Council Passes Vested Rights Amendment

The Glen Cove City Council voted 4-2 Wednesday in favor of amending the city zoning ordnance to grant vested rights to the Waterfront Project redeveloper for that property.

City attorney Michael Zarin described the amendment not as a guarantee, which he called a misnomer, but a measure of partnership between the City and the redeveloper, RXR Realty.

Councilman Reginald Spinello led the Council's dissent on the issue.

"I don't understand how anyone would vote on something like this without understanding the true financial picture of things. It's beyond my comprehension," said Spinello. 

He proposed to table the vote for two weeks, citing religious observances that may have kept residents from attending the meeting. Councilman Anthony Gallo seconded the motion but it was voted down. Those in favor of voting said the previous three Council meetings were public hearings that gave the public ample time to be heard and ask questions.

Spinello, Gallo and several residents also took issue with modifications made to the wording of the resolution after an executive session March 19. Spinello referred to "19 whereases" that had been added with additional language.

"I'm uncomfortable with some of the language that is favorable to the developer," Spinello said.

Zarin said the substance of the amendment had not been changed. He said the March 19 pre-Council meeting and executive session's purpose was to bring the redeveloper in to answer any questions Council members still had, and the changes to the resolution's language were made to be clearer in response to Spinello's concerns.

"Resolutions often, if not always, come after the end of the deliberations. It's the final findings of the Board," said Zarin, adding that resolutions are sometimes amended at public meetings minutes before a vote.

Resident Paul Meli voiced his concern that the Council had met in the private executive session. Meli, an attorney, shot questions at Mayor Ralph Suozzi in the tone of a cross-examination, questioning the transparency of the Council's March 19 deliberations.

"I'm shocked that after a public hearing was closed, after the public was told that, 'You have no more right to speak on the record about this issue,' that this Council would meet behind closed doors at a meeting that the public were prohibited from attending - let alone not given any notice of - where you discussed the very issue that was the matter of the public hearing. You should be ashamed of yourselves for doing that," Meli said.

Suozzi replied that the pre-Council meeting was open to members of the public, and that the executive session that followed was necessary to discuss proprietary matters with the redeveloper present.

"We had a pre-Council meeting, we invited the redeveloper who came in to answer any questions the Council might have outside of whatever the public hearing had provided, to provide informaton for [Spinello and Gallo] because they keep saying they have questions but we don't hear the questions," said Suozzi.

Zarin said the executive session, while private, did not in reality exclude anyone.

"There was noone there to exclude," he said.

Suozzi and Councilmen Timothy Tenke, Nick DiLeo and Michael Famiglietti voted for the resolution. Spinello and Gallo voted against. Councilman Tony Jimenez was absent.

"I'm not against development, with all due respect, just high density. The vesting right would freeze our zoning for more than a decade; I would be approaching 50 years of age by the time we could rezone. The vesting right takes away the City Council's function of rezoning. We need that ability because a lot can change in 12 years," Gallo said.

Tenke called the changes to the resolution "minimus," saying they were made to clarify details which were the subject of questions at the public hearings.

"The question becomes: is 12 years reasonable? I don't know - 12 years is a long time, but when you're talking about a billion-dollar project, multiphased with four to five phases of buildout, I don't think 10-12 years is unreasonable," said Tenke. 

DiLeo and Famiglietti voiced their support for the resolution as a measure of good faith partnership with the redeveloper, and a positive step in moving the project forward.

Spinello said he appreciates the developer but is interested in protecting the City. He cited a clause in the resolution that contained language saying the amendment puts the City at no risk.

"I don't know that. I haven't seen the numbers," he said.

The Council will meet next on April 9.

Get breaking news updates l Like Glen Cove Patch on Facebook l Add an announcement