HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2009-09-22Approved by ILPC – 1/14/10
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
September 22, 2009
Present:
Lynn Truame, Acting Chair
Nancy Brcak
Susan Jones
Alphonse Pieper*
Susan Stein
Mary Tomlan, Common Council Liaison
Leslie Chatterton, Staff
Megan Gilbert, Staff
Acting Chair L. Truame called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read the legal notice for the
public hearings.
I. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Former Ithaca Gas Works, Local Landmark
Staff reviewed the history of the Ithaca City School District’s (ICSD) application to date.
Staff explained the relationship between this application and the application submitted by
NYSEG in 2005.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Jones, seconded by S. Stein, Acting Chair L. Truame opened the
public hearing.
Janis Kelly, Campbell Avenue, stated that she understood that all three criteria must be
met before demolition can be approved. She stated that ICSD has met all three criteria.
The school district does not have to maintain building and she suspects they will allow
the building to fall down until they can clear it away. The rehabilitation of the building
will require significant expenditure. Preserving the building will deprive school children
of invaluable green space, sports, and playground area. She encouraged the Commission
to consider budget constraints and burden on school taxpayers.
Jeff Bercuvitz, North Albany Neighborhood Association stated that he sent a longer
document that he would like read into the record. He stated that he unequivocally
opposes those in the community who support ICSD simply because it is the school
district that has made the application. The school district can achieve its goals without
destroying the building and should not focus on the assumption that retaining building
will cause a severely contaminated site to remain. More options should be explored, and
he referred to the February 2009 letter from Joe Simone that identified the options to
move or lift the building. There could be collaboration between the school district,
GIAC, and others to talk about fundraising and other ways to move forward. The
Markles Flats building is not just a building; it is the heart of the neighborhood for many
who live there.
* Arrived at 10:05 p.m.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-2-
Molly Adams, Brooktondale, stated that the Former Ithaca Gas Works is a beautiful
building. This is the reason that it has been designated. With remediation of the neglect
that it has suffered, it could be handsome and something that everyone could be proud of.
Stuart McDougal, Ithaca, stated that he shares the affection of the previous two speakers
for the Former Ithaca Gas Works building. He was delighted to learn about the clean up
and the removal of the unsightly buildings adjacent to the former gas works. The clean
up would be a good thing but the demolition of the building would be a great loss to
future generations. It is a reminder of when industry flourished in downtown Ithaca and
when the same care was given to designing factories as to homes.
Joel Harlan, Newfield, stated that the building looks deteriorated and the neighborhood is
sad-looking. It should be removed from the property, and plans should be made to have a
state of the art neighborhood center.
Kristen Olsen, Ithaca, spoke as the Preservation Coordinator for Historic Ithaca, Inc.
Many historic buildings remain in Ithaca, including the Clinton House, and they can still
be put to good use. She supports the idea that the building be maintained until money can
be put into its renovation. Her research shows that there are approximately 50 remaining
manufactured gas plants remaining in the country. The loss of this building would be
significant at a local and national level.
JR Clairborne, Ithaca, spoke as a member of the Common Council that represents this
neighborhood. He acknowledged that the Commission is in the unenviable position of
choosing between two alternatives: preserve the building or clean up the site. It should
be possible to do both. City resources were once devoted to helping NYSEG and ICSD
find an alternative site for the building - a win-win solution. This decision will affect the
community. People are in support of protecting the building that is considered a treasure.
Others want the site cleaned up. The question should not be whether we should tear
down to clean up but how can we can be a better arbiter. If there is a way to clean up the
site while preserving the building, it would be a mutually beneficial decision.
Mary White worked in the building in the 1980s and noted it was a lovely building to
work in. The decision was made to build swimming pool, and no one was concerned
about the coal tar in relation to the pool. She firmly believes that it can be made a
beautiful building again.
S. Stein read a statement from Siller Zusman (#1) that supports demolition of the
building.
S. Jones read a statement from Sarah Adams, Victoria Romanoff, Nora Gunneng, Stuart
McDougal, Tobias McDougal, and Angus McDougal (#2) that supports preservation of
the building.
L. Truame read a Barry and Molly Adams (#3).
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-3-
N. Brcak read letter from Jane Marcham (#4) that supports preservation of the building.
Commission members read a letter from Jeff Bercuvitz and the North Albany Street
Neighborhood Association (#5) that supports preservation of the building.
On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by S. Stein, Acting Chair L. Truame closed the
public hearing.
City Attorney D. Hoffman stated that he does not agree with Janis Kelly’s statement that
ICSD can just let the building fall down. While he agrees the courts do view schools
differently than private property owners, he does not believe that the court will look at a
public safety concern differently.
Staff reported that there have been additional correspondences that provide information
on this application and should be included in the record.
N. Brcak read a letter dated August 18, 2009 from Tompkins County Administrator Joe
Mareane to ICSD Vice-President Brad Grainger (#6).
L. Truame read an email from Joe Mareane to Dooley Kiefer, former County legislator
(#7).
S. Stein read an email from William Ottaway, representing the Department of
Environmental Quality to Leslie Chatterton dated 9/22/09 (#8).
S. Jones read an email from Joe Simone, representing NYSEG to neighborhood resident
Stiller Zusman dated 1/2/09 (#9).
