[ back ]
Over objections, old school building faces wrecking ball
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - August 30, 2012)
Over objections, old school building faces wrecking ball
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
BURTON – Threats and accusations marked a meeting last week called to determine the fate of a historic building in the village. In the end, a 3-2 vote cleared the way for the building’s demolition.
“Hudson would never allow this to happen on their public square,” said Kurt Updegraff, a member of the village’s historic architectural review board.
Mr. Updegraff joined fellow member James Wholken in voicing disapproval of tearing down the village’s first high school, constructed in 1866. The building, owned by Burton Fire Department, is slated to be cleared from its lot to make way for an expansion of the fire station just to the east of the historic structure.
Fire Chief Michael Sestak told board members there was little that his department could do to save the building, listed among the village’s buildings on the National Register of Historic Buildings. “We don’t have the money to fix the building,” he said.
As private owners, he said, there is nothing to stop the department from doing what it wants with the building. “We are a private company, and we will do what we want as a private company.”
Mr. Sestak has a document from the Geauga County Building Department condemning the building. He said he has the authority to condemn buildings, but did not in this case because of the appearance of a conflict of interest.
If the village did not approve the demolition, Mr. Sestak said, the department would allow it to fall to the ground rather than spend money to preserve it. “We will let that building sit and rot to the ground.”
The village’s founding fathers would be shamed by village officials who stand in the way of progress, he said. “They moved that building for progress. They needed to have a better building. We need a better building.”
Mr. Sestak was referring to the village’s relocation of a building from the square to Spring Street to allow construction of a high school. The building serves as Burton Public Library.
Mr. Updegraff said Mr. Sestak could only speculate what founding fathers would think.
The building’s deteriorated state was because the fire department allowed it to fall into disrepair, Mr. Wholken said and suggested the village look at adopting regulations to prevent someone from buying a historic building, allowing it to fall into disrepair and demolishing it.
“It was your lack of stewardship for the last six years that has decreased its value considerably,” he said.
The fire department had intended to use the building, but after heavy snows one winter, it would cost as much as $60,000 to rebuild the roof structure. That price was beyond the reach of the department, Mr. Sestak said. The department installed a $1,200 steel beam that is the only thing holding up the building.
The department has offered to sell the building for $1 since 2005, but had no takers. He said the department lowered the price to 50 cents.
Mr. Updegraff offered a proposal that he said would reduce costs for the fire department. He said the department considered a site north of the village on Claridon-Troy Road, across from the Geauga County Fairgrounds, a few years ago.
That site could be used and a building could be built for $1.2 million, about a third of the cost of the $3.7 million facility the fire department has planned. The fire department would sell the original Burton High School and its fire station and use those funds to construct the new building.
The village would move its offices into the fire station, and the original high school would be sold to a private developer for commercial development, Mr. Updegraff said. He cited a site engineering report that stated the new site for the fire department is “geographically advantageous” for responding to calls, because it would not have to contend with traffic in the village.
Mr. Sestak said his department will not accept such a proposal. “We won’t move into a smaller building. I’m not going to sacrifice size and comfort.”
The department only considered the site north of the village when it was being offered free to the department, he said, but that offer is no longer available.
The department plans to provide an addition that would match the architectural style of the village and would not accept a “metal shack outside of town.” In addition, Mr. Sestak said, the move north would not save the department from coming through town. About 100 calls per year come from the north, while 700 come from the south.
The department would offer any mementoes from the historic building that people want, such as the doors or shutters. Anyone wanting a keepsake from inside would have to sign a waiver, he said, because it is too dangerous to enter.
The renovation of the existing fire station and the addition is expected to cost about $2 million, Mr. Sestak said. When asked by Mr. Updegraff where the department plans on getting the money, the fire chief replied, “We have ways.”
The village may have to accept the building is at the end of its useful life, board member Sharon Ronyak said.
“I’m really pleased the fire department is in the village,” she said. “They do a wonderful job. I think it had its life, and we have to face that. It may have outlived its usefulness because no one wants it.”
Mr. Updegraff said he has spoken to people who are willing to buy it at its current location.
When board member Brian Johnston asked what options may be available to move the building, acting legal advisor David Ondrey indicated the board should only be considering the village’s criteria for determining whether the building could be torn down. He said the question centered on whether the building was deemed a hazard and a threat to public health or safety. The ordinance stated that a building must be “impossible” to repair.
Mr. Updegraff claimed the fire department failed to meet any of the criteria and the situation was of its making, but fellow members disagreed, granting the demolition permit.
The village may want to amend its ordinance, Mr. Ondrey said, because saying it is impossible to repair a building is too vague.
“You could argue there’s not a building out there you couldn’t fix,” he said and suggested the village consider replacing the word with “impractical.”
[ back ]
