HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2020-10-20-RevApproved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — October 20, 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, Historic
Preservation Planner
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 6:05 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 114 Orchard Place, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Replace Concrete Walkways
and a Landscape Stair on the South and East Elevations with Stone.
Applicant Chloe Ahmann appeared in front of the Commission to present a proposal to replace
concrete walks and steps with bluestone, and to remove a pair of cheek walls flanking the steps
and replace them with plantings. The homeowners also want to extend an area of gravel (over a
recently installed French drain) along one side of the house to appear more intentional.
Chair E. Finegan said that replacing the concrete with bluestone seems like an improvement.
D. Kramer asked if the bluestone path would be wider than what is there currently.
C. Ahmann said yes, it would be slightly wider, but not quite as wide as the front stairs, and she
said it would also be centered with the front door stairs.
Chair E. FInegan asked the applicant to provide more details about the proposed gravel path.
C. Ahmann then said that they also want to extend the no. 2 stone recently installed to backfill a
new French drain around to the driveway and then connecting it to the front walk. They also
propose plantings along the edges, so it looks intentional and not like a mistake.
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 to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by A. Smith, seconded by D. Kramer.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
2
Chair E. Finegan asked if any Commission members had questions or concerns about the
proposal.
S. Gibian said he’d like to see the front path widened to the same width as the steps, or at the
very least have a bottom landing the width of the steps. He also asked how this proposal relates
to the fence and gate installed previously, and said the gravel could serve as a good base for
pavers should they want to extend them at some point.
C. Ahmann said that the width of the path was determined by the standard width of the stone
stairs they want to use. She said the position of the gate might change slightly but the footprint of
the previously approved fence would remain the same. She said their contractor had already let
them know that they could add stepping stones over the gravel at some point, but she said their
preference is to start small.
S. Gibian suggested she consider adding a landing at the base of the wooden stairs to the house
and then taper it to meet the 4-foot wide walk.
C. Ahmann said they would be open to that if the Commission deems it necessary.
Chair E. Finegan asked the members what their opinions are on the landing.
K. Olson said that from a design standpoint, she agrees with S. Gibian, but from an historic
preservation standpoint, she sees no need to require that.
Other Commission members agreed.
S. Stein asked about the sidewalk that goes from the side door to the gravel drainage area. She
asked if the concrete was being changed.
C. Ahmann said yes, they are proposing to replace it with gravel to match the drain. She asked if
they could approve the landing option proposed, so they could go forward with it if so desired
without returning for additional approvals.
Commission members agreed to include it as a preferred option at the end of the resolution, with
final design to be approved by staff.
Chair E. Finegan asked if there were any further questions or comments.
There were none.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D.Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 114 Orchard Place is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
3
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated October 7, 2020, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners Chloe and Victor
Kessler including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a sketch of the proposed
alterations prepared by the property owner; (3) six photographs documenting
existing conditions; and (4) two photographs showing the proposed materials and
design elements; and , and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 114 Orchard Place and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
replacement of deteriorated concrete walkways and a landscape stair with the
following: the walkway leading from the public sidewalk to the main entrance of the
residence with regular-ashlar-patterned bluestone; the landscape stairs leading from
the public sidewalk to the front walk with monolithic bluestone blocks; and the
ancillary path from the front walk to the side yard with pea gravel, 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 October 20, 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 East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is
1830-1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 114 Orchard
Place was constructed in 1913 or 1914 in the Craftsman style. It is one of several
single-family homes on Orchard Place that was added to the East Hill Historic
District in 2014. The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection
of Orchard Place and Blair Street, and the lot slopes from east to west. Constructed
within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a
high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic
District.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
4
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 replacement of the
concrete with stone 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 regular-ashlar,
bluestone walkway, monolithic bluestone steps, and pea gravel path are compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the walkway, steps and path can be removed in the
future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property
and its environment.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
5
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 114
Orchard Place and the East Hill 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 with the
following condition(s):
• Should it be determined that a landing is required at the base of the entrance stair
per Section R311.7.6 of the International Residential Code, the Secretary of the
Commission is authorized to approve this additional work administratively. The
code language states: “There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of
each stairway. The width perpendicular to the direction of travel shall be not less
than the width of the stair served. . . . . . Where the stairway has a straight run,
the depth in the direction of travel shall be not less than 36 inches.”
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: D. Kramer, S. Stein, E. Finegan, K. Olson, A. Smith, S. Gibian
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.
C. Ahmann thanked the Commission members and staff for their time.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
6
B. 118 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace a Concrete
Walkway on the North Elevation with Stone and Install Another Walkway Paved in
Stone Between the Front Walk and the Driveway.
