The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFindings of Fact FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 2 3 — 9 1 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: W a t e r s-t o rie PETITIONER: T reriw i c k Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS DAY OF , 1993 9/-;( -/T 11A( BOARD MEMBER /1011 Rev. March 1989 ,� FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 2 3 _ 9 1 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: W a t em-stone PETITIONER: Bi- Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS / DAY OF vo , 1990 if i BO RD MEMBER /11011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 23 - 91 g)p NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Waterston e PETITIONER: T -r-E r- W i G ly Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS /6F--AY OFLic? 199 BOARD MEMBER 111011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 2 3 _ 9 1 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Waterston e PETITIONER: R-r--PnWszlc X Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS ifiFt41 DAY OF 1993 BC RD MEMBER 01011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET N23 - 91 P P NAME OF SUBDIVISION: W a t e r s t o rie PETI ONER: R ,-enwick Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS 1 c.' DAY OF CA In e-, , 1990 ..1( CL.F.,. fi\C-ciA LL-1-1 BOARD MEMBER 101011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 2 3 — 9 1 P P NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Waterston e PETITIONER: 11r-er1W i ck A// Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon trep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS / AY OF ,, ,,,,a_./ 19 / //' A; 'dr Adr Adillgir ..,-.41611611Lmil :OA' 4 EMBER / #1011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 2 3 — 9 1 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Waterston e PETITIONER: R-r-er vv i ck Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS / DAY OF ,.,.�� 199) / 8 BOARD MEMBER 111011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 2 3 — p p NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Waterston PETITIONER: R r r1W Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS DAY OF 1990 (2c4 BOARD MEMBER r� 1/1011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 23 - 91 P P NAME OF SUBDIVISION: W a t e r s t o ri e PETITIONER: Ps,-enw i calc Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. /M".-- t-rt.ei (i►." 1 " >. (r~I _ 4 C.-;-..,;r. . i-,... ,1_ • Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS / DAY OF / -- 1t9� 4/ #1011BO 'D � B. ° Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 2 3 — 9 1 P P NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Waterston e PETITIONER: -F;---P nw i G Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS ` DAY OF ,Mini-e_ 1990 /41 9 Met4,au: BOARD MEMBER #1011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 23 - 91 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Wat Ear's tOTle PETITIONER: R2--er xvick Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS DAY OF , 1990 / "010212P5M /V! BOAR Mo BER (/1011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 23 - 91 P P NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Waterston e PETITIONER: -11 rEy1w i c k Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS ` .' .€"_DAY OF , 1990 r,de..... BOARD MEMBER' 01011 Rev. March 1989 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. : 23 - 91 p p NAME OF SUBDIVISION: W a e r s t o n e PETITIONER: Bl--c riwick Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the rep- resentations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Com- munity 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. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS DAY OF � 1990 did 07, :# % /-77e - BARD MEMBER 111011 Rev. March 1989 _ CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: Breriw i c k Section Variance: 8 - 9 Brief Description of Variance: El imiriat ion of iriterrza1 s idewa1k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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. ___(k,___ Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this /,Q I day of ��rt�i , 199¢. 17 , or 6G / 4 Is. on M- a r #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: B r er,w i c k Section Variance: 8 - 9 Brief Description of Variance: E 1 i m i n a tion o f interna 1 s i d ew a l k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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 the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this I day of r ; _r _ , 1990. 1 ' Commission Member ' #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: Br-ema i c k Section Variance: 8 _ 9 Brief Description of Variance: ET i m i n at. ion of in -t e r rn a 1 s i d ew a 1 k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will not be affected in a substantially adverse mariner. — — 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 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. t// Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this / day of :411 , ,k_ , 1990.7/ i/11: / :72 /' Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: B r enw i c k Section Variance: 8 - 9 Brief Description of Variance: F 1 i m i rn a tion o f intern a 1 s i d ew a 1k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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. X' Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this 1 g day of tiU e. , 1994. ommission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 — 9 1 PP Petitioner: B r o rnw i c k Section Variance: 8 _ 9 Brief Description of Variance: E1iminat1on of int.erria1 s i aewa1k. 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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 the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this r g day of f_ >:. , 199$. 7- Commission Member #1066.ghs CARIVMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: Bri c k Section Variance: 8 - 9 Brief Description of Variance: F 1 i m i nation o f inter ri a 1 s i d ew a 1 k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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 the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this /`( day of , 199g. tt (A v Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: B r k Section Variance: 8 . 9 Brief Description of Variance: E l i m i n a t i o n o f interna 1 s i d ew a 1 k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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 the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this / 'day of 7 ',,'e , 1990. Dom. Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 — 9 1 P P Petitioner: Br-enw i c k Section Variance: 8 _ 9 Brief Description of Variance: E 1 i rn i in a t i o rn o f i n t e r n a l s i d ew a 1k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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 the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this ( 8+h day of ._..,.\ iiA F , 1995. .mac _MC_On a. '1 1 Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 — 9 1 P P Petitioner: Brenwick Section Variance: 8 - 9 Brief Description of Variance: E 1 i m i n a tion o f interna 1 s i d ew a 1 k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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. PP Q I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this 7 day of __? , 199 , Commissio Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: Br.erzw i c k Section Variance: 8 _ 9 Brief Description of Variance: E 1 i m i rn a-L. i o n o f i n t e r ri a 1 s i d ew a 1 k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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 the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this day of , 199g. Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: B r ernes i c k Section Variance: 8 . 9 Brief Description of Variance: ET i m i n a t i o n o f i ri-t e r ri a 1 s i d ew a 1k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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. X Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this (IA day of ,,,,,,� , 199$. rf Alr• / mmission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 - 9 1 P P Petitioner: Br- k Section Variance: 8 . 9 Brief Description of Variance: E 1 i m i n at. ion o f interna 1 s i d ew a 1k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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 the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this day of , 1990. Commission M mber #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 2 3 — 9 1 P P Petitioner: Br erlw i c Section Variance: 8 . 9 Brief Description of Variance: E 11_m i ri a t ion o f interna 1 s i d ew a l k 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 public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. — — The use or 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 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 the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this ./ ' day of 199t1. /• Commission Member #1066.ghs ,