L. Truame presented the Former Ithaca Gas Works Map, showing the relationship
between the size of the parcel and foot print of building.
FORMER ITHACA GAS WORKS FINDINGS STATEMENT & DECISION
As approved by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
at the meeting held September 22, 2009
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2009, the Ithaca City School District (referred to hereafter
as “ICSD” or “the District”) submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (“ILPC” or “the Commission”) that
would allow the demolition of the former Ithaca Gas Works (also referred to hereafter as
“the building”), and
WHEREAS, the building was first occupied by the Ithaca Gas Company; it is also
commonly referred to as “Markles Flats,” which was the name of an alternative school
occupying the building in the 1970s as well as an historical name for the neighborhood in
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-4-
which the building is situated. The building is located at the corner of West Court Street
and North Plain Street on an approximately 3.25-acre (141,500 square foot) parcel of
property owned by ICSD. It is a two-story, brick masonry industrial structure with a 38’
by 93’ 4” footprint (3,550 square feet), constructed in 1899 to replace an earlier building
also used by the Ithaca Gas Company. The property was acquired by ICSD in 1964 from
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (“NYSEG”), successor to the Ithaca Gas
Company, and
WHEREAS, the building was designated a local landmark in 1978, in accordance with
provisions set forth in Chapter 228 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code (“Landmarks
Preservation” – see Section 228-4), a designation based upon the determination by the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, affirmed by vote of the City of Ithaca
Common Council, that the building’s association with Ithaca’s early development as well
as its design and architecture meet the definition of and criteria for a landmark, as set
forth in Chapter 228, and
WHEREAS, the building has been determined by the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the New York State and
the National Registers of Historic Places, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-4.F of the Municipal Code states that:
(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
significance 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 non-commercial 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 useful propose without
excessive costs.
[3] 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.
and,
WHEREAS, as a result of the storage and/or disposal of hazardous wastes associated
with the building’s earlier use as a coal gas manufacturing plant, the site on which the
building is located 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, under the direction of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which remediation has undergone full
environmental review by others; the remedy for treatment of identified contaminants
underneath the gas works building, as stated in the “Explanation of Significant
Differences” issued in August 2007, by the NYSDEC, is to pump out as much of the
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-5-
contaminants underneath the building as possible, to contain any remaining contaminants
with a subsurface corrugated metal barrier at the building’s perimeter and to include a
system for ongoing monitoring of soil gas vapors by the building owner, and
WHEREAS, an application for permission to demolish the former Ithaca Gas Works was
previously made to the ILPC, by NYSEG, which application was denied by the ILPC on
September 16, 2004, following full environmental review -- on the grounds that the
applicant had not demonstrated that the prohibition on demolition prevented it from
earning a reasonable return on the property, and that the applicant had not sufficiently
demonstrated that there were no reasonable alternatives to demolition -- and which denial
was upheld by the New York State Supreme Court in 2005, and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the previous decision regarding a comparable application to
demolish the same landmark, just four years earlier, the ILPC accepted the ICSD’s
application for consideration, in part as a courtesy to another governmental entity, and
WHEREAS, the demolition of a structure designated as 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, which was designated as lead agency for said environmental
review, 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, at its public meeting on February 12, 2009, the ILPC informally considered
the scope of the dEIS, in order to assist the applicant in assembling a dEIS with a
narrowed focus on the matters of most concern to the lead agency, namely, the impact of
the proposed demolition on aesthetic and historic resources, and on the character of the
community, as well as alternatives to the proposed action, which suggested scope was
subsequently communicated in writing to the applicant (who did not attend the February
12th meeting), and
WHEREAS, the applicant and the lead agency agreed that the dEIS would not address
the environmental impact of the remediation process, as that subject was outside the
purview of the ILPC and had already been covered by environmental studies and reviews
conducted under the auspices of the NYSDEC, and
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2009, ICSD submitted a dEIS to the ILPC, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on April 9, 2009, the ILPC, as lead agency for the
environmental review, reviewed the dEIS for completeness and adequacy, and found that
the dEIS, as submitted, was not complete or adequate for the purpose of public review
and comment, and
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-6-
WHEREAS, the applicant and its representative attended said meeting, and, in the course
of discussion with the ILPC, agreed to revise the portions of the dEIS identified as not
complete or adequate; furthermore, in an effort to expedite the process for the benefit of
the applicant, the ILPC, in a resolution adopted at said meeting, authorized its staff to
determine whether its concerns were satisfied by a revised dEIS, thus rendering it suitable
for public review, and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2009, the applicant submitted a revised dEIS, and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2009, ILPC staff, in consultation with the Commission chair,
determined that the ILPC’s concerns were satisfied by the revised dEIS with respect to its
scope, content, and adequacy, thereby commencing the 30-day public comment period
that ended on July 28, 2009, and
WHEREAS, written comments on the dEIS were received during said 30-day period, and
proposed responses were drafted by ILPC staff and provided to the applicant for its
review, prior to the ILPC meeting scheduled for August 18, 2009, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on August 18, 2009, the ILPC reviewed the public comments,
and discussed the lead agency’s response to the comments, as well as the applicant’s
