Kalamazoo Historic District Commission approves notice to proceed for demolition of 1406 Southwestnidge

The Kalamazoo Historic District Commission on an unanimous roll call approved a city-requested notice to proceed to demolish the house at 1406 Southwestnidge, citing a determination by the city’s building board of appeals that the structure is dangerous.

The vote follows a lengthy staff presentation that traced the property’s decline to a January 2021 fire, multiple ownership changes, repeated missed deadlines for required engineering and construction documents, and a March 2024 building-board ruling that deemed the house a dangerous structure. City staff said the current owner filed a building-permit application but has not provided required engineering studies to show how repairs would meet code.

Commissioners said they had repeatedly reviewed plans and correspondence related to the property and heard from city inspectors that the submitted drawings were not to scale and lacked sufficient structural detail. City code compliance inspector Carmela Grama and building official Roger Iverson told the commission that the owner had not produced engineering reports necessary to verify that proposed repairs would withstand new loads and that the building board of appeals had upheld notice that the structure was dangerous.

City staff described attempts over several years to work with the owner, including citations and civil-infraction proceedings. According to staff, a judge ordered a daily fee during last year’s civil action; staff said the city did not assess the daily fee immediately while the owner engaged with staff but that the daily billing is now in effect and that the owner faces $1,500 per month in charges going forward if the conditions persist. Staff also said a fire-escrow fund tied to the property may partially cover demolition costs but may not be sufficient; the city could seek bids and apply escrow funds toward removal.

Commission members expressed reluctance about demolition where preservation is the commission’s purpose, but many said the property’s condition and the building board of appeals’ findings made demolition appropriate. One commissioner noted the unusual circumstance that the city, rather than the property owner, is the applicant seeking the demolition, and staff said the city may act as an applicant to abate a public-safety hazard. Several commissioners also expressed sympathy for the home and for previous attempts to rehabilitate it but said the public-safety and neighborhood-blight concerns warranted the notice to proceed.

The commission’s motion—moved and seconded during the meeting—approved a notice to proceed based on criteria A (public safety hazard) and D (not in the best interest of the majority of the community to retain). A roll-call vote recorded Katie: Yes; Christie: Yes; Dana: Yes; Dan: Yes; James: Yes. The motion carried.

Staff said the next steps include contacting the owner, obtaining demolition bids, and coordinating with the city attorney and other departments on implementation. Staff advised commissioners that any demolition performed by the city may be paid in part from the property’s fire-escrow funds and that the city may place charges or liens as authorized by code; staff said the precise post-demolition status of the lot and tax implications would be handled through the city’s legal and tax processes.

The commission also discussed the long administrative history of the property, noting that prior applications and project-review drawings were inconsistent with representations made to the review bodies and that the commission had previously denied a demolition request when staff judged it to be premature. Commissioners and staff described persistent neighborhood complaints about the property’s condition.