.

Developer for Proposed Seaford Condo Project Releases Rendering, Floor Plans

BK at Seaford, LLC planning 110-113 condominium units at former Seaford Avenue School property for residents age 55 and older if referendum approval is received by voters.

The developer for a proposed condominium development at the Seaford Avenue School property has released an artists rendering and floor plan of what the project will entail if approved by voters.

The artists rendering and floor plans for the project called "Seasons at Seaford" can be viewed in the gallery above.

The developer, BK at Seaford, LLC, is in contract to purchase the former elementary school property for approximately $5 million if referendum approval is received by voters on Oct. 16. BK at Seaford, a subsidiary of The Engel Burman Group, is planning to build between 100 and 113 condominium units that will be designated as housing for residents 55 years of age or older. The units, which will first be offered to Seaford residents and their parents, will have two bedrooms and two full bathrooms and the facility will offer a central clubhouse with a fitness center and outdoor pool. The selling prices of the units will be in the $350,000-$400,000 range. 

___________________________________________________________________

To stay on top of breaking news and other top stories, sign up for the Wantagh-Seaford Patch newsletter, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

___________________________________________________________________

The late 1930s-built Seaford Avenue School closed in 1981 and was leased to Five Towns College from 1982-1992 and Nassau BOCES from 1992-2010. District officials said the sale of the property to BK at Seaford is approved, an estimated $100,000 in annual maintenance costs would be saved.

Voting on the condominium proposal for the former Seaford Avenue School property is scheduled for Oct. 16 with an informational meeting taking place on Oct. 4 in the Seaford High School Auditorium starting at 7 p.m. 

- What do you think of the proposed 55 and older condominium development proposed for the former Seaford Avenue School property? Tell us in the comments below. 

