Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIthaca Landmarks Preservation CommissionLANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK RULES OF PROCEDURE Adopted by the Commission, April 28, 1971 Amended 10 April 1972 and 8 November 1976 Sec. 101 GENERAL GOVERNING RULES The Landmarks Preservation Commission shall be governed by the provisions of all applicable state statutes, local laws, ordinances and these'rules. Sec. 201 OFFICERS AND DUTIES (1) Chairman and Vice -Chairman The Commission shall elect annually from its membership by a majority vote of the members attending a Chairman and Vice - Chairman who may be elected to succeed themselves. The term of office of the Chairman and Vice -Chairman shall be one (1) year. This election -shall be held at the first regular meeting of the year. The Chairman, or in his absence or incapacity, the Vice - Chairman, shall decide all points of order or procedure and may administer oaths, and compel the attendance of witnesses. (2) Secretary In accordance with Section 4 of the Landmarks Ordinance, as codified, the Planning Officer or his designee shall act as Secretary. The Secretary shall keep all records, conduct all correspondence of the Commission and supervise the clerical work of the Commission. The Secretary shall keep a minute book of the proceedings of each meeting and hearing which shall include the. vote of each member on each designation and approval of Certificate of Appropriateness or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, the names and addresses of all witnesses, a summary of the facts on which the decision is based, and the decision rendered, and other official actions of the Commission. Sec. 301 MEETINGS (1) Quorum A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Commission. (2) Time of Meeting a. Regular meetings shall be held on the second Thursday of each month at such hour as the Chairman may designate. The first regular meeting in January shall constitute the annual organization meeting of the Commission. b. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman at any time provided that at least forty-eight (48) hours notice shall be given each member before a special meeting is held. A special meeting may be called by any three members of the Commission provided reasonable notice is given to all members. (3) Cancellation of Meetings Whenever there are no designations or other pertinent business to be considered at a regular meeting, the Chairman may dispense with such meeting by so notifying each member at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the time set for such meeting. (4) Order of Business The order of business shall be: a. Advertised Public Hearings (Sec. 401) b. Privilege of the Chair i. Administrative matters ii. Public Comment/Question on other matters c. Approval of Minutes d. Old Business i. Action on deferred requests/proposals ii. Other old business e. New Business i. New requests/proposals ii. Other new items f. Miscellaneous/Items not on Agenda g. Adjournment Items b. through f. may be taken out of sequence, provided no member present objects. In the absence of an official quorum, in the interests of time and the public convenience, all members present concurring, an informal session may be conducted to discuss any item(s) of business, including the receipt and proper recording of oral or written statements concerning a proposed designation, provided that no official action or decision may be taken on any matters except Emergency Repairs, as provided in Sec. 501(3) below. -3- (5) Voting and Disqualification of Members All matters shall be decided by a majority vote of those present and a roll call vote may be requested by any member. A roll call vote must be held in case of designation of a property, and in case of final action pertaining to demolitions and alterations. No member of the Commission shall sit in hearing or vote on any matter in which he shall be beneficially interested.' 1 Recognizing that there are ways, other than attending hearings, by which a member of the Commission may become fully acquainted with the pros and cons of a designation, it is the intention of this Commission to depend on the discretion of the individual member as to whether he has sufficient information to allow him to render a fair judgment at the final vote. A member may abstain from voting or disqualify himself from participating in the final discussion and voting, for lack of information, or by reason of beneficial interest as a result of family or other personal connections, or financial interest in the property concerned or adjacent. (per Minutes of 28 April 1971) -4- Sec. 401 PUBLIC HEARINGS PERTAINING TO A DESIGNATION (1) Open Meetings All regular or special meetings shall be open to the public and shall be considered public hearings for purposes of designations and other business requiring public hearings. (2) Notice of Hearings No designation shall be decided until after due notice has been given and a public hearing has been held thereon. Due notice of a hearing shall be as follows: a. By publication of a notice thereof once in one official paper of the city at least fifteen (15) days before the date of hearing. b. The Commission shall mail notice of the hearing to the owner of the property to be considered or his attorney or agent at least fifteen (15) days before the date of the public hearing. c. The Commission shall also, in the case of a designation of a Historic District, and insofar as practicable, mail notices of the hearing to all property owners as appears on the latest tax roll of the city, within a two hundred foot (200') radius of the premises affected by the designation. Such notices shall be mailed to the street address of the properties within 200' radius regardless of whether or not the owner resides therein, unless the Commission has definite knowledge of other addresses of absentee owners. Notice of the hearing shall also be sent to the councilmen of the district within which the proposed Historic District is located. Compliance with this sub -paragraph shall not be a condition precedent to proper legal notice and no hearing or action taken thereon shall be deemed invalid or illegal because of any failure to mail the notices provided for in this sub -paragraph. (3) Conduct of Public Hearings Any person may appear in person, by agent, or attorney, at any public hearing. The order of proceedings in the hearing of each case at a public hearing shall be as follows: a. Reading of the public notice of the hearing by the Chairman. b. Reading of pertinent written comments or reports concerning the designation. c. Witnesses in favor of the designation. d. Witnesses in opposition to the designation. e. Rebuttals. The Chairman or any member of the Commission may require any witness to swear or affirm that his or her statements of fact are true. -5- (4) Re -hearings No request for a reconsideration of a decision shall be accepted at any time, if it appears that no substantial change in facts, evidence, or conditions of the property has occurred. Sec. 402 PUBLIC HEARINGS PERTAINING TO AN APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OR APPEARANCE, OR DEMOLITION (1) Time of Hearings Within fourteen (14) days after notification by the Building Inspector of an application for an alteration or demolition permit, unless the applicant waives the right to have a meeting within fourteen (14) days in a writing subscribed by the applicant or his duly authorized agent or attorney, the Commission shall meet to review the said application. (2) Notice The Commission shall cause to be published notice of any hearing pertaining to an application for a material change of use or appearance, or demolition, at least three days in advance thereof. (3) Conduct of Hearings The order of proceedings in the hearing of each application shall be as follows: (a) Reading of the application for a material change or use or appearance, or demolition, by the Chairman. (b) Decision by the Commission that the application complies in all respects with Section 24-6(b) as codified of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. In the event that the equivalent information is already on file with the Commission, the applicant may reduce his documentation accordingly. (c) Witnesses in favor of the application. (d) Witnesses in opposition to the application. (e) Rebuttals. (f) The Commission may on their own motion call upon persons who could qualify as experts in a court of law to testify amicus curiae upon any issue raised with their own professional competence. (g) The Chairman or any member of the Commission may require any witness to swear or affirm that his statements of fact are true. (4) Re -hearings No request for a reconsideration of a decision shall be accepted at any time, if it appears that no substantial change in facts, evidence, or conditions of the property has occurred. Sec. 501 DECISIONS (1) Form of Decisions All decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission shall be by resolution. The basis for the determination of each decision, and a detailed summary of the facts upon which the determination is made, shall be recorded in the decision and shall constitute a part of the record thereof. (2) Filing of Decisions (a) Within seven (7) days after designation of a Landmark or Historic District, the Commission shall file a copy of such designation with the Planning Board, the City Building Commissioner, and Common Council. Any designation approved by the Council shall be final and in effect on and after the date of approval by the Council. (b) With reference to applications for permission to make a material change in use or appearance, a Certificate of Appropriateness shall take the form of a letter signed by the Chairman listing in detail the approved changes. Copies of the Certificate of Appropriateness shall be sent to the Building Commissioner, the applicant, and, when appropriate, the record owner of the affected parcel. (3) Emergency Repairs Any two (2) members of the Commission may authorize temporary emergency repairs affecting the exterior of a designated building when necessary in the opinion of the Building Couauissioner to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition. Permanent repairs can be approved only the Commission as a whole. Sec. 601 APPEALS (1) Time Limit for Appeals An appeal must be made within sixty (60) days after the action of the Commission which is being appealed from. (2) Filing of Appeals The applicant shall file his appeal in duplicate with the Secretary of the Commission; one copy of which shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca. Appeals shall be signed by property owners or a certified agent. Sec. 701 AMENDMENTS These rules may be amended at any regular meeting by an affirmative vote of not less than four (4) voting members of the Commission, provided that such amendment has been presented in writing to each member of the Commission at least forty-eight (48) hours preceding the meeting at which the vote is taken. O-LC#1-ILPCRule. A- ITHACA:LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION. February 22,.1971 Mayor and Common Council Members City of Ithaca Dear Mayor and Members of Council: On February 14, 1974, this Commissionheld a Public Hearing for the purpose of receiving public statements on the proposal to designate St. James' African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 116 Cleveland Avenue, as a Landmark of the City of Ithaca. At this hearing, held in accordance with applicable city regulations, no adverse comments were made. The church's minister stated that church officials, congregation, and others in the neighborhood were unanimously in favor of designation. Following the hearing, the Commission took judicial notice of the information previously presented in support of the proposal, which established. that St. James' was founded in 1833 on the initiative of an ex -slave in Ithaca's small Negro community; was built in 1836, making it the oldest church structure in the city; and played a part in the Underground Railroad system prior to Emancipation. After some further discussion, the Commission, on motion by Mr. Hemming seconded by Mrs. Gerkin, unanimously (6-o) RECOMMENDED to Common Council, "that St. James' African. Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 116 Cleveland Avenue,.. be designated a Historic Landmark of the City of Ithaca" in accordance with Sec. 2-35(c) of the City Code. Very ruly yours, EFR:hh • fed 6 304 . F. Roberts hairman Mayor Edward Conley; Canon . Council, geed Board of, Pi bblia , storks, City' .+tit. xebecs; Dear. Mayor, Councilliembers, Atyes .its ting. October; 21st, this 061lission discussid''the issue- of the Lehigh -V41.: DB - Freight- station, and:rpasssd : the - tolloving motiiont , By Mr. Jacobi, -=s goaded b _"*WZD, That . Ithaca LsnSaurks Preservation Coinissioti..,scci rinds that the City and its" agineies ,take no • - aotion,-. including the` awarding Of bids to,: contractors,' to`desolish the foar. Lehigh Ya11ey HR . Praiaht Station its 320 r Trvghannoolr B].v .,;'' for the following - reasons s'' • Apparently- cost. the illy laoas*;. . Yids nottbien ''that ;ta be rsovsdf for:..highway construction; In the, event ,it aunt be removed, eiiilablt for the,pvrpo..& Dsmolition by. the , city rithout sfederal;' epproral, eotld result in federal `disapproval of: fending assistancie for .lit y ,projsots; There has been • sosei.,intsrest;ssprtrordia' a�arlt thy structure :from the sits:" • ei ; inion- CAss#D, •Diecusiion inoludna -notice that Hirtorio' Daae. Ino., ,'sponsor- Of _.the' proposal to enter the , "Station �- Cmiga ": `'ons the. Motional Brdistsr. of Ristorie !lice,, noir Idabel • to. `vithdrav .the Freight Station the 'proposal;` notice 'that truism ° other' historic ;sites. in 'tbe'-corridors for i3- t'96: gust .be- reviewed by DoT, sa • -the- Froight Station should hot be .for project delay; and that singe the review is _Underway', it- would b , inpropar todswlish: the.: structureuntil. tide . evaluation is. cc pl ti. . The Oo is ion therefore urges that the- City not sues-. the thigh .. Yallel : '.AR.;Breight -Station ,t4)-_ be - .demolished;- anther that; it 'give ' the Opportunity 'ter another .solution; to .bs developed, tither -by- covin the',buildin8, or by lore elosely,..zsaioing:the: possibilitiesthe, highvsy around, it. In tion juaotioin with -AU Station Restaurant: and 'other; sstiviti.s --on. the .Island, rehabilitated freight -station could be;.sa 'attrsctiirs .its t: • TO: mayor & the Coffin Council, FROM: Ithaca: Landmarks ?reser v tion Commission BUJ: Fountain Pl.- Historic District." DATE:- August ' 26, 1974, . Cn 12 . August, The Ithaca, Landmarks ' Prerervation ' +Commission" held a public hearing 'to determine, the feasibility 'and desirability of designating • the area shown, on the . accompanying notice as a - Historic District of the City -of Ithaca. No objections were . heard at the hearing; and after the -hearing was closed, the Commission .voted -to designate .it. . The Commission requeits that Coru on. Co`iuncil ratify the designation, in accordance with the procedures ,sot forth" in the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. • ccs - J. Rundle 'A. -Jones. ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION_. COMMISSION Dear Property Owner: - The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission will hold a Public Hearing on"' August 12, 1974 at 4:00 P.M. in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, for the purpose of hearing statements from persons concerning the feasibility and desirability of designating properties at 414 East Buffalo Street, 2and 3 Fountain Place, 3 Willets Pl., and 108, 112, and 114-120 Fountain Place. This hearing is a re -hearing of one held April 25, 1974, at which time the Commission determined that the boundaries of the district as then proposed (including only the 414 E. Buffalo, 2 and 3 Fountain Place properties) were too narrowly -defined, and should include adjacent parcels under the same ownership as the core properties.' In accordance with Commission regulations, notice of the hearing and proposed designation is being sent to owners of all properties within two hundred feet (200 ft.) of said properties. Any person interested in the proposed designation for any reason may submit an oral or written statement or information to the Commission at the hearing, or a written statement to the Secretary, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, prior to the hearing. __t `\ \�\ i \,_ 1 For the Commission I v J. C. Meigs, Secretary /;;• _r1:<:.a-t , ri-\ r J.-i 1 =Not 1•.. I I.' 0.T': ., el.:.� .'�{,. /// 1 1. 114.12r !1� Ut- • I i iI 'l L, . i '' e/7yCLe7?1C 1 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COPMISSION Dear Property Owner: The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission will hold a Public Hearing on April 25, 1974 at 4:00 P.M. in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 103 East Green Street, Ithaca, for the purpose of hearing statements from persons concerning the feasibility and desirability of designating properties at 414 East Buffalo Street, 2 and 3 Fountain Place as a Historic District of the City. In accordance with Commission regulations, notice of the hearing and proposed designation is being sent to -owners of all properties within two hundred feet (200 ft.) of said properties. Any person interested in the proposed designation for any reason may submit an oral or written statement or information to the Commission at the hearing, or a written statement to the Secretary, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, prior to the hearing. For the Commission J.C. Meigs, Secretary SEP 201976 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 17 September 1976 Mayor Edward J. Conley and Members of Common Council City Hall Ithaca, New York Dear Mayor Conley and Members of Council: At its September 13 meeting, this Commission voted unani- mously to designate two areas as City Historic Districts: one on East Hill, which was the subject of a Public Hear- ing on June 14; and one extending the DeWitt Park District, for which the Public Hearing was held September 13. Maps of the designated districts are attached. Both areas contain many buildings of architectural and historical interest and value. In the.East Hill District are the Hinckley House and Museum; the attractive group of early residences along the.400 block of East Seneca; the Sage Mansion; and East Hill School and several resi- dences designed by noteworthy local architect. William H.. - Miller. In the DeWitt Park extension are the 1821 Bank of Newburg;'the Chamber of Commerce; Temple Beth El; and several attractive early- to mid -19th Century residences. The Commission feels strongly that these structures and areas merit landmark recognition and protection for -the part their early occupants played in the formation of this community, and for their ongoing contribution to the attractiveness of the urban scene. The Commission respectfully urges Common Council to acknowledge these reflections of Ithaca's heritage, and to aid in their conservation, by ratifying the landmarks designation of these two areas in accordance with the purposes of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and the procedures of Sec. 32.6C thereof. cc: City Clerk Rundle Planning and Development Committee Chairman Gutenberger ,Planning and Development Board Chairman Benson enclosures _ Very truly yours, Jo a haneigs Se etary, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 14. PuAcke 3-rwc-r 611-• vi 1 4 3A4Z. PLACE 1 0 3 S5 43- Mot/104 n FAKKL-Ic 5ncGa-r 1 i+ tct 24 IP —. . ALIKOKA bTICCT Pr,01;47!M .EfrT HILL MAY ITT& 0 TIICf 1 Cascatdilta Cour 1 r $ouMP4RY OF ratoP050D EXdLNSIoN Oi= CITY P isTXKT. • County old (PM" 1 Court !