Ordinarily I would withhold comment about a matter such as this, which is still before the courts and involves both the Plandome Country Club and the Village of Plandome. However, recent statements made to the press by Mr. DiConza, the litigants' attorney, and carping remarks contained in a letter to the editor (Manhasset Press, 7/18) from one of his clients, Mrs. Pace, go beyond the pale. Not content with merely promoting a selective and self-serving representation of the facts, they also vilify village officials and malign the integrity of the process. For example, Mrs. Pace repeatedly charges that the village and its officials acted "illegally" or "ignored the law." She goes on to impute that we were unethical, irresponsible, and for good measure "arrogant." Such a flood of inflammatory public remarks and gratuitous allegations cannot go unchallenged. So allow me to rectify the gross distortions and fill the gaps in their rendition.

First, let's look at the Village Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and the decision it rendered last August. Mr. DiConza is particularly disparaging of the good citizens who serve on our BZA. He claims that they "just wanted to see this project approved regardless of what the neighbors requested and the law required." The implication is that they rubber-stamped the application, ignored his clients' concerns, proceeded without deliberation and even acted illegally. DiConza literally accuses them of "a complete dereliction of duty."

Simply stated, the BZA did not disregard DiConza's legal arguments, they disagreed. Nor were his clients ignored. To the contrary, they were granted all the time that they asked for to fully voice their concerns and opinions at that hearing. They and their supporters were treated courteously throughout. BZA members did not rush to judgment. Instead they deliberated long and hard to make their determinations. In the end, after giving appropriate weight to all relevant factors, the BZA granted the same approvals as were granted at the first such hearing. And this was not simply a rubber-stamping of their own prior decision, because two of the five members voting this time were not involved in that first hearing. So, in total, the approvals were endorsed by seven different hardworking and dedicated citizens, performing a thankless task in the best interests of our community.

The reason that a second hearing was necessary, and the reason this issue is still not settled can be largely attributed to the litigious skills of attorney DiConza. He deserves the credit for shrewdly maneuvering the matter through the intricacies of the legal process. Action was initiated on behalf of his clients by filing an Article 78 proceeding petitioning the court to reverse the original decision of the BZA. By this time it was several months after the permits had been issued and the building project was substantially completed. The village moved for dismissal on the grounds that the 30-day statute of limitations for such appeals had expired and that his client had no standing in the matter, as they are not residents of the Village of Plandome.

Nevertheless, the court granted the petitioners generous leeway in this instance, while taking note of a minor administrative technicality as justification to remand the matter back to our BZA for a new hearing. Concurrently our motion was denied, but the court provided us leave to renew it upon completion of the administrative process. The procedural deficiency we had to remedy involved the timing of a pro-forma notice to the Nassau County Planning Board. That had already been done by the time the court issued its ruling. And the planning board had returned its routine acknowledgement without objection, recommending that our BZA take whatever action it deems appropriate.

So both the court and the county deferred to our jurisdictional authority on the substance of this zoning matter. Then with all the administrative minutia in order, the BZA conducted a second public hearing on the club's application at which time the Plandome Manor residents and their attorney were heard. But when the outcome once again was not to their liking, they filed another Article 78 action asking for a reversal on various grounds.

I was first informed that a decision had been reached when Mr. DiConza and his clients attended the July 9 meeting of the Village Board of Trustees. They announced that the variances had been annulled and that rendered the use of this building illegal. Declaring that to be so, they asked if our building inspector would now be rescinding their Certificate of Occupancy. I told our guests that we were not aware that a ruling had been made in this case, and unless the court so ordered, we had no cause to do anything. I recall a perfectly civil exchange, notwithstanding the offensive implications I read in Mrs. Pace's letter. And the following day when the village attorney advised me of the decision, I found, true to form, that the reality of the ruling was not as compelling as our visitors would have us believe.

Admittedly, I was disappointed that the judge denied our motion to dismiss their petition for lack of "standing." But let's make it clear that the court did not affirm the standing of the Plandome Manor residents in this matter. Instead he ruled on this motion as a renewal of our motion in the first proceeding, which itself had been superseded by the second proceeding and, therefore, our "renewal" motion was deemed to be moot. (Isn't the practice of law fascinating?) But attorney DiConza did succeed in persuading the court that the club's application should be considered a "use" variance, not an "area" variance, and it was remanded back to us accordingly. We disagree with both rulings, but recognize that there are conflicting legal interpretations involved and that any given judge could rule either way.

The significance here is that treating this issue as a use variance places a greater burden on the applicant. Flowing from that decision are the requirements for environmental impact review and the need for the club to demonstrate "economic hardship" as justification to renovate and enlarge this building in a residential zone. We expect the club to appeal and vigorously argue against this decision.

Curiously, both DiConza and Pace profess serious concern about the environmental impact of this already completed project, while at the same time advocating that the club close down and sell off its property for residential development. That is, after all, a necessary predicate for the "economic hardship" obstacle they champion. The "reasonable return" option Mrs. Pace ascribes to can only be realized through such a conversion to residential use. But how can that prospect be reconciled with a desire to mitigate environmental impact? This inherent contradiction in their position begs the question - What do they really want?

Surely most people can see the environmental choice as self-evident. On the one hand we have over a hundred acres of verdant rolling hills in our midst. While in DiConza's vision, we would have scores of houses, with supporting infrastructure - roads, water, electric and gas lines, stormwater drainage and sewage facilities. Is there any doubt which scenario has greater negative impact on the environment?

It should be pointed out that our zoning code treats the club as a legal non-conforming use, with the emphasis on legal. That derives from the fact that the property existed as an operating golf course and club before the current district restrictions were adopted. In the common vernacular, it's been "grandfathered."

The original Plandome Golf Club was a commercial enterprise. Nearly 50 years ago that property was attracting homebuilders and developers with its potential. But instead, an ad hoc coalition of residents from the surrounding communities formed the Plandome Property Associates to acquire the entire operation and transform it into a private country club. The purchase was completed in October 1955. At that time, the mayor and trustees of both the Village of Plandome and Plandome Manor, as well as all area civic associations, actively supported and endorsed the goals of the Plandome Property Associates. Those predecessors of ours understood the importance of preserving open spaces way before the term "environmental protection became de rigueur.

As for the specific building that is the focus of all this attention - what is it that is so displeasing and allegedly injurious to the petitioners? Their stated objections involve proximity and visual impact. In his pleadings to the court, their attorney emphasizes the height of the building. He also details changes in square footage to support his contention that the enlargement was substantial in comparison with the old caddy shack as it existed before. In doing so he confirms that more than half of the increased space is underground in the basement and the rest is on the first floor. So most of the change is literally absorbed by the existing terrain and contributes no visual impact at all.

Mrs. Pace claims that this alteration ruins the character of the neighborhood, describing the structure as having a "factory-like façade." DiConza calls it a "tall, grey blank warehouse-type wall." This may be a matter of taste. But it should be pointed out that the architect for this building also designed the nearby Plandome Railroad Station. He is a resident of the village and he designed both structures to be compatible in character with the surrounding residential community.

In every account that DiConza and his clients give to the press they portray this structure as an immense towering edifice, looming high over their property to intrude upon an otherwise tranquil backyard vista. But they scrupulously avoid mention of that which is situated between these backyards and this newly renovated building, namely the Port Washington branch of the LIRR. Immediately behind the rear yard of the Pace property, separated by a buffer strip of brush and trees, lies the station plaza. This is a blacktop-paved area large enough to accommodate two rows of head-in parking and an access lane down the middle. Then we come to the elevated platform integrated with the Plandome Station building, a peak roofed, two-story structure which houses a branch post office on the lower level and a waiting room in the second story at platform level. Beyond that is the trackbed and high-voltage powerline poles in a 25 foot right-of-way. Somewhere among the brush and trees on the other side of those tracks we reach the club property line, then a paved vehicular access road to the golf course itself. Next to that road is the building that supposedly contaminates this view.

If anyone questions whether the club building dominates the scene or fades into the background of the LIRR panorama, go look for yourself. While you're at it, remember the two competing scenarios discussed above and ask yourself - which has a more negative impact on your property values?

A. Scott Wilson