Condo Proposal Pitched For Seaford Avenue School Property

The Engel Burman Group makes $3.4 million offer for 5.6 acre land.

The first formal offer to purchase the former Seaford Avenue School property has been made.

The Engel Burman Group has offered to buy the 5.6-acre property for $3.4 million and construct 113 condo units. Scott Burman, a partner for the Garden City-based developer, delivered a short presentation about its vision for the property at Thursday evening’s Board of Education meeting at .

Burman said the multi-family housing proposal would generate roughly $800,000 a year in taxes including around $500,000 for the Seaford School District. He said the property is more ideal for multi-family housing than assisted living since it is not located in a commercial area.

"When we build assisted living we typically like to look for very high-traffic locations almost like a retail location and I'm just not quite sure this fits that profile," Burman said. "I do though think its perfect for some multi-family housing."

The developer’s Seasons at East Meadow project currently under construction, which is designed for homeowners age 55 and older, was described by Burman as being similar to what they envision for Seaford.

The former elementary school is being marketed for sale by Woodbury-based Greiner-Maltz, which was this past June by the Seaford Board of Education as the commercial real estate firm best suited to help determine the property's future. After closing in 1981, the 1939-built Seaford Avenue School building served as the home of Five Towns College and most recently Nassau BOCES until its lease expired last year. The property was last appraised at $4 million in 2005.

Any proposal for the Seaford Avenue School would need to be approved by voters in a referendum. Seaford Board of Education president Brian Fagan said after Thursday’s meeting there is no timetable for making a recommendation on a plan to head to voters.

Late last year, the Seaford School District issued a community input that 643 district residents responded to on what to do with the former elementary school. The survey showed strong opposition to many options for the property, but did indicate support for maintaining the three youth baseball fields on the land.

Lorraine DeVita January 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM
I can understand the reluctance of the Board to establish mid term financial goals due to the fluctuation of funding. however there is absolutely no rational reason why the Board has not and does not establish goals for the District to acheive within the realm of Management . ie Facilities- HR& Personnel-Contractual revisions and review- Technology- As the Board THEY need to establish a set of goals for Administration- One area would be consolidation of efforts and job responssibilities to reduce overall costs by a certain percentage- Holding the Administration responsible for implementation within a specific timeframe. Bascially this is what we need to accomplish, develop an action plan to implement this within x amount of time. Listing priorities ,target dates, contigencies and then hold people accountable for implementing them.. Not hard to do.. Just takes some forethought and planning .. one item that should be looked at and one which i find highly amusing is asking employees to write their own job descriptions if they evenHAVe a job description, shouldnt We be telling them what their job descriptions & responsibilities are not visa versa? Yet another example of the cart leading the blindfolded horse.
Chris Wendt January 10, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Respectfully, we, myself included, should make an effort to remain on-topic (Condo Proposal Pitched For Seaford Avenue School Property - in this case). Goals, goal-setting, board evaluations are a great topic, and a sore spot for me, too. However, that is not the topic of this thread. These threads generally have keywords associated with them as part of the posting process by the author or editor, making them easy to search or research. Changing topics is not helpful to continuity or connection with similar discussions elsewhere in time or place on Patch or on the blog-sphere.
Lorraine DeVita January 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM
point taken- so back on course- the community needs to be briefed by the Board on the process and how it is going to proceed to prevent any misinformation or incorrect conclusions from being disseminated or formed as it pertains to the sale of the Seaford Ave Property.
Wayne Smith January 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Chris - I don't disagree - the problem is that there are a huge number of issues bubbling away (or maybe they're festering). The editorial perogative to limit discussions is always there - and I guess the Patch has the option of doing that - doesn't mean those issues go away. By the same token, inmho, not having a venue to reasonably express what is on peoples' minds can render any thread a lot less relevant and any online publication a lot appealing to its readers and bloggers.
Wayne Smith January 10, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Just to amend my prior ocmment - the last sentence should read "...and any online publication a lot LESS appealing to its readers and bloggers."


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »