Historic St. Charles home may be torn down, as church that owns it awaits final green light from city

Chicago Tribune

15-05-2025

The historic house at 217 Cedar Ave. in St. Charles is one step closer to being torn down, as the City Council's Planning and Development Committee on Monday recommended approval of its owner's request to demolish it, sending the issue to the City Council next week for final approval.
The house, which was recently named one of nonprofit Landmarks Illinois' 2025 most endangered historic places in the state, now finds itself at risk of demolition, as the city moved the issue forward following months of discussion about the structure's future among city employees, advocates of preservation and the building's owner across the street, Baker Memorial United Methodist Church.
The building at 217 Cedar Ave. in St. Charles is also referred to as the Judge William D. Barry House, for its original owner. Barry was a lawyer, who did trials as far north as McHenry County, according to former board president of the St. Charles History Museum Steve Gibson, who has been researching Barry and the house since 2017, when he sat on the city's Historic Preservation Commission that first voted against demolishing the house.
Barry built a home in St. Charles, worked as a Kane County judge around the time of the Civil War and served as the first president of the Kane County Bar Association, Gibson said. There's some anecdotal evidence about his knowing Abraham Lincoln, according to Gibson.
The house itself dates back to the 1840s, according to Gibson's history written for the St. Charles History Museum.
The Judge Barry House, along with the buildings at 211-215 Cedar Ave. and the parking lots to the south, west and north of the buildings, are owned by Baker Memorial United Methodist Church, which is looking to demolish the buildings on Cedar Avenue to construct a parking lot.
Because the Judge Barry House is located within the city's Historic District, exterior changes to the building must be reviewed by the city's Historic Preservation Commission and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the city before the demolition project can begin.
In October, the city's Historic Preservation Commission recommended the City Council deny the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the Judge Barry House, based on findings about the building's significance and architecture.
It then went to the City Council's Planning and Development Committee in December. Per the meeting agenda, the property had been brought to the committee by the church before, in 2017. The preservation commission had recommended denying the church's request then as well, but the church's application was withdrawn before the City Council voted on it, according to St. Charles Community Development Director Russell Colby.
At the December meeting, representatives from the church gave a presentation on their rationale for the project, discussing the church's financial situation and need for additional parking in the area, among other concerns.
The Planning and Development Committee ultimately made a motion to postpone its decision to allow city staff and the church to discuss options.
Since then, the city and the church have been engaged in discussions about the house's future, and whether the city could purchase it from the church, Colby said, but they were unable to reach an agreement. That's why the request to demolish went back to the Planning and Development Committee on Monday.
On Monday, advocates and residents spoke in favor of preserving the house, while representatives from the church reiterated their interest in tearing down the building in favor of additional parking.
'We would like to keep the property,' Brian Harris, the church's property committee chair, said at the meeting. 'As the property owner, we would like for the highest and best use after all of this time and all of this vetting out, which is to have a community and church parking for the next generation.'
Harris noted that, should its request be approved, the church would work with the city to determine the plan going forward. Baker Memorial did, however, signal on Monday that it would allow a 90-day hold on demolition so that an interested party could buy the house for as low as $1 and move it off the property, thereby preserving the structure.
'I think I can speak for the commission that we are open to the idea of moving it,' Historic Preservation Commission chair Kim Malay said during public comment at Monday's meeting. 'We're not saying it has to stay there, but we really would like that opportunity and that potential to be reviewed and incorporated somewhere in town.'
Al Watts, the community engagement director of local nonprofit Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley, pushed back on the church's immediate need for additional parking, and said the building posed 'no apparent structural safety risk.'
Gibson, who has gotten involved in advocating for preserving the building, said at the meeting that the council's decision was 'precedent-setting' and asked for more time to form a working group and discuss its options.
'The house is not beyond redemption,' Gloria Kohlert Geske, who said she was the previous owner of the building before Baker Memorial, said at the meeting, describing the renovations she and her husband did.
'The house has been salvaged before,' she said.
Ultimately, after comments from the public and discussion among its members, the Planning and Development Committee recommend approval of the church's request with a 5-3 majority vote, with Ronald Silkaitis, Bryan Wirball and Ed Bessner voting against.
On Monday, May 19, the church's request to demolish the building will be put to the full St. Charles City Council for a final vote.
Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Jayme Muenz and Malay did not return The Beacon-News' requests for further comment.
As discussion of the house's future has stretched out for months, the Judge Barry House has garnered local — and statewide — interest from preservation groups, which are still advocating against its demolition.
In 2024, the Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley wrote about the house's history, and has since been in talks with the house's owners, the city and St. Charles residents about the course of action for the structure, Watts said. The organization doesn't always recommend preservation, he said, but considers the historic and architectural significance of a building as well as whether it could be reused.
'The most important thing is the building has to have a use,' Watts told The Beacon-News. 'If there's no way that there can be a modern use for it in some way or fashion, I mean, it's kind of, the discussion, then, is pointless.'
More recently, the house's situation was brought via public nomination to Landmarks Illinois, which listed it as one of its 2025 most endangered historic places in the state.
'I think a lot of people would say, 'This is just a house. Why should we care about this place?'' Kendra Parzen, Landmarks Illinois' advocacy manager for the organization's Chicagoland region, told The Beacon-News. 'Buildings from this first … 10, 15, 20 years of a settlement of a community are becoming increasingly rare, especially in suburban communities that have experienced constant growth over long periods of time.'
Landmarks Illinois also submitted a letter to the city committee, urging its members to consider preserving the house. The organization also has grant programs, Parzen said, a network of professionals who do pro-bono work like conditions assessments of properties and information on finding other funding sources that it provides to owners who want to preserve their historic buildings.
Gibson said he's been researching Barry and the house at 217 Cedar Ave. since 2017, when its possible demolition first reached the city's Historic Preservation Commission. But some of its history is still being discovered, which is why he's still researching, even though he's no longer an employee of the St. Charles History Museum.
'Everything kind of opens up another place to go looking for something, which is how history kind of works,' Gibson said.
For example, Barry appears to have been an abolitionist, and may have had some role in the Underground Railroad, Gibson said.
The church, for its part, believes it has 'exhausted every option there is,' Harris told The Beacon-News on Thursday, and is ready to move forward with the council vote on Monday.
'We're not in the property business,' Harris said. 'We have missions, we have other purposes in the community. … We don't want to be a landlord.'
And he thinks Baker Memorial's experience maintaining its own historic building means it knows how to proceed with the Judge Barry House.
'We're very knowledgeable … and respect the need and the process (of historic preservation),' Harris said. 'We're in it. We're part of it.'
Watts said Monday's vote was 'disappointing,' but that, no matter the outcome of the final City Council vote, his organization can help.
'Either way, whatever decision they make, we can be of assistance,' Watts said about the Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley. He said it could help the church and the city obtain historic documentation of the building even if it's ultimately torn down, and said he's begun looking into relocation options if a buyer decides to purchase the house to move off site.
But the City Council vote remains a weighty decision and a permanent one, too, Gibson said.
'You can only take a home down once,' Gibson said. 'At that point, we'll point to the parking lot and say, 'This is where Judge Barry's house was.' … All of those stories, that's how they'll end, with somebody making that gesture.'