commentary on the proposed responses, and
WHEREAS, after discussion, the ILPC approved the lead agency responses (as modified
to take into account the applicant’s review) and accepted for filing the final
Environmental Impact Statement, comprising the dEIS, the comments on it and the
responses of the lead agency to the comments, and
WHEREAS, at the same time, the ILPC directed staff to file a Notice of Completeness of
the final EIS and to issue the final EIS as required under SEQR 6 NYCRR Parts 617.10
and 617.21 and CEQR Part 36-19, and to distribute the final EIS to all involved and
interested agencies and to make it available for public review, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its obligations under Chapter 228 of the Code (“Landmarks
Preservation”), under City and State environmental review laws, and under other
applicable provisions of New York State law, the ILPC has reviewed and considered the
EIS for the proposed demolition as well as other information and materials provided by
the applicant and by members of the public, and has made certain determinations, as set
forth below, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has weighed the educational needs of this applicant, to the extent
that those needs have been articulated or defined during the course of this application,
against the City’s interest in historic preservation (as set forth in the City Code) and
against the potential impacts on the environment and on the community of the loss of this
landmark, and has made the conclusions set forth below, now, therefore, be it
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-7-
RESOLVED, that the current members of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission hereby reaffirm that the former Ithaca Gas Works is deemed to be of
particular architectural and historical significance, as that characterization applies to
Section 228-4.F(1) of the Municipal Code, thus requiring that its demolition be prohibited
unless an exception to said prohibition is granted by the ILPC pursuant to said section,
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission hereby determines
that the Ithaca City School District has not demonstrated to the ILPC’s satisfaction that
an exception to the statutory prohibition of the demolition of a landmark is warranted, on
the grounds provided for in Section 228-4.F(1) of the City Code, namely:
(b) In the case of non-commercial property, all of the following [must be shown]:
[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 useful propose without
excessive costs.
[3] 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.
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission hereby makes the
following Findings in connection with its determinations herein, including its balancing
of the District’s educational needs against the community’s interest in historic
preservation:
NOTE: In considering these findings, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
has relied upon factual information contained in the fEIS prepared by the Ithaca City
School District and its counsel, Bond, Schoeneck and King, PLLC, including the
materials appended thereto, and materials received by the ILPC regarding this matter,
from various members of the public.
Commercial or Non-commercial Use?
The City’s Landmarks Preservation ordinance, in Section 228-4F (“Demolition of
Structures”), specifies two methods for evaluating a requested exception to the
prohibition of demolition of landmarks: one for commercial buildings and one for non-
commercial buildings. The ICSD contends in a letter from its Superintendent to ILPC
staff, dated December 17, 2008, that the former Ithaca Gas Works is a non-commercial
building.
Finding: The ILPC does not know whether the building is a commercial or non-
commercial property. The ownership by a public entity and the P-1 zoning classification
are consistent with the category of a non-commercial building. However, during the
District’s ownership, the structure has primarily been occupied by business uses, office
uses and studio/workshop uses. Following brief occupancy by the alternative school
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-8-
program in the early 1970s, the building was rented to non-school entities, including at
least one private business. Since these rental uses ended, the building has either been
used for storage by the District or has been vacant. Notwithstanding this ambiguous
situation, for the purpose of acting on this application, the ILPC will accede to the
applicant’s request and will consider the exception to prohibition of the demolition under
the criteria stipulated for non-commercial properties.
The implications of building condition
In the fEIS, the applicant asserts that the building’s deteriorated condition diminishes its
importance as an aesthetic, historic and architectural resource to the community. The
District also calls attention to a report in the fEIS prepared by Novelli Engineering,
Engineering Report Structural Evaluation regarding the potential danger a deteriorated
building poses to public safety as an additional reason for the ILPC to allow demolition.
Demolition of the building is characterized as a community need and benefit.
Finding: The Commission agrees with the District assessment that the former Gas Works
Building is in a deteriorated condition, as supported by evaluations contained in the
Johnson-Schmidt & Associates, Architects Study to Evaluate: Repair/Rehabilitation
Cost, Demolition Cost and Structural Soundness and Associated Engineering Report
Structural Evaluation prepared by Novelli Engineering. The reports also suggest that the
current condition is reversible, and set forth the means by which that could be
accomplished.
The ICSD has owned the building since 1964, many years prior to the building’s
designation as a local landmark in 1978. From that time until now it has had sole
control over its maintenance and upkeep. In the course of the present application, the
ICSD was asked but declined to provide information concerning specifics of maintenance
during its period of ownership, other than to explain that state aid cannot be used for
District facilities that do not have an educational purpose, and to argue that the burden
of funding the repair and future maintenance of the building should not fall to District
taxpayers. The ILPC concludes that the District chose to defer maintenance and repair of
a prominent, recognized local landmark for decades, allowing deterioration to progress
to the degree where today the community is left with a building that is described in the
fEIS, as an imminent hazard to passers by. In addition, the District states that
deterioration is expected to worsen, implying that it will not take responsibility as a
property owner to stabilize or repair the building, should its demolition not be permitted.
The fEIS contains no reference to any credible effort to transfer the building by sale or
any other means to another entity with the resources and interest in preservation,
rehabilitation or adaptive use, despite questions about this from members of the ILPC.
