Authorizes the town of Mount Pleasant to alienate and discontinue the use of certain parklands
This bill authorizes the Town of Mount Pleasant in Westchester County to discontinue the use of a specified 1.1489-acre parcel of parkland and alienate it for the purpose of constructing housing. The parcel to be converted is identified by metes and bounds in the bill and is currently treated as parkland under state law protections that generally restrict the sale or conversion of parkland without legislative approval.
As a condition of that authorization, the town must dedicate a second 1.1489-acre parcel as parkland before the conversion occurs. The substitute parcel is also described by metes and bounds and is located in the Town of Mount Pleasant. If the replacement parkland is worth less than the land being converted, the town must make up the difference by acquiring additional parkland and/or improving existing park and recreational facilities. The bill also requires compliance with any applicable federal requirements if federal funds were used for the original parkland.
The bill would amend the legal status of a specific municipal parkland parcel in Mount Pleasant by allowing its conversion from protected park use to housing development, while imposing a replacement-parkland condition and a fair-market-value offset requirement. It affects the town’s authority over local park property and would override the usual prohibition on alienating parkland absent state authorization. The measure also preserves any federal conversion requirements that may apply if federal assistance was involved in the original acquisition or improvement of the parkland.
The available record suggests the bill was treated as a routine local parkland alienation measure, with no recorded votes or committee transcript indicating organized opposition or debate. Its structure reflects a compromise approach: allowing housing on one parcel while requiring replacement parkland of equal size and, if necessary, additional compensation through parkland acquisition or recreation improvements. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a land-use balancing measure rather than a controversial statewide policy change.
The main substantive issue is the conversion of parkland to housing, which can raise concerns about loss of open space, recreation access, and the precedent for future parkland alienations. Any opposition would likely focus on whether the replacement parcel is truly equivalent in value and usefulness, and whether the housing benefit justifies the loss of existing parkland. Supporters, by contrast, would emphasize the one-for-one replacement requirement, the fair-market-value safeguard, and the local need for housing. The bill also leaves room for federal compliance issues if the original parkland received federal funding, which could affect timing or feasibility.