}oust House �sr $a1.3i of 4 err rLJH v Wlrr 11 _ E-- boundary . • Rail R:t►M Lr P 4ri c+. b®w ccar:ti oe isres eKr City a g PIORTIT Buffo.Io r PROPOSED EXTES1O OF CITY'S DWrTT PAKIf% Hsioc D STILCT SEPT. a V 76 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR LANDMARK DISTRICT DESIGNATION Pursuant to action of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission on May 10, 1976, Notice is hereby given that the Commission will hold a Public Hearing at 4:00 p.m. June 14th, 1976 in Common Coun- cil Chamber, City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, N.Y. to consider feasibility and desirability of designating properties on East Hill as a city Historic District. The properties being considered are 403, 407, 409-11, 413, 417, 419 and 503 E. Buffalo St.; 108, 109 and 112-14 Parker Pl.; 103, 109 and 114 Sage P1., including Sage Infirmary and related buildings; 206 and 211 Schuyler Pl.; 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 113, 115, 117, and 119 Stewart Ave., including East Hill School; and all properties facing on E. Seneca St., 403 to 612 inclusive. Owners of properties involved and those within 200 feet of subject area have been notified as required. Interested persons may speak for or against designation at the hearing, or submit written statements before the hearing to Secretary, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca. J. C. Meigs, Secretary J • u. )uLJ T' .7r1W • N. AuKoRA biRcg' --I I . r T HILL IIt'T 14:. 1TW A + N •`f. MAY Ic176 MO SCALE NOR?H 6.4 Ty CLeg ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 108. East Green Street MEMORANDUM TO: Property Owners and Interested Parties FROM: Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission RE: Public Hearing on Proposed East Hill Landmark District DATE: 2 June 1976 In accordance with the Commission's Rule of Procedure, notice is hereby given to owners of property within, and within 200 feet of, a proposed City Landmark District that a public hearing will be. held Monday, June 14, 1976 at 4:00 p.m. in Common Council chamber, City Hall, to receive public input on the feasibility and desirability of designation of a City Landmark District on East Hill. The proposed district includes the following properties: 403.,'407., 409-11, 413, 417, 419, 503 East Buffalo Street 108., 109., 112-14 Parker Place 103, 109, 114 Sage Place Sage Infirmary and related buildings 206, 211 Schuyler Place 108, 110, 112,.114,.116, 113, 115, 117, 119'Stewart Avenue East Hill School Nos. 403 to 612, inclusive,_ East Seneca Street The proposed district contains many residences of architectural and local historic interest; several structures, including the old East Hill School, were designed by noted local architect W. H. Miller around the turn of the century. Property owners receiving this notice are urged to pass it on to.their tenants. Owners and other interested parties may speak for or against the proposal at the scheduled hearing, or'may present written.statements.before— hand to Secretary, ILPC, 108 East Green Street. PEO OCT 2 9 1975 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 29 October 1975 Mayor and Common Council City of Ithaca Dear Mayor and Council Members: On October 13th this Commission designated properties lying north of Court Street as an addition to the City's DeWitt Park Historic District. This action was taken following a duly -advertised public hearing in September, notice of which was given neighboring property owners, and deliberation at the Commission's September and October: -meetings. The properties included in this addition are those fronting on the north side of Court Street from 114 West Court to Tioga Street, plus nos. 404, 407 and 409 North Cayuga Street, as indicated on the accompany- ing map. The purpose of this addition is to recognize and provide city landmarks protection for several note- worthy structures which form part of the larger and more comprehensive National Register historic district, making the boundaries of city and national districts more nearly congruent. The Commission feel that this designation and protection of historic resources is important, particularly in view of the potential for extensionof the B-1 zone which is currently under study. Your ratification of this action is requested. enclosure Very truly yours, (1->L(8 nathan C. Meigs ecretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Court 1JATiONA4-REG�sTQt_-- ---S7I`si-r i VOUNPARY_----_ ---- Acovnam �/ •TO-_GITY--05-rgic r C-rrr } Mete. 1 J \ • _AT2p1T1c2N "T"O qE. WITT FARt. Hus-rvczic p -rktc-r • ITUMA, N1�_ Z7FIiACA-=L/4NDN106.4LKS pxescRva-nam cc, M/oi95Io1.1 _19151'EicT _ 0,1411W y- 041reMb "R,__19.75 = - L[ti 11977 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY HALL :.108:;East :Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 .31 May 1977 Dear Sir or Madam: This notice is sent, as required by city ordinance, to all properties within, or within 200 feet of, a proposed city landmark district. Monday,. June 13th, 1977 at 4:00 p.m. in Common Council Chamber, City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, there will be a public hearing before this Commission to determine the desirability and feasibility of designating an area around and in— cluding the old Ithaca Calendar Clock Factory as a city landmark district. The proposed district, as shown on the map on the reverse, contains the following properties: St. John (Auburn) Park; 110 W. Lewis St.; 102 (the Factory), 207, 209 Adams St.; 211, .2i5,:217,_219,'305,. 307 Auburn St. ;i.116,1118, 202,::206, 208, 210, 212, 214, .216, 304, 306 Dey St.; 501, 507, 509, 511, 513, 517, 519, 601 Willow Ave.; 102, 104, 108, 110, 114, 116, 208, 210 Franklin St. The district will focus on the factory, for its contribution to Ithaca's history and fame; inclusion of surrounding residential properties recognizes both their historical relation to the glass factories which once existed nearby, and their architectural interest. Once designated, demolition or significant alterations to the exteriors of properties in the district will be subject to review by the Commission in order to avoid, if possible, any negative effects on the district. Any interested party may speak for or against the proposed designation at the hearing, or may submit a written statement to the Commission Secretary prior to the meeting. Recipients of this notice who are not owners of property within or adjacent to the proposed district are urged to notify the property owner. For further information contact the Secretary at 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, phone X73=$958. 2"121013• Sincerely, athan C. Meigs ecretary U l l: 1J a a K; V. 1. 11 W-Jc 0 CLOCK FACTOPs. 408 08 W. ,Lew1 s /107 • 4- .4— U) 4-i (4 ------ 01 1 Tompkins , t Q o`er _ • t W. Yotes - ._F'IZC?OSr 2. ITHACA CALERIWZ c L FA,CrOKY _ tiIVIOR16 P1 $Tgl ','r [' NAGA LAN'21• AR.45 PRE$e7, 'ATI2 t GOMM1551OM JUN 77 o 0 JUN 3 1977 A?. ceL) N. V LE ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 3 June 1977 Dear Sir or Madam: This notice is sent, as specified by city ordinance, to the owners or occupants of all properties within 200 feet of a proposed city landmark. Monday, June 13th, 1977 at 4:00 p.m. in Common Council Chamber, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, there will be a public hearing before this Commission to determine the desirability and feasibility of designating as city historic landmarks the Columbia Street Annex (old South Hill School), 110 Columbia Street, and the Alternate Junior High (formerly Markles Flats Junior High), 401 North Plain Street. These properties were selected because their. historical place in the community and their architectural character may merit designation, which carries with it the require- ment that any significant exterior alteration be reviewed by this Commission in order to avoid, if possible, any negative effects to the structure or' its neighborhood. Any interested.party may speak for or against the proposed designation at the hearing, or may submit a written state- ment to the Commission Secretary prior to the meeting. Recipients of this notice who are not owners of property within or adjacent to the proposed district are urged to notify the property owner. Persons wishing further information, or having information which may be helpful to the commission in its deliberations (such as names of architects/builders, events of local sig- nificance involving either building, previous history of building or site, etc.) are urged to contact the Secretary at 108 East Green Street,. Ithaca, phone 272-1713, or to attend the hearing. Sincerely athan C. Meigs ecretary Mayor and Common Council City of Ithaca Dear Mayor and Council Members: ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 OCT 111979 CITY CEEIIK'S OFFICE Ithaca, H. Y. l On behalf of this Commission, I want to �r'��r��Tj�o ' {to date on the matter of the Cornell University Ag. Quad., which has been the subject of some recent discussion. The Commission took official action to designate the Ag Quad as a City Historic District (including Stone, Roberts, East Roberts, Caldwell, Comstock and Bailey Halls and adjacent grounds) on September llth. Notice of this action was trans- mitted to Common Council (through the City Clerk) and the Planning Board the following day. We had deferred taking action immediately following the June 10th public hearing, at Cornell's request, to give the University a certain freedom to investigate alternatives with the State for saving the Roberts complex from demolition (see my letter of June 22 to you). In late August we learned that they had decided to proceed with plans to demolish, and we were free to act, I want to emphasize that the ILPC was asked for help by members of the Cornell community -- faculty, students, alumni and concerned citizens.-- who proposed local designation of the district. We did not 'charge up the Hill' on our own initiative. During this period, the State's Committee on Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places reviewed the same area for nomination. As you may have heard, they unanimously voted on September 27th to nominate it as a National Register Historic District, The State Committee felt that the area qualified on the national level under al.l"categories: historic significance, associations with people and events of importance, and architectural merit, Although the ILpC did not initiate the National Register nomination either, as the City's preservation agency we were required to submit relevant information in support or opposition, as were Cornell, Historic Ithaca, and other groups and individuals. Though national, state and local designations are independent of each other, I felt it would be appropriate to await the outcome of the State Committee's meet- ing before proceeding further locally, for the sake of clarity and in order to know what level of importance a higher body would attach to the district. Also, I wished to learn the City Attorney's opinion on recent assertions by Cornell that the City did not have authority to designate State property: He has just reaffirmed his earlier position that we do indeed have that power. The Ag buildings have been declared obsolete since the 1940's and were "condemned" by SUNY' twenty years later, Consequently, they have been kept on a malnutrition maintenance program - that they have held up as well as they have is in part a tribute to their basic soundness, Since 1940, only one preservation architect has been asked to evaluate the adaptive re -.use potential of these structures, Given three days, as a member of the Parkes Committee, his conclusions were that first rate, modern facilities could be housed in the Roberts complex for somewhat less money than new construction. -2 - According to our information, however, the State University Construction Fund arm of SUNY, interpreting the State Building Code strictly and without any allowance for variance, rejects the Parkes Committee's finding. Specifically, SUCF's position is that the existing wooden roof structure cannot be satisfactorily improved to meet code, and would have to be replaced, raising rehab costs above the cost of new construction. Unfortunately, Cornell has no definitive cost esti- mates on the proposed new construction, nor has an in-depth exploration of rehabili- tation been made, though Cornell has been offered funds to help pay for such a study. In the absence of detailed information on these and other pertinent factors, it is not only impossible to assess claims made by SUCF and Cornell accurately, but any conclusions or actions based on such incomplete and misleading information may be worthless. Without landmark designation the Ag Quad, inaccurately described by the Cornell and SUNY administrations as expendable, condemned, obsolete ruins, was doomed. With both national and local designation, I feel the structures might be treated a little more seriously and a compromise reached between SUNY and Cornell, whereby the Roberts complex could be renovated to standardswhich insure more than adequate life safety provisions, and provide modern, energy-efficient facilities in support of Cornell's educational mission. In conclusion, may I say that I hope you will at least gain a sense of the com- plexity of the rehab -vs. -new construction question from this letter. Please feel free to contact me at home (273-5796), or Jon Meigs in the Planning Department if you have other questions, I am extremely anxious to have your support for ratifi- cation of the designation of these buildings as a City. Landmark District because, in the final analysis, they do represent a very important part of the reason Cornell - and Tthaca have developed as they have. Over and above the details of the situation as presented here, the real issue before you is whether the City will officially recognize the Ag Quad's importance, and add weight to the need to fully evaluate the alternatives still open to Cornell. Thank you for your attention to this matter, ery truly yours, Vicky Romanoff ILPC, Chairman CITY OF ITHACA. CITY HALL • 108 EAST GREEN STREET • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • PHONE 272-1713 Form N -R73 J The Drawing Board, Inc., Box 505; Dallas, Texas INSTRUCTIONS TO SENDER: 1. KEEP YELLOW COPY. 2. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT: I NSTRUCTI CNS TO RECEIVER: I. WRITE REPLY. 2. DETACH STUB, KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER. MESSAGE REPLY TD- Joe Rundle DATE City Clerk • DATE Sept. 13, 1979 `y �•---� - _ --; �-.yU_t1i! 7 '� = lv nIn ct1Y �C4:�,'' ( t- 19 t - Enclosed herein is a resolution � S GC fes. c: "�'�' / RE :—PROPOSEDMCORNELL AG—QUAD LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, per -our_.M -conversation—yesterday. ►l"'� ��, " :: % �n- • i.-'��`� /� /.' / / I understand that filing this resolution with your office constitutes notice to �/�L, �.U ��,� all members of Common Council that this will be presented to the P&D�! Board at its Sept. :5th meeting. ,- i,:, 4 /; Hector Sarah Adams — — BY -� - SIGNED � a ,40 Form N -R73 J The Drawing Board, Inc., Box 505; Dallas, Texas INSTRUCTIONS TO SENDER: 1. KEEP YELLOW COPY. 2. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT: I NSTRUCTI CNS TO RECEIVER: I. WRITE REPLY. 2. DETACH STUB, KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER. • G1TY CIF ITHAC±A CtT:' HAU.. * 10E.E ST-OREs^N STREET • IT A A, NEW -YORK 11,48SO* PHONE 272-371:3 Form N-R73i The Drawing Board, Inc., Box 505, Dallas, Texas RECI PIENT KEEP THIS COPY, RETURN WH ITE COPY TO -SENDER MESSAGE REPLY 5.,:-T-- r TD JOe Rundle DATE City Clerk _ DATE Sept. 13, 1979 A s. - } �.. Enclosed herein - is a resolution RE. PROPOSE-CORNELL AG -t UAD LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT,"per our conversation -yesterday. �- ' . I (� r �° � ' . — ,'. , �� I understand that filing this resa idn/ with your office constitutes notice to all members of Comon Council that this wi 11:� bepresented to the P&D Board at its et. Rh—Meeting. Icr :I - ,e}4:::',': _g c,ok/7 , - Sarah- AdarnsH co- SIGNED ��,� G w. r ' BY r4 _. . Form N-R73i The Drawing Board, Inc., Box 505, Dallas, Texas RECI PIENT KEEP THIS COPY, RETURN WH ITE COPY TO -SENDER September 12, 1979 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RESOLUTION PROPOSED CORNELL AGRICULTURAL QUADRANGLE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEREAS, Cornell University and the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences have announced a proposal. to demolish three of the original buildings of the New York State College of Agricul- ture (specifically Stone, Roberts, and East Roberts Halls) in conjunction with construction of two new buildings for the College, 9 and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, a city agency which is charged with identifying and promoting the conservation of Ithaca's historic architectural heritage,. has received letters, petitions and requests representing over 300 area residents urging the designation of a city Historic District including the three threat- ened.buildings and Bailey, Caldwell and Comstock Halls, and the groundssurrounding them, and WHEREAS, the Commission, a City agency given authority over local landmarks designation under Section 96a [2] of General Municipal Law, believes it has legal jurisdiction to protect these buildings through landmark status, and WHEREAS, research conducted by the Commission,.whi.ch is composed of persons knowledgeable in architecture, historic preservation and architec- tural history, and by other persons and groups representing local Preservation interests, documents the importance, architectural and historic significance of the six named buildings in local, state and national terms, including the international position of the College as a leader in agricultural education and research, ILPC RESOLUTION Page 2. WHEREAS, this documentation and support, including information received at Commission meetings and at a public hearing held by the Commission June 10th, 1979, appears to provide ample grounds for local land- marks designation of the buildings and area cited, and WHEREAS, credible evidence, including investigations sponsored by the College, indicates that the three threatened buildings are structurally sound and may be capable of conversion to adaptive uses, including some of those proposed to be accommodated in the proposed new structures, at costs comparable to or less than new construction" for those purposes, and WHEREAS, a proposal has been made to nominate Stone, Roberts, East Roberts, Caldwell and Comstock Halls to the National Register of Historic Places, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission recommends to Common Council the designation of an historic district including Stone, Roberts, East Roberts, Com- stock, Caldwell and Bailey Halls and the ground adjacent to and between them. (Refer to attached map.) VOTE: Ms. Romanoff AYE Ms. Hector AYE Ms. Gerkin AYE Ms. Werbizky AYE Mr. Moon AYE Mr. Seldin (abstained due to new membership) PASSED unanimously, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, regular meeting of 11 July, 1979. Sarah Adams Hector Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission JLM:jv attachment - - 1 ', ,,,, , ,...j , .. —J, • , •• . 'I ky1 ( • ' - ,c . 1 _,\,) k„...... .. . . \- 1 • , ! i - --. -jd 1 . .. ,. I it 1 (-- ..,q.‘) 1 t---- ,t, i f( ).... ,t, , ......., • • . ‘ ,i, c.,, i___ 1 \ ) „... ( i 11 ft _ ; • „•;., ; ..., , , ., . L..1...____ _-.- '. • • I__ i ' '-r. • '. •---. \2”. '.\\ ---•>--:„ ,. • •::::\•::;• '.„-7---„:- ' - . -'.' ' - -I.:. r___ --z-: -1.