The problem of the building’s deteriorated condition is a self-created one (by the owner),
and one that could be remedied by applying resources that were withheld for the past 30
years or more; as such, it is not proper justification for demolition.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-9-
Remediation of the site
In the fEIS, the District asserts that demolition of the former Ithaca Gas Works would
allow for the most comprehensive clean up of the property. As described in the
document, leaving the building on the site means that there will be not be direct access to
the soil beneath it, for excavation. Instead, any contamination that cannot be pumped out
or otherwise extracted will be contained with a subsurface metal barrier, and the building
will be monitored into the future. In the fEIS, the District asserts that if legal
responsibility (for addressing any remaining contamination) falls to the District (as
opposed to NYSEG), the cost of maintaining the barrier wall or for ongoing monitoring
would be borne by taxpayers. In addition the fEIS makes reference to restrictions on the
use of the property that will be determined by NYSDEC in the future, following
completion of the remediation.
In the course of the 2003 application from NYSEG, regarding demolition of the Ithaca
Gas Works, the ILPC pressed the applicant to investigate alternatives that included
moving the building either permanently or temporarily to facilitate removal of
contaminants underneath it, or lifting and supporting the building in place to allow for
excavation of contaminants. A preliminary study by preservation architect John Bero,
commissioned by NYSEG, showed that temporarily lifting and supporting the building in
place could be feasible. The ILPC denied the previous application for demolition based
in part on these preliminary studies.
In 2007, the NYSDEC issued the Explanation of Significant Differences that has resulted
in a remedy that may not involve full remediation, about which the Ithaca City School
District and some members of the community now have concerns.
At the public hearing on the current application held on February 12, 2009, the ILPC was
presented with a letter from Joseph M. Simone, P.E., Manager-Environmental
Compliance for NYSEG (Exhibit F in the dEIS) acknowledging that “demolition is not
the only way to achieve this secondary benefit [referring to a fully remediated site].” The
letter makes reference to prior investigations by NYSEG and concludes that “while costly
and not without risk, they [other methods] are certainly possible.” The letter goes on to
state that the ultimate authority for deciding what level of excavation is necessary and
appropriate to protect the public rests with NYSDEC.
In separate communication with neighborhood residents, NYSEG has stated that if the
District’s application to demolish the building is denied, NYSEG could pursue more
aggressive means of eliminating contaminants. (Email from Joseph Simone dated
January 2, 2009.)
Finding: The revised remedy described in the fEIS is one presented in the Explanation
of Significant Differences issued by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation in August 2007. The ILPC accepts the professional determination of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State
Heath Department that the revised remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. While this issue is beyond the criteria by which the ILPC is statutorily
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-10-
bound, in making a determination on a Certificate of Appropriateness, the ILPC is
mindful of the strong concern on the part of some in the community that full remediation
may not be achieved without demolition. For the record, the ILPC also would prefer to
see the site fully remediated and believes there may be alternate methods of achieving full
remediation without demolishing the former Ithaca Gas Works. The most obvious
alternative is to move (or raise) the building so that direct excavation can occur beneath
it, as the ILPC has suggested in the past. The ILPC is disappointed that the District
declined to include moving or lifting the building in the alternatives explored in its dEIS.
The ILPC also notes that statements from NYSEG indicate that full remediation may be
achieved even without moving or raising the building.
Cost to retain and rehabilitate the former Gas Works
In the letter from Pastel to Chatterton dated 12/17/08 (Exhibit A, fEIS), Superintendent
Pastel explains that under the New York State Education Law, the District’s sole
statutory purpose is the education and care of its students. The District is funded with a
combination of state aid and local tax revenue. The District asserts that State aid cannot
be expended on facilities that are not used for instructional purposes, and that funding of
the rehabilitation of the former Gas Works would therefore require expenditure of local
tax revenue and would require public referendum. The District asserts that use of tax
revenue to rehabilitate the former Ithaca Gas Works places an unreasonable burden on
District taxpayers, and would require voter approval.
Finding: As stated by one of the commenters on the dEIS, “the building has been in
District ownership for 45 years. While the present board and administration cannot be
held responsible for the action or inaction of their predecessors, the realities of
ownership, condition and cost have remained throughout.” Despite requests by the ILPC
and ILPC staff, the fEIS contains no information about investment in maintenance of the
building during the District’s period of ownership. The ILPC notes that the former
Ithaca Gas Works is not the only facility owned by the District that is not used for
instructional purposes. Despite its landmark status, the former Gas Works has not
received routine maintenance. Unlike a private owner, the District has access to funds
through its authority to tax. Seeking voter approval for capital projects is not an
extraordinary exercise for the District.
Johnson-Schmidt & Associates, Architects and Hunt Engineers, Architect & Land
Surveyor, PC, have estimated the cost of renovation to range from $2,334,700 to 2.5
million dollars (in the EIS, the District gives its own, higher estimate of $3.5 million
dollars), costs characterized by the District as excessive. These estimates include both
costs to reverse deterioration and costs associated with rehabilitation for District office
use.
Finding: The evidence before the ILPC indicates that over the course of several decades,
the District has chosen to conserve resources by avoiding investment in routine
maintenance and repair of the former Ithaca Gas Works (despite its awareness of the
structure’s landmark status). In doing so, the District has “saved” a considerable sum.
