Landmark Nomination - when to be decided?

Yesterday's letter from Esther Hall Gordon, now of Battle Creek, Michigan and former resident of the Woodstock Children's Home from 1963-1971 and Woodstock High School graduate '71, again reminded me once again that, as readers know, Mayor Sager and the Woodstock City Council tabled the nomination of Grace Hall for Landmark Designation at a prior City Council meeting, just before approving demolition of Grace Hall. That demolition is subject to approval of the first building permit for the South Phase of the WCLS special use permit to building additional little duplexes.

On September 14th I asked the City Council, at its joint meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, to "untable" this nomination and act on it. My request elicited no response from the City Council.

The City Council would like this issue to just die and go away. Residents (voters!) cannot allow this to occur. The City Council must act responsibly and not continue to ignore the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission. They didn't deny it at the previous meeting; they "tabled" it. This means it is still on the table!

The honorable thing for them to do is place this nomination on the Agenda, before a permit request ever reaches the Plan Department, and act on it.

If they approve it, that will slow, stall or eliminate demolition. If they deny the landmark designation, then that opens the door for legal action against the City by the Historic Preservation Commission and interested residents for not following its own Historic Preservation ordinance. The building absolutely meets (and exceeds) the minimum requirements under the ordinance for Landmark status.

Of course, if the City Council approves Landmark status for Grace Hall and refuses to issue a demolition permit, then that will prompt legal action by Woodstock Christian Life Services, through its attorney, Mark Gummerson. When was it - a year ago? - that he intimidated legal action could be expected if the City didn't approve WCLS plans? It was subtle, but every member of the City Council had to hear the threat of legal action.

The Woodstock City Council needs a second, and fully independent, legal opinion on the question of superiority of WCLS' request for special use permit over the Landmark nomination. It is my belief that an attorney who is an expert in historic preservation will advise the City that Landmark designation, regardless of when pronounced, trumps demolition of a building with historic and architectural value.

At the present time, the City is relying on advice that, just because WCLS jumped in line first, its claim is superior to the Historic Preservation Commission's nomination. 'Tain't so.

There are seven members of the City Council. What Woodstock needs is seven independent members of the City Council! Men and women who will investigate, think through and make their own independent decisions on issues. All leaders; no followers.

Will this City Council have the courage to address the Landmark nomination without further malingering?

HPC - Partner or Opponent?

Is Woodstock's Historic Preservation Commission a partner in City government with the Mayor and the six members of the City Council or is it just a little do-good group and a formality in city government that can be overlooked or stiffed?

If you care about Woodstock, make time in your busy schedule to show up in City Council chambers this Monday, September 14, 7:00PM. And bring neighbors, friends, students, family and others.

Read this letter that I received today from Woodstock residents Dan and Caryl Lemanski. Dan, Caryl and others have worked hard to save Grace Hall. They are still working hard to save Grace Hall.

"Recent actions by the Woodstock City Council pertaining to historic preservation will have a direct impact on our environment.

"In addition to preserving our history and culture, stabilizing local economies, providing affordable housing, promoting tourism and providing jobs, historic preservation is part of a sound environmental policy for a community. It promotes the adaptive reuse of buildings through repair and restoration rather than demolition and new construction. It encourages the use of similar, durable materials and green technologies while discouraging the use of synthetic materials. It discourages demolition through neglect in part to keep old construction/hazardous waste materials out of landfills. Historic preservation is a classic example of recycling.

"Recent decisions by the Woodstock City Council have resulted in or will result in the demolition of historic properties including:

"– Proposed demolition of the house and apartment building at Calhoun and Tryon to make way for a 4-story assisted living facility on the west side of Tryon. Additionally, the council approved excavation and removal of the sloping lots to bring them level with Tryon and Calhoun. The City Council approved this plan despite the negative recommendations from Woodstock's Plan Commission and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC.)

"– Proposed demolition of 20% of Main St. to make way for the Classic Cinemas theater expansion. The overall plan for the expansion was pre-approved by the City Council before the matter was sent to the HPC for review.

"– Demolition of the historic brick façade at DC Cobbs on Main St. despite of the unanimous recommendation of the HPC to preserve the brick and keep it out of a landfill. This item appeared on a City Council agenda as an appeal of the HPC decision prior to the commission ever reviewing the project or making a decision.

