 |
||||||
|
A Vacant Lot in Wantagh for Sale?... maybe
Originally published in the 2005 January 6 edition of The
Wantagh-Seaford Citizen. “I know what the neighbors have gone through. There have been hardships. Whatever I put in there will not be offensive,” Martin Turman told members of the Wantagh Seaford Homeowners Association. Mr. Turman is the developer who owns the vacant lot located at 2033 Wantagh Avenue, just south of Sunrise Highway at the south corner of Woodward Avenue. “I’m a hands-on guy.” But the neighbors weren’t convinced.
“We asked you to do two little things,” said John Smith, referring to snow removal at the sight of the property last week and to join the Wantagh Chamber of Commerce. “You haven’t done either of those things.” Mr. Turman claimed he was out of town the day it snowed and had hired a contractor to keep the property clean. He said he still intends to join the Chamber. “But I’m in a dilemma. I’m still willing to abide by the restrictions we agreed upon [with regard to the development of this property],” said Mr. Turman. “I’ll grant you the back easement for plantings, the parking, the shrubs but I can’t develop this property without charging $32 to $35 a square foot and break even.” Mr. Turman said his construction costs to build the 4,000 square foot two story building came in over budget and will cost him almost $1.2 million dollars, not including the cost of the land. “All along I was told the construction cost would be $125 to $150 a square foot. I put out three bids and they all came in at about $225 a square foot.” He explained that he needs to bring “professionals in the medical fields into the building. I’d like that option.” “I’m unimpressed,” said Tom Grogan who lives directly behind the property in question. “Look at what a Cape [Cod house] goes for in Wantagh. You act like you hopped off a turnip truck and got bowled over. I don’t believe it.” Neither did the other neighbors. “All we asked for were these covenants and you agreed. Now you are going back on that,” said a woman named Barbara. Fred Parola reminded Mr. Turman that “the community has worked with you for over a year and half,” he said. Mr. Grogan recalled the first time the community spoke about this property at a meeting in Wantagh High School in November of 2002. Mr. Parola read from the covenant agreed upon by Mr. Turman at a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing in July of 2003. “There are to be no retail stores, bars, taverns, restaurants or similar use for doctors, dentists and even for a physical therapist,” Mr. Parola reminded Mr. Turman. The community secured a prohibition against a medical office because nearby residents believe that such tenants generate heavy traffic leading to parking problems and dangerous congestion. “You want to make changes, now,” asked a woman called Denise. “You said the building would be owner occupied and you agreed to these covenants. There are so many accidents in that area and the parking is an aggravation. It’s like I live in Queens, but I don’t pay Queens taxes. Do you want to pay the difference? I don’t pay these kind of taxes to live in Queens.” The building will have 21 parking space and two tenants, according to Mr. Turman. Although not in the covenant, residents say Mr. Turman agreed that the building would be owner occupied. At the present time Mr. Turman, a certified public accountant, owns a building in Merrick where he practices. “It is my recollection that you told us more than once that it would be owner occupied,” said Mr. Parola. “We didn’t put it in the covenant because we didn’t want to hamstring you if and when you sell the building,” added Mr. Grogan. “That was one of the breakthroughs - that you’d move [your practice] from Merrick to Wantagh.” “Well, you know how it is. Everybody feels comfortable in their own house,” said Mr. Turman. Mr. Turman went on to say that he hoped to bring in medical professionals that had few patients. “Something like a day operation center, a psychiatrist or a plastic surgeon.” “With two tenants and their employees they will take up most of those parking spaces,” said Tom Gallagher. “If I call you when your tenants are parking in front of my house, what will you do about it,” asked John Smith. “You can’t limit the number of people a doctor sees,” said Denise. Medical professionals need clientele coming in.” “Before I rent the building I’ll ask questions to make sure there isn’t a lot traffic. What if I bring in valet parking? Cars can be moved around the lot,” replied Mr. Turman. “People don’t necessarily use valet parking. Every variance you asked for you got, with regard to height and depth. All we asked for were these covenants,” said Mr. Grogan. Mr. Turman said the public had three choices. “The first choice is to look for something low maintenance in the medical field restricting the number of employees and parking. My second option is to build the property as of right. Then I don’t have to do anything. I’m within my legal right if I build a 3,000 square foot building [and keep to the codes set forth by the Town of Hempstead]. My third option is to sell the property,” said Mr. Turman. “But you don’t know who’s coming in there. I could make a handsome amount of money.” “You’re not the first person to go through this. We are constantly looking out for our quality of life,” said Christine Marzigliano. “Right near me is a CVS and there is overflow on our street. The neighbors had to put in no parking signs from 9 to 5 and they have lost the right to park in front of their own homes.” In the end, residents would not agree to lift the covenants. “I believe we have reached the point of no return” said Mr. Parola. “Tomorrow there will be a for sale sign on the property,” said Mr. Turman who then left the meeting. “We will hold our position,” Mr. Parola told residents. “The covenants are the whole deal. We struck a deal. That’s it.” Although Mr. Parola understood that Mr. Turman would sell the land because “he can’t make it work,” Mr. Turman told The Citizen that “it [the sale] is premature to discuss at this time. We’re not certain what we’re doing. My partner is out of town.” |
