Home’s demolition splits Janesville Historic Commission
Photo
The foundation of an historic home that was demolished in the 100 block of E. Holmes Street in Janesville.
Photo
Gale S. Price
JANESVILLE — The recent demolition of 126-year-old house in the Courthouse Hill Historic District has some wondering how the home could have been torn down just months after the city strengthened its preservation ordinance.
It was the first demolition in the district in 12 years, said Gale Price of the city’s planning department, and the demolition likely will change the way the Janesville Historic Commission does business.
“As we have more foreclosures and the opportunity provides itself for people to tear down houses in the historic district, we need to have procedures in place that are going to help the members in that role and make the decision easier,” Price said.
The commission March 14 voted 4-3 to give Bob Coon permission to tear down the home at 115 E. Holmes St.
At least one commission member called the eventual decision “wrenching.”
The home east of the Hedberg Public Library was listed as a contributing structure in the historic district. Contributing structures are defined as being at least 50 years old and having exterior architectural or cultural significance.
Commission members voted after they discovered Coon already had ripped out the floors, cabinets and light fixtures and taken off some siding. Commission rules, however, dictate that the commission consider only the exteriors of historic homes when making decisions.
The commission recently was given more power to deny or approve projects. Previously, it could only delay projects for six months.
Under the new ordinance, a property owner can appeal any commission decision to the plan commission and then the city council.
In Coon’s case, a city clerk erred by not putting the demolition on the historic commission agenda. She sent a notice to the state historical society, which waived a required 30-day waiting period during which it can take pictures. The worker then told Coon he had received state approval, even though the state does not review or approve local demolitions.
Price issued a stop order when he discovered Coon was doing demolition without a hearing before the local historic commission and without a demolition permit.
Commission members disagreed whether the home was too far gone to be rehabbed.
Coon said the electrical system needed replacement and that few of the home’s original architectural features remained. He estimated it would cost $250,000 to make the home habitable.
The home was in foreclosure when Coon bought it for $45,000 with the intention to tear it down. Coon said he told commission members he refused to improve the property if he couldn’t get a demolition permit, “so it would sit there and be a real eyesore. Nobody could rent it in the condition it was.”
Coon, who lives adjacent to the site, said he’d been unhappy with renters in the house and didn’t like that the home had an easement across his property. He said the demolition improves the neighborhood and reduces density.
Commission member Tim Maahs voted against the demolition.
“I felt that the property had redeeming qualities that way outweighed the non-redeemable qualities,” he said.
Maahs said this is the second time Coon has torn down a home adjacent to his property, so Coon must know how the overlay district operates.
“In these older neighborhoods, when you start tearing down the house and leaving empty lots—especially in areas like this where the hillside is terraced to accommodate the homes—the rhythm of the neighborhood has been destroyed,” Maahs said.
Bob Kimball, a general contractor, voted to tear the house down. He and another commissioner toured the property.
“There was no way of putting it back as a historic house,” he said.
Kimball said he might have voted differently if Coon hadn’t already started demolition. The cupboards and flooring were gone. Coon told commission members that two columns from the porch already had been installed on the porch of a Main Street house, Kimball said.
“It shouldn’t have gotten that far, demolition wise, by the time it got to the historic commission. I hope this doesn’t happen again.”
Price said the city would install safeguards to flag any requests for demolition permits in historic districts. The commission in the future will review those requests before the information is sent to the state, he said.
Because commission members struggled with what their role should be concerning proposed demolitions, Price said he is considering having staff make recommendations to advise the commission, based on planning principles and experience.
“When you’re dealing with a complete teardown and the implications on the urban environment, I think that’s a significant enough—drastic-enough occurrence—that it’s only fair for staff to put some time into an actual recommendation,” Price said.
Price said he probably would have recommended against tearing down the structure.
“It was clearly a building that didn’t have a structural defect. Those homes are quite possible to preserve. There was certainly some architectural significance to the main portion of the house.”