"– Tabling the unanimous HPC landmark recommendation for Grace Hall on the Woodstock Christian Life Services campus and approval of its demolition. The council chose to view this solely as a property rights issue while ignoring, among other considerations, the environmental impact of demolition and hazardous waste removal on the community. The 13+ month efforts of the HPC, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and Landmarks Illinois demonstrating an adaptive reuse plan for the building was possible for WCLS’ intended purpose, but were never fully explored by WCLS per the council's directive.

"These actions have called into question the 1996 Woodstock Historic Preservation Ordinance, the design guidelines for the historic district and the future of historic preservation efforts in Woodstock including the environmental benefits. For these reasons the HPC requested a joint meeting with the Woodstock City Council to address the commission’s concerns. The commission would like to hear directly from the council its understanding of historic preservation and its role in their vision for Woodstock.

"The meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 14 at 7pm in city council chambers at 121 W. Calhoun St. and is open to the public."

HPC shocked at City Council's ploy

A very unusual thing happened at tonight's meeting of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission.

The three members present on the HPC, Allen Stebbins, Bev Ganschow and Don Frick, were informed about an item on tomorrow night's agenda of the City Council. Just a little background first.

On tonight's HPC agenda the only item was consideration of the opening windows on the front of the D.C. Cobbs remodel. Windows will open inward and fold flat against an interior wall, allowing diners to share tidbits from their plates with passersby and allowing pedestrians to catch the aromas from the meals being served in the restaurant. So, would the HPC vote in favor of the request from the restaurant or would the HPC deny the request or table it?

Now get this! On tomorrow night's City Council agenda is an appeal of tonight's decision on the D.C. Cobbs request!

So! The HPC had not even acted, and already the City Council is going to consider an appeal of the HPC decision, should the HPC make one.

Some way to run a City, eh? Here we have an Historic Preservation Committee, a group of resident volunteers whose purpose it is to safeguard our Square, historic district and landmarks (and buildings that have been nominated for landmark status!) that hasn't even made a decision, and the City Council is ready to run right over them, if they don't make the "right" decision.

I can assure you that the three HPC members present tonight are extremely upset with Mayor Sager over a deal that he apparently entered into with the owner of D.C. Cobbs.

Poor Nancy Baker got stuck with trying to answer a question from Chairman Stebbins about how such an item even got onto the Agenda for tomorrow night's City Council meeting. As she searched for the right, "politically correct" answer, I asked her how much longer she hoped to work for the City.

If I understood her correctly, what she said was that the Agenda item appears on the Agenda at the request of Tim Clifton, the City Manager, based on a request of Mayor Sager that followed his meeting with Dan Hart.

What were some of the comments tonight?

There is an "...incredibly disturbing pattern..."
The "process (of the HPC) is being politicized."
That "it is okay to abridge the process."
"Does not lend import to our positions as Commissioners."
"The beginnings of a very disturbing pattern."
That "the City Council has circumvented the entire historic preservation ordinance in the Grace Hall matter."
The City's pattern negates the (HP) Commission.

I raised the issue of what action the HPC was prepared to take as soon as WCLS dropped an application for the first building permit on a desk at City Hall. It turns out that the HPC is not prepared to take any action.

What this means, in the absence of a legal expert with very sharp teeth, WCLS is likely to gain its first building permit, after which it can be expected to immediately apply for a demolition permit. The City has said it is willing to inform Dan Lemanski and me, when the building permit in the South Phase arrives at City Hall. Will it?

But wait! Help may be on the way. Attorneys are examining the legal opinion given to the City and whether the City Council properly approved the WCLS petition for the amended special use permit.

Attorneys for certain historic preservation agencies and at least one private attorney, an expert in the real estate field and familiar with historic preservation, and a historic preservation architect are carefully investigating Illinois law. And steps are underway to pounce, if it appears the City is within days of issuing a demolition permit. Necessary court papers to halt demolition can be filed before the wrecking ball swings.

Will WCLS have the guts to swing that ball, anyway?

It's too late to get a court's nod after Grace Hall is reduced to a pile of bricks. One comment tonight was that it would be a disaster for WCLS if it demolishes Grace Hall.

