After a long debate about the downfalls and benefits of a public forum to discuss the parking situation, which included members of the board and residents and business owners in the village, the Garden City Board of Trustees, following the Feb. 1 meeting, in executive session, decided to hold a public forum at 8 p.m., Feb. 15 at the high school.

The issue of whether or not a public hearing prior to the board's decision about the planning commission's parking study was necessary was first raised by former trustee Maureen Clancy, who asked the board what they hoped to accomplish by holding a public forum. She noted that as a member of the board, she had the experience of sitting there and watching the anger expressed between neighbors. "It gets very emotional," Clancy reminded the board, asking them to consider, if they do decide a public forum is necessary, what they will do to "mend fences" between neighbors. "This has gone on for too long," she said. Clancy added her belief that a public forum would just "fan the flames" of this heated debate. She urged the board to bring closure to this issue.

Mayor Harold Hecken said that though there are some members of the current board who share Clancy's views, others feel that the residents should have another opportunity to make their feelings heard before the board comes to a decision about whether or not the Park Buffer Strip Plan will be implemented as properties become available. Village Trustee Bruce Torino reminded residents that Garden City prides itself on it participatory form of government. Torino added that often the hardest process is the correct one. He noted that he has sent a memo to his fellow trustees with suggestions regarding how to keep the rancor at such a public forum to a minimum, allowing those concerned to share as much information with as little hostility as possible.

Anthony Albanese, a resident and business owner in the village, who was a driving force behind the revitalization of Franklin Avenue, said that after all the years this debate has been going on, "I can't believe anyone has anything else to say." He further noted that through the years others have tried to come up with alternatives to the Park Buffer Strip Plan and as of yet not successful alternative has been implemented. Albanese urged the board to "Stop the futzing around" and follow the planning commission's recommendations. He added that of the 11 properties included in the Park Buffer Strip Plan, there are only three left and he once again offered the property, which includes a vacant house, that the Albanese Development Corporation owns at 116 11th Street.

Althea Robinson, executive director of the Garden City Chamber of Commerce, commented on the many studies that have already been done regarding the parking situation in the village. She questioned, "With all of this study, why do you have to go out for the public's unstudied opinion?"

Torino responded that it has been said that although you may make a decision, and even if the decision is correct, justice is not done without getting public input. He commented that the determination has been made by the board, on three prior occasions, not to go forth with the Park Buffer Strip Plan. He said that even if a decision is made with regard to the current properties under consideration, the decision cannot be final because there are still two other parcels which were included in the Park Buffer Strip Plan.

Pat DiMattia, a director of the CPOA, called a public forum "imperative." She said that to hold a public forum would be consistent with the participatory government of the village. "This is not a CPOA 'push' or a central fight," said DiMattia, noting that she has heard concerns about the Park Buffer Strip Plan from residents throughout the various sections of the village. "People from throughout the village are opposed to the taking of property for use other than residential use," said DiMattia. "There is plenty more to be said on this issue."

Richard Schraefel, president of the Estates POA, said that though he went along with the Joint Council of the Property Owners' Associations, in requesting a hearing, he exceeded his authority that evening. He added that the Estates POA board unanimously agreed that they feel they have heard enough and this issue should now be moved forward.

Susan Williams-Furey. A resident of 10th Street, said that it would be a mistake to move forward without a public hearing. She added that the damage has already been done and the angry words have already been exchanged. A public forum, said Williams-Furey, would give the board the opportunity to hear from some new, fresh voices, who may bring more or new information.

Russell Matthews, from the Albanese Development Corporation was another voice urging the board to go forward without a public hearing.

Maureen Valente, another resident of 10th Street, said that the surrounding homes, if property is acquired for parking, would be devalued. She added her belief that the number of spaces that would be added by the implementation of the parking plan would not be worth it. "A public forum is the least that you can give residents," she said.

Dr. Russell Miller, another resident of 10th Street, quoted a portion of the Planning Commission's 1989 Parking Proposal, which states, "The overall availability within a reasonable radius, the desires of the residents and economic consideration lead us to conclude that the acquisition of homes as they enter the market for the purpose of destroying them to create municipal parking lots should no longer be a concept endorsed by the village. We, therefore recommend that the revised Master Plan State that it is not general village practice to acquire and destroy residences for such purposes. Nevertheless, we further urge that as a prudent planning tool, the village retain the ability, after study and public hearing, to acquire any particular residence in this area for such purpose when economic, environmental, and planning needs warrant." Dr. Miller said this should be followed and a public hearing must be planned.

Deputy Mayor Robert Lewis noted that most of the board would like to bring this matter to closure, but said that it has been the custom to set a date for a public hearing before such a matter is decided. He said that this forum would provide one last opportunity for the public to be heard on this matter so the village board can then move on to other pressing matters.

Following this debate the board adjourned to executive session, at which point it was determined that a public forum would be held.