The Community Development Board received an extensive update on Phase 2 of the Local Landmark Project during its September 21 meeting, centered on efforts to modernize Bozeman's historic preservation program nearly 20 years after the adoption of current design guidelines.
Deputy Director of Community Development Rebecca Harbage outlined two major initiatives under Phase 2: development of a local landmark program and revisions to historic preservation code sections. The local landmark program would recognize historically significant sites and districts that may not meet the stringent National Register criteria, potentially including areas beyond the current Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). Harbage noted that a draft of the full landmark program would be presented to the Historic Preservation Advisory Board in October, with key unresolved questions about whether designation would be regulatory or honorary.
Demolition Regulations Proposed Changes
On demolition regulations—the area with the most development progress—Harbage outlined several proposed changes. The city is considering requiring demolition reviews for historic resources outside the NCOD, which would mandate that buildings over 50 years old undergo historic inventory assessment before demolition approval. Additionally, the city is exploring mandatory public notice posting on-site for all NCOD demolitions, not as a public comment period but as notification to neighbors.
The draft proposes breaking the current two-year demolition stay into two one-year periods. Under the new structure, an initial one-year stay would be mandatory, after which applicants must demonstrate they considered alternatives to demolition to qualify for release. If not satisfied, a second-year stay would apply. The city also plans to reimagine how the "remaining economic life" test operates, shifting from current review criteria language toward a more traditional approach where demolition of historic resources would be denied unless the applicant demonstrates that preservation creates economic hardship.
Harbage acknowledged that implementing these changes faces staffing challenges. The city's historic preservation planner departed earlier in 2026, and the consultant helping with the NCOD Design Guidelines update was let go over the summer. The city is recruiting a new historic preservation planner and will solicit a new consultant later this year to complete the design guidelines update, which is temporarily on hold.
Board Discussion on Regulatory Approach
Board members raised extensive questions about the regulatory approach and whether stricter rules would actually preserve structures or simply delay development. Erik Bonnett questioned whether regulatory frameworks alone are effective, noting that demolition rates in the NCOD have been modest—58 total demolitions from 2018 through mid-2026, with only 11 involving contributing or eligible historic structures and 12 deemed unsafe. He suggested examining what incentives or financial mechanisms might better achieve preservation than regulatory barriers alone.
Chris Egnatz proposed the city consider shifting focus from preventing demolitions toward incentivizing refurbishment of existing structures, questioning whether the city actually has a demolition problem warranting stricter regulation. Mayor Joey Morrison highlighted the tension between preservation and growth, noting that historic preservation has historically been used as a tool to restrict development and that the city needs clearer definitions of what constitutes significant, worthy-of-protection history versus architectural age alone. He referenced concerns that such regulations can inadvertently displace lower-income residents and serve as a NIMBY tool.
Jason Delmue emphasized the importance of defining what makes something historic rather than merely old, and cautioned that protecting too-broad categories of structures could unfairly burden individual property owners while the broader community benefits. He suggested that if the community wants to preserve truly significant structures, the city should consider public acquisition rather than imposing private preservation burdens.
Mark Egge proposed an alternative approach: rather than requiring lengthy review processes, the city could establish a "cash in lieu" fee for expedited demolition, with revenues directed toward maintenance and preservation grants for historic properties. This fee structure could scale based on the value of the project, avoiding disproportionate burden on modest homeowners versus large developers.
Staff noted that the deliberative process involves balancing these competing interests and gathering comparative data from other communities on what regulatory approaches have succeeded. No formal votes were taken at this meeting; the session served as an informational update and discussion forum for the board to weigh in on policy directions before they advance to formal review.