciate this process.

Like I said, I'm nervous, but this is a great way to get things approved and to review it.

So I agree with what you had recommendations for parking as well as for parties.

My unit's eight hundred and seventy-two feet.

I don't know how crazy party you're gonna have in there, but it's also nice.

Mike and Maisie have done a nice job with the building, and I have done a nice job in making it my state-free minipad.

So I don't want people in there wrecking it.

Um the building was on the dust to Dazzle tour on January 28th.

I don't know if you had a chance, or excuse me, June 28th.

I don't know if you had a chance to go in it, but it is awesome.

And I took some of the information that the Historical Society provided and preemptively uh created some things.

Can I pass them around?

That would that would go in the short-term unit, and this was before I even received the information from you about parties and trash and parking and stuff.

And the building is great for short-term rentals.

It is again a secure building.

There's lots of parking around in the area as long as people aren't parking in front of the other buildings, and that the curbs aren't marked, and I understand that maybe that's something that's going to be happening, but in the check-in instructions and what would be left inside the unit, there's clear details on that.

And I you kind of touched on this, but uh any you you've been provided with the conditions of approval from the planning department.

Yes.

And any issues with those?

No, and I uh would like to engage Platinum property management, Clay Seacomb and his team to be the boots on the ground.

It is very, very helpful to have local management and resources available.

So I'm not planning to go rogue and do this myself.

I need the local community to help support it.

Thank you for all that.

Um does the board have any questions of the applicant?

Are there any uh opponents or proponents of this unit 201?

Correct.

In attendance.

Want to speak?

With that, we'll close the comments and uh let the board discuss.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, same position on this one as the previous unit, I think.

Um thought out, well put together by the applicant.

Yeah, I agree.

Um there are places where these short-term rentals are problematic, um, and they can be problematic community-wide, as I've said many times.

Um, but I do think this is the ideal place for a short-term rental.

Thank you, uh member Craig and Member Adams.

Appreciate it.

Uh do we have a motion?

Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, with your comments, I would move to approve polls agencies.

I would second both of them with the conditions as outlined by staff.

Thank you.

Well, with that, we will then take it to a vote.

And with that, both motions pass unanimously.

You've been granted your application, special use application.

You will receive uh information from the planning department.

Thank you all for your time and presentations today.

That will adjoin our meeting.

Thanks.