.
Feedback

New Referendum Date Set for Seaford Avenue School Sale

Seaford school board approves amended contract with developer for 55 and older condo development.

The Seaford Board of Education approved an amended contract at its Thursday night meeting with a developer proposing 55 and older condominium units at a former elementary school property that will now be decided in a Dec. 12 referendum vote.

The revised contract with BK at Seaford, LLC for its condo proposal at the Seaford Avenue School property now stipulates that all units contain at least one person age 55 and older, restricts school-aged children from living there forbids any rentals.

BK at Seaford, a subsidiary of The Engel Burman Group in Garden City, requested that the contract be adjusted for its planned 100-113 condo units on the 5.66 acre property to address community concerns raised at an informational meeting on Oct. 4 about assurances that the complex will be for 55 and older residents.

As a result of the contract being amended, the school board postponed its previously scheduled Oct. 16 referendum vote and on Thursday night set a new date of Dec. 12 to decide the proposed $5.2 million sale of the district-owned land. 

___________________________________________________________________

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.

___________________________________________________________________

Chris Venator, attorney for the Seaford school board, said the amended contract also includes a restricted covenant that requires all future usage of the Seaford Avenue School property be 55 and older condominium units regardless of who owns the land in the future. 

If voter approval is granted on Dec. 12, the "Seasons at Seaford” development would consist of 100 to 113 two-bedroom units that would be sold in the 350,000-$400,000 range and first offered to Seaford School District residents and their parents.

The facility would also include a central clubhouse with a fitness center and outdoor pool. The Engel Burman Group has recently built two similar “golden age” residential communities in East Meadow.

The 1939-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.

