HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetters from City of IthacaCITY OF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
March 21, 1978
Ms. Lucy Breyer
Historic Preservation Program Assistant
Historic Preservation Field Services
Agency Building 1
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12238
MAR 2 3 1978
RECEIVED
NA 23 1978
City Glades Office �.-
/THACA N. y,
Re: Strand Theater
Ithaca, Tompkins
Dear Ms. Breyer:
TE 272-1713
I am pleased to reply to your request for comments on the nomination of
the Strand Theater to the National Register of Historic Places.
In terms of what the Strand has meant to the community, I think that
it has earned the distinction of a cultural landmark. As a native Ithacan,
I know that many performances have taken place there, some of which I have
attended, which might otherwise not have been seen in Ithaca.
CODE 607
While the Strand's architecture is not exceptional, it does fit in well
with its surroundings, and has a certain character which is pleasing and which
I am sure many Ithacans feel is a special and enduring part of the local scene.
The interior is particularly attractive.
What is most important, in my estimation, is the fact that much effort has
gone into renovating the Strand, to continue and expand its use as a performing
arts facility. In doing this, and doing it so well, with attention to original
detail, they have not only preserved the building as a reminder of what was, but
have preserved the function so that the Strand serves as a place where the tradi-
tions of the theater arts can continue. I feel that this is tremendously impor-
tant to the life of this community.
National Register status would, in my opinion, be appropriate for the Strand
Theater, and would help it to succeed in its renewed role.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Conley
Mayor
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
MEMO TO: John Meigs
FROM: Mayor's Office
DATE: August 21, 1978
SUBJECT: A.M.E. Zion Church
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received today
in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention.
CC: Joe Rundle
• Ethel Nichols
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1. Empire State Plaza. Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456
Orin Lehman, Commissioner
Hon. Edward J. Conley
Mayor .
City Hall
Ithaca, NY
Dear Mayor Conley:
August 15, 1978
Re: A.M.E. Zion Church
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 Registe-rs 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
2124 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 (518)474-0479•
rbp
Sincerely,,
s
Lucy/A. Breyer
Progrram Assistant
Historic Preservation
Field Services
Historic Preservation Field Services
12/77
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1. Empire Stale Plaza Albany New York 12238 Informalion 518 474$e�
Orin Lehmon. Commissioner 0479
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 by 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 acertified 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 -advan-t age=o-f-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
,, tic .ItK i
S•
RF-'`
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION 1q,nr:y f3utk1,r r, 1 . Emb:re:;l.uc Plaia. Albany New York 12238 Information 518*r7' -'45rr
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.
THE BENEFITS OF LISTING:
and
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 effect it (Advisory Council Procedures).
PROCEDURE FOR OBTAININGNAT_IONAL 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/ s j
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
December 28, 1978
MEMO TO: Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmarks Preservation Comm.
FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley /'
L�
SUBJECT: A.M..E. Zion Church - nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places
Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received from
Lucy A. Breyer, Program Assistant, Historic Preservation Field
Services of the New York State Parks and Recreation in regard
to the above entitled matter for your attention.
EJC:cmh
ATTACH
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1. Empire State Plaza. Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456
Orin Lehman. Commissioner
December 15, 1978
Hon. Edward J. Conley
Mayor
City Hall
Ithaca, NY
Dear Mayor Conley:
ECE1b
DEC20 1978
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Ithaca, hl. Y.
Re: A.M.E. Zion Chu
Ithaca, Tompkins County
Following a careful review, the State Board for Historic
Preservation has recommended to the State Historic Preservation
Officer that the site identified above be nominated to the
National Register of Historic' Places.
The next step in the procedure is the preparation of an
official nomination form for submission to the Keeper of the
National Register in Washington, DC. If the Keeper of the
Register approves the nomination, the site will be listed on
the Register andweshall notify you.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write
or call 518-474-0479.
cb
Sincerely,
Lucy A Brey-r
Program Assist'nt
Historic Preservation
Field Services
ir.
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET,
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
, TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
MEMO TO: Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk/Official Record Keeper
FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley
DATE: March 21, 1979
SUBJECT: National Register of Historic Places -- Strand Theatre
Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received from the
New York State Parks and Recreation Department stating that the
Strand Theatre has been entered on the National Register of Historic
Places on February 22, 1979.
EJC:rb
ATTACH.
CC: Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmarks Preservation Comm.
Ms. Barbara Theisan, Strand Theatre
MAR 2 31979
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Ithaca, N.Y.
0)1
yORK S .
Z
Z0
1A, REG
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1. Empire State Plaza, Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456
Orin Lehman. Commissioner
March 9, 1979
Hon. Edward J. Conley
Mayor
City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mayor Conley:
• `�
Orin Lehman, the State Historic Preservation Officer, has
asked me to notify you that the Strand Theatre, Ithaca,
Tompkins County, was entered on the National Register of
Historic Places on February 22, 1979.
If you should have any questions concerning the
National Register program, I shall be happy to answer them
for you.
LAB/rbp
Sincerely,
t
Larry E. Gobrecht
Nationa Register and
Survey Coordinator
Historic Preservation
Field Services
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca, New York, at its Regular Meeting, June 14, 1978,
passed the following:
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca, New York, as follows:
Historic Landmark Designation for the Strand Theatre
WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 32.6 of the City
of Ithaca Municipal Code ("Landmarks Preservation"),
the Landmarks Preservation Commission on 10 April 1978 voted
to designate the Strand Theatre, 310 East State Street,
as a City landmark, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development, at its
May meeting, approved the designation of the Strand
Theatre as an historic landmark, and
WHEREAS, the possible implications of the designation
of the Strand Theatre as an historic landmark include
the preservation of a building important to the cultural
history of the City and the encouragement_ of local
artists and musicians;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Common Council
does hereby designate the Strand Theatre as an historic
landmark of the City of Ithaca and that this designation
shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law
upon publication in the official newspaper.
By Authority of the Common Council
of the City of Ithaca, New York
Joseph A. Rundle
City Clerk
City of Ithaca, New York
July 8, 1978
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
11 April 1978
Mayor and Common Council
City of Ithaca
Dear Mayor and Members. of Council:
j- � ti
PLAY 19lb
r.°
� itl 1� TICS OrhttN /
ITHACA, N. • •
r
At its meeting 10 April, subsequent to a duly -advertised Public Hearing,
this Commission voted unanimously (4-0, one member abstaining by reason
of possible conflict of interest) to designate the Strand Theatre, 310
East State Street, as a City Landmark.
This designation is forwarded, in accordance with the City's Landmarks
Ordinance, for ratification by Common Council. The Ordinance provides
ninety days for Council action, permitting time for consideration by
the Planning and Development Board.
Please notify me when this designation is scheduled for final action.
Very tr}ily yours,
7 f i,A.,.Il��/lf
Jonathan C. Meigs
Secretary. .
cc: Planning and Development Board
�MQ • C *z.0
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
c�. Q,,►,�1�
1,-;,460
TELEPHONE. 272-1713
CODE 607
MEMO TO: Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmark Preservation Comm.
Planning Department
FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley ,
DATE: March 13, 1978
SUBJECT: Strand Theater - National Register of Historic Places
Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received today from Lucy A.
Breyer, Historic Preservation Program Assistant, Field Services of the New
York State Parks and Recreation notifying us that the Strand Theater has
been suggested as a place which may meet the criteria for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places for your attention.
EJC:rb
ATTACH.
CC: Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
16 November 1977
Mayor and Common Council
City of Ithaca
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
At its meeting 11 October 1977 this Coiuuiission formally
designated the Strand Theater, 310 East State Street, a City
Landmark by a 4-0-1 vote on the following motion:
MOVED to designate the Strand Theater, 310 East
State Street, as a City Landmark because of
its special character and associations with,
and contributions to, the cultural life and
development of the City of Ithaca, and
because of the special efforts being under-
taken by the present owners •to renovate and
restore an active cultural facility, with
particular consideration being given to
sensitive refurbishing and adaptation of the
interior in the original style insofar as
consistent with the contemporary requirements
of a flexible facility for the lively arts,
notwithstanding the structure's relatively
modest exterior architecture and stylistic
detail.
This designation is forwarded for Council action to ratify,
as provided in the Landmarks Ordinance. This action should
be taken by 10 January 1978.
For the Couiuiissii
nathan C. Meigs
ecretary
cc: Planning and Development Board
. OFFICE OF
MAYOR
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY DF ITHAC
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 1 4850
Mr. Jon Meigs, Landmarks Preservation
Mayor Edward J. Conley
August 15, 1979
((Mitt°
IUJG MO 21 n9ic9
Ithaca, II. Y.
Comm.
ELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
State Historic Preservation Officer entered the Ithaca
Pottery Site, City of Ithaca, on the National Register
of Historic Places
Attached hereto please find a .letter received today .from Mr. Larry
E. Gobrecht, National Register and Survey Coordinator, Historic
Preservation Field Services of the New York State Parks and Recreation
in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention.
EJC:rb
ATTACH.
CC: Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk
.�pRK `ST
IA
2 Ie 440
kiN
'IND REG
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12238 information 518 474-0456
Orin Lehman, Commissioner
August 14, 1979
RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1973
Hon. Edward J. Conley
Mayor
City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mayor Conley:
Orin Lehman, the State Historic Preservation Officer, has
asked me to notify you that the Ithaca Pottery Site, City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County was entered on the National Register
of Historic Places on July 17, 1979.
If you have any questions regarding•the National Register
program, I shall be happy to answer them for you.
CAF/cb
Sincerely,.
�f
Larry E.�.sbrecht
National gister and Survey
Coordinator
Historic Preservation
Field- Services
An Equal Opportunity Employer
CITY DF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
MEMO TO: Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Landmarks Preservation
Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk
FROM: Mayor Raymond Bordoni 7
DATE: May 27, 1980
SUBJECT: National Register of Historic Places
Llenroc
SI
1-10 C I:6
CITY CIfEICg pf°
2
Ithaca, N Yf8C
f2LEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter received today from the
State of New York Parks and Recreation notifying us that Llenroc has been
placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
RB:r
ATTACH.
ORIN LEHMAN
COMMISSIONER
STATE OF NEW YORK
PARKS AND RECREATION
ALBANY
May 16, 1980
Edward J. Conley
Mayor
City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mayor Conley:
Subject: Llenroc
Ithaca, Tompkins County
April 16, 1980
We are pleased to inform you of the list-
ing of subject property on the National Register
of Historic Places.
Should you have any questions regarding the
National Register program, please write or call
the Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau
staff at (518) 474-0479.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
State Historic Preservation
Officer
("\**Nr• LL>e'6:-UA Sr`LA\—.
Deputy Commissioner for
Historic Preservation
CITY OF BTHAC
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
C( Gl-e2.t_/
GiaM rpt O 4 COL/ PAC K,,
ITHACA, NEW YORK 1 4135
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 20, 1980
Mayor and Common Council
Board of Planning & Development
City of Ithaca
Dear Mayor, Council and Board Members:
PHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
Acting on requests from the owners of the structures involved, and following a
public hearing at its October 14, 1980 meeting, this Commission formally voted
to designate the buildings at 102-104 W, State St„ 106-114 N. Cayuga St„ and
116 N. Cayuga St, as the Clinton Block Historic District of the City of Ithaca,
This action is referred to the Planning Board and Common Council, respectively,
for recommendation and approval as provided by the Landmarks Ordinance.
The structures within the district, known respectively as the Hibbard Block,
Clinton Hall and Clinton House, form the last remaining unified group of buildings
in the Greek Revival Commercial style, the second oldest period of architectural
design represented in Ithaca, They are especially noteworthy because of the
coordination embodied in their planning: Clinton Hall and the Hibbard. Block are
set back from Cayuga Street the same distance as the front of Clinton House, pro-
viding a pleasant, extra -wide pedestrian walkway which served the double purpose
of setting off the Clinton House's elegant facade, and giving its guests a clear
view of the street and the stagecoach stop at State and Cayuga Streets, This
early example of enlightened development could well be copied by present-day
entrepreneurs.
The Commission feels that this designation will be a credit to the City, partly
because it recognizes important historic structures, but also because it is
expected to generate increased interest and economic activity in local preservation
and rehabilitation projects. In this regard, we note that the owners of Clinton .
Hall and the Hibbard Block hope to take advantage of federal income tax credits
for historic preservation. If it is possible for Council to act to approve this
designation before the end of the year, the tax advantage that may adhere to work
already underway may enhance the project financing, and increase the viability
and quality of results,
"An Eoual Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Mayor and Common Council
Board of Planning & Development
City of Ithaca
October 20, 1980
p, 2
The attached material, prepared by Preservation Coordinator Penny Dolan, gives
further background and justification for this important designation. Please do
not hesitate to call on us for additional information or assistance during your
consideration of this -matter.
Very truly you s
J%n Meigs
ecretary
JM/s
Enclosure
cc: T,. Werbizky, Vice Chairperson, ILPC
T. Hoard, Building Commissioner
D, Lucenti
M,. Pi chel
P., Pri gmore
P, Dolan
CLINTON BLOCK HISTORIC DISTRICT
The newly designated Clinton Block Historic District is composed of three buildings.
They are: Clinton House, 116 North Cayuga Street; Clinton Hall, 106-114 North Cayuga
Street: and the Hibbard Block,,102-106 West State Street. The three buildings are
prominently linked to each other and to the early development and growth of the
Ithaca community.
The hotel, Clinton House, was built between 1828 and 1830 by Jeremiah Beebe, Henry
Ackley and Henry Hibbard, At that time Ithaca had fewer than four thousand'inhabi-
tants. The construction of such a large and elegant hotel was as much symbolic
in nature as it was functional, Its construction was intended to convey the message
that Ithaca was a thriving commercial and cultural center within the state,
Jeremiah Beebe, one of the Clinton House developers, was a mill owner and built his
residence at 308 North Cayuga Street, The house is known today as the Beebe -Halsey
House and is located within the Dewitt Park Historic District, He was also a direc-
tor of several banks including the Bank of Newburgh. This building is now located
at 106 East Court Street, Dewitt Park Historic District, The other Clinton House
developers, Ackley and Hibbard, were hatters and their business was located on the
corner of Buffalo and Aurora Streets. Ackley built a home on the site where the
Women's Community Building is now located.
There is structural evidence to indicate that Clinton House was designed and built
by Ira Tillotson, He also built houses within the community, including, in 1828,
the Humphrey -Judd House at 102 East Court Street, Dewitt Park Historic District,
Clinton House is a fine example of Federal -Greek Revival Transitional architecture.
The portico is supported by six Ionic columns, In 1872 a two story mansard roof
and a twenty -foot high cupola were added, A palladian window that replaced an
oval window in the pediment was designed by William Henry Miller at the beginning
of his highly successful architectural career in Ithaca, When a fire destroyed
the mansard roof in 1901, it was replaced by a Colonial Revival roof and balustrade,
During much of its 150 year history, Clinton House has been a center .of business,
political, cultural and social activities within the community, An early founder
of Ithaca, Simeon Dewitt, lived in the hotel during the latter part of his life,
At least four United States presidents were guests there, The hotel was Ithaca's
first professional building and housed the offices of doctors, dentists and lawyers,
In 1972 Clinton House was placed on the National Register of Historic Places,
Clinton House, Inc, was also formed that year and the building was slowly restored
and rehabilitated by a group of community residents, Today the building continues
to serve a vital function within the community, It houses Historic Ithaca, Dewitt
Historical Society and a large number of offices and buildings, Its success as a
preservation project has received considerable state and national recognition and
interest,
In 1847 Henry Ackley built Clinton Hall, and Henry Hibbard built the Hibbard Block
as commercial buildings, in part to support the activities of Clinton House,
Clinton Hall is one of the few Greek Revival Commercial buildings remaining in
downtown Ithaca. It is of brick construction and the ground floor has early
cast iron store fronts, There is a series of five frieze windows with an
anthemion decorative motif under the simple and restrained cornice, Stepped
gables are at the :north and south ends of the building. Originally, there was a
highly decorative cast iron balcony with support brackets that was located above
the first floor store fronts, It was removed in 1901. As a commercial block,
Clinton Hall has contained a wide variety of businesses. The basement and first
floor served as retail and office space, including an Express office and a ticket
office. The second floor contained office space and. the third floor served as
a public hall for meetings and traveling stage shows. The hall featured a stage
with a painted stage curtain depicting allegorical scenes and the room had a
dome in the center of the ceiling that was sixteen feet in diameter. In 1910,
the hall housed a movie and vaudeville theater called the Manhattan Theater
and Picture Show, The building had a fire five years ago and has been boarded
up since that time,
The Hibbard Block, 102-104 West State Street, is a three-story brick Greek Revival
building with stone lintels and simple cornice, 106 West State Street, also a
part of the block, was built after 1860 and features large triple windows, It is
internally connected to 102-104 West State Street, The third floor of the Hibbard
Block served as the meeting room for the City Club during the 1920s and 1930s,
The new owners of Clinton Hall and the Hibbard Block are in the beginning stages
of restoring and rehabilitating these two buildings, Many community organizations
have applauded their efforts,
As has been indicated, the buildings within the designated Clinton Block Historic
District are a vital link to the early history, important early architecture and
the ongoing development of downtown Ithaca, The owners of these buildings have
requested local historic designation and find it desirable because:
* Designation will insure that these important historical and architectural
links in our community's heritage will be preserved for future generations, and
* Historic properties within certified historic districts can qualify for
income tax benefits for rehabilitation/restoration of depreciable properties
under the Federal Income Tax Reform Act of 1976,
The designated historic district is also a strong visual and economic link between
Dewitt Mall, a highly successful adaptive Use project, and the Commons, a revitali-
zation effort that is the economic and social hub of the community.
The responsibility of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Cofflniission (ILPC) is to
carry out the intent and purpose of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance
In part, the Ordinance states that the purpose is to: "safeguard the city's
historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage by preserving landmarks and districts
of historical and cultural significance; foster civic pride in the legacy of
beauty and achievements of the past; and strengthen the economy of the city."
It is the unanimous opinion of the members of the ILPC that the designation of
Clinton Block Historic District fulfills that purpose and continues Ithaca's
outstanding record of recycling its useful architecture and conserving its
local heritage.
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
CITY DF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK •14850
MEMO TO: Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Landmarks Preservaa�C'.amni.
Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk
FROM: Mayor Raymond Bordoni
DATE: December 21, 1981
E: 272-1713
:CODE.607
SUBJECT: AME Zion Church - 116 Cleveland Avenue
New York State Parks and Recreation
Notification - property noted will be considered by the
Committee -on the Registers of the New York State
Board for Historic Preservation for nomination to the
National and State Registers of Historic Places
Attached. hereto please find correspondence received today in
regard to the above entitled matter for your attention.
RB:r
ATTACH.
CC: Mrs. Elva Holman
Mrs. Nancy Schuler
,IORK `ST
0
RAND Reet
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agenc-y Building 1, Emotre State Plaza, Albany. New York 12238 Information 518 474-0456 .
Orin Lehman, Commissioner
December 18, 1981 -
Honorable Raymond Bordoni
Mayor DECEIVED DEC 2 1 Sal
City Hall
• Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mayor Bordoni:
RE: AME Zion Church
• '116 Cleveland Avenue
Ithaca, Tompkins County
We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will
b considered by the Committee on the Registers of the New York
State Board for Historic Preservation for nomination to the National
and State Registers of Historic Places. The National Register and.
the State Register are the federal and state, governments' official
l.•3ts of historic properties worthy df preservation`.- Listing in
the Registers provides recognition and assistance in preserving our
national, state, and local heritage. • Enclosed is a copy of the
criteria under which properties are evaluated.
Listing in the -National Register provides the following benefits
historic properties:
Consideration in the planning for federally assisted projects.
.Section 106 of the. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
provides that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
be given an`'opportunity to comment on projects affecting
such properties.
•
Eligibility for federal tax benefits. If.a. properLy•is listed
in the National Register, certain tax provisions may apply.
The Tax Reform Act of 1976, as amended by the Revenue Act of
1978 and the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, and the
Economic Recovery .Tax Act of 1981e contain provisions intended
to encourage the preservation of depreciable historic, structures
by allowing` favorable tax treatments for rehabilitation, and •
-
to discourage destruction of historic buildings by elimina.l:ing
certain federal tax provisions for demolition of historic
structures. Beginning January 1, 1982, the Economic Recovery,
Tax Act replaces the rehabilitation tax incentives available
under prior :.law with a 25% investment tax credit for
rehabilitations of certain historic commercial, industrial and
residential rental buildings. •This can be combined with a
15 -year cost 'recovery period for the adjusted basis of the
historic building. Historic buildings with certified
rehabilitations receive additional tax savings because they
are exempt from any requirement to reduce the basis of the
b.ii1di:03 D,y tIlt:2 amours:: of Crud L. lthe Tax 1'eatment Extension
Act of 1980 includes•provisions regarding charitable
contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests
in historically important__ land_ areas__or_-st.r_u.ct_ures.
- - Con::.deration of historic values in the decision to issue a
surface coal mining permit where coal is -iodated, in accord"
with the surface Mining and Control Act of 1977.
- - Oualification for federal grants for historic preservation
•when funds are available.
Projects affecting properties listed in the National Register.
or recommended for listing by the Committee on the Registers
of the State Board for Historic Preservation are considered
Type I actions subject to the notice requirements of Section
617 of the New York State Environmental Ouality Review Act.
'
•
•..<�-.•
-2--
Owners of private properties nominated to the National Register
of Historic Places must be given an opportunity to concur in or.
object to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation
Act Amendments of 1980 and federal regulations 36 CFR Part 60. .Any
owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object
to listing is required to submit to the State Historic Preservation
Officer a notarized statement certifying that the party is the
sole or partial owner of the private property, as appropriate, and
objects to the listing. If a majority of the owners objects to
listing, the district will not be listed. Each owner or partial
owner of private property in a district has one vote regardless
of.how many properties or what part of one property .that party
'owns. -If the district cannot be'listed because a majority of
owners objects prior to the submission of a nomination by the
state, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the
nomination to. the Keeper of the Nacirnal'Register for a
rfieterm•in.iA i•.7.n of tIve o.. the district 1.:ii.j inc 1u.,io l 111
the National Register. If the property is then determined eligible
for listing, although not form11y listed,. federal agencies will
be required to•allow the Advis`4e ry Council bn Historic Preservation
an opportunity to comment before, the agency may fund, license,
or assist a project which will affect the property. If you
choose to object to the listing of your property, the notarized
objection- must be submitted to'Orin Lehman, State Historic
Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau,
Agent;y Building #1, Governor N.lson A. Rockefeller Empire State
rlaz%+, Alhany, . New York; 12238. by January 1982
the ' Stai-.e Regiter provides the following .benefits
to historic propertie:
Consideration'in the planning for projects involving state
agencies. :Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic
Preservation Act of 1980 provides that the Commissioner of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation be given an.
opportunity to comment on projects affecting listed properties.
!j J Gci L. a an�ia;', 'y oii eNnr. 2e i:-es11, iii p
s• i'v'd � c.
property for purchase; • lease or rental for government use.
-- Qualification for state grants for historic preservation when
funds are available.
There are no provisions in the New York State Historic
Preservation Act that require owner consent prior to listing in •
the State: Register of Historic Places.
If you wish to comment on whether the property should be
nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your.
comments to the above address. Comments must be received by _
'January -19, 1982 yin order to be considered at the
Committee on the Registers next meeting.
A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this
office and can be made available to you upon request. For more
information,. please contact Janette Johnstone , Historic
Preservation'Field Services Bureau, New York State Office of
.Parks,• Recreation and Historic Preservation, Governor Nelson A.
Rnr_,kef.?1 lar Empi r,`• Ctsto Rlza,• AL —an1 , New York, 12233,
(518) 474-04.79.
Enc.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
State Historic- Preservation
Officer
• 1.
S -s„
V�
Deputy Commissioner for
Historic Preservation
�,tpRtc ,
ir;i‘2 F
D 0
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION Agency Building 1, Err.t.re State Plaza, Albany. New York 12238
Orin Lehman. Commissioner
Information 518 474-0456
NATIONAL AND STATE REGISTERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The following criteria are used to evaluate properties (other thanareas of the National Park
Service and National Historic Landmarks) for listing on the National and State Registers Of
Historic Places.
The quality of significance in American history,
architecture, archeology,. engineering, and cul-
ture is present in districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects that possess integrity
of location, design, setting, materials, work-
manship, feeling, and association and.
A. that ,are associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
that are associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past; or ,
that embody the distinctive characteristics
of'a type, period, or method of construction,
or.that represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may^lack individual
distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or
history.
B.
C.
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves
of historical figures, properties owned by
religious institutions or used for religious
purposes, structures that have been moved from
their original locations, reconstructed his-
toric buildings, properties primarily commemo-
rative in nature, and properties that have
achieved significance within the past 50 years
shall not be considered eligible for the
National Register. However, such properties
will qualify if they are integral parts of
districts that do meet the criteria or if they
fall within the following categories:.
A. a .religious property deriving primary sig-
nificance from architecturalor artistic
distinction or historicalimportance; or
B.. a building or structure removed from its
original location but which is significant
primarily for architectural value, or which
is the surviving structure most importantly
associated with a historic person or event;
or
C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure
of outstanding importance if there is no
appropriate site or building directly
associated with his productive life.
D. a cemetery which derives its primary sig-
nificance from graves of persons of trans-
cendent importance, from age, from distinc-
tivedesign features, or from association
with historic events; or
E. a reconstructed building when accurately
executed in.a suitable environmentandpre-
sented-in a dignified manner as part of a
restoration master plan, and when no other .
building or structure with -the same
association has survived; or
F. a property primarily commemorative in intent
if design, age, tradition, or. symbolic value
has invested it with its own exceptional
significance; or
G. a property achieving significance within the
past 50 years if it is of exceptional impor-
tance.
(Title 36, Code of Federal. Regul a.tion_s
Part 60.4)
An Equal Cpox,unay Employer
CITY OF ITHACA
1OS EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 2, 1982
Mayor and Common Council
City of Ithaca
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
The accompanying Resolution.; -adopted by unanimous vote at a
Special Meeting of the Commission held July 30th, is being sent to you
for your consideration and appropriate action.
The Commission takes this step at this time in the interest of
resolving how the repaving of East State Street, scheduled for 1983, is
to be done. Since the Board of Public Works has approved repaving with
asphalt, partially on the basis that the cost of repaving with brick would
be a maintenance item, it appears that only Council has the authority to
require that some of E. State's brick paving be retained. The Commission
strongly feels that the matter is of sufficient importance that the re-
presentative governing body of the City should provide a forum for public
discussion, assess input from interested parties, and decide on the merits
of the issue in time to allow substitution of a 1983 Capital Project, to
repave a portion of the street with brick, for the proposed asphalt paving.
The ILPC had initially proposed that the brick paving be kept all the
way to Ithaca Road. Having now had time to study both the information pre-
pared as basis for the BPW's action, and the research material developed
by Commission staff, it seems more reasonable and appropriate from
economic and historic viewpoints to ask that only E. State's brick surface
be kept. We are convinced that the higher initial cost of brick paving is
substantially offset by its superior durability and other practical cha-
racteristics, in. addition to its appearance and historic qualities.
Landmarks Commission members and staff will make every effort to
respond to any questions or requests for information which you may have,
and to be available to discuss the matter at any time. Please let us
know of any meetings at which the topic will be considered.
For the Commission
onathan C. Meigs
Secretary
Encl,
cc: Supt. of Public Works
—.City—Clerk _
"An Equal Opportonny :.. •inn P•p,/ar-•
..
0
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RESOLUTION - Brick Streets
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission strongly believes
that existing brick pavements within the city should be retained,
where appropriate, for their esthetic and historic values, and
:WHEREAS, the Commission finds that East State Street between the Commons
and Mitchell Street is an important visual feature on a major
city entrance route, forming a boundary of the East Hill Historic
District and a section of a major access route to the Cornell
campus, and
WHEREAS, E. State intersects Stewart Avenue, a brick -paved street which
traverses the E. Hill Historic District and which, with the
different brick paving pattern.of State, makes a significant
contribution to the special character of the district, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has scheduled repaving of the brick
sections of East State and Mitchell Sts. from the Tuning Fork
to Ithaca. Rd. with asphalt in 1983, and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of repaving the entire brick portions of
E. State and Mitchell with brick has been given as a major
factor iro the decision to use asphalt, and
WHEREAS, the costs of brick paving could be substantially reduced if a -
shorter stretch were done, using brick salvaged from the remainder,
by a contractor selected by competitive.bid from among firms
experienced in brick paving, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca community has not had sufficient opportunity to express its
interest in the issue, now
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission recommends
to Common Council that the repaving of the portion of East State Street betweer.
0
RESOLUTION - Brick Streets
page 2
-the Tuning Fork and Mitchell Street be done with brick, so
that the entire stretch between Aurora and Blair Streets has a
brick surface, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission respectfully requests that
the Planning and Development Committee 'of Common Council
examine the desirability of repaving some or all of E. State
St. between the Tuning Fork and Mitchell St. with Brick,
discussing the issue at a meeting during which public comment
would be encouraged, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission recommends that Common Council
require preparation of a Capital Project proposal for inclusion
in the 1983 Capital Budget for the repaving of appropriate portions
of East State Street with brick in order to conserve historic
features which give Ithaca its distinctive character.
RESOLUTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY at a Special Meeting of the
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, July 30, 1982. Voting in
favor:
R. Di Pasquale, R. Centini, F. Moon, B. Jones, A. Lee; members M. Cutting.,
D. Lifton absent.
Jonathan C. Meigs
Secretary
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
c: !Ty ®F ITHAC
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
'CC\
MEMO TO: Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Landmarks Preservation
FROM: Mayo'r Bill Shaw
DATE: August 23, 1982
SUBJECT: AME Zion Church.
116 Cleveland Avenue
Ithaca, New York 14850
Comm.
EPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
Attached hereto please find correspondence received today from the
State of New York Parks and Recreation notifying us that the AME Zion
Church has been placed on the State and National Registers of Historic
Places for your attention.
BS:r
ATTACH.
CC: Mr. Joseph Rundle
r
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
J
ORIN LEHMAN
COMMISSIONER
STATE OF NEW YORK
PARKS AND RECREATION
ALBANY
August 16, 1982
Rev. William H. Pinder
St. James AME Zion Church
116 Cleveland Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
Subject: AME Zion Church
116 ,Cleveland Ave.
Ithaca, Tompkins Co.
Dear Rev. Pinder:
We are pleased to inform you of the listing
of subject property on the State and National
Registers of Historic Places. .
Should you have any questions regarding the
State and National Register programs, please Write
or call the Historic Preservation Field Services
Bureau staff at (518) 474-0479.
sl
cc: attached list
Sincerely
Commissioner
State Historic Preservation
Officer
Deputy Commissioner for
Historic ?reservation
Honorable William Shaw
City Hall
Ithaca, NY
Harris B. Dates, Chairman
Board of Representatives
Tompkins Co. Courthouse
Ithaca, NY 14850
Frank Liguori
Tompkins.Co. Planning Board
128 E. Buffalo St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
' Matthys Van Cort, Planner
City of Ithaca
108. E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Keith Smith
NYS Dept. of Transportation
State Campus
Building #4
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12232
Susan J. Cummings, President
Ithaca Neighboorhood Housing Services
520 W. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
John Finnegan
Genesee State Park & Recreation
Commission
Castier, NY 14427
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Attn: Penny Dolan
Craig Williams
Tompkins Co. Historian
DeWitt Historical Society
Clinton House
116 No. Cayuga St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
D. Boardman Lee
711 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ms. Carol Sisler
Historic Ithaca
103 W. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
Y OF ITHACA
B EAST GREEN STREET
ACA, NEW YORK '14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
MEMO TO: Mr. Raymond DiPasquale, Chair of the Landmarks Preservation Conn.
Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Planning Department
r
FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger ;kA- �'✓
DATE: April 23, 1984
SUBJECT: New York State Office of,Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Ag Quad Historic District: Bailey, Caldwell, Comstock, East
Roberts, Roberts and Stone Halls, Cornell University - TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE REGISTERS OF THE N.Y.S. BOARD FOR
NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL AND STATE REGIISTERS OF HISTORIC'PLACES
Attached hereto please find information received Friday afternoon in regard to
the above entitled matter for your attention.
ATTACH.
CC: Andrea
Joseph Rundle
1A �G, 1ION.h45r.
Ni
gc
NEW PORK STATE
Orin Lehman
Commissioner
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238
April 18, 1984
John C. Gutenberger
City of Ithaca
108 East .Green .S.t..
Ithaca, NY 14850'
Dear Mr. Gutenberger,
,44
Re: Ag._Quad Historic Distric.t:
Bailey, Caldwell, Comstock, East
Roberts, Roberts, and Stone Halls
Cornell University
Ithaca-, Tompkins County
We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will
be considered by the Committee on the Registers of the New York
State Board for HistoricPreservation for nomination to the National
and State Registers of Historic Places. The National Register and
the State Register are the federal and state governments' official
lists of historic properties worthy of preservation. Listing in.
the Registers provides recognition and assistance in preserving our
national, state, and local heritage. Enclosed is a copy of the
criteria under which properties are evaluated.
Listing in the National Register provides the following
benefits to historic properties: ,
Consideration in the planning for federally assisted projects.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
provides that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
be given an opportunity to comment on projects affecting- -
such properties.
Eligibility:for federal tax benefits. If a property is listed
in the National Register, certain tax provisions may apply.
The Tax Re-form Act of 1976, as amended by the Revenue Act of
1978 and the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980,_and the
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended by the Tax
Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 contain pro-'
visions intended to encourage the preservation of depreciable
historic structures by allowing favorable tax treatments for
rehabilitation, and to discourage destruction of historic
buildings by eliminating .certain federal tax provisions for
demolition of historic structures. On January 1, 1982, the
Economic Recovery Tax.Act replaced the rehabilitation tax
incentives available under prior law with a.25% investment
tax 'credit for rehabilitation of certain historic commercial,
industrial and residential rental buildings. This can be
combined- with- -a "15 -year cost recovery -period-for---the--adjusted__
basis of the historic building. Historic buildings with
certified rehabilitation receive additional tax savings
because owners are allowed .to reduce the basis of the building
by one-half the amount of credit. The Tax -Treatment Extension
Act of 19.80 includes provisions regarding charitable'
OQ3:.trihilti.ons for . aon -ery ;ti.ca ' purposes of Partial i nt.ereEt
in historically important'land areas or structure.
Consideration of historic values in the decision to issue a
surface coal mining permit where coal is located, in accord
with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977.
Qualification for federal grants for historic preservation
when funds are available.
Projects affecting properties listed in the National Register
or recommended for listing by the Committee on the Registers
of the State Board for Historic Preservation are considered
Type I actions subject to the notice requirements of Section
617 of the New York State Environmental Ouality Review Act.
-2 --
Owners of private properties nominated to the National Register
of Historic Places must be given an opportunity to concur in or
object to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation
-Act Amendments of 1980 and federal regulations 36 CFR Part 60.
Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object
to listing is required to submit to the State Historic Preservation
Officer a notarized statement certifying that the party is the
sole or partial owner of the private property, as appropriate, and
objects to the listing. For a single privately owned property with
one owner, the property will not be listed if the owner objects. In .
nominations with multiple ownership of a single property, the
property will not be listed if a majority of the owners objects.
Each owner or partial owner of private property has one vote regardless
of what part of the property that party owns. If the property cannot
be listed because the owner or a majority of owners objects prior to
the submission of a nomination to the state, the State Historic
Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper of
the National Register for a determination of the eligibility of the
property for inclusion in the National Register. If the property
is then determined eligible for listing, although not formally listed,
federal agencies will be required to allow the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment before the agency
may fund, license, or assist a project which will affect the property.
If you choose to object to the listing of your property, the
notarized objection must be submitted to Orin Lehman, State Historic
Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau,
Agency Building #1, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State
Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238 by May 17, 1984
Listing in the State Register provides the following benefits
to historic properties:
Consideration in the planning for projects involving state
agencies. Section 14.09 of'the New York State Historic
Preservation Act of 1980 provides that the Commissioner of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation be given an oppor-
tunity to comment on projects affecting listed properties.
••- Consideration by state agencies, upon owner request, of private
property for purchase, lease or rental for government use.
