ITHACA, N.Y. -- Cornell University officials today (April 2) filed a legal challenge to a decision by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) last December that denied the university's application for a "Certificate of Appropriateness" for a parking lot designed as part of its West Campus Residential Initiative.

The university filed papers with the New York State Supreme Court for Tompkins County, pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The university's lawsuit states the ILPC's denial of Cornell's application on Dec. 18, 2003, was arbitrary and capricious because it was made without regard to the facts in the record and did not contain a reasoned elaboration for its conclusions as required by New York law.

The university's filing also states ILPC failed to make its decision in accordance with the standards of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and that it failed to balance the proposed educational uses of the property against historic preservation considerations, a balancing test that is mandated by law. In addition, the university argues the ILPC's decision regulated private views (for example, views interior to the property), which is also an error of law.

"Like any member of the community, Cornell must abide by lawfully enacted ordinances and regulations," said Cornell President Jeffrey S. Lehman in a statement. "But like any member of the community, Cornell also is entitled to have those ordinances and regulations applied in a fair and evenhanded manner. Having carefully reviewed the recent decision of the ILPC, we have reluctantly concluded that Cornell has no choice but to contest the decision regarding the proposed West Campus parking lot. The ILPC's decision simply does not square with the facts of the case."

Lehman added, "The record contains no evidence to support the commission's assertion that the proposed parking lot would have 'a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic and historical and architectural significance of the district and the resource.' Indeed, the evidence established that the proposed parking lot would be unobtrusive and would have only a minimal effect on the surrounding environment." The parking lot proposed for a site on University Avenue is an integral component of Cornell's $200 million residential housing plan for West Campus. It replaces a former lot that is now the site of a new residence hall. Located 325 feet from the site of the former lot, the new parking lot is smaller than the former lot and is designed to be screened by landscaping and topography from public view.

During the design phase of the West Campus project, Cornell architects and designers responded to concerns of community members by reducing the size of the proposed lot and adding additional landscaping to screen the lot.

Cornell won a previous Article 78 lawsuit against the City of Ithaca Planning Board for its failure to grant final site plan approval for the University Avenue parking lot. In Cornell v. Beach , the Hon. Robert C. Mulvey ruled Oct. 29, 2003, that Cornell had "mitigated to the maximum extent practicable the relevant potential environmental impacts of [the] parking lot," specifically including impacts on cultural and historic resources. Mulvey noted the planning board had not mustered any evidence supporting its decision to deny approval for the parking lot and ordered the board to grant final site plan approval. The board complied on Nov. 5, 2003.

The university applied to the ILPC for a Certificate of Appropriateness as required under the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance for new construction within designated historic districts. The site of the parking lot is on the former grounds of an estate owned by the Treman family of Ithaca, now owned by the university. Ithaca's Common Council declared that area as part of a new University Hill Historic District on July 9, 2003, while the Cornell v. Beach proceeding was pending.

The ILPC held public hearings on Cornell's application Nov. 13 and Dec. 18. The commission denied the application at its Dec. 18 meeting.

"Historic preservation does not require that property owners refrain from making any use of their property nor does it require restoration of property to a condition that existed decades ago," Lehman said. "Historic preservation requires only that as a property's uses are adapted to meet the evolving needs of the owner, the adaptations be consistent with the continued historic character of the district. The careful and sensitive design of the new parking lot does just that.

"Cornell deeply values its relationships with our surrounding community," he added. "Because of those relationships, we engage in litigation only when no other options appear feasible and when an issue of significant importance to the university is involved. We regret that we must ask a court, in this case, to compel the only decision that the record before the ILPC supports."