Glen Cove council narrowly approves third permit extension for stalled Glen Cove Villa project

For the third year in a row, the Glen Cove City Council narrowly approved a building permit extension for the long-stalled Glen Cove Villa apartment complex — an increasingly controversial project that has left a massive excavation pit on Glen Cove Avenue with little visible progress. The 4-3 vote on Nov. 25 once again pushed forward the $65 million, 176-unit rental development, with Mayor Pamela Panzenbeck casting the deciding vote.
The project, led by Glen Cove Villa LLC, was first approved in 2021. Since then, work at the site, at 135 Glen Cove Ave., has stalled repeatedly as funding issues, ownership restructuring and missed milestones have fueled public frustration. Several council members who voted no echoed sentiments heard throughout the community, said they saw no meaningful progress to justify granting yet another extension.
Councilwoman Danielle Fugazy Scagliola, who voted against the measure, reminded her colleagues that the same debate took place a year ago.
“I also want to see something built,” she said. “I am sick of looking at this hole. I think this whole community is sick of looking at this hole.

There’s nothing here that indicates this is the real deal this time.” Fugazy Scagliola added that she hoped for more transparency and communication about the project moving forward.

Councilman John Zozzaro, who also voted no, agreed that too little had changed. “I wasn’t presented enough progress to say yes,” he said.
Councilwoman Marsha Silverman abstained.
Panzenbeck, whose vote ultimately pushed the extension through, said she did not want to leave the site in its current condition indefinitely. “We need to get this project moving forward,” she said.
City Building Director Scott Grupp acknowledged that “not a lot has transpired” since last year’s extension was approved. He added, however, that the developer had spent the past year attempting to secure a joint-venture partnership — something the Glen Cove Industrial Development Agency required before advancing tax-incentive considerations.
“Unfortunately, their funding had dried up, and they’re looking to re-establish that and go forward,” Grupp said of Glen Cove Villa. He noted that the new investment company now involved, who he did not name at the meeting, “seem(s) to have a lot more depth,” describing it as a national firm with substantial experience in major multifamily developments.
Grupp also offered an update on the work that was completed before funding stalled. All required drainage has been installed; pile-driving is “pretty much completed”; and the main excavation has reached the elevation where the parking garage would be built. Still, he acknowledged the obvious: “Nothing has been built.”

Bond tripled as a protective measure
Councilman Kevin Maccarone raised questions about the project’s performance bond, which saw a significant increase last year.
Grupp explained that the original bond covered only public improvements such as sidewalks and curbs. With a deep excavation now sitting idle, the city insisted on increasing the bond to cover the cost of refilling and restoring the site if the project falls through.
“By more than tripling the value of the bond, their premiums go up significantly,” Grupp said. “They’ve been carrying it for two years.” He added that Manoj Narang, the project’s majority partner, “has a significant amount of money invested,” including the cost of renewing the permit and maintaining the bond.
Maccarone said the higher bond amount serves as a safeguard for the city and a show of commitment on the developer’s part. “By them paying this, it’s a show of good faith moving forward,” he said.

IDA begins due diligence on PILOT request
Before the council meeting, the Industrial Development Agency held a preliminary meeting to discuss the Villa project and consider the next steps on Villa’s application for a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement. The meeting became difficult to follow when the livestream malfunctioned — which Fugazy Scagliola said prevented her from getting clarity on what transpired.
Ann Fangmann, executive director of the IDA, acknowledged the technical issues. “It was unfortunate,” she said. “We’ll always have my personal computer from now on as a backup.”
Fangmann clarified what the IDA did — and did not — approve. Contrary to public assumptions, it did not vote on a PILOT itself.
“So tonight we did four things,” she said. “We did a preliminary resolution, which means we’ll start taking a look into SEQRA for the project,” she added, referring to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. “It authorizes staff to move forward with setting up a public hearing. We will begin the due diligence reports — the third-party consulting reports we typically get done for all these projects.”
Villa has submitted a PILOT application, Fangmann confirmed, but the board will not vote on it until after a public hearing and at least one additional board meeting.
Representatives of the developer — including principal Jay Fisher, of Sim Group; Narang, attorney Dan Deegan and an additional project team member — attended the IDA meeting and answered questions about financing and project status.

A long history of extensions and community frustration
This latest extension comes less than a year after the council imposed strict conditions on the developers in January, requiring the removal of liens, the resolution of litigation, the closing of property loans and the submission of a revised construction budget within tight timelines.