Plandome Manor needs an office for one village clerk; and some village residents desire additional parking spaces at the Plandome station. The Board of Trustees' answer to this dilemma is to purchase a 1 million dollar, 22,000 sq. ft. property on a residential street. They would convert the house into an office, a village hall that we do not need as we are allowed to hold our meetings and elections at the Science Museum, and remove and pave over the tree lined property to add approximately 15 parking spaces- all at taxpayers' expense; but at one part of the village's destruction.

These were the ingredients that lit a match to an explosive exchange during a recent executive meeting called at a scant four days notice to residents. To standing room only capacity, residents were incredulous at Mayor Carlo Manganillo's opening statements that "our decision will be based on what is good for the whole village" when it adversely affects just one part of the village, and "we are holding this meeting as a courtesy; we do not need your approval to vote." Mr. Michael Hopkins, village counsel, is correct in saying the issue of the village office has been regularly debated for two years. However, at no point during that time was there any discussion of purchasing a residential property for conversion to a village hall. This is a very recent development. The village made no effort to acquire a small plot of land for a village office when two parcels were subdivided. An immediate poll of the Board showed that with one exception, all would vote in favor of this proposal. All of this occurred before any discussion or input by residents was allowed to be presented.

Frustrated residents questioned not only the financial wisdom of such a plan but also the urgency of such a major decision being made in one night. Numerous alternative venues were put forward by the residents for the Board to consider, which I list again for reflection.

* Parking Plan submitted by a prominent resident, outlining ways to improve a flawed system.

* Parking areas at the Manhasset Glen site, which would not interfere with residential properties.

* Use another part of the Science Museum property to build an office.

* Rent office space in Manhasset. Existing office space for one employee is 750 sq. ft.

* Consider other less expensive properties for sale. If a Village Hall is desirous, then location should not matter.

However, the board considered none of them; it was apparent that their decision was a foregone conclusion. Not surprisingly, the last idea received an emphatic negative response, and here I call the Board's objectivity into question. If a Village Hall is unacceptable on Bayview Road, Elm Sea Lane or Papermill Road, it is equally unacceptable on Circle Drive.

Plan B, but denied by the board as existing, or that the architectural plans drawn up were commissioned by them was to sandwich a village hall between two residential homes and include parking on the footpath leading to the train station. Considering that 77 percent of voters in the village voted for the Environmental Legacy Fund to preserve green spaces in the Town of North Hempstead, and a village survey showed only 34 percent of residents favored Plan B, this idea seems to go against resident's wishes. Additionally, this site is a school bus stop for 15 children. It is also in direct line of a second school bus stop. The safety concerns are horrendous. You would need to install four traffic lights to encompass all roads leading in and out of this residential area.

The reader also questions when is there ever enough parking. Manhasset and Port Washington both charge annual fees of approximately $750 while Plandome Manor is only charging $50 for a yearly permit. This fee was recently raised from $15; and there were many complaints from residents for that change. Many residents were not happy last March when they found out that the village tax was going up by 68 percent and fees were also being raised. Any of these proposals will cause the village tax to go up again. Parking fees would also need to be raised. When asked how residents responded to the survey question about paying more for a parking permit, the board had no answer. The Board dismissed the question as being irrelevant. A further review of survey responses shows only 30 of the 69 commuters who are village residents use the lot. The lot has 30 spaces. Are occasional commuters causing this "parking crisis"? Of the village commuters, 62 said the village should explore additional parking; but only 36 are willing to pay more for the annual permit.

Calls to the village clerk the morning after the meeting elicited the information that the Board did not vote at that meeting. I applaud the mayor for reassessing the situation and look forward to hearing his comments at the next meeting, July 31. These are important issues facing the village; but there must be a resolution that does not adversely affect only one part of the village, threaten the safety of children and pedestrians, all for the convenience of a few commuters.