Real Estate Transfers

03/28/2011 11:17 AM |

Editor’s note: Listings prepared for Times/Review Newspapers by Suffolk Research Service, dated Jan. 20-26, 2011.

Aquebogue (11931)
• Campo Brothers to Cevasco, Douglas, 12 Cedar Cove Ct (600-66-2-4.3), (R), $408,590
• Miller, M to Sullivan, Tara, 533 Peconic Bay Blvd (600-87-2-4), (R), $350,000

Cutchogue (11935)
• Norkelun, P to Best, Joseph, 775 Skunk Ln (1000-97-4-4), (R), $319,000

Jamesport (11947)
• Cowley, T & J to Ziskind, Edward, 135 Timothy Ln (600-69-3-53.23), (R), $411,000

Mattituck (11952)
• Gerber, L to Keil Alvahs Lane Farm LLC, 17950 Route 25 (1000-115-4-15), (R), $275,000
• Foote, N Revoc Trust to Donnelly, Daniel, 790 Willis Creek Dr (1000-115-17-17.13), (R), $1,425,000

Peconic (11958)
• Blower, P & J to Oursler III, Charles, 5865 Soundview Ave (1000-58-1-3), (R), $2,040,000

Riverhead (11901)
• Auer, H & J to Goodsell, Michael, 162 Kings Dr (600-104-2-15.1), (R), $262,500
• McCullough, A by Referee to Mangiaracina, Josef, 116 Lincoln St (600-126-1-35.1), (R), $159,400

Shelter Island (11964)
• Wittwer, A Liv Trust to Kloepfer, Robert, 52 Winthrop Rd (700-7-7-27), (R), $525,000

Wading River (11792)
• Keillor Jr, A & B to Zoumas, Ioannis, N. Parker Rd & 74-3-3.003 (600-57-1-4.1), (V), $250,000
• Keillor Jr, A & B to Zoumas, Stephen, N. Country Rd & 57-1-4.002 (600-74-3-3.2), (V), $175,000

(Key: Tax map numbers = District-Section-Block-Lot; (A) = agriculture; (R) = residential; (V) = vacant property; (C) = commercial; (R&E) = recreation & entertainment; (CS) = community services; (I) = industrial; (PS) = public service; (P) = park land; as determined from assessed values in the current tax rolls.)



4 Comment

  • It’s nice to read that members of our community and staff will be able to participate in the selection processs. OH WAIT!! Nothing was stated or organized by the board president and vice president about community being involved with interviews. The initial meetings with the consultant firm was to “satisfy” public outcry to be involved. Now “daddy and mommy” are the only grownups allowed at the table. Where is the community input that Costas and Lindell said they wanted?

  • oh right…like the community members are capable of an intelligent thought.
    have you seen the characters that speak at the board sessions? lets be thankful we have little involvement in the selection.

  • The Shoreham-Wading River Board of Education has just completed the first round of candidate interviews for Superintendent of Schools. I would like to thank all those who contributed and participated in the focus groups and responded to the district survey which helped shape the specifications and interview questions for Superintendent.

    The 6 members of the board who participated in the interviews (Mr. Robert Alcorn, Mr. Jack Costas, Mr. Mike Fucito, Ms. Marie Lindell, Mr. Bill McGrath and I) were greatly impressed with the caliber of the top 5 candidates.

    Shoreham-Wading River is faced with many challenges including inequitable State Aid, poor voter turnout, a looming tax cap, etc. but we are certainly not the only school district faced with these. The candidates we have met with have all dealt with issues like these and many more, and have had success in overcoming them.

    I think it is very important that we put to rest a few incorrect rumors, by stating the following FACTS:

    Fact 1 – SWR received over 30 applicants for the Superintendent position, which is in line with all the other openings for Superintendent handled by School Leadership.
    Fact 2 – There are a sizeable number of candidates who are clearly qualified to run the Shoreham-Wading River School District. There are many candidates who have been faced with similar challenges that we are faced with who have achieved great success.
    Fact 3 – Shoreham-Wading River has proven to be an attractive district and qualified candidates expressed a strong desire to become part of our team and community and lead us into the future.

    I am happy to report this to the community as it is extremely good news that should be available to all and provide some level of comfort and truth to counter the small, yet vocal group in our community, who has attempted to convey something other than these facts.

    There is also a mis-perception that the SWR Board is “divided”. There are only 2 decisions that I can recall of any significance this year where there was a split among the board. Both of these issues had very polarizing views within the community and did in fact result in a less than 7-0 vote. It is important to note that the individual trustess did not all vote with the same bloc on both of these issues. It is also important to recognize that individual board members represent various constituencies within the community, and it was clear from discussions at Board Meetings that the community itself was divided on both of these issues…so it is not surprising that the board members decisions have followed the split within the community. It is interesting that a perception exists that the community can be divided, yet the board must agree? I am a firm believer that the Board is a team and we are best served through differences of opinion, dialogue and compromise, as no single person will have the correct answer on every issue. The process of getting to a consensus, where all parties involved recognize the pros and cons of decisions is immensely valuable, and once that consensus is reached, it becomes time to act and deliver.

    I felt great pride in working with the Board members who were present in an immensely collaborative fashion these past 2 weeks. There was a great sharing of ideas and points of view, and a considerable amount of camaraderie was displayed, and appreciated by all.

    During these sessions the Board acted with a common purpose, with direction, partnership and a clear path to the future…a future that looks to achieve the best for both our students and our community.

    As for the Superintendent search process, it is clear that the Board understands the road ahead. While we are progressing on this process, there is still work to be done, but we are working together and I am confident that we will come to agreement and the district will be led effectively by both the board of education and a NEW and extremely qualified and capable Superintendent, who is ready and able to tackle the challenges that lay ahead.

    I encourage all community members to attend board meetings or reach out to the Board of Education via the board email address ([email protected]) or individually via phone or email. Your opinion is of the utmost importance to us.

    Thank you
    Richard Pluschau
    [email protected]

  • Did you consider that many of the candidates for the position may be currently employed and disclosing their identity would compromise their employment? I would imagine that once the finalists are selected the community will enjoy the opportunity to ask questions and participate in the evaluation. If this response gets in the way of your agenda, I apologize for my input. Nikko