Laserfiche WebLink
current project is different from the original plans, percentage of foundation that <br />has been built, and allowable setbacks on remodel projects versus new <br />construction. <br />Discussion was held regarding previously approved plans, demolition, approved <br />variances, project timeline, and stop work order. Mr. Kaufman provided <br />clarification regarding approved permits. Ms. Nelson provided clarification of <br />substantial rehab. <br />Chairman Nalle opened the public hearing. <br />Eric Saline, applicant, spoke in support of the project, provided an outline of <br />actions taken to date, and damage that had made demolition necessary. <br />Discussion was held regarding project costs. <br />Sherry Stanislaus, applicant's spouse, spoke in support of the project and noted <br />that extensive neighborhood outreach had been done and that they had <br />attempted to accommodate requests from neighbors. <br />William Farris spoke in opposition of the project and expressed concern <br />regarding fire hazards. <br />Edward Tornell spoke in opposition to the project and noted that large setbacks <br />are essential to the neighborhood. <br />Lewis Janowski spoke in opposition to the project and requested that the City <br />standard setback be enforced. He also noted concern regarding fire safety. <br />Dave Karos spoke in opposition to the project and noted disagreement with the <br />measurement of the setback requested. <br />George Herlihy spoke in opposition to the project. <br />Chairman Nalle closed the public hearing. <br />Discussion was held regarding encroachment on the north end of the home and fire <br />department approval. Discussion also held regarding demolition and requirements of <br />new construction. <br />Motion by Commissioner Sinclair to deny Variance 2002-03. <br />Motion died for lack of a second. <br />Motion to approve Variance No. 2003-03 as conditioned. <br />MOTION: Mondo SECOND: Lutz <br />VOTE: AYES: Cribb, De La Torre, Lutz, Mondo, Nalle (5) <br />NOES: Leo, Sinclair (2) <br />ABSENT: None (0) <br />ABSTENTION: None (0) <br />Commissioner Mondo commented that the applicant had complied with City requests <br />and that the footprint was not substantially different. <br />Commissioner Lutz noted that he had visited the site and that existing landscaping <br />would obscure the line of sight to the project. He also noted that he did not believe <br />encroachment would be a problem as the majority of the structure would be within the <br />setback. <br />Commissioner Cribb noted that variety was part of Floral Park's charm and that the <br />proposed structure will be a good contribution to the neighborhood. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 September 8, 2003 <br />