Finally, people in Woodstock are coming out of the woodwork and taking an interest in Grace Hall. It is not too late!!! Contact the mayor and each member of the City Council. Do it now!

Rescue of Grace Hall?

A Letter to the Editor of the Northwest Herald today poses an interesting concept for the future of Grace Hall.

Jane Collins of Woodstock wrote that Dorr Township might pull the $2,750,000 from its kitty and create a town hall and community center in Grace Hall. Now this is thinking "outside the box."

You can read her full letter here: www.nwherald.com/articles/2009/05/06/r_9zvw00xiqgum7gpwk58zda/

It's the seed of a good idea. There does need to be a proper balance between preservation of a historic building (about which the Woodstock City Council is still dancing around) and the property rights of the owner, Woodstock Christian Life Services. Her letter shows some definite creative thinking.

Should Dorr Township consider this? Its next Township meeting is Tuesday, May 12, 7:30PM, at the Township offices, 140 Newell St., Woodstock. Drop by their website at www.dorrtownship.com/

Somewhere, somehow, there is a solution to keeping this beautiful building where it is AND WCLS business interests, although it's not the business of the City of Woodstock whether WCLS stays in business. Remember? It's a private business. A not-for-profit business, but a business. Yes, it does good deeds, and it's a business. Yes, it serves an important segment of the community, and it's a business. And yes, its employees like it a lot, and it's a business.

And it has a lot of competition right now, with the likely project in Woodstock at Calhoun and Tryon Streets and the proposal to convert Resurrection Center to a retirement center.

The Woodstock City Council has the obligation to stop malingering on the decision to landmark the building. The mayor's ploy to delay a vote on landmark status at the April 21st City Council meeting has not been explained. Why did not even one of the other six members of the Council object to his motion to table the landmark recommendation by the Historic Preservation Commission (way back in November 2008) to "time indefinite" (one of his favorite expressions which, with all due respect to WCLS, could mean, in this case, until "that hot place down south" freezes over).

Who Runs Woodstock?

If you think the People run Woodstock, think again. I'm not even sure that the City Council runs Woodstock, after tonight's Historic Preservation Commission public hearing on an application for Landmark status for Grace Hall. Just in case you don't want to read all of what follows (and you'll miss the juicy part), the HPC voted unanimously to recommend Landmark status to the City Council.

(click on photo to enlarge it; then hit the Back button on your browser.)

Tonight's public hearing, a continuation of the October 6th false start, got underway with an immediate Motion by Woodstock Christian Life Services (WCLS) that Chairman Tim Art arbitrarily decided wasn't going to be considered. I saw a copy of it but returned it and will have to get a copy tomorrow.

Caryl Lemanski gave a nice recital of the history of Grace Hall and three of its students who went on to fame and, I hope, fortune. Orson Welles, Robert R. Wilson and Alan Breed, inventor of the automotive airbag. Chairman Art got impatient before Caryl finished and cut her off (just before she finished).

Allen Stebbins and other members of the HPC asked probing questions about whether WCLS had explored options for adaptive re-use of the property. It's clear to many that WCLS wants Grace Hall gone.

Questions arose about the protection of Landmark status in view of the City Council's decision on October 6 to approve the special use permit of WCLS, including demotion of Grace Hall. If the City Council supports the HPC recommendation, that could slow down demolition.

NO ATTORNEY FOR THE HPC WAS PRESENT TONIGHT. Whoa! Wait just a minute! Last month a junior associate of the City Attorney's office was present at the HPC meeting with "marching orders" from Rich Flood to allow the public hearing to be continued. The City knew that Attorney Mark Gummerson represents WCLS. So the City Attorney sent a "Yes" man to the HPC meeting. When I suggested to the City Council on October 7 that a senior partner should have been at the HPC meeting, the Mayor delivered a tongue-lashing. Oh, me; oh, my.

Talk about a set-up! The young attorney came with his instructions; what else could he do? Finding a new job is probably not easy, even for a young attorney. So the HPC rolled over and agreed with the WCLS request to continue the public hearing for a month. And what happened the very next night? The City Council approved the WCLS plan!

So tonight, when Chairman Tim Art referred to the Mayor's statement last month that he was following Due Process, all the flags in my pocket flew down on the field!

