HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2020-09-15-RevApproved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — September 15, 2020
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Katelin Olson, Member
Avi Smith, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Donna Fleming, Common Council
Liaison
Bryan McCracken, ILPC Secretary
Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff
Absent:
None
Pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order 202.1, this meeting was conducted remotely via the
online meeting platform Zoom. Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 119 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Remove
Concrete Walkway on the North Elevation and Install a New Red Brick
Walkway.
Applicant Sofia Akbar appeared in front of the Commission to present a proposal to replace a
cement sidewalk in her front yard with an antiqued brick material and move its location from
front and center on the yard to an off-center path that would run alongside the driveway. She said
a neighbor down the street had done something similar and that this is part of a larger
landscaping project.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing and wishing to speak, and no written comments
submitted to be read aloud, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Hearing on a motion by S. Stein,
seconded by K. Olson.
K. Olson said she is fine with the proposal, as it’s not adversely impacting the historic resource,
and it’s removable, and it’s a material upgrade.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
2
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 119Heights Court is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as
listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated August 25, 2020, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Sofia Akber,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) four photographs documenting
existing conditions; (3) a photograph of the proposed material; and (4) a landscape
plan showing the proposed site alterations, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
119 Heights Court, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District
Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
the removal of a concrete walkway leading from the public sidewalk to the main
entrances of the residence and the installation of a red-brick-paved walkway that
connects the main entrances to the driveway and runs north along the east side of
said driveway until it intersects with the public sidewalk, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on September 15, 2020, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights
Historic District is 1898-1937.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the
Colonial-Revival-Style residence at 119 Heights Court was constructed between
1914 and 1915.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
3
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District
and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Cornell Heights Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural
value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is
consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the
landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code.
In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set
forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in
Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and
Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and
contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the
historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as
a whole.
Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be
compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is
located.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and
spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall
be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the removal of the
concrete walkway will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and
spaces that characterize the property.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
4
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of a red-
brick-paved walkway will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features
and spaces that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, the proposed red-
brick-paved walkway is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, walkway can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: S. Stein, K. Olson, A. Smith, D. Kramer, S. Gibian, E. Finegan
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
5
B. 230 Wait Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Install Sections
of 4’ Tall Black Metal Fence in the Side and Rear Yards.
Applicant Alexandra DeLorenzo appeared in front of the Commission members to present a
proposal to install a fence at 230 Wait Avenue. She said that she and her husband bought the
house recently and intend to retire there. Their son is currently living there while attending
Cornell, but when he graduates in a few years, they will move in. The purpose of the fence is to
keep their dog contained and to prevent people from cutting across the yard.
K. Olson said she had no problem with the proposal.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing and wishing to speak, and no written comments
submitted to be read aloud, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Hearing on a motion by S.
Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
S. Gibian said he didn’t see any signs posted on the site.
A. DeLorenzo apologized and said she had not posted the public notice signs.
RESOLUTION:
~TABLED~
The ILPC planned a special site visit to vote on the proposal after the applicant has properly
posted the required public notice.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
6
C. DeWitt Park, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Remove a Stone and
Bronze Monument Located in the Northwest Corner of DeWitt Park Known as
the “White Settlers” marker.
B. McCracken said that the City wishes to remove the historical marker because:
A) It is inaccurate, as the individuals named on the plaque were probably not the first
non-indigenous settlers in the area, and
B) It is culturally insensitive in that it doesn’t acknowledge the indigenous inhabitants of
the area, nor does it acknowledge the women or children of European descent, or African
Americans who were also settling in the area at the area at that time.
B. McCracken said the plan is to remove both the boulder and the plaque, to donate the plaque to
the History Center for their collection and to store the boulder at the City’s Streets and Facilities
building for possible future re-use.
S. Gibian said they had received a lot of public comments at the last minute, many of which he
had not been able to read ahead of time.
B. McCracken said a lot of them would be read into the record, and if the Commission members
would like, he could read all of them into the record.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Bill Brauninger of 916 Stewart Avenue said he is in favor of removal of the plaque, as it is
inaccurate, but he is somewhat non-plussed at the nature of the City’s request, in that it tries to
impose another layer of history on the narrative. He said he’s not sure we’ll ever know the full
history of the area. He said he looks at it paleontologically, and he thinks there were many
paleolithic travelers who passed through the area, of whom we are learning more by the study of
DNA. He said he likes to think of the indigenous people as “First Peoples,” and he is curious as
to what the ILPC will decide to do with the monument.
