The designation of the entire St. Paul's property as "parkland" has been controversial since Garden City Mayor Barbara Miller pushed it through at the last Board of Trustees meeting on December 16th.

In a paid advertisement in this week's Garden City News, critics of the move question whether it will have unanticipated effects that will broadly limit the future uses of the property.

"I'd like to think that those who supported the parkland designation didn't fully understand what they were doing," said Trustee John Mauk. "This severely limits the options for the Village to use the property for the benefit of all residents, and it places control in the hands of the state. Regardless of what your preferences are for the future use of St. Paul's, this does no one any good. We must find a way of setting aside this unfortunate designation."

The Garden City News has learned that opponents have been scrutinizing the move with the help of attorneys to see if it can be reversed. According to one attorney familiar with zoning matters, the only way the designation can be overturned is if the Village made a procedural error. (The attorney asked not to be named because his firm occasionally has business before the Village.) If it is decided that all procedures were properly followed, it would take an action by the New York State Legislature to change, he said. By law, however, before the Legislature could return the property to its former status, the Village would have to provide something of equivalent value in return. That could be more parkland, money or something else. With the designation, it would be very difficult for future boards to let any private concern use the property unless that use was related to recreational purposes. The designation would also make it impossible to sell any part of it for private development.

According to the attorney, the designation would also prohibit many public uses, including most or all of those the Board has considered so far such as a library or village hall.

Even though an environmental impact statement may not be needed, it is possible that the Board may have been required to adopt a resolution asserting that the designation is not in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. According to the attorney, since it was not done at the time the resolution was adopted, it could be that the parkland designation is flawed and it might be possible for any citizen to sue the Board of Trustees to have the decision nullified. Yesterday afternoon, the Garden City News learned that the Village had circulated a supplemental agenda for the Board of Trustees meeting which was to have taken place last night. That supplement included an item for the Board to vote a negative declaration of impact under SEQR. However, just before press time, Mayor Barbara Miller said that she “pull it” so the item would not be on the agenda.

The Garden City News contacted Village Counsel Gerard Fishberg, about some of the questions raised. According to Fishberg, a public hearing, newspaper advertisement and environmental impact statement were not needed in order to designate the property as parkland. The Village is obligated to place legal advertisements before it does certain things such as passing a local law or issuing bonds. Fishberg would not comment on whether it might be possible to set aside the parkland designation because of procedural errors.

The advertisement also raises the question about whether the designation severely limits the property to recreational and park uses. According to Fishberg, there are separate cases where a library and restaurant were deemed by the courts to be acceptable in a park.

Under this new designation, the continued use of the cottages for a nursery school by the Cathedral of the Incarnation has been questioned. "The Cathedral has a license and no one has suggested that the license should be revoked," said Fishberg.

The Garden City News also contacted Michael Ciaffa, the attorney who represented the Kenny and Rafferty families in their successful suit against the Village which declared the property a "public trust." According to Ciaffa, declaring the property parkland would not preclude any of the uses which have been considered by the Village. He said the courts have given municipalities broad latitude to use designated parkland for uses such as a village hall or library.

Garden City Mayor Barbara Miller said her purpose for proposing the parkland designation was to get the Board of Trustees to support public use of the property. She added that when developers were asked for Requests For Proposals they didn’t come within the parameters set by the Village. She added that once other options are foreclosed, developers would have to come within the parameters to make proposals.

Miller said she wanted to make it costly for future boards to alienate the parkland, and that she understands that in that event it would be costly to do so.

Mauk admits that it will not be easy to reverse the decision and says it is likely the Historic Main Building will be demolished if the property remains parkland. "I think we're going to have real problems as a Village deciding what to do with the property if we can't remove this parkland designation," he said. "This was just an irresponsible action, and we are going to live to regret if this can't be undone."