I am the chairman of the Plandome Village Board of Zoning Appeals and have served the community on that board for more than a dozen years. I am also an attorney at law and have been a resident of this area since 1940.

I wish to respond to certain of the misconceptions of the board's procedures as evidenced in the letters written by Attorney William DiConza and two of his clients, Sarah Meriggi and Anna Pace, and published in last week's Letters to the Editor column.

First: It clearly is not the case, as Mr. DiConza alleges, that the board "knowing that the club was not entitled to a 'use' variance, refused to acknowledge this fact and granted the club a lesser variance." Ms. Meriggi makes substantially the same erroneous point. In fact, the issue of whether or not a use variance is required in this matter is currently the subject of an appeal from the supreme court decision, and is yet to be decided by the appelate court.

Second: Neither is it the case that the Board of Appeals "did no more than rubber stamp the club's application...[and] deliberated for less than five minutes on Aug. 9, 2001 before granting the club's request." The matter had been before the board on two previous occasions, once in 2000 and again, earlier in 2001. In fact, the board devoted many, many hours during this extended period considering the matter.

Third: Finally, the allegations that "laws were broken and the kangaroo system of Plandome was complicit in the deception" and the "Plandome Board of Appeals...tried to pull a fast one" must be referring to some other time and place than the treatment of Mr. DiConza and his clients by the Plandome Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter. If Mr. DiConza believes that this member of both the New York State and Federal bars for 45 years who has lived in this area for over 60 years would partake in such conduct as chairman of Plandome's BZA, he is sadly mistaken.

Albert Werner Pleus