Mineola board designates Eden Blue project a Type I action; public hearing on 6‑story, 204‑unit Willis Avenue development continued to Sept. 10

The Village of Mineola Board of Trustees declared the proposed Eden Blue mixed‑use development at 110 Willis Avenue a Type I action subject to New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), agreed to act as lead agency in a coordinated review, and continued the public hearing so staff and project consultants can supply additional data on traffic, water demand and other details.

The board passed a resolution, introduced during the hearing, that the project be treated as a Type I SEQR action; the resolution also directed village counsel to notify involved agencies and interested parties. The resolution passed on a motion by Deputy Mayor Sartori, seconded by Trustee Clark; the board then authorized staff to circulate notices and await county and agency responses before further action.

The project team, representing Eden Blue LLC, presented a 6‑story mixed‑use building proposal that would include up to about 204 residential units above a ground floor of retail and office space and an integrated five‑level parking structure. Jack Martins, the applicant’s attorney with Harris Beach, described the project as a transit‑oriented development intended to serve commuters and local residents and to provide public benefits tied to the adjacent ball fields.

Architect Emilio Souza said the building would be contemporary in design and cited the project’s key measurements: a roofline at about 65 feet, an occupied rooftop amenity level at about 69 feet and rooftop structures rising to about 80 feet. Souza said the total building area is roughly 410,398 square feet, with a residential gross area of about 197,437 square feet and a rooftop amenity area of 16,276 square feet. The applicant described a rooftop pool and resident amenities, plus a potential public‑facing rooftop beer garden or cafe overlooking the ball fields.

Martins and project consultants said the development includes public‑benefit elements intended to integrate the building with the adjacent Mineola Athletic Association (MAA) ball fields. Those elements include about 9,415 square feet of ground‑floor retail/office (the applicant said roughly 2,500 square feet would be deeded to the village for uses tied to the fields), new public restrooms, an office and meeting rooms for the MAA, renovated space for the PAL House, and stadium‑style seating positioned to view the fields. The applicant said the design would also create a covered walkway or colonnade that links Willis Avenue to the rear ball fields and an interior “Mineola Hall of Fame” display corridor.

Project engineers reported parking and utility counts. Civil engineer Angelo Laino said the development offers a total of 378 enclosed parking spaces: three levels below grade and two above. He said 307 spaces would be allocated to residents and 71 would be dedicated for municipal/public use, increasing the available structured parking for field patrons. Laino said the current municipal lot contains 111 spaces, and the proposal would preserve those 111 places while adding 71 municipal spots adjacent to the building.

Laino also described a water‑use calculation update: early numbers in the expanded environmental assessment used conservative flow estimates totaling about 46,000 gallons per day; after reviewing local project data and a per‑bedroom usage figure of 71 gallons per day, the applicant’s engineering team revised the estimated average demand to roughly 20,000 gallons per day (including a 20% contingency). The board asked the village engineer to continue its own capacity review and requested a formal water‑availability letter from county or utility authorities before the board acts further.

Traffic consultant Aaron Maktay summarized a traffic impact study prepared for the applicant and told the board the study concluded that, under the scenarios analyzed, “the proposed development would not have a significant negative impact on area traffic conditions.” He reported projected peak trips of about 104 during the weekday PM peak and 192 during a Saturday peak in the conservative ITE‑based scenario; he noted the team used conservative assumptions and that empirical traffic data from other Mineola developments has tended to show lower traffic generation than standard ITE estimates.

Several trustees and members of the public raised concerns during the lengthy hearing. Trustees and residents said the project’s mass and height — particularly rooftop structures rising above the 69‑foot amenity level — appear large given the site’s relationship to the ball fields and surrounding streets. Trustees also asked the team for empirical post‑occupancy traffic and water‑use data from completed Mineola projects to compare modeled projections with observed results; the applicant said it would supply comparative empirical data for the next hearing. Trustees asked for a closer look at the project’s relationship to First Street and Willis Avenue intersections, the proposed stadium seating configuration, staging and continuity of MAA operations during construction, the location and operation of any rooftop public venue, and fire‑safety implications of subgrade parking.

Public commenters included longtime residents and representatives of the MAA and PAL. The PAL representative said the organization supports the overall concept and noted that public‑private partnerships have helped upgrade village recreational facilities in the past. Several residents urged the board to require more engineering detail and empirical comparisons before the board takes a final vote.

At the end of the hearing the board voted to continue the public hearing to September 10 and left the record open for supplemental material. The continuation motion was made by Deputy Mayor Sartori, seconded by Trustee Casado, and carried unanimously. In the interim the board will act as lead agency and coordinate SEQR review with involved agencies and the Nassau County Planning Commission; the village attorney said notice to interested agencies would be sent and that the board must wait the required 30‑day review period and any county referrals before final action.

Votes and formal actions from the hearing included the board’s adoption of the Type I/lead‑agency resolution (motion by Deputy Mayor Sartori; second Trustee Clark; vote: aye, motion carries) and the motion to continue the public hearing to Sept. 10 (motion by Deputy Mayor Sartori; second Trustee Casado; vote: aye, motion carries).