Developers and project partners presented a plan to the Jamestown Planning Commission to build seven two-family houses on seven land-bank parcels near the intersection of Spring Street and Crossman Street, creating 14 one-bedroom apartments intended primarily for supportive-housing clients.

Project representatives said the submission is intended to strengthen a pending application to New York State Homes and Community Renewal (HCR). The presentation noted the team was “1 point away from getting funded” in the previous HCR round and aims to improve its competitiveness for upcoming HHAP and ESHI application windows and a resubmission in December.

The developers described the site as unusually steep: “each of these little lines here running north south on the page represents 1 foot in grade change,” and said the parcel sequence drops about 10 feet within the first 20 feet from the street. Because the parcels are in R‑2 zoning (two-family), the team proposed duplicating a two-family house type on each lot rather than pursue a use variance for multi‑family construction.

The presentation and packet note that none of the seven parcels meet current R‑2 dimensional standards: required lot width of 70 feet and lot area of 10,000 square feet. The team reported lot widths roughly in the 40–52.3 foot range and lot areas “in the 5 to 6 [thousand square feet] range,” and said it expects to seek area variances (front/side/rear setbacks and lot area) rather than a use variance because area variances are typically easier to obtain for preexisting conditions.

Commissioners and staff asked about stormwater, driveways, trash storage, snow removal, accessibility and the project’s operational model. The team said roof drainage can likely tie into existing storm or sanitary laterals and that driveway grades will be handled with short retaining walls to allow level entry to first-floor units. Trash containers were tentatively planned near driveways with screening; staff advised locating containers to the rear where practical. The project team said the Spring Street site will be designated for supportive housing and that the co‑owners (identified in the presentation as the housing operator and a partner) expect to provide on‑site counseling and contracted maintenance, including snow removal.

Representatives said the new buildings will be all‑electric and aim to meet Energy Star and Enterprise Green Communities standards, using heat-pump HVAC systems and low‑VOC materials. The team said existing scattered-site units owned by the same operator would be rehabilitated with funds included in the same HCR application and that a relocation plan for current tenants is part of the submission package.

Staff and commissioners outlined the next regulatory steps requested by the applicant: an unlisted SEQR action (state environmental review), a County Planning 239 review because the site lies within 500 feet of State Route 60, and variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals before final site‑plan approval by the Planning Commission. Staff invited the applicant to submit a consolidated SEQR/SEQR narrative and the site‑plan package as soon as practicable; the applicant said it would do so and return for formal hearings.

Public comments included local builders and residents expressing support for infill and rehabilitation. A Jamestown builder who identified himself as owner of Monroe and Moore LLC described an interest in infill work and said he supports more housing production in the city.

Planning commissioners requested additional technical detail—survey‑grade lot lines, stormwater/drainage calculations, siding/landscaping plans, trash-storage locations, and a clearer circulation/snow‑management plan—before scheduling public hearings or making recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioners also noted neighborhood concerns about family‑friendly housing near nearby schools and acknowledged that the proposed one‑bedroom supportive units likely would not be targeted at households with children.

The applicant will proceed to prepare SEQR materials, file for area variances at the ZBA, and submit a complete site‑plan package for city and county review; no final approvals or votes were taken at the meeting.