Judith Conlon October 27, 2012 at 02:04 pm
Things CAN be done the right way, Joe, when there's no "steamroll" involved. And there ARE community organizations willing to work side-by-side with the BOE: They just don't want to LISTEN. What is their "true" agenda here? An ounce of prevention is INDEED worth a pound of cure! They shot themselves in the foot already, and section 4.2 (b) opens the door to the wolf. Coulda..shoulda..woulda. Vote "NO!"
Judith Conlon October 27, 2012 at 02:31 pm
The SAS is not a "useless hulk".. Evidently, it's a "desirable" property with Engel Burman bearing down hard. But we won't fall for the "bait & switch." The lesson I see is that people recognize a "con" when they see one. After this is voted down, I'm sure that, with the 2% budget cap and contract negotiations looming, a "properly motivated" BOE will explore better options. The world will not end.
Lorraine DeVita October 27, 2012 at 02:41 pm
And yes patrick i have acknowledge that at FIRST i thought this was a GOOD thing and when i started doing my due dilligence i ACKNOWLEDGED I was WRONG and that This WASNT a good thing. I have stated so NUMEROUS TIMES. you must have selceted reading . or you have nothign better to do from your Franklin Square home then to obsess about My comments. Should i tell; my husband i have an admirer who is becoming weirdly obsessed? lol..
Ralebird October 27, 2012 at 04:06 pm
Judith - Your interpretation of the clause is erroneous. The school district does not have the authority to "waive" or allow the buyer to avoid the zoning process. Regardless of the the outcome at this referendum only the Town can regulate land usage. I choose to believe your statements to the contrary are due to misunderstanding the processes necessary here and not any desire to mislead those reading your comments.
Judith Conlon October 27, 2012 at 09:27 pm
Where are these foreclosure homes you speak of? Never saw anything remotely close to the "doom and gloom" you're depicting in this neighborhood.. We're doing just fine here, thanks! I hear you can still "snap up"a condo in E Meadow! Good luck!
Libn.com/2009/02/17/developers-want-lower-age-limit-for-senior-housing
Andrew Coen (Editor) October 27, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Please keep comments civil everyone or we will shut down the thread. Thank you.
Chris Wendt October 28, 2012 at 12:05 am
@ Roberta Grogan re: "...zoning is currently Residential B on that section lot and block; per the Town of Hempstead Zoning Department."
Yes, correct, that is the area zoning, Residential B, with 6,000 minimum s/f lot size. However the school property is zoned for school use (within the Residential B zoning area). Use of the property for anything other than a school, or, its development for any purpose other than either a school or Residential B requires a zoning change, not a variance, but a zoning change. Given the size of the property and its proximity to NY135 and Merrick Road, and to the NCPD Precinct house, the Nassau County Planning Commission must review and approve any zoning change being contemplated by the Hempstead Town Board. See: http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/Planning/zoning.html
Buster of Seaford October 28, 2012 at 01:57 am
Hi folks, honey and I have been busy sandbagging..getting ready for this storm. Seems this is going to be an annual event around here. Anyway, subject at hand: 4.2 was mentioned at the last meeting and it did leave a couple of people saying "huh?"..like me, the admitted layman. Why would that be an acceptable clause in the contract for either buyer OR seller? What benefit would it be for EB to take possession of the property if it was not clear the proposal would get past zoning..or whatever else could stop it? Like a legitimate impact review, for instance..do they anticipate they could get a better number for the school in a couple of years, and is it and the land being undervalued? And if they flipped it, wouldn't that leave another buyer in the same place? It just seems hard to understand that it would be of any value to them, IF as some indicate here it is now zoned as a school and approval is needed for anything else..and also, how can BOE say that EB is the developer to build this thing- like we are lucky they volunteered to- if the real possibility exists they may not even own it to build anything for long, even if this mess were to somehow pass? Seriously, does anyone know why? Am I missing something?
Inquiring minds want to know....please somebody enlighten me. Oh and CW, please..VERY inquiring minds..you were against condos in Wantagh? REALLY? Sippy cup! lol. And everybody, please be safe..lets hope Sandy just stays out at sea.
Buster of Seaford October 28, 2012 at 03:01 am