-.••••- / i . ,_ .. , / , '••'• • • -.' ....,-:•.-z•:::................,- ,..,....,i,,.._:....___..7....„, ,...7; ....... .. .. 7 .. .1 i ':,... • : , • , -, ._ •• r ; •••••••••• . -.----..„.. /I i• i j 1 ( (.‘. ..... - ........• ..- .. ., -• i IH : il i ' - I • \ :.••., A • . ' ” - : 1. 1_,--,'`.--'-`" ' ; . ... ! •.• , , r - l• • , t 1 --- 1/4-..•. • \ ' • ,•,:- . .\ ;-•,; - - --. ' - .. I.• .-.. rg- ,J-.------------L_X---1 i •_. . -....., ,,, 1. I g 1 i , --1 ; • Sf,6ce i • \ ••••._....E.' % '3............-":- ' Y ,•,,, . (:-....% L..1 C.2:2; -3 F [12.,,,,,,,..1,..„,,,c-„crlir i j „(:.1,.._;: ..___-. - .-----... -I I I .143C, ' — 1:: ---7 .,•• (---)_. ; Sc 1 c -n cas ---- r i; N.. ., . 1 ...1. i•—.---, --"\\ 1 -I A 'I , ! i \,-L 6..r:••=0`11:(31 -..,a 1 ---„, - ---. • • • ;II ...•:- ...7'11, -_ :-•_- ' -.\---,-----,:* \ , 1 :-•S'. ...)\. L ri.N-, . . ; 1 _ 1 __• i \ •, . I ,-- ----- . __ _ 1 i . tY . ;.; \ \ 1 .---, ;.---1-----2H,:=---,-=,--i'----' • 1 • • 1 1 . ••••............,.........? s N ibs3r 's• L --...i ,.;•A- --'1 . ... ; L . 1 , ' •••••,,- • i , ' }—I-- I - - ....... F7 --i ,_ri-- . 1 1-- - —I tn.,tx3.9.12 . .t ..„-• ____„_ • ...... _ I , ,- .-- • 1 . . / i ........,r___... ..1 . ..., ' r ---,,,•,. , 2 ;---.71 3 1 7 r 1 . 1 r , ; , .1 , Nit 54..; i -____i " )1 \ 1 1 LJ • x 1 "-- -1 r• • •1 i I 1 / 1 •'l -N I '''\'', • \ I , 1 ., :1 \ ---,,-'-j------'•-_.•-;',. ••-Th & E, ( • c i , •("1 -1,i.>10 -it • I I ---,• L_ 1 , . __.,. . • '-----", i i______) L j -1...-- ••• •.. . i I "----, i ), —11—ii- _„, .. \\:,...,....„ .2.____,-- ...._ ...„ ,...„.... . ......, __. .--_----N,„_____. -:;''Y---------- T .Z" 1 1 1 c.•_':,fr ,"' ,• .. ' •? v s4 1 i , - - ---,..:"-....L-:-.z:_-_-_------ ."-• L3 ) ,o..m..E.1.11 IM,••••••76. •=1,..77 \ 1 I :i h 11 -- - -.- _..•..•• ..._, , ..e! ,•:^,-. . , -- : ( \\\.'-- - \-C: ' L i L ---- . , ___. .......• .._.N.,.._. \ ••__,,.__, A__ .7.-- ------„,,:----„.....2,:::-, ,...., \ , 1 \ ‘------ -----,,, , ,M.....A.1.1.10.1, ••••••••••il. IMMIE....• .......11.01. )1.••••••••MMI ••••=••••••• "..:"..Lrajciilj ..._,, .,-.7.......::::•..,1: 2 V ... ____..1_____.,...._______._... ____ _ _ ..• .-4..s. ,-.... '7::,....... (... . - ,_72a.:: _ ..-s----____7....r.. ...,:. •••:----:.; tt•j•.1,--"rk.—.:,.., ' •,..9 c. . ., • _ , ... -, 1 -.••... ......_ ,... • ., . ,-_,____...„...... ci 0 \ DDILPINGS Avid AREAS :t.obt. G.' ovvicte-Ked fo;* LA.NDMARK PE51611ATIO1` .-,-. • , . o . , , i , 10 0 I .1° i i R on cAmpus 0C. 11.Y. S. College of As ri col+ura. 4.t Life Sc.icogces, Car nail 1..),I'vylscr-sit9 , 1 IC) 11 it 'iI0 _. 1 ,, ....1 ' • "---- ' )-- 4; ) ......- . •,...r . : 2 . , 11•Y•• .....,,,„; IVA raca Ltoisciyvtael.-,,s riet.yervzt it; n Ca ypt yr,i .1,, j an , \,is,,, n a. , 1979 ' 'i 1- Y) 0 IA Rusty CI 0 :11 1 L R Scr),001 i I ? i V) 1 STONE:. HALL . I I 1 i • i .i „ -- —•---1 _-.7 ---, -/'..„. .4 ..-.•,'.)..- -...-------<(; O 7—'kr, ic "re,Ciei-::)12S.Rar..; ; ,t[ J :) . HALL iIIIi ij/04.4 cAtiw,- HALL. —1----)COMTOCMALL 0„t1,i / !1 '-'-'t,---- .T.... i.), 6 edx:.,...a.r HALL.. • ';! JJ____ .--- ,,, •,,____.._____ ; i, • .- •.:,..- „: ....•....,......., ,,.....1%, ; - —« Ar cv. p wita yr!.7. is% H:5-17crittC tli ST rt.;c:r , j __L \ /..•1. --11- ; , • 'i0 tr,1 - „:-., T_I Is t•-.0.i:l f i;!. i 1 1 (') 41 • ''.; C., • I 1—___.[;:.;:v_.;—c. -- .ti .._,,,:? r_ _ I CA i 1 r..-1•,...Vrii%1 ' I , Is . (.1 • l'i , ' i ili \.ILI, .11_ ,i 11 I ' . ' 1 1 1 1••;1^1 1 1 ; / 1 1 1 1 . 1 , . 1 . C 1 ' • 1 / I . i . / L r I , • - • • I 4 f f5;..rt...511 872 CJrAljiilI Fiala • • , - • 1' - • • • Resolution.of Board of Planning and Development Endorsing Designation of a City Historic District on the Campus of the N.Y. State. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University. By Ms. Cummings, seconded by Mr. Maclnnes: "MOVED that the City of Ithaca Board'of Planning and Development endorse the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Comission's recommendation for 'landmark district designation on the Cornell Ag. Quad, based upon the planning considerations noted in the CUrban Design and Preservation Committee) report and specified in 02.6C of the City Code of Ordinances." Motion PASSED unanimously, Meeting of November 1, 19_79. postponed regular meeting of October 3Q, 1979.) ' PRESERVATION AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE: RECOMMENDATION ON THE CORNELL AG. QUAD DESIGNATION, OCTOBER 30, 1979 The I.L.P.C. has recommended landmark district designation for a portion of.the Cornell University Ag. Quad, to include Roberts, East Roberts,. Stone, Comstock, Caldwell, and Bailey Halls. The New York State Committee on the National Register of Historic Places has unanimously recommended the district be placed on the National Register. The Preservation and Urban Design Committee of the Planning Board accepts these determinations of the historical and archi- tectural .significance of the Cornell Ag. Quad. It is, in turn, the business of our committee to review the- planning implications of such landmark designation. We believe, for the following reasons, that the Planning Board should firmly endorse the ILPC's recommendation for landmark district designation of the Cornell Ag. Quad. First, we must recognize that these six buildings taken together form a harmonious unit which contributes significantly to the quality of—design in Ithaca. The loss of any one, or several, of these structures would destroy the architectural integrity �f the entire unit, thus detracting from one of the more precisely planned and formally shaped areas of our city. Secondly, designation would insure a beneficial cultural continuity. While -this original Cornell Ag. Quad is; of course, extremely important for returning alumni, we must remember that it is also the focus for an even wider community. This college serves the entire agricultural sector of New York State. These Ag buildings, this physical unit, is an integral part of the continuing experience of a broad spectrum of our population. Alumni, Ag Day participants, all return year after year'.in large part because of a sense of familiarity with the existing Ag. Quad. The City of Ithaca can ill afford to lose the economic benefit of these returning visitors. Assuring cultural continuity, supporting -architectural rehabilitation, unquestionably stimulates tourism. -2- Finally, retention of these buildings would represent a major conser- vation effort which would make economic sense in several'ways. In 1978, the Department of the Interior commissioned an extensive study by the economist, Thomas Bever. This report, The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation, concluded the following: 1. Architectural rehabilitation conserves valuable materials. This should concern us all as we have become increasingly sensitive to the finite nature•of our natural resource supplies. 2. Rehab consumes 23% less energy than new construction. 65,000 BTU's/ sq.ft. are required for new construction, as compared to only 49,000 BTU's/sq.ft. for rehab. 3. Rehab is significantly more labor intensive than new construction. New construction is only 50% labor intensive, while rehab is up to 75% labor intensive. Rehabilitating Roberts, East Roberts, Stone, Comstock, and Caldwell would bring 50% more jobs to our local economy than would their demolition and the subsequent construction of a replacement building. Thus, landmark designation of the Ag. Quad would be responsible for saving resources and energy, while at the same time it would strengthen our local economy by creating a significant number of additional jobs. We believe that it would be in the best long term interests of the City of Ithaca to do all in its power to encourage the rehabilitation and enhancement of areas within our city limits and more especially so when these areas already have national recognition. Ithaca Landmark District designation of the Cornell Ag, Quad would assuredly promote good urban design, cultural continuity and tourism, and materials and energy conservation combined with more local jobs. Susan J. Cummings Chairman, Urban Design & Preservation Committee 10/30/79 CITY OF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 1 4E50 OFFICE OF MAYOR LEPHONE. 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMO TO: Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmarks Preservation Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley e DATE: May 31, 1979 SUBJECT: Baily, Caldwell, Comstock, East Roberts, Roberts and Stone Halls, Cornell University - Ithaca, Tompkins County - suggested as a place which may meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places Attached hereto please find a letter received today from'==�L.'c-y A. Breyer from the New York State Parks and Recreation in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. EJC:rb ATTACH. trA4 /L pc a-4 14-L. ) lv >44L - `toRKS D 0 ND RI=GS NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456 Orin Lehman, Commissioner May 29, 1979 Hon. Edward J. Conley Mayor Ithaca City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Conley: Re: Bailey, Caldwell, Comstock, East Roberts, Roberts and Stone Halls Cornell University Ithaca, Tompkins County The site identified above has been suggested as a place which may meet the criteria for listing on the National Regis- ter of Historic Places. In accordance with federal procedures, the Committee on - the Registers of the State Board for Historic Preservation will evaluate the property's historical, architectural, arch eological, and/or cultural significance. If•you would like to comment upon the property's significance, I encourage you to do so in writing at your earliest convenience in order to ensure that your comments will be considered by the Committee. I shall notify you by letter of the Board's recommendation. The National Register is the official list of the nations cultural resources worthy of preservation, and is intended to function as a planning tool for the federal government. 'Owners of depreciable property within the above-named site are advised that certain federal tax provisions, as provided under Section 2121+ of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, may result if the Secretary of the Interior lists the property on the National Register. Materials explaining the National Register, the review proce- dures, and the tax provisions are enclosed for your information. If you have any questions concerning the National Register Program, please write or call (516)474-0479. cb Enc. Sincerely, Lucy/A. Brey r Pro ram Assistant Historic Preservation Field Services An Eoual Oc'oiun„y ErmAcyer HUGH L.CAREY,GOVERNOR ORIN LEHMAN, Commissioner of Parks and Recreation and State Historic Preservation Officer The State Historic Preservation Office, Bureau of Field Services carries Sv�? out the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. RE State Historic Preservation Office, Office of Parks and Recreation, Field Services Bureau, Albany, NY 12238 (518-474-0479) • A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SAPO ORIN S. LEHMAN Within the 1979 federal appropriation to the National Historic Preservation Fund, a total of $ 5 million was reserved to initiate a special program of grants for maritime heritage preservation. Grants under this program will be made by the federal Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service through either the State Historic Preservation Office or the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Many of our nation's priceless historic maritime resources have already been lost and many of those which have survived are endangered. Our joint responsibility to preserve this disappearing heritage is therefore clear. Interested applicants should contact the State Historic Preservation Office and we will be happy to assist in clarifying eligibility criteria, matching requirements, and application procedures. We shall only be able to accept applications until May 15, 1979. Interested applicants should therefore contact us as quickly as possible. SONE EVENTS OF INTEREST HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE April 5-7 The Manchester Citizens Corporation MINORITY COMMUNITY 1120 Pennsylvania Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa.15233 Pittsburgh RURAL PRESERVATION CONFERENCE April 20-21 National Trust for Historic Preservation Annapolis, Maryland 740 Jackson P1.N.W., Washington, D.C.20006 PRESERVATION LEAGUE CONFERENCE May 11-13 Preservation League of New York State New York City 13 Northern Blvd., Albany, N.Y. 12210 HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING June 10-15 Cornell University Ithaca, New York 209 West Sibley Hall, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 PROBLEMS OF INAPPROPRIATE SIDING-: A CASE IN POINT RAYMOND W. SMITH The visual and physical effects which result from sheathing historic buildings with modern, artifical sidings have been a cause for much concern. Insensitive use of these sheathing materials obscures architectural details and may compromise the overall visual integrity and sense of scale. Aluminum and vinyl siding frequently conceal insect damage and structural deterioration and the evidence strongly suggests that the siding in the long term contributes to these conditions by trapping condensation in the wall. A fire which virtually destroyed an historic building in the Waterford Village Historic District in December, 1978, has poignantly illustrated two additional dangers. The Waterford fire began as an electrical short circuit at the main house connection, and the aluminum sheathing became electrified. Firefighters were unable to use water on the blaze for forty—five minutes while awaiting shutoff of power to the structure. During the interval, the fire burned unchecked, destroying much of the building. The aluminum siding installed: over the original clapboard also contained and intensified` the flames, causing severe charring and irreparable damage to the historic fabric of this key visual element in the historic district. HISTORIC PRESERVATION FIF11) SERVICES STAFF DIRECTOR: Steve Raiche, (518) 474-0479 NATIONAL REGISTER AND SURVEY: Larry Gobrecht, Lucy Breyer, Anne Covell, Doris Manley, Ellen Miller, Austin O'Brien, Claire Ross, Raymond Smith, Elizabeth Spencer -Ralph, 474-0479: Chuck Florance, 474-3176 PROJECT REVIEW: Lenore Kuwik, Bruce Fullem, Carol Kingsbury, 474-3176 TAX REFORM ACT: Carl Stearns, 474-7750 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANTS: Michael Lynch, Lee Pinckney, 474-0479 ARCHIVIST: Kathleeen LaFrank, 474-0479 SECRETARIAL/CLERICAL: Mildred Rado, Carrie Barranca, Rose Pascarell, Aurelia Aiossa PAGE TWO PRESERVATION ORGANIZATIONS WHICH IS WHICH? DORIS MANLEY People frequently confuse the State Historic Preservation Office with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and other organizations. This office is the center of historic preservation activities in your state government. We carry out the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is not a part of government. It is a non-profit private organization whose aim is to foster preservation efforts throughout the country. Always in the.forefront of the field, the Trust lobbies, sponsors timely conferences, publishes information and provides small technical assistance grants. The National Trust's Preservation Bookshop has a selection of publications on all aspects of preservation. Be sure to send for the Bookshop catalog. Membership in the National Trust is useful to individuals and organizations. The National Trust is located at 740 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. Another non-profit, private national organization is Preservation Action, which specializes in lobbying. Preservation Action is located at 1914 Sunderland Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. In addition to these nationally -focused private groups, you should be aware of The - Preservation League of New York State, a non-profit organization which serves our . own state. The League publishes a newsletter and technical information and also arranges conferences. The Preservation League, 13 Northern Blvd., Albany, N.Y.12210. Other preservation organizations in New York State are listed in the Preservation Directory. It was compiled by the Preservation League in 1977 and may be obtained from the above address for $5.00. TAX REFORM ACT NOTES . CARL STEARNS Persons desiring to obtain the special federal income tax benefits which are available for rehabilitating income-producing buildings must complete .a form called the "Historic Preservation Certification Application." .The form is available from our office upon request. We are encountering two common problems as we review the completed applications: 1. We need duplicates of all items submitted, including forms, photographs and any accompanying graphic or written materials. We have to send one copy to Washington and, of course, we need the other for our files. 2. Photographs taken before rehabilitation work begins are very important. These should show representative interior views and details as well as exteriors. Here are three common problems with the rehabilitation work itself (which is described in Part 2 of the form): 1. Concerning masonry buildings: cleaning methods may damage or deface historic brick and stone if abrasive (i.e. sandblasting, wet or dry) or untested by time (i.e. strong chemicals) and give buildings an appearance they never had. Repointing with mortars which are too hard for the old masonry should also be avoided. 2. Window rehabilitation: if at all possible, repair of wooden sash and frames should be attempted. If replacement is necessary, new materials and designs should be the same as,or closely resemble the early windows. 