Michael G. October 03, 2012 at 12:11 AM
It will be interesting to see how the developer is going to lay out the property: how much is housing, how much green space (and where) and how much parking. Has anyone seen a site map yet? It will make a big difference!
steven r October 03, 2012 at 01:27 AM
JUST SEEMS LIKE A MISTAKE FROM SSS THEY DONT HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS MATTER WHY WOULD THEY their only objective is to get the kids on the field 1000 dollars would help their cause um yes to get kids on the field my girls are comming up to middle school want them to have the opportunity
Risa October 03, 2012 at 01:42 AM
@Steven - Thank you! We are just a bunch of parents trying to do good for our kids and community and it's people like you that remind us how worth it it is!
steven r October 03, 2012 at 01:50 AM
lisa J i agree save seaford sports does not have a pony in this race seems like a mistake.........I hope
steven r October 03, 2012 at 01:55 AM
never hit reply all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
steven r October 03, 2012 at 02:02 AM
hopefully your efforts will help my girls
steven r October 03, 2012 at 02:09 AM
who is in charge at SSS why would they possibly forward that e mail doesnt make any sense at all
DiverDown October 03, 2012 at 02:15 AM
Good deal Lisa. I hope everybody gets their questions answered and their concerns addressed at the meeting. Right now I think this sale appears to be a no-brainer for the district, but if I get bad vibes from what I hear Thursday about this proposed project, I may decide it's better to wait even if it costs us money. My biggest concern is this drags on so long that the building gets condemned and the district gets forced to pay to demolish it.
DiverDown October 03, 2012 at 03:46 AM
Steven, it was apparently an honest mistake, someone forwarded the e-mail with the intent of providing information, but seems to have overlooked the "vote no" recommendation. I haven't seen the e-mail, so I can't comment on how easy an oversight it was, but I'm taking Risa's word that it was just an error by somebody.
Chris Wendt October 03, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Your district...they are out of money. They will not be building any library or new dream school. You just spent a year on austerity. Sell the school; stop the bleeding of $100,000 annual maintenance costs; collect $5.2 million and put it into a mandatory 10-year sinking fund; put the (former) school property on the tax rolls and start collecting $500K in annual property taxes. Put Seaford Schools back in the black. Then start thinking about your dream school. Seaford, Wantagh, Plainedge, Island Trees, Bethpage maybe pooling their resources and sharing their burdens together.
DiverDown October 03, 2012 at 12:07 PM
How much more time VL? We've been d*cking around with this issue for at least 2 years now, and the district has been juggling occupants for 20. None of the ideas proposed a year and a half ago were liked by a majority so no matter what gets done it's going to tick people off, so the district should at least make some money. They have a buyer now... "A" buyer, not multiple offers, so unless something comes out Thursday that tells us we should kill this deal I plan to vote "YES". If we continue to lose opportunites to unload this white elephant while we dicker over what to do with it the building is going to end up condemned, and the "footprint" we leave will be precisely that - a big dent in the ground.
DiverDown October 03, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Beautiful vision VL, just one problem - who's going to pay for it? No developer is going to shell out the 10s or more likely 100s of millions of dollars for your plan - there's no return on their investment. Libraries are non-profit and restaurants around here are barely surviving as it is. Is the school district going to pay for it? I sure wouldn't want to be the one to propose that bond issue. The Town of Hempstead? They apparently can't even afford to pave our roads decently. Nassau County? Last I looked they were closing police precincts to save money. Dale Carnegie may have loved your idea but he's long dead, so unless you're close, personal friends with Bill Gates...
Michael G. October 03, 2012 at 12:26 PM
These condos are super crowded and overpriced. What happens when, in a glutted market, they DON'T sell? Instead of an old school, we'll have a ghost town on our hands. The 7th Precint will be very busy... and we'll have a huge headache.
DiverDown October 03, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Michael, this same developer built "The Seasons at East Meadow" on the same basic construction plan. That development is apparently doing quite well so they're probably pretty confident in being able to sell these units. And I'm sure the 7th Precinct is just thrilled at having to patrol the unlit, empty field and vacant building that's there now.
Wayne Smith October 03, 2012 at 01:17 PM
Chris - A couple of questions, based on your previous comment: You made reference to a "10-year sinking fund" with regard to the proceeds of any sale. The district, meantime, has indicated the money would go into a reserve account and that that law requires that the money gets spent within 10 years. To me, that's a little bit different. What I had assumed, based on the district's Q&A, is that the BOE could decide how much of the sale proceeds could be spent in a given year, as long as all the money was spent within ten years. But technically is "sinking fund" is different. Not to get too arcane here, but does the law literally require a declining annuity, such that the district would only be able to spend a predetermined amount of money every year spread over a ten year period? Or could the district, for example, decide to spend all of it in a much faster period of time? Also does the law impose restrictions on how the money can be spent - i.e., operating expenses vs. capital expenditures?