Applicant Rene Kizilcec appeared in front of the Commission to explain his proposal to replace
the concrete front walkway with stone pavers and install another to connect the front walk to the
driveway. He said that the City had recently installed new sidewalks and changed the slope at the
end of his driveway by removing some of the asphalt. That, he said, inspired him to repave the
driveway, update the old concrete walkway, and create a connecting walkway to the driveway.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the building is a non-contributing resource.
B. McCracken said yes, it is. The cutoff when the district was created was 1938, and the building
was built in 1939.
K. Olson asked if in that context their primary consideration is how the proposal would impact
the historic district.
B. McCracken said that is correct.
Several commission members said they see no negative impacts.
S. Gibian recommended that the landing at the bottom of the steps be widened to the full width
of the stairs for aesthetic and safety reasons (as with the previous application).
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
Chair E. Finegan asked if any Commission members had any additional comments or questions.
There were none.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by A. Smith.
WHEREAS, 118 Heights 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 September 23, 2020, was submitted for review to the
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
7
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Rene
Kizilcec, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s), and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
118 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
replacing the concrete paving material of the walkway leading from the public
sidewalk to the main entrance of the residence with regular-ashlar-patterned
bluestone and installing a walkway paved in the same material between the above
referenced walkway and the residence’s driveway, 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 October 20, 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 Garrison
Colonial-Revival-Style residence at 118 Heights Court was constructed between 1939
and 1940.
Constructed outside the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic
District the property is a non-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
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
8
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:
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.
As a non-contributing structure, 118 Heights Court, by definition, 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. The ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed project is therefore limited to the
assessment of the impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic structures and
on the Cornell Heights Historic District as a whole, with the guiding principle being
that the proposed work must not further reduce the compatibility of the non-
contributing structure within its historic environment.
With respect to Standard #9, the proposed stone walkways are compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the 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 with the
following condition(s):
• Should it be determined that a landing is required at the base of the entrance stair
per Section R311.7.6 of the International Residential Code, the Secretary of the
Commission is authorized to approve this additional work administratively. The
code language states: “There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of
each stairway. The width perpendicular to the direction of travel shall be not less
than the width of the stair served. . . . . . Where the stairway has a straight run,
the depth in the direction of travel shall be not less than 36 inches.”
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
9
Seconded by: A. Smith
In Favor: S. Stein, A. Smith, K. Olson, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, S.Gibian
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.
R. Kizilcec thanked the Commission members and staff.
C. 705 East Buffalo Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Replace a Deteriorated
Railroad Tie Retaining Wall along the South Property Line with a Pre-Cast Concrete
Block Wall.
Applicant Joe Price appeared upon behalf of property owner Ithaca Renting Company to present
a proposal to replace a railroad tie retaining wall with a pre-cast concrete block wall.
K. Olson asked B. McCracken to explain the use of railroad ties in the construction of retaining
walls.
B. Mc Cracken said that they are a relatively commonly used secondary building material used to
construct retaining walls. He said he doesn’t think they were ever prized for their attractiveness,
but they were relatively easy to come by and affordable during the time when they were in use.
He said that they are no longer available for commercial use due to their being treated with toxic
chemicals, so replacement in kind is not possible.
A. Smith asked if it was likely put in after the house was built.
B. McCracken said that is his assumption, and he added that there’s a lower stone retaining wall
that seems older running around the perimeter, and then this one which seems to have been
installed to create a level area for parking when much of the lot was paved in the 1980s.
K. Olson asked about the lower stone wall.
J. Price said that wall is also failing, and it is their intent to repair any portion that is in in danger
of falling by restacking in place, based upon the recommendations of their engineer.
D. Kramer mentioned that Nabokov wrote “Lolita” in the house next door, so many fans make
pilgrimages there. He said he hopes the repairs will be as attractive.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
10
Chair E. Finegan asked about the dimensions of the proposed concrete blocks.
J. Price said approximately 2-foot by 6-foot.
S. Gibian asked for clarification on where the property line is with respect to the stone wall and
the Nabokov.
J. Price said he wasn’t sure.
S. Gibian asked if they intend to step the wall back.
J. Price said yes.
S. Gibian asked how they planned to attach the guard rail.
J. Price said that he was waiting for the engineer to specify that.
S. Gibian asked if the blocks would be smooth or textured.
J. Price said smooth.
D. Kramer suggested a site visit.
Chair E. Finegan agreed, and said it’s especially important to determine if the stone structure is
on the neighboring property. It would put a lot of weight on that, and they need to determine how
the lower rock wall could be stabilized.