-- Qualification for state grants for historic preservation when
funds are available.
There are no provisions in the New York State Historic
Preservation Act that require owner consent prior to listing in
the State Register of Historic Places.
If you wish to comment on whether the property should be
nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your
comments to the above address. Comments must be received by
May 17, 1984 ,in order to be considered at the
Committee on the Registers next meeting.
A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this
office and can be made available to you upon request. For more
information, please contact Janette Johnstone , Historic
P-reservation--Fiel_d _S_ervice.s___Bureau, lie -T,/ -York -State- Office-of-
Parks,
f-fice-of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238,
(518) 474-0479.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
State Historic Preservation
Officer
Enc.
ORK
44.,4�
$ o
9 ■ �P
ti0 RE-
NEW YORK STATE PARKS & RECREATION pgenc: B..rtd ng ? Emere State Praza. A bany. New York '2238
Onn Lenman, Commtssroner
intormanon 518 474-0456
NATIONAL AND STATE REGISTERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATIr•`•-
lowing criteria are used to evaluate properties (other than areas o .rational Park
and National Historic Landmarks) for listing on the -"ationa3. and State Registers of
c Places.
lity of significance in American history,
cture, archeology, engineering, and cul -
present in districts, sites, buildings,
res, and objects that possess integrity
tion, design, setting, materials, work-
, feeling, and association and.
are associated with events that have made
gnificant contribution to the broad
erns of our history; or
are associated with the lives of persons
ificant in our past; or
embody the distinctive characteristics
type, period, or method of construction,
hat represent the work of a master, or
oossess high artistic values, or that
esent a significant and distinguishable
ty whose components may lack individual
inction; or
have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
ation important in prehistory or
y.
Ordinarily cez:•.c.:teries, birthplaces, or graves
of historical figures, properties owned by
religious institutions or used for religious
purposes, structures that have been moved from
their original locations, reconstructed his-
toric buildings, properties primarily commemo-
rative in nature, and properties that have
achieved significance within the past 50 years
shall not be considered eligible for the
National Register. However, such properties
will qualify if they are integral parts of
districts that do :meet the criteria or if they
fall within the following categories:
A. a religious property deriving primary sig-
nificance from architectural or artistic
distinction or historical importance; or
B. a building or structure removed from its
original location but which is significant
primarily for architectural value, or which
is the surviving structure most importantly
associated with a historic person or event;
or
C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure
of outstanding importance if there is no
appropriate site or building directly'
associated with his productive life.
D. a cemetery which derives its primary sig-
nificance from graves of persons of trans-
cendent importance, from age, from distinc-
tive design features, or from association
with historic events; or
E. a reconstructed building when accurately
executed in a suitable environment and pre-
sented in a dignified manner as__part of a
restoration master plan,.and-When no other
building or structure with the sane
association -has survived; or
F. a -_property primarily commemorative in intent
if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value
has invested it with its own exceptional
significance; or
G. a property achieving significance within the
• past 50 years if it is of exceptional impor-
tance.
(Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations
Part 60.4)
An Equal OPportunrty Employer
CITY DF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW Y-''JRK 1 485
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
MEMO TO: Raymond DiPasquale, Chair, Landmarks Preservation COMM.
Jonathan Meigs, Planning Department ATTN: Andrea
Joseph Rundle, City Clerk
FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger
DATE: May 29, 1984
SUBJECT: First Period Buildings
Thematic Group
New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Wing Hall
Attached hereto please find correspondence received today from the New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation in regard to the above
entitled matter for your attention.
ATTACH.
_"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program
EATION•
.k_ , Cl
cc,• v
4 -4
u .r.�-may' N
O m
w_ y' <
LL o -4
o NEW YORK STATE z
Orin Lehman
Commissioner
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238
Hon. John C. Gutenberger
Mayor
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear. Mayor Gutenberger:
May 25, 1984
ryg 2 9 'IL
1
518-474-0456
Re: First Period Buildings
Thematic Group
New York State College of
Agriculture at Cornell
University: Wing Hall
This is to inform you that the property cited above
(Wing Hall) was inadvertently omitted from the list of
propertiesnoted in our letter of May 22, 1984 informing
you that the First Period Buildings Thematic Group would
be considered by the Conn>.iittee on the Registers of the
New York State Board for Historic Preservation for nomina-
tion to the National and State Registers of Historic Places
In order to proceed with the scheduled review on June
21, 1984, federal regulations require that all property
owners and.. the chief elected local offical advise the
state in writing that they agree to waive the normal
thirty -day couuuent period between notification and consid-
eration by the state review board. If you choose to
exercise this option a form has been enclosed for your
convenience. Please return the completed form to us as
soon as possible. If you donot waive your right to
comment, review of Wing Hall will be postponed until July
20, 1984 and you will be so notified.
A revised notification letter for the thematic group
is enclosed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
Janette Johnstone at 518-474-0479.
Sincerely,
t
c„
(Y
Kathleen LaFrank
Archivist
Historic Preservation
Field Services
An Equal Opportunity Employer
The Hon. Orin Lehman
Commissioner
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation
Agency Building 1
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12238
Dear Commissioner Lehman:
This will confirm that I am fully aware of the effects
of listing*a property in the National Register of Historic
Places. .I recognize that, under the National Historic Preser-
vation Act, I am entitled to comment on the proposed listing
of property within my jurisdiction.
Following is the proposed listing:
I hereby waive my right to comment on the proposed listing.
Sincerely:
P�GPEPTION.y<sr
h
U
LL
O NEW YORK STATE
Orin Lehman
Commissioner
a
z
4
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238
May 25, 1984
John C. Gutenberger
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE:
First Period Buildings Thematic
Group, New York State
College of Agriculture at
Cornell University: Bailey, Caldwell,
Comstock, East Roberts, Fernow, Rice,
Roberts, Stone and Wing Halls
Ithaca, Tompkins County
Dear Mr. Gutenberger:
We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will
be considered by the Committee on the Register`'s of the New York
State Board for Historic Preservation for nomination to the National
and State Registers of Historic Places. The National Register and
the State Register are the federal and state governments' official
lists of historic properties worthy of preservation. Listing in
the Registers provides recognition and assistance in preserving our
national, state, and local heritage. Enclosed is a copy of the
criteria under which properties are evaluated.
Listing in the National Register provides the following
benefits to historic properties:
Consideration in the planning for federally assisted projects.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
provides that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
be given an opportunity to comment on projects affecting
such properties.
Eligibility for federal tax benefits. If a property is listed
in the National Register, certain tax provisions may apply.
The Tax Reform Act of 1976, as amended by the Revenue Act of
1978 and the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, and the
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended by the Tax
Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 contain pro-
visions intended to encourage the preservation of depreciable
historic structures by allowing favorable tax treatments for
rehabilitation, and to discourage destruction of historic
buildings by eliminating certain federal tax provisions for
demolition of historic structures. On January 1, 1982, the
Economic Recovery Tax Act replaced the rehabilitation tax
incentives available under prior law with a 25% investment
tax credit for rehabilitation of certain historic commercial,
industrial and residential rental buildings. This can be
combined with a 15 -year cost recovery period for the adjusted
basis of the historic building. Historic buildings with
certified rehabilitation' receive- addtlonah-t"ax savings- - --____.__
because owners are allowed to reduce the basis of the building
by one-half the amount of credit. The Tax Treatment Extension
Act of 1980 includes provisions regarding charitable
contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests
in historically important land areas or structures.
- - Consideration of historic values in the decision to issue a
surface coal mining permit where coal is located, in accord
with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977.
- - Qualification for federal grants for historic preservation
when funds are available.
Projects affecting properties listed in the National Register
or recommended for listing byvthe Committee on the Registers
of the State Board for Historic Preservation are considered
Type I actions subject to the notice requirements of Section
617 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Owners of private properties nominated to the National Register
of -'"Historic Places must be given an opportunity to concur in or
object to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation
Act Amendments of 1980 and federal regulations 36 CFR Part 60.
Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object
to listing is required to submit to the State Historic Preservation
Officer a notarized statement certifying that the party is the
sole or partial.owner of the private property,. as appropriate, and
objects to the listing. For a single privately owned property with
one owner, the property will not be listed if the owner objects. In
nominations with multiple ownership (PE a single property, the_
property will.not be listed if a majority of the owners objects.
Each owner or partial owner of private property has one vote regardless
of what part of the property that party owns. If the property cannot
be listed because the owner or a majority of owners objects prior to
the submission of a nomination to the state, the State Historic
Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper of
the National Register for a determination of the eligibility of the
property -for inclusion in the National Register. If the property
is then.dete•rmined eligible for listing, although not formally listed,
federal agencies will' be required to allow the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment before the agency
may fund, license, or assist a project which will affect the property.
-If you choose to object to the listing of your'property, the
notarized objection must be submitted to Orin Lehman, State Historic
Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau,
Agency -Building #1, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State
Plaza, Albany, New York, '12238 by June 20, 1984
Listing in the State Register provides the following benefits
to historic properties:
- - Consideration in the planning for projects involving state
agencies. Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic
Preservation Act of 1980 provides that the Commissioner of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation be given an oppor-
tunity to comment on projects affecting listed properties.
- Consideration by state
property for purchase, lease or rental for government use.
- - Qualification for state grants for historic preservation when
agencies, upon owner request, of private
funds are available.
There are no provisions in the New York State Historic
Preservation Act that require owner consent prior to listing in
the State Register of Historic Places.
If you wish to comment on whether the property should be
nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your
comments to the above address. Comments must be received by
June 20, 1984 in order to be considered at the
Committee on the Registers next meeting.
A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this
office and can be made available to you upon request. For more
information, please contact Janette Johnstone. , Historic
_ --------Pr-e-serv_aa.i-o-n—Fi_el_d__Services_ Burea.u,. _New_.York_ State Officeof
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238,
(518) 474-0479.
Sincerely,
Commissioner
State Historic Preservation
Officer
Enc.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650
ITHACA LANDMARKS
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
CIEI'
CLERICS OFFICE
Ithaca, 11. y. 2
-- r—^� TE PHONE: 272-1713
{' I CODE 607 •
November 9, 1984
On October 17, 1984 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, an
official agency of the City of Ithaca constituted under the provisions
of Section 96-a of the General Municipal Laws of the State of New York,
acted at its regular meeting to schedule a Public Hearing for the pur-
pose of obtaining public comment on the feasibility and desirability
of designating as local landmarks the following buildings within the
City of Ithaca on the Campus of Cornell University and the New York
State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences:
Fernow Hall
Stone Hall
Roberts Hall
East Roberts Hall
Caldwell Hall
Comstock Hall
Bailey Hall
The Public Hearing will be held Tuesday, 27 November 1984, at 7:00 p.m.
in the offices of the Department of Planning and Development, City of
Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York.
Any interested party is welcome to speak for or against designation at
the hearing, in person or by representative, and may submit written
statements for or against designation to the undersigned, prior to the
hearing.
Following the hearing, or at a subsequent official meeting of the
Commission, the Commission may act to designate some or all of the in-
dicated buildings. Within ninety (90) days of such action, having
first received an advisory recommendation from the City's Board of
Planning and Development, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
is required to approve or disapprove such designation, or refer it
back to the Commission for modification. If approved, the City of
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance provides, basically, that "no
material change in the use or appearance of a landmark . . . shall be
made or permitted to be made by the owner or occupant thereof unless
and until an alteration permit shall have been obtained" from the
Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca. Before such a permit
may be issued, any proposed alteration (including demolition) must
be reviewed by, and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from,
the Landmarks Commission.
This letter is sent to parties who may have some interest in the pro-
posed designation, as required by local regulations. Your attendance
at the hearing or at other meetings dealing with this subject is welcome.
For further information, please contact me at the above address,
phone 607-272-1713, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays.
Sincerely,
JM/mc
Jonathan Meigs
Secretary
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
-2-
P
CITY OF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
ITHACA LANDMARKS TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 3, 1984
J. Rundle
City Clerk
City Hall
...:. Y? iL,
DEC 5 1984
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Ithaca, td. Y. • I
CODE 607
On December 3, 1984 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, an official
agency of the City of Ithaca constituted under the provisions of Section 96-a
of the General Municipal Laws of the State of New York, acted at a Special
Meeting to schedule a Public Hearing for the purpose of obtaining public
comment on the feasibility and desirability of designating as local land-
marks the following buildings within the City of Ithaca on the Campus of
Cornell University and the New York State College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences:
Fernow Hall
Stone Hall
Roberts Hall
East Roberts Hall
Caldwell Hall
Comstock Hall
Bailey Hall
The Public Hearing will be held Wednesday, December 19, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street,
Ithaca, New York.
Any interested party is welcome to speak for or against designation at the
hearing, in person or by representative, and may submit written statements for
or against designation to the undersigned, prior to the hearing.
Following the hearing, or at a subsequent official meeting of the Commission,
the Commission may act to designate some or all of the indicated buildings.
Within ninety (90) days of such action, having first received an advisory
recommendation from the City's Board of Planning and Development, the Common
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
r -
-2-
Council of the City of Ithaca is required to approve or disapprove such
designation, or refer it back to the Commission for modification. If approved,
the City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance provides, basically,
that:
"no material change in the use or appearance of a land-
mark . . . shall be made or permitted to be made by the.
owner or occupant thereof unless and until an alteration
permit shall have been obtained" from the Building
Commissioner of the City of Ithaca. Before such a permit
may be issued, any proposed alteration (including demoli-
tion) must be reviewed by, and receive a Certificate
of Appropriateness from, the Landmarks Commission.
This letter is sent to parties who may have a direct or indirect interest in
the proposed designation, as required by local regulations. Your attendance
at the hearing or at other meetings dealing with this subject is welcome.
For further information, please contact me at the above address, phone number
607-272-1713, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays.
Sincerely,
,)Jonathan Meigs
`- Secretary
ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JCM: jv
V
r
ITHACA LANDMARKS
CITY OF ITHACA
1 OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 141350
C,��-y C/�C
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PRESERVATION COMMISSION CODE 607
December 20, 1984
Mayor John C. Gutenberger
COMMON COUNCIL MEMBERS
Chairman, BOARD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:
At its regular meeting December 19, 1984, this Commission held an advertised
public hearing to receive public comment on a proposal to designate seven
buildings of the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell as land-
marks of the City of Ithaca. Written and verbal statements favoring and
opposing designation were presented.
Following the hearing, Commission member Reinberger, seconded by Commission
member Centini, MOVED that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
designate as individual landmarks of the City of Ithaca: Bailey Hall, Cald-
well Hall, Comstock Hall, Fernow Hall, East Roberts Hall, Roberts Hall, and
Stone Hall. After discussion on the motion, a vote was taken, with the result
that 4 members voted for (Reinberger, Loveall, Centini, Jones); 1 against
(Richardson). As provided in Sec. 301(5) of the Commission's Rules of Proc-
edure, "A11 matters shall be decided by a majority vote of those (members)
present . . ."; the motion was thus duly PASSED.
In accordance with Sec. 32.6c of the Municipal Code, this designation is
hereby filed with Common Council and the Board of Planning and Development
for action, as follows:
"Within sixty (60) days of the designation by the Commission, the
Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect
to the relation of such designation td 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."
A copy of the record of the hearing, and copies of written statements and support-
ing documents will be transmitted to you under separate cover for•your information
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Mayor
Council Members
Chair, Planning & Dev. Board -2- Dec. 20, 1984
and use in preparation of your report and consideration of approval.
Please feel free to contact me or Preservation Coordinator Andrea Lazarski
if you have further questions on this matter.
Very truly yours,
10.0010b
.ionathan C. Meigs
Secretary, ILPC
JCM: jv
cc: Members of Board of Planning and Development
City Clerk, Joseph Rundle
Corporate Counsel, L. Richard Stumbar, Esq.
Chairman, ILPC, Raymond DiPasquale
Preservation Coordinator, Andrea Lazarski
David L. Call, Vice President, Cornell University
Shirley K. Egan, Attorney, Cornell
Dr. Clifton J. Wharton, Chancellor, SUNY
Irving H. Freedman, Vice Chancellor for Capital Facilities, SUNY
Donald L. Dundon, Asst. Dir., University Real Property, Office for
Capital Facilities, SUNY
CITY OF ITHACA
CITY HALL • 108 E. GREEN STREET • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • (607) 272-1713
MESSAGE
REPLY
Joseph Rundle
DATE
TO
City Clerk
L
DATE . January 23, 1985
Enclosed for your records, please find a Resolution
regarding landmark designation for the State
University Agricultural Buildings at Cornell
which was passed at the Planning and Development
Board meeting on Jan. 22, 1985.
BY H. M. Van Cort
Sem p N -R73 a Wheeler Group Inc, 1982
INSTRUCTIONS TO SENDER:
1. KEEP YELLOW COPY. 2. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES INTACT.
—Kf"tachment - ) /mc SIGNED
INSTRUCTIONS TO RECEIVER:
1. WRITE REPLY. 2. DETACH STUB. KEEP PINK COPY. RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESOLUTION
Re: New York State College of Agriculture Buildings - Cornell University
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board supports the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission's designation of Bailey, Comstock,
Caldwell, Stone, Roberts, East Roberts and Fernow Halls based
upon their historical importance to the city, state and nation
as the first buildings of the New York State College of Agri-
culture established by the legislature in 1904, and
WHEREAS, the significance of these buildings has been acknowledged by
their listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board believes that the designations
are in compliance with existing zoning and overall city planning
goals, and
WHEREAS, although there are plans for partial redevelopment of the site,
it is maintained that a greater public benefit would be achieved
through the retention of culturally significant buildings and
promotion of their rehabilitation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Development Board
recommends designation of these seven (7) buildings and forwards
this designation to Common Council with the request that the city
monitor the State University Construction Fund to ensure that
a full Environmental Impact Statement is undertaken on the
entire project area as called for by State Environmental Quality
Review regulations.
PASSED: 5 -yea, 1 -abstention (Nichols)
January 22, 1985
1/22/85
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY- OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
Joseph Rundle, City Clerk
Jon Meigs, Planning Department
James;. Dennis, • Alderman_
Robert Holdsworth, Alderman
Mayor John C. Gutenberger
June 13,1985
East Hill Historic District
Ithaca, New York 14850
"TELEPHONE: 272-1713
Attached hereto please find a copy of a. letter received today from Commissioner
Lehman notifying us that the above noted property will be considered by the
Committee on the Registers of the New York State Board for Historic Preserva-
tion for nomination to the National and State Registers of• Historic Places,
for your attention.
CODE 607
Please note that comments must be received by July IOth, in order to be considered
by the °`C.mmittee..
ATTACH.
CC: Landmark_ Preservation Comm.
Historic Ithaca
Andrea 1Laza kj'
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
PE AT=ON
L
0,
m
n
offo
O NEW YORK STATE
Orin Lehman
Commissioner
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238
June 11, 1985
John C. Gutenberger
108 East Green Street_
Ithaca, NY 14850
RECEIVED JUN 1.31985
518-474-0456
RE: East Hill Historic District
Ithaca, Tompkins Co.
Dear Mr. Gutenberger:
We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will
be considered by the Committee on the Registers of the New York -
State Board for Historic Preservation for nomination to the National
and State Registers of Historic Places. The National Register anr1
the State Register are the federal and state governments' official
lists of historic properties worthy of preservation. Listing in
the Registers provides recognition and assistance in preserving our
national, state, and local heritage. Enclosed is a copy of the
criteria under which properties are evaluated.
Listing in the National Register provides the following
benefits to historic properties:
Consideration in the planning .for federally assisted projects.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
provides that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
be given an opportunity to comment on projects affecting such
properties. --
Eligibility for federal tax provisions. If a property is
listed in the National Register certain Federal tax provisions
may apply. The Tax Reform Act of 1984 revises the historic
preservation tax .incentives authorized by Congress in the
Tax Reform Act of 197-6, the neve-nue-Ac-t of 1978, the Tax
Treatment Extension Act of 1980, and the. Economic Recovery
Tax Act of 1981, which provide for a 25 percent, investment
-
tax credit for rehabilitating historic commercial, industrial
and rental residential buildings instead of a 15 or 20 percent
credit available for rehabilitation of non -historic buildings
more than thirty years old. This can be combined with an
18 -year cost recovery period for the adjusted basis of the
building. Certified structures with certified rehabilitations
receive additional tax savings because owners are allowed to
reduce the basis by one half the amount of the credit. The
Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 provides Federal tax
deductions for charitable contributions for conservation
purposes of partial interests in historically important land
areas or structures. For further information please refer
to 36 CFR 67.
- Consideration. of historic values in the decision to issue a
surface coal mining permit where coal is located, in accord
with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977.
- - Qualification for federal grants for historic preservation
when funds are available.
- - Projects affecting properties listed in the National Register
or recommended for listing by the Committee on the Registers
of the State Board for Historic Preservation are considered
Type I actions subject to the notice requirements of Section
617 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act.
-2 -
Owners of private properties nominated to ,the National Register
of Historic Places must be given an opportunity to concur in or
obi;ect to listing in accord with the National Historic Preservation
Act Amendments of 1980 and federal regulations.36 CFR Part 60.'
Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object
to listing is required to submit to the State Historic Preservation
Officer a notarized statement certifying that the party.is the
.sole or partial owner of the private property, as appropriate, and
objects to.the listing. For a single privately owned property with
one owner, the property will not be listed if the owner objects. In
nominations with multiple ownership of a single property, the
property.will not be listed if a majority of the owners objects.
Each owner or partial owner of private property has one vote regardless
of what part of the property that party owns. If the property cannot
be listed because the owner or a majority of'owners. objects prior to
the submission of a nomination to the state, the State Historic
Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper of
the National Register for a determination of the eligibility o_f the
property for inclusion in the National Register. If the property
is then determined eligible for listing, although not formally listed,
federal agencies will be required to allow`the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment'before the agency
may fund, license," or assist a project which. will affect the property.
If you choose to object to the listing of your property, the
notarized objection must be submitted to Orin Lehman, State Historic
Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Field Services 'Bureau,
Agency Building #1, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State
Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238 by July 10, 1985.
Listing in the State Register provides the following benefits
to historic properties:
-- Consideration' in the planning for projects involving state
agencies. Section 14.,09 of the New York State Historic
Preservation Act of a980 provides that the -Commissioner of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation be given an oppor-
tunity to comment on_ projects affecting listed properties.
•- Consideration by state agencies, upon owner request, of private
property for purchase, lease or rental for government use.
-- Qualification forstate grants for__h stori_c _pr..e.ser.vation when,
f-und"s are available. .
There are no provisions in the New York State Historic
Preservation Act that require owner consent prior to listing in
.the:State Register of Historic Places.
If you wish to comment on whether the property should be
nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your
comments to the above address. Comments must be received by
July 10, 1985 ,in order to be considered at the
Committee on the Registers next meeting.
A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this
office and can be made available to you upon request. For more
information,.please contact Lucy A. Breyer , Historic
Preservation Field Services Bureau, New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Governor Nelson A._
-Rcok-efeiYer-E-mpre State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12238,
(518) 474-0479.
Enc.
Sincerely-,
Com
incere l -y -,
Com nisssier
State Historic Preservation
Officer
G4:NriON v./
Q,. .r , �q�
r� n
cr
a o
O cn a New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
o .> The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
O ▪ NEW YORK STATE 2 Agency Building 1 Albany, New York 12238 518-474-0456
Orin Lehman
Commissioner
NATIONAL AND STATE REGISTERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The following criteria are used to evaluate properties (other than areas of the National Park
Service and National Historic rarxm,rks) for listing on the National and State Registers of
Historic Places.
The quality of significance in American history,
architecture, archeology, engineering and culture
is present in districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects that possess integrity
of location, design, setting,. materials, work-
manship, feeling, and association and
A. that are associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past; or
C. that embody the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or
history
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves
of historical figures, properties owned by
religious institutions or used for religious
purposes, structures that have been moved from
their original locations, reconstructed
historic buildings, properties primarily
commemorative in nature, and properties that
have achieved significance within the past 50
years shall not be considered eligible for
the National Register. However, such
properties will qualify if they are integral
parts of districts that do meet the criteria
or if they fall within the following
categories: .
A. a religious property deriving primary
significance from architectural or artistic
distinction or historical importance; or
B. a building or structure removed from its
original location but which -is significant
primarily for architectural value, or which
is the surviving structure most importantly
• associated with a historic person or
event; or
C. a birthplace or grave of a historical
figure of outstanding importance if there
is no appropriate site or, building.directly
associated with his productive life.
D. a cemetery which derives its primary
significance from graves of persons of
transcendent importance, from age, from
distinctive design features, or from
association with historic events; or
E. a reconstructed. building when accurately
executed in a suitable environment and
presented in a dignified manner as part of
a restoration master plan, and when no •
other building or structure with the same
association has survived; or
F. a property. primarily commemorative in inten-
if design, age, tradition, or symbolic valuE
has invested it with its own exceptional
significance; or
G. a property achieving significance within
the past 50 years if it is of exceptional
importance.
(Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 60.4)
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
July 8, 1985
giCEIVb
JUL 1 0 1985 zD
0 Can OffMOU
Ithaca, M. Y.
272-1713
Mr. Orin Lehman
Commissioner
State Historic Preservation Officer
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Agency Building I
Albany, New York 12238
RE: East Hill Historic District
Ithaca, Tompkins County
Dear Commissioner Lehman:
I am pleased to extend the City's support for the National Register nomination
of the East Hill Historic District. These buildings merit this recognition as some
of Ithaca's finest residences and also for the contributions East Hill has made in
the development of the City of Ithaca.
Ithaca takes great pride in its heritage and has had a strong record of accomplish-
ments in rehabilitating and preserving its architecture. The City has retained
the original central settlement area around DeWitt Park and nominated that collection
of buildings to the National Register of Historic Places in 1971. Certainly the nomi-
nation of the East Hill Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places
would reinforce neighborhood esteem, acknowledge the importance of this area of
the City, and encourage rehabilitation of older housing stock.
The City of Ithaca is honored by the National Register Nomination of the East
Hill neighborhood.
Sincerely,
// John C. Gutenberger
Mayor
CC: Common Council Members
Joseph Rundle, City Clerk
Planning Department
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
DE 607
v�.
OFFICE OF
MAYOR
CITY OF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
MEMO TO: Richard Stumbar, City Attorney
FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger 9
DATE: December 13, 1985
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE - NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF FINAL EIS - Project
#16105/106 - Replace Antiquated Academic Buildings, Phase 11
Attached hereto please find the above entitled correspondence that was received
today for your attention.
ATTACH.
CC: Joseph Rundle, City Clerk
Thomas Hoard, Building Comm.
Thys VanCort, Planning Director
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of Completion of Final EIS
Lead Agency: State University Construction Fund Project # 16105/106
Address: State University Plaza
P.O. Box 1946
Albany, New York 12201-1946
Date December 11, 1985
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining
to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law.
The lead agency has completed and accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement
on the proposed action described below.
Title of Action: Replace Antiquated Academic Buildings, Phase II
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell
Description of Action: The lead agency's recommended action (Recommended Alternate
No. 5B, New Construction and Limited Demolition), involves
(1) the construction of new academic and support program
space (75,600 total net square feet); (2) the demolition
of one (1) structure, Stone Hall; and (3) the retention of
two (2) structures, Roberts and E. Roberts Halls, at the
Agricultural Quadrangle at the New York State College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell.
Location: New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
at Cornell University
Agricultural Quadrangle
City of Ithaca
County of Tompkins
Potential Environmental In►pacts: The lead agency has determined that the progression of,
of the Recommended Alternate No. 5B, New Construction and Limited Demolition, would
result in the demolition of one (1) structure (Stone Hall) which is listed on the
State and National Registers of Historic Places and would result in 84,100 gross
square feet of existing space being surplus to the needs of the State University
system. The recommended action has been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation,.
Office in accordance with the requirements of Section 14.09 of the State Historic
Preservation Act and has been determined to be an appropriate action subject to the
following mitigative measures: (1) Prior to its demolition, Stone Hall will be fully,
recorded in accordance with the 2/15/85 guidelines titled "Photographic Documentation"
The Construction Fund will submit one complete copy of all documentation to the
New York State Archivist for permanent storage in the State Archives, as well as to
this office; and (2) Uses for Roberts and E. Roberts Halls will be fully explored •
and documented. All documentation will be provided to OPRHP for further discussion.
If the buildings are transferred to Cornell, they will be transferred with a covenant.
that ensures that the potential for their reuse will be fully explored in consulta-
tion with OPRHP. Any further discussion regarding the demolition of these two
buildings will take place subsequent to a thorough investigation of reuse potential,
in consultation with OPRHP.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of Completion of Final EIS
Page 2
Copies of the Final EIS may be obtained from:
Contact Person: Dr. I. H. Freedman, General Manager
Address: State University Construction Fund
P.O. Box 1946
Albany, New York 12201-1946
Phone No.: (518) 473-1135
cc: Hon. Henry Williams, Commissioner
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Hon. John Gutenberger, Mayor, City of Ithaca
Hon. Noel Desch, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
Mr. Allan Coburn, Region 7
Ms. Barbara Ebert, Director, Historic Ithaca
Ms. Julia Stokes, Deputy Commissioner
for Historic Preservation
C/77
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
ITHACA LANDMARKS TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
CODE 607
Council Members, Sean Killeen, Peggy Haine, Susan Cummings, David Lytel
Steve Fontana, Chairman, Collegetown Merchants Association
Neff Cassaburri,.President, Collegetown Neighborhood Council
Leslie Chatterton, Preservation Planner /46..
EAST HILL NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT
December 8, 1986
As you may know, the City of Ithaca was notified recently that the East Hill
Historic District is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The new National Register District includes all the properties in the smaller
'local historic district,._ded gusted in 1976 (see enclosed map). Significant
characteristics of the National Register District include the following:
East Hill is a comparatively large historic district which
includes 264 contributing elements, covering a 29 -block
area.
The district contains the finest examples of Ithaca's 19th and
early 20th century architecture, with focus on the 1870-1920
period, the height of the area's prestige and influence.
The district contains numerous houses designed by notable Ithaca
architect, William H. Miller. Miller was the first student
of architecture at Cornell and had a tremendous impact on
the City's architectural appearance.
The architecture in the district reflects Ithaca's growth
from a small industrial community to the influential and
prominent educational center it has become since the found-
ing of Cornell University and the New York State. College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences.
The following list summarizes how East Hill properties are and are not affected
by National Register Listing:
"An Equal'Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Memorandum
Council Members, et al.
Dec. 8, 1986
page 2.
The National Register Does
1. Identify historically significant buildings,
structures, sites, objects, and districts,
according to the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation.
2. Enable federal, state, and local agencies
to consider historic properties in the
early stages of planning projects.
3. Provide for review of federally funded,
licensed, or sponsored projects which may
affect historic properties.*
4. Encourage the rehabilitation of income-
producing historic properties which meet
preservaiton standards through tax incen-
tives.
The National Register Does NOT
1. Restrict the rights of private
property owners in the use,
development, or sale of
private historic property.
2. Force federal, state, local,
or private projects to
be stopped.
3. Provide for review of
state, local, or privately
funded projects which may
affect historic properties.*
4. Provide tax benefits to
owners of residential historic
properties, unless those
properties are rental' and
treated as income-producing.
by IRS.
Finally, all income producing properties in the district are potentially eligible
for investment tax credit of up to 20% for certified rehabilitation projects.
For more. information about this tax incentive, call the Historic Preservation
Technical Services Bureau staff of the New York State Office of Parks, Recrea-
tion and Historic Preservation, Albany, NY, (518)-474-7750.
East Hill residents or others requesting further information. about the National
and State Register listings or local designation of the East Hill Historic District
should call Leslie Chatterton, Historic Preservation Planner, 272-1713, ext. 246.
LJC: jv
encl.
cc: Mayor John Gutenberger
Cort
City Clerk, C. Paolangeli
Bldg. Commissioner, T. Hoard
* The East Hill District is also listed on the State Register, making State
projects subject to review. Areas of the district are additionally
designated.under Ithaca's Landmark Preservation Ordinance, making local
and privately funded projects subject to approval of the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation. Commission.
AMA
•
®.:::NV. pa{..V.3:; : "'<MAY '.:`.?:\:;:5 :::i:O*
EAST HILL
HISTORIC DISTRICT
1 local district
National Register district
—u —1
ITHACA LANDMARKS
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
At the regular monthly meeting of July 15, 1987, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) acted to schedule a Public Hearing for the
purpose of obtaining public comment concerning local landmark designation
of Stewart Park. The Public Hearing will be held on Monday, August 24, at
7:00 p.m., Common Council Chambers, third floor, City Hall,.108 E. Green
Street, Ithaca, New York. All interested parties are invited to speak for
or against the designation at the hearing, either in person or by repre-
sentative, and may submit written statements to the ILPC Secretary prior
to the hearing.
Immediately following the hearing, or at a subsequent official meeting,. the
ILPC may act to designate one of the following:
* significant buildings and/or structuresin the Park
• significant buildings, structures and their nearby surroundings
* buildings, structures, surroundings and other significant elements of
the built and natural environment
* the entire Park
Within ninety days of such action, the City Board of Planning and
Development must file a report with Common Council concerning the designation
and the Common Council will then act to approve, disapprove or refer the
proposal back to the Commission for modification. If approved,. the City
of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 32, Municipal Code)
states:
it shall be the duty of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to
review all plans for any and allmaterial 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 ...
This hearing has been scheduled as a result of requests from members of
the public and Historic Ithaca, Inc. A report documenting the Park's history
has been prepared by Historic Ithaca andwas presented to the Landmarks Com-
mission at the July meeting. Public notice will appear in the local newspaper
15 days prior to the hearing as stipulated in the ILPC Rules of Procedures.
Your attendance at the hearing or at other meetings dealing with this subject
is welcome.
8/14/87
Leslie A. Chatterton
Secretary
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
OFFICE OF
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cookie Paolangeli, City Clerk
FROM: Ra ;' . . sh, City Attorney
DATE: Mare" 28, 1989
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
RE: Appeal of Landmarks Preservation Commission Decision
132 North Quarry Street - Jason Fane, owner
I am herewith enclosing a copy of correspondence and documents
delivered to me in this regard by attorney Currey on behalf of
Jason Fane. This appeal is being prosecuted to the Common Council
pursuant to City Code § 32.9. Could you please place this material
on the Common Council agenda for the April 5th meeting under "New
Business."
Thank you.
RWN:blh
enclosure
cc: Leslie Chatterton, Planning Department
Charles T. Currey, Esq.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
oar idit; ;'s
Itkica,17. Y. ��
22. NEW BUSINESS
- AGENDA ITEM 1
CHARLES T. CURREY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
109 EAST SENECA STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
607 272-3700
Ralph W. Nash, Esq.
Ithaca City Attorney
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
March 14, 1989
Re: Demolition Permit (132 N. Quarry Street)
Dear Ralph:
R16 22.1
Pursuant to your letter of February 6, 1989, I am
enclosing herewith the following documents for action:
1. Certificate of Appropriateness submitted to the
Historic Preservation Committee.
2. City Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted to
the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
3. Long Environmental Assessment Form - Part I submitted
to the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
4. Positive Declaration submitted by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission to my office.
I am also enclosing a copy of Judge Bryant's Order in this
matter which was submitted to the Landmark's Preservation
Commission, although I do not believe that it came from my
office. I have already enclosed the written decision of the
Landmarks Preservation Commission but, for the sake of
completeness, I am enclosing another copy with these papers.
Mr. Fane does not believe and disputes that it was established
at the hearing in this matter that this garage has any special
character, special historical or aesthetic interest or value
or that it reflects any distinct period or style of
architecture typical of garages of the 1930's. Mr. 'Fane
further believes that the criteria proposed in the Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance for denial of the issuance of a
demolition permit were not met by the opponents of the
-2 -
issuance of this permit. It should be noted that, but for the
action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the City of
Ithaca Building Department was prepared to issue the necessary
demolition permit.
Pleae advise if we need do anything further in order to
perfect this appeal. As indicated on the second page of the
January 24, 1989 decision, I am filing all of these documents
in duplicate with the secretary of the Landmarks Preservation
Commission, anticipating that one copy will be forwarded to
the secretary of the Common Council. If either Mr. Fane or
myself or both of us need to be present at any further hearing
or proceeding with respect to the determination of this
appeal, please let us know.
