HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact J. r
/, -^^ i' f
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana •
SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT
Docket No: 1 59-00aSW
Petitioner: Mr. Daniel Cage
Section Variance: SCO 8. 8
Brief Description of Variance: to fnrecjn i nGtallation of curbc & gutters
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: •-
- 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, I approve of the
requested subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the
following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of oCe r . , 2000r
s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 Commission Member
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
FINDINGS Of FACT
Docket No: 1 59-00bSW
Petitioner: Mr. Daniel Cage
Section Variance: SCO 8. 9
Brief Description of Variance: to forego installation of sidewalk/multi-use
path
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:
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
p an.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the
requested subdivision variance.
1 hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the
following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
•
Dated this 77 day of
200 A
irw
s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 Commission Member