John Burger of 1686 Hanshaw Road said if he had to decide whether he wants to see the
marker stay or go, he would say go, but then he said he doesn’t think that’s particularly helpful,
as the issues are so profound. He said he thinks rather than just deciding if the marker stays up or
is removed, he would like to see a series of community meetings where the public can explore
the issues in a broader context. He said he would like to hear from some Haudenosaunee people
about what this land means to them and how they see this issue. He said he would also like to
hear from members of the Daughters of the American Revolution (if any are still living). He said
he’d also like to hear from someone from the History Center and from someone with Black Lives
Matter. He said he’d like to hear a whole range of people talk about it, so the community can
make an informed decision on what to do about it. He said the location of the monument is
questionable, as is the characterization of the people as either “white” or “settlers.” He said even
what the monument is called is more about cultural identity than history.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
7
B. McCracken said that if Common Council approves the removal of the monument, it will go to
the History Center where it will have additional language added to put it in context, and
community dialogues/ discussions around it. as J. Burger suggested, have been discussed.
Todd Saddler of 302 Cascadilla Street spoke next. He expressed support for an ongoing
community discussion about the monument and expressed gratitude towards the Mayor for
raising the issue of its removal. He said he and his wife moved to Ithaca from Haiti about 20
years ago, and that monument has always bothered him. He said that the monument implies that
white people are superior and that they have a right and a responsibility to take over the Earth, to
kill or enslave non-white people, and to make the “best use” of the land. He said that it is
because of this invisible, yet bad, story that we should remove the monument and relegate it to
history and remember it, not forget it, nor celebrate it. He said that the Mayor’s application to
remove the monument also references the repeated acts of vandalism to which the monument has
been subjected.
Andrew Winn of Ithaca spoke in opposition of the memorial’s removal. He said he finds the
timing of the proposal, coming on the heels of a recent vandalization, to be suspicious. He said
he has tried to clean the paint off of it following a recent vandalization. He said the monument
has been in the park since 1933, and removing it now sets a dangerous precedent. He said that
removing it so soon after it being vandalized might lead some to think that the first step getting a
monument you dislike removed is to vandalize it. He asked the Commission members to
consider how they would react if the MLK memorial on the Commons were doused in red paint
and allowed to remain in such a state without redress. He if they would support the vandalism
and removal of the Alex Haley historical marker because some have called into question the
historical accuracy of “Roots.” He said he believes the reason the marker is perceived to be
offensive is because it is dedicated to white people and their accomplishments. He requested that
the Commission recommend the monument be cleaned and left in place because erasing the past
is something the Taliban would do and it has no place in our community.
Nathan Kennedy of Ithaca said he is a ninth-generation Tompkins County resident. He
expressed support for preserving the monument. He said he wished the public had been given
more time to comment and provide feedback on the proposal to remove the monument, and he is
not satisfied with the explanation given as to why it is inaccurate. He said that at only 20 words
in length, there is no way the monument’s language could fully describe the history of the area,
but he thinks the Daughters of the American Revolution were meticulous in their research and
the monument is essentially accurate. He said that the other reason put forward for its removal is
that it is intentionally racist and exclusionary towards people of color. He said he finds that claim
offensive to the ladies on the committee responsible for erecting the memorial, as the reference
to the “first white settlers” is an acknowledgement that this was once native land.
B. McCracken next read the written comments submitted into the record. These are included as
an addendum at the end of these minutes.
Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Hearing on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by S. Gibian.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
8
Chair E. Finegan asked if anyone had any questions or comments.
S. Gibian asked if the date of installation (1933) is outside of the period of significance for the
park, and if so, what criteria they should use to make a judgement on the case.
B. McCracken said they need to consider how the removal of the artifact would impact the
character of the historic district as a whole. He said they don’t look at the impacts on the artifact
itself, as it has no protections under the landmarks ordinance.
Vice-Chair D. Kramer said he will vote to remove, but he admitted to having mixed feelings
about its removal, as it is an artifact of a moment in our history. He noted the DAR had a
reputation as being a reactionary organization and just a few years later denied Marion Anderson
the opportunity to sing in Constitution Hall. He said the Settler’s Monument does record a
moment in history while it also represents an attitude we don’t like or agree with today. He said
he wishes that it could be preserved with an interpretive sign around it, but that doesn’t seem
possible; however, at the History Center, it will be preserved and put into context without being
continually vandalized.
Chair E. Finegan and S. Stein agreed that they would like to see it put in context of a more
complete historical accounting.
K. Olson said she wants to make sure the Commission is focusing on what it needs to focus on
under the law. She said a public forum discussing these issues would be most appropriate, as her
opinions on the historical accuracy of the marker falls outside what they should consider under
the law. She said the property owner (the City) is requesting to remove this item not protected)
from the Park (which is a protected resource). She said that in her mind, the removal does not
have an adverse effect on the protected resource, so she is fine with it. She expressed some
disappointment that the History Center has no plans currently to do anything with it, but having
run a non-profit she understands that may be a function of their budget. She said she thinks the
City needs to undertake a substantive review of questions about what to do with monuments such
as this and not just make a one-off decision, as items like this have an historical value, whether
or not you agree with the messages being conveyed. She said there are likely to be people on
both sides who will be disappointed, and they might think that the ILPC is making the decision
(which they aren’t); it’s the City making the decision. She offered the city of Richmond, Virginia
as a good example of how to engage in robust civic engagement around the question of
monument removals.