K. Olson said she agrees that a site visit would be a good idea.
S. Gibian said some of the designs on this type of concrete retaining walls are more attractive
than others and referenced one on Coddington Road.
K. Olson said that the only time she can remember voting in favor of something like this is when
it was in the back – not on the primary façade – and not visible from the street.
B. McCracken said that the only other property he can think of where they have approved this
style of concrete block wall is 934 Stewart Avenue, a non-contributing structure, and there, the
wall was not visible from the public way.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by A. Smith, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
David Beer appeared on behalf of his parents who own neighboring properties at 802, 804, and
804.5 E. Seneca Street. He said he agrees that the railroad tie retaining wall is in bad shape, and
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
11
should be replaced. He said his concern is maintaining the integrity of the dry-laid stone wall that
is below and in front of it. He said he is also concerned that the proposed concrete block wall
feels out of scale with everything else around it in the neighborhood. He said the concrete block
proposed looks like something you might see alongside an interstate highway, not something
you’d typically see in an historic district. He also said that the work done to 705 E. Seneca Street
in the ‘80s (transforming the landscaped urban front yard to a parking lot) was a motivating
factor to Common Council establishing the East Hill Historic District. He said that although the
Commission has approved concrete block walls elsewhere in the district, they are usually of a
much smaller scale and more reminiscent of the stone walls common in the district. He also said
that to his recollection, the property line runs a little to the south of the stone wall, so the stone
wall is on the applicant’s property. Beer then said he would be happy to answer any additional
questions if the Commission members had any.
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the
Public Hearing on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer.
Chair E. Finegan asked how the Commission members want to proceed, if they want to table the
resolution and schedule a site visit.
Several Commission members said they wanted a site visit.
B. McCracken said he would work with the Commission members and applicant to schedule a
site visit.
RESOLUTION ~TABLED~
D. 122 Wait Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District – Retroactive Request for Approval
for the Replacement of an Unspecified Number of Wood, One-Over-One, Double-Hung
Windows with Composite-Wood Window Inserts.
Applicant and homeowner Feres Nassar appeared in front of the Commission to request
retroactive approval for the replacement of an unspecified number of double hung wood
windows with composite wood window inserts.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the applicant had sought out the contractor to do the work, or if the
contractor had sought him out.
F. Nassar said that he had tried to come to City Hall three times, but he couldn’t find anybody.
He said that they have no student tenants right now, so he wanted to take advantage of the
vacancies to install replacements. He said he also wanted to do the work before winter.
Chair E. Finegan asked whether he or the contractor were supposed to obtain building permits.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
12
F. Nassar said that he signed the contract, and then there was a delay of about 2-3 months before
the work started, and he thought that he would be able to obtain the permits then, not knowing
that City Hall was closed.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the contractor had asked about the permits at all.
Applicant had no response.
Chair E. FInegan asked for the Commission members’ thoughts.
K. Olson said that she thinks they have to start by looking at the replacement product and see if
they think it’s an appropriate product, as well as if the condition of the windows warrants
replacement at all. She said they have approved some requests retroactively.
F. Nassar said he has been looking into replacing his windows for 3-4 years now, and he selected
these because they are the closest thing he could find to the originals. He said that he spoke with
someone from City Hall about 4 years ago and learned that because he’s in an historic district, he
shouldn’t change the appearance of the house. He said that is why he chose these windows,
because they are the closest in appearance to the originals that he could find.
K. Olson said that while she appreciates that, the first thing the ILPC must consider is whether
the conditions of the windows warrant repair or replacement, and if the condition warrants
replacement, it should be replacement in-kind whenever possible. She said that the first
consideration in any type of proposal such as this is to determine whether replacement is
necessary, and that is why they made a site visit to the property. She said the Commission needs
to start by evaluating the need for replacement before considering the replacement product.
D. Kramer said that as far as he’s concerned, based on the site visit, he doesn’t think the
condition of the original windows warrants replacement. He said he finds the situation frustrating
because it seems like the contractor took advantage of the applicant and did the work without
getting the proper approvals. He said he thinks the city code needs to be changed to hold such
contractors responsible.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the windows that were replaced first in similar condition to the
remaining originals. He asked why they were selected for replacement first.
F. Nassar said he didn’t understand. He said that he thinks the replacements are better than what
he has now.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the ones that were removed were in a condition similar to what
remains in the building.
F. Nassar said he doesn’t know because the contractor took them with him.
Chair E. Finegan asked about the material of the replacements.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
13
F. Nassar said it’s Fibrex, a composite material. He said it’s very strong and won’t rot like wood.
Chair E. Finegan asked if they have approved composite windows previously.
