Village Will Reconsider Demolition for Route 59 Home

Plainfield homeowner’s son speaks out after board OKs permit to tear down another home along the same corridor.

Three months after , the Plainfield village board gave a local business the OK to tear down another.

Village officials and staff will take another look at the proposal to tear down the property at the Jan. 14 Committee of the Whole meeting.

Sign up for the Plainfield Patch newsletter.

On Monday night, Thomas Carey spoke up, asking the village board why Overman-Jones Funeral Home was given approval to tear town a century-old house to accommodate additional parking, while his parents were told they have to wait to demolish their home at 14927 S. Division St./Route 59.

“Another individual came before this board and was immediately granted a demolition permit,” Carey said.

Meanwhile, his parents were told they would have to wait until the Route 59 Visioning study is completed. The study, which looks at the future of Route 59 from Main Street south to Union Street, was originally scheduled to be completed in the fall, but now it’s looking like completion will happen closer to February or March, according to planner Michael Garrigan.

Garrigan said Phase I of the study, which included getting feedback from the community via social media and other means, is completed. Phase II will provide village officials with 3-D concepts of suggestions made during the first phase, Garrigan added.

Carey said his parents plan to turn the site of the home into a lot so it can be sold.

"My mother is 91 and she would like to know when" a demolition permit will be issued, Carey added.

Mayor Mike Collins, who said he understood the Careys’ frustration, noted that the homeowners haven’t had any success selling the home, and the property could be more attractive to buyers as a lot.

Trustee Bill Lamb, however, said he’d prefer to see a plan for the site before approving demolition — a sentiment that trustee Dan Rippy echoed.

Noting that Overman came to the board with a planned project for their home site, Rippy advised Carey, “Come in with a plan — we’ll give it full consideration and we’ll be happy to do it.”

“We have enough vacant lots in the downtown area,” Lamb said.

Fellow trustee Garrett Peck stood by his vote to delay demolition, adding that while he would prefer to have the Route 59 Visioning study completed before the home is torn down, he’s willing to take another look at the proposal.

The Committee of the Whole meeting is set for 7 p.m. Monday, Jan. 14, at Village Hall. Another Committee of the Whole workshop is scheduled for Jan. 28, and the next village board meeting is at 7 p.m. Feb. 4.


Follow Plainfield Patch on Facebook.

richard January 08, 2013 at 04:30 PM
A site plan of a vacant lot,please!
Town January 08, 2013 at 04:50 PM
It has no impact on the potential sale of a lot whether or not there is a home on the site. Tearing the home down does not elevate the value of the lot because if the lot were to be developed for other reasons the developer, in most cases, would prefer to do that themselves. On average it costs roughly $8-12K to tear down a house like this. If the owners really want to sell the property they should lower the price and leave it up to the buyer to decide what to do with the house. Although I disagree with the village allowing the tearing down of the house for the Overman lot, they at least had a plan for the lot. The owners here have nothing planned and want nothing to do with their lot other than sell it . Tearing the house down does nothing but reduce their taxes while they sit and try to get their asking price which must be too costly for the current market. This would mean that this lot will sit for quite some time until a proper usage is determined, if any. Empty lots are an eyesore and have a negative effect on a community and I believe this permit should be denied. But the village should also recognize the hardship here with these lots and do something to help. The village needs to decide soon how to lessen the impact of the cost to bring these properties up to some sort of viable usage other than residential. Tearing down all these houses to put up a strip style mall, I believe, will definitely have an negative effect on the villages image and look.
Ron January 08, 2013 at 07:16 PM
The house is complete junk. Tear it down amongst the many others along this stretch. Just like that really great looking historical home at the southwest corner of Route 59 and Renwick. These are complete eyesores that just occupy 'space'. I wouldn't be paranoid like town about strip malls coming into Plainfield. There is a hard time for any business in this town to remain successful.
Town January 08, 2013 at 08:50 PM
Ron, I disagree. Look at the Herbst Financial office just south of this house in question. When the original sellers (Zimmerman Family I believe) sold this house it was in a similar condition as the one we are talking about. This house now fits in nicely with the surroundings and has minimal impact to traffic. It would be beneficial for other structures along here to follow suit. I think the biggest problem would be access and some sort of common easement along the back may have to be established to enable access. Better to see this than squared off boxes with aluminium store fronts or an empty lot. Wouldn't you agree?
Ron January 08, 2013 at 10:38 PM
For the future posts you submit, you should strongly consider proofreading what you wrote. All of your posts are littered with grammar and spelling erros.
Buckgrove January 09, 2013 at 08:34 PM
They Village Board wouldn't be in this fine mess if only they would have denied the demolition permit for the house adjacent to the funeral home.
Miguel Sanchez January 09, 2013 at 08:57 PM
The Board isn't in the mess, the home owner is.
John Tips January 09, 2013 at 09:01 PM
Down with the old - and onward! People - we cannot save each and every home as a monument!
PlainfieldRes January 09, 2013 at 09:07 PM
This is all very strange when you compare the 2 properties. 1. Carey Property that has no access except 59, is not maintained, outdated, inhabitable property and the city will not let them tear down and they want to sell for $300K based on the last MLS listing I can find. 2. Adjacent Overman Jones property has alley access perfect for BTD use, is somewhat maintained outside, habitable and well up-kept inside (I've been inside recently) that the city is allowing demolition for a parking lot and the property is under contract to Overman Jones for a sum of roughly $90K.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something