Planning committee clears demolition permit for Judge William D. Berry House with 90‑day relocation window

The Saint Charles Planning & Development Committee voted to allow a certificate of appropriateness (COA) that would permit demolition of the Judge William D. Berry House at 217 Cedar Avenue, with a 90‑day voluntary window for anyone to propose moving the structure before demolition proceeds. The committee’s decision moves the item to the full City Council for final consideration on May 19.

The action reverses a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, which had urged denial of the COA. Preservation groups including Landmarks Illinois and local advocates urged the committee to delay demolition and pursue reuse or relocation options for the roughly 180‑year‑old stone house.

Committee staff presented background on outreach and alternatives explored with Baker Memorial United Methodist Church, the property owner. “The church was open to selling the combined property,” staff said in the presentation, but city purchase was not supported at the appraised combined value. Staff described other options discussed, including the city providing off‑site parking in exchange for preserving the Berry House and the concept of relocating the house, and said the church had asked to return to the committee to press its COA request. The staff presentation noted the church offered to provide a 90‑day period for parties interested in relocating the building if a demolition COA were approved.

Brian Harris, chairman of the property committee for Baker Memorial United Methodist Church, told the committee the congregation had explored multiple options and developers for more than seven years and said demolition and redevelopment as parking is the church’s preferred path. “We've talked to multiple developers ... it just is not an option moving forward and we would like to keep the property,” Harris said. He offered that the church would cooperate in publicizing the 90‑day window and said the congregation would sell or make the house available for relocation if a viable proposal emerged: “We'll sell it to you for a buck, come get it.”

Opponents urged more time and offered preservation resources. Steve Gibson, a former Historic Preservation Commission commissioner and local historian, urged the committee not to treat the decision as routine: “Allowing demolition in this case for just a few parking spaces sends a clear message that any historic structure regardless of its significance is vulnerable.” Representatives of Landmarks Illinois and Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley also asked for delay and offered technical and funding assistance if the city and church pursued preservation or relocation.

John Hoshite, legal counsel for the church, said the congregation has cooperated with preservation requirements in the past and stressed practical constraints for reuse and relocation. Hoshite said there are outstanding city code citations related to building maintenance and that the house's stone construction makes moving it far more complex and expensive than relocating a wood‑frame building. “A stone building can't be moved that way. It would have to be cut up in sections and moved because it could cave in,” Hoshite said. He also told the committee that earlier offers and preservation proposals had not produced a funded plan.

Preservation advocates and neighboring property owners emphasized the house's age, local associations with 19th century figures and the building's listing on Landmarks Illinois' Most Endangered Historic Places for 2025. Al Watts, Community Engagement Director for Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley, read a statement from Landmarks Illinois noting the property's rehabilitation potential and urging the committee to follow the Historic Preservation Commission recommendation to deny the demolition permit.

After discussion, a committee member moved to allow demolition of 217 Cedar with a stipulation that the church provide a 90‑day period for parties to make relocation proposals; the motion also included language that any city citations would be stayed during a contained period and dismissed if the home is moved or demolition proceeds (the motion text, mover and second are on the record). The committee voted to approve the motion; committee staff said the item will advance to City Council on May 19 for final action.

The committee's action does not itself demolish the house; it forwards a recommended approval of the COA, including the 90‑day relocation period, to the council. Preservation groups and several residents requested the council use the additional time to form a working group of church representatives, city staff, preservation organizations and potential funders to explore alternatives.

If the council affirms the committee's recommendation, the church has said it will continue to share parking with the city and would proceed with redevelopment if no relocation proposal materializes during the agreed timeframe.