Yours very truly,
Charles T. Currey
CTC:jg
Enclosure
cc: Jason Fane
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (tirC)
1.y PROPERTY/BUILDING ADDRESS 131 North Quarry Street, Ithaca, New York
a. HISTORIC BUILDING NAME (if any) none BUSINESS NAME (if any) none
2. APPLICANf's NAME Jason Fane
ADDRESS (1f different than above) 133 North Quarry PHONE 273-9463
INTEREST IN PROPERTY: OWNER ,LESSEE
PROSPECTIVE BUYER OTHER (please explain) occupant
3. OWNER'S NAME (if other than above)
East Hill School Cooperative, Inc.
ADDRESS PHONE
4. IN WHAT CITY ZONE IS THIS PROPERTY LOCATED? (consult ILPC staff or a copy of Ithaca's
Zoning Hap)
S. HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNATION (indicate Yes or No to as many as apply)
A. Is the property locally designated as an individual landmark and/or within•
a local historic district ?
B. Is the property listed in the State or National Registers of Historic Places
as an individual landmark and/or within a State or National Register
Historic district ?
C. If No to "B" above. has -the property been determined to be eligible for listing
and/or has it been proposed for listing on the State and National
Register of Historic Places?
6. WHAT IS THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY? (commercial. residential; industrial, etc.)
garage • NUMBER -OF UNITS IF RESIDENTIAL
7. APPROVAL IS REQUESTED FOR (check one or more that describe your proposed project):
exterior alteration requiring replacement
or change of materials, openings. ornament.etc.
repair (not in-kind) signs: historic new
restoration change of use: to
demolition landscape/site work
new construction/addition to: other (please briefly describe)
building and/or site
8. DESCRIPTION OF EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND MATERIAL CHANGES:
Please describe all proposed changes in the appropriate space(s) below. Use as
many as apply to your project. Hake reference to any supporting materials - plans,
specifications, elevations, photographs, samples, ecc. that you are supplying as
part of this application. (See ques. 10 for a list of recommended documents.)
A. Exterior Surfaces: describe the existing and proposed materials - shingles,
clapboard, masonry. etc. - and their use in the proposed work for the following:
Walls
Roof (please specify materials and method of attachment of roofing materials)
Foundation
B. Openings: describe the proposed changes in material. location. size and shape to
the following: Window(s)
Door(s)
C. Ornamental Elements: describe the proposed repair. replacement. replication and/or
addition of ornamental features - roof trim, porches. balconies. etc. Please in-
dicate the specific location of the proposed change(s)
D. Demolition: please describe the extent of the proposed demolition (some or•all of
the structure(s) on the site) Total
E. New Construction: please describe proposed new construction, epe.cifying
whether this.is a new free-standing structure or an addition. Specify its
location in relation to the rest of the building or the site.
F. Signs: -please describe the proposed removal or addition of any signs. Describe
new signs in terms of size. materials. graphics/typeface, colors. location,
method of attachment.and illumination.
C. Landscape: describe the number. type. size and location of any trees, hedges and
other plant materials that are to be effected by the proposed work. Specify if
new plant materials are to be introduced. none
H. Site work: describe how the proposed work will effect the following: pavements.
walls. fences. terraces, patios. parking areas, etc. If parking areas are to be
changed or introduced. please mention their location. size, number of spaces and
the type of surface .material(s) to be used. Existing garage to be
demolished - no new structure to be built
II
I. Other work: please describe any other proposed.exterior changes to the structure(s) i
or to the site that are the subject of this application.
9. DOES THE PROPOSED WORK REQUIRE A PERMIT. VARIANCE OR OTHER APPROVAL (other than ILPC)?
(check one or more)
Building Dept. Permit X Planning and Development Board Approval
Board of Zoning Appeals Approval Other
10. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION WILL ASSIST
YOUR PROPOSED WORK _(please check the information
scaled architectural drawings -
THE ILPC MEMBERS AND STAFF IN THEIR REVIEW OF
that you are submitting): •
material samples U
color samples - "chips"
manufacturers'/suppliers' catalogues
other
plane. elevations, details. etc.
_specifications
X photographs
slides
_ historical materials (photographs and/or written work that support the restor-
ation, replacement or repair option you have selected)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please submit all documentation on paper no larger than 11x17 inches
in•order to ensure good quality reproduction.
1 have aead. and • 6amiJian.i.zed myaet6 tach the contents o6 £hi6 appEica.tion, and do
hereby concent to ita eubmiAAion and prtoceee.ing.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE January 11, 1989
SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) DATE
CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1. Project Information/to be completed by applicant orpr
•. Applicant/Sponsor
Jason Fane
2. Project Name
3. Project Location:
131 North Quarry Street, Ithaca, New York•
4. Is Proposed Action:
G New O Expansion O Modification/Alteration
5. Describe Project Briefly:
Demolition of existing garage
6. Precise Location (Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or
Provide Map)
see attached picture of garage building
7. Amount of Land Affected:
Initially 700 ftil cgc}gle Sq. Ft. Ultimately 700 c o e Sq. Ft.
8. Will Proposed Action Comply With Existing Zoning or Other Existing Land
Use Restrictions?
GYes O No If No, Describe Briefly
9. What is Present Land Use in Vicinity of Project?
`:J Residential O Industrial
aParkland/Open Space 0 Commercial
Describe: Single and multiple family
0 Agricultural
O Other
residences
10. Does Action Involve a Permit/Approval, or Funding, Now or Ultimately,
From Governmental Agency (Federal, State or Local)? x Yes '-) No
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval. Type
City of Ithaca - Demolition Permit
11. Does Any Aspect of the Action Have a Currently Valid Permit or Approval?
G Yes Q No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type
12. As a Result of Proposed Action Will Existing Permit/Approval Require
Modification?
. Yes rl No N/A
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS
TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/Sponsor Name Jason Fane Date January 11._
1989
Signature
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF)
INSTRUCTIONS:
In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that
the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project
and the likely impacts of the action.
Environmental Assessment
1. Will project result in a large physical change to the
project site or physically alter more than one acre of
land? Yes x No
2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form
found on the site or to any site designated a unique natural
area or critical environmental area by a local or state
agency? Yes x No
3. Will project alter or have an effect on an existing waterway? Yes x No
4. Will project have an impact on groundwater quality? Yes x No
5. Will project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? Yes x No
6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or
animal species? Yes x No
7. Will project result in an adverse effect on air quality? Yes x No
8. Will project have an effect on visual character of the
community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to
the community? Yes x No
9. Will project adversely impact any site or structure of
historic, pre -historic, or paleontological importance or
any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark
district? x Yes No
10. Will project have an effect on existing or future recreational
opportunities? Yes x No
11. Will project result in traffic problems or cause a major
effect to existing transportation systems? Yes x No
12. Will project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare,
vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's
operation during construction or after completion? Yes x No
13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? Yes x No
14. Will project affect the existing community by directly
causing a growth in permanent populations of more than
5 percent over a one-year period or have a negative effect
on the character of the community or neighborhood? Yes x No
15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? Yes x No
If.any question has been answered Yes a completed Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE: Attorney
REPRESENTING: Jason Fane DATE: Jan. 11, 1989
LEAF
LONG ENVIRONMENTAL•ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 1
Project Information
by Applicant
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action
proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the
entire form. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the
application for approval and may be subject to further verifications and public
review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to
complete PARTS 2 and 3.
NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT:
131 North Quarry Street
Ithaca, New York
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
Jason Fane
(Name)
133 North Quarry Street
(Street)
Ithaca, NY 14850
(P.O.) (State) (Zip)
BUSINESS PHONE: 273-9463'
NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different
East Hill School -Cooperative, Inc
(Name)
(Street)
NY 14850
(P.O.)
BUSINESS PHONE:
(State) (Zip)
TYPE OF PROJECT: Demolition
(PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - indicate N.A. if not applicable)
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
(Physical setting of overall project, both developed and
1. Character of the land: Generally uniform slope
rolling or irregular x .
2. Present land use: Urban x Industrial , Commercial , Public
Forest , Agricultural Other
3. Total area of project: acres, or 400 square feet.
undeveloped areas)
Generally uneven and
Approximate Area:
Meadow or Brushland
Wooded
Agricultural
Wetland (as per article 24
of E.C.L.)
Public
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill)
Roads, buildings and other
paved surfaces
Other (indicate type)
Presently
0 acres/sq.
0 acres/sq.
0 acres/sq.
0 acres/sq.
0 acres/sq.
0 acres/sq.
0 acres/sq.
400
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ab /sq. ft.
acres/sq. ft.
After
Completion
0 acres/sq. ft.
o acres/sq. ft.
o acres/sq. ft.
0 acres/sq.
0 acres/sq.
0 acres/sq.
400 acres/sq.
0
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
8t4-4/sq. ft.
acres/sq. ft.
-2
4. (a) What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? e.g., HdB, silty
loam, etc., Rock
(b) Percentage well drained 100 , moderately well drained , poorly
drained
5. (a) Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes X No.
(b) What is depth of bedrock?
(c) What is depth to the water table?
(in feet).
feet.
6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10% 0 %;
10-15% %; 15% or greater -%.
7. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?
Yes x No.
8. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is
identified as threatened or endangered? Yes x No; Identify
each species
9. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs,
.gorges, other geological formations)? Yes x No. Describe
10. Is project within or contiguous to a site designated a unique natural area
or critical environmental area by a local or state agency? Yes x No;
Describe
11. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an
open space or recreation area? Yes x No.
12. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to
be important to the community? Yes x No.
13. Is project contiguous to, or does it contain a building or site listed on
or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places? Yes
x No; if Yes, explain ;
or designated a local landmark or in a local landmark district? Yes N(
14. Streams within or contiguous to project site:
a. Names of stream or name of river to which it is tributary N/A
15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project site:
a. Name N/A ; B. Size (in acres) N/A
16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile
radius of the project? (e.g. single family residential, R -la or R -1b) and
the scale of development (e.g. 2 story) multi -family and single
family residential.
17. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid or hazardous wastes?
Yes x No; If Yes, describe
-3-
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as
appropriate)
a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor 0 acres or
0 square feet.
b. Project acreage developed: acres initially; acres
ultimately. 400 Sq. ft.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 100%
d. Length of project in miles (if appropriate) or feet 200
e. If project is an expansion or demolition of existing building or
use, indicate percent of change proposed: building square
footage 400 ; developed acreage 0
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 2 ; proposed 0
g.
Maximum vehicular trips generated per day 0 and per hour 0
(upon completion of project).
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units (not structures):
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initial 0 0 0 0
Ultimate 0 0 0 0
If: Commercial
Orientation - check one
Neighborhood City Regional Estimated Employment
N/A
If: Industrial;
N/A
N/A
N/A
i. Total height of tallest proposed structure: feet.
2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and
how much will be removed from the site none
or added to the site
none
3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) and
how much will be removed from site - acres.
none
4. Will any mature trees or other locally -important vegetation bg removed
by this project? Yes x No.
5. Are there any plans for re -vegetation to replace that removed during
construction? Yes x No. None will be removed.
-4-
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction
months (including demolition).
7. If multi -phased project:
a. Total number of phases anticipated
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase one month year
(including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date final phase month year.
d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No.
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes x No; if yes,
explain
15 days
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 0
is completed 0 .
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
; after project
. Explain
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes
x No. If yes, explain
12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes x No.
b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.)
c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged?
13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface
waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes x No.
14. a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially
within or contiguous to the 100 year flood plain? Yes x No.
b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly oFall within or contiguous to: no Cayuga Inlet, n
no Cascadilla Creek, no Cayuga Lake, no Six Mile Creek,
no Silver Creek?
c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially
within or contiguous to wetlands as described in Article 24 of the
ECL? Yes x No.
d. If yes for a, b, or c, explain
15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? x Yes No.
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used?
x Yes No.
c. If yes, give name: ; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a
sanitary landfill? Yes x No. If yes, explain
E. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes x No. If
yes, explain
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes x No. If yes,
specify
17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places? Or designated a local
landmark or in a landmark district? Yes x No. If yes, explain
i . .
-5-
18. Will project produce odors? Yes X No. If yes, describe
19. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise
level during construction? Yes X No; After construction? Yes
No.
20. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Yes x No; if yes,
indicate type(s)
21. Total anticipated water usage per day 0 gals/day. Source of
water
22. Zoning:
a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? Residential
b. Current specific zoning classification of site?
c. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes
d. If no, indicate desired zoning
23. Approvals:
a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes No. Specify
b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes
X No. Specify
c. Local and Regional approvals:
Approval Submittal Approval
(Yes -No) Required(type) (Date) (Date)
Council
BZA
P&D Board
Landmarks
BPW
Fire Dept.
Police Dept.
IURA
Building' Commissioner Yes Demolition
Permit
C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project.
If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal,
please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate
or avoid them.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE:
TITLE
REPRESENTING'
DATE
Attorney for Jason Fane
Jason Fane
January 13, 1989
City of Ithaca
Planning and Developmenr
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
SEQR
617.21
Appendix E
POSITIVE DECLARATION
Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS
Determination of Significance
Project Number Date. January 11, 1989
This notice'is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review
Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law.
The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission , as lead
agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may
have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared.
Name of Action: Demolition of garage in the East Hill Historic District
SEQR Status: Type I
Description of Action:
The proposal is the demolition of a two bay, yellow brick garage. The structure
is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District, listed on the
National and State Registers of Historic Places and designated locally as well.
The garage was probably constructed in the 1930s. The property on which the
garage is located belongs to the East Hill Cooperative, occupying the former
East Hill School. During litigation following the Cooperative's attempt to evict
the lessee, he asserted ownership of the property on the theory of adverse possession.
The State of New York Supreme Court ruled that the Cooperative was entitled to
evict the lessee, however, in accordance with terms of the lease upon termination
the lessee could remove the garage from the premises.
Location: (Include street address and the name of the
municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale
is also recommended.)
The address of the garage is 132 North Quarry Street, Ithaca, Tompkins County,
although the site belongs to the East Hill Cooperative located at 111 Stewart
Avenue. See map attached.
SEQR Positive Declaration Page 2
Reasons Supporting This Determination:
The action,may have a significant effect because demolition will result in the
impairment of the character and quality of an important historical and archi-
tectural resource. The action was assessed in connection with the overall
setting of North Quarry Street and the East Hill Historic District and the
irreversibility of the proposed demolition. The brick masonry garage is a
contributing element of the East Hill Historic District which despite probable
alteration of the door, retains the form and detailing characteristic of the
district's period of significance.
The action may have a significant effect because the demolition may result in
a substantially adverse change to erosion susceptibility. The action was
assessed in connection with probability of occurring and controllability. At
the rear of the garage, (west), the ground drops steeply and the degree to
which the foundation may contribute to stabilization of the bank is unknown.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Contact Person: Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission
Address: 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Telephone Number: 607-272-1713
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE SENT TO:
Commissioner, Department. of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road,
Albany, New York 12233-0001
Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental
Conservation
Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in
which the action will be principally located.
Applicant (if any) Jason Fane, Ithaca Renting Company, Post Office Box 642,
Ithaca, NY 14851
Other involved agencies (if any)
Regional Office VII, Department of Environmental Conservation, Syracuse, NY
Conservation Advisory Council
Peter Dieterich, Acting Building Commissioner
Ralph W. Nash, Esq., City Attorney
Charles Currey, Esq.
J.
1
1
g
1 sr,
rg
Y
1 g.
i)•
11
t•1
.510
611
604
11
11
y .
642
_ . __.. --
—j op,
-- -- •-•-- .
704 l
' ' �� �JENEG�' S?REET
706 711
M
1Jx
0
O.
Bot
•
s
ij
II
ill
,:cwt:
`
.:
^►'fir' ,,dltestItPgi
�+�
s`•
w
cs-
.
Er eku
yi
r_
!u
EM. PM
.v
i
, al ti.
Ur
;
i
,N I
.JT' 1 • T
Tr,_...Lh, 1
ry
kairm.Lmor...
At. an Equity Term of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York,
held in and for the County of
Tompkins at the Courthouse,
Ithaca, New York commencing on
December 9, 1935.
PRESENT: HONORABLE FREDERICK B. BRYANT, JUSTICE
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
EAST HILL SCHOOL COOPERATIVE, INC.,
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
Index No. 85-166
JASON FANE,
Respondent.
The above -entitled summary proceeding brought by the plaintiff
to evict the defendant from the premises allegedly owned by the
plaintiff, and this action having been transferred from the city court
of Ithaca after defendant in his answer asserted ownership of the
property on a theory of adverse possession and by stipulation an order
having been entered with this court that the notice of petition and
petition was to be treated as a summons and complaint and the answer
to the petition was to be considered an answer to the complaint, and
the action
the issues so joined having duly come to be heard and
having been duly tried before the undersigned at the above captioned
terra of this court on December 20, 1985, and the plaintiff having
1
appeared with Bixler & Stumbar, Elizabeth J. Bixler 'of counsel, its
attorneys and the defendant having appeared with Charles T. Currey,
Esquire, his attorney and testimony having been given in open court,
and the undersigned having heard and considered the proof offered
and having made a Decision in writing dated February 19, 1986,
NOW, a motion of Bixler & Stumbar, Elizabeth J. Bixler of
counsel, attorneys for plaintiff, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the plaintiff is entitled
to a judgment evicting all occupants of the garage on the real
property owned by plaintiff from further occupation of the premises,
and it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the defendant, in
accordance with the terms of the July 1, 1966 lease, may remove the
garage building from the premises within sixty days of the date of
entry of.judgment herein.
ENTER.
Dated: , 1986
Ithaca, New York
Approved as to form:
4/1 adw , k4444
Charles T. Currey /
Attorney for the Respondent
II
2
HON. FREDERICK B. BRYANT
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
CITY OF ITHACA
10B EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850
ITHACA LANDMARKS
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PRESERVATION COMMISSION CODE 607
January 24, 1989
Mr. Jason Fane
Ithaca Renting Company
Post Office Box 642
Ithaca, NY 14851
Dear Mr. Fane•
At a special meeting held on Thursday, January 19, 1989, the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal to
demolish the garage located at 132 North Quarry Street, East Hill
Historic District.
