Council tables moratorium on historic-district expansions after debate on grants and impacts

Alderperson Letterman introduced an ordinance on May 14 that would place a moratorium—up to five years or until adoption of the city’s next comprehensive plan—on creating new historic districts or expanding existing ones. The ordinance would amend chapters of the City of Ithaca municipal code to impose the moratorium.

The proposal prompted extensive discussion among council members and planning staff about the ordinance’s effects on homeowners, housing production and the city’s eligibility for historic‑preservation grants. Brian McCracken, the city’s preservation planner, told council that passing the moratorium could jeopardize the city’s Certified Local Government (CLG) status, a partnership among the city, the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service that makes certain preservation grants available.

Brian McCracken said loss of CLG status could force the state to rescind the preservation grant funds the city received last year and would prevent the city from certifying tax credits for qualifying local projects. He gave examples: one property owner in the DeWitt Park local historic district sought tax credits to rehabilitate a home; those state tax credits require a National Register designation or state certification. McCracken also said the city staff had been considering CLG-funded consultant work to design a model accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for historic districts; that funding would not be available if the city lost CLG status.

Council members debating the ordinance raised three recurring concerns: (1) the moratorium’s effect on grant eligibility and on property owners who could use tax credits; (2) whether the city’s historic‑preservation process is unduly burdensome for homeowners seeking routine work; and (3) how large historic districts relate to housing goals. Brian McCracken provided data during the discussion: approximately 650 properties are currently in local historic districts (about 10% of the city), and last year staff reviewed roughly 100 building‑permit projects associated with historic‑district properties—77 were processed and approved by staff; 23 went to the Landmark Preservation Commission for review.

Several council members said they wanted comparative data on how historic‑district rules affect housing production and costs before taking a final vote. Others said they support preserving historic landmarks but worry that expanding district designations can increase renovation costs and delay projects. Some council members urged staff to provide a data snapshot and best-practice comparison to inform policy.

Alderperson Kiel moved to table the ordinance to a future committee meeting; Alderperson Letterman seconded a scheduling motion to send the item to a June committee meeting. The motion to table carried; council recorded the outcome as "That carries ... 7 to 3" in the meeting minutes. Staff and several council members asked for a week to compile council questions and for planning staff to estimate how long it would take to provide the requested comparative data.

Council did not adopt the moratorium on May 14. Staff warned that a moratorium that removed the city’s authority to designate landmarks or that allowed owner opposition as a legal bar could violate CLG requirements; council members said they would consider narrower drafts that would allow landmark designation while limiting district expansions.

Because the item was tabled, staff will return with additional analysis and answers to council questions before any final ordinance vote.