However, this deferred maintenance has a consequence. It has contributed significantly
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-11-
to estimates in the reports prepared by Johnson-Schmidt & Associates and Peter Novelli,
P.E., as shown by the estimates of $351,060 for structural repairs, $350,400 for façade
renovation and $291,200 for roof replacement in part required as a result of loss of
structural integrity of the building’s walls. The estimate of $42,000 for remediation of
pigeon droppings, that, in addition to being a public health hazard, has corroded metal
roof trusses, is another example of present cost incurred through the District’s decision
to neglect routine building upkeep. In light of the District’s conscious decision to avoid
the cost of proper, ongoing maintenance and repair of the building for many years, the
ILPC does not find the estimated cost to “catch up” on this deferred work to be
excessive.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
Acknowledging that the demolition of the building will have an impact on the aesthetic
resources of the community, the fEIS goes on to state that because the building is in such
a deteriorated condition and because the deterioration can be expected to progress in the
future, the District does not believe that the demolition would have a “significant”
adverse impact.
Finding: First, it must be noted that the stated expectation of further deterioration
appears to indicate a determination to allow the landmark to crumble, on its own, if
permission is not granted to demolish it; the ILPC hopes this is not the District’s intent.
In any event, the aesthetic qualities that contributed to the building’s designation as a
landmark remain recognizable today despite the deterioration to date caused by the
owner’s lack of proper maintenance. The building’s inherent aesthetic quality has already
been deemed worthy of protection by past and present ILPC appointees, most of whom
have professional expertise or personal interest in evaluating qualities of historic
buildings. The ILPC disagrees with the assertion that the building’s current condition,
which has deteriorated under the District’s ownership, is a key indicator of the building’s
aesthetic value to the community. Loss of the building would indeed have a significant
adverse impact on the City’s aesthetic resources.
Furthermore, the District maintains that because the former Gas Works is not a
“destination” sought by those who appreciate beauty and because it is not set apart in a
park-like setting with special views or other scenic qualities, the aesthetic value of the
building is diminished or not meaningful.
Finding: One important outcome of passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 has been to dispel the notion that the aesthetic, historic and architectural qualities
of historic buildings, are best appreciated as monuments, destinations or as icons
appreciated apart from the ordinary fabric of the built environment. In fact, the eastern
portion of the block owned by the District on which the former Gas Works occupies the
southwest corner was once populated with neighborhood residences. Today the houses
are gone and the eastern portion of the site is leased by the City of Ithaca for
recreational uses. These changes actually elevate the uniqueness of this 19th century
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-12-
industrial building and the prominence of its corner location. The building strikingly
represents an era that predated modern zoning (for Ithaca, the 1920s), when commercial
and industrial uses occurred in the midst of (and provided employment for) residential
areas. There are many in the surrounding neighborhood and in the City who during the
ILPC’s proceedings concerning the demolition have voiced appreciation of the building’s
aesthetic qualities despite the fact that the surrounding site is not set aside in some
special way.
Impact on Historic Resources
The fEIS states that the proposed demolition will have a significant adverse impact on the
historic and archeological resources of the community, in that it will involve the
permanent elimination of a structure that is eligible for listing on the National and New
York State registers of Historic Places. This is an unfortunate and unavoidable adverse
impact of demolition.
Finding: The ILPC agrees that demolition would have a significant, unavoidable impact
on the community’s historic resources. The former Ithaca Gas Works is a unique and
striking reminder of a type of use and function from Ithaca’s past that is not represented
elsewhere in the City. It is important to note also that the building’s local landmark
designation bestows protection that reflects the building’s value to the community.
Impact on Community Character
In the fEIS, the District makes reference to the Novelli Engineering Report to support its
assertion that the building is in a dilapidated state. The District therefore concludes that
because deterioration is so advanced (implying that it is or will soon be a blight on the
area), the actual loss of the building will not have a significant, negative impact on
community character. The District also states that many neighborhood residents
addressing the Commission concerning the District’s application have stated that
demolition will not adversely affect neighborhood character.
Finding: Similar to its finding on the District’s assertion that deterioration of the
building has diminished its aesthetic qualities, the ILPC finds with regard to impact on
community character that the inherent visual qualities that impart a particular character
to the neighborhood and the city are not currently diminished by a deteriorated condition
that can be reversed. The ILPC therefore considers the impact on community character
to be significant and one that will not be meaningfully mitigated by steps such as a
memorial plaque.
It should also be noted that the purpose of conducting public hearings in the
context of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance is not to substitute the criteria used by
the Commission in considering designation or material alteration of historic buildings
with the sentiment of public opinion in the manner of a popularity contest. Rather, the
purpose is to hear substantive remarks that may provide new or different information
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-13-
about the building or the proposal that may be useful to the Commission’s deliberation.
A primary goal of historic preservation is to safeguard historic buildings for the
education, pleasure and welfare of all the citizens of the city, now, and into the future.
The Commission disagrees with the applicant’s characterization of public comment, and
believes that the applicant’s comments speak for themselves.
Mitigation
In the fEIS, the District lists measures intended to mitigate impacts, should demolition be
approved. These include photo documentation, written history of the Ithaca Gas Works,
period lighting in the vicinity, salvage and display or donation of architectural elements
from the building. The District has offered to collaborate with the Commission regarding
mitigation possibilities of this type.
Finding: The impact of demolition of this landmark cannot be significantly mitigated by
measures described in the EIS; it will represent a permanent loss of a prominent,
recognized
historical resource unique to this neighborhood and the City as a whole and
representative of an important aspect of Ithaca’s industrial past and architectural
diversity.
