The Butte-Silver Bow Zoning Board of Adjustment on Jan. 15 voted unanimously to uphold an appeal by homeowner Reddy s Frost (appeal 25-03), allowing him to apply for a variance to address an addition at 2000 Roberts Avenue. The vote did not approve construction; it only permits Frost to pursue a formal variance application.

Planning staff told the board the project as proposed would add roughly 400 square feet, encroach within a 12-foot front-yard setback and a 2-foot south side-yard setback, and bring lot coverage to about 50 percent. Staff cited Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code sections 17.48.30 and 17.48.40, which limit enlargement of legal nonconforming structures, and noted the board’s authority under section 17.54 and applicable Montana statutes. Staff concluded the proposal would increase the dwelling’s nonconformity and could create drainage problems for the adjacent property and fire-safety issues; a 2-foot side-yard setback would require a rated firewall under current residential building code.

The applicant told the board the work began as a temporary shelter to stop water intrusion into an elevated concrete basement and that he removed the temporary tent after the city raised concerns. He said he provided photos and submitted an updated site plan showing adjustments intended to reduce nonconformity: moving a nonbearing wall back three feet on a 36-foot span, specifying two-hour fire barriers (Type X), noncombustible sheathing and a vapor barrier intended to provide roughly a five-foot clearance between buildings and shed roof water away from the basement.

Planning Director Julia Crane clarified the narrow procedural question before the board: because the project was in progress when the appeal was filed, staff cannot evaluate a variance while the work remains an active code violation. ‘‘We are not discussing the merits of his construction project as proposed,’’ Crane said. If the board grants the appeal, the applicant would be allowed to apply for a variance so staff could evaluate the new plans; if denied, the applicant would need to start over.

A board member moved to uphold the appeal (appeal 25-3); another member seconded. The motion passed unanimously with the four board members present. The decision allows the applicant to submit a variance application but does not authorize further construction, and any future remodeling would be required to meet applicable building, fire and health codes if approved.

Next steps: the applicant may file a formal variance application for staff review and for return to the board; staff will provide guidance on required submittals and applicable code requirements.