For nearly two years now local residents, myself included, have been fighting to save the building located at 4242-44 Virginia from demolition by its owners, Our Lady’s Inn (hereafter OLI). Two days ago, 22nd Judicial Circuit Court Judge David L. Dowd, ruled against the appeal of OLI and upheld the July 9th ruling of the Preservation Board to deny the demolition of the building.
Petitioner [OLI] failed to make its case for demolition of the property pursuant to the Ordinance criteria, and substantial and competent evidence supports the Board’s determination. This Court affirms the decision and Order of the Preservation Board of the City of St. Louis in this matter.
I won’t bore you with all the details and the lengthy 10-page “Judgment and Order.” I do want to cover a few points…
OLI had argued before the Court “that there is not ‘substantial and competent evidence’ to support various aspects of the Board’s decision.” So, in other words, the Board ignored evidence to the contrary in ruling to deny the demolition request. Dowd writes in his decision, “Petitioner [OLI] simply argues the Board’s decision was wrong in light of the evidence.” Thankfully, Judge Dowd poured through the mountains of evidence and clearly had a great understanding of the applicable demolition review ordinance.
Judge Dowd looked at each of the areas of the ordinance – Architectural Quality, Condition, Neighborhood Effect and Reuse Potential, Urban Design and Proposed Subsequent Construction. In each of areas of criteria Judge Dowd finds that “substantial and competent evidence supports the Board’s factual findings and legal conclusions.”
The best part was Dowd’s look at the ‘Condition’ criteria. He stated, “Conditions of Property which would allow one to conclude that this Property is ‘obviously not sound’ are simply not present in this case.” This is despite OLI’s engineer William Hummel testifying the property was in “severe structural distress.” During the Board meeting Hummel was questioned on his testimony and it basically came out his opinion was because he felt the building “would not be able to sustain a seismic event.” Yes, OLI’s engineer argued to the Preservation Board the building should be razed because it couldn’t sustain an earthquake. He was referring to a quake of 6.5 or greater. Judge Dowd continues, “Pressed further, Mr. Hummel admitted and agreed that the Property was essentially no different than the thousands of City of St. Louis brick and mortar buildings to which a ‘seismic event’ would have a similar impact.
The generic testimony that the Property would be impacted by a 6.5 earthquake is simply not substantial, competent or credible evidence that the Property is Unsound. Rather, competent and substantial evidence exists in the record that the Property is Sound. The board, properly, so found.
In the section on Neighborhood Effect and Reuse Potential Dowd has this to say:
Lacking in the record is any assertion by Petitioner of Economic Hardship under the Ordinance standard, an absence of information specifically noted by Cultural Resources, and by the Board during discussion prior to vote. Financial information, which might support Petitioner’s case for demolition rather than rehabilitation of the Property, was simply not presented to the Board. Hard numbers as to the cost of a Rehabilitation of the Property versus New Construction were sought out by the Board, as they were not presented to the Board through any testimonial or documentary evidence. The evidence elicited from a witness, a Board member for Petitioner, indicated that the costs of rehabilitation versus new construction were roughly equivalent.
At the time of the Preservation Board hearing in July another lawsuit was pending before Judge Dowd. This case, filed by me and ten other property owners in the City of St. Louis, was against the Board of Adjustment for issuing a zoning variance granting OLI the right to build a 7-unit building where the zoning is limited to two units. At the time of the Preservation Board hearing the issue of the zoning was in question and the staff, board and us all raised this question. What if the demolition was approved but the zoning variance was overturned by the Court – where would that leave their project?
OLI attorney Steve Koslovksy argued the zoning was in place because the Board of Adjustment had ruled. He contended our lawsuit challenging the zoning should not be considered by the Board. However, Judge Dowd had this to say:
Petitioner mischaracterizes the reality of the status of zoning classification and the resultant impact regarding the consideration of the Ord. 64832 criteria by the Board. . Simply, Petitioner is in err regarding its argument that the zoning consideration is irrelevent. The dispute over the zoning classification was properly considered by the Board.
Frankly, I was surprised OLI bothered to appeal the Board’s decision – they made such a lousy presentation of evidence at the hearing I couldn’t imagine on what grounds they expected to win.
Unfortunately, we’ve been dealing with this for two years and thousands of dollars in legal fees. We tried early on to avoid all this by offering to help them find another location for their facility and a buyer for the building. They’d have nothing to do with alternative ideas – it was all or nothing. Meanwhile, we’ve had to endure the building in its boarded up state for another two years. During this time a buyer could have been found and it could have been rehabbed. OLI could have found another site and had their facility open.
The next step is to get the building into the hands of someone that will rehab it. Our web site on the Virginia Mansion has lots of detail on all the various hearings, decisions and legal briefs – click here for more info.
– Steve