The Commission first undertook evaluation of the Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF and LEAF). Because the property is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the East
Hill Historic District, the action is defined as a Type I action.
under both the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance.
The Commission determined by unanimous vote that the proposed
demolition would result in a major impact that cannot be reduced
and may cause significant damage to the environment. In reaching
this decision the Commission noted that the structure is a
contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. As a
good representative example of a 1930s garage it has a special
character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value,
and it reflects a distinct period and style of architecture
typical of the era. It was also noted that the structure is in
sound condition and that neither the owner or his representative
presented a viable reason for the demolition. Additional concern
was expressed regarding the stability of the slope should the
garage and its foundation be removed from the site. As a result
of this action the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is required before the proposal can proceed.
The Commission then reviewed the Certificate of Appropriatenress
application filed on January 11, 1989. Approval of the
application was denied by unanimous vote. The Commission noted
in discussion that the application does not meet the criteria of
the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance under which
demolition of a designated historic resource may be approved
(Municipal Code, 32.6F).
'An Equal Opportunely Employrr wqh an Alhnnal,.« p: h7n Program"
Jason Fane
Jan. 24, 1989
-2-
Applicants.in disagreement with the Commission's decisions may
take appeals to the Common Council. An appeal must be made
within sixty (60) days after the action from which the appeal is
made. 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. Appeals shall be signed
by the property owner or a certified agent.
In closing, the Commission would like to extend its appreciation
for your cooperation in supporting the architectural and historic
character of the East Hill Historic District.
Sincerely,
�LhGie % ��%
Leslie A. Chatterton
Secretary
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
LAC/mc
cc:
Barclay G. Jones, Chair
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Peter Dieterich
Acting Building Commissioner
Richard Eckstrom
Plan Review Officer
H. Matthys Van Cort, Director
Planning and Development
—Charles T. Cbrrey, Esq.
0-LC-132NQuar
CITY F= ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 -
OFFICE OF
CITY ATTORNEY
February 6, 1989
Charles T. Currey, Esq.
109 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Demolition Permit
132 North Quarry Street
Dear Chuck:
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
This is in response to your recent letter on this matter.
There is no specific form on which an appeal to Common Council is
made. Please submit all information previously submitted to the
Landmarks Commission together with all letters, orders or
findings relative thereto made by the Commission and its staff.
You should also include a statement of reasons why you feel
Common Council should overturn the Commissions Decision.
RWN:blh
truly, ,
/ r
Ra�1hph , . Nash
City A torney
cc: Leslie Chatterton, Planning Department
'An Eoual C:oortun.ty E•^Moyer wren an AILrmalae :.nnn Prnaram"
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CITY CLERK CODE 607
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR GUTENBERGER
CITY ATTY.NASH
ALDERPERSONS
FROM: C. PAOALANGELI, CITY CLERK
DATE: AUGUST 23, 1989
SUBJ: LOCAL DESIGNATION - CORNELL HEIGHTS
Leslie Chatterton filed the attached document in the City Clerk's
office. I am attaching it for your review.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
ITHACA LANDMARKS. .
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Local Designation
Cornell Heights
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
At the regular monthly;meeting held on August 14, 1989, the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determined by unanimous
vote that those portions of the proposed Cornell Heights National
Register District located within the city limits meet criteria
for local designation as stipulated in Section 32.3(3) of the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. By this action, the
Commission recommends to the Common Council local historic
district designation. See appendix Items 1 and 2 for a map and
address list of the 131 affected properties.
The Commission's vote followed a public hearing at which
eleven property owners and representatives spoke in favor of
designation and six property owners and representatives spoke
against designation. In addition the Commission Chairperson read
written comments in favor of local designation from three
property owners and written comments against local designation
from three property owners. Prior to the vote recommending local
designation, the Commission, as lead agency for the environmental
review in accordance with Section 32.6 1 of Chapter 36 of the
Municipal Code, Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
determined by unanimous vote that the designation will result in
no major impacts and, therefore, is one which may not cause
significant damage to the environment. This action constitutes a
negative declaration and terminates the environmental review.
The Commission based its decision that Cornell Heights
meets the criteria for local designation on findings of historic
and architectural significance put forward by the New York State
Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (also the
designated state historic preservation office SHPO), the New
York State Committee on the Registers, and New York State
Commissioner of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation, Orin
Lehman. These findings, as prepared by the SHPO and presented to
the Committee on the Registers at the hearing held in Albany on
June 24, 1989 are item 3 of the appendix.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Local Designation —2—
Cornell Heights
Data supporting the Commission's recommendation for local
designation was collected in the spring of 1987 during survey
work undertaken with a Certified Local Government Subgrant from
the SHPO. Survey work and preparation of the. National Register
nomination were carried out by a 32 CFR Part 61 qualified
consultant as identified in the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic
Preservation. These qualifications define the minimum education
and experience required to perform identification, evaluation,
registration and treatment activities. The survey consultant,
Department of Planning and Development staff and SHPO staff
worked closely throughout the survey and preparation of the
nomination to evaluate survey data and establish the existing
boundaries for the survey area.
The Commission plans to forward its recommendation for local
designation to the Common Council for consideration at the
meeting to be held on September 6, 1989..This report has been
prepared in accordance with Section 36.6c of the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, wherein it is stated that the Commission
"shall file a copy of the designation with the Planning Board and
with Common Council".
August 21, 1989
O—LC—LocalDes.CHt
Appendix Item 1
Cornell.. Heights Local Historic District
Map
Appendix Item 2
Cornell Heights Local Historic District
Property List
1. 109 Barton Place
104 Brook Land
109 Dearborn Place
116 Dearborn Place
202 Dearborn Place
208 Dearborn Place
213 Dearborn Place
215 Dearborn Place
216 Dearborn Place
1 Edgecliff Place
101 Edgecliff Place
112 Edgecliff Place
202 Fall Creek Drive
209-11 .Fall Creek Drive_
212 Fall Creek Drive
216 Fall Creek Drive
218 Fall Creek Drive
220 Fall Creek Drive
225 Fall Creek Drive
302 Fall Creek Drive
310 Fall Creek Drive
316 Fall Creek Drive
326 Fall Creek Drive
110-12 Heights Court
111-13 Heights Court
114 Heights Court
115 Heights Court
116-16$ Heights Court
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.c_
44.
45:
46.
47.
48.
118
119
120
121
123
125
106
110
150
200
201
203
111
114
115
116
121
125
126
210
Heights Court
Heights Court
Heights Court
Heights Court
Heights Court
Heights Court
Highland Avenue
Highland Avenue
Highland Avenue
Highland Avenue
Highland Avenue
Highland Avenue
Kelvin Place
Kelvin Place
Kelvin Place
Kelvin Place
Kelvin Place
Kelvin Place
Kelvin Place
Kelvin Place
49. 212 Kelvin Place
50. 1 Lodgeway
51. 5 Lodgeway
52. 6-6# Lodgeway
53. 8 Lodgeway
54. 10 Lodgeway
55. 105 Needham Place
56. 2 Ridgewood Road
57. 40 Ridgewood Road
58. 55 Ridgewood Road
59. 100 Ridgewood Road
60: 115.Ridgewood.Road
61. 122 Roberts Place
62. 123 Roberts Place
63. 124 Roberts Place' 64. =900' Stewart Avenue
65. -916 Stewart Avenue
66. 934 -Stewart Avenue
67.. 1022" Stewart Avenue
68. 1024 ,Stewart . Avenue
69. 402 The Knoll
70. '106 The Knoll
71. 111. The Knoll
72. 115.The Knoll
73 115x: The -Knoll'
74. 119 The Knoll
75. 101 Thurston Avenue
76. 117 Thurston Avenue
77. 119 Thurston Avenue
78. 121 Thurston Avenue
79. 140 Thurston Avenue
80. 201 Thurston Avenue
81. 205 Thurston Avenue
82. 210 Thurston Avenue
83. 214. Thurston Avenue
84. -223- Thurston Avenue
85. 30.5- Thurston Avenue
86. 312 Thurston Avenue
87. 315 Thurston Avenue
88. 401 Thurston Avenue
89. 410 Thurston Avenue
90. 411 Thurston Avenue
91. 504 Thurston Avenue
92. 508 Thurston Avenue
93. 520-22 Thurston Avenue
94. 534 Thurston Avenue
95. 536 Thurston Avenue
96 102 Triphammer Road
Appendix Item 2
Cornell Heights local Historic District
Property
97. 109 Triphammer Road
98. 110 Triphammer Road
99. 117 Triphammer Road
100. 118 Triphammer Road
101. 124 Triphammer Road
102. 150 Triphammer Road
103.. 118 Wait Avenue
104.. 120 Wait Avenue
105. _122 Wait Avenue
106. 208 Wait Avenue
107. 209 Wait Avenue
108. 214 Wait Avenue
109. 216 Wait Avenue
110. 218 Wait Avenue
111. 222 Wait Avenue
112. 228 Wait Avenue
113. 230 Wait Avenue
114. 302 Wait Avenue
115. 307 Wait Avenue
116. 308 Wait Avenue
117. 313 Wait Avenue
118. 319 Wait Avenue
119. 105 Westbourne Lane
120. 110 Westbourne Lane
121. 116 Westbourne Lane
122. 126 Westbourne Lane
123. 201# Wyckoff Avenue
124. 203 Wyckoff Avenue
125.. 205 Wyckoff Avenue
126. 301 Wyckoff Avenue
12.7. 303-05 Wyckoff -Avenue
128. 403 Wyckoff Avenue
129. 419 Wyckoff Avenue
130. 425 Wyckoff Avenue
131. 435 Wyckoff Avenue
Appendix Item 3
Cornell Heights Local Designation
Historic and Architectural Significance
Tompkins County
Cornell Heights Historic District, Ithaca
Period of Significance: 1898-1937
Areas of Significance: Architecture, Landscape Architecture,
Community Planning
Level of Significance: Local
Proposal:
The Cornell Heights.Historic District is architecturally and
historically significant as an exceptional intact example of a
turn -of -the -century planned residential suburban development
placed in an outstanding natural setting along the northern rim
of Fall Creek Gorge overlooking the city of Ithaca and the
southern tip of Cayuga Lake. The district's curvilinear street
plan, lavish landscape features, dramatic geographical setting,
strictly residential character (devel'oped on large private lots)
and its historical pattern of development place it within the
romantic tradition of the "ideal" residence park developed in the
second half of the nineteenth century and.popularized by
Frederick Law Olmsted after the Civil War. This idea gained its
greatest momentum in the period after World War I,. as the upper
middle class sought to retreat from the pressures of the modern
industrialized city. The pattern of development here,
distinguished by an association with a single land company that
employed the services of landscape architect (William Webster of
Rochester) and financed virtually every aspect of physical
improvement in the subdivision, though not unique, was unusual in
an era in which trolley suburbs along the barren fringes of large
cities were being mass produced on rectilinear street plans by
hundreds of speculators, contractors, and private property
owners. Cornell Heights was promoted by its owners as a high-
class residential suburb and it evolved in that fashion. Homes,
both modest and grand, were erected here between the years 1898
and 1937. They were all built to individualized designs and
several represent the. work of Ithaca's foremost turn -of -the -
century architects, including William H. Miller. A further
dimension of significance stems from the intimate relationship
between Cornell Heights' and Cornell University. The impetus
toward development of the subdivision was closely linked to
Cornell University's major expansion around the turn -of -the -
century, a program that had a tremendous effect on the small
village of Ithaca and sparked its growth into its present size
and character. At its inception, Cornell Heights was considered
an "addition" or suburb of Cornell University itself and it
served as home for many of the university's professors and
students. Some of the leading figures n the early -twentieth
century of the university resided in Cornell Heights and faculty
members of national and international renown continue to make
Cornell Heights their home today. Retaining a high level of
integrity, the Cornell Heights, Historic District illustrates an
important aspect of American planning and recalls a significant
period in the history of Ithaca.
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
dt --••-•
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
MEMORANDUM
Callista F. Paolangeli, City Clerk
Leslie Chatterton, Preservation Planner M
Local Designation - Cornell Heights
August 24, 1989
In accordance with city regulations, please file the
enclosed documents (local historic designation of Cornell
Heights) from the, Planning and Development Board.
LC/mc
Enclosures
_ V,z• e
0-LC#2-LocalDes.Clk
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14050
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
Local Designation
Cornell Heights
Reviewed by the Board of Planning and Development
In accordance with Section 32.6c of the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, "the Planning 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 following report has been prepared to address
these considerations.
1. Relation to the master plan
Local designation of Cornell Heights strengthens
neighborhood objectives stated in Ithaca, N. Y.: A General
Plan, 1971 (p. 26) as follows:
"Efforts should be made to control the growth, to
retain the quality of the residential stock and to
maintain the medium—density residential character of
the Cornell Heights neighborhood."
2. Relation to zoning laws
The greatest area of the proposed historic district is
zoned for residential use and includes R -2a, R -3a, and R—U
districts, (see appendix Item 1). The only other
classification is P-1 which totals less than 2% of all the
acreage, all under the ownership of Cornell University.
It is not the intent of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Ordinance to prohibit uses permitted by zoning. In practice
the Commission reviews proposals to insure that any change
in exterior appearance is compatible with the structure and
surrounding improvements.
Zoning regulations specifying minimum lot coverage and yard
dimensions for the R -2a, R -3a and R—U districts are
compatible with the existing character of the Cornell
Heights neighborhood. Regulations in the P-1 zone are also
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Local Designation/Cornell Heights -2-
generally compatible with existing neighborhood character
except for the- absence of a height limit. When considering
an application for alteration or new construction in the P-1
zone, the Commission would evaluate matters such as the
applicable regulation and existing character of neighboring
buildings, any special conditions of the site, and
characteristics of the proposed design to determine an
appropriate height.
3. Relation to projected public improvements
Although there has been general discussion concerning the
advantages and disadvantages of straightening Triphammer
Road south of Sisson P1 -ace, this proposal has not appeared
in the Five Year Capital Projects Plan and has not been
placed on the agenda of any appropriate city board or
committee. No other public improvements have been proposed
for this area.
4. Relation to plans for renewal of the site or area.
The overall high quality and good condition of the building
stock in this residential neighborhood and the prevalence of
middle to upper -middle income property owners precludes
consideration by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency of Cornell
Heights as a target area.
Overall the process serves to:
•
provide property owners with informed recommendations
regarding design, materials, and technical procedures
appropriate to the rehabilitation of historic
properties,
prevent hasty demolition or inappropriate alterations
to the city's designated architectural and historic
resources,
ensure that new development will not depreciate the
value of significant structures and/or areas located
nearby.
As a final note, local designation has led to stabilization
of neighborhoods and improvements to building stock and can
increase property value and sales potential.
August 22, 1989
O-LC-LocalDes.PBd.
.108
H LL
-H AGA
:0..LE GE
LEGEND
R -la
R•2a =:T
R•3a C :3
R•U °°°°
R1b uz
R -2b
R -3b
CSU gCtSU
B -la
B•2a/l�
B -2c
B-4
�,A'iildilddi
B1b W.7.
B-2 b�//l
B•3 W.0.4
B•5
P.1 r_ i
MH -1
landmark -1
i 1
district i
ZONING MAP CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
ADOPTED 5/25/77 CERTIFIED: 4• CITY CLERK
As Amended Thru 4/1/87
.SkiAVbt:4a'iw's
i.f: 1:►:.y �a..1.
ST
•T
V
1=
it
MMMMMM NMI'
ME MMMMMM
CITY
CEMETERY
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
O 0 0
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0
!i0 0_0
u.•,Iven•lTY
I
1:1I
• o• •� _
•
_•_'ILS•
•
• • • •r
•
•
•
FALLS
p,
W
4
4
I O
CORNELL I4/ UNI "EF-SITY
TOw E A —.•
FORE
•
fs:dt;.,
11
II
II
1 1
•lam•.•.. •.r
_ 4
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Common Council Resolution
August 22, 1989
Re: Local Designation of Cornell Heights
WHEREAS, in July 1986, Common Council authorized the Director of
Planning and Development to submit an application to the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation for a Certified Local Government Subgrant to
conduct a historic and architectural resources survey and
prepare a National Register nomination for the Cornell
Heights neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, the findings of the survey and nomination showed that
the significance and integrity of the Cornell Heights survey
area meets criteria for listing on the New York State and
National Register of Historic Places, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Commissioner on Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation has concurred with the City's
finding and on May 12, 1989 recommended listing on the New
York State and National Register of Historic Places, and
WHEREAS, the Cornell Heights neighborhood is extremely
vulnerable to development pressure, and
WHEREAS, local designation serves to protect the existing
character of neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing held on August 14, 1989,
the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission as lead agency
determined by unanimous vote that local designation of
Cornell Heights will result in no major impacts, and
therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to
the environment, and,
WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission unanimously recommended local
designation of all Cornell Heights properties included
within the boundary of the State and National Register
Districts, and
WHEREAS, local designation will not conflict with the master
plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any
plans for renewal of the site and area involved,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Ithaca Board of
Planning and Development, in accordance with provisions and
procedures set forth in Section 36.6C of the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance recommends local
designation of the Cornell Heights Historic District,
effective September 7, 1989.
Vote:
A:ResoCorH.LAC
5 - Yes
1 - No (Gooding)
1 - Abstention (Cookingham)
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
ITHACA LANDMARKS
PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Minutes
Meeting Held May 14, 1992
TELEPHONE: 7Yy1 g b
Present: John Benson; Joe Daley, Council Liaison; Barclay Jones;
Nancy Meltzer; Martha Preston, Chair; Frank Smithson;
Mary Tomlan; Leslie Chatterton, Staff.
The May 14, 1992 meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. M. Preston read the
legal notice of the Public Hearing. It was noted that proposal
I.(D) had been withdrawn from the agenda.
I. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 118 Eddy Street, East Hill Local Historic District -
proposal to replace shingles on south roof slope.
Staff referred Commission members to the application form and
to the New York State Building Structure Inventory form for
118 Eddy Street. Neither the owner, Tim Terpening, nor
representative was present to address the proposal. Existing
shingles are asbestos composition. Asbestos shingles have
been replaced by asphalt shingles on the roof's north slope.
