Nursing home project stalls
Photo
The owner of this former nursing home on S. Parker Dr. has been ordered to make progress with a remodeling project or face a raze or repair order from the City of Janesville. The owner is also in hot water over the destruction of architectural details on the historic Lovejoy mansion that sits nearby.
JANESVILLE — The owner of the former Mercy Manor has until the end of this month to kick-start an assisted-living facility project that appears to be at a standstill.
If Brad Goodrich doesn’t have building plans to the city by then, the city could issue a raze or repair order and then demolish the building, Gale Price of the community development department said.
“That’s really serious stuff,” Price said. “We want to see a successful project here, but at this point, we’re very concerned about (Goodrich’s) ability to pull this project off.”
The plan commission in June 2007 granted Goodrich a conditional-use permit to build an assisted-living facility in the former Mercy Manor at 119 S. Parker Drive.
The project was to take place within the former Mercy Manor and the hall part of the former YWCA.
Goodrich owns most of the property on the block, including the adjacent historic Lovejoy Manor.
Goodrich has done some demolition at Mercy Manor, and the building is basically gutted, Price said.
Price said he understands that Goodrich has yet to get financing for the project, and the architect has put a lien on the property.
Price said he has heard nothing from Goodrich since he sent a letter March 30.
In the letter, Price wrote that approval for the project can be revoked if construction activities cease.
“The plans have been repossessed by your architect, and you need to address that matter before the plans can be resubmitted and finally approved,” Price wrote to Goodrich.
Meanwhile, the site remains in disrepair, and many neighbors describe it as looking like a “war zone,” Price said.
“I feel their pain,” Price said in an interview. “This has just drug on and on, and it’s very frustrating. We want to see a project. I know they want to see a project. But can (Goodrich) pull it off?”
The city gave Goodrich 30 days to:
-- Get financing for the project.
-- Resolve the lien with the architect.
-- Submit building plans for the final review and approval.
-- Get a building permit.
-- Continue construction.
If that is not done by Thursday, Price said the city could require Goodrich to resubmit the project to the plan commission for another conditional-use permit.
“If that is done, I would anticipate significant debate regarding the project as it relates to your track record and your relationship with the neighborhood,” Price said. “I unfortunately would not anticipate the support that you had previously with the plan commission.”
“In summary, the city has been very patient with this project, and I would have to describe the neighbors as being even more patient than staff,” Price said.
“It is imperative that you proceed on this project in the next 30 days, or otherwise the city will have to assume the project is dead and the buildings will need (to be) removed.”
Goodrich could not be reached despite numerous attempts.
Jun 22, 2009 at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The city gave Goodrich 30 days..." Come on, Gazette, it's now past 30 days. Where's the follow-up story???
Apr 30, 2009 at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is just the tip of the iceberg with this guy. This discussion is like talking about Madoff's unpaid parking tickets.
Apr 28, 2009 at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Question: If applications are submitted (as noted below in City of Janesville ordinances) is there a given time limit or may the time of obstruction be continually extended? Can any secular business or individual property owner block a sidewalk for years?
"Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property 12.04
"12.20.010 Prohibitions No person shall, in any manner, close, obstruct, encroach upon, occupy, or encumber any public street, highway, alley, sidewalk, or part thereof, unless expressly authorized to do so by the Chief of Police and then only in a manner consistent with this chapter and all other applicable laws..."
"12.20.070 Violations - Penalty Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall forfeit and pay to the city a forfeiture of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, together with the costs of prosecution for each offense...."
Apr 28, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
I would think so, or he could have his "assistant" do it. She represented him so well, yesterday.
Apr 28, 2009 at 11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
If Brad has time to give his side of the story on these blogs, he has time to communicate with the city code department.....
Apr 28, 2009 at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Zealous" is an understatement. And you forgot the annoying part.
Apr 28, 2009 at 6:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Point well taken, JohnDoe. It does, however, show both Goodrich and the city were working together in the beginning of the purchase of both buildings so it would be hard for him to deny knowledge of their role and local ordinances. Yet, you do remind us all that RLUIPA does supercede all these other issues. Historic, new, or yet-to-be-built, religious ownership and use trump all other regulation.
Apr 27, 2009 at 11 p.m.
Suggest removal
proartist...you posted the two quotes, but it sounds like you are misleading in your zealous opposition to RLUIPA.
Your first quote pertains to the "Lovejoy Manor", and your second quote pertains to "Mercy Manor"..."and the HALL PART OF THE FORMER YWCA."
Is the "HALL PART" an original historic part of the Lovejoy Manor? or just a post dated addition? It makes a big difference.
Either way, like Mr. Goodrich alluded to previously, there seems to be a communications problem here.
Apr 27, 2009 at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
correction Hannah. Montery hotel was purchased almost 20 years ago. It closed near 1990. My grandpa was the maintenance man until the day it closed and even tried to secure it from vandals after it was sold and he wasn't getting paid just because he loved the building and didn't want to see it go to waste.
.
and it has.
Apr 27, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
"If historical properties are important to a City or community then we should provide direction and resources to these. No one ever says by the way do you know.... before you buy?"
bradleyjgoodrich
Apr 26, 2009 at 5:21 p.m.
Comments related to Gazette article: "Details stripped from historic home"
VERSUS
Janesville Gazette 3/7/07
"Gale Price, Janesville's building and development services manager ... Price said he is working with Goodrich to make design changes...The redevelopment of Mercy Manor poses problems because of its age and architecture. 'It's challenging,' Price said. He's been working with Mercy Health System and Goodrich for two years to come up with a viable redevelopment. "We're getting closer to having a project that could work," he said. 'It's going to take a significant investment.'"
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.