Preservation commission rejects demolition and replacement plan for Hallmark House at 142 East First Street

The Hinsdale Historic Preservation Commission voted not to approve a demolition request or a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a replacement home at 142 East First Street, commonly referred to in the meeting materials as the Hallmark House. Both motions failed on roll call; commissioners recorded negative votes on the demolition motion and the COA motion.

Applicant Robert Samala, president of Legacy Homes (Samala Inc.), told the commission he inspected the house and consulted with architects who advised that remediation would be prohibitively expensive. Samala said lifting the house and installing a new foundation would cost about $390,000 and that, based on realtor feedback, potential buyers had treated the property as a teardown. “My opinion was that remodeling it just can’t be done,” Samala said, summarizing his assessment of the property’s structural problems (he cited a crumbling foundation, low basement ceiling height and out-of-plumb walls and floors).

Grace Church representatives said the parish had marketed the house after interviewing multiple realtors and had received no offers to preserve the structure. Sarah Tims, senior warden at Grace Church, said the church considered price concessions but could not accept a sale structured to preserve the home if it risked the church’s ability to carry out its mission: “We were told by all 4 that this house was a tear down,” she said, and the church concluded it could not take a loss that would imperil its programs.

Commission discussion covered the house’s historical significance, zoning and prior project history. Commissioners and several speakers noted that the Hallmark House appears on the National Register of Historic Places, but that National Register listing does not by itself prevent demolition; local landmarking or other village regulatory protections would be required to bar a teardown. Commissioners also reviewed past planning decisions involving a planned-unit development (PUD) connected to the church property; participants recalled that the house had at times been included in and removed from earlier PUD discussions and that permitting history affected earlier possibilities for preservation.

Members of the public — including longtime neighbors, historic-preservation advocates and Grace Church parishioners — addressed the commission during the public hearing. Several speakers urged preservation and lamented the loss of historic fabric in Hinsdale; others, including nearby residents who have renovated old houses, said rehabilitation can be difficult and costly and is not always commercially viable.

Two formal motions were presented and failed. The first motion, recorded in the meeting as "case HPC-15-2025, 142 East First Street: application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a single-family home," failed on a roll-call vote (Commissioner Weinberger: Nay; Commissioner Elder: Nay; Commissioner Olsen: Nay; Chairman Bonin: Nay). The second motion, to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new single-family home at the same address, likewise failed (same recorded votes). The commission chair noted the commission is advisory; the applicant and property owner may proceed to the Village Board or other applicable review channels.