Dan Atwood, commission chairman, said a staff recommendation would have been welcomed.
Atwood wasn’t sure whether the house had any remaining historic value by the time Coon purchased it, and he knew Coon would take care of the property because he is a fastidious homeowner. Atwood also knew that Coon would not make the building habitable, so it would remain an eyesore.
Still, Atwood voted against the demolition because he wanted to send a message that demolitions are frowned upon.
“I’m sorry we ever had to get into it,” Atwood said. “It was a wrenching thing.”
Apr 28, 2011 at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
mskari- some of these homes were split up long, long.long ago when the wife didn't work and something happened to the husband. They couldn't afford the house w/o adding tenats. I was surprised to know of this. Knowing it wasn't just the slum lords of the later years doing this.
I agree about the section 8 stuff. It is crap that they get the rent, the home suffers because MOST of these people don't care and the owner doesn't care either about MOST of the time losers and antics going on all the time.
Apr 22, 2011 at 5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
gma"I know most people have no respect for Briarmoon, but the city insisted on tearing down her carriage house, illegally, in my mind."
WRONG- they told her to fix it, she wouldn't, they then said we will tear down the crap, then she fixed it WITH OUT proper permits so then they tore down the fixed one- not built properly? you think?
Apr 20, 2011 at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mr. Coon did the right thing based on facts.
Apr 19, 2011 at 8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yeah, I was sarcastic. My point is that I am sure the house was not considered historic 100 years ago and nothing special happened there in its existence. One Hundred years from now people will want to save subdivisions of mcmansions as historic symbols of 1990's and 2000's excess.
Apr 19, 2011 at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Grumpy Old Man I hope you were being sarcastic with your comment. Otherwise, it is quite an idiodic comment to make. Sure lots of constriction jobs, but also lots of natural resources being used up not to mention land fills being even more full.
Apr 19, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
if they want them kept in tact , then let them buy the houses , they will have total control that way. history s a good thing , but sometimes a picture says a thousand words. and people just need to let go , at some point the cost and upkeep outweigh the advantage of keeping these houses.
Apr 19, 2011 at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstwndrn, the county has constructed three courthouses on Courthouse Hill. The second one was torn down in the 1950s, before there was an historic district (or even a National Register).
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/full...
.
bucky7355, the National Register exists so that we can set aside certain buildings and areas as having more historic value than others. Buildings that do not receive designation have no special rules. But in this case the local community, the State of Wisconsin, and the Federal government all agreed that the buildings within the Courthouse Hill Historic District had special qualities for which they deserved special protection, particularly as a grouping of architecturally similar properties whose exteriors had maintained their nineteenth-century appearance despite modernization.
.
MsKari, tenants only abuse buildings whose landlords permit it. In most cases simple maintenance is skimped on and the landlord is clearly following a strategy of extracting rent from the building without keeping it up. That, sadly, is why we do need regulation of landlords in Janesville. I think you do understand this. But this does not mean that all the buildings on Main Street are remotely in need of demolition. In many cases a coat of paint is all they need -- as you say, they "wouldn't look so bad". Sadly, it looks like the Holmes Street property still had a paint scheme from fairly recent single-family ownership, which is a big reason that I doubt the Coon claim of how bad it was inside.
.
I don't know why you're so eager to just demolish them, though. There is a three-unit conversion in the Fourth Ward that was purchased recently and just ripping the asphalt siding off showed the original wood clapboard still intact and relatively good condition. With another year or two of work that property should be ready for the Tour of Homes. That is a VERY achievable goal for almost every property in the district, on Main Street, or even in the Fourth Ward and Look West neighborhoods. All it really takes is an owner who can see the potential underneath the butchering. In some rare cases, such as Case Feed or the two multi-units on the E. Court hill that were razed in recent years, there may just be no saving them, but mostly it's just a case of the right person not finding the property yet.
.
Again, I wonder why Coon wants to live in an historic district but doesn't want any historic houses right next to him. It sounds like this is a person who wants a farmhouse or a McMansion in a rural sprawl area. Leave the historic buildings alone for the people who do want to keep them. If anything, use the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.
Apr 19, 2011 at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
It wasn't always his property. He has lived in the district for a long time, and he purchased the property next to his--where he KNOWS the rules regarding the historic district regarding changes to the exterior of the house and or tear-down. It was 'too far gone' because he had a hand in making it so...
Apr 19, 2011 at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Just because you can...Doesn't mean you should.
Apr 19, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
It was his property, so let him do what he wants with the house. Government regulation is terrible on the Federal level, State level, and this local example.
Apr 19, 2011 at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
The "carriage barn" (shack) was torn down legally.
She says stuff like:
--
The only reason the government is against lead paint is because the government can't see through lead when it tries to spy on you by looking through the walls of your house.
Half the JVL police department should be fired and that half made up by arming citizens.
The Fourth Ward should secede from the city.
--
These are the sorts of things she says when she "speaks out."
Apr 19, 2011 at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Historic or not when these houses are so far gone and have been severly abused by TENANTS they need to go. History is one thing but ugly is another. People buy these big homes and split them into several apartments and rent them to just anybody or get them approved for section 8 housing. Once that is done the place is doomed to being abused and destroyed. Main street is a prime example of this. Yes these places need to be torn down. Get on the owners to keep the property, atleast on the outside maintained and cleaned up and they wouldn't look so bad. We have a beautiful city here and it should not be let get into a nasty mess because bleeding hearts want these delapated houses saved for history. They are beyond help so let them go.
Apr 19, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
I was just wondering...what ever happened to the historic courthouse in the Courthouse Hill Historic District?
Apr 19, 2011 at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
I am not for or against what Coon did, but I will say by tearing down that house the empty lot looks very out of place and now we see more eye sores.
Apr 19, 2011 at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think it was fine what Mr Coon did with the property next to his. If you are so concerned why not pony up and buy the property yourself and make all of the needed renovations. It sounds like the home was not really safe to be living in anyway with the needed electrical improvements. I think some of the same people that are upset with the demolition would have also been upset had Mr. Coon bought the property and rented it back out only to have a terrible electrical fire. It's not Mr. Coon's fault the home was in disrepair, he saw an opportunity to better his investment that he has taken care of all along. If you don't like it, buy the property yourself and spend the money needed to make all of the renovations. If you are not willing to do that, don't force it on anyone else. Sometimes common sense needs to be applied.
Apr 19, 2011 at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
We should tear down all houses after 50 years so they don't have a chance to get historic. Then we won't have to go through all this drama. And think of all the construction jobs. I don't know the particulars on this house, but just because something is old doesn't mean it's always worth saving. The phrase "they don't build them like they used to " sometimes means they were built poorly.
Apr 19, 2011 at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Janesvillean--excellent post.
Apr 19, 2011 at 12:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
greatidea, I have to go with MikeF on this one -- Coon did not use conciliatory language or indicate that he was open to suggestions or options. Whatever else he has done to bolster a reputation in your eyes as a preservationist has been eviscerated by this monstrosity. To use a PG rated phrase, don't drool on my shirt and tell me it's raining.
.
The interiors were cut up. We know that happens to older homes. The interiors, however, are not the concern of the historic district /per se/ and there is no requirement that the home be restored to its 19th century condition, only that it be renovated in a way that demonstrates sensitivity to the surrounding district. Many historic homes are renovated by their owners from a multi-family condition over a period of literally decades and the results can often be seen on the Tour of Homes. Other times the interior is gutted and a renovation looks more like the Hayes Block, with an exterior that is largely intact and an interior that is essentially modern.
.
