HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2012-03-13Approved by ILPC – 4/10/12
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – March 13, 2012
Present:
Christine O’Malley
Stephen Gibian
David Kramer
Ed Finegan, Vice-Chair
Michael McGandy
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Vice-Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public
hearings.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Fall Creek Drive, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Complete Installation of
Black Chain-Link Fence at Guardrail.
Applicant D. McClure recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He noted the stone wall
has existed on the site for many years, but collapsed last winter, either as the result of an actual impact
or through a process of erosion. Subsequently, the City installed a temporary Jersey barrier.
Concerns arose that the Jersey barrier would force pedestrians to walk behind it, dangerously close to
the edge of the cliff. (D. McClure stated that there had in fact been a fatality in the vicinity of the site in
July 2011.) Cornell then asked the City for input on how to handle the situation. The City indicated it
would be installing a galvanized metal guard rail in place of the Jersey barriers.
Cornell independently explored the degree and extent of deterioration of the gorge edge in the area of
the failed rock wall. D. McClure stated that Cornell’s investigation resulted in a determination that
much of the wall sits on portions of the slope that are seriously at-risk of further deterioration. Because
of this situation, there were concerns that the typical method for installing a guard rail, involving the use
of a pile-driver (the method that would have been used by the City), might have caused further damage
to the rock face. Instead, Cornell offered to drill the holes for placement of the guard rail with a
specialized piece of equipment that it owns and uses for installing fence posts. This would allow both
the guard rail posts and the fence posts to be placed in the same holes, minimizing disruption to the edge
of the gorge in this area. The City and Cornell agreed to work together on the project.
In September 2011, after installation of the new guard rail and fence posts but before the fence mesh
was installed, concerns were raised about the appropriateness of the project, and of Cornell working
with the City without obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness for its portion of the work. This
brought a stop to all the work on the project.
In his application, D. McClure noted, he expressly sought to address the aesthetic and historical
concerns associated with the proposed project. Given that there is evidence of the use of chain-link
fencing in this general area as long as 50-60 years ago, D. McClure noted that he does not believe the
proposed changes introduce any new elements to the site. Furthermore, he stressed, the proposed
1 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
changes are not being put forward as a permanent solution; but are merely intended to ensure pedestrian
safety at the site in the immediate future.
D. McClure noted that one suggested alternative to the fencing, recently submitted to the Commission
by a member of the public, involving planting dense brambles to prevent access to the area by
pedestrians, would not be possible since there is simply not enough soil to support their growth.
C. O’Malley suggested a City engineering investigation of a similar situation on Thurston Avenue
should be reviewed, as an example of what could be done; it contains lessons learned that could most
likely be applied to the proposed project.
M. McGandy inquired into the circumstances of the fatality that was mentioned by the applicant, to
which D. McClure replied it was an accidental fall. A foreign student visiting Ithaca on holiday was
walking too close to the cliffside and fell into the gorge.
E. Finegan observed that the fence looks as though it could be installed closer to the edge of the gorge
and not on the guard rail itself. D. McClure responded that there are points at which the guardrail is
immediately adjacent to the stone wall, while in other places it is farther away; the guard rail cannot be
serpentined to follow the wall, though the fence could. Even if the fence were placed further from the
guard rail where that is possible, he does not believe that would create sufficient additional space for
pedestrians to walk.
M. McGandy observed there is also a shoulder, to which D. McClure replied, yes, but only for
approximately 60% of the distance.
D. Kramer asked for confirmation that the Commission is not charged with reviewing the guardrail,
which L. Truame affirmed. She added that the Department of Public Works installed the guardrail itself.
As a result, it constitutes a City improvement and is not subject to the Commission’s approval.
E. Finegan asked why the fence is required to be 6 feet in height, to which D. McClure replied he is not
entirely sure, but he would surmise it is the height required to prevent someone from easily jumping
over it. S. Gibian observed the New York State Building Code only requires a 42” height for
guardrails, balconies, etc. D. McClure agreed this was true, and clarified that the proposed fence rises
42” above the top of the guard rail. Installing a fence that measured 42” from ground level would result
in an ineffective barrier as it could easily be hopped over by standing on the guard rail.
D. Kramer indicated the applicant has made a good case in terms of the necessity of a barrier for safety;
however, the criteria the Commission is charged with considering are very narrow and relate solely to
the aesthetics of the proposed project and its visual compatibility with the historic character of the
district. D. McClure reiterated that he attempted to address the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria in his
application.
D. Kramer asked if the fence height could not be negotiable in some way, to which D. McClure replied,
no, he is not authorized to do so. He noted that Cornell merely attempted to employ what it considers to
be a reasonable standard for the fence height. It might be modified very slightly, but it is undoubtedly
2 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
within a few inches of where it should be. Certainly, D. McClure added, it should not be less than 5 feet
high.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, E. Finegan opened the public hearing.
SPEAKER NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS-IN-BRIEF
Carolyn R. Mrazek 326 Fall Creek Dr. Opposes → takes pride in home; believes it is a privilege to live in Historic
District; observes dozens of people sitting on stone wall, enjoying vista; people
take great deal of interest in the area; it is an iconic landmark; proposed changes
will have negative impact on home values; better to restrict commercial traffic,
as an alternative to improving safety
Robert J. Mrazek 326 Fall Creek Dr. Opposes → disputes applicant’s statementof fact that stone wall is in imminent
danger of collapse; vast majority appears intact; also disputes characterization
of fatality as being in vicinity: fatality was actually near power station;
applicant should be exploring alternative solutions
Robert Camp 218 Fall Creek Dr. Opposes → dismayed at new fencing; existing stone wall has posed no
problems since 1938 and it is more stable than the applicant is willing to admit;
as a structural engineer, he does not believe the gorge side is unstable; a
reasonable alternative could be employed for a safety barrier, using the
treatment employed on the other side of the gorge as a model
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by D. Kramer.
D. Kramer suggested the Commission now proceed with its formal review of the project, focusing on the
applicable Secretary’s Standards.
M. McGandy observed that, judging exclusively from the criteria the Commission is tasked with
reviewing, the proposed project simply does not appear to be a good solution to the problem. Although
the proposed design can certainly be characterized as distinctive, it is not compatible with the historic
character of the site in any way and only succeeds in obscuring and diminishing the aesthetics of the
historic overlook. While M. McGandy would not argue that safety considerations are not highly
relevant to the discussion, there is nothing to suggest the project could not be designed using a more
rigorous, long-term approach (and for which a comprehensive study of the rockface would be most
helpful).
C. O’Malley expressed her agreement with M. McGandy, while D. Kramer remarked that the proposed
changes certainly cannot be characterized as compatible with the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
E. Finegan affirmed that the portion of Fall Creek Drive in question is one of the most unique spots in
the city and some kind of genuinely creative solution is needed to preserve it, while accomplishing the
goal of improving pedestrian safety.
3 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
L. Truame indicated the Commission probably has reached a point when it can vote on the project. She
added that the applicant also is perfectly free to return with another proposal, since it does not sound like
it is possible to discuss alternative solutions at this meeting.
M. McGandy remarked it would be helpful to explore the feasibility of making Fall Creek Drive a one-
way road and prohibiting commercial truck traffic along it, as a way of improving pedestrian safety that
without negatively impacting the historic view shed or the historic stone wall.
C. O’Malley indicated that she likes that idea. It would seem Cornell should certainly be able to explore
additional pedestrian barrier alternatives, perhaps by examining other successful solutions to the same
kinds of problems (e.g., Blue Ridge Parkway).
The Commission directed L. Truame to contact the Planning Board and the Department of Public
Works, asking them to look into the traffic changes that were discussed with the aim of improving
pedestrian safety.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, Fall Creek Drive is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated under
Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on the
New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated February 22, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Dan McClure on behalf of property owner
Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description
of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) captioned photographs of existing
conditions in the project area; and (3) a narrative describing the applicant’s understanding of
how the proposed project relates to each of the ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
completion of the installation of a 42” high, black vinyl-coated chain-link fence atop the city-
owned guardrail that was installed along Fall Creek Drive in August 2011, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
4 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on 3/13/12,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is
1898-1937.
The natural stone retaining wall along Fall Creek Drive in the location of the proposed fence
is identified in Section 7 of the National Register Nomination for the Cornell Heights
Historic District as likely being an original landscaping feature within the district.
In February 2011, a portion of the stone retaining wall in this location collapsed. As a
temporary measure to prevent drivers from going off the road and down the slope of the
gorge, the Department of Public Works (DPW) placed concrete barriers in this location.
