Springfield looks at ways to preserve historic buildings, prevent 'demolition by neglect'

Springfield is home to multiple historic districts with a plethora of historic buildings. The city hopes to look further into ways to preserve this history, preventing future demolition and loss of these buildings.

On Wednesday, the Springfield City Council Plans and Policies Committee met to review an ordinance that will be presented to the full council at its next meeting Nov. 6 and to look over St Louis's demolition by neglect ordinance. Demolition by neglect refers to the practice of property owners purposely letting buildings deteriorate, so they can later get permission to demolish them.

The ordinance that will be presented to council will give way to a new Historic Building Survey, one that has not taken place since the 1980s, and an application for a grant to fund the survey. This survey will provide the city with a better understanding and updated information on the locations and the number of historic buildings in Springfield.

The idea for a demolition by neglect ordinance has been in the works for a while. Councilwoman Monica Horton first raised the issue when two side-by-side buildings on the corner of Commercial Street and Washington Avenue were in the application process for demolition. The building was scheduled to be demolished Sept. 25 but the demolition was postponed. The News-Leader was not able to reach Titus Williams, the developer of the properties, to ask the reason for the delay or when the demolition could occur.

Williams also owns two other undeveloped lots on that corner, all of which he bought in 2021. The plan is to build a three-story apartment building with a storefront at ground level, according to previous News-Leader reports. This would include a total of 45 apartments.

When the demolition was scheduled last month, historic preservation became a renewed focus.

"It's being proactive, so that we don't have further demolitions in our historic districts within the city," Horton told the News-Leader in September.

Beyond this corner

Horton sent the topic to the Plans and Policies Committee back in February, though the committee at the time decided to not take up any new business until after the April election. The committee took their first look at the proposal in August and has been considering it since.

The committee had discussed current measures in place for vacant buildings. Article XII of the city's Land Development Code outlines that unoccupied buildings have to be boarded up to make them weather-tight. This requires a boarded building permit which costs $400 and lasts six months. This permit has to be renewed until the building is rehabilitated. Horton said this is not effective in encouraging owners to improve the buildings.

"I kind of feel as though that a $400 fee every six months is definitely not a deterrent," she said. "It's not enough of a cost burden for an owner to actually do something with the building."

A solution Horton could see helping is increasing this fee to encourage owners to put effort and money into the buildings rather than letting them sit. Another part of the code states that anyone who violates the order of the director of building development services, such as by failing to renew a permit following a citation, will be fined at least $50 per day.

Inspiration from St. Louis ordinance

Assistant City Attorney Kyle Tolbert presented the demolition by neglect ordinance that exists in St. Louis at the Wednesday meeting. He said that as far as he knows, it has not actually been applied but a process exists to address any issues of neglect for historic buildings.

The St. Louis ordinance could be a starting point for Springfield to create its own set of regulations. The ordinance applies to buildings classified as "high merit," meaning the property is a major contributor to a historic district. Tolbert said the city can come up with its own designation of buildings the ordinance could apply for, though it would likely not consist only of age of the structure, but also the architecture, who built it and other factors.

Councilman Craig Hosmer serves on the council committee and asked the Landmarks Board to provide their input about how to best approach the issue and the best definition to use in any possible future regulations in Springfield.

"The four people that know the least about this issue are the ones making the decisions, it doesn't make any sense to me," Hosmer said while advocating for the Landmarks Board to weigh in.

The St. Louis ordinance works by requiring owners to maintain and complete repairs on buildings that have been found to be deteriorating and undergoing demolition by neglect. The ordinance provides two routes to actions if the owner does not repair the property following a notice — prosecution or administrative hearing. Tolbert said it is likely St. Louis has primarily relied on the administrative side for enforcement, if the process has been applied at all.

Tolbert pointed out multiple issues with St. Louis's ordinance. Some parts are unclear, leaving gray areas that could be argued or exploited. Mainly though, he said the potential penalties are less effective on owners who do not have the financial means to make repairs and those for whom the financial benefits of demolition would outweigh the penalty paid. The actions for enforcement and any litigation could also take a long time, while the building continues to deteriorate and could lead to demolition by necessity.

For now, the Committee will await the completion of the Historic Building Survey which will give them a chance to check the inventory of historic properties that could be affected by an ordinance similar. Once that is done, ideas for a potential ordinance will be revisited.

More: Landmarks Board paves way to demolition of Commercial Street building

There is also an incentive side to this issue — money that can be offered to owners who preserve their buildings. The Historic Building Survey will help the city better understand the need that exists before applying for grants that could fund an incentive program.

"When we look at our historic district, we are contributing to the economic vitality of our city through heritage tourism that is possible," Horton said. "That currently exists on a very small scale within our city but could substantially grow if owners have a big vision for promoting our city's history, rather than opting to demolish parts of our history."

Marta Mieze covers local government at the News-Leader. Contact her with feedback and tips at mmieze@news-leader.com.

This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Springfield considers historic preservation action to avoid demolition