The City Council voted to close the public hearing on a zoning proposal that would allow the developer LMXD to expand the Orchard Neighborhood Redevelopment Incentive Overlay District to construct high-density, transit-oriented housing.
The site, between Pratt Boulevard and Glen Street, could house 50 or more residential units per acre, as part of an effort to revitalize the area, encourage walkability and align with state housing priorities. But the move has sparked fierce debate over its impact on infrastructure and water supply.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, members Marsha Silverman, John Zozzaro and Danielle Fugazy Scagliola argued that the proposed zoning amendment raised critical issues that remained unresolved, and that the council received an Environmental Assessment Form only one day before the meeting. This document evaluates potential impacts of the proposal, specifically addressing concerns about water supply, traffic, schools, and infrastructure capacity.
“I just don’t understand how we can move forward with this zoning change when the environmental study raises red flags,” Silverman said. She repeatedly cited Glen Cove’s Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan, which advises against increasing housing density without an “overriding public purpose.”
“So, once again, I ask, what is the public purpose of more housing, more rental apartments, in Glen Cove?” Silverman said.
Mayor Pamela Panzenbeck defended the proposal, describing the area around the train station as “blighted” and in need of redevelopment. “It is the perfect spot for transit-oriented development,” she said. “This area is an entryway to our city, and right now it attracts bad behavior. We believe this will be a big boon to the community, bringing walkability to our restaurants and downtown while addressing state priorities for housing near transit hubs.”
The zoning amendment, which grew out of recommendations in the city’s comprehensive plan, has also been shaped by broader, state-level housing initiatives.
“This is something the governor has been very big on,” Panzenbeck said. “Transit-oriented development is a key part of (Kathy Hochul’s) agenda, and was also a major focus of our comprehensive plan, which this council adopted last summer.”
Councilman Kevin Maccarone echoed the mayor’s defense of the proposal, accusing critics of misrepresenting its purpose. “The master plan specifically identifies this property for (transit-oriented development),” Maccarone said. “What we’re doing is getting ahead of the governor’s agenda to override local zoning laws. The state has been pushing this for years, and we’re taking control of the process to ensure it works for Glen Cove.”
But Silverman pushed back, arguing that in its current form, the proposed development is too dense, and lacks clear public benefit. She also noted that the master plan was conceptual, and didn’t address the overlay district by name.
“Why are we moving forward with 50 units per acre, plus incentives to go even higher?” Silverman said. “Why not 20 or 30 units? This is one of the densest projects Glen Cove has ever considered. Once it’s in the zoning code, developers can argue it’s their right to build at the maximum density, leaving little discretion for the planning board.”
Concerns about the city’s aging infrastructure dominated much of Tuesday’s discussion. Zozzaro warned about the strain additional that housing would place on the city’s water supply. “We’ve already had to purchase water from Locust Valley,” he said. “I don’t think we have the capacity to support this.”
Fugazy Scagliola raised similar concerns, referring to the environmental assessment form. “The report specifically flagged water as an issue,” she said. “I’m not sure how we can move forward without addressing that first.”
Panzenbeck acknowledged the challenges but assured the council that the city is modernizing its water infrastructure. “For many years, no money was spent on upgrading our water systems. We are addressing that now,” she said, noting ongoing renovations at wells on Nancy Court and Duck Pond Road. “It’s an issue of old infrastructure, and we are bringing it up to standard.”
There was also tension over the broader implications of the zoning change. “This is more than just a conceptual idea,” Silverman said. “Once the zoning code is amended, it ties the planning board’s hands. Developers can come in with high-density projects and the planning board won’t be able to say no.”
Maccarone disputed that claim, emphasizing that the planning board retains discretion. “Changing the zoning does not automatically approve any specific project,” he said. “The planning board will still evaluate each application to ensure it aligns with our regulations.”
City Attorney Tip Henderson highlighted the proposal’s potential to address Glen Cove’s affordable housing needs. “This project is about providing opportunities for young people coming out of college, for seniors looking to downsize, and for others who need affordable housing,” Henderson said. “It’s supported by the state, and addresses a real need on Long Island.”
Despite those assurances, Silverman remained unpersuaded. “The environmental study raises major concerns about traffic, water and infrastructure,” she said. “I just don’t believe this density level is appropriate for our city. We’re being told this is about local control, but we’re essentially adopting the governor’s plan without questioning if it’s right for Glen Cove.”
