Planning commission begins drafting local preservation ordinance, debates age thresholds and incentives

City planning staff opened a work session on a draft local preservation ordinance, laying out options for what structures and districts the ordinance should protect and how the nomination and review process would work.

Alan (planning staff) reviewed background: Jamestown already has three National Register historic districts and seven individually listed landmarks, and local protections under a new ordinance would be distinct from the national register’s tax‑credit eligibility. He said the LPO’s central task is defining criteria for eligibility and the degree of local protections and restrictions (Alan, planning staff).

Commissioners discussed multiple approaches to the point of entry for local designation. Board members suggested a range of minimum ages for eligibility — 50, 75 and 100 years were all proposed — and several commissioners emphasized that age alone should not be the sole test. “The age of the building is just a point of entry,” one commissioner said; several members favored a higher age threshold combined with additional criteria for significance or uniqueness.

Major issues raised during the discussion: - Owner consent and nominations: commissioners and staff discussed whether the property owner should be able to veto an individual designation. Staff said practices vary and the draft will clarify whether owner consent is required for individual properties or entire districts. The transcript records that some New York localities allow owner objection while others do not; planning staff said the draft can be revised to reflect the commission’s direction. - Economic viability and incentives: commissioners expressed concern about unintended gentrification and the economic burden on current owners. Staff highlighted a state real‑property tax exemption mechanism (cited in the meeting by statute number as a possible tool) that can phase in tax increases on improvements and thereby act as an incentive for rehabilitation if the commission and council decide to pair incentives with designation. - Demolition delays and emergency exceptions: the draft discussed demolition‑delay periods, structural and economic analyses before demolition approval, and allowed emergency demolitions where a building poses a public safety hazard. - Administrative process and appeals: staff said the ordinance can require a demolition permit, provide a review and variance process, and allow appeals and, if necessary, litigation similar to existing variance processes.

Next steps and staff direction: commissioners asked that the input discussed at the session be incorporated into the draft ordinance. Staff and counsel were asked to return a revised draft showing whether property‑owner consent is required, the recommended age threshold options and suggested enabling language for incentives and demolition procedures. Commissioners proposed forming a small work group — including planning staff, a council representative and commission members — to refine the draft before returning to the full commission and, ultimately, to council for consideration.

No ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the session was a work session to gather policy direction and identify points for counsel to incorporate into the draft.