Michael G. October 03, 2012 at 01:21 PM
With houses in foreclosure and others unable to sell blocks away from the site, what makes anyone think that a town house costing as much or more - which has maintenance costs as well - will attract a buyer? The housing market was much different when the other condos by this developer went up.
Joe October 03, 2012 at 01:30 PM
I agree with your assessment Lisa, let's all get the facts and make our own Seaford decision.
DiverDown October 03, 2012 at 01:31 PM
VL - 75% of the funding for the "grandiose improvements" done to the high school (and it's not just a "full music wing") came from the state Department of Education to help address Seaford's poor performance in "Academic Progress" on state tests. The state isn't going to pony up any money to deal with the Seaford Ave site. Estimates to level the school are in the multi-million dollar range, mostly due to the neccessity of asbestos remediation (which is also why BOCES chose to abandon the building when their lease expired). It would take at least 20 years to recoup that cost by saving the $100K maintenance costs, and we're still stuck with an empty field that we're paying taxes on. Will there still be a buyer if we stall yet another year? Even if there is, we'll be that much more desperate to unload the property and the price will have dropped. Selling the units is the developer's risk, if he has to lower the price to get them to sell it's his problem. And since he's the "owner" until they do sell, he's responsible for the taxes on them. What to do with the additional money is the subject for a different debate, but you have to admit... it would be a nice problem to have.
DiverDown October 03, 2012 at 01:35 PM
Michael, have things really changed so dramatically since last year? http://eastmeadow.patch.com/articles/construction-continues-at-the-seasons-in-east-meadow
Chris Wendt October 03, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Yes, hazmat cleanup responsibility is included in the contract.
Wayne Smith October 03, 2012 at 02:19 PM
Chris - Thanks for the response. I would like to get clearer on this for a variety of reasons, so I will be looking for an opportunity to get a clarification.
DiverDown October 03, 2012 at 02:30 PM
I don't have access to actual costs or bids, but I'd be stunned if it's anywhere south of $2M. I agree the question of how the developer plans to address the asbestos removal is a good one for Thursday night's meeting, although I'd question if they'd risk their license or major fines by violating State and Federal guidelines for its management. The cost of doing it, while significant, pales against the rest of their investment in the property. And until we ask, neither of us "knows" what the true teardown will be. The district is ALREADY stuck with this property, and has been for 20 years although it's only been vacant and apparently unusable for 2 years. "Proactive waiting"... interesting concept, reminds me of "jumbo shrimp". Again I ask, how much longer are we supposed to wait? Sometimes it's just time to "you-know-what" or get off the pot.
Chris Wendt October 03, 2012 at 04:06 PM
...only except but the only offer the Seaford School District received was the one you will be voting upon. Therefore, the market does not concur with your expectation of making bigger money. And both time and money are a-wasting while people conjure up less-than-realistic visions for this situation. Your school district's financial situation is critical.
Chris Wendt October 03, 2012 at 04:07 PM
@ Wayne Smith In the nineties when Wantagh sold Sunrise Park, we were required to parcel-out the money in equal annual appropriations, with one irregular amount at the end, which I think was due to accumulated interest. That was 20 years ago, and the regulations may have changed, so I urge you to ask this question at the meeting. In the Wantagh situation, we appropriated the annual draws, meaning they were applied to reduce the tax levy rather than to increase the budget spending directly. However, the effect was essentially the same, because we could calculate the effect on the tax RATE and that provided a cushion for the spending plan. School taxes were calculated differently then, and school districts in Nassau all had a common basis for the school tax RATE that carried from year to year for decades. So it was easy for any district to point to their proposed tax rate and its percent change, and to compare themselves with neighboring districts to curry favor with voters. We in Nassau no longer have a consistent basis, index, or equivalent tax rate for school taxes that can be compared, not year-to-year within one's own district (How are we doing?), and not district to district. That change was occasioned by the massive and ongoing reassessment across Nassau and within each school district. Back in the day, Wantagh, Seaford and Levittown rotated the distinction of having the highest, second highest, and third or fouth highest tax rates in Nassau.
Joe October 03, 2012 at 04:26 PM
