SALISBURY — The Salisbury City Council voted on Tuesday to implement a six-month moratorium on the designation of historic landmarks, although several members of the council were careful to state that their votes did not mean that they were unsupportive of the historic landmark program as a whole.

The moratorium was proposed as the result of city council members’ questions, particularly Councilor David Post, about whether the current ordinance provided stringent enough requirements and whether the tax rebate best served the city. Planning Director Hannah Jacobsen said that it would allow the city staff time to work with city officials, the public and the Historic Preservation Commission on ways to improve as well as look into other municipalities’ programs. The moratorium will affect the HPC’s review of pre-applications and applications as well as the city council’s consideration and approval of applications.

Several suggestions that an HPC subcommittee had to improve the ordinance and process were revising the design standards for landmarks, updating pre-application requirements, adopting a two-meeting review period, performing annual inspections and adopting a demolition by neglect ordinance.

The city council also held a public hearing before approving the ordinance implementing the moratorium, during which several residents spoke passionately about the program, most against the move and one in favor of it.

“It sounds like we’re trying to go back here and redesign the program when it’s already been around the block so many times. My understanding was that we looked at the ordinance in Charlotte before the one was ever created here, and certainly they’ve got one of the finest landmark programs in the state. So, I don’t understand why we need all this extra time to go back and reinvent the wheel, because the landmark program in North Carolina is very well established,” said Karen Lilly-Bowyer.

Pam and John Schaeffer, who own the recently-designated landmark Franklin-Smith House, both spoke against approving the moratorium. John Schaeffer spoke about Post’s concerns that the tax credit did not best serve the city, saying between the county’s 2023 revaluation and the increase in property value from their restoration work, the Schaeffers’ property taxes would not see a significant decrease in total.

The Schaeffers bought the home in 2013. From 2014 to 2024, the property’s value increased by approximately $200,000, according to online county property records. The deferment will reduce the taxable value of the home by approximately $290,000. While the total deferment would decrease the tax revenue from the property by approximately $1,930, the delta of $90,000 represents an annual decrease of approximately $600.

“(Salisbury) wound up with a human amount of excess or additional revenue that was not expected back in 2023, that we’re still enjoying and will continue to enjoy forever. This (deferment) is such a small amount as to not even pay for the salaries of the people who are going to look at this for six months. This is a waste of time,” said John Schaeffer.

Steve Cobb, former president of the Historic Salisbury Foundation and former Historic Preservation Commission member, said that he agreed with the moratorium and Post, saying that the pause should be implemented until the city can revise the standards governing the landmark program or eliminate it altogether.

“I understand that historic properties are costly to maintain, as I stated I own one myself. Like most other owners of the hundreds of less significant historic properties, I must bear the entire cost of maintaining the property without tax reductions. In essence, the program is a progressive tax benefit, tax breaks for wealthy people who can afford some of the most expensive houses in Salisbury. Even if the amount is only a small percentage of the city’s budget, the optics aren’t good,” said Cobb.

John Martin, who owns the historic McCanless-Busby-Thompson House, said that between the money to save the house from demolition in 2017 and renovate it, he would never be able to sell the house for as much money as he had put into it. The house is not a designated landmark, but Martin said during the public hearing he was speaking because he disliked “the suggestion by one council member that somehow we’re fleecing the city if we do get landmark status.”

“When I got involved, the taxes on that house were $697.64. In this present year, the taxes are $5,117.77. I would say the city of Salisbury is doing pretty well. That’s seven times what they were collecting in 2020. If you reduced the taxes in half, you’d still be collecting three and a half times what you were getting before I started restoring the house. You’ve made money off my investment, I haven’t been the one who is making money off of it,” said Martin.

After the public hearing, several members of the city council said that the moratorium was solely to look into the ordinance and find ways to improve it, saying they would not support removing it.

“It isn’t that council is thinking about doing away with the local historic landmark designation, I’m not for that. I love our program, I think it’s highly important. I also think this is an opportunity to do a deep dive in a focused area for six months and look at these specific items,” said Mayor Karen Alexander.

Mayor Pro Tem Tamara Sheffield said that she did not agree with the moratorium because she thought that it sent a message that the city did not support potential historic landmark owners and wanted to repeal the program. She also said that the city reviewed ordinances all the time without pausing their operation, noting that City Attorney Graham Corriher was currently reviewing an ordinance after she requested it.

“I would not be in favor of the moratorium because the work still has to happen, and I don’t want people to perceive that we don’t care about our owners that are investing. I also don’t want to send the message to other parts of our community, and I will say the West Square has done the most, that we don’t support them in pursuing this as well,” said Sheffield.

Councilor Harry McLaughlin said that he viewed the moratorium as regular maintenance, and hoped that the city could use it as an opportunity to expand the program into more areas of the city. Currently, the majority of the historic landmarks are in the West Square district.

After the discussion, the council voted three to one in favor of the moratorium. Sheffield was the only council member to vote against the ordinance.