Ithaca landmarks commission tables proposal for 230 Wade Ave. addition, asks for detailed window and shingle plans

The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission on Sept. 16, 2025, voted to table an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a rear addition at 230 Wade Avenue in the Cornell Heights Historic District, saying the commission supports the concept but needs more detailed plans — especially for window sizes, trim and shingle coursing — before staff or the building department may issue permits.

The decision matters because 230 Wade Avenue is a contributing Tudor Revival house in the Cornell Heights Historic District (period of significance 1898–1937), and commissioners said they want to be sure the addition is compatible with the house’s historic materials and visual character.

Project architect Jose Luis Guizado, the applicant’s representative, described the proposal as a rear addition that will follow the footprint of an existing back porch and be finished to match the existing house. "We are going to be matching everything," Guizado said, adding that the team plans to salvage and reuse many of the existing windows and doors where feasible and that the builder will follow field conditions during construction.

Commission discussion focused on multiple technical details. Members asked for product specifications for the proposed windows and doors, verified elevations that show the bottom-of-siding alignment on all elevations, and a shingle-coursing plan that demonstrates how the cedar shingles on the addition will align with the existing siding. Commissioners also raised concerns that modern code requirements for daylight, egress and ventilation may force larger window openings in the addition than exist on the original house, which would affect how many shingle courses fall above and below window sills and head casings.

The application materials submitted included floor plans, elevations and sample window details; the commission read a draft resolution finding the property a contributing resource and stating the addition is compatible in concept with the district. That draft resolution required submission of product specifications and detailed design drawings for soffits and trim prior to issuance of a building permit. The commission amended the language to delegate review to staff for those materials and added conditions requiring retention of removed historic fabric (including windows) for potential reuse, alignment of the addition’s base with the existing house, and verification of shingle coursing to coordinate with window heights and trim.

Commission members agreed the addition is largely invisible from the public way and that the concept could be compatible with the house, but two members said the current drawings lack sufficient dimensional and coursing detail. One commissioner asked whether the addition, which will include a full basement and incorporate the former porch footprint, could be removed in the future without impairing the main house; commissioners concluded removal would be difficult but not impossible and recommended wording that reflected that difficulty rather than asserting absolute removability.

Site logistics and preservation issues were also discussed: the addition will include a full basement requiring heavier excavation equipment, and the applicant said he had checked site access and will take steps to protect trees and control erosion during construction. Commissioners asked that any exterior changes required by other agencies be returned to the commission for review if they alter the addition’s appearance.

No members of the public submitted written comments or signed up to speak at the meeting. The commission ultimately moved to table the application and requested that the applicant return with the requested clarifications and one additional drawing; staff and the applicant agreed to confer and the project is expected to return to the commission next month for final action. The commission did not record a roll-call tally for the tabling motion in the public discussion captured in the transcript.

Next steps: the resolution language in the record requires the applicant to submit product specifications for windows and doors, detailed soffit/trim drawings, and shingle-coursing documentation for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant indicated the builder will coordinate window ordering and final coursing in the construction drawings and that the team will provide the additional documents requested by the commission within the time agreed at the meeting.