ITHACA, N.Y. -- Ruling that it could find no rational basis in the record, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Albany today unanimously upheld Tompkins County Supreme Court Justice Robert C. Mulvey's June 9, 2004, decision ordering the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to grant the approval sought by Cornell University for a replacement parking lot proposed as part of its West Campus Residential Initiative. This ruling is the latest of three successive judicial rulings in Cornell's favor.

"The West Campus Residential Initiative is an exciting part of Cornell's academic program for the future. We hope that now, with this decision, this matter is finally resolved and Cornell and the city can move forward cooperatively," said Cornell Vice President Thomas Bruce, commenting on today's ruling by the appellate court in Albany.

Facts About the Case

1.) Significantly, the court ruled, "we find in the record no rational basis" for the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission's (ILPC) decision.

2.) Both parties here sought judicial review, as is their right. The university, as with any private property owner, is obligated to comply with the governing rules. But it expects and is entitled to be treated fairly and evenhandedly by governmental commissions. These principles have been at the heart of the three decisive court rulings. We are hopeful that this matter is now finally resolved and that the city and Cornell can move forward cooperatively.

3.) In 2001 Cornell first applied to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for approval to construct the West Campus Residential Initiative (WCRI), an innovative residential college plan to integrate the living and learning experience for undergraduates. The WCRI does not increase student enrollment but replaces residence halls on the same site with a new house system. It involves relocating an existing parking lot a distance of 325 feet with a reduction of the existing 195 parking spaces to 176. The replacement lot will be screened with extensive landscaping from the adjacent University Avenue area and from adjacent areas on the Cornell campus. On Feb. 25, 2003, the city planning board granted approval for WCRI but denied approval for the replacement parking lot. Cornell challenged this decision in court as arbitrary and capricious. On Oct. 29, 2003, the Supreme Court, Tompkins County, agreed with Cornell and ordered the planning board to grant approval of the replacement parking lot. The city of Ithaca did not appeal this order.

4.) However, in July of 2003, before the court ruled on Cornell's pending lawsuit against the planning board, the city of Ithaca designated the site of the replacement parking lot part of a new historic district. This designation required Cornell to obtain further approval from the ILPC after the court ordered the planning board to approve the parking lot. The ILPC denied approval of the parking lot in December 2003.

5.) Cornell challenged the ILPC's decision in the New York Supreme Court, Tompkins County. The court again agreed with Cornell's position , ruling on June 9, 2004, that the ILPC's decision fell "far short of the standard required for a municipality to dictate the use of private property." The court also concluded that the ILPC failed to balance Cornell's educational interest in the replacement parking against the public's interest in historic preservation, noting that the ILPC "never attempted to fashion an accommodation of [Cornell's] needs to replace parking, and essentially prohibited any alteration of the [parking lot] site," and that the ILPC had "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in deciding "that the public's interest in preserving the integrity of an uncultivated wooded area outweighed [Cornell's] interest in furthering its educational purpose."

6.) Today's ruling by the appellate court in Albany unanimously affirms this decision . The court concluded, "it is plain that [the ILPC] failed to engage in a deliberative process balancing the public interest in [the educational use] against the public interest in [historic preservation]." In reaching its conclusion, the five-judge panel said, "the record evidence shows that the proposed parking lot will have little, if any, impact on the surviving, original landscape features."