Ithaca landmarks commission approves replacement garage at 219 South Albany with staff conditions

The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission voted March 17 to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a new single‑bay garage at 219 South Albany Street after concluding the existing structure is severely deteriorated and much of its historic material has been lost.

Applicant Andy Bostoner told the commission the existing garage has a failing slab, rot at grade, non‑historic T111 cladding and a patched roof and that the structure is unsafe. Bostoner said his plan is to replace the garage on the same footprint (about 12 feet by 20 feet) with a design that is compatible in scale and some detailing with the primary house and that he plans to source a salvaged gable sash for a single north‑side window. He said the new walls will need a one‑hour fire rating where they abut neighboring properties and that he is considering fiber‑cement lap siding for durability.

Brian McCracken, historic preservation and neighborhood planner for the city, told the commission staff had inspected the garage and found much of the original finished material missing or previously replaced with non‑historic components. McCracken said some changes predate the district’s 2013 designation and that the degree of non‑historic fabric meant a new compatible structure could be appropriate if it meets the commission’s standards for massing, scale and detailing.

Commission discussion focused on materials and details: commissioners asked the applicant to clarify siding exposure, roof cladding and door type (hinged vs. roll‑up). Several members favored historically sympathetic hinged doors where feasible but acknowledged cost and accessibility concerns; the commission also discussed the visual appropriateness of standing‑seam metal roofs versus shingles in the district context. The final resolution approved the replacement with conditions, including matching trim detailing to the primary structure, the use of the smooth face of the proposed fiber‑cement board if Hardy board is selected, and a requirement that the final garage entryway details be reviewed and approved at the staff level prior to a building permit being issued.

“Basically we came to the conclusion that it’s really unsafe,” Bostoner told the commission about the existing garage, saying replacement on the same footprint was his preferred path. McCracken said photographic and physical evidence show that much of the original fabric has been lost and that the proposal, as conditioned, meets the standards for compatibility under the city code.

The commission voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the listed conditions. The vote was recorded as unanimous among members present; the resolution does not record individual roll‑call votes. The applicant may proceed to submit required construction documents and a building permit application, subject to the staff‑level review conditions spelled out in the approval.

The commission also suggested the applicant consider a simple date marker on the new structure to avoid future confusion about which elements are historic and which are new.