Public comes out against Hamilton rezoning request

by Nathan Boddy

Tuesday, October 3rd was a big day for the Hamilton Zoning Commission.  While there was only one new item on the evening’s agenda, multiple area citizens showed up in order to make public comment against the request.

The request for rezoning was made by Chip Pigman of Pigman Builders, to rezone the currently vacant parcel at 501 North 5th Street from Single Family Residential (RS) to a Residential High Density (RH) district. Pigman’s stated intent is to build an eight-unit apartment complex at the site, a land use which is currently not allowed under its current less dense RS designation. Pigman’s application did contain an elevation schematic and blueprint of the proposed complex, however, the Zoning Commission’s only task was to consider the requested zoning change.

City Planner Matthew Rohrbach gave a presentation about the requested zoning change, informing the Zoning Commission about the process that city staff uses to weigh such proposals and how staff arrives at its recommendation. He explained that city staff uses 10 criteria to weigh proposals for rezoning, four of which must be complied with completely in order for staff to recommend approval. In this case, city staff found that the rezoning request did indeed meet all of the required criteria. The very first of those criteria, and perhaps the most widely discussed, was the essential need that any rezoning be, “in accordance with the City of Hamilton Growth Policy.” That policy, which was newly updated in 2022 after a yearlong adoption process, specifically addresses housing through various goals and policies throughout the document.  

The presentation that Rohrbach gave to the Commission echoed many of the points that are contained within the new Comprehensive Plan. The Plan specifically highlights multiple residential areas within Hamilton as being “Core Neighborhoods,” which it describes as “Existing neighborhoods that will remain intact with compatible infill of existing vacant and underutilized lots, and development of ADUs [Accessory Dwelling Units] to support housing needs. Overall density of these neighborhoods will stay relatively constant, with an increase as infill and redevelop

ment occur.” The Plan further clarifies primary land uses within Core Neighborhoods as being, “A mix of housing types, including single-family detached, single-family attached, duplex to fourplex, apartments/condominiums, and ADUs.”

City staff also pointed out that, while much of the surrounding area was zoned as Single Family Residential (RS), a surprising amount of high density residential is actually present throughout the neighborhoods both north and south of Main Street. Rohrbach further explained that the Comprehensive Plan aims to guide future development in Hamilton in such a way that housing types are not wholly segregated by type and density.

Rohrbach explained, “What this gets at is really trying to integrate some of our lower density and medium density housing together rather than having all our high density in one area of the city and all our lower density in (another). It’s really trying to achieve a greater mix and get some of those medium density developments worked into those single family neighborhoods so you have more integrated neighborhoods that aren’t just segregated based on density.”  

Rohrach also added that, “Core neighborhoods are expected to remain residential, but density is likely to increase with infill.” His statement was based on the principals of the Future Land Use map contained within the Comprehensive Plan which has several stated goals, including a greater mix of housing options and higher density near existing community amenities and transportation corridors. 

Despite Rohrbach’s explanation, all of the public comments made during the meeting, as well as the 20-plus written comments received by the City were in opposition to the rezoning request. While comments were made on everything from traffic safety to infrastructure, the overall opinion of those who spoke or wrote against the rezoning request seemed to focus on the lack of compatibility of high density in the neighborhood around the intersection of River and North 5th.

Some speakers, like Nancy Valk, didn’t feel as though the inclusion of a high density development within a Core Neighborhood was compatible, and pointed to language in the Comprehensive Plan that aims to strive for compatibility between land uses. Brenda Morasko, who lives directly across the street from the parcel, had multiple concerns including parking, traffic, and the potential inhabitants of the building. She also added that a two-story structure would mean that the inhabitants of the new building would look directly down onto her backyard.

“I guarantee you Pigmans do not live next to an apartment complex,” said Morasko. “I know where they live and they don’t.”

Several people expressed concern that they hadn’t been given enough time to prepare for the public hearing, and that they intended to organize and prepare to stand in opposition. Commission Chair Roch Turner asked for clarification about the public notice process, to which Matthew Rohrbach informed the Committee that notice was published 15 days prior to the meeting in the Ravalli Republic, and notice was mailed to all addresses within 300 feet of the parcel.  

Bob Nicholls informed the Zoning Commission that he didn’t feel the proposal represented an incremental change, nor was the proposal in scale with existing land uses. “It is not in scale,” he said. “I’ll tell you what, we’re going to start getting organized on this.” Nicholls went on to suggest that a trend would occur and more apartments would spring up as houses come down. “You start with one, it’s going to go to another, and it’s going to be a wave.”

Following the public comment period, the Zoning Commission members discussed the proposed rezoning and the public sentiment that they’d heard in opposition. Jenny West, City Councilor for Ward 3, stated that she would be voting against the proposal. “This is a pretty big incremental scale of use,” she said, adding, “I think it’s a big jump and it does set precedents for developments like that. It’s my neighborhood and I care for the people in it, so I will vote to deny it.”

Turner expressed understanding that people have concerns about change. But, he said, “I want to outright reject the notion that an apartment building means a lesser person. That is a troubling notion to me, so I want to publicly state that I’m troubled by that.” He also added that “without adherence to the growth policy like the city has spent so much time on, we’re likely to see the type of change that we tend to see in the county, which is the wild west.”

Commission member Karen Hughes said that she also rejected any notion that higher density was tantamount to bringing in “the riff raff.” She did acknowledge that it is difficult to settle on what exactly a ‘compatible’ land use might mean, and questioned if the RH zoning at the proposed location might be “too fast, too much.”

Commission member Jessica Randazzo suggested that the commission could alter the findings made by city staff, perhaps stating that a slightly lower density would make more sense at that location. The wording of such a movement, however, would need to be exact and would in no way alter the zoning or the applicant’s request.

Given the public’s concern over time frame, the gravity of the proposal, and the nature of what their motion might be, Turner suggested that more time might be needed. “I worry about rushing to a vote right now, based on public input. It would be folly to move forward.”

The Zoning Commission then made the decision to move the public hearing and delay a decision until Monday, October 17th at 5:30 p.m.