3. Period interiors, meaning intact partitions and details which represent a significant historic treatment, should be preserved. If the new use of a building requires the total removal of such an interior, that use may be determined to be "incompatible," meaning that the rehabilitation cannot be certified. MORE TAX REFORM ACT NOTES The Tax Reform Act of 1976 was signed into law on October 4, 1976. receiving applications for review of certification applications in that time we have reviewed ninety-four applications. The majority of applications have come from urban areas, with Albany County submitting the largest number, followed by New York and Kings counties. Saratoga and Dutchess counties have also seen a greater percentage of Tax Act activity than most others. In 1978, our office handled forty-seven certification applications from individuals as well as thirteen requests for certification of local statutes. The number of inquiries is increasing every month. CAROL KINGSBURY Our office began June 1977. Since PAGE THRLL A GOOD BOOK FOR HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSIONS Luc BREYER A new book, Design Review in Historic Districts, provides a comprehensive introduction to the principles and practice of design review. Written by Alice Meriwether Bowsher as a handbook for Virginia's design review boards, it outlines procedures and addresses problems that are equally relevant to New York's communities. Make sure that your library obtains this book: it will stimulate discussion of historic district legislation where none exists, can provide precedent and guidelines if you are considering legislation and procedures, and should be made required reading for members of existing design review'boards. Copies may be purchased from the National Trust's Preservation Bookshop, 740 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. The price is $4.50 postpaid. WHAT IS THE A-95 REVIEW ? FROM OUR PROJECT REVIEW COORDINATOR LENORE KUWIK The term "A-95" refers to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. Circular A-95 established the Project Notification and Review System (PNRS), which is administered by State and Areawide Clearinghouses. This system encourages coordination and cooperation among agencies at the federal, state and local levels in matters which involve federally -assisted projects. At the earliest possible time, an applicant for federal assistance notifies the appropriate Areawide and State Clearinghouses about the proposed project. Notification is provided to the Clearinghouses on a one-page Letter of Intent. The State Clearing- house coordinates A-95 review by state agencies. while the Areawide Clearinghouses coordinate reviews by local governments and agencies according to area plans. Our agency, Parks and Recreation, participates in the A-95 review process. Review is administered by the Project Review section of the Field Services Bureau acting on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer.. Upon receipt of a copy of the Letter of Intent, we advise an applicant if further review of the project is necessary in accordance with the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ("Protection of Historic. and Cultural Properties : 36 CFR 800 1). We may ask for additional information on the project. This information is submitted on a form called the "Project Review Checklist ,"and includes a map, photos and a project description. An A-95 Procedures Guide for Applicants is available from: New York State Planning and Development Clearinghouse, Division of the Budget, State Capitol, Albany, N.Y. 12224. Telephone: 518-474-1605. Project Review Checklists can be obtained upon request from the Project Review Section of the Field Services Bureau. THE ARCHEOLOGY CORNER BRUCE FuLLEM As part of our project review duties, we comment on archeological survey reports designed to locate and evaluate archeological remains. In an effort to standardize these reports, we recommend that certain minimal information be included in the report. When an archeological model is being constructed, as with a stage 1A, geographical information such as soil characteristics, elevation, water sources and landform features should be considered. This should result in a statement of likely site locations and this, in turn, should structure any future field work. The methodology for construct- ing the model should be explicitly stated in the report as well as the recommended strategy for. doing any future field work in- the :area. In addition, it is recommended that any sites found during the course of the field work bereported by filling out a Division for Historic Preservation Archeological Site Inventory Form (HP -3). When doing so, you should include in the site documentation or remarks section, the soil characteristics, elevation of site, nearest water source and landform on which the site is located. Should you have any questions regarding these recommendations, please contact me at 518-474-3176. THINKING ABOUT DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION? We have a collection of slides showing the revitalization process in quite a number of New York State communities. If your group or governmental official is interested in having one of our field persons make a presentation on downtown revitalization, please contact us at 474-0479 and we will do our best to accomodate you. ,PAGE FOUR NEW NATIONAL REGISTER LISTINGS. Albany Clinton Dutchess Erie Jefferson Livingston Nassau New York Oneida Onondaga Rensselaer Richmond Suffolk Westchester Albany Plattsburgh Poughkeepsie Cheektowaga Cape Vincent Vicinity Mount Morris Various Locations Nassau and Suffolk Counties Great Neck Plaza Oyster Bay Vicinity New York New York New York New York New York Oriskany Falls Marcell us Syracuse Castleton -on -Hudson Vicinity Nassau Staten Island Westhampton Ossining Ossining Ten Broeck Historic District Fort Brown Site Poughkeepsie Almshouse and City Infirmary Chapel of Our Lady Help of Christians Fort Haldimand Site Gen. William A. Mills House Long Island Wind and Tide Mills Thematic Resources Grace and Thomaston Buildings Planting Fields Arboretum Fort Tryon Park and the Cloisters Fort Washington Site Gilsey Hotel Queensboro Bridge ( also in Queens County) South Street Seaport Hist. Dist.(Expansion) First Congregational Free Church Dan Bradley House St Paul's Episcopal Cathedral& Parish House Joachim Staats House & Gerrit Staats Ruin Chatham Street Row New Brighton Village Hall Jagger House George Rohr Saloon and Boardinghouse St Paul's Episcopal Church and Rectory (Calvary Baptist Church and Annex) 1/25/79 12/15/78 12/4/78 12/14/78 12/15/78 12/19/78 12/27/78 12/14/78 1/23/78 12/19/78 12/6/78 12/14/78 12/20/78 12/12/78 1/19/79 12/12/78 12/1/78 12/15/78 12/1/78 12/15/78 12/12/78 12/1/78 12/6/78 THE SURVEYOR'S NOTEBOOK: IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION KATHLEEN LAFRANK Items 1-3 on the Building/Structure Inventory Form identify and locate the property as precisely as possible. Since the material in the Statewide Historic Resources Inventory is arranged geographically, this information determines'where the form will be filed and thus, if the information will be retrievable for planning and review purposes. Item 1: Building Name(s): A well-known or commonly recognized building name should,be used where appropriate. For residential structures it is acceptable to use the names of the past and/or present owners in this space. List the name of the earliest owner first, as in "Smith -Jones Residence." Item 2: County: Town/City: Village: County: Enter the name of the county in which the property is located. If the property is in more than one county, indicate which county the material should most appropriately be filed in. Town/City: If the property is within the limits of an incorporatecity, enter the name of the city in this space and circle the word city, as in "Town 4 . Newburgh ." If the property is not within a city's limits,enter the name of the own in which it is located and circle the word town, as in'' Town City: Newburgh ." Note: It is important to draw a distinction between city and town ecause many counties have both a city and a town of the same name, as in the example above. Village: If the property is within in this space. If the property is limits, it is appropriate to enter in "Village: Altamont Vicinity •" the limits of a village, enter the name of the village on the outskirts of a village but not within its the name of the village and the word "vicinity" as Item 3: Street Location: A specific street address should be provided, such as "42 Market Street If no street address exists, the property location should be described in terms of the relationship of the property to other recognizable features such as "west side of State Route 9, z mile south of intersection with County Route 2" or "east side of Main Street between Washington Street and Lake Avenue, third structure from Lake Avenue." PAGE FIVE FISCAL YEAR 1979 SURVEY AND PLANNING GRANTS COUNTY Dutchess Erie Essex Genesee Greene Lewis Monroe New York Oneida Orange Rensselaer Schenectady Schuyler Steuben Suffolk Ulster Wayne Westchester Allegheny, Steuben, Yates Hudson River Area Lake George Region Nassau, Suffolk Northwest Catskills Statewide Statewide Western NY Yates PROJECT DOLLAR AMOUNT National Register form preparation, Poughkeepsie Comprehensive inventory, Wappingers Falls Comprehensive inventory, Beacon Olmstead Park System inventory, Buffalo Inventory & NR form preparation, Buffalo Historic Structures Report, Prudential Building, Buffalo Comprehensive inventory of 2 towns Comprehensive inventory, Le Roy Comprehensive archeological survey, West Athens Hill Inventory & NR form preparation, Constableville Thematic inventory, metal truss bridges NR form preparation, New York City - five boroughs Firehouse thematic inventory & NR form preparation Historic Structures Report, Fraunces Tavern Block, NYC Historic Structures Report, Fountain Elms Archeological Survey and model for 7 towns Comprehensive inventory, Troy Thematic inventory, historic industry, South Troy Historic Structures Report, Old Lansingburgh Academy, Troy Comprehensive inventory & NR form preparation, Duanesburg Archeology survey & predictive model, Catharine Historic Structures Report, Old City Hall, Corning Comprehensive inventory, Huntington Historic Structures Report, Byrdcliffe, Woodstock Comprehensive inventory & NR form preparation, Palmyra Survey &inventory, various locations Inventory, NR form preparation, planning Alfred, Hornell, Penn Yan -Inventory, Hudson Highlands Archeology survey Inventory, various locations Inventory, historic hydraulic resources NR form preparation Computerization, archeological file data, DHP Thematic inventory of C. Bragdon buildings Archeological survey, Keuka Lake Outlet $ 4,100 2,000 4,600 $ 2,500 10,000 50,000 5 7,100 $ 2,250 $22,900 $ 2,000 $ 1,500 $37,500 5,000 9,125 $ 6,062 $ 2,000 $ 7,500 10,000 3,000 $ 3,150 $ 4,600 $15,000 $ 5,700 $ 5,500 $ 4,900 $ 7,000 $10,100 $ 9,900 $10,950 $10,000 $ 7,200 $20,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 9,950 SURVEY AND PLANNING GRANTS RAYMOND W. SMITH Applications for Fiscal Year 1980 Survey and Planning Grants -in -Aid will be available in early April. To receive an application, contact us at 474-0479 and leave your name and address. Completed applications must be received in this office no later than June 29, 1979. Projects should generally be planned for six months duration, with work commencing in late fall: Actual preparation of the National ,Register Nomination Forms should be included in survey project 'proposals and budgets wherever practicable. ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS MICHAEL LYNCH Applications for Fiscal 1980 historic preservation grant assistance are available at the Regional Park Commission offices. Call us if you are uncertain as to which office to contact. These are matching grants for acquisition and development of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Completed applications will be accepted by the Regional Park Commission offices from March 1, 1979 to May 15, 1979. Applicants will be notified of grant offers in November. The Technical Services Staff welcomes the recent addition of Mr. Lee Pinckney. Lee received his architectural degree from Syracuse University and, in his position as Junior Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator, will assist in the technical administra- tion of the grants program. PAGE SIX FISCAL YEAR 1979 ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS Albany Ten Broeck Mansion, Albany $24,875 50,000 Chautauqua Chautauqua Amphitheater, Chautauqua $50,000 Chemung Chemung Canal Bank Building, Elmira 50,000 Columbia Mount Lebanon Shaker Society - South Family, New Lebanon $ 4,250 Coeymans School, Coeymans Cortland Old Homer Village Historic District - The Barber Block, Homer $ 5,000 Dutchess Howland Library, Beacon $25,000 Vassar Institute, Poughkeepsie 12,500 Elmendorph Inn, Red Hook 15,000 Erie Prudential Building, Buffalo $50,000 Kings Old Brooklyn Fire Headquarters, Brooklyn $50,000 Monroe Jonathan Child House, Rochester $30,000 New York Samuel J. Tilden House, New York City $50,000 St. Nicholas Historic District, New York City 40,000 St. Mark's in the Bowery, New York City 50,000 Jasper Ward.. House, New York City 50,000 Fraunces Tavern Block, New York City 9,125 Niagara Deveaux School, Niagara Falls $50,000 Oneida Fountain Elms - Munson Williams Proctor Institute, Utica $ 6,062 Rutger-Steuben Park Historic District, Utica 50,000 Onondaga Syracuse Area Landmark Theater (Loews State), Syracuse $25,000 St. Paul's Cathedral, Syracuse 18,600 Ontario North Main Street Historic District - Granger Homestead, Canandaigua $15,000 Ashcroft, Geneva 5,532 Orange First United Methodist Church, Newburgh $35,533 174 Montgomery Street, Newburgh 2,000 180 Montgomery Street, Newburgh 4,675 David Crawford House, Newburgh 2,155 Putnam Old Southeast Church, Brewster $ 4,275 fueens Vander Ende Onderdonk House, Ridgewood $50,000 Rensselaer Old Lansingburgh Academy, North Troy (Lansingburgh) $ 3,000 River Street Historic District, Troy 50,000 St. Lawrence Silas Wright House, Canton $ 5,000 Saratoga Yaddo Mansion, Saratoga $35,500 Steuben Old City Hall, Corning $15,000 Suffolk Joseph Lloyd Manor House, Lloyd Harbor $ 7,000 William Miller House, Miller Place 17,250 Sullivan Stone Arch Bridge, Kenoza Lake $31,000 Ulster Lake Mohonk Mountain House Complex, New Paltz $21,437 Byrdcliff Historic District, Woodstock 5,500 Washington Cambridge Historic District - Hubbard Hall, Cambridge $42,550 Westchester Leland Castle, New Rochelle $14,500 Calvary Baptist Church, Ossining 33,790 Century Manor, Ossining_ 50,000 William E. Ward House, Rye = = 42,175 ,/oRK44 S� 71 NEW YORK STATE PARKS 6 RECREATION Agency Sollding 1. Empire State Plaza, Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474$458= 0479 Historic Preservation Field Services 12/77 Orin Lehman, Commissioner HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 The Tax Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-455, Statute 1519) contains important tax provisions affecting historic preservation. Section 2124, "Tax Incentives for the Preservation of Historic Structures" provides new tax incentives for historic preservation and changes provisions in the existing tax code which have worked against preservation. What properties are affected thy Section 2124 The tax provisions of Section 2124 apply only to "certified historic structures" which are'.depreciable (income - producing; residential if rented) properties of historic character. To qualify for certification, a property must be: A. Listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places; B. Located in a National Register historic district and certified by the Secretary of the Interior as being of historic significance to the district, or C. Located in an historic district designated under a statute of the appropriate state or local government if the statute is certified by the Secretary of. the Interior as containing criteria that will substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buildings of historic significance to the district. Provisions of Section 2124 2124 (a): Permits amortization over a 60 -month period of any capital expenditure made in connection with certified rehabilitation of a certified historic structure. 2124 (b): Eliminates business expense deduction for demolition of any certified historic structure. 2124 (c): Eliminates accelerated depreciation for structures built on the site of any certified historic structure. 2124 (d): Provides special depreciation rules for certified rehabilitation expenses made in connection with any certified historic structure. 2124 (e): Amends charitable contribution deductions on income, estate, and gift taxes to liberalize deductions for conservation purposes (including •historic preservation). To take advantage of provisions a -d, rehabilitation expenditures must occur after June 14, 1976 and before June 15, 1981. How to utilize the provisions of Section 2124 Owners of depreciable, certifiable historic properties should read carefully the enclosed federal regulations governing historic preservation certifications of significance and rehabilitation and certification of local statutes (36 CFR 67). Answers to general questions of procedure are contained in these regulations. National Register: ,To have an historic property considered for the National Register of Historic Places, contact Historic Preservation Field Services at the above address for assistance from your regional staff representative. /jf 0 u\ LP 'ND RE:" NEW YORK STATE PARKS IL RECREATION Agency Bu Idmq 1 Emone 5lalc Plaza Albany. New York 1223A Inln!mauon 514 a7d-b46e- Orin Lehman Commissioner 474-0479 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places came into existence with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665). Districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects are listed on the National Register for their significance in history, architecture, archeology and culture. The National Register program is administered jointly by the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation of the Department of the Interior and by the Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer. In New York State the Commissioner of the Office of Parks Recreation has been appointed State Historic Preservation Officer. and THE BENEFITS OF LISTING: Owners of National Register sites may apply for matching grants-in-aid for acquisition and restoration (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). Owners of depreciable or commercial properties listed on the Register may take a rapid federal tax write-off for the costs of certified re- habilitation (Tax Reform Act of 1976). Homeowners applying for Home Improvement Loans through banks may obtain a much larger loan because of National Register listing (Emergency Home Purchase Assistance Act of 1974). Some protection from the adverse effects of federally -financed projects is also given, in that the historic value of Register properties either listed or eligible for listing must be taken into account before federal funds are spent (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) . RESTRICTIONS: Listing on the National Register does not restrict an owner's right to manage his property. He may sell, alter or dispose of it as he wishes. However, if you are the owner of a depreciable (commercial) historic building which is listed on the National Register and you decide to demolish it, you will not be able to deduct the cost of demolition from your Federal Income Tax. In addition, a new building constructed on the site will have to be depreciated by the straight line method (Tax Reform Act of 1976). As mentioned above, Federal agencies are restricted in that they must consider the historic value of your National Register property when planning projects which will affect it (Advisory Council Procedures). PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING: Before a site may be entered on the National Register, it must be eval- uated to determine whether it meets the criteria established by the Department of the Interior. This review is conducted first by the Committee on the Registers which makes recommendations concerning the eligibility of proposed sites to the State Board for Historic Preserva tion. If a site receives a favorable recommendation, and if the Board concurs with the Committee's action, the State Historic Preservation Officer submits an official nomination form to the Keeper of the National Register, National Park Service. If the Keeper determines that the site meets the criteria for listing, he enters the site on the National Register of Historic Places. Revised - 1/25/77 DM/sj NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR DESIGNATION OF LOCAL LANDMARKS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that in accordance with Section 401 of the Rules and Procedures of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, a Public Hearing will be held on December 19, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. in Common Council Chambers, 108 E. Green Street, City Hall, Ithaca, New York 14850 in order to receive testimony on the feasibility and desirability of designating the following buildings as Landmarks of the City of Ithaca: Bailey Hall, west of Garden Avenue Comstock Hall, east side of Garden Avenue, north of Tower Road Caldwell Hall, east of Garden Avenue, north of Tower Road East Roberts Hall, Tower Road (north side) Roberts Hall, Tower Road (north side) Stone Hall, northeast corner of Tower Road and Garden Avenue Fernow Hall, Tower Road (north side) All buildings are sited on property owned by the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University. The public is encouraged to attend and comment upon the proposed designation. Owners of property within 200 feet of subject properties have been notified of the proposal to designate the buildings as local landmarks. All interested parties will be given opportunity to speak for or against designation at the hearing, or may present written statements before the hearing to the Secretary, Ithaca Land- marks Preservation Commission, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. J. C. Meigs Secretary 12/3/84 inr ! it 7-.1 CITY G[EPp, '985 101 Irving Place Ithaca, NY February 27, 1985 Dear Common Council, We support designating the six original Ag School buildings as local landmarks. What an outrage it would be if they were destroyed! lease vote for preserving our past for those who come after us. Copies to: Mayor Gutengerger Common Council C..