B. McCracken said it has been approved in new construction and in a few locations that weren’t
highly visible.
Chair E. Finegan said he wished there were a way to hold the contractor accountable.
K. Olson said that as a window contractor in New York State, they are almost certainly aware of
the state energy code requirement to obtain a building permit.
S. Gibian said the original windows are one-over-one sash with no divided lights. He said they
have sash cords with balance weights, and the stops are grounded and screwed, which makes it
easy to service the sash cords. The exterior has aluminum triple track storm/screen components,
which aren’t particularly attractive or easy to use, but do improve the performance of the original
single glazed windows. He said the originals have one sash lock per rail and the meeting rail is
about 1-1/4-inch wide. He said that the meeting rail on the replacement windows is about 2
inches wide, the triple track storms have been removed, and there are two sash locks. He said
visually, the biggest differences from the outside are the thicker meeting rail and the double sash
locks. As far as the material is concerned, he said he thinks the profile is more important than the
material itself. He said this is not an argument for replacement, just an overview and comparison.
Chair E. Finegan asked the Commission members how they want to proceed. He asked if they
would have approved the selected replacement window if one or more of the originals had been
damaged beyond repair.
D. Kramer said that as a non-expert looking at it from the driveway, the replacements didn’t jar
his eye.
K. Olson said she finds this kind of retroactive application unsettling because it sets a precedent
for homeowners asking for forgiveness rather than permission. She said she doesn’t think the
windows were in bad enough shape to warrant replacement, and she said that windows from this
time period were designed to be taken apart and repaired. She said she is of the mind that they
should have been repaired. She said it sets a dangerous precedent, and she is not going to
approve a composite window that is clearly visible from the public right of way. She said she
might approve a composite window on a non-contributing resource or for new construction, but
she won’t approve it in a case like this where it can’t be proven that the windows have
deteriorated to a point that would justify their replacement. She said she’s not going to approve
wholesale replacement because the conditions don’t warrant it. She said that the Commission has
never approved composite replacements for a contributing property and have in fact required
homeowners to go out an have wood windows manufactured.
D. Kramer said that they have in the past worked with the City attorney to levy large fines
against a homeowner who did this sort of thing (although in that case the homeowner seemed to
be acting in bad faith). He asked what others think is the best way to proceed.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
14
K. Olson said that the window openings have been altered as a result of the replacements being
installed. She said that the old windows had been discarded, so reinstallation is not an option.
She said that she would not approve replacing the rest of them. She said that B. McCracken
could help the homeowner locate a contractor to help repair the windows.
F. Nassar said that the reason he wanted to replace them was to save energy. He said he pays
$500 or more each month in the winter, and that was his motivation for wanting to change the
windows.
K. Olson said she is sympathetic to his concerns, but they have a very specific set of
considerations they have to use to make a determination, and energy usage is not one of them.
She said historic wood windows can be repaired and with properly fitted storm windows, can be
just as energy efficient and replacements. She also said that the wooden windows are original to
the house, and it’s a fact that replacements would not last as long as the originals.
A. Smith asked how many have been replaced so far.
F. Nassar said seven windows on the second floor had been replaced.
Chair E. Finegan said it was his understanding that they were only voting to approve the ones
that were already replaced, not to approve replacement of the rest.
K. Olson said that based on the site visit, it seems they need to consider the scope going forward
as well, but that’s not in the resolution under current consideration.
D. Fleming asked what the consequences of withholding approval would be.
F. Nassar said he would experience a big financial loss. He said the windows were custom made
and he cannot get a refund.
D. Fleming said that no additional work should proceed without permits. She asked what
happens if the Commission does not approve the seven already installed.
B. McCracken said that according to the ordinance, the Commission has 60 days to make a
decision (90 if additional information is provided), and if they don’t make any decision within
that timeframe, the approval is granted automatically. He said they could deny the application
but not take any further action, such as requesting they be replaced with something else.
Chair E. Finegan said here it seems like this would be a place where the ordinance could be
revised to confer some of the liability back onto the contractor. Now the homeowner’s only
option would be to sue because the contractor didn’t get the necessary permits, but he added that
that’s not really their purview. He asked the Commission members how they wanted to proceed.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
15
S. Gibian said the contractor removed and discarded the wood sashes and the triple track storms,
cut out the parting stops and probably filled the weight pockets with spray foam, so it would be
almost impossible to return the seven windows to their original condition.
K. Olson recommended that the Commission deny the application but recommend the City avoid
taking any further action.
D. Fleming asked why they just withhold approval, and in 60 or 90 days it would effectively be
approved.
