Zoning board reviews plans for business districts

Libby’s newly appointed zoning commissioners tweaked twin proposals for controversial business improvement districts within city limits Jan. 14, but not without reservations.

The plans would create a downtown business district centered on California and Mineral avenues, and a highway business district along U.S. Highway 2. Laden with additional aesthetic, parking and building requirements, the zones have drawn the ire of local business owners.

Several of the more controversial aspects, like requiring business owners who revamp more than 10 percent of their shop to adhere to the new regulations, were dropped by Libby City Council late last year. A restriction on new casinos, for example, also was eliminated from the proposals.

For the zoning commissioners, who also comprise the city’s planning board, their Jan. 14 review was a second look at the proposals. As planning board members, they previously recommended earlier drafts with tighter requirements for redevelopment as part of the multiyear process.

Several expressed dismay at the changes made by city council. City Councilor Kristin Smith, who sits on all three boards and spearheaded the legislation, said she backed several of the edits in an effort to get the framework approved.

“I have had my hands on this for years and I really want this community to have better standards for itself, for all of us,” she said. “So I actually made the motion to strike those so we could move on it and not have it go down the drain.”

She said strong opposition from the city’s business community and lack of public support from residents played a heavy role in the council’s decision to relax aesthetic regulations.

At the time, critics argued city officials were intruding upon private property rights by requiring entrepreneurs adhere to building standards. They also worried the proposals might deter businesses from setting up shop in Libby by adding extra expenses.

Smith described it as a libertarian economic mindset. The belief is that anyone willing to invest in a business in Libby will naturally make improvements to encourage customer traffic, she said.

“That’s the ideal. It just doesn’t work out that way, and that’s why we have government,” Smith said. “We, as humans, our natural instinct is to just sort of do what you can do — do what you can get away with.”

Commissioner Jennifer Nelson said county officials face enough trouble trying to keep area businesses in compliance with the health code.

Several members questioned whether amendments could be made to the districts if and when city council adopts the plans.

“Let’s see how it goes,” Smith said. “Until we get this adopted, we don’t want to tackle signs or any of those other big areas.”

Smith defended many of city council’s edits, telling her fellow zoning commission members that they reacted to opposition voiced at the public hearings.

“The people who showed up to these meetings were not the residents, they were the business owners,” she said. “Council was responding to the people who showed up and that’s what’s going to happen.”

The commission approved several recommendations — largely minor edits to language — paving the way for a public hearing on the topic as soon as Feb. 3. Officials tentatively plan to hold a zoning commission public hearing at 6 p.m. with a city council public hearing on the topic to follow at 6:30 p.m.

The recommendations marked the highpoint of the Libby Zoning Commission’s inaugural meeting. The board owes its creation to the controversial business district proposals.

City councilors were set to vote on the measures when they learned of a 1997 state attorney general opinion addressing proper procedure. According to then-Attorney General Joseph P. Mazurek, a town abiding by state law would need a standalone commission to review zoning changes.

That prompted city councilors, who had already reviewed the proposals and sought public comment, to create a zoning commission in mid-December. Because there were no membership restrictions, city councilors voted to appoint members of the planning board to the new group.

While the membership remains the same, the boards must hold separate meetings and public hearings.