HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of FactCondition 1.
Condition 2.
Condition 3.
2.
3.
DATED THIS 11 DAY OF R u' VS r
0
FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR
PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION
Carmel Plan Commission
Camel, Indiana
DOCKET NO. 04050039 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Glen Oaks Subdivision
PETITIONER: Langston Development
Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and
certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the
plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance.
I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as
agreed to by the petitioner.
I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons;
1.
Commission mber
,200y.
SCNNED
Docket No: 04050040 SW
Petitioner: Langston Development
Section Varied SCO 6.5.1
Brief Description of Variance: Minimum lot frontage
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a
variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
2.
3.
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
SUBDIVISION WAIVER
FINDINGS OF FACT
The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
The use and value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will not
be affected in a adverse manner.
The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and such
condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an
unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is
sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, 1 approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
Dated this 1 day of R QC ST' 2004.
t
mmission Member
Docket No: 04050041 SW
.Petitioner: Langston Development
Section. Varied SCO 7.5.7
Brief Description of Variance: Young Woodland clearing percentage (40
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a
variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
4.
5.
6
CARMEL /CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
SUBDIVISION WAIVER
FINDINGS OF FACT
The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
The use and value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will not
be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and such
condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an
unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is
sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, 1 approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
Dated this 11 day of N UcoST 200.
Commission Me ber