The Farmingdale Village Board's move last week to grant a special use permit to two developers of senior housing did not please everyone in the village.

Compromise rarely does.

However, based on the circumstances of each case, we feel that these local elected officials acted in the best interest of the village as a whole.

In the case of the Wagner property, although many neighboring residents were opposed to the aesthetics and size of the proposed building, the developer's revised plan met all code requirements. Therefore, if the village had not granted the permit, the developer was expected to wage a successful court battle against the municipality.

In the case of the Fulton Street property, the proposed structure consists of more units than called for by village code for the property. (The estimated maximum number of units based on the size of the property has ranged from a village official's calculation of 50 to a concerned resident's calculation of 30). Therefore, technically, it is an overdevelopment of the property. However, the developer had reduced the number of units from 64 to 62, and apparently felt he could reduce the number no more while still making a profit. This, it seems, was because the land was zoned for commercial use and therefore was overpriced.

The reason the Fulton Street property was being sought by a senior housing developer in the first place is also telling. The village had sought a senior housing developer for the property at the request of nearby homeowners who preferred quiet, resident neighbors to a noisy business operation, such as the auto repair operator who had sought the property a year ago.

The senior housing proposed for this Fulton Street property is not a done deal yet, because the developer has yet to obtain a variance for such issues as yard requirements, density and parking. (A May 20 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing will address this.) However, the special use permit is a significant step in the project.

Both the Wagner development, a senior condominium complex to be marketed with the name Ambrose Court (which has been fully approved and does not need a variance), and the Fulton Street development, which would be known as Woodbridge II, would not hurt the village, but rather would benefit it in more than one way. First, they would replace vacant, blighted properties which are zoned for development while bringing less traffic and noise than a commercial operator would. Also, they would meet a high demand for housing for the local aging population.

For the good of the area, the village needs to be progressive in their thinking and business-friendly, while imposing as many restrictions as possible to protect the community's suburban character. They did that last week.

The village board's decisions to grant the permits were not rash; both developers submitted more than one plan, which were evaluated and revised, and the permits were given only after extensive negotiations. Furthermore, anyone familiar with these local officials can trust that their decisions were motivated by nothing but a desire to improve the village.

Andrea Halpern