The home at 430 S. Taylor Ave. in Oak Park has had a checkered past.
In 2005, a previous owner was cited and fined for hosting a rowdy party of 60 to 150 teens. There were reports of shots fired on the block.
At a Feb. 8 public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission, owner Anthony Garland said that the basement was full of garbage, and the home had possibly been inhabited by squatters during the several years that it was vacant before he purchased the house in March 2023.
The home is part of the Ridgeland-Oak Park Historic District and has a rich architectural past. Built in 1908 at $3,000 by J.W. Farr as his personal residence, the home had all the hallmarks of a carefully crafted early-20th century home. Art glass windows, a tiled roof and detailed plasterwork spoke to Farr’s career as a builder and plaster contractor.
Garland purchased the home for $290,000, with plans to clean the house, sand the floors and remodel the kitchen to raise his family in the same village where he grew up.
On June 7, those plans went up in smoke — literally — when the house caught on fire. The fire left a hole in the home’s roof and significant damage on the interior.
Craig Failor, village planner and planning and urban design manager for the Village of Oak Park, said that Garland originally sought a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission to demolish the house.
Because the house is in an historic district, the HPC has to weigh any request for demolition. Failor said that because the house was deemed a contributing structure to the historic district by the state, the HPC could not change that designation, and had to vote to deny the certificate of appropriateness.
On Feb. 8, Garland again appeared before the HPC, this time asking for a Certificate of Economic Hardship to permit demolition. The HPC has the authority to grant these based on village architectural review guidelines. They say in part:
“The Commission shall issue a certificate of economic hardship only if the Commission finds that the subject property cannot be put to any reasonably beneficial use or that the owner/applicant will suffer a substantial economic loss thereon without the alteration, construction, relocation, removal or demolition being sought by the owner/applicant and that the owner/applicant is not responsible in any way for the hardship from which he or she is seeking relief. The factors to be considered by the Commission and the Village Board on the issue of economic hardship shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. A substantial decrease in the fair market value of the property as a result of the denial of the certificate of appropriateness;
2. A substantial decrease in the pretax or after-tax return to owners of record or other investors in the property as a result of the denial of the certificate of appropriateness;
3. The cost of the proposed construction, alteration, relocation or demolition, and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply with the recommendations of the Commission for changes necessary for the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness;
4. The structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation;
5. The economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure or improvement on the property in the case of a proposed demolition.
6. The owner/applicant’s purchase of the subject property after the enactment of the relevant provisions of this Article without making said purchase contingent upon the owner/applicant first obtaining necessary Board and/or Commission approvals under this Article shall be deemed to be conclusive evidence of the fact that the applicant is responsible for the applicant’s own economic hardship, if any.”
At the Feb. 8 public hearing, Susie Trexler, Oak Park Urban Planner in Historic Preservation, summarized the evidence provided by the homeowner, which included a structural engineer’s evaluation; a comparative market analysis from a real estate professional stating that the value of the property in good condition would be approximately $685,000; and a detailed construction estimate that restoring the home to its original state would cost roughly $970,000.
Trexler noted that the staff recommendation was to grant the Certificate of Economic Hardship as the applicant successfully demonstrated factors three, four and five of the guidelines.
During the hearing, Garland testified that the fire marshall had declared the home was not approved for occupancy and was uninhabitable.
According to estimates Garland provided, building a new home on the lot would cost roughly $540,000.
Garland’s architect, Brian Hungerford of Oak Park, also testified, noting that the owners took all steps required by the village to secure the home after the fire, including boarding up the home. He stated that the home was in disrepair prior to the fire and that the fire rendered the home in worse condition. He stated that he believed his plans for a newly built home on the site would “bring integrity to the block.”
There were no public comments. Commissioners decried the loss of an historically significant home, but all agreed that restoring the home back to its original state after the fire would pose a significant financial hardship. The vote to grant the Certificate of Economic Hardship was unanimous.
HPC chairman Lou Garapolo reminded Garland and Hungerford that because of the location within the historic district, any plans for the new home would be submitted to the HPC for review on an advisory basis.
Garapolo said he cannot recall another Certificate of Economic Hardship granted during his three-year tenure on the HPC, and Failor said that in his time at the village, he cannot recall another economic hardship argument that was supported by the HPC.
“This house was in deplorable condition,” Failor said.