I had not intended to speak tonight, but I told the HPC that every time I drive past Grace Hall, I now admire that grand, old building. Personally, I don't want to see the "place where Grace Hall used to be." I cannot imagine that a bunch of small duplexes can have higher financial value for WCLS than a grand building renovated into condominiums, with the exterior maintained as a showplace in Woodstock.

WCLS' position is against a museum. Who do they think wants a museum? They seem worried about someone's "taking their building without compensating them." Wrong. No one wants to "take" their building. Keep it. Keep it nice. Threatening to let it fall into disrepair? That doesn't hold any water in my bucket!

On October 7 City Council Ralph Webster made a motion that was quite general in terms. See Page 11 of the October 7, 2008, City Council Minutes online at http://www.woodstockil.gov/

Now, here's the kicker. Wait until you see the THREE-page proposed Ordinance concocted by the City Attorney's office and mailed to Dan and Caryl Lemanski and Mark Gummerson on October 17. Be sure to take your blood pressure meds before starting to read it.

After six WHEREAS's and some other legalese, the City Attorney has crafted out of thin air some conditions that guarantee the demolition of Grace Hall. These conditions were not set out by the City Council. Where did they come from?

Because I have not agreed with quite a number of positions taken by the City Attorney's office, I jumped to the early, and probably erroneous, conclusion that the City Attorney had come up with the ideas for the Ordinance. Upon further thought, I believe that he is probably just following orders. Where do such orders come from? If I had to guess between the City Manager and the Mayor, I'd guess the latter. After all, the City Manager gets to keep his job just about as long as the Mayor is happy with him.

Why is this the kicker? Because the main condition was NOT discussed by the City Council and ordered to be scribed by the City Attorney? Get this! If the Lemanskis "fail to fulfill any (emphasis added) of their obligations, demolition and construction may commence April 30, 2009."

One of their obligations is: "The Lemanskis shall produce a contract for the purchase of Grace Hall and its removal from its current location. Petitioner (WCLS) shall negotiate any such contract in good faith. The contract must be presented to the City by April 6, 2009 for consideration at the April 21, 2009 meeting of the City Council. Closing on the contract and removal of Grace Hall must be scheduled for no later than May 21, 2009."

That is NOT what the City Council agreed to on October 7. Just how long ago did the Mayor and City Council decide to banish Grace Hall from Route 47? Why do they all use such nice words, while they are signing their names to the destruction of Grace Hall?

Maybe at the next retreat, they should re-think the City's Motto: "True to its past - confident of its future."

Next time you drive by the Opera House, just picture a parking structure in your mind. Except for some interested Woodstock residents, that's what would be there today.

Plan Ahead - Nov. 10, 7:00PM

No, it's not a late Election Night party. It's the continued public hearing on the Landmark status for Grace Hall.

The Historic Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, November 10, at 7:00PM in the City Council chambers to hear Caryl Roskie Lemanski's petition for local landmark status for Grace Hall, currently used as the administrative offices of Woodstock Christian Life Services.

If you would like to understand better how government works (or is supposed to work), if you just have an interest in a grand old building, or if you just like a good fight, be there.

Some may considerable the issue dead in the water, since the City Council approved the WCLS project, including the demolition of Grace Hall (but with a seven-month stay of execution). Others are not willing to write it off, just because the City Council said, "Count to seven (months) before you tear it down."

Put it on your calendar now. Call your friends. Forward this to others by clicking on the little envelope below the article. Go and look at Grace Hall. Walk around it. Learn about it.

See you at the hearing.

The Public Hearing - - - that wasn't

Wish I'd been a fly on the wall just before the beginning of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting today. The commissioners were huddled at the front of the city council chambers for 10-15 minutes, during which time the attorney from the City Attorney's office joined them. Almost looked like a "meeting", but the meeting had not yet been called to order.

When the meeting did start, it quickly moved to the Grace Hall issue. Quite a number of Woodstock residents were gathered for the announced Public Hearing, so no one commented during the Public Comment portion of the meeting, because any comments on an agenda item are to be held for the comment period for that item.

The Petitioner for the Landmark status of Grace Hall is Caryl Lemanski. The Objector is Woodstock Christian Life Services, which is the owner of Grace Hall and which is represented by attorney Mark Gummerson.

