Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2. <br />VN-176 <br />The. impact of the request on adjacent property must also be <br />considered and in this case a number of factors may be relevant. <br />First, the applicant has inr~icated that their father has no <br />objection to the request. Second, their father's home. is <br />located approximately 310 feet from Old Hwy. 8 whichplaces <br />this home approximately 190 feet from the proposed garage. <br />Thirdly., the applicant has indicated that arrangements have <br />been made to eventually transfer their father's property to <br />the greenhouse. As such, it may be possible if the .variance is <br />approved.,_to attach a condition that a certain amount of the <br />adjacent property be added to the greenhouse property at time of <br />transfer. <br />We also discussed the possibility of a smaller garage but the <br />:applicant has indicated that the space is needed ;for efficient <br />load ina, . <br />If the recommendation is to approve we would suggest that any <br />conditions made part of this non-conforming use permit and <br />building permit be conditions of the variance. <br />Planning Commission Consideration and Recommendation(11/15/77) <br />VN-176, NC-25; LP-57 - Plet-Scher-Greenhouse, Inc. <br />.The Director of Community Development noted that this item was <br />continued from `the previous meeting,` <br />.Commissioner Doyle stated that the item was not discussed at <br />that time but was .simply passed over..: <br />No one appeared`to represent the applicant. <br />Commissioner Doyle noted that the 10':foot driveway north of the <br />building was inadequate, <br />The Cirectorof Community development noted .that/access to the <br />proposed addition to the north would also be inadequate because: <br />of this limited.-space: He suggested that it might be possible <br />to design the 'addition with doors accessing to the east and <br />that perhaps he :addition could also be expanded in that <br />direction if-that :were necessary„ <br />