Zoning board fails to pass motion to deny 8‑unit Uptown variance after resident safety and parking concerns

The Butte Silver Bow Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 14 considered Variance 26‑16, a request by developer Mike Spahr to build a three‑story, eight‑unit residential building on a 6,000‑square‑foot lot at the corner of Granite and Clark streets in Uptown Butte.

Planning staff Aiden told the board the proposal would “increase the community’s housing supply” and recommended approval with conditions to protect pedestrian and traffic safety, require a certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation board and mandate structural engineering to address a buried stormwater aqueduct beneath the site. The proposal seeks relief from R‑3 zone standards in the Butte Silver Bow Municipal Code, including minimum lot area, lot width and side‑yard setbacks, and requests a small encroachment into the vision‑clearance triangle.

Neighbors and a county commissioner urged the board to reject the variances. Rosemary Garvey, who lives adjacent to the lot, said parking is her main concern and warned an eight‑unit building would exacerbate an already constrained on‑street parking supply. “My main concern is parking,” Garvey said. Holly McCammon and several written letters submitted by neighbors echoed worries about vehicle congestion, trash and the height and scale of a three‑story building in a mostly two‑story historic neighborhood.

Butch Gerbrandt, a commissioner for District 10 and a civil engineer, presented photos and argued the sight‑distance at the offset Granite/Clark intersection would be reduced and that the application did not satisfy the Montana Supreme Court standard for an unavoidable hardship. “Parking is a problem in the neighborhood surrounding the lot in question and will be exacerbated by an 8‑plex added to the mix,” he told the board.

Applicant Mike Spahr said a loan program from the Montana Board of Housing — which, he said, provided a discounted loan and requires 30 years of capped rents — made the eight‑unit plan economically feasible and argued the lot’s historic development pattern and the buried drainage infrastructure create engineering constraints. “It would make the lot… enable to develop anything of worth in my opinion,” he said, adding he would comply with recommended conditions if the variances were granted.

Board members split over whether the applicant had demonstrated the legal hardship required for a variance. One member summarized the legal test: a hardship must arise from a condition unique to the property and not be self‑created. “Our job is to enforce the code,” a board member said; “the hardship may not result from a condition created by the applicants.” Other members and staff pointed to the neighborhood’s historic lot patterns and planning analysis as a basis to consider relief with conditions.

A motion to deny the variances was made and seconded. After an initial paper vote and subsequent oral clarifications, the board reported two votes in favor of denying and three against the motion. Because the board’s bylaws require at least four votes to pass or deny a variance, the motion to deny did not pass. Chair Steven Coe told the applicant the options remaining: file an appeal to district court within 30 days or submit an amended application for future consideration.

The hearing highlighted the tension between the community’s stated desire for compatible infill housing and neighbors’ safety and livability concerns in a historic Uptown neighborhood. Planning staff said the board could mitigate risks through design conditions if it chose to approve the variances, but the board did not make such an approval at this meeting.

The planning department will send any formal notices in writing; staff also announced a revised zoning ordinance draft is due in early August and will be the subject of further review and public hearings.