Tuesday, June 18th 2013
 

More Area News

Holly council wants action on historic Waterworks building

Print
Written by Amy Mayhew
Thursday, January 24 2013

The WaterWorks buildng was dee...

HOLLY, Michigan – It’s been more than a year since a group of citizens came before Holly Village Council, asking for its blessing in moving forward toward determining what to do with Holly’s historic Waterworks building on S. Broad Street.

Village officials deemed the Waterworks building "unsafe" in 2006 when former Fire Chief Jack Hollands was severely injured after falling through the floor of the old structure.

Perhaps the first public waterworks system in Oakland County dating back to 1869, several members of the community are in favor of exploring ways in which the building can be restored.  

Headwaters Trails President, Sue Julian and several other interested citizens initially approached council last year, and were eventually given permission by the council to form an ad hoc committee to explore possible uses for the building.


During the Jan. 10 meeting, several residents voiced their opinions on what should be done, while Julian shared historical information, as well as a few ideas the committee hoped to consider over the next several months.

While the committee met on two separate occasions in 2012, council has yet to receive a formal report or any indications as to what the group thinks should be done with the building.

Jason Hughes


During the Jan. 22 Village Council meeting, Village President Jason Hughes said he has spoken with Julian, asking if there was any further development on the project.

“I actually reached out to Sue Julian last week since she was sort of heading up that citizens’ committee and I was reporting as liaison for council at the time,” Hughes said. “As reported, we hadn’t met since we had done the building tour back in March – the committee never reconvened.”

Julian told Hughes that there are still at least two ad hoc committee members that she knows of, still interested in moving forward with the project.

“We have to move forward somehow,” Councilwoman Jackie Campbell said, adding that she believes the building has sat dormant long enough. “Number one, you’ve got the village and a liability – we’ve given them several months and several extensions and we can’t keep doing this.”

Councilman Ryan Bladzik made a motion to contact the ad hoc committee, asking them to address the board or submit a report at the next Village Council meeting slated for Feb. 12. With Councilman George Kullis’ support, the motion passed 7-0

During the final public comment segment, two residents spoke specifically about Holly’s historical buildings.

Holding a binder containing the history of Holly’s Waterworks building, John Lauve said there had been no follow through and no decisions made in the last attempt to renovate the building.

John Lauve


“If you want to throw $1,000 in, that’s a lot cheaper than ripping the thing down because of the problems with the dam, the water flow – it’s going to be a nightmare,” he said. “So let’s throw a little money in – I’ll take care of stabilizing the roof, but if you’re going to have more committees, it’s going to take another two months to get a committee together.”

Village resident Marlo Davidson agreed. “I had a dream – I guess that’s an appropriate phrase,” she began. “It’s been 20-plus years that I talked about the same thing you guys are talking about. We’ve got buildings down here in this area that make wonderful places if we could just get something done.”

Davidson praised Lauve for his work in restoring the historic Mill, and for the work he’s done in the past on the train depot.

“We’ve got the Waterworks building that 20 years ago would have made a wonderful spot for families to walk to – all these places are walkable from downtown for families to walk and see history, but now it’s 20-plus years in disrepair,” she said. “I’d love to see these things happen – all these things would help everybody.”


Comments   

 
#1 Jesse Lambert 2013-01-24 09:41
Is this building worth salvaging?

What is the intended use?

With no estimate or viable usage plan, how can this issue progress.

I'm all in favor of demolishing the building and recreating a more natural environment.

Either way, the Village is going to have to pony up some serious dough just to get the project off the ground.
Report to administrator
 
 
#2 TheDuke 2013-01-24 20:08
Whatever we do, lets not turn this over to the Holly Historical Committee. They have caused enough trouble with demands on our property owners as to materials and how repairs are to be done. Lets look forward and not backwards with our history.
Report to administrator
 
 
#3 Ryan Bladzik 2013-01-25 09:56
Just to add some clarification to TheDuke's comment...the Historical District Commission's purview is limited to only those properties that are listed in the Historic District Ordinance who voluntarily opted-in to the historical preservation ordinance and agreed to adhere to the standards set. It's not just any building or property felt to be "historical".

The council decided to give the citizen's committee that was interested in the Waterworks Building a few more weeks to report on its status and intent. Pending that report, the Council then decide how to address this matter and move forward.
Report to administrator
 
 
#4 Frank Sweeney 2013-01-25 23:05
I admit that I'm old, but does anyone else find TheDuke's comment to be a bit confusing?

"Lets look forward and not backwards with our history."

In my day, history was something upon which we always looked back.
Report to administrator
 
 
#5 TheDuke 2013-01-27 08:50
So if a property owner "voluntarily opted-in" can they then voluntarily opt-out? Seems like a good idea that got all bureaucratic on us, and turned into heated arguments and more division instead of pulling us all closer together.
Report to administrator
 
 
#6 Sheridan 2013-02-05 21:13
Holly is a town that is popular because of it's historical value and tourism-We should re purpose the building and bring in something for the families to enjoy! Would it be so bad to actually shine light on one of the resources we already have?
Report to administrator
 
 
#7 C. Rankin 2013-02-06 10:57
I'm no structural engineer, so take my opinion for what it is- my opinion. That said, my feeling is that the only salvageable part of the building is the concrete foundation and the waterwheel. The Waterworks building is really TWO buildings built next to each other that have slowly separated a few inches and neither has been weather- or water-tight for many years. The brick facade is crumbling. The windows are merely a suggestion for the wind and weather to stay out. The floor joists are soft and the hardwood flooring is buckled 6 inches high in some places from decades of being exposed to moisture from the river flowing below and rainwater entering the building thru several leaky openings in the roof.
I don't think that there is any saving this building. An attempt to repurpose or rebuild it would result in a complete teardown and rebuild because nothing in it is solid enough to be reused. A coat of paint and a new roof isn't going to cut it. It should be dismantled down to the foundation and an observation deck with interpretive signs put in its place at the first floor (street) level so that visitors can view the waterwheel in action. The waterwheel and the mechanical workings are the important part of Holly's history. That building is just the box it came in. And it's a very ugly and uninviting box. Allowing the waterwheel to be seen in action would be a great attraction for Holly.
Report to administrator
 
 
#8 Toddski 2013-02-08 06:05
C Rankin, you hit the nail right on the head, you are 100% correct..My opinion only.
Report to administrator
 

To comment on this article, please register for an account or log-in if you already have an account.

 



Front Page | Community | Sports and Outdoors | Opinion | Education | Holly Express | Site Map
©2013 The Holly Express.
Send feedback to Editor@theHollyExpress.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast, published, rewritten or redistributed without prior written permission.