In her 89 years, Hanna Heinle has always played by her own rules.
A tough businesswoman, she once owned Schaumburg’s historical Easy Street Tavern, where she served meals and whiskey to the farmers who used to be the area’s only residents. Heinle has lived in the same house ever since her uncle, Frank Lengl, built it in 1934.
But recently she learned that the village wants to designate the home as a landmark, an honor that she fears will heavily restrict what she and future owners can do to the building. Heinle says she doesn’t need anyone telling her what to do–especially a bunch of Schaumburg village officials whom she watched grow up.
“I’m the boss here,” she said firmly, standing in the foyer of her two-story brick house.
Heinle and a handful of other Schaumburg homeowners whose properties have been targeted for landmark status are disturbed by the thought of the village dictating what they can and can’t do with their buildings.
Some fear that the designation will make their homes harder to sell. After all, who wants to live in a house where you need permission to install new siding or repaint a certain color?
But some of the eight buildings that Schaumburg officials want to designate as landmarks date to the mid-1800s. Officials say they merely want to ensure that the structures aren’t torn down and that their architectural integrities are preserved.
Of the eight owners, half oppose the landmark designation, including the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, which owns a 65-year-old house that district officials had planned to tear down to expand a sewage-treatment plant.
That house, known as the Schweikher House and Studio, is the only property in Schaumburg listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The two other properties where owners are upset are an 87-year-old house on Schaumburg Road that needs extensive interior work and a 62-year-old home that once belonged to former Schaumburg Mayor Robert Atcher.
But Schaumburg officials say it’s important to preserve all eight properties because this young suburb only has a few historical buildings. And as Schaumburg, best known for malls and office towers, grows older, the historical sites will serve as important windows on the past, officials say.
“It’s important to (preserve) them for people to see what was here,” said Ken Fritz, Schaumburg’s assistant village manager.
Historical preservation ordinances are common nationwide and often are seen benefiting communities, much like zoning laws or health and safety ordinances.
For many towns, designating buildings as landmarks is one of the few ways to protect historical assets from being bulldozed or significantly altered.
“We live in a world in which everything that we own is interrelated with the people who live around us,” said Ann Swallow, a coordinator for the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency in Springfield.
“We are not free to do what we wish. We cannot have alligator farms in our basements. We may want to, but there are laws passed for the betterment of the entire community . . . even though there are people mad as heck about it.”
In Illinois, at least 70 communities have historical preservation ordinances, including Crystal Lake, Elgin, Evanston, Geneva, Highland Park, Joliet, Lockport, Naperville, Oak Park, Orland Park, St. Charles, Wilmette and all of unincorporated Kane, McHenry and Will Counties.
In Schaumburg, two of the objecting homeowners, including Heinle, live within the village’s historical district, where officials already can regulate what property owners do to their buildings. Village officials say that, at this point, landmark status would not place any more restrictions on the properties.
But the homeowners worry that the landmark designation could bring expanded regulation down the road.
The buildings outside the district would fall under village regulation for the first time. Schaumburg officials say the designation would avoid problems experienced in communities where historical properties aren’t protected.
In Barrington, for instance, historical homes have been marred with boxy, two-story additions that jut from the front of the structures. And in downtown Algonquin, a local merchant plans to tear down the 141-year-old house where he operates his business because he is angry about restrictions that the village has placed on him without offering anything in return.
But Keith Tracy, who owns Atcher’s former house, said he has no plans to demolish his home or make any radical changes. And he doubts that future owners will make changes either.
Tracy said he bought the house for its architectural integrity. He has even taken great pains, and spent a small fortune, restoring it to its original condition.
For example, he installed copper gutters and salvaged stone and Italian clay tiles to build a garage that matches the house.
“I’m doing just fine without another layer of government telling me what color to paint my house,” Tracy said. “If you’re going to tell me this is the color to paint and this is the type of paint I should use, then go buy it for me.”
Schaumburg officials said there have been some informal discussions about offering grants or low-interest loans to owners of landmark buildings. But no program currently exists.
In the meantime, they tell homeowners that the state offers a tax-incentive program to property owners looking to improve historically certified buildings.
