Introduced by speech and a written statement he distributed to the media, village trustee Norman Glavas formally proposed the consideration of a building moratorium for Flower Hill at this month's village meeting.

Speaking as chairman of the Codification Committee (assigned to review and re-evaluate the village's present zoning), Glavas noted, "After extensive discussions (by the committee) we feel that there exists a need for such a moratorium to limit large scale renovation and construction over the coming months as we re-evaluate the present zoning code." He went on to outline the specifics of the action: "The moratorium will strive to prohibit the following types of applications within all residential districts except for District A-1 which has a minimum of one acre lots: No building permit will be issued for the following: Construction of a new residential structure; front yard additions; any addition to a residential structure that increases the floor area by more than 30 percent of the existing habitable area; any demolition and reconstruction to a residential structure that increases the floor area by more than 30 percent of the existing habitable area."

This announcement was not happy news to a resident who just closed on his Flower Hill home one week prior to this announcement. The resident was present at the meeting, and explained that his purchase was based on making anticipated changes to the current dwelling. He expressed some dismay over not being aware that this action was under consideration. William Glemency explained that the board's review has been underway for some time because "We're not satisfied with the code as it is presently written." Trustee Glavas added that "All applications that fall below the stated criteria will be reviewed under the normal procedure," and that the law will include an appeals procedure if the applicant is dissatisfied and wishes to pursue his/her application. After hearing the proposal, the trustees adopted a resolution to hold public hearings on the measure at next month's village meeting. If approved at that time, the initial period for the moratorium will be six months, with an option by the board to extend the measure for an additional six months.

Many of the other residents present at the meeting were there to discuss the wireless communications proposals under consideration by the board. They brought with them charts and articles dealing with health and property values and circulated them around the room. Mayor Jim Damascus began the discussion by explaining that he "purposely sent out a newsletter to bring to your attention the applications and the interest of the cellular and Internet providers to put up a tower and connections within the village." He was beset with questions about the timing and manner of notification, the possible effect on property values any installation would have, and the possible health implications an installation of this kind would have on those persons living in its immediate radius.

The mayor responded first to the health issue, "As a village, we are precluded from getting into the health and safety issues of this equipment. Under the Communications Act of 1996, the federal government and the FCC have established guidelines for cellular and wireless companies to follow and they consider those they have certified are abiding by those regulations. As such we cannot address those issues." He did go on to explain that in its agreement the village would include a clause that would allow for the immediate closing down of an operation if it was determined that the operator was not following the guidelines. Village attorney Harvey Eyesman explained further, "The most important thing to realize is that the 1996 Communications Act pre-empted local village government in two areas. They made a determination that these cellular transmission emissions are not dangerous or hazardous. Of course, this doesn't mean that they're not, but there is no evidence that they are. Because there is no evidence that they are (harmful), we cannot raise the issue of health as a reason for denying installation. The second area they have pre-empted us in is the area of zoning - they (the companies) are not bound by our zoning code." Eyesman noted that the companies would have to get a variance if their installation pole did not meet village standards, but the application could not be defined based on zoning issues within the community. When questioned by a resident, "Do you mean to tell me that if these companies put up some ugly pole we have no recourse?" Eyesman responded, "No, we can impose an aesthetic qualification, so that it doesn't impact on the appearance of the building. Unfortunately, there has never been a case cited that has been decided favorably for a municipality."

Another resident queried, "The proposal that you are really considering - how much of village property would no longer be available for village use once the installation has been completed?" Mayor Damacus noted that possible installations could include a 10-foot by 10-foot building and a pole ranging in height from 90 feet to 125 feet, depending on the provider. When asked if the trustees could find another location for this installation such as Flower Hill Park, the mayor noted that if the installation was there, it would still be in the area and that the revenue would go to the Town of North Hempstead, which owns the park. That prompted a resident to ask, "Does the village need the revenue that much that we would entertain this?" The resident was told that the revenue to the village could amount to about $30,000 a year. The key question came after a lengthy discussion; a resident asked, "Do we need to have this?" The mayor then asked for a show of hands regarding this sentiment and because there were enough concerned residents present, the trustees tabled the discussion for next month's meeting.

* Committee members from the Landmark Preservation Committee were present to formally nominate a stone, rock and boulder wall as a historic site. The wall, originally part of the Hewlett-Hopkins estate, extends over more than one building lot and there appears to be a difference of opinion among the individual owners over the impending designation. There will be a public hearing at next month's meeting on the matter.

* More details were released on the proposed underground parking garage for St. Francis Hospital from trustee Harry Mulry. The board further reviewed the submitted plans for the 459 car facility and noted that while the board has voted to approve the application, final approval is subject to the receipt and subsequent approval of some additional details including landscaping designs, noise abatement for the mechanical systems, and facilitating an agreement to provide no parking on Port Washington Boulevard, on the east and west side of the street from Crabapple Road to Bonnie Heights Road during peak hours. Mulry noted that since Port Boulevard is a state road, this request will have to be handled through them. Angelo Corva, the hospital's architect, was present to answer questions from residents. Additionally, village attorney Eyesman reported that he has received the restrictive covenant extension agreement from St. Francis Hospital.

* Trustee Charles Weiss did a review of the personnel policies and procedures and recommended that the board revise and update the uniform allotments for the village employees. The board approved the measure.

* Trustee Clemency asked that the board agree "To combine forces to move forward on the upcoming franchise negotiations" with Cablevision by joining a consortium spearheaded by the public access TV group. The board approved the measure.

* The mayor announced to the trustees that he had received an invitation from the president of St. Francis to attend the St. Francis Hospital Ball; after a short discussion they all agreed that he should decline, because he is not allowed to accept gifts in excess of $75. The trustees wanted it noted that the invitation "Was tendered in the right spirit."

* The village has begun correspondence with legislator Barbara Johnson to determine if they could receive a share in the sales tax revenue that is generated by the Business Section of the village. To date, the village does not receive any of this income.

* To give time to meet with the timetables necessary to address proposed legislation from this month's meeting, the trustees set the date for the next village meeting for Thursday, Nov. 5, at the Village Hall, One Bonnie Heights Road.