Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Clg topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
National Park Service flags Temple Terrace ordinance language; certification delayed
Summary
The Historic Preservation Board learned a National Park Service review found Temple Terrace's ordinance language requiring 100% property-owner consent for historic districts incompatible with the National Historic Preservation Act, delaying the city's Certified Local Government (CLG) certification and prompting staff to draft ordinance changes.
The Historic Preservation Board on Jan. 22 heard that the National Park Service (NPS) has declined to concur with Temple Terrace’s CLG application because the city ordinance required 100% owner consent for historic-district designation.
Board members said the NPS informed the State Historic Preservation Office in writing that a 100% consent requirement “is incompatible with the purpose of the local preservation program” and “does not allow for adequate public participation in the preservation program as the National Historic Preservation Act requires,” a board member read aloud at the meeting.
Why it matters: CLG certification gives local programs technical and grant support tied to the National Park Service. Because the NPS will not concur under the current ordinance language, Temple Terrace remains uncertified; board members said the city can continue running a local preservation program and accept applications but cannot claim CLG status until the ordinance is revised and the NPS concurred.
Board discussion and next steps Board members described the flagged ordinance provision as the clause that required written consent from “all property owners within a proposed historic district” before the board could act. The NPS said that a single owner could block a district under that language.
A board member cited examples of other Florida municipalities that use alternatives: Dunedin’s ordinance (adopted 2019) allows a supermajority vote to approve a designation over an owner objection; another CLG’s code lets the commission and council recommend boundary changes so an individual owner cannot “opt out” of an otherwise viable district. The board discussed using a similar supermajority or boundary-modification approach to address the NPS concern.
Practical effects discussed Staff said the program remains voluntary and that the ordinance does not prevent demolition but does impose a three-month review hold on demolition of properties in the program. Marissa (staff) told the board there are about 40 properties from the 1920s that remain in the city’s historic-resource inventory and that the city has lost roughly 40% of its historic resources over time. She said, however, the board has received no formal applications to enter the program yet.
Timing and outreach Board members and staff said they will draft ordinance language modeled on other CLGs, submit changes to the State Historic Preservation Office and then to the National Park Service for concurrence. No timeline was given; one board member said the group is “waiting on the National Park Service.” The board also agreed to continue public outreach to clarify benefits and limits of the program to property owners.
Ending Board members said they will return to ordinance edits and outreach at future meetings and will notify the council if and when a revised ordinance requires council action.
