Several months ago, Mr. Scott Henry sent an emotional letter to me about proposed legislation in the village. At that time, I phoned him and discussed his concerns. Over the next few months we had one or two (maybe more) very lengthy conversations, which I felt had respectful give and take, although no agreement.

After the Sept. 30 meeting at the Bryant Library, Mr. Henry sent me a very angry and accusatory letter which I answered, point by point, in hopes of explaining misconceptions and misunderstandings between us. Mr. Henry was apparently not satisfied with my response, revised his letter to me, and then submitted it as a letter to the editor, appearing in the Oct. 10 edition of The Roslyn News.

I now feel it is incumbent upon me to respond. I am, therefore, enclosing my response to Mr. Henry (with a few additions) written on Oct. 3, a letter that I feel speaks for itself:

Thank you for your long e-mail regarding your concerns about the pending legislation. However, before I discuss those issues, I would like to refer to Monday night's meeting. You were absolutely right about the venue and we were wrong. We never expected such a large turnout. We were told that even when the "Stop and Shop issue" was discussed, the room was adequate. The other problem is that the schools would only let us stay until 10 p.m. and therefore, it was difficult to find another facility. We are busily searching for another venue in anticipation of the next meetings. But, when you have lemons, the best thing to do is make lemonade. We have learned from that evening and will be better prepared for the next ones.

I very much disagree with your statement that the "methods being employed to communicate the underlying objective of the changes and to educate the village residents about the changes (have) a deceptive feeling." On the contrary, I believe that the letters (3) sent out have been an excellent summary of what is proposed. In those letters as well as in the newsletters (5), residents have been urged innumerable times to phone or write. Any board member or committee member was approachable, and I have personally spent hours talking to residents, as I have to you. As far as the full legislation goes, residents were invited to call Village Hall for copies that would be either mailed or e-mailed. I still believe that it is a waste of village money and time and effort to send out the full legislation, which was published in full in The Roslyn News and is 21 pages long, to the entire village. There is a point when residents have to take some responsibility. (As you have done!)

I don't know what was said to you, but it is possible that you misunderstood. There is no basis in fact for the allegation that the only objective of the legislation is to prevent subdivisions. The underlying objective of the up zoning is, indeed, to prevent subdivision, but you knew that (no brainer). The other legislation has different goals, and I don't understand your implication that they are all a trick to prevent subdivision. Why would we need them when the up-zoning is such an effective tool? The goal of the proposed legislation is to preserve the character and aesthetics of the village...which for some people...is a goal in itself, but many believe that it will also serve to protect the value of all our homes.

I in no way implied that acknowledging our special history was some sort of a manipulative trick. What I said was that we all learned something about our history, and having learned it, the village attorney suggested that it would help support a strengthened ARB and BZA.

Despite your appraisal of Dean Alvord, I think that what he created here was pretty special and unique. I did not say there were five models in his plan, I said there were 4 or 6 styles (colonial, Tudor, etc.) within each of those styles there are and could be many models...that is a very big difference.

In terms of legal hazards, I have had concerns as well, but have been reassured by our attorney, whose specialty is zoning and municipal law, and who has quoted case law to the board, that courts have generally upheld villages in issues like these. However, we are certainly open to hearing other experts' opinions on this issue.

Fundamentally, I believe that you and I simply do not agree on the issue of control over demolition, and up zoning. We have differing visions and differing concerns. That is OK. Fair-minded people can have opposing views.

Despite that, I thank you for all your comments, suggestions and help.

Susan Ben-Moshe

Mayor Roslyn Estates