The Village of Thomaston's mayor and trustees are "pondering" the rezoning proposal which would be necessary to allow the construction of a 226 unit seniorcenter independent and assisted living complex. Complicating the situation is that the site in question is an environmentally sensitive property, which contains tidal wetlands and a coastal floodplain with a high water table. There are unanswered questions about an earlier study of the site that found soil contamination and concerns about the impact on sewage treatment facilities. But there are two other important issues raised by this proposition that have not been publicly discussed.

We understand how Thomaston officials would be dazzled by the financial rewards for the village if this facility were built, at this size. (Revenues amounting to $250,000 per year for 15 years, plus a renovation of village hall and the building of a new public works structure.) It is very tempting to make drastic rezoning concessions when such generous incentives are dangled tantalizingly by a developer. The board members appear to be genuinely conflicted on this dilemma. They are, after all, residents of the village, (not absentee landlords), who want to be wise environmental stewards on behalf of their constituents and fiscally prudent as well.

It is common practice for developers to contribute to a special village fund, usually earmarked for parks, when high-density buildings are constructed; but this pay-back package seems suspiciously generous. It raises questions about what appears to be a trend, namely, to reformulate zoning laws, not by study, debate and plenty of public comment, but by someone having the wherewithal to essentially "let-me-make-you-an-offer-you-can't-refuse." Thomaston is in the spotlight here, but they are by no means the only municipality to be enticed by such a golden apple.

The second issue, simply put: Is this an appropriate site for a senior residential compound?

Although the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) is sent to a host of agencies, utility providers, and other villages for comments, there is no requirement for it to be reviewed by an advocacy organization for senior concerns. This indicates a flawed review process, as no one is watching out for the rights and needs of the elderly to live in neighborhoods instead of on its fringes. Should not these senior facilities be located in areas that will enhance and support the independence of its residents rather than hasten their dependence and isolation?

Think of the surrounding area and its scarcity of convenient amenities. It would be a stretch to call the immediate area, a neighborhood for pedestrians.

Elderly people have a hard time as it is crossing certain sections of Middle Neck Road, imagine their fate on East Shore Road. The pedestrian walk sign lights up with "Walk" for three seconds. It should flash, "Run for your Life" instead. The flow of traffic at Bayview and East Shore is steady and continuous.

The Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) makes for fairly dry reading but in a section that dealt with the impact to wildlife in the area, we had to chuckle over the following sentence: "Several geese move freely throughout the park." Yes, several dozen Canada geese own the place and leave their droppings freely too. This could be incorporated into an exercise program called Obstacle Walking for the residents of the facility.

Even though the Great Neck Senior Center was blithely mentioned in the DGEIS as potentially providing services for the residents, the center was not given an opportunity to comment on any impact to their services. Although the senior center has an "open arms" philosophy, surely they deserve the courtesy of being informed as to a probable increase in demand.

At the September 7 public hearing, the mayor and board listened carefully and respectfully to their Manhasset neighbors who are dismayed and heartsick over the proposal. Those nearby residents are in the unenviable position of potentially dealing daily with all the drawbacks of such a facility and reaping none of the incentives.

We agree that the decision before Thomaston is weighty, requiring careful thought over a long period of time. Mayor Stern, the trustees and the residents of Thomaston have much to ponder.

Carol Frank