As homeowners in the Ridgeland Historic District who have appeared before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) twice since 2017, we’re delighted to see the Oak Park Village Board engage more deeply with the commission’s sometimes opaque, arcane, and condescending decision-making processes (“Village will study impact of Historic Districts on local development,” April 2).
Last spring and summer, our family spent unnecessary time and money consulting with experts, researching, including reading Article 9 of the Village Code on Historic Preservation, and finally gaining approval to demolish a barely-visible-from-the-street, dilapidated and failing one-story garage that is a “contributing resource” to the historic district, circa 1915, in order to build a near-exact replica of the same building.
What could have been a rubber-stamp approval required multiple consultations with an architect, a structural engineer, our contractor, and the village planner. We heard that “the commission has been tougher on garages lately,” and we should “create a narrative” to convince the commission to grant us a Certificate of Appropriateness.
At the HPC meeting, which was about previous garage approvals in our neighborhood that didn’t follow these same requirements, we heard, “That wasn’t this commission.” When we said the new building, at 24 x 24 feet, would look the same from the street as the original building at 22.7 x 22.9 feet, we heard, “Well, if it’s ‘bigger,’ that’s not ‘the same’ now, is it?” After being made to feel like criminals, the relief of a unanimous approval was palpable.
During a required “advisory review” meeting days later, for which the ARC subcommittee of the HPC demanded additional construction plans, we noticed a commissioner shake his head “no” when we answered that we preferred not to use stucco — an expensive detail not visible from the street.
We love the village’s historic nature and its connection to its past; it’s why we live here. We don’t love the second-job level of attention this project required, and the seemingly arbitrary application of “historic.” It’s especially off-putting when a property is an unremarkable “contributing resource” that merely needs to be dragged into the 21st century while maintaining the same overall appearance and feel.
We hope the village board’s study identifies areas of flexibility within the Historic Preservation code so that Oak Park will continue to grow and thrive.
Ross Freedman
Oak Park