J. Benson noted that shingles on the north slope also appear
in need of replacement. J. Daley stated that because of local
weather patterns it is common for shingles on the northern
slope to deteriorate more quickly. M. Tomlan and B. Jones
agreed that the asbestos composition shingles probably date
from the period of the 1910s or 1920s. Staff referred
Coiurission members to the sample proposed replacement shingle
submitted by the applicant.
Commission members questioned the applicant's choice of white.
B. Jones and M. Tomlan concluded that given the style and date
of the property the original shingles would have been wood.
M. Preston questioned whether or not the applicant would
attend the meeting. In response to questions from Commission
members staff confirmed that the applicant had been informed
of the time and place of the hearing.
B. Jones noted that design of the property is attributed to
W.H. Miller. M. Tomlan stated that the house was constructed
CODE 607
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Minutes
Meeting Held May 14, 1992
2
for W.H. Miller's mother-in-law and that it is next door to
Miller's own house. B. Jones stated that the residence
exhibits a great deal of architectural character. He added
that much effort and cost has gone into restoration of the
adjacent Miller -Heller House. The Commission speculated that
the applicant selected white either for its reflective quality
or to approximate the color of the existing shingles. It was
noted that selection of a color more visually similar to wood
shingles does not involve any cost difference.
MOTION:
J. Benson moved to pass the resolution to
approve the material change to Mark 80
fiberglass shingles with the condition that
the color is within the range of brown tones
shown on the submitted sample. The motion was
seconded by B. Jones.
DISCUSSION: The Commission determined that the brown would
be most visually similar to what would have
been the original roofing material. The
Commission felt it was important to stipulate
color of the shingles given the significance
and character of the residence.
VOTE: The motion carried by unanimous vote.
B. McGraw Hall, Arts Quad Local Historic District - proposal
to install louvre in upper portion of arched window on
west facade of tower at McGraw Hall.
Gary Wilhelm of Cornell's Architectural Services was present
to address the proposal. He distributed photographs of the
west elevation of McGraw Hall and indicated the locations of
the proposed louvre on the southside of the tower and an
existing louvre on the west facade north of the tower. The
application is the result of a change in use of interior
space. The purpose of the louvre is to increase air intake.
Exhaust will be vented through the existing louvre. The
window is currently blocked -in from the inside with dry wall.
A suspended ceiling on the interior also blocks the window.
G. Wilhelm noted that the alteration is reversible. B. Jones
asked the architect to consider designing the louvre with an
exterior "muntin" which would be visually similar to the
muntin on the window's lower part. It was also noted that the
window is not on a very visible part of the building. In
response to a question from M. Tomlan it was noted that the
louvre will be recessed at the same plane as the glass below.
The louvre will be painted the same color as existing sash and
trim.
CITY OF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK' 14850
ITHACA LANDMARKS
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 15, 1992
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
CODE 607
Mr. Tim Terpening
207 West King Road
RE: 118 Eddy Street, East Hill Local Historic District
Dear Mr. Terpening:
At the regular meeting held May 14, 1992, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission passed the attached resolution concerning
the Certificate of Appropriateness application for the above noted
property. The type of replacement shingle shown on the submitted
sample was approved. It was the Commission's determination,
however, that the white color selected bears no visual relationship
to what would have been the original wood shingles and the white
color is not "consistant with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district" as stated in
Section 32.6,(1) of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.
The Commission has therefore approved your application on the
condition that you select one of the brown tones on the submitted
sample.
If you would like 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 East Hill Local Historic District.
Sincerely,
Martha Preston, Chair
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
xc: Rick Eckstrom, Building Commissioner
ILPC Meeting - May 14, 1992
Resolution - RA
RE: 118 Eddy Street, East Hill Local Historic District - proposal
to replace roof sheathing on south roof slope
WHEREAS, 118 Eddy Street is located in the East Hill Local
Historic District, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 32.E of the Municipal Code,
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, 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 May 14, 1992
meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
to consider the proposal to replace asbestos composition
shingles with asphalt shingles on the south roof slope,
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, specific elements of the proposal as shown which may have
a substantial adverse effect on the significance and
value of 118 Eddy Street or the East Hill Historic
District include composition, design, color of proposed
replacement material and the method of application,
particularly with regard to the roof ridge, roof edge and
treatment of any projecting elements including but not
limited to vents, chimneys or dormers
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission determines that the proposal as
shown meets criteria for approval under Section 32.6E of
the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission approves the request
for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the roof
shingles with the following conditions:
applicant shall select from the range of brown
color shingles shown on the submitted sample
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR
TO: Mayor Ben Nichols
Common Council Members
CODE: 607
TELEPHONE: 274-6550
FAX NO.: 272-7348
FROM: Leslie Chatterton, Staff, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission v""
RE: Appeal by Timothy & Jennifer Terpening re: 118 Eddy
Street
DATE: August 26, 1992
Introduction
At the May 14, 1992 meeting the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission met to consider the application from Timothy Terpening,
207 West King Road to replace asbestos composition shingles on the
residence at 118 Eddy Street, East Hill Local Historic District.
Replacement material proposed was "white", tab style, fiberglass
shingles.
The appellant was not denied a building permit for 118 Eddy Street
as claimed in the appeal, however, because this property is locally
designated and because the subject of the application was a
material change as defined in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal
Code, the permit application was referred to the Landmarks
Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Certificate
of Appropriateness was granted at the May 14, 1992 meeting with the
condition stipulating color of the replacement material. As shown
in the Minutes of the May 14, 1992 meeting the Commission limited
color choice to a range of brown tones that would resemble original
wood shingle material and be more compatible with the architectural
design.
Significance of 118 Eddy Street
The design of the property is attributed to William Henry Miller,
one of Ithaca's most prolific and best-known architects. During
the 50 years of his practice, beginning in 1872., he is known to
have designed over 70 buildings within the City alone, with an
additional four residences attributed to him. The greatest
concentration of his work is in the East Hill Historic District.
This finding was cited as a basis for National Register listing in
1986 and expansion of the City designation in 1988. The
attribution of the design of 118 Eddy street is based on historical
i, Printed on Recycled Paper
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
4P -
information
information and stylistic comparison. Immediately north of 118
Eddy Street is the Miller -Heller House, Miller's own residence.
The first owner of 118 Eddy Street was Miller's mother -in -law. It
is characteristic of Miller's approach to borrow and combine
elements of a variety of late 19th c. and early 20th c. styles as
evident in the synthesis of Queen Anne, Shingle style, and Colonial
Revival elements seen in the design of 118 Eddy Street. While on
first glance the building may appear simple, on closer look the
asymmetrical massing and attention to detail reveal a more
architecturally sophisticated design.
Was the Commission's decision within the scope of the Ordinance?
Section 228-4(E) states that it is the duty of the Landmarks
Preservation Commission to review all plans for any and all
material changes to designated properties. Among the definitions
of material change "is any change or reconstruction or alteration
of the size or external appearance of a structure or memorial."
Replacement of asbestos composition shingles with tab style
fiberglass shingles, as proposed by the applicant, falls within
this definition. While in practice the Commission does not
consider paint color a material change in light of its
reversibility, it is not within the Commission's discretion to
consider color of a roof material that will affect the visual
appearance from 20 to 40 years in the same vein as paint color.
The Commission feels it was acting within the intent and spirit of
Chapter 228 in stipulating the color of roofing material.
Was the decision arbitrary and capricious?
Using the general criteria outlined in Section 228-4(E)(1) & (2)
the Commission evaluates each application on a case by case basis.
Findings are not based on previous decisions but on presentation
of the facts of a specific case, on an evaluation of historic and
architecturally significant elements and on knowledge of historic
practices. While the appellant has stated that the basis for the
decision "lies in the Commissioner's assumption that old fashioned
cedar shingles would be brown in appearance", the Minutes of the
May 14, 1992 meeting demonstrate the rational process of the design
review and that the Commission did not act "capriciously in the
extreme" as stated by the appellant.
Did the ILPC act in a timely manner?
While Section 228-5 (D) states that the Commission shall meet within
fourteen days after notification by the Building Department,
Section 301(2)(a) of the Commission Rules of Procedure stipulates
regular monthly meetings. In practice the Commission frequently
holds special meetings in between regular monthly meetings at the
request of an applicant. Most importantly, the Commission acted
within forty five days of the date of the application as stipulated
in Section 228-5(G) of the Code.
The appellant's application for a Certificate of Appropriateness is
dated April 9, 1992, the same day as the Commission's regular
monthly meeting. Because of public notice requirements, the
application was scheduled for the May 14, 1992 meeting. Following
Terpening Appeal
Commission Response
08/26/92
3
usual processing procedures, staff informed the appellant of the
date and time of the hearing. There was no objection from the
appellant.
Is composition of the Commission in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure?
The Commission consists of seven members and, as stipulated in the
Code, is composed as follows:
Expertise in Architecture, City Planning, Conservation
John Benson, Barclay Jones, Ken Jupiter, Mary Tomlan
Representing Cultural Interests
Ken Jupiter, Barclay Jones, Nancy Meltzer
Representing Business Interests
Martha Preston, Ken Jupiter, Frank Smithson
The Ordinance does not state that each member must be limited to
one category. Individuals such as Ken Jupiter or Barclay Jones,
may represent a variety of community interests. In addition to
representation stipulated in the Ordinance, the Commission finds it
useful to have a member with legal expertise, currently Frank
Smithson; a member familiar with the local real estate market,
Martha Preston; a representative from the local historic districts,
Nancy Meltzer; and a City native Martha Preston.
While information was presented to the applicant showing that all
areas of representation were filled, representation of all
Commission members was not provided. The paragraph above should
clarify this issue.
Response to other issues raised by the appellant.
In response to the appellant's statement that the roof should be
considered in its entirety it should be noted that the application
was for the south side only. Difference in the treatment of north
and south roof slopes was a pre-existing condition. Earlier
application of asphalt roof shingles on the north slope occurred
prior to designation. Commission consideration of the condition
and treatment of the whole roof is reflected in the Minutes.
In response to the appellant's statement concerning the absence of
roof color in documentation of buildings in the East Hill Historic
District it should be noted that all documentation, including black
and white photographs, meets standards of the New York State Office
of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation and the National Park
Service, Department of the Interior. Photographs are neither the
basis for designation or design review but, as stated by the
appellant, a method of cataloging resources in the district.
Documentation forms such as the New York State Building -Structure
Terpening Appeal
Commission Response
08/26/92
4
Inventory Form are not considered to be inclusive listings of every
architecturally significant element but are intended as a tool for
the Commission. The Commission also derives information from
staff, expert witnesses, site visits and from the applicants.
The appellant is correct in asserting that within the 28 months of
Minutes reviewed there is no case in which the Commission
stipulates the color of roofing material. In fact, most
applications for re -sheathing constitute replacement in-kind. In
cases where replacement is not in-kind, applicants have either
proposed colors within Commission criteria for approval, or have
changed color at recommendation of staff prior to the meeting. In
this case, the appellant refused to discuss color choice prior to
the meeting.
The appellant's citing of Commission decisions for 214 North Cayuga
Street and 121 North Quarry Street are irrelevant as those
decisions were based on an entirely different set of facts.
Lighter color roof sheathing used on a great many residences on the
East Hill was applied prior to the designation of the District.
There is nothing in the Municipal Code or the Cornmission Rules of
Procedure indicating that Commission minutes must be transcribed.
All minutes requested by the appellant were assembled and made
available either in written form or on tape. In addition City
staff offered to transcribe a limited number of reviews at the
appellant's request and to make copies of existing tapes for a fee
to cover expenses. The appellant is correct in stating that there
has been no annual report filed by the Commission. This report
would be included with the annual report of the Department of
Planning and Development, but in practice no Department report is
filed.
The Commission questions why, in the interest of participating in
the democratic process the appellant chose not to attend the
meeting at which his application was heard. In processing the
application staff made the recommendation, as is normally made,
that the applicant attend. The Commission feels that had the
applicant attended there would have been opportunity to express
objections, present information for discussion and to gain a better
understanding of the Commission's process. Because this was not
the case, considerable staff time, 30+/- hours, has been spent
assembling information for the appellent's appeal.
CITY OF ITHACA
1 08 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF
CODE: 607
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE: 274-6550
H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR FAX NO.: 272-7348
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Minutes
Meeting Held November 17, 1992
Present:• John'Benson; Barclay Jones; Ken 'Jupiter, Martha Preston,
Chair; Frank Smithson; Leslie Chatterton, Staff
The regular meeting scheduled for November 12, 1992 was canceled.
The special meeting held November 17, 1992 was scheduled under the
direction of the Common Council. The application was first
presented at the July 9; 1992 Commission meeting at which -time the
application was denied;' (see Minutes 07/09/92). The Commission
passed a resolution stating that the work would have a substantial
adverse effect on the: -aesthetic, historical or architectural
significance and value of the district and that the proposed change
is not consistent with the historic value and spirit '.of the
architectural style. The Commission heard additional information
from the applicants at the August 13, 1992 .meeting but found no
reason to reopen review of. the application, -(see Minutes 08/13/92).
The applicant's appealed the Commission's decision at the October
6, 1992 meeting of Couunon Council stating that the Commission
failed to consider whether denial of the application would prevent
the.owner.from earning a reasonable return on the property as put
forth in Section 228-4(E)(1)(b) of the Municipal Code. The
Commission was directed by the Coiuuuon Council to give further
consideration to the application in conjunction with the second
criteria.
I. OLD BUSINESS
110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District
proposal to apply vinyl substitute siding
M. Preston referred Commission members to materials
distributed prior to the meeting. Applicant and property
owner Arthur Kuckes, 114 East Court Street, was present to
address the proposal. The history of the application was
reviewed. Staff reported that after speaking with a historic
preservation lawyer and a real estate lawyer it became clear
that there is no single way to evaluate reasonable rate of
Printed on Recycled Paper
return. It was decided that the Commission would undertake
the evaluation based on figures presented by the applicant.
M. Preston clarified that resolution RA (attached) is the same
as the resolution passed by the Commission at the July
meeting. In discussing resolution RA it was determined that
there is no new information concerning compatibility of the
alteration. F. Smithson disclosed that he has not attended
previous meetings at which the application was reviewed but
felt well enough informed to act at the present meeting.
MOTION: J. Benson moved to pass the resolution to
deny the Certificate of Appropriateness
based on criteria of 228-4(E) (1) (a) . The
motion was seconded by F. Smithson.
DISCUSSION: It was agreed by the Commission to
eliminate from the resolution the finding
that substitute siding may exacerbate
existing moisture problems.
VOTE: The motion carried by unanimous vote.
Commission members referred to figures submitted by the
applicant. Figures show the cash on cash return anticipated,.
comparing expense of applying substitute siding with expense
of routine painting. Rate of return after siding is shown as
5.4% and the rate of return after painting is 4.8%. The
•applicant stated that the figures presented reflect a 25 year
lifetime for the substitute siding, and should reflect the
product guarantee of 50 years. He also questioned why the
highest estimate for vinyl siding was chosen as the basis for
the. evaluation. He added that earning any return on the
property presents a problem. He stated that currently the
City is experiencing an oversupply of rental housing, causing
the rental market to be highly competitive.
B. Jones stated that the figures looked reasonable and
relatively conservative. He added that neither set of figures
take inflation into account. The applicant stated that
inflation will not affect the one time cost of applying
substitute siding but will increase the cost of successive
paint jobs. Smithson focussed on the question of whether
either 4.8% or 5.4% represents a reasonable return. The
applicant stated that the ability to make a reasonable return
on this particular property will depend on more than a permit
for vinyl siding, but that because of inflation he can
anticipate coming closer to earning a reasonable return as
time passes. M. Preston suggested that although the current
paint job has to be scraped to bare wood, the scope of the
next paint job will probably not be as labor intensive.
r
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 3
Minutes
Special Meeting Held November 17, 1992
Referring to figures submitted by the applicant, J. Daley
suggested that, using the usual method of figuring return on
investment property, if there was a mortgage the applicant
would be losing approximately $500 a month with the vinyl
option and approximately $550 a month with the paint option.
He added that, in general, a property owner would measure the
amount of the added investment against whether it would add to
the value of the asset and the ability to increase rents.
J. Benson asked whether expenses shown were anticipated by the
applicant at the time of purchase, adding that the applicant
knew the property was in the historic district prior to
purchase. The applicant stated that the increased percentage
of the return with vinyl siding, as shown on the submitted
financial statement, represents significant progress toward in
attaining reasonable return. He added that there is no chance
of earning .a reasonable return if required to paint. In
addition he stated that many owners of rental property have
switched to substitute sidings and as a result have a
competitive edge in a market where there is a surfeit of
rental housing. B. Jones referred to other income producing
properties in the district that have undergone meticulous
restoration including Westminster Hall on North Tioga Street.
The applicant responded that each property should be evaluated
on its own merits and. that the character of properties
referred to by B. Jones is different that the character of 110
Sears Street. He questioned its qualifications for
designation.
The applicantstated his feeling that the community places a
financial burden onowners of rental -property located in
historic districts. He added that it is not only the district
that shares benefits and burdens, but the entire City and
therefore the City should assist with added costs of complying
with the Landmarks Ordinance.
J. Daley stated his feeling that rate of return is low because
of the relationship between the value of the property in terms
of potential income, which is limited, and the high purchase
price. He added that, in comparison, the issue of vinyl
siding vs paint appears minor and suggested that the
Commission was being asked to improve what was originally a
bad investment over which they had no control. He noted that
the loss of an additional $50 per month seemed insignificant
given the overall loss of $500 per month. The applicant
responded that his own residence at 114 East Court Street' is
contiguous to 110 Sears Street and indicated his investment
was in part prompted by his concern for maintaining the
character of neighborhood.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 4
Minutes
Special Meeting Held November 17, 1992
In response to continued discussion regarding whether
inflation of maintenance costs is off -set by ability to charge
higher rents, Staff recou«rended that either the discussion
remain based on figures presented or the Commission postpone
further action until preparation of a different analysis. In
response to a question from K. Jupiter, J. Daley stated that,
as an owner of investment property, he would expect to "break
even" ,in the first year, unless there were extenuating
circumstances. J. Benson suggested that whether 110 Sears
Street "breaks even" could depend on the method of financing.
J. Daley stated that it is clear from the outset that this
particular property will not yield the greatest financial
return on initial investment and includes a high degree a
risk. He concluded that the applicant must have had other
reasons for making such an investment.