> P1(3. .1":(1 1 L AopP((e'350.J.r Sincerely, Kitty Mattes 4'1^ Max/Mattes CORNELL UNIVERSITY 309 DAY HALL ITHACA, N. Y. 14853 Office of the Vice President March 6, 1985 Members of the Ithaca City Council Ithaca, New York Dear Members of the Council: The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission has recommended that nir 7 of the principal buildings of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences be designated as historic. If that were to happen, the University and the State University would no longer have the right to alter or replace with- out the consent of the Commission. Accordingly, the University strongly objects to the recommendation of the Commission and urges you to reject that proposal for the following reasons: (1) The public interest in the preservation of historic State owned pro- perties on the Cornell Campus is the legal responsibility of the State University Construction Fund and the State Office of Historic Preservation. This was not the case in 1979 when this issue came before the Council. The passage in 1980 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act clearly established the responsibility and the process to be followed. Therefore, the City of Ithaca is not the agency designated to perform this public responsibility and, under the laws of the State of New York, may not impose conditions upon work being done regarding such State properties. (2) The advent of a new scientific and technological revolution, already in evidence, may require the University to alter, rebuild and even remove various structures located on the upper campus over the next decade or two. The University must be free to plan and act to protect and enhance the competitive position of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the University as we approach the 21st Century. The New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is closely linked through its teaching, research and cooperative extension programs with the multi -billion dollar food and agricultural industry of New York State. To meet its statutory obligations to this industry as well as the people of the State, it is necessary to continually upgrade the physical facilities and attract the highest quality human resources in the form of students, staff and faculty. Neither Cornell nor the State University makes facility decisions with- out extensive planning and review. Millions of both public and private dollars are at stake and the decision process is long and involved. (3) Ithaca City Council Page 2 March 6, 1985 (3) (continued) With respect to the replacement of Roberts, East Roberts and Stone Halls the attacheddocument presents the fifteen year history of studies and plans that have led to the current situation. After fifteen years the project is scheduled to go to bid in July with construc- tion to start in November. (4) If one examines closely the growth of Cornell University, you will find that renovation and rehabilitation of facilities is much more common than replacement. In recent times Rockefeller, Morrill, Sheldon Court and Cascadilla are examples. Currently major renovations are underway in Martha Van Rensselaer and Comstock. If Cornell is to remain at the forefront of science and education, it must be free to plan to meet its facility needs. Such decisions are not just plotted against dollars, but also against a myriad of other factors which must be considered by the institution in order to keep its preeminent position. To be sure preservation of heritage - historical and architectural - is among these factors. But for a University known for its people and their accom- plishments, those factors which best nurture the creativity of people will always have a high priority. Whether this is best served by antique brick and ivy or by gleaming stainless steel lab benches set in buildings so stable that an electron microscope can't wiggle when the wind blows outside will depend upon many special considerations. This can best be judged by those charged with the responsibility - financial and otherwise - for the creation and perpetuation of this many dimensioned, special environment. The future of the City of Ithaca is tied, in some substantial measure, to the continued vitality and success of Cornell University. It would be a tragic mistake to arm, now or in the future, any extramural consti- tuency, however well -motivated, with a veto power over the physical development of the University which is based upon a one-dimensional factor such as historic preservation. The Council may be assured that the State University of New York and Cornell are fully conscious of their duty to preserve all that is best in our cultural tradition including the architectural heritage. We believe the City of Ithaca and the Universities are best served if the responsibility remains in the existing legally established mechanisms. (5) Thanks for your kind attention. Si,erely yours, a %-7�C David L. Ca 1 Vice President FOR PRESENTATION TO THE ITHACA CITY COUNCIL Summary of Recent Developments and Studies New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University Relative to the Replacement of Five Antiquated Buildings During the past 15 years, there have been numerous studies and restudies involving the site and buildings relating to the "Ag Quad" for the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University. The following is a summary of the studies, completed since 1970, relating to the Ag Quad: I. In order to project space needs, an understanding of the quality, size and capabilities of the existing physical plant of the Statutory Colleges at Cornell was required. Consequently, an architectural evaluation of all buildings was completed in 1972 by Ulrich Franzen & Lehr Associates. This report consists of two volumes in which detailed information regarding the exterior, interior and mechanical conditions as well as rehabilitation capabilities were examined with the overall evaluation and conclusion as to its future use to support the current and projected academic/research program. II. Following the evaluation of the buildings in September 1973, Franzen and Lehr Associates completed a study of the Ag Quad that included an architectural planning concept as well as planning for electro, mechanical and site utilities for the Statutory Colleges. Together, these reports served as a guide for develop- ing major building, rehabilitation and utility projects throughout the 1970's. III. The initial Franzen reports recommended replacement of the older buildings on the Ag Quad. Before adopting this approach, a planning study (completed in 1974) by the Office of General Services outlined the major rehabilitation necessary to update the five buildings to house the projected administrative and academic pro- gram functions. This report consists of an analysis of the structural and mechanical systems, code compliance, schematic plans and cost estimate. The results of this study were reviewed by the Division of the Budget, the Construction Fund and Cornell, prior to requesting the funds for building new facilities. The results of the report were unacceptable due to both cost and aesthetic considerations. In order to meet space needs and provide contemporary mechanical and electrical systems, the report recommended the removal of the sloping roofs by extending the exterior brick walls to create a complete top floor with a flat roof and a mechanical penthouse above housing air conditioning, ventilation equipment. Also, the connecting arcades were to be continued to all floors. This was not considered a valid approach to the problem. IV. In 1974/75, preliminary and final reports were submitted by Franzen and Kallen & Lemelson on utility inventory and analysis. V. In 1976, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences submitted a projected sequence for campus construction using the results of the studies that had been completed and adopted at that time. The campus plan recommendations for the Ag Quad were consistent with the recommendations of the original Franzen report of 1973. Page 2 VI. In 1979, the architectural firm of Levatich & Hoffman was retained to plan the Academic II project. At that time, two reports were submitted in May and June on the site and architectural concept for further development of the Ag Quad site. Shortly after these reports were submitted, Cornell recommended the location of the Academic II project be away from the Ag Quad to lower Alumni Field. Such a change in location avoided complex space moves and enhanced the development of the Biological Sciences in this area. It further requested the transfer of Caldwell and Comstock Halls to the Endowed College for use as the locations of the telecommunications and computer centers. VII. In mid 1979, the Curtis, McGuire & Parkes committee was formed to advise Dean Call of "the degree to which building code provisions would affect the adaptive reuse of the five Agriculture Quadrangle buildings presently planned to be replaced by new buildings and advised the Dean on the likely cost of adaptive reuse." This report was followed by the preparation of a comparative budget estimate by the Construction Fund for the rehabilitation of Roberts, East Roberts and Stone Halls, and the construction of a new facility. The conclusion was that it would be more costly to rehabilitate than to build new. Shortly thereafter, in 1981, the Eggers Group was retained to plan the Academic I project. At that time, it was recommended by Cornell that the project follow the original Franzen proposal and be a multistory building located on the axis at the west end of the Ag Quad. VIII. During the initial planning stages for Academic I, a feasibility study for the potential rehabilitation of Roberts, East Roberts and Stone Halls was pre- pared for Historic Ithaca by Russell Wright. This report consists of a planning concept with cost for the proposed rehabilitation. This report was reviewed by the Construction Fund and Cornell and found unacceptable due to assumptions that were inconsistent with construction codes required to be followed by State Univer- sity, as well as planning assumptions in respect to stairway appendages that were added to the exterior of Roberts Hall. Also, there was no allocation for mechanical space necessary to house air conditioning and ventilating equipment as well as lower level mechanical rooms and electric transformer vaults. Even if the cost was not a major factor, there simply was not enough net space available to house the program requirements. IX. During 1982/83, the Eggers Group presented a site development study, program phase report, schematic design phase report, and the design development for Academic I. The project was being developed as a high rise at the west end of the Ag Quad. Following a review by the Cornell Trustees' Buildings and Proper- ties Committee, the project was disapproved. The consensus was that the mass of the high rise facility was inconsistent with the remainder of the Ag Quad buildings. Also, the attempt to include the total program requirements in a single multistory building created difficult and inconvenient internal relationships between adminis- tration space, academic and research departments. The architect's contract was canceled. X. In December 1983, the firm of Gwathmey, Siegel & Associates was retained by the Construction Fund to plan the Academic I facility. It was charged with the responsibility of reexamining the site and facilities relating to the Ag Quad. In addition, two major elements were added to the program in order to fulfill academic as well as student and faculty activity needs. A 600 -seat auditorium with related support space and a 400 -seat dining facility were incorporated into the program. The dining hall, although integrated into the concept, will be financed directly by Cornell. The architect's site study resulted in approval by the Fund and Cornell of low building elements that compliment the remaining Page 3 Ag Quad buildings. An administrative building is located on the axis at the west end of the Ag Quad and an academic building that includes the auditorium and dining space is located directly south of the administrative wing on the corner of Tower Road and Garden Avenue. This location makes it necessary to demolish Stone Hall. It will be necessary to continue to occupy Roberts and East Roberts Halls until the new project is completed. At that time, these buildings will be demolished to provide a future site for expansion of the plant sciences. The design development drawings for Academic I were submitted in November 1984 and approved by State University Construction Fund and the Cornell Board of Trustees. It is expected that the project would go out for bids in July 1985. This would allow a contract award in October and a start of construction in -November 1985. David L. Call Vice President Cornell University 1 To: Mayor Benjamin Nichols and members of the City of Ithaca Common Council From: Martha Preston, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Re: Appeal by Jennifer C. and Timothy T. Terpening Date: August 23, 1992 In response to the correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Terpening dated July 26, 1992, I would like to clarify the ILPC's position regarding the Terpenings' application and subsequent resolution for reroofing the south side slope of their dwelling at 118 Eddy Street, in the East Hill Historic District. The Terpenings own an elegant example of a late nineteenth century combination Colonial Revival/Shingle Style dwelling, attributed to renown local architect William Henry Miller, and built between 1882-1893 for Miller's mother-in-law, Mrs. Mary A. Halsey. The dwelling retains a great deal of architectural character and original detail, such as a Palladian window in the front facing gable end, and a broken scroll pediment and oval window on the east side of the front door. The commission concluded, based on knowledge of historic practice, that the roof had originally been wood shingles and asbestos composition roof shingles had been added during the period of the 1910's or 1920's. Asphalt roof shingles had since been added to the north roof slope. The Terpenings proposed replacing the asbestos shingles on the south slope with a fiberglass shingle in a white color. The ILPC carefully considered the above described details, particularly the issue of the proposed shingle color in relationship to the entire dwelling. The Terpenings were not present at the public hearing, though City Staff confirmed that the applicants had been informed of the time and place of the hearing; therefore, the Commission had to assume that the applicant had selected the white colored shingle either for its reflective quality or to approximate the color of the existing shingles on the north slope. During a lengthy discussion by Commission members, it was concluded that due to the fact that fiberglass shingle roofing is estimated to last between 20-40 years, we could not consider this a reverable change (as exterior painting would be). Further, pursuant to Section 228-4 (E) of the Municipal Code, we concluded that the submitted sample of white fiberglass single, if installed, would have a "substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historic or architectural significance" of the dwelling. A motion was made to pass a resolution to approve the material change to fiberglass singles with the condition that the color be within the range of brown tones (to approximate the color of the original roof material) shown on the submitted sample board. The motion was seconded and carried by unanimous vote. Given the amount of information we had available to us pertaining to the property, the knowledge of historic building practices exhibited by commission members, and •bearing in mind the purpose and intent of Section 228 governing the ILPC, I believe our decision was neither capricious nor arbitrary, and well within the purview of the Ordinance. In regard to the issue of whether this matter was handled in a timely manner, I would like to point out that the Terpenings made application on this matter on April 8, 1992, just one day prior to the ILPC's monthly scheduled meeting on April 9, 1992, thereby not allowing enough time to serve public notice to be included on the agenda as a public hearing. Given that the roof replacement was not an emergency repair in this case, City Staff informed to the Terpenings that they would be included on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled ILPC meeting, as a public hearing, duly advertised, on May 14, 1992. In the past, the Commission has met at a special session in the case of an emergency situation. As current chairperson of the ILPC and a Commission member since 1987, I strongly object the Terpenings' allegation that the present Commission is ill -composed, and further vehemently object their appeal to the Mayor and Common Council to select a new panel of Commission members. I believe the Terpenings have misconstrued the intent of the Ordinance as it applies to the configuration of the Commission members; each of the stipulated categories are amply represented by our Commission members. Of the two "missing members" as alleged by the Terpenings, one is a local attorney and the other is a long-time Ithaca resident and a current resident of the East Hill Historic District. In my mind, the commission represents a broad spectrum of the community interests, as well as a diverse representation in terms of background, age, income, and interests. We are not a composition of historic preservation elitists who have managed "to escape the boundaries of reasonableness and elevate itself upon some lofty idealistic and wholly undemocratic pedestal" as inferred by the Terpenings. I applaud the Terpenings for their exhibited pride in their properties. I do feel, however, that none of their civil liberties were violated by our decision regarding their application. I therefore firmly uphold the findings and decision of the ILPC in this matter. TO: The Common Council, the Mayor and the People of the City of Ithaca, New York FROM: Timothy T. and Jennifer C. Terpening 207 W. King Rd., Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 RE: The Appeal for amendment of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission's Resolution for the Certificate of Appropriateness for the building permit pertaining to roofing repairs at 118 Eddy Street, Ithaca, N.Y. DATE: August 26, 1992 WHEREAS we, the undersigned appellants, have been denied a building permit for the roofing repair for 118 Eddy Street, Ithaca, N.Y., for which we applied, and WHEREAS we have complied with both the letter and the spirit of Chapter 7a of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, and