The severity and permanence of demolition could be mitigated (i.e., avoided) by
meaningful effort by the District to explore and exhaust alternatives to demolition, either
alone or possibly in partnership with the City. The District presents a scenario wherein
demolition is unavoidable because of costs related to the building’s severely deteriorated
condition, and because the continued existence of the building inhibits the District’s
future use of the site. As noted previously, the District bears sole responsibility for the
severity of the deterioration, by deferring regular maintenance and by its unwillingness
to transfer the building by offering it to a party with interest and resources that are less
restricted. Furthermore, the District has presented no plans that would give the
Commission a real sense of how retention of the building on-site or its relocation to
another part of the site to facilitate remediation would inhibit future uses. The
Commission acknowledges that the District may not have specific plans for the site at this
time, and in the case of a building not distinguished by landmark designation this would
not be an issue. In this case, however, the Commission is asked to find an exception to
the Landmarks Ordinance’s prohibition on demolition of designated historic buildings
without demonstration of a specific need or that alternatives have been exhausted. Under
such circumstances, the District’s application for this drastic remedy can be seen as
premature, at the least.
Alternative: Sale to the City or Other Parties
The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission asked the District to explore in the EIS,
as an alternative to demolition, conveyance of the building to the City, for sale to a third
party with the interest in and resources for rehabilitating the building for a compatible
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-14-
use, as well as the pros and cons of such an approach. In response, the District described
an informal exchange between City officials and the District, approximately three years
ago, wherein the District agreed that transfer of the building to the City would be an
appropriate and reasonable solution that would relieve the District of costs and liabilities
associated with the building. The District asserts, however, that the City declined such a
transfer, citing the City’s reluctance to take on further debt service for the purpose of
renovating the Markles Flats building.
There is no record of the content of discussions referenced by the District, and the Mayor
indicates that she has a different recollection of exactly what was said. It was the Mayor’s
understanding that if the District were able to relocate its maintenance operations from
the block where the Markles Flats building is situated, to another suitable site in the
vicinity, it would be willing to pursue a transfer of most or all or the block to the City.
Subsequently, City staff was involved in helping NYSEG in its search for such a site -
and, eventually, in successfully relocating all of the District’s maintenance operations to a
site just a few blocks from the original one (notwithstanding an initial, unfavorable
decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals).
Very recently, the Commission has received communication about a group of individual
Tompkins County legislators with a serious if preliminary interest in investigating the
opportunity for reuse of the building. After allowing the group an initial walk-through,
the District declined to grant permission for a follow-up visit, for the purpose of
conducting a structural assessment.
Finding: It appears to the Commission that within the past few years, the District was
entertaining transfer of the building, in its full context, to the City, but that this
alternative (to
demolition) is no longer being pursued in a serious manner, even though it could mean
preservation of the landmark. Given that such a scenario was apparently considered
feasible, not long ago, and in light of the evidence that the District has, very recently,
declined to permit the requested investigation of the building by an interested party, the
ILPC is not convinced that this alternative has been thoroughly pursued, via a good-faith
effort, by the District.
Alternative: “Modest” Rehabilitation of Building
The Commission also requested that the EIS address the pros and cons of a “more modest
rehabilitation” than that outlined in the Johnson – Schmidt & Associates, Architects,
Study to Evaluate: Repair/Rehabilitation Cost, Demolition Cost and Structural
Soundness, one that would leave the building in condition for uses other than office
space, e.g., an indoor recreational space, or a space that could be leased to other suitable
entities. The District asserts several cons to the proposal for a “modest” rehabilitation,
including indefinite containment of some contamination underneath the building, possible
legal obligation placed on the district to maintain the containment structure, the level of
cost required for even a modest rehabilitation and the District’s assertion that it lacks
funds for to pay the cost of a modest rehabilitation.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-15-
Finding: The District response to the Commission’s request for consideration of a modest
rehabilitation suggests that any cost to the District that may result in the building’s
preservation is not acceptable to the District. If in fact state aid cannot be applied to
buildings not used for instructional purposes the District has an alternate method of
raising revenue in its authority to tax. Tax revenues are presumably used to fund
maintenance and upkeep of other District facilities and for District capital projects and it
does not seem to the Commission that the District has fully explored the alternative of a
modest rehabilitation thus rendering the building suitable for uses such as, for example,
storage where less costly finishes, furnishings and building equipment will suffice.
Potential Future Use of the Site
The District has made only limited use of its one-block site for educational purposes,
during the last 30 years. Parts of the block have been leased to the City for use as a
swimming pool and basketball court, while a larger area was used for the District’s
maintenance operations (which have now been permanently relocated to another site a
few blocks away).
The ILPC asked the District to explain how preservation of the landmark (with its 3,550-
square-foot footprint) would seriously interfere with the District’s intended use of its
overall site on that block (approximately 141,000 square feet). The District’s response
has been general, asserting
that it has a philosophy of maintaining “maximum flexibility” and alluding to future
“possibilities” (such as a new, “pre-fab” administrative office building, “enhanced
recreational activities” for students, or a new elementary school to replace the Beverly J.
Martin School, at some point) but without specifying any particular use for which the
District now has plans.