It can be difficult to finance renovations, but here again the historic district actually comes to the rescue, making the home eligible for tax credits from the US and Wisconsin and for block grant monies administered by the city. For anyone who cares about the downtown historic district, these would be attractive options. I am really unclear on why someone would want to own a home there and destroy the district that it is in, but that is exactly what Coon has done -- twice. Twice!
.
Sadly, there are many who do not understand, and that obviously includes most of the posters on Gazettextra. Fortunately, we know that they do not represent our city, because the people who do serve us are smart enough to see the importance and value of our historic districts and their protection. Contrary to opinions expressed below, homes in intact historic districts appreciate in value more than homes that stand by themselves surrounded by acres of nothing.
.
Coon really should be ashamed of what he's done here, and his neighbors in the historic district would be well to express their distaste for his actions. He has hurt their property values in the process of supposedly protecting his own.
Apr 18, 2011 at 11:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Coon said he told commission members he refused to improve the property if he couldn’t get a demolition permit, “so it would sit there and be a real eyesore. Nobody could rent it in the condition it was.”"
Yep, sounds like someone who cared for the historical aspects and is "tenacious in saving and restoring anything old."
Apr 18, 2011 at 11:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
This house was too far gone before anything was removed by Mr. Coon. The walls inside had been torn out and moved around to where the inside layout did not make sense. Areas of the original flooring were gone before Mr. Coon did anything. The trim and doors were gone in areas and some of the doors had been cut down drastically. Staircases had been rerouted and closed up. The wiring was a patchwork of code violations and any outside modifications that were done were so poorly executed that it was amazing that anyone would of thought of doing it that way. Mr. Coon is tenacious in saving and restoring anything old and that is why he salvaged what he could to be recycled in other homes. He did so without the concern of making any money. He gave things away too so others could enjoy the fragments left of this vintage house. This house had no great historical figure that lived there or was on the location of any great historical event. Those would have been the only considerations I would have given pause to in the tearing down of this building. Mr. Coon exercised sound judgment based on his years of hands on experience in the field the construction and restoring of historical structures. It was a tough decision, but Mr. Coon had the strength and wisdom to make it. This removal has given a new breathe of fresh air to the historical district, if we would just slow down and take in a deep breath while reflecting on the facts.
Apr 18, 2011 at 9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
If I had the money to do it, I'd love to buy older homes that have not been taken care of and tear them down. It makes downtown Janesville look trashy and invites types of people that bring trouble with them. I frequently drive past the homes on Main Street to and from work and it seems more than half are slums and the police are always at someone's residence. History is nice but sometimes you need to detach yourself and move on!
Apr 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
I know most people have no respect for Briarmoon, but the city insisted on tearing down her carriage house, illegally, in my mind.
Patriot said "The property owner should be the sole judge of what to do with ones property." And I do agree with this statement. But it should work both ways.
And before any of you rant about me being on the "Briarmoon train", I don't even know the woman.
Apr 18, 2011 at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
The owner of the Lovejoy house is a fraud and scam artist... Any fine that they can stick him with is good.
Apr 18, 2011 at 5:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
He should be FINED. They fined the owner of the Lovejoy House, so why should this be different.
Apr 18, 2011 at 5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
The picture on the city web site shows a very well kept house.Was this really the reason for tearing down the house,too much to fix before or after the inside was gutted? I do know Bob is one that loves old homes in general,but not sure I agree with what happened to this house.
Apr 18, 2011 at 4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm glad they let him tear down that house, It makes the ones around it so much nicer. Thats one of the reasons not many wealthy folks are willing to buy and fix those old beautiful historical houses up there, There is no good lot around them. Some have no garage. Imagine what a house like those would be like with an acre or a few around them. Im not saying rip em all down, but by removing some of the decrepit ones, the whole area will profit from the open space.
History must be preserved, but lets not let the Janesville Historic Commission get too much power over homeowner and thier properties.
Apr 18, 2011 at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
One for the landowner, hooray.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.