WHEREAS the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, hereinafter, referred to as the Commission has issued a Certificate of Appropriateness conditioned upon our use of brown roofing shingles, and WHEREAS the rationale behind the use of the color brown lies Page 2 in the Commissioners' assumption that old fashioned cedar shingles would be brown -in appearance, and WHEREAS the available shades of brown neither resemble aged cedar shingles or complement the green tones of the structure, and WHEREAS material change/alteration referenced in the Code should not apply to this building permit because the material change in roofing products and style has substantially occurred on the north half and on all of the lower roofing many years prior to the Historic District designation, and WHEREAS a roof should be considered in its entirety instead of in sections, making it grossly inconsistent to place one section of a roof under historic protection, and stipulate a brown color, while the major portions of said roof have been replaced legally in white using modern asphalt shingles. And WHEREAS we have researched extensively the records pertaining to the East Hill Historic designation, to the extent that records are available for public viewing, and have found absolutely no basis in fact for the Commission's dolor selection as applied under the Code, in which approval may be granted only upon the subjective criteria that: "The proposed work in creating, changing, destroying or affecting the exterior architectural features of the improvement or site upon which the work is to be done will not have a Page 3 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, and WHEREAS we have researched to determine whether our color choice will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of either this improvement or any neighboring improvements and have found no case or example used to illustrate such adverse effect and WHEREAS we have researched extensively to resolve the question of whether or not this change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the district, or the intent of the historic designation, and have found no examples or cases or references made in any of the East Hill Historic District narrative descriptions, some 74 pages long,which would indicate the slightest inconsistency in so far as the graphic narrative of architectural styles is concerned, and WHEREAS we have reviewed all the cataloging of some 254 principal structures in the East Hill Historic district and have Page 4 found no reference to the color of roofing material on any home in the enlarged East Hill Historic District, and have found color referenced only in the description of a type of brick veneer siding, and WHEREAS we have reviewed the Commission's photograph for the subject property which was used in cataloging homes within the East Hill Historic district and have found it to be black and white and the roof snow-covered; and we have been informed that all such photographs used in the cataloging of East Hill Historic district homes were black and white photographs, and WHEREAS we have reviewed the Commission's minutes and resolutions and have found no precedent of color being stipulated in roofing .material, and WHEREAS we have a statement from the Commission's secretary confirming that this is the first case of roofing colors being stipulated in a Certificate of Appropriateness, ,and WHEREAS we conclude, in the stark absence of color references or color photographs in district designation records, or specific case studies of roofing color having adverse effect in the East Hill Historic district, or in any Ithaca Historic District, that the Commission acted capriciously in the extreme in stipulating product color for the roof at 118 Eddy Street. And Page 5 WHEREAS the Commission's Secretary stated, "The only meeting where color was discussed at any length was the meeting of October, 1991 during the review of agenda item I (C) Oasis Natural Grocery, DeWitt Building, 214 North Cayuga Street - the proposal to construct new entrance and erect awning. At that meeting the Commission approved the Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions that included staff review the color of the awning fabric to insure that it matched the color of awnings on principal entrances to the building." and WHEREAS we note the Commission found it important to match colors in the case of 214 North Cayuga Street while its resolution for 118 Eddy Street will impose disparity in colors, further illustrating the Commission's inconsistency. And WHEREAS the term "reversible change" was used as mitigating criteria in the matter of enclosing rafter and ,sofit ends at 121 N. Quarry St., and WHEREAS the Commission's Secretary states, "As a point of information, the Commission does not review paint color because it is viewed as an easily reversible change." and WHEREAS the term "reversible change" is generally accepted to mitigate paint color appropriateness, and we believe the term should apply as well to roofing surfaces which are no less costly Page 6 to replace than carpentry or structure painting, so long as it is being suggested one would enter into such alterations merely for the purpose of reversing appearance or color, and WHEREAS the Code states the purpose and intent of this Chapter is to: 1) Promote the educational cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance; 2) Safeguard the City's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage by preserving landmarks and districts of historical and cultural significance; 3) Stabilize and improve property values' 4) Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past; 5) Protect and enhance the City's attractions to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to business thereby provided; 6) Strengthen the economy of the City; and Page 7 7) Promote -the use of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance as sites for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the City, and WHEREAS lighter colored roofs appear to be in the majority in the East Hill Historic District, including various tones of green and grey, and WHEREAS roofing installers and manufactures agree that heat is detrimental to roofing surfaces as well as sheathing underlayments, and lighter tones have long been used in roofing products for both reflective and aesthetic purposes, and WHEREAS the color choice of roofing surfaces is not inconsistent with any one of the above purposes, nor has our management of the subject property, either inside or outside, been inconsistent with the aims and purposes of this Chapter wholly without the help of the Commission. And WHEREAS we filed our application for the building permit on April 6, 1992 and were denied our application for a permit to do roofing repairs on the same date, and WHEREAS we applied for two other building permits for roofing repairs on the same date and did receive the building permits on the following day, and Page 8 WHEREAS we applied with the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the subject property on April 8, 1992 and submitted plans and samples in accordance with legal requirements, and WHEREAS we understood the Building Commissioner did act in a timely manner in accordance with the Code, and, in any case, that it fell upon the Building Commissioner to do so, and WHEREAS Chapter 73 of the Code and the Commission's Rules of Procedure specifically state, "Within fourteen (14) days after notification by the Building Inspector of an application for an alteration or demolition permit, unless the applicant waives the right to have a meeting within fourteen (14) days in a writing subscribed by the applicant or his duly authorized agent or attorney, the Commission shall meet to review the said application, and WHEREAS the Commission did not meet to review our plans until May 14, 1992, thus failing to act in a timely manner in accordance with Chapter 73, and WHEREAS the Code states, "The Commission shall keep a record, which shall be open to the public view, of its resolutions, proceedings and actions. The vote or failure to vote of each member shall be recorded. The concurring affirmative vote of a Page 9 majority of these members present shall constitute approval of plans before it for review, or for the adoption of any resolution, motion or other action of the Commission. The Commission shall submit an annual report of its activities to the Mayor and make such recommendations to the Common Council as it deems necessary to carry out the principles of this Article." and WHEREAS in its August 12, 1974 meeting it was unanimously agreed that written minutes would be kept of all Commission meetings, "because having typed minutes would be helpful and informative to the members -- especially new members -- and to the general public and would help spread the word about the Commission's aims and actions, a desirable objective." And WHEREAS of the 28 most recent meetings for which we requested minutes eleven were not available for our review, and WHEREAS the Commission does not submit an annual report to the Mayor, which would also serve to inform the public as to the activities and purposes of the Commission, and WHEREAS the public's right to know is further diminished by the lack of a separate accounting of Commission expenses which are paid by the People of the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS Chapter 73 of the Code specifically states, "Members Page 10 of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Common Council. Three (3) members shall be selected each of whom shall possess professional qualifications evidencing expertise in architecture, city planning or conservation in general. Two (2) members shall be selected to represent the cultural interests of the community and two (2) members shall be selected to represent the commercial interests of the community, and WHEREAS we have requested a written disclosure as to the configuration of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and were given the following accounting: "Architecture, City Planning, Conservation John Benson, Barclay Jones, Ken Jupiter, Mary Tomlan Representative of Cultural Interests Ken Jupiter, Barclay Jones Representative of Business Community Martha Preston, Ken Jupiter" and WHEREAS the disclosure of representation interests of five out of the seven members filling the representative categories only discloses the and has one member of Architecture, City Planning, Conservation and Cultural Interests and Commercial Interests, and and Page 11 WHEREAS there are two missing members according to our count, WHEREAS it was clearly the intention of the Code that the Commission be composed of seven members, each separately designated to fulfill representation for a broad spectrum of community interests, in order to ensure a fair and democratic process of governing, and WHEREAS the Mayor and the Common Council of the City of Ithaca have failed to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Code by debasing the democratic process, built into our laws since the first 4th of July for the simple purpose of protecting the people from abuse by their own government, and WHEREAS we consider it our right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the selection of the colors of our roofing shingles at 118 Eddy Street and we do take pride and joy in our selection of materials and products, and we do consider our pride and joy, together with the economic returns on our investment, to have protection under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and WHEREAS we also view with some gravity the significance of our Page 12 historic architecture and the value in preserving it and the responsibility which rests upon the owners and which must be passed on to future owners in order to keep faith with those designers and builders who have signified a time and an idea which manifests itself in independence and prosperity, in growth and change and in the aesthetic diversity which now plays acrossour community as do colors of a rainbow. WE THEREFORE conclude if Historic Preservationism manages to escape the boundaries of reasonableness and elevate itself upon some lofty idealistic and wholly undemocratic pedestal our savoring few, the undersigned appellants among them, shall find it difficult to support an otherwise worthy endeavor of preserving our architectural heritage. ,We conclude further the Resolution adopted by the Commission to dictate our choices is unauthorized, arbitrary intrusion by government through a process in which we were denied fair representation, with a resulting resolution wholly inconsistent with the preservation of the aesthetic and architectural integrity of 118 Eddy Street and its neighborhood, inconsistent with the preservation of architecture in the East Hill Historic District, inconsistent with the aims and purposes of the Code and inconsistent as well with past Commission resolutions. We conclude further that such inconsistency is counterproductive to the Commission's cause. WE THEREFORE APPEAL to the Common Council and the Mayor to Page 13 amend the Resolution and direct the Commission to issue a new Certificate of Appropriateness unencumbered with color stipulations. ALSO, WE APPEAL to the Common Council and the Mayor to select a new panel of Commissioners who's appointments will be in harmony with the spirit of Chapter 73 of the Code. ALSO, WE APPEAL to the Common Council and the Mayor to oversee the function of this Commission to ensure minutes are taken from every meeting and public hearing and made available for public viewing in accordance with New York State law. ALSO, WE APPEAL to the Common Council and the Mayor to provide for a detailed financial accounting of all City Commissions, ,enabling citizens to review their budgets and know their cost to the community, which is mandated by law. WE MAKE THIS PLEA to the highest authority of the City of Ithaca for the benefit of the People of Ithaca and for the enhancement of the aims and purposes of Chapter 73 of the Code, which is Landmarks Preservation. TO: The Common Council, the Mayor and the People of the City of Ithaca, New York FROM: Timothy T. and Jennifer C. Terpening 207 W. King Rd., Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 RE: The Appeal for amendment of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission's Resolution for the Certificate of Appropriateness for the building permit pertaining to roofing repairs at 118 Eddy Street, Ithaca, N.Y. DATE: August 26, 1992 WHEREAS we, the undersigned appellants, have been denied a building permit for the roofing repair for 118 Eddy Street, Ithaca, N.Y., for which we applied, and WHEREAS we have complied with both the letter and the spirit of Chapter 73 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, and WHEREAS the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission has issued a Certificate of Appropriateness conditioned upon our use of brown roofing shingles, and WHEREAS the rationale behind the use of the color brown lies Page 2 in the Commissioners' assumption that old fashioned cedar shingles would be brown in appearance, and WHEREAS the available shades of brown neither resemble aged cedar shingles or complement the green tones of the structure, and WHEREAS material change/alteration referenced in the Code should not apply to this building permit because the material change in roofing products and style has substantially occurred on the north half and on all of the lower roofing many years prior to the Historic District designation, and WHEREAS a roof should be considered in its entirety instead of in sections, making it grossly inconsistent to place one section of a roof under historic protection, and stipulate a brown color, while the major portions of said roof have been replaced legally in white using modern asphalt shingles. And WHEREAS we have researched extensively the records pertaining to the East Hill Historic designation, to the extent that records are available for public viewing, and have found absolutely no basis in fact for the Commission's color selection as applied under the Code, in which approval may be granted only upon the subjective criteria that: "The proposed work in creating, changing, destroying or affectingthe exterior architectural features of the improvement or site upon which the work is to be done will not have a Page 3 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, and WHEREAS we have researched to determine whether our color choice will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of either this improvement or any neighboring improvements and have found no case or example used to illustrate such adverse effect and WHEREAS we have researched extensively to resolve the question of whether or not this change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the district, or the intent of the historic designation, and have found no examples or cases or references made in any of the East Hill Historic District. narrative descriptions, some 74 pages long, which would indicate the slightest inconsistency in so far as the graphic narrative of architectural styles is concerned, and WHEREAS we have reviewed all the cataloging of some 254 principal structures in the East Hill Historic district and have Page 4 found no reference to the color of roofing material on any home in the enlarged East Hill Historic District, and have found color referenced only in the description of a type of brick veneer siding, and WHEREAS we have reviewed the Commission's photograph for the subject property which was used in cataloging homes within the East Hill Historic district and have found it to be black and -white and the roof snow-covered; and we have been informed that all such photographs used in the cataloging of East Hill Historic district homes were black and white photographs, and WHEREAS we have reviewed the Commission's minutes and resolutions and have found no precedent of color being stipulated in roofing material, and WHEREAS we have a statement from the Commission's secretary confirming that this is the first case of roofing colors being stipulated in a Certificate of Appropriateness, ,and WHEREAS we conclude, in the stark absence.of color references or color photographs in district designation records, or specific case studies of roofing color having adverse effect in the East Hill Historic district, or in any Ithaca Historic District, that the Commission acted capriciously in the extreme in stipulating product color for the roof at 118 Eddy Street. And Page 5 WHEREAS the Commission's Secretary stated, "The only meeting where color was discussed at any length was the meeting of October, 1991 during the review of agenda item I (C) Oasis Natural Grocery, DeWitt Building, 214 North Cayuga Street - the proposal to construct new entrance and erect awning. At that meeting the Commission approved the Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions that included staff review the color of the awning fabric to insure that it matched the color of awnings on -principal entrances to the building." and WHEREAS we note the Commission found it important to match colors in the case of 214 North Cayuga Street while its resolution for 118 Eddy Street will impose disparity in colors, further illustrating the Commission's inconsistency. And WHEREAS the term "reversible change" was used as mitigating criteria in the matter of enclosing rafter and sofit ends at 121 N. Quarry St., and WHEREAS the Commission's Secretary states, "As a point of information, the Commission does not review paint color because it is viewed as an easily reversible change." and WHEREAS the term "reversible change" is generally accepted to mitigate paint color appropriateness, and we believe the term should apply as well to roofing surfaces which are no less costly Page 6 to replace than carpentry or structure painting, so long as it is being suggested one would enter into such alterations merely for the purpose of reversing appearance or color, and WHEREAS the Code states the purpose and intent of this Chapter is to: 1) Promote the educational cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance; 2) Safeguard the City's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage by preserving landmarks and districts of historical and cultural significance; 3) Stabilize and improve property values' 4) Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past; 5) Protect and enhance the City's attractions to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to business thereby provided; 6) Strengthen the economy of the City; and Page 7 7) Promote the use of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance as sites for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the City, and WHEREAS lighter colored roofs appear to be in the majority in the East Hill Historic District, including various tones of green and grey, and WHEREAS roofing installers and manufactures agree that heat is detrimental to roofing surfaces as well as sheathing underlayments, and lighter tones have long been used in roofing products for both reflective and aesthetic purposes, and WHEREAS the color choice of roofing surfaces is not inconsistent with any one of the above purposes, nor has our management of the subject property, either inside or outside, been inconsistent with the aims and purposes of this Chapter wholly without the help of the Commission. And WHEREAS we filed our application for the building permit on April 6, 1992 and were denied our application for a permit to do roofing repairs on the same date, and WHEREAS we applied for two other building permits for roofing repairs on the same date and did receive the building permits on the following day, and Page 8 WHEREAS we applied with the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the subject property on April 8, 1992 and submitted plans and samples in accordance with legal requirements, and WHEREAS we understood the Building Commissioner did act in a timely manner in accordance with the Code, and, in any case, that it fell upon the Building Commissioner to do so, and WHEREAS Chapter 73 of the Code and the Commission's Rules of Procedure specifically state, "Within fourteen (14) days after notification by the Building Inspector of an application for an alteration or demolition permit, unless the applicant waives the right to have a meeting within fourteen (14) days in a writing subscribed by the applicant or his duly authorized agent or attorney, the Commission shall meet to review the said application, and WHEREAS the Commission did not meet to review our plans until May 14, 1992, thus failing to act in a timely manner in accordance with Chapter 73, and WHEREAS the Code states, "The Commission shall keep a record, which shall be open to the public view, of its resolutions, proceedings and actions. The vote or failure to vote of each member shall be recorded. The concurring affirmative vote of a Page 9 majority of these members present shallconstitute approval of plans before it for review, or for the adoption of any resolution, motion or other action of the Commission. The Commission shall submit an annual report of its activities to the Mayor and make such recommendations to the Common Council as it deems necessary to carry out the principles of this Article." and WHEREAS in its August 12, 1974 meeting it was unanimously agreed that written minutes would be kept of all Commission meetings, "because having typed minutes would be helpful and informative to the members -- especially new members -- and to the general public and would help spread .the word about the Commission's aims and actions, a desirable objective." And WHEREAS of the 28 most recent meetings for which we requested minutes eleven were not available for our review, and WHEREAS the Commission does not submit an annual report to the Mayor, which would also serve to inform the public as to the activities and purposes of the Commission, and WHEREAS the public's right to know is further diminished by the lack of a separate accounting of Commission expenses which are paid by the People of the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS Chapter 73 of the Code specifically states, "Members Page 10 of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Common Council. Three (3) members shall be selected each of whom shall possess professional qualifications evidencing expertise in architecture, city planning or conservation in general. Two (2) members shall be selected to represent the cultural interests of the community and two (2) members shall be selected to represent the commercial interests of the community, and WHEREAS we have requested a written disclosure as to the configuration of the Ithaca. Landmarks Preservation Commission and were given the following accounting: "Architecture, City Planning, Conservation John Benson, Barclay Jones, Ken Jupiter, Mary Tomlan Representative of Cultural Interests Ken Jupiter, Barclay Jones Representative of Business Community Martha Preston, Ken Jupiter" and WHEREAS the disclosure of representation only discloses the interests of five out of the seven members and has one member filling the representative categories of Architecture, City Planning, Conservation and Cultural Interests and Commercial Page 11 Interests, and WHEREAS there are two missing members according to our count, and WHEREAS it was clearly the intention of the Code that the Commission be composed of seven members, each separately designated to fulfill representation for a broad spectrum of -community interests, in order to ensure a fair and democratic process of governing, and WHEREAS the Mayor and the Common Council of the City of Ithaca have failed to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Code by debasing the democratic process, built into our laws since the first 4th of July for the simple purpose of protecting the people from abuse by their own government, and WHEREAS we consider it our right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the selection of the colors of our roofing shingles at 118 Eddy Street and we do take pride and joy in our selection of materials and products, and we do consider our pride and joy, together with the economic returns on our investment, to have protection under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and WHEREAS we also view with some gravity the significance of our Page 12 historic architecture and the value in preserving it and the responsibility which rests upon the owners and which must be passed on to future owners in order to keep faith with those designers and builders who have signified a time and an idea which manifests itself in independence and prosperity, in growth and change and in the aesthetic diversity which now plays across our community as do colors of a rainbow. WE THEREFORE conclude if Historic Preservationism manages to escape the boundaries of reasonableness and elevate itself upon some lofty idealistic and wholly undemocratic pedestal our savoring few, the undersigned appellants among them, shall find it difficult to support an otherwise worthy endeavor of preserving our architectural heritage. ,We conclude further the Resolution adopted by the Commission to dictate our choices is unauthorized, arbitrary intrusion by government through a process in which we were denied fair representation, with a resulting resolution wholly inconsistent with the preservation of the aesthetic and architectural integrity of 118 Eddy Street and its neighborhood, inconsistent with the preservation of architecture in the East Hill Historic District, inconsistent with the aims and purposes of the Code and inconsistent as well with past Commission resolutions. We conclude further that such inconsistency is counterproductive to the Commission's cause. WE THEREFORE APPEAL to the Common Council and the Mayor to Page 13 amend the Resolution and direct the Commission to issue a new Certificate of Appropriateness unencumbered with color stipulations. ALSO, WE APPEAL to the Common Council and the Mayor to select a new panel of Commissioners who's appointments will be in harmony with the spirit of Chapter 73 of the Code. ALSO, WE APPEAL to the Common Council and the Mayor to oversee the function of this Commission to ensure minutes are taken from every meeting and public hearing and made available for public viewing in accordance with New York State law. ALSO, WE APPEAL to the Common Council and the Mayor to provide for a detailed financial accounting of all City Commissions, (enabling citizens to review their budgets and know their cost to the community, which is mandated by law. WE MAKE THIS PLEA to the highest authority of the City of Ithaca for the benefit of the People of Ithaca and for the enhancement of the aims and purposes of Chapter 73 of the Code, which is Landmarks Preservation. § 228-1 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION § 228-1 Chapter 228 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION § 228-1. Title. § 228-2. Purpose. § 228-3. Definitions. § 228-4. Powers and duties of Landmarks Preservation Commission. § 228-5. Alteration permit procedure. § 228-6. Cooperation of other officials. § 228-7. Appeals. § 228-8. Penalties for offenses. [HISTORY: Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as part of Ch. 32 of the 1975 Municipal Code.' Section 228- 8 amended at time of adoption of Code; see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. II. Other amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES Landmarks Preservation Commission — See Ch. 73. Building construction — See Ch. 146. Signs — See Ch. 272. Zoning — See Ch. 325. § 228-1. Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance." 1 Editor's Note: See also Ch. 73, Landmarks Preservation Commission. 22801 5-25-92 § 228-2 ITHACA CODE § 228-3 § 228-2. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance. B. Safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage by preserving landmarks and districts of historical and cultural significance. C. Stabilize and improve property values. D. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past. E. Protect and enhance the city's attractions to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to business thereby provided. F. Strengthen the economy of the city. G. Promote the use of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance as sites for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the city. § 228-3. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: ALTERATION PERMIT — A permit issued by the Building Commissioner which is necessary before any work can be started which will occasion a material change in the use or appearance of a landmark or a structure, memorial or site within an historic district. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — A document evidencing approval by the Landmarks Preservation Commis- sion of a proposal to make a material change of use or appearance, which document must be obtained before an alteration permit may be issued. 22802 5-25-92 § 228-3 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION § 228-3 HISTORIC DISTRICT — An area which contains improve- ments which: A. Have special character or special historical or aesthetical interest or value; B. Represent one (1) or more periods or styles of architecture typical of one (1) or more eras in the history of the city; and C. Cause such area, by reason of such factors, to constitute a visibly perceptible section of the city. LANDMARK — A structure, memorial or site or a group of structures or memorials, including the adjacent areas necessary for the proper appreciation of the landmark, deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as: A. An outstanding example of a structure or memorial representative of its era, either past or present. B. One of the few remaining examples of a past architec- tural style or combination of styles. C. A place where an historical event of significance to the city, region, state or nation or representative activity of a past era took place or any structure, memorial or site which has a special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, including sites of natural or ecological interest. MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OR APPEARANCE — Includes: A. Any change in the type or use of land or of a structure or memorial. B. Change or reconstruction or alteration of the size or external appearance of a structure or memorial. C. Change in the intensity of the use of land, such as an increase in the number of businesses, manufacturing establishments, offices or dwelling units in a structure. 22803 § 228-3 ITHACA CODE § 228-4 D. Demolition of a structure or memorial. E. Commencement of excavation. F. Deposit of refuse, waste or fill on land not already used for that purpose or which extends the height of any existing deposit above the level of the land adjoining the site. G. Commencement of or change in the location of advertis- ing on the external part of any structure. H. Alteration of a shore, bank or floodplain of a river, stream or channel or of any lake, pond or artificial body of water. § 228-4. Powers and duties of Landmarks Preservation Commission.2 A. Designation of landmarks. The Commission may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance. The Commission may proceed at its own initiative or upon a request from any person, group or association. B. Public hearing. In no event shall a landmark or district be designated until the Commission has conducted a public hearing thereon. In the event that architectural style is a basis for such a designation, the Commission shall not proceed to designate any landmark or district until the record illustrates the existence of expert opinion favorable to such designation. C. Filing of designation. Within seven (7) days after designation of a landmark or historic district, the Commission shall file a copy of such designation with the Planning and Development Board and with the Common Council. Within sixty (60) days of designation by the Commission, the Planning and Develop- ment Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the Master Plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved. The Council shall within ninety (90) days of said designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to the Commission for modification. Any designa- 2 Editor's Note: See Ch. 73, Landmarks Preservation Commission, for provisions relating to the establishment and organization of said Commission. 22804 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION § 228-4 tion approved by the Council shall be in effect on and after the date of approval by the Council. D. Alteration permit required. After approval of a designation by the Council, no material change in the use or appearance of a landmark or a structure, memorial or site within an historic district shall be made or be permitted to be made by the owner or occupant thereof unless and until an alteration permit shall havebeen obtained. E. Review of plans. (1) [Amended 10-3-1984 by Ord. No. 84-16] After ap- proval of a designation by the Council, it shall be the duty of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to review all plans for any and all material changes of use or appearance of a landmark or of a structure, memorial or site within any historic district, and it shall have the power to pass upon such plans before a permit for such activity can be granted, provided that the Commission shall pass only on exterior changes and shall not consider the interior plans of the building. The Commission shall. issue a certificate of appropriateness if it approves the plans submitted to it for review. The Commission shall approve the plans only if it finds that one (1) of the following conditions applies: (a) The proposed work in creating, changing, destroying or affecting the exterior architectural features of the improvement or site upon which the work is to be done 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; or 22805 ITHACA CODE § 228-4 (b) The denial of a certificate of appropriateness would prevent the owner of the landmark or improvement within a district from earning a reasonable return on said owner's property subject to this regulation. (2) The Building Commissioner shall not issue an alteration permit until such certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Commission. F. Demolition of structures. [Amended 7-2-1986 by Ord. No. 86-7] (1) Demolition of structures erected on landmark sites or within historic districts and deemed by the Commission to be of a particular architectural or historical signifi- cance shall be prohibited unless, upon application and hearing, the Commission finds that either: (a) In the case of commercial property, that prohibition of demolition prevents the owner of the property from earning a reasonable return; or (b) In the case of noncommercial property, all of the following [1] That preservation of the structure will seriously interfere with the use of the property. [2] That the structure is not capable of conversion to a usefulpurpose without excessive costs. That the cost of maintaining the structure without use would entail serious expenditure, all in the light of the purposes and resources of the owner. (2) In the event that, upon application and hearing, the Commission shall determine that an exception to the prohibition of demolition as set forth in Subsection F(1Xa) or (b) above exists, the Commission may, notwithstanding such determination, if it finds that the structure is of unique value, deny permission to demolish; provided, however, that a denial of permission to demolish following a finding under Subsection F(1Xa) or (b) above and a finding of unique value shall prohibit demolition for no [3] 22806 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION § 228-4 more than ninety (90) days from the date of the hearing on said application unless, at the expiration of ninety (90) days, adjustments have been made which negate the findings of either Subsection F(1Xa) or (b) above. During this ninety -day period, the Commission will endeavor to work out with the owner an economically feasible plan for the preservation of such structure, provided that, subject to approval of the Common Council, the city shall reimburse the owner any difference between a fair return and the return he/she might reasonably have obtained using the structure in its then state. G. Exemption from taxation. The Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca exercise its authority to exempt such structures as may be designated by the Commission as having historical and architectural value from municipal taxation for such period of years as the Council may determine; provided, however, that the owners of said structures, for themselves, their heirs and assigns, shall agree, by covenants contained in duly executed instruments capable of being recorded, with the Commission and the City of Ithaca that said structures shall never be altered or demolished without the approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. H. Gifts and grants-in-aid. The Commission shall maintain a constant effort to seek out and obtain state and federal funds available for landmark and historic district preservation. The Commission may solicit and accept gifts which enable it to finance arrangements entered into pursuant to