Finding: The District has not shown that it has any particular plan for any part of its
3.25-acre property. Furthermore, it has not said or documented how preservation of the
relatively small Markles Flats building, as shown on the map labeled “Former Ithaca
Gas Works” and distributed on 9/22/09, would specifically and significantly interfere
with its plans for its large, mostly open site. The building has been designated as a
landmark since 1978, and prior to initiation of the current remediation of the site, the
District philosophy of maximum flexibility has not threatened the preservation of the
former gas works. The facts and implications of the designation have not changed over
the past 30 years. Professional reports included in the fEIS show that the building can be
stabilized and rehabilitated, and in such a state the building could be reused by the
District (e.g., for offices) or, if the District chooses, can be transferred to another party.
The district’s stated philosophy of “maximum flexibility” with regard to long- term use
should continue to take into account the reality of the building’s protected status.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-16-
Educational Need vs. Historic Preservation
The Commission understands that denial of the request to demolish the former gas works
could place some constraints on the District’s use of the property and in particular the use
of that part of the property. Demolition of the building could facilitate the remediation of
the soil beneath it, possibly eliminating future restrictions on its use (which restrictions
will be determined by NYSDEC only after the remediation project is completed).
Retention of the building on site also means that the District will have to accommodate
limited access from West Court Street at the location of the building site. Any
redevelopment of the block would need to be designed around or integrate the structure
(and any parking or access needs associated with it).
Without knowing what the District’s specific plan for the site is, the ILPC cannot at this
time evaluate how seriously the continued existence of the landmark would affect such
plans. The ILPC notes that the building itself occupies less than 3% of the District’s total
property on the block, and that in the zoning district where it is located (P-1), the
maximum amount of a parcel that may be occupied by buildings is 35%. It would
appear, therefore, that in any case the District cannot cover its entire site with (new)
buildings, according to current regulations.
Denial of the demolition is also likely to have some impact on the District’s budget since,
at the least, the building will require stabilization. As described in the EIS, the District
has two principal sources of funding, one being state aid and the second tax revenue. The
District asserts that state aid cannot be used for the rehabilitation of structures that are not
used for educational purposes, and that it expects the NYSDEC to rule out such use for
the former Ithaca Gas Works.
In that case, funding of rehabilitation would require expenditure of monies raised through
local property taxes (possibly involving a referendum).
On the other hand, the impact of demolition of this landmark represents a permanent loss
of a prominent, recognized historical resource unique to this neighborhood and the City
as a whole and representative of an important aspect of Ithaca’s industrial past and
architectural diversity. In addition to its effect on historic resources, demolition will also
have a permanent impact on aesthetics and the overall character of the neighborhood.
Finding: Retention of the landmark will place some constraint on how the District can
use its overall site, and could require the District to raise funds for stabilization or
rehabilitation, either through tax revenue entailing the budget referendum process or
through grants for historic preservation, or to convey some portion of the site to another
party with resources and interest in the building’s rehabilitation. While it is not possible
for the ILPC to evaluate the seriousness of the afore-mentioned constraint, in the absence
of any specific plan for the site on the part of the District, it would appear that only a
small proportion of the District’s property (on the block) would be affected, that less than
half of the block is available for building construction anyway (under current zoning
regulations) and that in any case preservation of the landmark does not prevent the
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-17-
district from using the vast majority of the site for educational purposes (even if the
building itself is not available for that purpose). Weighed against this must be the
drastic, permanent effect of demolition on the city’s interest in historic preservation. The
landmark, once destroyed, is not replaceable. Unlike the District’s partial diminishment
in its “flexibility,” the loss to the community of the historic and aesthetic resource is a
complete one. The Commission finds that, on balance, the permanent loss of this
recognized and unique landmark clearly outweighs the partial diminishment of the
District’s flexibility in addressing its educational needs (which at this time remain very
non-specific), as well as its wish to continue to avoid long-deferred repair and
maintenance of the landmark.
Criteria for an Exception to the Prohibition of Demolition
Section 228-4F(b) of the City’s Landmarks Preservation ordinance requires that in order
to receive permission to demolish a designated landmark, the owner must show all the
following (in the case of a non-commercial property):
[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 useful purpose without
excessive costs.
[3] 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.
Finding: The Commission has requested but the District has not presented any specific
plans to enable the Commission to determine how seriously the preservation of the
structure will interfere with the District’s intended use of the property. While the
retention of the building could impinge to some degree on the District’s philosophy of
retaining maximum flexibility for use of the site, the fact of the building’s designation has
been known to the District for many years, and plans for future use should, by law, take
into account the building’s protected status. The District has not demonstrated that
preservation of the structure will seriously interfere with the use of the property.
A significant portion of the 2.5 million dollar cost of rehabilitation shown in the
Johnson-Schmidt report, submitted with the District’s application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, is the cost associated with measures necessary to reverse deterioration
caused by years of deferred maintenance and upkeep on the District’s part. This lack of
stewardship has occurred despite the District’s awareness that the building is a
designated local landmark and as such, is protected under provisions of the Municipal
Code. The District has not demonstrated that the expense of conversion to a useful
purpose involves costs that are clearly “excessive,” especially when that portion of such
costs reasonably attributable to the avoidance of normal repair and maintenance is
separated out.
