Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Answer - DRAFT ',~ 6. With respect to the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 6 of the Petition, the Commission admits that Jacob requested approval by the Commission in order to develop the Real Estate, and that copies of Ordinance No. Z-160, as amended, and Ordinance No. Z-346, as amended, are attached to the Petition. However, the Commission denies the allegation that Jacob requested such approval in order to develop the Real Estate "in accordance with" such ordinances, and further states affirmatively that both such ordinances, taken together, comprise the Subdivision Regulations of the Carmel Clay community. 7. With respect to the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 7 of the Petition, the Commission admits that the Preliminary Plat neither requested nor necessitated any special exceptions, special uses, or zoning changes. However, the Commission denies that such Plat neither requested nor necessitated any variance, and further states affirmatively that such Plat would necessitate a variance from Section 6.3.21 of the Subdivision Regulations unless the Plan Commission were to specifically find that it was appropriate for both points of access to the Subdivision to be from neighborhood streets instead of from through streets, as required by said Section 6.3.21. 8. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 8 of the Petition. 9. Rhetorical paragraph 9 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, 2 the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. The Commission further states affirmatively that Section 5.1.7 of the Subdivision Regulations speaks for itself. 10. Rhetorical paragraph 10 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. The Commission further states affirmatively that under IC 36-7-4-707 it is the responsibility of the Commission-not the Building Commissioner-to determine whether a Plat complies with the Subdivision Regulations. The Building Commissioner merely accepted Petitioners' application for Plat approval; in this case, the Petitioners knew that his acceptance of their application did not constitute an official acknowledgment that it complied with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. 11. The Commission denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 11 of the Petition. The Commission further states affirmatively that it made a proper Decision, in accordance with IC 36-7-4-707, that the Preliminary Plat did not comply with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, and that such Decision is attached to the Petition as Exhibit J. 12. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 12 of the Petition. 13. With respect to the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 13 of the Petition, the Commission admits that Petitioners established the facts set 3 forth in subparagraphs 13(b), 13(c), 13(e), 13(f), 13(g), and 13(h). The Commission denies that Petitioners established any of the other facts as alleged in said paragraph 13. 14. The Commission denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 14 of the Petition. 15. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 15 of the Petition. 16. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 16 of the Petition. 17. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 17 of the Petition. 18. The Commission denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of rhetorical paragraph 18 of the Petition. The Commission admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of said paragraph 18. 19. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 19 of the Petition. 20. With respect to the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 20 of the Petition, the Commission admits that the Department believed that the Committee should consider Section 6.3.21 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Commission states affirmatively that Petitioners knew that their Plat was not in technical compliance with said Section 6.3.21 unless the Plan Commission were to specifically find that it was appropriate for both points of access to the Subdivision to be from neighborhood streets instead 4 of from through streets, as required by said Section 6.3.21. The Commission denies the remaining allegations contained in said paragraph 20. 21. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 21 of the Petition. 22. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 22 of the Petition. 23. With respect to the allegations contained in the first sentence of rhetorical paragraph 23 of the Petition, the Commission admits that Petitioners presented the Committee with a written submission which addressed certain concerns of the Committee raised at the First Committee Meeting, but the Commission denies the allegation that such submission satisfied all of the Committee's concerns. The Commission admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of said paragraph 23. 24. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 24 of the Petition. 25. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 25 of the Petition, except for the word "finally". 26. The Commission denies the allegations contained in the first and second sentences of rhetorical paragraph 26 of the Petition. The Commission admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of said paragraph 26. 27. The Commission denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 27 of the Petition. The Commission further states affirmatively that it is 5 the Commission's responsibility under IC 36-7-4-707 not to do a sloppy job of reviewing a Preliminary Plat, but indeed to search through the duly adopted Subdivision Regulations for technicalities with a "fine-toothed comb", in order to assure that the will of the City Council in adopting such Regulations is actually carried out. 28. The Commission denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 28 of the Petition. ' 29. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 29 of the Petition, except for the word "accepted". 30. The Commission denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 30 of the Petition. 31. The Commission denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 31 of the Petition. The Commission further states affirmatively that Petitioners knew that the term "through street" was defined in the Section 6.3.21 of the Subdivision Regulations as either a "feeder, arterial, or collector" and chose to obfuscate and ignore such definition and instead hope that the Department and the Commission would overlook such definition. The Commission further states affirmatively that Petitioners knew that Marwood Trails Drive was a neighborhood street-not a through street as such term in commonly understood-and again hoped that the Commission would overlook this fact and approve their Plat despite the fact that it failed to comply with said Section 6.3.21. 6 32. Rhetorical paragraph 32 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. The Commission further states affirmatively that Petitioners knew that the members of the Commission were concerned about the concrete standards contained in Section 6.3.21 of the Subdivision Regulations and that the Commission members were not pursuing a so-called "hidden agenda". 33. The Commission admits the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 33 of the Petition, except for the word "solely". 34. The Commission denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 34 of the Petition, based on the assumption that the Petition intended to say "never" rather than "ever". 35. The Commission denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of rhetorical paragraph 35 of the Petition, except to admit that the Decision was signed by the President and Secretary of the Commission and filed in the Commission's office on May 15, 2001. The Commission admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of said paragraph 35. 36. Rhetorical paragraph 36 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 37. The Commission denies the allegations contained in rhetorical paragraph 37 of the Petition. 7 38. Rhetorical paragraph 38 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 39. Rhetorical paragraph 39 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 40. Rhetorical paragraph 40 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 41. Rhetorical paragraph 41 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 42. Rhetorical paragraph 42 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 43. Rhetorical paragraph 43 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 44. Rhetorical paragraph 44 of the Petition asserts a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial, but to the extent that one is required, the Commission denies the allegations contained in said paragraph. 8