Subsection F above. I. City improvements. Plans for the material change of use or appearance of any improvement or proposed improvement which is owned by the city and is or is to be located on a landmark site or in an historic district shall, prior to city action approving or otherwise authorizing the use of such plans with respect to securing the performance of such work, be referred by the agency of the city having responsibility for the preparation of such plans to the Commission for a report. Such report shall be submitted to the Mayor and to the agency having such responsibility within thirty (30) days after such 22807 § 228-4 ITHACA CODE § 228-5 referral. No officer or agency of the city whose approval is required by law for the construction or effectuation of a city - aided project shall approve the plans or proposal for or the application for approval of such project unless, prior to such approval, such officer or agency has received from the Commission a report on such plans, proposals or application for approval. J. Investigations and studies. The Commission shall make such investigations and studies of matters relating to the protection, enhancement, perpetuation or use of landmarks and historic districts and to the restoration of landmarks as the Commis- sion may, from time to time, deem necessary or appropriate for the effectuation of the purposes of this chapter and may submit reports and recommendations as to such matters to the Mayor and other agencies of the city. In making such investigations and studies, the Commission may hold public hearings and call upon experts as it may deem necessary or appropriate. § 228-5. Alteration permit procedure. A. Application for alteration permit. It shall be the duty of the Building Commissioner to accept applications for the alteration permits required by this chapter. In the event that a building permit would be required to proceed with the proposed development notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the application for a building permit shall be treated as an application for an alteration permit. B. Information and exhibits required. Application for an alteration permit shall be made to the Building Commissioner. In the event that the application is made by way of an application for a building permit, the application will state that the work is to be done on a landmark or within an historical district. Drawings and/or sketches and photographs illustrating the applicant's proposal shall be submitted. These exhibits shall show the structure, memorial or site in question and shall illustrate the visual impact the proposed change will have upon it and its surroundings. Where facade changes are 22808 § 228-5 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION § 228-5 proposed in an historic district, their effect upon adjoining properties must be shown. C. Referral to Commission. Upon the filing of such application, the Building Commissioner shall immediately notify the Landmarks Preservation Commissioner of the receipt of such application and shall transmit it, together with accompanying plans and other information, to the Commission, unless it pertains solely to the interior of the structure. D. Meeting to review plans; time limit. The Landmarks Preservation Commission shall meet within fourteen (14) days after notification by the Building Commissioner of the filing, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Commission, and shall review the plans according to the duties and powers specified herein. In reviewing the plans, the Commission may confer with the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative for the alteration permit. E. Approval or disapproval. The Commission shall approve or disapprove such plans and, if approved, shall issue a certificate of appropriateness, which is to be signed by the Chairperson, attached to the application for an alteration permit and immediately transmitted to the Building Commissioner. F. Disapproval; reasons to be stated. If the Commission disap- proves of such plans, it shall state its reasons for doing so and shall transmit a record of such action and reasons therefor, in writing, to the Building Commissioner and to the applicant. The Commission may advise what it thinks is proper if it disapproved of the plans submitted. The applicant, if he/she so desires, may make modifications to the plans and shall have the right to resubmit the application at any time after so doing. G. Certificate of appropriateness. No alteration permit shall be issued authorizing a material change in use or appearance of a landmark or of a structure, memorial or site within an historic district until a certificate of appropriateness has been filed with the Building Commissioner. In the event that the Commission disapproves of a proposed plan, its notice of disapproval shall be binding upon the Building Commissioner, and no permit shall be issued in such a case. The failure of the § 228-5 ITHACA CODE § 228-7. Commission to act within forty-five (45) days of the date of an application filed with it, unless an extension is agreed upon mutually by the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval. In the event, however, that the Commission shall make a finding of fact that the circum- stances of a particular application require further time for additional study and information than can be obtained within the aforesaid period of forty-five (45) days. then, in said event, the Commissioner shall have a period of up to ninety (90) days within which to act upon such an application. H. Inspections after granting. After the certificate of appropriate- ness has been issued and the permit granted to the applicant, the Building Commissioner shall from time to time inspect the construction, alteration or repair approved by such certificate and shall take such action as is necessary to enforce compliance with the approved plan. I. Ordinary maintenance. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair of any structure within an historic district or on a landmark site. § 228-6. Cooperation of other officials. As an aid toward cooperation in matters which concern the integrity of the designated landmarks and historical districts, all public officials shall, upon request., furnish to the Commission, within a reasonable time, the available maps, plans, reports and statistical or other information the Commission may require for its work. § 228-7. Appeals. Appeals may be taken to the Common Council by any person aggrieved by a ruling or determination of the Landmarks Preserva- tion Commission. 22810 § 228-8 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION § 228-8 § 228-8. Penalties for offenses.3 Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed an offense and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 1, General Provisions, Article I, Penalties. Each day's continued breach shall constitute a separate additional violation. In addition, the city shall have such other remedies as are provided by law to enforce the provisions of this chapter. 3 Editor's Note: Amended at time of adoption of Code; see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. II. 22811 Martha and Arthur Kuckes 114 East Court Street, Ithaca; New York 14850-4211 February 3, 1993 Mr. John Schroeder, Chairman, Planning and Development Committee of Common Council 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr.:Schroeder: We are writing to appeal to Common Council the decision of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to deny our petition to use vinyl siding on our house at 110 Sears Street (see attached.) We base our petition and appeal on City Ordinance 228-4 E (1) (b) which reads that the ILPC should not refuse a petition if: "The denial of a certificate of appropriateness wouldprevent the. owner of the landmark or improvement within a district from earning a reasonable return on said owner's property subject to this regulation." The use of vinyl on this house will not of itself allow a reasonable return on the property, but it would greatly influence' our ability to get to that point. An analysis by our accountant indicates, "... a.27% increase in (the) rate of return and an increase in annual cash flow of $1316.00" a's a result of using vinyl rather than paint. (A copy of the accountant's report is enclosed.) Based on statements we have heard from members of the Commission, and from their statement of • refusal, we anticipate the following arguments against us, for which we offer rebuttals: The difference that vinyl will make is 1.2% and that is not substantial. The figure of 1.2% is a 27% increase in rate of return, and an increase of $1316.00 in annual cash flow. That is a significant amount of money. The Kuckeses knew the property was in the historic district when they bought the house: Yes, we knew that. What we did not know was that one could safely apply vinyl, and that it could be done in a manner true to the architectural spirit of the house. We came to a consideration of vinyl purely accidentally, having been informed in casual conversation about the particular product we wish to use after we bought the house; we did not consciously seek out this alte,rnative. Having found out about it, however, we realized how much sense it made, and went for the possibility that the Commission would agree and would want to be realistic and supportive of responsible property owners like ourselves. The Kuckeses made an unwise business decision to buy the house and now want the City to rescue them. Our interest in this house is not to make every possible cent we can, only to make a reasonable return. (Eventually, we want the income to contribute .to independence in old age,) The house has along history of being rented in its entirety, and we do not think that anyone else who might have bought it would be in a •different situation than we are. Our purchase price was based on the going price for similar houses and was several thousand dollars less than its current assessed value. We do not think that we have spent much money on this house that someone else would not have. (See attachment.) The difference between us and other buyers would likely have been that one of them wouldn't .have been retired and therefore had the extensive time it has taken to pursue this matter with the Commission. The City might also consider that people like us who invest in city properties rather than the stock market or other savings venues should be backed up. The stock market seems to enrich mainly its own investors. As well as in meeting our own interests, when we buy property we are desirous of making a contribution to the city through doing a good job with. respect to the building, our tenants, our employees and the neighborhood. The vinyl will not look exactly like wood. We believe this to be the true heart of the matter from the Commission's 2 point of view. We think that they are so focused on purist preservation goals that it would not matter. if the difference in income were tenfold - what it will be if we use vinyl: they would still refuse to allow it. They want to force us to paint the wood because to do so will keep the structure looking as it did originally, which is, after all, one of the purposes of the preservation movement, a movement which we actively support when the trade-offs make sense. Their only true consideration appears to be the one of authenticity. No compromise is considered. The Wolverine siding which we have investigated and shown them is a very close approximation to the present wood siding. It would look very good on this house and is appropriate to the neighborhood. We would see to it that it was properly applied in order to protect the basic structure of the building. The architectural trim will be maintained, as will the relationship between the siding and the trim. The color will be well- chosen. But , to the Commission, it's not good enough because it is neither wood nor perfectly identical to wood. If the Kuckeses are granted permission to use vinyl, we shall have to let others use it also. Thereby, we shall have lost our control over this issue in the entire District. It seems to us that each case must be handled on its own merits. Property owners have different circumstances relevant to their holdings in respect to financing, upkeep, and whether the property is used privately or for business purposes. We have made the point before that the Preservation - ordinances call for individual property owners like usto bear the burden of the city's standards with regard to its- historic structures and neighborhoods, while in other areas deemed important, the community as a whole puts its money on the line. Property owners in the historic districts are denied rights that others have. Perhaps this underlying principle should be rethought. A final and very important point is that by denying us permission to use vinyl on our house, the Commission puts us at a disadvantage relative to other property- owners of similar rental properties. Unlike the preferred fantasy of the various preservation organizations, vinyl is cost effective. And unlike the apparant fantasy of many other people (we were among them once ourselves) landlords have more to do than sit back and collect the rent. In the current real estate climate, most property owners who 3 wish to do right by their properties and tenants and yet make some money on their investments have a difficult balancing act on their hands. It is important to us to be on a level playing field with other landlords in order to keep our rents competitive. We do not think that the City should prevent us from being in that position. Sincerely ours, a cc: Charles Guttman, City Attorney Benjamin Nichols, Mayor 4 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION January -2,0; 1993 Martha & Arthur Kuckes 114 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District Dear Mr & Ms-Kuckes: TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 At the regular meeting held January 14, 1993 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission passed the attached resolution concerning the Certificate of Appropriateness application for the above noted property. To pursue this issue further you may either submit a revised proposal for Commission review or appeal the Commission's decision to the Common Council by contacting the City Attorney. In closing the Commission would like to extend its appreciation for your cooperation in protecting the historic and architectural character of the DeWitt Park Local Historic District. Record of Vote: John Benson Aye Michael Cannon Aye Barclay Jones Aye Nancy Meltzer Aye Frank Smithson Absent Mary Tomlan Aye Martha Preston, Chair Ithaca Landmarks Preservation-Commission- xc: Rick Eckstrom, Building Commissioner "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" ILPC Meeting - January 14, 1993 Resolution - RA RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District WHEREAS, WHEREAS,. 110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park Local Historic Ditrict, and in accordance with Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, all proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled for the. January 14, 1993 meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to consider the proposal to apply vinyl siding, and WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, at meetings held July 9, 1992 and November 17, 1992 the Coiuuission denied the' application finding that the proposed work will have a substantial adverse effect on . the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance and value of the landmark and neighboring improvements in the district WHEREAS, WHEREAS, at the meeting held on November 17, 1992 the Commission denied the application finding that the applicant had failed to show denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the applicant from earning a reasonable rate of return, and the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal, The property is architecturally and historically significant as a representative example of the modest "worker" residences constructed in this area in the late 19th century The structure retains a modest level of integrity The applicants were aware prior to purchase last year that the property is located in the DeWitt Park Local Historic District and that such designation would entail restrictions on exterior alterations The applicant has submitted a revised financial statement attached and dated 12/18/92 which is make part of this record NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal as shown does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 228-4,E(1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission finds that the applicant has not .demonstrated that denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness would prevent the owner from earning a reasonable return on the property in accordance with Section 228-4 E(1)(b), BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission denies the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Frederick J. Ciaschi, C.P.A. John H. Dietershagen, C.P.A. John E. Little, C.P.A. Jerry E. Mickelson, C.P.A. Thomas K. Van Derzee, C.P.A. Debbie A. Conley, C.P.A. • Reginald E. Malley, C.P.A. Arthur & .Martha Kuckes 114 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 re: 110 Sears Street Ciaschi • Dietershagen • Little • Mickelson Certified Public Accountants and Consultants Based upon review and discussion of the preliminary projection we have corrected the projections of cash flow and income for 110 Sears Street. The projection was prepared to give you an understanding of the cost and potential savings from installation of siding at 110 Sears Street rather than painting. Projection of Cash Flow & Income with 50 year siding installed at $ 8,960 as part of the acquisition cost. Cash Flow Annually Revenue S 1,170/mth * 95% 13344 Expenses R.E. Taxes 2247 Insurance 288 Utilities 1569 Management Fees 1500 Maintenance & Repair 2000 Net Cash Flow 5740 Investment Cost 100845 Rate of Return 5.7% Projection of Cash Flow & Income with 7 year painting. The 1992 painting at $ 7,000 is part of the acquisition cost; the projected 1999 painting cost is adjusted for a 4% annual inflation rate. Cash Flow Annually Revenue $ • 1,170/mth * 95% 13344 Expenses R.E. Taxes Insurance Utilities. Management Fees Maintenance & Repair Exterior' Paint Allowance Net Cash Flow Investment Cost Rate of Return 2247 288 1569 1500 2000 1316 4424 98885 4.5% The installation of vinyl siding represents an increase in the rate of return from 4.5% to 5.7%. This is a 27% increase in your rate of return and an increase in annual cash flow of $ 1,316. December 18, 1992 CORTLAND ITHACA Sincerely, Thomas VanDerzee, CPA WATKINS GLEN . 18 Tompkins Street Cortland, New York 13045 607-753-7439 Terrace Hill Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-4444 221 N. Franklin Street Watkins Glen, New York 14891 607-535-4443 Martha Kuckes 114 East Court Street. Ithaca. New York 14850-4211 February 4, 1993 RE: 110 Sears Street Purchase Price and Immediate and Anticipated Expenses: Purchase price: $80,500 Closing :costs: $1500. Startup Costs: tree removal $360. backyard fence 764. porch repair 45. (+mat.) cert. of occ. 70. downstairs: 3484. (pntng. 1622.) (shades 81.) (refrig. 200) (ref. floors 300.) (gen. carpentry 44) Anticipated major repairs over next three years based on inspection by Realty Inspection Service: plumbing 1000. roof (rem. old/ inst. new) 6000.. gutter replacement. 1000. ext. vinyl or paint 6000.-8000 Management 1500/yr General yearly maintenance 800.-2000. Fixed expenses (est.) 4104. (water & sewer 200) (taxes (`91) 2247) (insurance 288.) (heat, hot wat.) 1369.)