The District claims that it has no funds for maintaining the structure, with or
without use. As explained by the District, state aid cannot be spent on buildings not used
for instructional purposes. Furthermore, although the District has the ability to raise
funds through taxation, it has determined that even the cost of routine maintenance and
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-18-
upkeep should not be borne by taxpayers, although such funds are presumably used for
other facilities for which the use of state aid is likely also prohibited. At a minimum,
maintenance held back for many years could be invested back into the stabilization of the
former gas works, leaving the building in a state of preparedness for rehabilitation by a
future administration or by others. The District has not demonstrated 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.
Thus, in summary, the ILPC finds that the applicant has not met any of the three
criteria for an exception to the prohibition on demolition (noting that to qualify, an
applicant must show that all three criteria are satisfied),
and be it further
RESOLVED, that as suggested over the course of consideration of this Findings
Statement the Commission is willing to work with the Ithaca City School District, New
York State Electric and Gas and any viable neighborhood group and elected
representatives of this neighborhood to arrive at a strategy that would maximize the
removal of contaminants beneath the building while preserving the landmark, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations,
from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action by the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission to deny the proposal to demolish the former Ithaca Gas Works
is one that avoids or minimizes, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse
environmental impacts disclosed in the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements,
and be it further
RESOLVED, that, for the reasons set forth above, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission hereby denies the current application of the Ithaca School District for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the landmark known as the former Ithaca Gas
Works (or “Markles Flats”).
Moved by S. Stein
Seconded by N. Brcak
In favor: N. Brcak, S. Jones, S. Stein, L. Truame
Opposed:. None
Recused: A. Pieper
Vacancies: 2
*A. Pieper joined the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-19-
B. 504 East Buffalo Street, East Hill Historic District – proposal to replace a stone
walkway with a concrete walkway
Property owner Jeff Lallas was present to address the Commission regarding the
proposal. He explained that he would like to replace the existing stone walkway from the
fron steps to the sidewalk that has deteriorated over time. He is not sure that the existing
walkway is original but noted that the original walkway was slate. He proposes to use
concrete so that the new walkway will be compatible with previous repairs, and a new
stone walkway would be extremely expensive.
A. Pieper noted that large stones like those used in the existing walkway would be
difficult to find. He added that using smaller stones for the sake of using the same
material would change the character of the walkway.
Acting Chair L. Truame agreed, noting that the smaller stones would give the appearance
of a less formal garden path.
N. Brcak stated that since the stone cannot be repaired, the concrete would differentiate
the new walkways from the historic walkway.
Public Hearing
On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by S. Stein, Acting Chair L. Truame opened the
public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was
closed on a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by S. Jones.
RESOLUTION: The resolution was moved by A. Pieper and seconded by S. Stein
WHEREAS, 504 East Buffalo Street is located in the East Hill Historic District
provided for Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by property owner Jeffrey
Lallas for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission,
(ILPC), and
WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the replacement of the existing
stone walkway with concrete, and
WHEREAS, the project 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 ILPC has reviewed the submitted documentation dated August 28,
2009, including a Certificate of Appropriateness application submitted by
Jeffrey Lallas that includes a description of the proposal and photographs
of the existing walkway, and
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-20-
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 a Certificate of
Appropriateness was conducted at the ILPC meeting on September 22,
2009, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property
and the proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill
Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic
District Summary Significance Statement as 1830-1932.
Constructed around 1870, the building is architecturally and historically
significant as an example of an Italianate residence. The addition of the
third story prior to 1919 included some neo-classical or colonial revival
details, and the building fits in well with the variety of 19th century
architectural styles found in the East Hill area.
Constructed within the district’s period of significance and
retaining a relatively high level of integrity 504 East Buffalo Street
is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District.
As addressed in the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
dated August 28, 2009, the proposal involves the replacement of
the existing stone walkway with a concrete walkway. As shown in
the photographs accompanying the Certificate of Appropriateness
application, the existing stone is severely deteriorated and has been
patched with concrete in several locations.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace a deteriorated stone
walkway to improve the safety and the appearance of the walkway.
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
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-21-
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 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.
The stone sidewalk is a subordinate feature of the property and is severely
deteriorated and not repairable as shown in photographs submitted with
the Certificate of Appropriateness application. As shown in the
photocopied images, the removal of the existing stone walkway cannot be
avoided, thus the proposal is in keeping with Standard #2.
As described on the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness dated
August 28, 2009, the replacement concrete walk will not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size,
scale and architectural features, in keeping with Standard #9.
WHEREAS, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill Historic District, as
set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), now, therefore be it
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
with the following conditions:
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
N. Brcak
S. Jones
A. Pieper
S. Stein
L. Truame
No
0
Abstain
0
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2009
-22-
C. 411 Thurston Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District – proposal to replace stone
steps with Stampcrete steps
No one was present to address the Commission regarding the proposal.
Staff explained the proposal as presented by the applicant. The Commission postponed
further consideration of the proposal until the applicant provides additional information.
Information requested by the Commission includes:
1. The color of the proposed Stampcrete
2. The details of the design to be stamped into the concrete
3. The applicant’s reason for mimicking stone with the proposed Stampcrete (rather than
replace in-kind with concrete).
V. NEW BUSINESS
None
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m. by Acting Chair L.
Truame.
Respectfully Submitted,
Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission