VN-168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VN-168.- -3- The concern for the size of the parcel may be'alleviated if Tract B were joined to, he much larger Herbs parcel. This would not, however, solve the problem of access. Since the.-Planning. Commission meeting, the: applicants have' indicated a desire toattach Tract B to the~existng Herbst parcel. The present application has: not been withdrawn as there is a ques- ton if a variance is required with the subdivision as now desired. On one, hand, attaching_Tract B to the Herbst property would creates a "new" lot which would not have frontage on a publicly.dedcated', street: -A-''new" lot would be created zn that its size, shape and legal description would -be modified. FurtYier; the amount of land-- locked property wou3d be increased.. This would .:apparently req°.~ire the variance. It could,. however, be interpreted that.-a variar.,-^e is not required as the conditions of the Herbst property ;are r•~,~,t significantly changing as the parcel does not present y have street frontage. -If it were determined that subdivision into .the pa,~^cels zeew~ desired requires- a variance, it would appear that the pub:~ic l~:earing called-would suffice in terms of notification. Anot~~er ~.lternative would be to .condition the original varianc8, if approved, on the applicant attaching Tract B tothe larger Herbst. p~.rcel. The resolution that has been drafted for the minor st.i:~-- dvision provides f_or the subdivision as now desired by the applicants-, that is, attaching Tract B to the Herbst parcel.. Plannincr Commission Consideration and Recommendation (12-21-76): Please see attached.