Community Development Board Meeting – September 21, 2026

The Community Development Board (CDB) of Bozeman, Montana, met on September 21, 2026, to receive an update on the status of the Landmark Program and related historic preservation code revisions from Deputy Director of Community Development Rebecca Harbage. Board members engaged in extensive discussion on the balance between preserving historic resources, property rights, and economic viability. No votes were taken.

Discussion Items

• Presentation on the Status of the Landmark Program: Rebecca Harbage provided a comprehensive overview of the city's historic preservation program, including the history of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) established in 1991, design guidelines from 2006, and current efforts under the Local Landmark Project (Phase 2). Key projects include: (1) developing a local landmark program to recognize sites of local cultural/historic significance that may not meet National Register criteria; (2) revising historic preservation code sections, starting with demolition regulations; and (3) updating NCOD design guidelines (temporarily on hold due to staffing vacancies). Harbage noted that the city has had 58 total demolitions within the NCOD since 2018, of which 11 were contributing/eligible structures and 47 were non-contributing; 12 of those demolitions were for unsafe structures. She outlined proposed changes to demolition regulations, including:
  • Requiring an inventory for buildings over 50 years old outside the NCOD before demolition.
  • Public notice posting for all NCOD demolitions.
  • Splitting the current two-year stay on demolition into two one-year periods: an initial one-year mandatory stay, followed by a second year only if the applicant fails to demonstrate consideration of alternatives.
  • Reimagining the "no economic life remaining" test as an economic hardship test.
  • Considering mandatory pre-application meetings for demolition of historic resources.
  • Exploring strategies to prevent demolition without a permit or demolition by neglect.
  • Updating the overall NCOD code structure to align with the new Unified Development Code (UDC) and revising submittal requirements and allowed deviations.
• Board Discussion and Questions: Board members raised several concerns and perspectives:
  • Jason Dilmu questioned the definition of "historic" and the 50-year threshold, emphasizing that not every old structure is significant and that overly broad regulation could unfairly burden property owners. He suggested that truly special resources should have regulatory protection, but the community as a whole should bear the cost when preservation is a community benefit.
  • Eric Bonnet stressed the need to focus on incentives ("carrots") rather than just regulations ("sticks"), noting that two-year stays may cause economic waste without achieving preservation goals. He encouraged case studies of successful preservation in other cities and highlighted the potential for using tax credits or incentives. He also noted that historic preservation has sometimes been used as a NIMBY tool to block growth and called for recognizing erased histories, such as the minority community at Eho Memorial Park.
  • Ben Lloyd asked what problem the code revisions are solving, given the relatively low number of demolitions. He suggested shifting focus from preventing demolitions to incentivizing refurbishment and cleaning up derelict structures.
  • Chris Edmunds (board member) commented on the tension between preserving historic fabric and allowing modern renovations, noting that the UDC already addresses mass and scale issues. He mentioned the concept of "iceberg houses" (subterranean additions) as a creative way to increase density without altering facades.
  • Mark Haggie proposed a "cash in lieu of waiting" fee for expedited demolition, which could generate revenue for historic preservation maintenance.
  • Chris Saunders (staff) added context on the federal level's opt-in approach and the importance of defining significance beyond just age.

Key Outcomes

• No formal decisions or votes were taken. The board's discussion was informational and intended to guide staff and the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB).
• Next steps outlined by Harbage:
  • HPAB will continue reviewing draft code revisions at its mid-October 2026 meeting.
  • CDB may receive a further update in December 2026, with a formal public hearing anticipated in early January 2027, followed by City Commission consideration in February 2027.
  • The city is making progress on hiring a new historic preservation planner to support these projects.
• The board also received an FYI on upcoming CDB items: a presentation on the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan and review of a potential downtown urban renewal district expansion at the October 5, 2026 meeting. A placeholder for City Commission discussion on revisions to city boards was noted for October 27, 2026.