Commission Chairman Tim Art attempted to explain how the public hearing would be conducted. He had some difficulty in gathering the right words and spoke them hesitantly and unsurely.

When he was about ready to open the Public Hearing on the Grace Hall property, attorney Gummerson asked to address the Commission before the Public Hearing was opened, and he was allowed to do so.

Gummerson stated that the owner of the property objected to the request for Landmark status and would fight it. To make a long story short, he waved Constitutional Law flags in front of the faces of the Commissioners; the clear inference was that, if the Commission proceeded, they could expect to get sued on Constitutional grounds.

He said firmly and forcefully that the Commisssion was (only) authorized by City ordinance, but his position was supported by State and Federal laws. Sort of, if they dared to go forward, look out!

Gummerson claimed he hadn't had time to prepare to cross-examine anyone who testified before the Commission. I was going to laugh out loud. The day that Mark Gummerson is not ready to cross-examine someone hasn't yet arrived. He could wake up from a sound sleep and be ready for cross-examination. He is a first-class attorney, with the skill, knowledge and experience to tear anyone to shreds on a moment's notice. In court, of course.

I have said for the 12 years I've lived in Woodstock, "If you ever need a killer-shark attorney, get Mark Gummerson (if you can afford him)."

Gummerson stood at the podium after making his forceful statements, almost daring the Commission not to agree with him. The Chairman never thanked him for his comments or directed him to take his seat. It was almost like Gummerson took over the meeting.

And it worked.

Commissioner Merida Woods spoke directly to Gummerson and stated a position against his. Commissioner Stebbins concurred with Merida. I could not believe that the Commissioners did not understand or challenge his gambit. And then vote down or pass on his Motion.

When I attempted to speak to the issue of delaying the public hearing, the Chairman would not recognize me, because I was not the Petitioner.

Gummerson served his clients well, which is exactly what a good attorney should do. The Commission agreed to postpone the public hearing for a month.

When the City first received Gummerson's objection to the Petition, it should have lined up the "heaviest", most-experienced attorney from the City Attorney's office. The City Manager should have seen that the Historic Preservation Commission would have strong legal representation. Gummerson basically provided the legal advice for the Commission and the Commission, not knowing whether it was the the right advice for them, accepted it.

The fly in the ointment? The City Council's Agenda for tomorrow night includes the Special Use Permit that Woodstock Christian Life Services wants.

My guess is that the City Council will wither under Mark Gummerson's attack tomorrow night and approve the Special Use Permit, including the demolition of Grace Hall.

And a month from now, when the public hearing is held? Woodstock Christian Life Services and Mark Gummerson won't even bother to show up.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT

To be or not to be - a landmark?

Picture an acre of ground on North Seminary in Woodstock. Imagine a lot that is 43,560 square feet. An area that is 208 feet by 208 feet. That's 2/3 of a football field on each side.

About a mile from downtown Woodstock. About a mile from the County's headquarters.

What's it worth? $325,000? $7.46/sq. ft.?

Now put a 7,300 sq. ft. building on it. Not new, but in usable condition. In fact, in business use right now. Still $325,000 - total?

Oh, wait. You can buy the building for $1.00. It's for sale. Really? Is there a sign out front? I didn't see one, last time I drove by.

The catch? You have to move the building. How much would Woodstock Christian Life Services pay you to move the building? Maybe a sign out front should read, "For Sale. Nice brick building. Will pay you $200,000. Take it. You can't leave it."

Is there some relationship between the owner's beating a quick path back to the City Council to try again to get its project approved (including demolition of Grace Hall) and this Monday night's meeting of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission?

Will the City Council have the "intestinal fortitude" to postpone further consideration of the WCLS Project, pending testimony, investigation, review and any recommendation of this Commission?

Or will it decide that a City Commission, staffed by volunteer residents handpicked by (guess who? - the City!), is merely a figurehead?

Who are the members of this Commission:

Tim Art, Chairman
Don Frick
Beverly Ganschow
Merida Johns
Lucia Matlock
Allen Stebbins
Erica Wilson

We have numerous commissions in Woodstock. If this Commission decides on Monday night to take up serious consideration of designating Grace Hall as a landmark, the City Council must defer any decision on demolition until receiving the final report from the Historic Preservation Commission.