It took nearly three hours, almost 20 speakers and dozens of impassioned speeches, but the Lakewood Planning Commission finally voted — in a split decision — that the Heideloff property should not be designated a historic property.
The home at 13474 Edgewater Drive is expected to be demolished to make way for a new $2 million lakefront home.
Members of the planning commission deliberated for about 45 minutes on Thursday, and with a new member encouraged to abstain, the vote ended with a 3-3 decision.
That effectively denied the motion to make the property “historic” under city ordinance.
At the center of the debate was the issue of private property rights versus historic preservation.
The neighbors, not the property owners, submitted the paperwork to make the mansion a historic landmark.
Mary Breiner, the applicant for the designation and resident of nearby Homewood Avenue, said she will likely appeal the commission’s decision and has 10 days to do so.
“In my mind, we have already said that this property is eligible be designated a historic property,” said commission member Robert Greytak, who voted in favor of the designation. “In my mind, (the code) goes from eligibility to designation.”
“I think it’s very clear that the designation is to prevent the demolition,” responded chairman Mark Stockman, who voted against the measure along with Mary Cierebiej and Tamara Karel.
“Why this house?” Stockman asked Breiner.
“The people who purchased this home have indicated that they are going to tear it down,” Breiner said, sharing several historical highlights of the property. “That would be a great loss.”
The historic landmark ordinance is written as a two-step process: First the planning commission must decide whether a property is eligible for the designation — which it did in December.
On Thursday, several people spoke out, on both sides of the issue.
At times the debate was intense.
A turning point came about halfway through the meeting, when Mayor Michael Summers, a neighbor of the Heideloff property, took to the podium to oppose the designation.
As a Ward 3 city councilman, Summers was one of the framers of the historic designation ordinance several years ago.
“I never in my wildest imagination would have thought that we would have a group of homeowners using this a tool against the wishes of (another) homeowner in Lakewood,” he said. “This ordinance was designed to protect the public infrastructure that we enjoy as a public arena. The notion of personal property rights and their infringement frankly was not a part of the discussion — I wish it had been.”
“We’re talking about property rights. We take that seriously.”
Peter Szeman, the attorney representing the Semaan family, made a plea for the commission to reject the application, citing the “financial hardships” the Semaans would incur based on a designation.
“It was good to hear someone make the comment that no one is against the Semaans,” he said. “But if you’re the Semaans, that’s not the impression you’re getting from this community.”
Szeman said the Semaans bought the house for $750,000 and learned that it’d cost an additional $600,000 to restore it.
“They bought the property because they fell in love with the property — it’s 2.5 acres and it goes up to the lake — it’s fantastic,” he said. “But not the house… It’s too late to try to salvage in an economically feasible way.”
“This house is an echo of what you may have once had (in this neighborhood),” he added.
Michael Semaan said that had the home been designated historic, he would have “split the lots into several subdivisions” and left the city.
“We never wanted this property designated,” he said, adding that the there was an addendum in the purchase agreement noting that point.
After the meeting, Michael Semaan thanked the commission.
The approval would have made the Heideloff property — built by a prominent Cleveland industrialist Wilfred Sly nearly 100 years ago — the city’s first residential “historic landmark” in Lakewood under the city’s ordinance.
But this isn’t likely the end of the issue.
The neighbors plan to appeal the planning commission’s decision, by resubmitting a reapplication.
Welcome to Lakewood M&M Semaan - Build to your hearts content!!!
Right decision by the Commission.
help the property values of the area homeowners!
That the vote was so close - 3 voting to grant landmark designation - is very scary indeed. I would not call this a win for individual owner property rights for Lakewood citizens at all. Just a very lucky win. Lets hope this new member sees the light of day and votes in favor of continued denial of landmark designation for this really rather ugly, outdated, nothing special home.
I suggest the ordinance be amended to require that any non-owner who files an application accompany it with a bond sufficient to make the owner whole if the application succeeds. If the application succeeds, the owner should have the option of selling the property to the city for the amount of the bond, or retaining the property, with his legal costs paid from the bond, the remainder of the bond to become revenue to the city.
I do try to create a bit more thought (or controversary!) in often too placid Lakewood/NE Ohio. I have live in Minneapolis, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Tucson, Chicago, San Francisco and now NE Ohio - and I find this area so amazing in many ways, yet so passive to too often just accept whatever is told the citizens they are expected to accept: like having a small group of elitists in the government grant a truly unremarkable and insignificant architectural home a designation that should be few and far between. We trust these officials to judge and rule on our behalf, but too often in NE Ohio I see that is not the case - it is corruption and old Rust Belt thinking. Hopefully my sometimes ranting comments will encourage others to become involved - and OUTRAGED! - also. Thanks again!
Ian, I have seen the inside of the house. You aren't missing much. I'm sure the staircase and a few other nice features could find a new home if the new house doesn't reuse them. We need to put this behind us and move on. It makes Lakewood and some of its residents look ridiculous.
Thanks for the great comment! I toured this "mansion" when an estate sale was conducted there. To say the least, the interior was rundown, dirty, and sadly outdated. The room/floor layout is antiquated, and not conducive to today's more open floor plans. The kitchen was small, dirty and needs a total redo. The so called grand staircase is really nothing special. I have friends with homes in Shaker Heights that have a far grander entrance/staircase. Bathrooms were also outdated, small, and not agreeable to today's lifestyles. Some rooms were dark and smelled musty. All in all, to designate this home a historic landmark is indeed laughable, and more than that, an abuse and mockery of the whole landmark designation purpose. My friends who are architects are shocked that the planning commission actually got this to a vote - and then to have the vote a tie! I agree it is time to move on = let the owners do what they want with their own lackluster, aging, rundown property. I am sure they regret buying, and are wondering why a small group of neighbors desire to take control of their home! These neighbors are the epitome of elitism/privilege, and along with complacent appointed and elected Lakewood officials, are pursuing their own interest above and beyond the common good/common will. This is not about preserving a wonderful/rare piece of Lakewood history - it is about preserving property values, limiting neighborhood residency, and abuse of government authority.
No one is against the use of designating a worthwhile historical building a landmark. But just because Lakewood has lost/destroyed/demolished many of its historical buildings, does not justify granting such a lackluster and truly unimportant historically speaking house as the Heideloff is landmark status today. What is the heritage/history/importance of this house to the citizens of Lakewood? What is the heritage/history/importance of the Heideloff house to NE Ohio? And, more importantly, this case is really about whether a small group of wealthy neighbors can abuse/influence a local government's planning commission in order to control/determine the use and destiny of another neighborhor's own personal property = is this not so apparently government being used not for the common good but being abused for the desires/benefits of a wealthy/elite few? I agree with you that it is a shame Lakewood has lost a lot of its buildings that would today truly be worthy of landmark status. But this common, regionally ordinary house - yes house, it is not a mansion pleeease! - should not be misrepresented as being so unique and rare/special to Lakewood's history. It just isn't! This entire process has clearly been about today's property values and future neighborhood development than concern over granting Lakewood historical landmark status. The Mayor was spot on in blocking this, and I hope will be the planning commission. It is all a sad joke for the citizens of Lakewood.