Tinley Park officials once thought their historic preservation code would protect one of the community’s notable buildings.
But in 2003, new owners began a renovation of the Bremen Cash Store, which had belonged to the village’s first mayor. Workers removed the building’s signature oak pillars — against the wishes of the Tinley Park Preservation Commission. When a delay in renovation compromised the building’s structure, it was demolished in 2008.
“In the end, there’s not much to stop someone from doing what they want,” said Brad Bettenhausen, director of the Tinley Park Historical Society.
Preservation laws are stronger elsewhere across the suburbs, illustrating the wide range of ways that communities choose to protect their past. North suburban Highland Park, for example, has stringent rules that allow anyone to nominate a property for historic designation — whether the property owner wants that or not. In northwest suburban Arlington Heights, however, officials dropped the idea of a preservation ordinance because it seemed too expensive to enforce.
Across the suburbs, most communities fall somewhere between those extremes, depending on interest among residents and other concerns. Experts say that in many cases, the laws are no match for neglect, lack of financing and indifferent property owners. Buildings considered notable, such as the Bremen Cash Store, are often lost.
Historic preservation is a balance between preserving a community’s past and allowing property owners to do what they want with their buildings, according to Bonnie McDonald, president of the statewide preservation group Landmarks Illinois.
“Very few ordinances have the ability for an individual property to be preserved without the owner’s consent,” McDonald said.
McDonald said the so-called owner consent clause often determines whether a historic preservation ordinance is approved. It prevents local government from placing too many restrictions on private property, she said.
Sweeping alterations and neglect often influence whether a building is worth calling it a landmark, McDonald said. Municipal finances can also play a role — staff positions that deal with historic preservation are often among the first cut to balance budgets. McDonald said the age of a community often drives its interest in preservation. For many, “historic” means pre-World War II. In suburbs that developed after the war, people are just beginning to view buildings from the mid-20th century as historic, McDonald said.
Here’s a look at how four communities handle preservation.
Highland Park
With more than 120 locally-designated landmarks, some in historic districts, Highland Park has one of the more robust preservation programs in the Chicago area. The city’s historic preservation ordinance is nearly 30 years old. Amendments in 2005 set it apart from similar laws, said Michael Blue, the city’s director of community development.
Those amendments stripped the ordinance of its owner consent provision. Although the bar for a property to be designated a landmark without owner consent is high, the provision can help protect historic buildings.
The ordinance recently got under the skin of residents seeking to demolish their home so a new one could be built.
Homeowners Jeff and Cidney Golman recently applied for a demolition permit on behalf of Scott Canel, the prospective buyer of their 1929 house. But Highland Park’s ordinance requires many older homes to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission before they are razed.
In the Golmans’ case, the commission found their home historically significant and placed a one-year delay on demolition. The Golmans and Canel appealed the delay to the City Council, but the council members upheld it.
“This is America, and we should be able to do and build as we see fit on our property as long as it doesn’t interfere with our neighbors,” Cidney Golman told the council during the appeal, to applause from the audience.
Jean Sogin, chairwoman of the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission, said such a delay is intended to allow time to find a buyer interested in preserving the building or to seek landmark status. Many times, though, property owners simply wait out the delay and raze the building anyway, she said.
Orland Park
The village created the Old Orland Historic District in 1985 with 35 structures designated as local landmarks, said village planner Terry Pittos. But the preservation ordinance lacked oversights. Some buildings were demolished, others were altered, and the number of landmarks dropped to 16.
“Even though there was a robust preservation effort happening in the village, the review process didn’t really catch all the changes that were happening to the buildings,” Pittos said.
The village tightened its landmark laws in 2005 and 2008. Now, even minor changes to landmarks require a lengthy review process and Village Board approval.
Naperville
Historic properties are protected by a preservation ordinance that dates to 1984 and provides guidelines for demolition or alterations to 322 properties in the Historic District and three properties that are individually landmarked.
“Because Naperville has such a rich and extensive history that is often celebrated and cherished today, it was important for community members to preserve some of that natural history by protecting properties that presented historical significance in Naperville,” community planner Ying Liu said via email.
More Top Picks Best Tailgating Coolers
However, revisions in recent years have created more of a partnership between the city and owners than a top-down approach, according to Liu.
Property owners still need to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the city in order to make certain changes and face fines if they do not comply, but Liu said the revised ordinance is more user friendly.
Downers Grove
Residents helped spur preservation efforts in their town in recent years. The building boom of the mid-2000s led to the loss of older homes in the community, and the trend was inching closer to some structures people did not want demolished.
For example, the home of Rev. Orange Lyman, one of the village’s founding fathers, was nearly demolished in 2004 until nearly 1,900 residents signed a petition, urging the village and the park district to preserve the home and enact tighter controls to protect similar structures in the community.
In 2007, Downers Grove established a preservation ordinance that allows property owners to nominate their buildings for landmark status.
“It’s really been provided to the residents as a tool or avenue for residents to protect their neighborhoods,” said village planning manager Jeff O’Brien.
One of those homes is the two-story, Gothic Revival house at 5256 Carpenter St., which was the lifelong home to Donald Drew, a well-known composer in the village.
Susan Estall filed the paperwork on behalf of Drew’s sister, Millie, who lived in the home until recently.
“I knew she didn’t want to see her house torn down,” said Estall.
Tribune reporters Andy Grimm, Jonathan Bullington, John P. Huston, Sally Ho, Melissa Jenco, Michelle Manchir, Dawn Rhodes, Ashley Rueff and Kate Thayer, and freelancer writer Kenneth Manson contributed.