In a letter to village residents, the trustees of the Village of Flower Hill noted that the objective of their year-long recodification project was "to balance careful, planned growth with the desire to maintain the historical and traditional settings which gave birth to our charming village." This past week, after many months of review and process, the trustees voted to adopt the result of their efforts, a comprehensive revamping of the village's code.

Voting for Local Law #3-1999 took place on Tuesday, the 9th of November, but the public hearing for the measure took place on the previous Thursday. There was no room in the meeting hall, and residents patiently waited in the outer halls to enter and voice an opinion on the proposed changes. Mayor Jim Damascus welcomed the crowd and read from a prepared statement, "This hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of state law. Its purpose is to permit the board to hear your comments and observations with respect to the proposed code. It is not a time for give and take, but rather a time for you to give us your input. At the conclusion of the hearing, we will take your comments into consideration before acting further." He went on to note each person would have a five minute period to make his/her comments adding, "If your comments will exceed five minutes, you may sign up to speak again; however, we urge you to submit your comments in writing. Further, we suggest that you limit your comments to substantive issues, as we are aware of technical issues which need to be made." Much of the commentary offered by the residents seemed evenly divided between point/counterpoint in favor of or against the overall adoption of the law; however, there were a few items that repeatedly surfaced during the evening.

Many of the residents who spoke seemed to have at least passing knowledge of some of the changes that would affect them, but more than one resident complained about the "short length of time the code was available for review" prior to the public hearing. And, although the changes to the code include everything from updating regulations regarding boats, animals, fences, garage sales, ethics, and noise, most residents voiced concern over the changes made to the section on zoning.

The establishment of an architectural review board was one of the most debated topics of the meeting. The first to address the subject was Emma McMahon, a resident and a real estate agent in Manhasset. "I believe that in Munsey Park the architectural review board has been a real positive...everyone who purchases a home there is aware of that board and the stringent restrictions there." She added, "I believe that buyers moving into Flower Hill need restrictions to live by, but my fear is that an architectural review board would be too stringent and hold people back too far." McMahon's views were supported by several residents including Don Wexler, who opined, "Guidelines are necessary - size, dimensions, etc....but not subjective point of view." Other residents, including Jean Brooks and Linda Toby, countered in support of a review board, "Too much leeway would change the complexion and aesthetics of the neighborhood."

Presenting himself as a representative from the "Flower Hill Citizens for an Alternative Choice," resident Bob Young, one of the most vocal opponents of the new code, produced a 10-page document based on his review of the code. Calling the revised code "arbitrary and discretionary," Young said, "There are a lot of issues and I don't think everyone is aware of them." While some of his comments were similar in nature to those who already spoke in opposition to the measure, Young also maintained that the new procedures for the filing of building permits were "bureaucratic, time consuming, and expensive." He further added, "The new code will have a dramatic impact on existing homes (size of homes, property values)."

Several residents asked the board for more time to review and refine the code before voting on it. The mayor then explained that the timing on the vote coincided with the end of the building moratorium (previously enacted to give the committee time to review the existing code). He noted that the board would have to vote on the measure in its entirety or risk losing the coverage of a moratorium before a new code could be enacted. Trustee Bill Clemency reminded the residents that "The goal of this is to safeguard the community. The timetable for this entire process has been available for a year. We have made an honest effort to work through the code - not to make it onerous for any resident." Tony DiSanto, head of the village's landmark preservation committee, added his voice, "Has anyone thought about what could happen if we don't enact a law of this kind?"

There was one thing nearly every resident agreed upon, the considerable time and effort spent by the committee that completed the project. Even those who disagreed with the code's contents spoke highly of the work that was undertaken on the village's behalf. Former board member Jack Kervorkian spoke of "Respect for all the work they've done," and Kazmir Nawojchik stood and applauded the members for "the fine job." Bruce Byrne, another former board member and co-author of the original code, urged the board to pass the measure, "You have succeeded in the job we began 30 years ago; the code keeps the integrity of the village intact. Close the loopholes by passing this."