VL, I think your intensions are good, but I believe the bus left a long time ago, as there has been attempts at renting for years, surveys on what to do and finally put out to competitive bid and this is the one bid. Now you could argue, hey keep it like the neighborhood, which would be houses, I’d image more of McMansion type houses as that seems to be the norm, so how many could you put there, 10 and at $500k. Hey maybe convert the building into assisted living, that would be nice, and that big building gets to stay, then again, no one wanted it for that, even after all the years trying to rent it. Remember Beach Street school in Wantagh, they had a survey 25 years ago on what to do with it, most people wanted it, and some senior citizen services were run out of it, nice right, yes it was, up until it got burnt down and those huge homes went up, which if you think they are better then a well planned condo complex you are kidding yourself. In my opinion, and that’s only mine, the company appears to be reputable, has produced similar properties with good results and would take a burden away from the school district which obviously struggles with large business decisions. I’ll keep an open mind, go to the meeting and when the time comes to vote, I’ll vote.
Buster of Seaford October 04, 2012 at 05:11 PM
Well, I hope we get a good turnout tonight and not a smokescreen or PR display, but real answers. Clearly we have folks here on both sides of the fence that are committed to their view no matter what they hear. Unfortunately..which is probably based on where they live, people being how they can be..for me, I have an open mind but one, the size of this thing and two, a lack of transparency that got me here to begin with, and shouldn't have been, are the points. The size..any studies done re: the impact, traffic, etc? These are terciary roads around the site..and..I'd suggest out of this the BOE reevaluate how they disrespect the taxpayers by treating us like the smaller children they educate. Worse, actually. But again I'm trying to keep an open mind. Oh and btw..two prior comments.. that the robocalls last week were generated to only folks with kids in school now, and that I should get on that list..huh? I would propose (DUH!) that we all are included in calls about any BOE issues in the future that affect the budget. OUR budget. And two..the comment prior about the 7th being unhappy about patrolling the lot..oh yes, a regular crime spree right under my nose! The building, a blight on the pastoral bliss that is my neighborhood. Jeez Louise..some of the opinions here for this, pro or con, have been well thought out and thankfully very informative. To all of you, I thank you. Others, just plain silly. See you at the meeting. Should I bring my helmet?
Lorraine DeVita October 08, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Lisa J,Your post was well thought out except for one comment - "Why get involved" Its seems to me APATHY over the years has brought us ot our knees financially and brings us to the situation we are now in. This community has a propensity to JUMP on quick resolutions,not thinking of the long term impact. We have in the past been very reactive not proactive. This solution selling the building/property to a developer at first blush seems to be a viable solution. Get 5 mil, to fill the VERY empty coffers. However is it? Even during austerity we managed to pay the 100k, even with a tax cap we managed to pay the 100k as well we also managed with the 100k carrying costs to award both the Superintendent AND the retiring Asst sup of business BOTH a 41 k + raise respectively. SO explain to me WHAT the urgency is to close a deal that leaves more questions then answers? No written quarantees, Bascially its TRUST US deal AT BEST. There is also N O guarantee the we will receive 5mil. We also do not know the EXACT GROSS we will be receiving. In my estimation it will be BELOW the 5mil being touted after we pay the Brokers fees, our Law firm & other closing costs. We have already reduced the sale price to absorb the absestos removal costs. We have yet to get a clear concise plan for dispersement of the monies received We have yet to get some VERY vital information even after the meeting that affords this community their right to make an INFOMRED decision based on ALL the facts.
Lorraine DeVita October 08, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Chris , I appreciate your input on may topics, but to keep saying we NEED the money, dont worry about the details , take the money and run is totaly irresponsible on your part. The DEVIL is in the details. As a professional yourself, & as previous board pres. from Wantagh you of all poeple should be advising OUR community to proceed cautiously , confirm everything to insure this a good proposal both long and short term for this community the taxpayers and the students. I would hate to see this community vote to approve a proposal that when implemented is NOTHING like it was touted as. I would hate to see this community ASSUME that this 5 mil is the panacea for all our Financial ills. I would hate to see this windfall of proported 5 mil, be used as a tool in teachers contracts that are upcoming, i would hate to see MY neighbors go thru hell either perceived or real for all the WRONG reasons.This is not cut /dry We no longer have the luxuxry of taking anything at face value any longer simply because we have allowed this & previous Boards to make some pretty questionable choices on our behalf which we admittedly approved solely because we trusted their judgement. Seaford needs time to digest all the information & a rush to vote is not allowing that. There is in the contract a clause which allows the BUYER to postpone the vote, I think we should press upon them the need to grant an extension so we can make a fully informed Decision based on FACTs not emotions.
Lorraine DeVita October 08, 2012 at 04:53 PM
Davey Crocket" king of the wild frontier" propably meant those words for ALL BOE trustees.. retired and active!
Lorraine DeVita October 18, 2012 at 01:03 AM
Board Meeting tomorrow nite thursday OCT 18th at the manor 7;30 pm.. pls spread the word to one and all.. Seaford ave information will be discussed and referendum date will be set if the amended contract has been signed by both p

Boards

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