The Geneva Historic Preservation Commission unanimously denied a third request Tuesday from developer Shodeen to demolish a circa-1840 former blacksmith shop after a 90-minute public hearing.

David Patzelt, president of the Shodeen Group, stated in an email Wednesday that the company submitted an appeal to the Geneva City Council to overturn the denial.

“There continues to be a disconnect in where the Commission believes that the property owner must repair and rebuild the historic structure at their expense,” Patzelt’s email stated. “This simply is not the case.”

The Mill Race Land Company LLC – another entity created by Geneva developer Shodeen – sought demolition for the remnant limestone structure at 4 E. State St. under a provision in the city’s historic preservation code: “The retention of a building, structure, object, improvement, or site is not in the best interest of the majority of the community.”

Located on the 1.4-acre former Mill Race Inn property on the southwest corner of Illinois routes 38 and 25, the building’s condition and future have been at the center of a battle now in its eighth year.

In short, Shodeen maintains that the site can’t be redeveloped unless the former blacksmith shop is removed.

City officials say that Shodeen has offered nothing in the way of a redevelopment plan for that site, with or without the blacksmith shop.

The community’s best interest

Shodeen rallied community members to send some 60-plus letters to the commission in support of demolition, calling the former shop an eyesore that’s holding up redevelopment.

“Whether its email traffic or telephone calls asking for something to be done for the structure to be taken down,” Patzelt said at Tuesday’s hearing. “I am before you for the third time, not bringing any better news than the other two times.”

Patzelt said based on requests from the public, Shodeen’s latest demolition request cited city code that supports demolition if it’s in the best interest of the majority of the community.

Patzelt said nobody has come forward to buy the old building or renovate it, and the cost to do work on the property would be more than what it’s worth.

“What is in the best interest of the community at large, perhaps it is time to say that we need to move on,” Patzelt said.

Commissioner Jewel Jensen said nothing was accomplished at the site, and the owner didn’t submit proposals for development or protect the bulding from elements.

“You have been charged a fine (for) a code violation of well over $300,000,” Jensen said. “As of today, has that fine been paid?”

“It has not been,” Patzelt said.

Last year, the city cited Shodeen, requiring that the owner put a tarp on top of the structure. A hearing officer upheld the city’s right to enforce its code, and implemented a $750 daily fine. In October, a judge upheld the hearing officer’s ruling.

It’s been 426 days since the Oct. 17, 2024, citation, and the buidling doesn’t have a tarp on top. At $750 per day, the fine as of Tuesday’s hearing was $319,500.

Commissioner Kevin Phillips noted that when they voted against demolition in August 2023, Shodeen has not done anything to advance development there.

“Shodeen has done nothing except drag the city into hearings and courts and questioned the HPC’s decision,” Phillips said. “And in the meantime, (Shodeen) has allowed that building to deteriorate such to the point where now maybe many people in the community view it as an eyesore. And that’s really the basis of your petition here before us today. ... It is based on an eyesore that you’ve created.”

Phillips said to Patzelt that the company was told to put a tarp on the roof and Shodeen refused.

“Correct, because structurally the tarp won’t hold anything,” Patzelt said. “I put a tarp on that roof, and all of a sudden it fills with snow and water ... and the structure collapses.”

“It’s still standing,” Phillips said.

‘Beating a dead horse’

The public weighed in, both in support of demolition and of preserving the former blacksmith shop.

Herb Nachreiner of Elgin Township urged the commission to approve the demolition.

“Every time I invite one of my friends out here to have dinner with us at one of these restaurants, they invariably ask me, ‘When are they going to get rid of that piece of junk next to the river?’” Nachreiner said.

“That dwelling is the gateway to this business district,” Nachreiner said. “You never get a second chance at a first impression when you’re coming down that hill and spot that thing setting there.”

Nachreiner said that when he visits Wisconsin, he’s observed other small towns remove old houses and barns rather than preserve them.

“And invariably, when that happens, the whole community takes on a different atmosphere about the future,” Nachreiner said “[...] But I’ve got to tell you guys – move on. We’re beating a dead horse with this building.”

But Al Watts, of Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley, countered with a plea for preserving the structure. He cited the city’s historic preservation ordinance: “To promote the educational, cultural and economic welfare of the public of the city and strengthen the economy of the city.”

“Geneva’s brand is built around this purpose of preserving history and historic places,” Watts said. “It’s made Geneva a unique place to live and work.”

Watts said he believes the majority of the community wants the site redeveloped.

“The real question is whether or not the majority of the community prefers that the blacksmith shop to be part of that redevelopment. That does not seem to be clear,” Watts said.

Razing the blacksmith shop is not going to solve everything, Watts said, because most of that site is within a 100-year flood plain and some is in a 500-year flood plain.

Watts said a city’s building code is often an effective tool for motivating maintenance.

“Not paying any of the fines could potentially undermine the city’s efforts for enforcing its property maintenance code,” he said.

7-0 against demolition

After the public hearing, commissioners were unsympathetic to the developer’s cause to raze the building.

“One of the things I found to be the most telling is the fact that there hasn’t been any plans to incorporate the existing structure in a development,” Commissioner Mike Riebe said.

“The fact that without demo(lition), there won’t be any plans presented, puts us in a very precarious situation. No one wants the property to sit as-is, but I don’t feel like we got a good faith proposal of what to do with it,” Riebe said.

Commissioner Andrew Tobler asked if there is an option to preserve the structure with development.

“Can you make it a small little room that’s off to the side with a plaque? ... I’m reluctant to say, ‘Just demolish it and we’ll give you the plans afterwards,’” Tobler said.

Commissioner George Salomon said the panel made an accommodation to Shodeen in 2022, reducing the historic landmark area to allow Shodeen more property to develop.

“And since 2022, they did nothing,” Salomon said. “No plans, no proposals, just letting the building rot. ... I think the ultimate goal is for a strong wind to come down and blow it over. And this way, as a safety hazard, it has to go away.”

Salomon accused Shodeen of being disingenuous while the panel has upheld its part not only to preserve the property – but to also be a partner in helping the developer.

“We gave them a bigger plot to work with, and we got nothing. Now it comes back. It’s an eyesore ... because it hasn’t been properly maintained. They don’t pay their fines. ... And who created the eyesore? Not the Historic Preservation Commission,” Salomon said.

“What’s going on here on that side is they’re wearing the will of the community down,” Salomon said. “That’s why there’s more people speaking up now about wanting to tear it down because of an eyesore that was not created by the community – but by them.”

Phillips agreed.

“I am not willing to reward that kind of behavior with agreeing to demolish that building,” Phillips said. “It’s not preservation or development, it’s preservation and development.”

Chairman Paul Zellmer said it was difficult for the commission to gauge what is in the best interest of the community.

“I haven’t heard enough other than it’s an eyesore,” Zellmer said. “And it’s kind of a self-created eyesore ... that’s where we’re all coming down at.”