Judge sides with Geneva on window replacement case
Walter Stackman, a Geneva resident who got in trouble after he replaced 12 windows on his 1940s-era home without permission from the Historic Preservation Commission, received a 1-2 legal punch to the gut Monday.
First, Kane County Judge Michael Colwell ruled the city and commission did have authority to require Stackman (and others) in the city's historic district to apply for building permits for replacing windows and other projects.
Next, Colwell ruled the commission was correct in denying Stackman a building permit in August 2006 needed to replace his original windows with newer, vinyl windows.
"Preservation decisions are based on the greater good of the whole," read part of the judge's six-page ruling.
Colwell's ruling did not address what types of corrective action, if any, should be taken against Stackman now that the city's action was upheld.
According to the city code, violators of the preservation code can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined up to $750. Each day and violation of the code is considered a separate offense.
If the city wants to take a hard-line approach and fine Stackman $750 for each day he is in violation, it could total more than $300,000.
Charles Radovich, Geneva city attorney, said it was too early to say what action might be taken against Stackman.
"That's something that will be discussed with staff, the city council and the HPC," he said, noting the case was the first time a judge had ruled on a violation of historic district laws.
Ken Hoch, an attorney who argued on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission, said he was pleased with the ruling and that it supports the edict -- repair or preserve first and replace only if necessary -- that homeowners in a historic district must adhere to.
"It's a good thing for Geneva because Geneva takes great pride in its historic commission," Hoch said of the ruling. "I think the members of the commission are very diligent in what they do. In this situation, unfortunately, the windows were removed and destroyed before the city and staff knew what was going on."
Stackman's attorney, Peter Storm, could not be reached for comment. He had argued that window replacement in summer 2006 was not a substantial alteration -- such as an addition -- that would require a building permit and city review.
Storm also noted that Stackman's home already had eight other vinyl windows from a past addition on the home in the 1960s, which was two decades before the historic district was created.
Storm said it would be too expensive for the 76-year-old Stackman to restore the original windows. The newer ones were more energy efficient and did a better job reducing noise from the nearby train, he added.
Colwell disagreed with Storm's argument of a hardship. The judge ruled a hardship must be because of the property itself, not the individual circumstances pertaining to the property owner.