The village recently held a public hearing for the purposes of receiving public input on an amendment to a local law that would expand the area of notification before a hearing is held on a special use permit.

In both instances where special use permits come before the Mineola Board of Trustees and variance applications come before the village's board of zoning and appeals, the current law states that notice shall be given to all property owners within a 200-foot radius of the applicant.

Therefore, notification is required to all property owners within a 200-foot radius of a one or two-family residentially zoned property that submits an application to the village.

It is proposed that the law be modified so that the required 200-foot radius is required only of applicants that are zoned for one or two family residential purposes.

The applications submitted by one and two family homes are fairly low impact with respect to the quality of life in the neighborhoods, Village Attorney John Spellman said.

An example of an application submitted by a one or two family house may involve a fence, expansion of a garage, or the construction of a deck - items that wouldn't necessarily affect other residents by impacting the traffic or other items that may affect quality of life.

If the board does, in fact, vote to amend the current law, applicants of all non-residential properties would be required to give all property owners within a 400-foot radius notification.

Therefore, for items that have a greater impact on the quality of life of the village, a greater number of property owners will be notified as to the application, according to Spellman.

However, for businesses that submit an application for a special use permit, a greater number of residents will be notified so that their voices can be heard when the village holds hearings on the applications.

The local law amendment was an issue trustee Linda Fairgrieve pushed for during last year's village election campaign. "I feel very strongly about this. It's something that I've wanted done for a long time and I agree that basically when you're talking about non-residential use, many times it impacts for that 200 feet of houses," she said.

The amendment also has the support of fellow board member Elizabeth Conlon. "I'm in favor of this. I think it's informing more residents regarding commercial properties," she said.

The board reserved decision on the amendment, possibly because Mayor John P. Colbert was not present for the hearing. However, the mayor did attend the regular public board meeting following the hearing.