D. Fleming asked if the Commission would similarly have to weigh in on a City proposal to
remove, for example, a bench.
K. Olson said it would depend on the bench. She then reiterated that any decision the
Commission comes to must be based on the anticipated impacts to the historic district and they
must base their recommendations on the standards and principles as outlined by the Secretary of
the Interior.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
9
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, DeWitt Park is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness dated August 28, 2020 was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by the City of Ithaca, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s)
and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two photographs documenting existing conditions,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the DeWitt Park Historic District National Register
Nomination Form, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the removal of a bronze and stone monument
in the northwest corner of DeWitt Park known as the “First White Settlers”
marker, and the donation of the bronze plaque to the History Center in
Tompkins County for accession into their collection, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on September 15, 2020, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park
Historic District is 1820-1930.
As indicated in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination
Form, DeWitt Park was laid out by, and later named for, New York State’s first
Survey General, Simeon DeWitt, in the early-19th century as the community’s
“public square. To ensure DeWitt Park became the center of the burgeoning
village, DeWitt donated lots around it for a school, a church, and other civic uses.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
10
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District
and possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the DeWitt Park is a
contributing element of the DeWitt Park Historic District.
The proposal under consideration involves the removal of a marker installed by the
Cayuga Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) to
commemorate Ithaca’s “First White Settlers” in 1933. The marker consists of a
bronze plaque mounted to a stone boulder. The text upon the plaque reads: The
First White Settlers in Ithaca Were Revolutionary Soldiers Jonathan Woodworth and
Robert McDowell in 1788; Cabin Sites Near This Marker. The intent of the City’s
proposal is to remove this marker, which purportedly presents incorrect and
culturally insensitive information.
The marker was installed outside the DeWitt Park Historic District’s period of
significance and, therefore, does not possess historic materials or features that are
subject to protection under the Principles enumerated in Section 228-5 of the
Municipal Code or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value,
the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with
the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or
district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making
this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in
Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C,
and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this
case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing
to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and
any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
11
As a non-contributing element, the ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed removal is
limited to the assessment of the impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic
structures and on the DeWitt Park Historic District as a whole, with the guiding
principle being that the proposed work must not negatively impact the historic
aesthetic quality of neighborhood.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the removal of the
marker will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces
that characterize the DeWitt Park Historic District.
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of DeWitt Park and the
DeWitt Park Historic District as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
meets the criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: A. Smith, D. Kramer, K. Olson, S. Stein, E. Finegan
Against: S. Gibian
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention of the
ILPC staff, any deviation from the approved plans, including, but not limited to, changes required
by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as construction progresses
may result in the issuance by the building department of a stop work order or revocation of the
building permit.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Chair E. Finegan opened the public comment period.
There being no members of the public appearing and wishing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed
the public comment period.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
12
III. NEW BUSINESS
• 430 West State Street – Advisory Review of Redevelopment Proposal
B. McCracken invited Commission members’ feedback on the project, explaining that it would only
be in an advisory capacity.
D. Kramer said the building looks pretty nice and three sides at least are in pretty good shape.
K. Olson agreed and said that it’s nice to see a developer preserve something even when they don’t
have to. She said she would not be okay with it if this were a designated resource, but this is not. She
expressed support for salvaging the materials and keeping them out of the landfill.
S. Gibian said he walked from the Commons to the W. State Street site and didn’t see any other
buildings that were 5 stories tall. He said the proposed building is huge. He said all the windows are
exactly the same, and the builder is using brick to make the new sections look like individual smaller
buildings, but it really doesn’t improve the articulation.
K. Olson said the new construction should be done as sympathetically as possible to the historic
façade and surrounding streetscape.
A. Smith suggested the developer salvage as much as possible of the historic materials from the
interior.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• 408 North Tioga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District – Condition review pursuant to
Sections 228-14(B) and 228-15(C) of the Municipal Code
B. McCracken said the City had received a complaint about the condition of the property and
asked the Commission members to please pay the property a visit and provide feedback on
whether they want to draft a memo to the City to encourage action.
D. Kramer asked about jurisdiction, noting the County owns the property in question.
B. McCracken said they do not have jurisdiction but they can encourage the owner to do the right
thing.
• 122 Wait Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District – Schedule Site Visit
B. McCracken said the homeowner had begun window replacement without the required
approvals. The City issued a stop work order and the property owner has been provided a copy of
the Certificate of Appropriateness application and is completing it.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
13
D. Kramer said he thinks it’s time to penalize contractors who move ahead with work without
the necessary approvals.
B. McCracken said he would send out a Doodle poll to schedule a site visit.
V. AJOURNMENT
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by A. Smith, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous
consent at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Secretary
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission