The Glen Cove City Council has granted a one-year extension for a building permit for a controversial apartment project at 135 Glen Cove Ave., despite widespread frustration over delays that have left a large hole in the ground at the site for years
The 4-2 vote at the council’s Dec. 10 meeting extended the permit until Dec. 4, 2025, but also imposed stringent conditions intended to push the developer, Glen Cove Villa LLC, to make significant progress. Councilwoman Marsha Silverman abstained from the vote.
The project, originally approved in 2021, has seen little visible advancement, which prompted heated debate at the meeting. Councilman John Zozzaro expressed strong opposition to extending the permit.
“I feel like they wasted a year, and nothing has gotten done,” Zozzaro said. “For some reason, I just feel that going ahead, I don’t think it’s in the best interest of Glen Cove to approve them for another year.” He added, “If this does get approved, I hope there are milestones or dates added going forward so that we’re on top of them and they’re doing their job.”
The site, which has been the subject of scrutiny by residents as well as council members, remains a sore point in the community. Councilwoman Danielle Fugazy Scagliola described the situation as “unbearable.”
“I don’t think anybody in our community wants to look at that hole in the ground,” Fugazy Scagliola said. She questioned the validity of the “extenuating circumstances” cited by Glen Cove Villa, adding, “Nobody ever showed us these extenuating circumstances, so I’m curious to know what those are.”
The extension is conditioned on the developer’s meeting several critical milestones on a strict timeline. Ann Fangmann, director of the city’s Community Development Agency, explained that within 30 days, the company must remove all mechanics’ liens and resolve any litigation. Additionally, it is required to close on loans for outstanding property mortgages. Over the following 60 days, Glen Cove Villa must provide a construction loan term sheet, finalize a construction management agreement and submit a revised project budget.
“The lender has very stringent requirements on what also needs to happen within the first 60 days,” Fangmann noted.
Despite the conditions, Fugazy Scagliola remained skeptical, arguing that the developer has not shown sufficient progress to justify another extension. “They haven’t done enough to make me feel that they’re operating in good faith to do the right thing here,” she said. “I know in the last month there’s been some activity, but you don’t wait 11 months and then ask for an extension.”
The project’s permit fees also sparked debate among council members. Glen Cove Villa will pay an adjusted building permit fee of just under $401,000, but Fugazy Scagliola argued that it should be higher, saying, “We talked about a number that was double the number that they’re willing to give us right now. Why are we willing to take half of what we think is reasonable at this point?”
Councilman Kevin Maccarone, who supported the extension, countered that the increased fees and oversight measures should provide sufficient motivation for the developers to move forward. “Nobody wants a hole,” Maccarone said. “To vote ‘no’ means there will be a hole for a very long time.” He added, “Based upon the fact that there is oversight in place, they do have substantial incentives to get moving very quickly. I vote ‘yes’ with respect to that.”
Mayor Pamela Panzenbeck, who advocated for the extension, emphasized the need to resolve the issue, which has become a frequent topic of complaints from residents. “We cannot leave that hole there,” she said. “Everywhere I go, people talk about that hole. When is that going to be addressed?”
Panzenbeck expressed confidence in a new team that is overseeing the project, saying, “We’re much more confident that they have the right people in place at this time to get this project going.”
The Glen Cove Industrial Development Agency also approved a 60-day payment modification — contingent on the developer’s meeting specific milestones. If they fail to comply, the project may face termination of financial assistance. But Fugazy Scagliola remained unconvinced, pointing out that the IDA’s resolution states only that the project “may” be considered in default. “Doesn’t mean they’re in default,” she said. “If they don’t do all those things, they could still get their assistance, right?”
City attorney Tip Henderson, who attended the IDA meeting, urged his colleagues to keep an open mind. “I was at the IDA meeting ( earlier) tonight, and I got a little different perspective of what’s going on,” Henderson said. “I’m starting to feel a little better that there are people involved who know what they’re doing and can make this happen.”
The council’s vote to extend the permit remains controversial. “Their feet haven’t been held to the fire,” Fugazy Scagliola said of Glen Cove Villa. “They had a year extension already, and I just feel like we’re giving them another pass.”
