Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2009-04-09Approved by ILPC – 3/9/10 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes - April 9, 2009 Present: Lynn Truame, Acting Chair N. Brcak K. Brennan G. Holets S. Jones S. Stein M. Tomlan, Council Liaison L. Chatterton, Staff D. Hoffman, City Attorney Acting chairperson Lynn Truame convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. None II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters B. Communications C. Public Comment on Matters of Interest III. OLD BUSINESS A. Former Ithaca Gas Works, Individual Landmark 1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS), determination of adequacy for public review. Dr. Judith Pastel, Superintendent of the Ithaca City School District (ICSD), and Robert Tyson, Esq. Counsel for ICSD were present to address the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) concerning the dEIS. ILPC members conducted a page-by-page review of the document. It was noted by the ILPC that the overall tone of the document was more one of advocacy for the demolition proposal and less a factual assessment of environmental impacts. It was noted by the ILPC that deterioration has resulted in part from lack of maintenance and that the building is in worse condition now than it was at the time of the last appeal (Petitioner New York State Gas & Electric (NYSEG), 2005.) M. Tomlan noted that in recent years industrial buildings have become more appreciated. She added that the “built environment” is as much a part of the dEIS as the natural environment. ILPC members felt that the document does not fully acknowledge that the original Record of Decision between the Department of Environmental Conservation and NYSEG - calling for demolition of the building and remediation of the site - was altered by the Explanation of Differences, a new agreement - calling for the containment of hazardous wastes underneath the building. The containment remedy was determined by the DED to be protective of public health and safety. In response to Commission comment, J. Pastel stated that the first priority of the ICSD is to care for buildings that house children and that buildings Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 9, 2009 2 that do not house children are not eligible for state aid. In response to Commission comment about ICSD plans for the site, J. Pastel stated that when the ICSD purchased the four-acre parcel there was thought of building a new school on the site. She indicated her feeling that the ICSD must keep options for the site open adding that, with a scarcity of available land downtown, it would be irresponsible for the ISCD not to reserve flexibility with regard to the site, especially because the Beverly J. Martin School enrollment is growing. J. Pastel noted that, in conversation with the City’s Mayor, she had offered to sell the building to the City for $1.00, but that the Mayor expressed reluctance to take on additional debt. She added that the ICSD would require that any potential buyer remove the building from the site. ILPC staff responded that the Mayor has contradicted the ICSD assertion that the building was offered to the City. M. Tomlan indicated that she knew of interest on the part of at least one local developer. J. Pastel questioned viability of those with “potential interest”. ILPC members questioned whether or not the ICSD had made it known that the building could be purchased. R. Tyson stated that the ICSD is under no obligation to advertise or sell the building. Following discussion R. Tyson agreed to some modifications of the submitted dEIS. He indicated that the ICSD would agree to a time extension that would allow for completion of the required environmental review. In order to expedite the process, ILPC members authorized staff to make a determination of adequacy and completeness, based on staff judgment that issues specified in the resolution have been addressed. RESOLUTION Regarding Completeness and Adequacy for Public Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Demolition of the former Ithaca Gas Works by the Ithaca City School District WHEREAS, the Ithaca City School District (referred to hence as either ICSD or “the District”) has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission for the proposed demolition of the former Ithaca gas works, a building first occupied by the Ithaca Gas Company (also known as “Markles Flats” – the name of the alternative school occupying the building in the 1970s). The building is located at the corner of West Court Street and North Plain Street on an approximately 2-acre piece of property owned by ICSD. The former gas works building is a two-story, brick masonry industrial structure with a 38’ by 93’ 4” footprint constructed in 1899 to replace an earlier building also used by the Ithaca Gas Company. Based on its association with Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 9, 2009 3 Ithaca’s early development and the building’s architectural design, the building was designated a local landmark in 1977. Significant design elements include those that reflect its industrial function such as the rooftop retorts, as well as design features typical of late 19th architecture such as the heavy, rusticated stone window sills and lintels and the brick corbelling at the building’s eaves. The property was acquired by ICSD in 1964 from New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG); and WHEREAS, as a result of release and/or disposal of hazardous wastes associated with the building’s earlier use as a coal gas manufacturing plant, the property is listed as a Class 2 Site on the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. NYSEG is currently undertaking remediation of contamination on other portions of the 2-acre site by excavating and removing contaminated soils. The remedy for treatment of identified contaminants underneath the gas works building, as agreed upon by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), is to pump out contaminants underneath the building, containing any remaining containments with a subsurface corrugated metal barrier at the building’s perimeter and inclusion of a system for ongoing monitoring of soil gas vapors, and WHEREAS, the proposed action consists of demolition of the building that is in deteriorated condition and that ICSD has stated, “seriously interferes with the District’s future use of the site.” Following proposed demolition the site would be remediated in the same manner as other portions of the site. ICSD states that the remediated site would be used for proposed construction of a new building to house