Oh, and Patrick..Hi.. about LD's evolution in thinking about this issue..I was surprised to read that. Knowing that apathy is the last thing this town needs. I am thankful people like that are involved in Seaford, and in this issue in particular, as they bring their knowledge. And having been around, they know some local history, "where the bodies are buried". If you have been following this and prior threads for the past several weeks, there are a lot of residents that after learning some of the negatives here-among them, no real tax relief from the sale- and questions about the contract itself- had a change or strengthening of opinion..keep in mind that a lot of information only came up once the last referendum date was announced and people started asking some uncomfortable questions. Realized the negatives. The take it or leave it yes/no vote we were presented with, with no other options, the lack of a real community consensus, the bogus impact assessment provided by the builder, and following the outcry and obvious dissatisfaction with it all the unwillingness to consider that the development as planned is just too big for the community. The only modification to the contract: age restrictions. And now the rush to vote despite all those valid concerns, concerns simply not addressed, among others.
It's a bad deal for every taxpayer in Seaford. It isn't the pie-in-the-sky powerpoint wonder they tried to sell us at the High School on October 4th, as anyone can see.
Phillip Franco October 28, 2012 at 04:08 am
Hey Buster, they gave us a real rush job! Buster - You are absolutely right that the BOE and Administration rushed putting this back up for a vote. From the looks of some of recent posts, it looks like they may have left a hole in the contract big enough to drive a bulldozer through. Don't worry; we'll get to the bottom of this and put it in terms that the public can easily understand. I'm sure this will get a full airing at the Seaford Harbor Civic Association's Community Forum. (TBA)
Judith Conlon October 28, 2012 at 05:20 am
 I prefer to negotiate with the zoning board in a position of strength. I would therefore want to see the approval process to it's conclusion "before" the sale is closed. Sec 4.2 (b) gives this edge to the developer, and he put it there for a reason. Why?What does he intend to do with this property if zoning is denied? I don't want to find out the hard way, so I will vote no!
Patrick October 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Buster, Unlike most others, I reserve judgement until I am able to garner facts. I do not make hasty decisions or jump to conclusions, and therefore usually do not have to change my stance. But it really doesn't matter what I have to say because benign comments such as this; "Lorraine, I, as well as most others out here, admire nothing about you. You flatter yourself. Go ahead and tell you husband, I would assume he stopped listening to you years ago, lord know I would have. Why the obsession with where I live? Just moved back to the 11783, now I will have much more to say. You will be hearing much more from me. Weirdly obsessed? That is hilarious. The only person obsessed with you, is you." are removed from the site. This comment was a reponse to LD's comment attacking me when I brought up inconsistencies in her ideas, which since the beginning, have been plentiful.
Lorraine DeVita October 28, 2012 at 02:03 pm
LOL patrick, - I am allowed ot change my mind .. and i did so once i looked at this more carefuly and did some reasearch, i guess you COULD have place in me in the majority of pro votes who at first blush thought this was a good idea BUT once there were too many inconsistencies, a lack of information and the finaly all the FACTS started to rear their ugly head i QUICKLY changed my mind... I did acknowldge several times my change of stance. I owned it PArtick so again whats your BIG issue with me, their are plenty of people who do not want this to go forward. SO like I stated you either have an obessed Me personaly or you have a great disdain for me. Disdain i can handle OBESSION is another matteraltogether and should be addressed by the appropriate health officials etc. . BTW Welcome back to Seaford where did you move to, near your old neighbors? are you renting or are you a homeowner. Seems you cant make up your mind WHERE you want to live either!
See thats whats great about this country you are ALLOWED to change you mind even you did, you moved away and then moved back.. Welcome to the fight against the condos! we could use every voice to stop this. especialy if you have something significant and pertinant to offer in our fight!
Judith Conlon October 28, 2012 at 03:02 pm
@rale- I didn't mean to imply that the "school district" would allow the buyer to "avoid/wave the zoning process": Sec 4.2(b) allows the buyer to CLOSE the sale and hold title to the property BEFORE that zoning process is "concluded." That's putting the cart before the horse.The school district signed the contract with the developer containing this "thorny" clause.
 Look to the sandpit that used to be the Jones Beach restaurant to see just ONE example of how this can turn out. Who sold that parcel to Trump without the approvals in place? Was it worth it?This is what can happen when you let the "wolf" take control. The District had it's chance..twice. Now, it's "our" last chance to have any say in the matter: Vote "NO!" Is everyone  getting prepared for the storm? And don't forget about Hurricane Sandy, either! Be safe.
Ralebird October 28, 2012 at 06:35 pm
The Jones Beach situation is more similar to the Nassau Coliseum fiasco than it is to SAS. Rather than getting private interests to invest in job and revenue creation, political hacks want to micromanage and at the Coliseum all has been lost; at the beach they quibbled about a basement while the "sand pit" festered when the original restaurant had a basement that never had a problem.
If the developer ends up with title to a parcel that they can't get their desired approvals for, they'll just have to get different approvals which would not be a more egregious departrure from current zoning. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the district is not the arbiter of land use, regardless of how many believe they can be. The money is on the table - take it!
Follow the Money October 29, 2012 at 02:50 pm
For those strongly in the NO corner, you need to speak with as many of your friends and neighbors as possible to present your case. The most important thing at this point is the vote. Once (if) it is a NO, then the ideas on next steps can be discussed. Remember, if approved, there is nothing left to do but work on lobbying the TOH not to approve zoning.
Lorraine DeVita October 29, 2012 at 03:15 pm
An "aside" for consideration : What exactly is going to happen if the HARBOR School gets flooded during the storm and even more importantly what happens to the school if CEDAR CREEK gets flooded-if its even possible for it to overflow!
Does Seaford have a PLAN B for these kids when school opens? IF this storm is as BAD as many are predicting this could have serious repercussions on many levels. @Phil Franco if your reading this -Pls share any info you may have in regards to cedar creek
Reality check October 29, 2012 at 08:30 pm
So let me get this straight - children of the school district are supposed to do without sports, regents review, summer reading and god knows what else just to appease a few people who don't want neighbors behind them like the rest of us have. Boo hoo. The needs of the many supercede the bull...... Of the few.
Ozone Park Native October 29, 2012 at 11:03 pm
I'm a seaford Manor resident and I'm voting 'NO' - plain and simple. Think of something else to put there. I didn't buy a house in seaford to see condos - I love the layout of this small town, put new residential housing there it would work better with the landscape.
Grandpa of 8 October 29, 2012 at 11:44 pm
I have one major question-- WHERE WHERE WHERE will the children play????
I say NO, and let them bulldoze the dump. Make more fields for out children and the people who will buy your home somedays kids. Think about that??? ANd the teachers will get their raises anyways and get a few more free days off thanks to Sandy.
Buster of Seaford October 31, 2012 at 12:19 am
yes, that's another thought, one that seems to really raise the hackles of some people..like it's some kind of heresy that we utter the words "for the kids".."for the future families", or "to leave one of the only places- oh, sorry-THE ONLY PLACE-that our kids can use as a field"..around here.
Unless you think it right the kids in the neighborhood should have to navigate Merrick Road, and then a long walk to a field, or Sunrise Highway, a dangerous crossing for an adult, let alone a youngster..and than a nice hike..to use a field. That's all gone by the wayside, in the name of some dubious financial return for the district. Peoples' mistaken notion that this proposal is some manna from heaven. Some quick shot deal that's gonna save the planet. Lessen their tax load. Wrong. Grandpa of 8, you are absolutely right. They should have a field. An open place that'll be here, if future generations have need for it. That they can't, or to be truthful WON'T come to some sort of compromise, be it SFH's, or ANYTHING other than this terribly thought up mess in such a small area is really beyond me. I hope people realize that and vote this down so we can go back to the drawing board.
Judith Conlon October 31, 2012 at 05:09 am
I hear that the Harbor school was 6 feet under water, and will have to be demo'd.. No students going back there anytime soon! If that's true..I know of a place, see pics from last Year's RFP.. a fully functioning school til 2010 in GOOD shape, (despite rumors to the contrary.) A no-brainer to accept displaced students! Also, a clause from 1981 when district closed it..they have the right to "reopen" it as elementary school should the need arise in future! Well, isn't THAT a horse of a different color!! Or, would parents allow their children to head right back into a mold-ridden, flooded out building?
Seriously, our neighbors south of Merrick are in dire straights right now.. We need to step up to the plate and help them all in any way that we can. Does anyone know of an "organized" effort to assist? I just got back online, but power still out here..
Lorraine DeVita October 31, 2012 at 06:18 pm
@ judith, I took a drive down to the harbor school to check it out. didnt look that bad at all. there were two cars in the back lot two back doors to the school were open, no water being pumped out like many of the homes in the neighborhood ,and from the front it doesnt look like there was extensive water damage IF any and from the back it looked fairly good too. Now i could be totaly mistaken and there could be water damage, inside, but again just from driving thru the lots it looked fairly unscathed. oh wait ONE scarecrow out front was partically blown down.
Hope the inside looks as good as the outside did. These kids have enough to worry about at home and dont need their school to be a disaster also.