In response to additional questions from the Commission, J.
Daley stated that he would not expect to make any return on a
monthly basis for the first five years, given maintenance,
escalatingtaxes, insurance, etc. The real investment return
is either long term, allowing substantial time for expenses to
stabilize, say 10 years, or through financing the investment.
He observed that the financial statement submitted by the
applicant did not serve the Commission well. He addedthat he
would consider the additional $50 per month significant if it
made the difference between breaking even or not.
B. Jones referred to financial burdens resulting from meeting
other ordinance requirements such as the New York State
Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant responded that those Ordinances are
applied uniformly throughout the City. J. Benson responded
that different zones have different impacts on property value.
Commission members focussed on the question of whether the
applicant has successfully demonstrated that denial of the
Certificate of Appropriateness to apply vinyl siding prevents
the owner from earning a reasonable return. F. Smithson
stated his feeling that although the applicant has
demonstrated he is not making a reasonable rate of return, he
has not demonstrated that denial of the permit prevents him
from earning a reasonable return. B. Jones stated his feeling
that there is not much difference shown between costs related
to application of vinyl siding and those related to paint. F.
Smithson noted that he has not been convinced that the
difference in the cost of paint and vinyl will affect the
applicant's ability to break even.
Commission members reviewed and discussed proposed resolution
RB, (attached). The applicant added that the fact that the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 5
Minutes
Special Meeting Held November 17, 1992
assessed value is close to the purchase price shows that the
property is not overvalued. M. Preston and J. Daley disputed
the notion of any relationship between the assessed value and
the market value.
After discussion concerning the accountant's method of
figuring rate of return, Commission members reached the
conclusion that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness
to apply vinyl siding does not have a significant impact on
the property owner's ability to earn a reasonable return. The
independent variable is one over which the Commission had no
control and the investor bears the responsibility of the rate
of return.
MOTION: B. Jones move to pass the resolution to deny
the Certificate of Appropriateness under 228-
4(E) (1) (b) . The motion was seconded by K.
Jupiter.
DISCUSSION: It was agreed that the financial statement
submitted by the applicant would be made a
part of the resolution. Commission members
discussed findings of fact.
VOTE: The motion carried by unanimous vote
II. NEW BUSINESS
111 Osmund Place, East Hill Local Historic District
The property owner has applied for a permit to replace metal
roof sheathing with a substitute material. While the proposal
involves a material change, the roof is flat and is not
visible except by aerial view. The present roof is leaking and
the applicant wants to proceed with the project immediately.
Staff inquired about whether to schedule the item for review
at the December meeting or whether the Commission would refer
the item for staff review. Because the alteration is not
visible the Commission referred the item for staff review.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
# C%/( --
Leslie Chatterton
Preservation/Neighborhood Planner
ILPC Meeting - 11/17/92
Resolution - RA
RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park
proposal to apply vinyl siding
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
Local Historic District -
110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park Local
Historic District, and
in accordance with Chapter 228-4(E) of the Municipal
Code, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, all
proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed
arid granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit, and
a public hearing was scheduled for the July 9, 1992
meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
to consider the proposal to apply vinyl siding, 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 visual,,relationship of existing clapboards and
trim are an integral part of the historical and
architectural character of the structure.
▪ Existing clapboards and trim are components of the
original• historic.fabric and ._although in need of
painting are in relatively good condition.
The building is located within ten feet of the
pedestrian right of way and the proposed alteration
is highly visible.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Commission finds that the
proposal as shown does not meet criteria for approval
under Section 228-4(E)(1)(a) of the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission denies the
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness under
Section 228-4(E)(1)(a).
Record of Vote:
Aye
John Benson
Barclay Jones
Ken Jupiter
Frank Smithson
Nay
ILPC Meeting - 11/17/92
Resolution - RB
RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District
proposal to apply vinyl siding
WHEREAS, 110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park
Local Historic, District, and
WHEREAS, 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 meeting was scheduled for November 17, 1992 to
reconsider the July 9, 1992 decision of the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding the
proposal to apply vinyl siding, and
WHEREAS the Commission has made the following findings of
fact and determinations concerning the property and
the proposal,
• The applicants were aware prior to purchase
earlier this year that the property is located
in the DeWitt Park Local Historic District and
that such designation would entail review of
all exterior alterations.
• The applicant has submitted a financial
statement showing acquisition costs, projected
revenue, expenses and net operating income
which is made part of this record:
• The applicant has suggested that the rate of
return be determined by considering the net
operating income as measured against the total
cost of the investment including major repairs
planned to be made over the first three years.
▪ The financial statement shows that by
measuring the net operating income against the
total cost of the investment the applicant
will earn a 5.4% return if permitted to apply
vinyl siding, and will earn a 4.8% return if
required to use paint.
• The projected rate of return does not show
that denial of a Certificate of
Appropriateness will prevent the applicant
from earning a reasonable return.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission determines that the
proposal as shown does not meet criteria for
approval under Section 228-4 E(1)(b) of the
Municipal Code, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission denies the
Certificate of Appropriateness under Section 228-4
E(1) (b)
Record of Vote:
•
:..Aye
John Benson
Barclay Jones
Ken Jupiter
Frank Smithson
Nay
frederick J. Craschi, C.P.A.
John H. Dielershagen. C.N.A.
John E. little. C.PA.
Jerry E. Mickelson, C.P.A.
Thomas K. Van Derzee, C.PA.
Debbie A. Conley. C.P.A.
Roginale E. Malley, C.P.A.
Arthur & Martha Kuckes
114 East Court Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
re: 110 Sears Street
Projection of Cash Flow & Income with 25 year Siding
Cash Flow
Monthly
Revenue
$ 1,170/rnth * 95% 1112
Expenses
R.E. Taxes
Insurance
Utilities
Management Fees
Maintenance & Repair
Exterior Maintenance *
;:r,:.t re.uvvc
Net Cash Flow
Investment Cost
Rate of Return
$ 9,500 over 25 years.
187
24
131
125
167
32
446
P. 1
27 2. 73
Claschi • Dietcrshagen • Little • Mickelson
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants
Annually
Projection of Cash Flow & Income with 7 yea' Pairltin(
Monthly Annually
Cash Flow
Revenue
13344 $ 1,170/rnth * 95%
2247
288
1569
1500
2000
380
5360
98885
5.4°/Q
Expenses
R.E. Taxes
Insurance
Utilities
Management Fees
r.
1112
187'
24
131
125
Maintenance & Repair 167
Exterior Paint Allowance * 83
Net Cash Flow
Investment Cost
Rate of Return
* $ 7,000 over 7 years.
The reduction in the rate of return from 5,4% to 4.8% represents an 1 1%
decline in your rate of return.
CORTLAND
18 Toml)kirts Street
Cortland. New York 1:4nd'
Sincerely,
Thomas Van Derzee, CPA
ITHACA
Terracci Hill
395
WATKINS GLEN
1334
224
28.
156!
1501
200(
100(
474C
9888€
4.8°A
291 M t=ranvlin Cr.aol
ILPC Meeting - 07/09/92
Resolution - RA
RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic
proposal to apply vinyl siding
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
NOW
BE
District -
110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park Local
Historic District, and
in accordance with Chapter 32.E of the Municipal Code,
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, 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
a public hearing was scheduled for the July 9, 1992
meeting of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
to consider the proposal to apply vinyl siding, 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 visual relationship of existing clapboards and
trim are anintegral part of the historical and
architectural character of the structure.
▪ Existing clapboards and trim are components of the
original historic fabric and although in need of
painting are in relatively good condition.
• The structure exhibits characteristics of a
moisture problem which may be exacerbated by the
application of synthetic siding.
▪ The building is located within five feet of the
pedestrian right of way and the proposed alteration
is highly visible.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Commission finds that the
proposal as shown does not meet criteria for approval
under Section 32.6(E)(1) of the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, and
IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission denies the
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR
CODE: 607
TELEPHONE: 274-6550
FAX NO.: 272-7348
TO: Mayor. Ben Nichols
Members of Common Council
FROM: Martha Preston'
DATE: February 22, 1993
RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Historic District - Appeal
At the meeting held October 7, 1992, the Council directed the ILPC
to schedule a re -hearing of the application by Martha and Arthur
Kuckes to apply vinyl siding to their rental property at 110 Sears
Street. The Commission had previously denied the application under
Section 228-4(E)(1)(a) as shown on the attached resolution dated
August 9, 1992. The Commission scheduled the second hearing'for
November 17, 1992. After hearing from the applicant and discussing
the financial statement the Commission voted to deny the
application on the basis that the applicants failed to demonstrate
that denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness prevents them from
earning a reasonable rate of return as stipulated under Section
228-4(E)(1)(b). The resolution and minutes of the meeting are
attached. The applicants then requested that the Commission
reconsider the decision at the January meeting on the basis of new
information provided in the revised financial statement. The
Commission again denied the application as shown on the attached
resolution and minutes dated January 14., 1993.
In summary the Commission discussion has focussed on the following
issues:
The application of vinyl siding has a substantial adverse effect
on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance and
value of historic buildings. The sample applied to 110 Sears
Street has not altered the Commissions opinion on this matter.
The original wood clapboard siding is in good condition and simply
needs routine maintenance.
The applicants knew that the property was located in the DeWitt
Park Historic District at the time of purchase, 'and knew there
would be restrictions on exterior alterations.
over
%a Printed on Recycled Paper
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program'
The applicants acknowledge that the property was purchased with the
intention of repainting the wood siding.
The applicants acknowledge that they will not earn a reasonable
return even if permitted to apply vinyl siding.
Under the Ordinance the application can only be approved if the
applicants demonstrate that denial prevents them from earning a
reasonable return. There is no provision which allows the
Commission to approve the application because the •applicants can
earn a slightly higher rate of return.
xc: Chuck Guttman, City Attorney
H.M. Van Cort, Director Planning & Development
ILPC Meeting - January 14, 1993
Resolution - RA
RE: 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,.
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
110 Sears Street is located in the DeWitt Park Local
Historic District, 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
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
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
at meetings held July 9, 1992 and November 17, 1992 the
Commission 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, at the meeting held on November 17, 1992 the Commission
denied the application findingthat the applicant had
failed to show denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness
will prevent the applicant from earning a reasonable rate
of return, and
WHEREAS, 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 reasonablereturn 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 Streetrather than painting.
Projection of Cash Flow & Income
with 50 year siding installed at $ 8,960
as part of the acquisition cost.
Cash Flow
Revenue
$ 1,170/mth * 95% .
Expenses
R.E. Taxes
thsurance
Utilities -
Management Fees
Maintenance & Repair
Net Cash Flow.
Investment Cost
Rate of Return
Annually
13344.
2247
288 -.
1569
1500
2000
5740
100845
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
cf
$ 1,316.
December 18, 1992
CORTLAND
ITHACA
Sincerely,
G oU�
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
sn7_SZc_4443
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 4
Minutes
Meeting Held January 14, 1993
reasonable return. M. Tomlan expressed agreement with J.
Benson's comment and suggested that reordering of issues
in the report could also cause a shift in tone or
emphasis. These issues were identified as rescinding
local. designation and issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the Common Council.
In response to a comment from J. Benson,J. Daley stated
that the City has total control over the Strand in
virtually every way and has been acting as owner for at
least five years. He noted that the highest bidder has
included the contingency that a Certificate of
Appropriateness for demolition be granted prior to sale
of the building. Staff explained that at the present
time it appears that the contingency is for the City to
either rescind designation or demolish the building.
B. Jones. referred Commission members to the Council
resolution of December 4, 1993, in which Council resolved
to act as owner for purposes of the City's Landmarks
Ordinance, and lists issues to be considered in the
Commission's. report. M. Tomlan noted that issues
proposed by Council provide the opportunity for broader
discussion in the report and addressing those issues
would more fully express opinions of the Commission.
J. Daley stated that the Council is looking for a
recommendation about City-wide impacts of demolition of
the Strand. He referred to the Common Council resolution
of 12/04/93. J. Benson questioned whether the Commission
is considering the report at the proper time given that
the City has no authority to request an advisory report
unless it clearly owns the building.
Commission members directed staff to revise the report so
that it more closely responds to issues listed in the
12/04/92 Council resolution. The Commission agreed to
meet again on January 19, 1993 at 12:00 p.m., City Hall,
to review the revised draft.
A. 110 Sears Street, DeWitt Park Local Historic District -
proposal to apply substitute siding.
Commission members reviewed the revised financial
statement showing the cash on cash return of the paint
and vinyl alternatives. (See Minutes November 17, 1993).
Neither the property owner or representative was present
to address the proposal. Principal revisions include
calculating the cost of the siding as a permanent capital
improvement to be depreciated with the house and
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Minutes
Meeting Held January 14, 1993
5
adjusting the cost of painting the house every seven
years for a 4% annual inflation rate. Commission members
referred to the earlier discussion where it was agreed
that the owners should have a figured the rate of return
prior to purchase, given their knowledge that the
property is located in the historic district. The
Commission agreed that it appeared that the principal
reason for the inability to earn a higher return is the
result of an overal high investment cost and not denial
of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Commission
members maintained the determination the applicant has
failed to show that it is the denial of the Certificate
of Appropriateness to apply vinyl siding that prevents
the property owner from earning a reasonable rate of
return.
MOTION: B. Jones moved to pass the resolution to
deny the Certificate of Appropriateness
to apply substitute siding. The motion
was seconded by M. Cannon.
VOTE: The motion carried by unanimous vote
II.. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR
A. Meeting Time - Discussion.
After discussion Commission members agreed by consensus
to set a new meeting time for the first
Tuesday of the month.
B. Public Conuuent on Matters of Interest
None
C. Communications
1. 12/22/92 - Correspondence from Martha & Arthur
Kuckes re: 110 Sears Street
2. 12/20/92 - Correspondence from Gus Lambrou re: 106
Highland Place
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 17, 1992, December 11,
1992
IV.
Minutes were approved as corrected by unanimous vote of
the Commission
OLD BUSINESS
A. 106 Highland Place, East Hill Local Historic
District - Discussion 're: re-evaluation of the
application to apply vinyl siding
OFFICE OF
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET.
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cookie Paolangeli, Clerk
FROM: Chuck Guttman, City Attorney
DATE: March 8, 1993
RE: 110 Sears Street - Kuckes
TELEPHONE: (607) 274-6504
FAX: (607) 272-7348
At the March Council meeting Councilheard an appeal by Mr. &
Mrs. Kuckes regarding a decision by the ILPC. At that time I read
to Council proposed findings of fact, determination and a
resolution which Council adopted. I am enclosing herewith that
information in written form for you.
CG/cv
Enclosure
cc: Leslie Chatterton, Planning
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" to, Recycled Paper
WHEREAS, Martha Kuckes and Arthur Kuckes, hereinafter referred
to as "Kuckes" have appealed to the Common Council in the City of
Ithaca from a decision of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission dated January 14, 1993 denying a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace existing clapboards with vinyl siding on
the residence at 110 Sears Street, Ithaca, NY in the DeWitt Park
historic district; and
WHEREAS, both Kuckes and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission, hereinafter referred to as "ILPC" have had an
opportunity to present their positions to the Common Council
NOW THEREFORE, after due deliberation, the Common Council of
the City of Ithaca makes the following findings of fact and
determinations:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Kuckes applied for a building permit for their property
at 110 Sears Street, Ithaca, NY to apply vinyl siding to the
property.
2. The property at 110 Sears Street is within the DeWitt
Park Local Historic District.
3. The permit application was properly referred to the ILPC
to consider the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness since
the proposed plans involved a material change of appearance of a
structure within the Historic District as provided in Section 228-
4(E) of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.
KuckesILPC.rem
11/03/92
4. The Commission met on July 9, 1992, at which time it
considered the application.
5. The Commission determined that the property is
architecturally and historically significant as a representative
example of the modest "worker" residences constructed in that area
in the late Nineteenth Century.
6. The Commission further determined that the structure
retains a modest level of integrity.
7. The Commission further determined that the visual
relationship of existing clapboards and trim are an integral part
of the historic and architectural character of the structure and
that the existing clapboards and trim are components of the
original historical fabric and, although in need of painting, are
in relatively good condition.
8. The Commission further determined that the structure
exhibits characteristics of a moisture problem which might be
exacerbated by the application of synthetic siding.
9. The Commission further noted that the building is located
within ten feet of the pedestrian right-of-way and that the
proposed alteration would be highly visible.
10. The Commission voted and determined that the proposal by
Kuckes did not meet the criteria for approval under the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and denied the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
11. The Commission, pursuant to Section 228-5, stated its
reasons for denying the Certificate of Appropriateness and
KuckesILPC.rem
11/03/92 2
transmitted a record of such action and the reasons therefor to the
Building Commissioner and to the applicant.
12. Kuckes appealed the decision of the ILPC to Common
Council.
13. Common Council on October 7, 1992 determined that the
Commission did not properly consider and make findings of fact
regarding applicants ability to earn a reasonable return on the
property and other relevant financial considerations.
14. Common Council remanded the matter to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission to reconsider the request by
Kuckes.
15. ILPC reheard the matter on November 17, 1992, at which
time financial factors were considered.
16. ILPC on November 17, 1992, voted and determined that the
proposal by Kuckes did not meet the criteria for approval under the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and denied the request for
Certificate of Appropriateness.
17. Kuckes requested ILPC to reconsider its decision at its
January 1993 meeting, on the basis of new information provided in
a revised financial statement.
18. ILPC on January 14, 1993 reviewed the revised financial
statement and reconsidered its decision.
19. On January 14, 1993, the ILPC again determined that the
Kuckes proposal did not meet the criteria of the ordinance for the
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness and denied Kuckes'
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
KuckesILPC.rem
11/03/92 3
20. The Commission, pursuant to Section 228-5, stated its
reasons for denying the Certificate of Appropriateness and
transmitted a record of such action and the reasons therefore to
the Building Commissioner and to the applicant.
DETERMINATIONS
1. That the Commission duly considered the application by
Kuckes.
2. That the decision of the Commission was not outside the
scope of their authority and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca does hereby affirm and uphold the decision of the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and does hereby deny the
appeal of Martha Kuckes and Arthur Kuckes.
KuckesILPC.rem
11/03/92 4