All right.

We will uh pull this special meeting of the zoning board of adjustment for October 28, 26.

Um, call it to order, and um should we start doing roll call?

Julia, is that probably appropriate or or should I just name everybody?

Okay.

So we've got uh Heidi, Shanna, myself, Steve Nichols, and I don't know how to how do I say your

name?

Because

I don't want to what

the

corny?

But corny, thank you.

I would not have got that right.

So thank you.

Um, here we have our our staff here.

Um applicants are here, so we'll call the meeting to order and uh move on to new business, which is variance 2618.

I assume we have a staff report.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

This is Variance Application 26-18 on Pump House Road.

The applicant is Justin Schwarzenberger, and the proposal is to construct a residence within 120 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Big Hole River, varying from the minimum 150 feet setback requirement per Butte Silver Bow Municipal Code 174750.

Um

a little history of the water channel management zone.

The water channel management zone was established with within the zoning ordinance in 2005 as part of an intergovernment governmental agreement between Butte Silver Bow, Beaverhead, Madison, and Condodier Lodge City Counties.

The

Big Hole River Land Use Planning Committee was developed with a mission to coordinate land use planning, conserve agriculture, maintain recreational and natural resource values, and to respect private property and water rights while recognizing the social and economic impacts of land use changes in the big hole basin.

All four county governments agreed to adopt at a minimum six standards, and of those six, two were relevant to this application.

The first relevant standard is that the conservation standards apply to all new structures.

The second is the establishment of a 150-foot setback from the ordinary high watermark of the Big Hole River water channel with established floodplains.

Given these circumstances, the application and the application statutory deadlines, planning staff presented the application to the big hole watershed steering committee for consideration.

Based on the similarities and the responsibilities of the respective boards and the expertise of the steering committee members, this approach was determined to be the most appropriate means of advancing the application for review.

It is of importance to note that the steering committee does not have legal governing authority over the case at hand, but instead provides a recommendation based on opinion from the stance of outfitters, ranchers, and other professional professional individuals with a stake in the big hole river quality.

Planning staff finds that a hardship exists and believes that with appropriate conditions of approval, the requested 30 foot reduction in the setback requirement would have minimal to no adverse impact on the water quality or the riparian resources of the big hole river.

However, some members of the steering committee saw that the 150 foot setback requirement is a non-negotiable, as much thought went into establishing the specific number in 2005 as part of as part of the Big Hole River Conservation Standards intergovernmental agreement.

Other committee members felt as though a variance requests may be appropriate, but we're unable to conclude on a recommendation as their board solely um board decisions are solely based off a consensus and not complete unanimous.

Here's an aerial view of the property.

The purple area depicts the 100-year floodplain fringe.

Here is additional aerial views that were provided to us by the applicant.

So

a variance must not be contrary to the public interest.

It was determined that a setback from the ordinary high watermark would be would help to reduce negative impacts on the river arising from increased development within the Bick Hole River Basin.

The established setback requirements help to ensure helps to ensure that impervious structure, septic systems, and manicured lawns would be located well away from the riverbank and reduce the likelihood that a structure would be located within the reparian corridor and or in the floodplain.

The applicant's property is approximately 1.2 acres in size and is located on an extent of the river that is populated with residential development, many of which were constructed prior to the establishment of the water channel management zone and located well within the 150 foot setback.

The nearest point of structure of the proposed dwelling would be 120 feet from the ordinary high watermark.

This is a site plan provided to us by the applicant, and we used our mapping tools to kind of get an estimate of the distance from the high water mark.

The 120 feet is actually to the porch of the property.

The nearest point of wall structure of the dwelling is about 133 feet.

Continued on this topic.

The system's mixing zone is located within the 150-foot setback, but it is positioned with adequate distance to maximize the passage through the ground before discharge.

The distance ensures adequate mixing to reduce nutrient load to the river.

Additionally, the Butte Silverbow Health Department performed a non-degregation review in which it was determined that the proposed septic system met all minimum requirements.

This is a regulatory evaluation required by state and federal clean water laws to protect high-quality surface and groundwater from unnecessarily unnecessary pollution.

The

applicant's proposal does not indicate construction will lead to disturbance of the riverbank, compromise the stability of the bank, or negatively impact the ripar arean area.

However, plans potentially included a manicured lawn.

Given the potential nutrient loading from fertilizer or other maintenance elements, it may be appropriate to request a native lawn rather than sod to mitigate any further nutrient loading.

In conclusion of law, based on the above discussion, staff believes that the request to construct a residence within 120 feet from the ordinary high watermark would not be contrary to the public interest.

Literal enforcement of the provisions of the title will result in unnecessary hardship.

Unnecessary hardship as defined by the Montana Supreme Court must result from a condition unique to the property, such as a peculiar property shape, topographical feature, or geological trait.