After reading the front page article "Senior Housing Complexes Ok'd" (Farmingdale Observer May 8, 1998) I am very disappointed. The Observer misled us to believe that the developer of Woodbridge, Lawrence Gresser, has made many concessions and needs only to "obtain a variance for setback requirements from the Village's Zoning Board of Appeals."

On the very opposite page, you printed Mr. Gresser's request for variances in the Public Notice Section. How can you ignore the fact that he is still proposing 62 units to be built on a site that is appropriate for approximately 32 units, according to village codes? How about the parking variances: he proposes one parking space per unit, but the village code requires two parking spaces per unit? How about the density and bulk variances? Variances for front yard and side yard shortages are required also.

How can you ignore these major variance requests and reduce them to one line stating that "Gresser still also needs to obtain a variance for setback requirements from the Village Zoning Board of Appeals before construction could be authorized."?

Is this builder really making concessions by reducing his proposal by two units, when village codes require that he reduce by approximately 30 units? It sounds like the village is making all the concessions to me.

I find it very disturbing that the Village Board of Trustees "unanimously approved" this proposal. Why would the village make the developer of the Wagner site meet village codes before passing that project, and then allow another developer of Woodbridge to disregard so many village codes.

I feel it is your responsibility, as our local newspaper, to inform, not mislead, the citizens of Farmingdale to these facts prior to the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, May 20, 1998 at 8 p.m. in Village Hall.

I feel certain that you will remedy this situation promptly, and I thank you for that.

D.F. Rizzo