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