ICSD administrative office use and for recreational purposes associated with Beverly J. Martin Elementary School located on the block across West Court Street. WHEREAS, the demolition of a building designated a local landmark under municipal law and determined eligible for listing on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places is a Type I Action subject to environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) and WHEREAS, the ILPC, as lead agency, made a positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on February 12, 2009, directing the ICSD to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed demolition of the former Ithaca gas works building, and WHEREAS, after the February 12, 2009 declaration, the ILPC communicated in writing the results of an informal scoping to assist the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 9, 2009 4 applicant in assembling a dEIS that would focus on matters that are of most concern to the ILPC, and WHEREAS, on March 30, 2009 ICSD submitted a dEIS to the ILPC, and WHEREAS, the ILPC, as Lead Agency for the environmental review, has reviewed the dEIS for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and has with the assistance of City staff discussed the dEIS with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, in light of the informal scoping guidelines, now therefore be it RESOLVED that the ILPC, as Lead Agency, hereby finds that the dEIS for the demolition of the former Ithaca gas works building as submitted on March 30, 2009, is not complete or adequate, with respect to its scope and content, unless it is modified so as to address the stipulations set forth below and as discussed in the dialogue between the ILPC and the applicant on April 9, 2009. In the event that a revised dEIS is submitted by the applicant, prior to the next meeting of the ILPC, staff to the ILPC is in that case authorized to determine whether said stipulations have been satisfied by the revised dEIS, thus rendering it suitable for public review and comment, pursuant to SEQRA and CEQRO. Moved by K. Brennan Seconded by S. Stein RECORD OF VOTE: Approved 6 – 0 – 0 Yes L. Truame, Acting Chair N. Brcak K. Brennan G. Holets S. Jones S. Stein No 0 Abstain 0 1. Pumping out of contaminants currently underneath the building, containment of remaining contaminants with a metal barrier, monitoring of soil gas vapors. The remedy selected by NYSEG involves the pumping out of contaminants underneath the building, containment of any remaining contaminants with a metal barrier at the building’s perimeter and monitoring of soil vapors inside the building. Since the DEC and the NYS Department of Health have approved this approach, it is reasonable to assume that the remedy has been determined adequate in terms of public safety. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 9, 2009 5 Throughout the dEIS, ICSD makes reference to contaminants that “will” remain underneath the building “indefinitely,” and clearly implies that the current remedy is less protective of public health, but presents no scientific evidence for this position. In a letter to the ILPC dated February 4, 2009, NYSEG strongly advised that the ILPC “ is not the proper forum to debate” the “complex issue” of remediation methods. Such statements of the comparative effectiveness or safety of remediation approaches should be deleted from the dEIS, unless they are backed up with credible scientific evidence. 2. “…the District may be legally obligated to maintain the containment structure. Any costs associated with the maintenance of the structure will be borne solely by District taxpayers.” p. 13 The imposition of a legal obligation on the District to maintain the containment structure should be supported by documentation that specifies what the maintenance would include and its anticipated frequency, in order for the ILPC to fully evaluate the impact of the obligation. In addition the document suggests a cost to be borne by the District of maintaining the containment structure and monitoring the soil gas vapors but does not attempt to quantify those costs. In fact, economic considerations are not the appropriate subject of an EIS and were not identified in the informal scoping. These unquantified references to costs should be deleted from the dEIS. (Such concerns are certainly part of the ILPC’s consideration of the application, and can be addressed outside the dEIS.) 3. “…the District may be subjected to restrictions on the use of the property that will be determined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) in the future. The precise nature of those restrictions is not known at this time…`p.13 It is difficult to assess the impact of any use restrictions without knowing what they are. Unless the ICSD can provide additional information as to what the use restrictions would be, this speculative statement should be deleted from the dEIS. 4. “Although it was deemed a local landmark in 1977, the Markles Flats Building is currently in a dilapidated state. …Given the current condition of the building, the demolition of the Markles Flats Building will not have an adverse impact on the aesthetic resources of the community.” p 10 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 9, 2009 6 The condition of an historic building is not typically a measure of its significance. The dEIS should show that the District has a full understanding of the building’s historic significance, which information is largely absent. While a full recitation of the reasons for the building’s historical importance and designation, in the main text of the dEIS, would be the preferred remedy to this problem, the ILPC suggests that an acceptable approach would be to reference the following background documents in the main text of the dEIS, and include the documents themselves as appendices: the New York State Building Structure Inventory Form, the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for listing on the National Register, and the letter from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation stating the eligibility of the gas works for listing on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places it. These documents can be provided to ICSD by ILPC staff. 5. “The masonry exterior is severely impacted by spalling of the soft brick, and this has structural implications and long-term maintenance implications. One portion of the building has been identified as having brick deterioration that Novelli Engineering believes represents an imminent hazard. As time passes, the condition of the Markles Flats Building, if not renovated, is expected to worsen. The Markles Flats Building is located immediately adjacent to a public sidewalk, and its condition presents a risk to persons in the immediate vicinity of the structure, whether they are on the District property or passing by on the sidewalk. …Additionally, renovation of the Markles Flats Building so that it could be inhabited could only be accomplished at excessive expense.” p.6 The dEIS should supplement this information with an explanation of the District’s investment in and efforts toward routine maintenance of the building, over the course of its ownership. Has this building been subject to the same level of routine maintenance as other facilities under ICSD stewardship? In light of the District’s recent lack of maintenance have there been efforts to transfer the building to a party with greater interest in this historic building or to publicize its availability? 6. “While many members of the public recognized that historic preservation and environmental remediation are both important considerations, the majority of the commenters indicated that in this instance, their preference was for the environment to be favored, even if that meant that demolition of the Markles Flats Building resulted. …Ensuring that the interests of the individuals who live in close Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 9, 2009 7 proximity to the Markles Flats Building are satisfied is another public benefit of demolition.” pp. 7-8 In this case, the public has generally been presented with only two options considered to be “reasonable”: demolition of the building or an agreed upon remedy that includes partial removal of the contaminant, indefinite containment of the remaining contaminant and ongoing monitoring of soil gas vapors. Prior to the meeting held on February 12th the ILPC received a letter from NYSEG dated February 4, 2009, stating that demolition will have a “secondary benefit” of allowing a more complete remediation of the coal tar under the building. (According to the letter, the primary benefit is the elimination of cost to the District taxpayers of the 2.5 million dollar cost to renovate the building.) The letter goes on to state, “demolition is not the only way to achieve this secondary benefit. NYSEG has investigated two methods, moving the building or supporting it during excavation under it. While costly and not without risk, they are certainly possible.” A separate, earlier email communication dated 1/2/2009 stated, “if permission to demolish the building is not granted, NYSEG will continue to explore more aggressive clean up options. We have begun discussions with a vendor that claims they can destroy the coal tar under buildings with the use of chemical oxidants.” The ILPC asks that these communications be mentioned in this section of the dEIS, so as to provide a more complete view of the situation, and that the letters themselves be appended to the dEIS so that they are part of the record and available for public review. 7. “ …demolition of the structures on the District property has thus afforded an opportunity for the District to enhance recreational opportunities for the students who attend Beverly J. Martin Elementary School (“BJM”). The District property, in a fully remediated state, would be suitable for student recreation, whether in a gym class, or for “field days” that are commonly held at other District schools. As the owner of a fully remediated property in such close proximity to BJM, the District would certainly seek to use the property to benefit the BJM students. However, the District also stated that the continued presence of the Markles Flats Building would interfere with this use. p. 17 The dEIS states that retention of the former gas works interferes with the District’s proposed use of the site. The dEIS lists some general, potential uses for the site and also makes reference to a potential new building to be constructed on the site to house administrative offices. It is not clear that the retention of a building with an approximately 4000 square foot footprint and/or the transfer of some additional property to create a parcel viable for redevelopment would seriously interfere with the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 9, 2009 8 District’s use of the two acre site. The district should provide some additional information or a sketch plan to show how the site can or cannot accommodate the district’s desired mix of uses, if the building was to be retained. In discussion that occurred during the April 9, 2009 meeting it was agreed that the ICSD would provide additional information on actual plans for the site and its objective to reserve options for future uses. 8. The District states “transfer of the Markles Flats Building to the City would appear to be an appropriate and reasonable solution for all parties. … In fact the District has offered, on more than one occasion, to work with the City to do just this. …the City would be required in that circumstance to incur costs to renovate the Markles Flats Building, and in discussions approximately 3 years ago, the City informed the District that it could not take on any additional debt service. That rationale is understandable, and provides an explanation for why a transfer to the City has not occurred.” This statement is not backed up with any documentation of a serious offer to transfer the building to the City or any other potentially interested party, and City officials have a different recollection. Unless such documentation can be provided, the statement should be deleted from the dEIS. It is noted that to be feasible, such an offer would likely need to include some portion of land around the building to allow reasonable space for an economically viable redevelopment or to meet a parking requirement. Has there been any effort to let the public know that the building may be available? 9. Solid waste impacts: What is the volume and weight of materials to be transported and disposed of? What is the expenditure of energy in removing the materials from the site? What are the costs of demolition given the statement of asbestos involved? 2. Establishment of public comment period ILPC members directed staff to establish a public comment period, to be 30 days from staff determination of completeness and adequacy for public review. Because there had already been opportunity for public comment, no formal public hearing on the dEIS was scheduled. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – April 9, 2009 9 IV. NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Staff, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission