Opponents again challenge proposed Glen Cove development

Opponents of a proposed 194-unit condominium development in Glen Cove have reiterated their concerns about density and displacement.

"We are all here because we don't want to live in Queens," resident Roni Epstein said at a public hearing Wednesday night that drew more than 100 people. "We want our homes to have value . . . we invested in single-family homes."

The City Council and planning board met jointly Wednesday at City Hall to continue a public hearing that began at a Sept. 30 meeting that brought out about 200 people. The hearings were on the Villa at Glen Cove, proposed by Queens-based Livingston Development Corp.

Most of the dozen people who spoke Wednesday oppose the proposed project at Glen Cove and Craft avenues.

Livingston owns the building at 135 Glen Cove Ave., where Sharon Johnson lives on a fixed income in an apartment with her four grandchildren. It would be demolished to make room for the new complex.

"Where are we going to go?" she asked.

Tenants have month-to-month leases with riders that state the landlord's intent to redevelop the property, Keith Lanning, assistant vice president of the Livingston Group, said in an email.

A few favored the project. Moon Ja Oh, who has lived in Glen Cove since 1983, said she would like to sell her home and move to the Villa. "We need more taxpayers' money. We have to see the big picture."

Developer Dan Livingston also spoke about the project, which was first proposed to have more than 200 units about a decade ago.

"How much more do I need to cut this building?" Livingston said. "The idea is to create a viable, a strong development that will be sustainable."

Livingston has the right to build 86 units. The City Council is considering three "density bonuses" to allow the additional 108 units, officials said.

Livingston is also seeking two waivers -- one to allow the project to be built without affordable units and one to eliminate hillside protection provisions of the city code.

City officials kept the public hearing open before the council votes on permitting more than twice as many units as allowed.