K. Olson said that that would effectively be a tacit approval and that would set a bad precedent.
B. McCracken said they could deny the resolution and refer the matter to the City attorney.
D. Kramer said they might recommend the attorney take action against the contractor.
B. McCracken said they could include a resolved statement to that effect.
Chair E. Finegan said given that State law requires a building permit, the attorney should have
some grounds to move forward.
A. Smith said the attorney could at a minimum write a letter to the contractor letting them know
what they’ve done and informing them that there could be legal repercussions.
B. McCracken said that in other cases where they discover work was performed without a
permit, they will double the building permit fee, but again, that’s going to come back to the
property owner, not the contractor.
D. Fleming said if the contractor is doing this around the state, it would be an issue for the
Attorney General.
K. Olson said at minimum, it would be a consumer protection issue. She said she’s seen some of
the types of contracts they use, and they’re extremely detailed.
S. Stein said they are leaving leaflets around the neighborhood, as she found one on her doorstep.
F. Nassar asked if he had not improved his building.
Chair E. Finegan said perhaps, but your house is in an historic district and the work was not
approved.
K. Olson said that the Commission operates under a very specific local law. Buildings in historic
districts or which are independently designated as landmarks, are required to come before the
ILPC before any work is completed to ensure the work meets certain standards and principles as
set forth by law. The Commission is limited by a finite set of rules. She said she regrets the
situation. She said that as property owners, the Commission members understand there are
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
16
financial and energy implications, but the ILPC is bound by law to rule on specific
considerations, and in this case, the central one is whether the condition of a character-defining
feature (the windows) warrants repair or replacement in kind. She said this isn’t about the
members’ personal feelings.
Nassar said that under normal circumstances, he would have obtained the permits, but because of
the coronavirus, City Hall was closed. He said he had to have the work done before winter.
Chair E. Finegan said that virus or not, this project would not have been granted a building
permit if he had gone through the proper approvals process. He said that the problems they are in
now are because they went ahead with the work anyway.
A. Smith said that even though City Hall is closed, it’s still possible to get a building permit.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, 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 D.
Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
Chair E. Finegan asked if any Commission members had questions.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 122 Wait Avenue 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 September 30, 2020], was submitted for review to the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Fares Nassar, property owner,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) seven sheets of information on the proposed
product; and (3) seven photographs documenting existing conditions as well as the
proposed product in situ, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory
Form for 122 Wait Avenue, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District
Summary Statement, and
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
17
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project
involves a retroactive request for approval for the replacement of an unspecified number of
one-over-one, double-hung, wood window sash with composite wood window inserts with
the same operability type and sash configuration, 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 October 20, 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 Craftsman-
Style residence at 122 Wait Avenue was constructed between 1921 and 1922.
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.
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
18
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 #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When
the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary,
physical, or pictorial evidence.
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.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of historic
wood windows with composite wood window inserts has removed distinctive materials and
has altered features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the property owner has stated their opinion
that the severity of the deterioration of wood windows was such that their replacement was
required. However, since the original materials have already been discarded, contractors
specializing in the repair of wood windows and members of the ILPC are unable to make
an independent assessment of their condition of those that have already been replaced. The
remaining wood windows appear to be in fair to good condition, exhibiting relatively minor
signs of deferred maintenance.
Also with respect to Standard #6, the insert window units do not match the old in design,
color, texture, materials, and other visual qualities. The installed window inserts alter the
historic planar relationship between the window sashes and wall surface and reduce the
size of exposed exterior sills. In addition to the change in material, window inserts
themselves do not replicate the characteristic molding profiles or the glazed-to-solid
proportions found in the original sashes.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed replacement windows are
compatible with the massing, size, and scale in that the size of the original window openings
was not altered and most original exterior trim was retained. However, the window units
are not compatible with the architectural features of the property for the reasons noted
above.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the replacement of the historic
wood windows with composite replacement windows has had a substantial adverse effect
on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 122 Wait Avenue and the
Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
19
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the
removal of the historic wood windows does not meet criteria for approval under Section
228-6 of the Municipal Code and is a violation of Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the
installed composite replacement windows do not meet criteria for approval under Section
228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
and be it further
RESOLVED, the violation of Standard #6 and Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code for
removal of an original, character-defining feature without approval is referred to the
Office of the City Attorney for resolution with the recommendation to pursue any legal
action against the project contractor (Renewal by Anderson) for work completed without
the legally required Certificate of Appropriateness and Building Permit. See attached
Building Code citations.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: K. Olson, D. Kramer, A. Smith, S. Stein, 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.
V. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by A. Smith, seconded by S. Stein, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous
consent at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved by ILPC: 17, November 2020
20
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner