Welcome to our new web site!

To give our readers a chance to experience all that our new website has to offer, we have made all content freely avaiable, through October 1, 2018.

During this time, print and digital subscribers will not need to log in to view our stories or e-editions.

City deems downtown buildings ‘unsafe’

Justin Addison, Editor/Publisher
Posted 12/8/20

Two buildings that make up about half a block on the west side of Fayette’s downtown square have been condemned by the city. The decision came following a hearing held by the city’s Board …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

City deems downtown buildings ‘unsafe’

Posted

Two buildings that make up about half a block on the west side of Fayette’s downtown square have been condemned by the city. The decision came following a hearing held by the city’s Board of Aldermen during their regular meeting Tuesday, Dec. 1.

The city council found that the properties are dangerous buildings and ordered that the property owner should make necessary repairs. The city will allow for 30 days to comply.

The owner of the buildings, Dan Ruether, did not attend the hearing. 

If repairs have not been made to the buildings in the next 30 days, the city can complete the work and bill Mr. Ruether.

The decision by the council was unanimous. All four members present voted in favor of the findings and order to repair. Southwest Ward Alderwoman Hope Smith and Alderman Grafton Cook were not present at Tuesday’s meeting.

The step is just the latest in a saga stretching nearly a decade. The buildings in question are located at 102 and 104, known as the Bell Block Building, and 114 and 116 North Church Street. Another building owned by Mr. Ruether, which lies between those two buildings at 106 through 112 North Church Street, was not addressed at the hearing.

The Bell Block Building, erected in 1883, actually contains four storefronts, 102 to 108 N. Church. It unclear why only half of the building was the subject of Tuesday’s hearing.

The buildings have been a worsening eyesore on the square for years. In 2013, heavy snowfall caused the second floor of the building at 116 N. Church to collapse. Mr. Ruether installed a slanted roof which he promised would be temporary. Nearly eight years later it remains. It is known as the R.C. Clark building and was built in 1887. The two storefronts on the first floor remain empty.

That slanted roof has provided very little protection for the ground floor of that building. Danny Dougherty, Fayette’s building inspector, under questions from City Attorney Nathan Nicholaus, delivered sworn testimony before the council Tuesday that the buildings remain in poor condition, which could lead to collapse. He said bricks are missing from that building along with deteriorated tuckpointing. He said that water infiltration has caused significant damage that could lead to the building’s collapse.

With regard to the building located at 102 and 104 N. Church, better known as the Bell Block, Mr. Dougherty said that the roof was sagging and had sustained water damage. He said the roof is neither structurally sound nor safe. He also testified that the supports underneath the buildings are inadequate.

Mr. Dougherty agreed with the assessment that the buildings are in a state of near collapse.

Mr. Dougherty was present during two inspections made by Klingner & Associates, an engineering firm from Columbia. The city has spent around $4,000 on two separate inspections. The first was in November 2019, and the firm provided a report with necessary repairs. The city at the time gave Mr. Ruether what it considered adequate time to address the issues. A second inspection in September of this year showed that little work had been done to the buildings. “The vast majority of the repair recommendations from the previous report were not completed,” the latest report states.

That report, prepared by Wesley P. Hamilton, a structural engineer at the firm, pointed to seven specific areas of concern including spalling bricks, an exterior wall crack, deteriorated exterior wooden stairs, sagging roof framing, and unsafe handrails. In addition, the report stated that none of the recommendations for the building located at 116 N. Church Street were completed, the condition of which remains a serious threat to its neighboring building to the south. 

“The continued exposure to the elements has caused the floor to collapse into the crawl space, to the point where it was unsafe to enter the building. Lack of addressing the issues with this building are beginning to affect the 114 building,” the report stated.

Klingner previously recommended that the north section of the building at 114 N. Church St. should be properly protected from moisture exposure.

“Continuing to neglect repairs to 116 will likely result in further structural damage to 114 which could lead to that building collapsing or needing to be proactively removed as well,” wrote Mr. Hamilton in the latest report.

“I went by there today, and not much has changed,” Mr. Dougherty told the council on Tuesday. He testified that his conclusion is that the buildings are unsafe.

The conditions of these buildings came to the forefront of the city’s attention in February 2019 when bricks from the top of the Bell Block building’s south side fell to the sidewalk below. The city closed off the sidewalk to pedestrians until repairs were completed, which lasted nearly a year. 

Mr. Ruether told the city at the time the loose bricks had fallen, that he would make the repairs when the weather became warmer. But spring and summer came and went with continued neglect. The sidewalk remained closed while the city waited for the repairs to be made. Since then, businesses that formerly existed on the west side have relocated to other areas of downtown, leaving most of the Bell Block’s street-level storefronts vacant. Only the laundromat, which is owned by Mr. Ruether, remains.

The laundromat now could face possible closure and tenants in the upstairs apartments in the Bell Block could be evicted. The city will post signs on the buildings declaring them unsafe.

“He’ll have 30 days to start. He’ll have to pull a building permit,” Mr. Nicholas explained. “He’ll have to submit to us what his plan is going to be. And he’ll have to work on it diligently.”

If Mr. Ruether does submit a building plan and begins work, the city may grant him more time to complete the repairs. However, Fayette has already granted additional time to Mr. Ruether in 2013 and following initial plans in late 2019, but the work was never completed. 

“He had big plans before,” Mr. Dougherty said. “He put the temporary roof on, and here we are eight years later.”

Mr. Nicholaus suggested the city obtain a court order. “That way we have permission to be on the property,” he said. “It’s also easier to collect our money back if we have to do (the work) ourselves.”

Following the hearing, Mike Dimond, Executive Director of Fayette Main Street, Inc., told the council that while the building at 114 and 116 N. Church is less likely to be repaired, due to its extensive state of deterioration, the two other buildings, including the Bell Block, are an anchor for that side of the square. “We don’t want to lose the Bell Block, which is a good solid structure,” he said. “Those (storefronts) have good income-producing potential.”

He suggested the council make two separate orders, one for the Bell Block, and another separate order for the 114 and 116 N. Church building. “Maybe the city could order a repair, and not give the option to demolition 102 and 104. I’m afraid that if we give that option he might come in and knock the end of that block down.

“I think the two sites present different options for downtown,” said Mr. Dimond.

The future of these buildings remains murky. The city hopes that its actions will trigger Mr. Ruether to repair the buildings. If not, the city has options that include acquiring the buildings through eminent domain laws. Aldermen did not display much expectation that Mr. Ruether will respond within the next 30 days, which will then put further decisions in the hands of the city. The council will likely take up the matter at its January 5, 2021 meeting, which will be its first following the 30-day period.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here