Villa decision sent to the Glen Cove Planning Board

The Glen Cove City Council voted to move Livingston Development’s application to change its Villa project from its original proposal of 176 condominiums to a new one -— 216 rental units — to the Planning Board at the council’s March 10 meeting.

Four of the six City Council members, along with Mayor Tim Tenke, voted in favor of forwarding the application to the Planning Board for a recommendation on incentives, bonuses, conceptual site plan and application for waiver of hillside protection provisions. 

Councilman Gaitley Stevenson-Mathews and Councilwoman Marsha Silverman abstained.

With the application moving forward, the Planning Board will be able to gather information on the project and make recommendations to the council. However, it would be the council that would decide the fate of the Villa project at 135 Glen Cove Ave. And the public will be able to attend the meetings when the proposal is discussed.  

One of the points that Glen Cove City Council members wanted to make clear at the meeting was that they were not weighing in on the application.

“This resolution does not express approval or disapproval of the contents and there will be future opportunities, as they have said, to agree or not agree with the Planning Board’s recommendation after a future joint open hearing,” Councilwoman Dr. Eve Lupenko Ferrante said.

President of Living Development Corp. Daniel Livingston’s original proposal was for two buildings consisting of 176 condominiums, which was approved by the council in 2017.

The locals were not too happy with a new plan to build an apartment complex instead, that would add about 40 units. Livingston said that his company has “already outlaid $32 million on this project.” 

He asked on Feb. 4 that the council not only submit his new proposal to the Glen Cove Planning Board, but also that it push for the city’s Industrial Development Agency to grant additional incentives to build. Livingston’s attorney, Kathleen Deegan Dickson, argued that a city code states that the council is legally obligated to pass the application onto the Planning Board. 

The vote came after representatives of the developer made accusations against Silverman and requested that she recuse herself from the vote due to possible bias since she lives on Rooney Court adjacent to the Villa project property. 

In January 2019, a $11.3 million defamation lawsuit from Livingston against the councilwoman and her wife, Roni Epstein, was dismissed. The case was originally filed in November 2017 in Nassau County Supreme Court and Livingston has since appealed. 

Stevenson-Mathews has also expressed concerns about the proposal in the past. In fact, his election platform promised to halt residential development to Glen Cove as 2,000 more residents are expected with the completion of Garvies Point, Village Square and the Livingston projects.

“Forty additional units is the breaking point for me,” he said at a pre-council meeting on Feb. 4. “I like the development, but only when it’s smart and balanced.” At Tuesday’s meeting he said that it is the council’s job to uphold the law but also to serve city residents.  

Before the vote, some residents asked the City Council to vote the proposal down. 

“I really do believe that you, as members of the City Council, are making a very crucial mistake in sending this to the Planning Board,” resident Steve Gonzalez, a former City Councilman, said. He later added, “You’re affecting many neighborhoods here with this decision tonight.” 

Another resident, Jeff Perez, argued that Livingston’s attorney, Deegan-Dickson, was the former council to the City of Glen Cove Planning and Zoning Boards. “It’s an ethical violation,” he said. 

It was made clear by City Attorney Greg Kalnitsky that there is a three year “cooling down” period for attorneys. “When an attorney leaves the public service, they can eventually come back and represent clients before the board,” Kalnitsky said. He later added, “There are special ethical rules that govern government attorneys who go into the private sector.” 

Tenke said that he believes the Planning Board is capable of making recommendations that will benefit the city. “We’ll make recommendations and we will meet in a joint meeting between the council and the Planning Board,” he told residents, “and you will have opportunities to voice your opinions during those times, but we need to follow what our code says at this point.”

Ronny Reyes and Mike Conn contributed to this story.