Judith Conlon November 1, 2012 at 01:48 am
I'm glad to hear that, Lorraine..so many lost everything down there.. a cop down there was saying it had 6 feet of water in it, but maybe he just assumed that, since the surrounding streets were hit that bad? The school property is up a bit higher than Bayview, so maybe they just got really lucky this time! Even the streets up by the police station had water going up inside the homes!
Follow the Money November 4, 2012 at 01:02 am
just so everyone knows, Long Beach Schools are looking to rent space as their schools will be closed for years. Seaford Ave school would be a good place for them. How can we get this word to Seaford Board.
Judith Conlon November 4, 2012 at 04:17 am
Hey "Reality check"- This property isn't zoned for condos! And for good reason! I don't know anyone who objects to new "neighbors" within the existing "residential" zoning. "Many" families live in this neighborhood, and their needs will prevail at the zoning hearings, a process that can take years..According to the contract, the developer can wait out the approvals for 2.5 years without remitting payment to the district (Boo Who?) a "reality check" for "BS" artists such as yourself.
Lorraine DeVita November 24, 2012 at 02:03 pm
While Sandy has been a Major issue in Seaford from which many are still affected , we have another MAJOR ISSUE looming before us - The sale of the Seaford Ave. School slated for a referendum vote in a few days. I Hope MANY realize that the SALE of this school is something we need to take very seriously. In light of what happened with the storm are we truly ready to sell a buidling that could have been utilized as a relief center, a viable alternative school option etc. Yes it is an expensive propostion to restore but no more so then the field of dreams investment. Are we going to sell an asset to a developer just to get rid of it for a lousy 5 mil in 2 years and 500k per year in tax revenue or are we as a community going to look long term and possibly realize that somewhere down the road we may need this building in the future and be proactive in looking at ways to refurbish it . I for one would rather see a combination of options a compormise so to speak.. Sell PART of the property to a single family home developer and utilize those funds to revitalize and refurbish the school for future use. Please vote NO to allow this community the time to heal from Sandy and look for more family freindly community friendly alternatives that will serve this community in the best possible way now and in the future.
Judith Conlon November 29, 2012 at 05:37 am
@Rale- This developer insists on a "bottom line" ROI of  100 condo units on 5.66 acres. That already IS an "egregious departure from current zoning!" So why vote for it at all?
Hotly contested developments in larger towns are NOT as dense as the "bottom line" proposal for this small residential neighborhood. And, how do you "enforce" a covenant that "runs with the land" when it doesn't agree with current zoning?  Sec. 4, there's your bait & switch! What will really end up being built here, if we're stupid enough to vote for this with the developer "holding title" after zoning for condos is "denied?" Why  put ourselves in that position, with no more votes to stop something else we don't want? The district admits that this sale will NOT reduce our taxes. Will they spend the proceeds wisely? If the past is any indication, don't bet on it! Mr Aldrich may be enjoying that generous salary bump prior to his recent retirement, but tell the others not to line up at the ATM just yet.. Seaford residents aren't fools. That's why we live in this desirable, kid-friendly small town, and we intend to keep it that way.
Judith Conlon November 30, 2012 at 12:32 am
Not sure why WE would want people to purchase "condos" even if there were wealthy "seniors" looking to buy them in .. Seaford? It's zoned for residential use, not condos. That's why the developer can take 2 1/2 years to pay while waiting for a zoning change. Or.. he CAN close the sale without building condos at all, if zoning is denied. (The district misleads voters about this: the sale is NOT subject to zoning approvals, it CAN go through without them). Then, we won't have a clue (or another vote) as to what will actually wind up on this property. Maybe he can use it in a pinch to store some of those abandoned cars he collected on his lot out in Riverhead?
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/state-orders-removal-of-storm-damaged-vehicles-1.4272831
Judith Conlon November 30, 2012 at 12:48 am
My comments below were in response to this "hit and run" poser aiming barbs at me, then mysteriously "vanishing" after my reply. Here's what they originally said:
Reality check 4:30 pm on Monday, October 29, 2012 So let me get this straight - children of the school district are supposed to do without sports, regents review, summer reading and god knows what else just to appease a few people who don't want neighbors behind them like the rest of us have. Boo hoo. The needs of the many supercede the bull...... Of the few.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Wantagh-Seaford Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something