By Stephanie Mariel Petrellese

During these blistery cold and icy winter months, we all know it is prudent, whether on foot or by car, to move forward with caution. According to Mayor Peter Bee, that's the way the Garden City Board of Trustees plans to proceed as they attempt to charter unfamiliar terrain and carefully follow the many steps involved before the St. Paul's Historic Main Building and Ellis Hall are demolished.

At their January 8th meeting, trustees voted 7 to 1 to designate the Board as the lead agency with respect to the proposed project. Trustee John Watras voted against the item because he would like the Board to investigate partial demolition which would just include Ellis Hall. The Board also deferred a professional service contract which would involve coordinating the actual preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR).

Mayor Bee, expressing the Board's concern that groups who have a different view of what should be done with the building may choose to sue the Village, said the Board is taking a cautious approach and is not yet ready to sign a contract.

"In the range of alternatives that are now before us, the one on which the Board has initially focused is demolition," Mayor Bee explained. "To explore that avenue, the Board must go through a process and that process includes determining what environmental impact, if any, there would be as a result of the demolition project, and if there will be adverse impacts, what steps might be taken to moderate those impacts.

"We have choices in front of us. We have judgment calls to make. We could determine that there is no negative significant impact and declare what's known as a negative declaration. We could determine that there is a substantial significant negative impact and determine a positive declaration. The consequence of those two alternatives is different types of reports and studies that have to be done. A negative declaration is a relatively, or comparatively, simpler process to go through. A positive declaration would result in a full Environmental Impact Statement and a lengthy and detailed and very thorough process.

"I think it would be fair to say that the Board acknowledges that there is great interest on the part of many members of the public on this topic and there is a concern that whatever this Board does, whether it does nothing, whether it demolishes, doesn't demolish, mothballs, that there are parties out there who have indicated a willingness to litigate in order to advance their position if it be contrary to what this Board does.

"Given that litigation is a realistic possibility, I think this Board is well-served by taking as conservative an approach as possible. I think, therefore, that we are looking very carefully at the option of a positive declaration. That is something we have to seriously consider as a very conservative approach. But I'm not committing the Board to that path. It may be that there will be a negative declaration. But in that judgment call of whether to have a negative declaration or a positive declaration, one of the factors that the Board will consider is the likelihood that we would be second-guessed in the judicial forum. So I think that is one of the incentives for us to do this by the numbers, with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed."

One of the most vocal community groups to oppose demolition is the Committee to Save St. Paul's. "The Committee to Save St. Paul's continues to monitor the Board's actions with a great interest and, following the recent community-wide poll, we are even more strongly convinced that the residents are looking for an affordable solution that will preserve this community treasure," Peter Negri, CSSP president, told the Garden City News via e-mail. "However, we still do not think it serves any purpose to comment on the issue of litigation at this time."