After a lengthy discussion in both the Evanston City Council’s Planning and Development Committee and in front of the council, aldermen voted to postpone a final vote on the proposed building moratorium in the Fifth Ward until its next meeting on Aug. 18.

The moratorium, which was amended by Ald. Lionel Jean-Baptiste to last only 120 days as opposed to the originally proposed 180 days, would impose a hold on any new projects in the Fifth Ward and deny certain building permits for that period of time.

Exceptions would be made for single-family residences and some commercial buildings.

“We just want to put the brakes on development in the Fifth Ward,” Ald. Joe Kent (5th) said. “The moratorium will give the community a breath of fresh air.”

Kent said development in the Fifth Ward had been reaching an unprecedented high, causing some residents of the ward to question whether the development was hurting rather than helping the neighborhood.

“There are all types of patchwork housing (developments),” said Fifth Ward resident Roberta Hudson. “I don’t think we should rush to build. We need to look 10-15 years down the road.”

Kent added that he wanted to use the moratorium to investigate some the possibility of establishing a conservation district in the Fifth Ward, protecting some of the older historic buildings.

But for some residents, the moratorium poses a threat to potential construction plans.

For Fifth Ward resident Elizabeth Johnson who owns property in the ward, her plans to build might be stalled if the moratorium passes.

“The moratorium means I cannot build on land that I own,” Johnson said.

Likewise, developer Andy Spatz said he is afraid the moratorium could be extended past the 120 days and prevent his developments from being completed.

“It will slow things from happening in the Fifth Ward,” Spatz said.

However, the council also voted to amend the ordinance so that the moratorium, if passed, would start on Oct. 1, giving residents some time to finish up already started construction projects.

“Winter is a slow construction season — developers rush in the fall anyway,” Jean-Baptiste said.

However, some felt the later start date could cause an unnecessary rush to build.

“All this does is create a potential for a rush to the building office,” Ald. Art Newman (1st) said.

Although Jean-Baptiste first proposed an amendment for a 90-day moratorium, he and Kent compromised to extend the moratorium for an added month.

“Three months puts all the pressure on the community,” Kent said.

Although some aldermen were pushing for a final vote, most were hesitant to make a decision.

“We have to move forward with a decision,” Jean-Baptiste said, adding that the issue has been in front of the Planning and Development Committee for three sessions.

“There’s a lot of grassroots support for this position,” Ald. Gene Feldman (9th) said. “It’s very hard for me to let the neighbors walk away with no encouragement. I would start the moratorium as early as possible.”

But Ald. Steven Bernstein (4th) who was in favor of holding the issue said he was afraid that the council was already too late in going forward with the moratorium.

“I just don’t want to see the good that’s being done get stifled,” Bernstein said.