In August 2011, the DPW removed the temporary concrete barriers and began installing
standard metal guardrails around this curve in the road. City Improvements of this type are
not subject to issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; however, the Landmarks
Ordinance requires that plans for such work be submitted to the ILPC for comment prior to
commencement of the work. Such submission did not occur. As part of the guardrail
project, the DPW worked with Cornell on the installation of black chain-link fencing that
would attach to the guardrails and connect to existing fencing that runs along the edge of the
gorge, as well as down to the hydroelectric power plant, preventing pedestrians from walking
behind the guardrails. Work on the fence was halted in September 2011 when the City and
Cornell were advised by the Office of the City Attorney that a Certificate of Appropriateness
would be required for installation of the chain-link fence.
The purpose of the proposal now before the ILPC is to complete the installation of the
black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence atop the new City guardrail along Fall Creek Drive.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case
specifically the following Standards:
5 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
#2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal
of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property will be avoided.
#9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
#10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Standard #2, the installation of the black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence atop
the new City guardrail along Fall Creek Drive will not remove distinctive materials, but will
alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The proposed fence would create a
visual, as well as physical, barrier that would isolate the stone retaining wall from the rest of
the district. Installation of the proposed fence would result in a severe negative impact on
the historic view shed in this unique location.
With respect to Standard #9, installation of the proposed fence does not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Standard #9, the proposed fence is not compatible with the massing,
size, scale, and architectural features of the historic district, including its landscape features,
such as the adjacent stone wall, to protect the historic integrity of the environment. The
modern man-made material of the proposed fence, its size (particularly its height), and its
scale are not compatible with the material, size, and scale of the low natural-stone retaining
wall. The height of the proposed fence is additionally problematic for the negative impact it
would have on the view from this historic overlook, altering the unique character and
historic integrity of this location within the district.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed fence can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic
District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does not
meet criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
6 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
Yes
M. McGandy
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
B. 120 N. Cayuga Street, the Clinton House, Clinton Block Historic District – Proposal to Install
Photovoltaic Panels. (Tabled at meeting held on Tuesday, February 14, 2012.)
The applicant did not appear. In the applicant’s absence, the Commission proceeded with the Public
Hearing and subsequent review of the proposed changes.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer, E. Finegan opened the public hearing. There being
no public comment, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D.
Kramer.
L. Truame indicated the Commission had asked the applicant to explore reconfiguring the locations of
the solar panels, which it has now done. The panels on the northwest portion of the roof have been
moved. Originally, the attachment of the panels to the roof were also a concern, but the solution the
applicant has now proposed has obviated that particular concern.
M. McGandy observed this application serves as a great example of the kind of give-and-take between
an applicant and the Commission that can result in a satisfactory compromise that meets the Secretary’s
Standards.
E. Finegan indicated the solar panels no longer appear to have any notable negative visual impact from
street-level.
C. O’Malley expressed her appreciation the applicant was able to move the panels back.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 116-120 North Cayuga Street, the Clinton House, is located within the Clinton Block
Historic District, as designated under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code in 1980, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated January 25, 2012, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner, Frost Travis, including the following:
(1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for
Change(s); (2) an aerial photograph dated 12/15/11 and titled Sheet PV-S1, showing the
proposed layout of solar panels on the roof; (3) a street-level photograph showing the
appearance of the proposed solar panels on the south slope of the Clinton House roof, from
the vantage point of a pedestrian looking north down North Cayuga Street; (4) product
7 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
information for the proposed electric inverters to be installed as part of the system; and (5)
an e-mail from Solar Liberty, describing the options for location of the inverters, the
appearance of the wiring needed for the inverters, and the method of installation of the PV
panels and its impact on the roof surface; and
WHEREAS, additional materials were submitted by the applicant including an aerial photograph showing
a revised panel layout by Solar Liberty, titled Sheet PV-S1 and dated March 1, 2012; a revised
street-level view sent in the body of an e-mail from Jason Henderson, dated March 2, 2012
and showing the appearance of the proposed solar panels on the south slope of the Clinton
House roof, from the vantage point of a pedestrian looking north down North Cayuga
Street; and revised information about the mounting method for the photovoltaic panels, sent
in an e-mail from Jason Henderson dated March 2, 2012, with attachments including a cut-
sheet for the S-5-T mounting clamp and a photograph of PV panels installed on a standing-
seam roof using another (unidentified) mounting clamp; and an e-mail from Jason
Henderson containing a link to the S-5 clamp website, showing the variety of clamps
available for use on standing-seam roofs, from which the contractor would select the style
most appropriate for the specific seam profile at the Clinton House; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the Description of Architecture narrative from “Documentation
for the Certification of Clinton Block Historic District, Ithaca, New York,” and the City of
Ithaca’s Clinton Block Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation &
Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, which provide
guidance on the appropriate use of photovoltaic panels for historic structures, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the installation of 92 photovoltaic panels on the roof of the
Clinton House, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) and shown on
the two photographs of the property submitted in March (replacing those submitted in
February, which showed a different panel layout), and installation of an electric inverter
which was originally proposed for the alley between the Clinton House and Clinton Hall, but
which the property owner now proposes to install elsewhere (in a location yet to be
determined, potentially the interior of the building), and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on 2/14/12, at
which this proposal was tabled so that the applicant could provide further information about
options for the configuration of the panels on the roof, and
WHEREAS, that information has now been provided, now therefore be it
8 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Clinton Block Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the Clinton Block Historic District is 1830-
1901 based on the earliest construction and last significant alteration to the district.
Originally constructed in 1830, the Clinton House is architecturally significant as an early
large-scale building constructed in the Greek Revival style for commercial use at the height
of the style’s national popularity in the early to mid-19th century. The design of the Clinton
House is attributed to Ira Tillotson, early architect, builder, and surveyor. Its grandeur
reflects Ithaca’s early economic prosperity and local confidence that the community might
soon become the commercial and industrial hub of western New York State. The upper
portion of the building was rebuilt to the designs of architect Clinton L. Vivian, following a
fire in 1901. This alteration and later additions have gained significance in their own right
and the property as a whole retains a high level of integrity.
The property is also historically significant for its association with Simeon DeWitt;
prominent local businessmen, Jeremiah Beebe, Henry Ackley, and Henry Hibbard; and
prominent figures of the later 19th and early 20th centuries, such as William Seward, Horace
Greeley, and Frances Perkins.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Clinton Block Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Clinton
Block Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to install photovoltaic panels to supply a portion of the
Clinton House’s energy usage in a sustainable manner.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case
specifically the following Standards:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
9 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
#9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
#10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Standard #2, as shown on the revised photographs submitted in March
2012, the proposed photovoltaic panels are located on the south slope of the main central
gable roof, the west slope of the main south wing roof, the south slope of the rear southwest
wing roof, and the south slope of the rear northwest wing roof of the Clinton House. No
panels would be placed on the most easterly end of the main central gable roof. As indicated
in the March 2, 2012 e-mail describing the installation method, the panels would be mounted
on clamps that attached directly to the standing-seams of the metal roof. The panels would
lie parallel with the roof plane. The installation of photovoltaic panels in the proposed
locations using the proposed mounting method will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #9, the photovoltaic panels will be installed using clamps that
attach to, but do not penetrate, the standing-seams of the existing metal roof covering.
Installation of photovoltaic panels in the proposed locations using the proposed mounting
method will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property and will be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property.
With respect to Standard #10, as described above, the installation of the photovoltaic panels
will be accomplished with clamps that will dimple, but not penetrate, the standing-seams of
the metal roof. Installation of the photovoltaic panels in the proposed locations using the
proposed mounting method will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Clinton Block Historic
District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
10 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
D. Kramer
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
C. O’Malley
No
Abstain
II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR
A. Administrative Matters
(none discussed)
B. Public Comments on Matters of Interest
(none discussed)
C. Communications
(none discussed)
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by M. McGandy and seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members unanimously approved
the following meeting minutes, with no changes:
• February 14, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Draft Letter to J. Novarr re: Palms Tavern Signs
L. Truame reported that at a previous Commission meeting it had been suggested to write a letter to the
new Palms Tavern building owner, exploring the idea of donating some of the signs. Before that letter
could be sent, the signs in question were removed; the seller retained them when the property was
transferred. Subsequently, it was determined (by some research Mary Tomlan had conducted) that the
signs were not in fact original to the building.
V. NEW BUSINESS
(none discussed)
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, and as moved by M. McGandy and seconded by D. Kramer, the
meeting was adjourned at 6:51 p.m. by Vice-Chair E. Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
11 of 12
ILPC Minutes
March 13, 2012
12 of 12
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission