The letters of Wesley Berkowitz on Oct. 7 and again on Oct. 21 plus the letter from Arin Lanis on Oct. 21 demand some type of response. First, let me say that I am astounded at the continued hostility that the Longview Road issue seems to engender. The danger to children residing on Longview Road is probably no greater than in 1994 when a few citizens decided to move a perceived problem to their neighbor's street. Nor is the danger on Beacon Hill Road any more or any less than in 1994. We are all concerned about our children's safety. What about those kids in middle school who must cross Beacon Hill Road?

There is no disgrace whatsoever in the choice of councilpeople Ferrara, O'Connor and Banks, to vote their conscience, which was justified by the number of citizens who contacted each directly and signed their names to a petition in favor of returning the roads as they were in 1994. These officials are elected to represent their electorate, which is exactly what they did, regardless of their political party. Mr. Berkowitz' accusation of any falsehood in voting is totally unsubstantiated and rings of "sour grapes." In fact, in stating that no new facts were introduced Hon. Winslow simply points to the fact that the 1994 ordinance, changing many years of Longview's two-way traffic status should never have occurred. In many people's minds, the 1994 ordinance, spearheaded by Ms. Newburger, appeared to have been politically motivated, allegedly as a favor to a longtime resident of Longview Road.

Regarding Councilwoman Banks, who is one of the biggest assets on the board, she did her homework, and cast her vote with her conscience intact, for the safety of all the residents of Beacon Hill. As Mr. Berkowitz so aptly noted, she saw fit to disregard party lines to cast a vote that was fair and equal to all parties concerned. His reference to a political payback was unsubstantiated and childish, at best. Even the town's traffic expert agreed that other alternatives to ameliorate this situation such as sidewalks and landscaping changes could have been examined in 1994. Unfortunately, the flimsy reason he gave for this oversight was that the traffic changes were less expensive than major reconstruction...seems kind of silly now.

The lengthy opinions of Mr. Berkowitz and Mr. Lanin fail to make mention of the most crucial point of all: Beacon Hill is a community. When one lives in a neighborhood with others that live on a road more traversed than theirs, it is unneighborly to lift the burden from their road, to their neighbors.

So where are we now? As a community ¬ nowhere. We are deeply divided. Why didn't we work as neighbors then and why aren't we working as neighbors now? We should be working together on the overall problem of traffic and the recent addition of Harbor Links and future addition of Harbor Ridge to see what their impact will be. Don't we think that these new developments will increase traffic on both roads?

One final note. Let's all make sure we go out and vote for those people that we feel best represent our town on all the important issues. I will vote for Doreen Banks who, for me, seems to reach out to listen to people.

I for one am very sad. I have been a member of the Beacon Hill Community since 1987 and it has changed and not for the better.

(Ed. Note: This letter is addressed to residents of Flower Hill and is printed at the author's request.)

In a previous letter I raised objection to the proposed Flower Hill Village Code. I believe the adoption of this code is not in the best interest of the citizens of Flower Hill. In response to this, Trustee Hauser wrote a letter to the Manhasset Press and the Port Washington News, in which he attacked my credibility rather than address the important issue, the revised Village code. This seems to be standard procedure on the part of the village when someone dares to disagree with the mayor or his board of trustees. Tab Hauser and other trustees have publicly criticized citizens in the past who have raised objections or questioned their actions. I realized when stating an opinion in such strong opposition to the current village administration's actions, I was opening myself up to their attack. Rather than thrash out my personal saga here, suffice it to say that Tab Hauser's attack on me was inappropriate, malicious and inaccurately represented. The village's actions toward me, as well as other residents, speak clearly of their contempt of the citizens, and their "we know better than you what's good for you" attitude.

The issues I raised previously were based on a review of a two page comprehensive plan. Since that time the village has finally made the complete code available to the citizens for review. After a comprehensive review of the proposed code, I am now even more alarmed by what this Village administration is attempting to do to the citizens of Flower Hill. Although I have many objections to the proposed code, my major concerns include the following:

* The proposed code includes several elements which are unconstitutional including granting the village the right to enter one's home if they believe there is a safety concern without going through appropriate legal channels, and not providing due process if you disagree with the decision of the building inspector.

* They have created subjective and arbitrary standards for architectural review, in effect making them the "good taste" police. Subjective standards are legally unenforceable, and could subject the village to countless lawsuits. Additionally, they can arbitrarily waive certain requirements if they feel it imposes "unnecessary hardship," which makes the process vulnerable to corruption and favoritism.

* The proposed process to apply for a building permit is excessively expensive, time consuming and bureaucratic, and does not obligate the village to act should they choose not to. In other words, even if you meet all their imposed requirements, and having incurred substantial expense, they claim the right to not approve your application. In their words, "failure to take action on a proposed application can be viewed as a denial of the application," One example of their proposed excess would be their requirement for the preparation of a detailed "site plan" of 12 plus acres, for a small addition to a home on a one-third acre building lot. Additionally, the village could hire engineers, architects and lawyers to review your plans at your expense. Of course, the village could waive this requirement at their discretion.

