Grand Haven committee urges rewrite of 1984 preservation rules to unlock tax credits and local protections

Chad, representing the Historic Conservation District Committee, asked Grand Haven City Council on June 15 to begin a formal study to modernize the city’s 1984 preservation ordinance and consider creating local historic districts under PA169.

The committee said Chapter 19 — the city’s preservation ordinance adopted in 1984 — provides limited regulatory tools and noted that, in 44 years, the city has designated just 13 landmarks. “So, 44 years, 13 historic landmarks,” Chad said, arguing the current structure “limits our ability and capacity to provide any protections” and discourages property owners from seeking landmark status.

Haley Shriber, who identified herself as the community preservation coordinator at Shipo, told the council that adopting a PA169-aligned local historic district would make property owners eligible for state and federal tax credits and open the door to Certified Local Government (CLG) status and associated grants and technical assistance. “I’m the person that the city staff, your study committee or the historic district commission contacts when they want to start this process,” Shriber said, describing Shipo’s role in reviewing survey forms, assessing integrity and advising on draft design guidelines.

The HCDC recommended council appoint a study committee that would research district boundaries, document the significance of buildings, produce a preliminary report, hold public hearings and then deliver a final report for council review. Shriber outlined the typical path: research and boundary-setting, Shipo review, a public meeting for comment, and final revisions before adoption; the committee would then have up to one year to adopt an ordinance if council approves initiating the study.

Councilmembers pressed on several specifics in follow-up questions: whether designation affects interiors (answer: the committee and Shipo said review is typically limited to exteriors), how many people should serve on a study committee (Shriber recommended five to seven, with no more than three current historic-commission members to avoid conflict of interest), and whether owners can opt out (answer: not if properties are inside an adopted local historic district). Several councilmembers voiced support for stronger local protections but also emphasized the need to write guidelines that allow reasonable flexibility and to consider staff time and costs for administration and enforcement.

The presentation framed the proposal as a tool to support property owners through incentives and clearer guidelines, not as an effort simply to restrict development. HCDC members cited lost opportunities — including facade changes and demolitions downtown — as reasons to strengthen local preservation rules. Council did not vote to start the study during this meeting; staff said they will return with more concrete cost estimates and a proposed path to forming the study committee.

Next steps: staff and HCDC indicated they will prepare additional details about projected costs, draft language and a proposed study-committee membership model for council consideration at a future meeting.