* The new zoning will have significant impact on existing homes in that a large percentage of homes will now be in excess of the new proposed zoning ordinance. A survey of my street alone indicated that about one quarter to one third of the homes are very near or in excess of size limitations imposed by the proposed zoning. The village made a statement at the Oct. 4 trustees meeting, claiming a "minimal" percentage of homes would be impacted but they were unable to be specific.

* The new zoning criteria is arbitrary in that zoning districts were impacted to varying degrees. For example, one district is subject to a 33 percent decrease in the maximum allowable size for a home, whereas another district is facing a 60 percent decrease. This could be considered discriminatory further exposing the village to lawsuits. The focus on limiting home size is very much in opposition to today's demographic trends, which are demanding homes with such accommodations as great rooms, walk-in closets, and master bath suites. The new size limitations will make these features unattainable on all but the largest of building lots.

* The village failed to seek appropriate expertise in the creation of this code. Their claim is that sufficient expertise existed on the board. In Tab Hauser's words, they have saved the village $100,000 by not seeking outside expertise. Seeking appropriate guidance is not money wasted. In most instances it improved the quality of the output, and in the long term will save substantial money. An inappropriate code will not only create a nuisance for the citizens, but could subject the village to costly litigation, and ultimately have an adverse impact on everyone's property values.

Mr. Hauser points out that Trustee Glavas put his "heart and soul" into this effort for the past year. With all due respect to Mr. Glavas, through this proposed code, he has articulated a vision which gives the village dictatorial control over all exterior construction and renovation projects in the village. I for one do not share his vision and will fight to retain my rights as a resident and property owner in Flower Hill.

In Mr. Young's letter in last week's Manhasset Press, he ruminates about the Flower Hill Village Trustee's work over the past year on the recodification of the village code and voices his complaint that, "one or two dozen (written) responses out of nearly 4,500 village residents" does not represent a "substantial input." Further, he condemns the village officials for, "not actively soliciting input." He then assumes he has made his case for condemning the whole process that has taken many hundreds of volunteer man-hours to put together a draft proposed new village code to be discussed at a series of public meetings to start next month.

The reality of local government is, that very few people ever take the time to respond to any call for suggestions from their local officials. Ninety-nine percent of the time that anyone sits down to write a letter to their government representative, is to complain about something that affects themselves or their personal cause. Worse yet, expecting a response to a call for suggestions in writing usually goes unanswered. A few dozen replies is a pretty good turnout for such heady stuff (recodifying a municipal code); as it turns out, about 60 replies were actually received, according to the written report of the codification committee chair, Norman Glavas, which is now available to residents at the Village Hall. On a rare occasion, someone will take the time to write to show support and/or appreciation for someone or something that someone else has done for them or their community at large.

No such thanks has been penned by Mr. Young. I guess it's the old adage, "No good deed goes unpunished." Instead, he takes a "shot" at the village's attempt to alleviate the most complained about problems in our (and most other) North Shore Village's building codes: 1) the "overbuilding" of existing lots; 2) the renovation of existing homes and commercial buildings without securing a building permit; and 3) the deviation from an approved building permit/plan without refiling a revised plan for approval.

Since 1988, the village has tried to ameliorate these problems by creating a "building permit committee" which tries insofar as they are able, under the present village code, to maintain an orderly construction and renovation program within the village. In 1996, due to the greatly increased amount of such construction within the village, a new building inspector was hired; he was able to spend more time, which was required to assure compliance with the plans filed with the village.

The new code seeks to establish an "architectural review committee." The Village of Munsey Park has had such a committee since almost its founding. Many other villages have either been seriously discussing the formation or have already formed such committees. Mr. Young is correct when he challenges the "legality" of such a committee; rejection by such committees/board have sometimes been overturned in the courts. This is why Flower Hill has resisted such a committee for years. But, as the "overbuilding" increases almost unabated throughout the area, neighbors more and more have been seeking resolution of the change of "character" of their neighborhood, with their local governments. The village code certainly needs to be updated; whether or not the addition of an architectural review committee is also needed is what the village public hearing is all about. There is nothing "secret" going on that Mr. Young has to issue a "call to arms" about. The only ones that have to "worry" about the new code, are those planning to do anything with their own property (such as the three aforementioned most complained about "problems,") which would conflict with the code. Even then, there is always a chance for a resolution through the Village Board of Zoning Appeals: that's far from having to "go to court."

Yes, by all means come to the hearings; nothing is written in stone, it's only a draft. Leave your gun at home; we're all neighbors in the same community, trying valiantly to improve our mutual quality of life.