The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFindings of Fact 016-00 SW CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: S-4,) Petitioner: Section Variance: t°O �4•l � Onl U Brief Description of Variance: nt&{ ''SKS'/�Lo l ' Si,e- F't 1'P 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. V 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 f ,2060 s:Aforms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 COFRi ii n Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: S.14.) Petitioner: C,a, Section Variance: Sro � •4' Brief Description of Variance: -L Sc r.>c'w KS /�Lo ll S e Fel/AM- 'el? 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 E's"-- day of C 's- ,20 s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 Commission Member ' CARMEWCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: S 16 a_ t) Petitioner: ( ?4, u Section Variance: 5Z'°O ?4'-l Brief Description of Variance: 'i ' ',47 4-La-(,1 67,c F77/k/13- In tomIn 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 I day of 'F'e- y`1 , 20 0.0 s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frrn2000 Commission Member • CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No:j6__:___7a)_____S-etjPetitioner: ( ' j Section Variance: `,-( ) ?S'.l Brief Description of Variance: AI Pc-vt.1 C'CKS'4-Lo-*1 57,e- 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 1/5-'----day of ,20 / s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 Cornrnissi rnber CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Sit) Petitioner: C'o'o;< . Ai. ----""E-SW Section Variance: SrO ?4' Brief Description of Variance: e Ji-c t,GgT- pe-w.iLYk',¢La�FI ' S7r r t ,2v 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. 720. 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 ,20 s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 Commissian Member CARMEL,/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: C -c;'i5 4,/z2 / Section Variance: ("°G) ?, y'.! DF:Fre. Brief Description of Variance: '& •' ' - « S c r:er,,v-KS'�Lv , S7,C t 47. In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to pelrnit 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. ,1 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 /1) day of � �� 20 s:\forms\subva rfind fact.frm2000 Commission Member CARMEL,/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: S� f Petitioner: Section Variance: S7"O Ll 1 Brief Description of Variance: _w _rte. :_ CWZ rte'�Lo 1 c S 7 e ASS- In SIn 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 /7 day of j / 20 /1 G1 s:\fonts\.subvarfmcifact.:'rm2000 Commission M•mber/ CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: S� Petitioner: u !2aj Section Variance: St°O Brief Description of Variance: eZjh-c 1'477 p ✓/KS''.Lo tj s"'rr F'IAc3" ,2v 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 I day of fG4 s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 Commission Member CARMEL,/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 64_0 S-14) Petitioner: C"' ` Section Variance: ?Y.l Brief Description of Variance: I A147 s<Pe Ksr"elzo--E,-% S7r r�1 �P 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. JBased 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 (b day of ,2O 4 • s:\forms\subva rfindfact.frm2000 Commission Me Ober CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Section Variance: 5T°0 ?Y•l Oz,A. Brief Description of Variance: s pc'Ltl&KS.4.Loll,' S S r 1:27lkITY 4P 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. 3. Dated this / } .- day of ` ) 20 t s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 mmission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: — Std Petitioner: � a%f u� G Section Variance: . 7"G) ?4'.I Brief Description of Variance: =� = Sc�c'L✓!�cKS .4Lo;El�' -C7,C 'R iktiT /P 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 /'' ay of ✓441 ,20CP fititrxsZ s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 Commission Member CARMEL,/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 416_1_7_6l� gt) Petitioner: C.‘'4,5 , 2 Section Variance: 2't) ?4'.1 OL 11. / Brief Description of Variance: L ' .44 sc Pcw(Jekf'4-Lo c _�,r 1(1(3- I7P 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 ''/-4-4--4 % 20 C'% - op- s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 CO ssion Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No:_16.61il_____)0 S8-44.0) Petitioner: Cf 4f Section Variance: 5t'' ) ?q.I F Brief Description of Variance: Screw (C 4Lo;tlS' S7A 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 / J day of oz ,2090alb s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 Commission Member CARMEL,/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No:1.621 Petitioner: ( <i < 04)___S-4) Section Variance: SI'"O ?4'•f Brief Description of Variance: c��✓�cKS'/�Lv*! ' Fe77ktes. 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 /5- day of r e62.{79 ,2001,4 Q Co �� s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 C �%��ssion Member .-e CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 7 S.-14) Petitioner: C��, . 4Ri-91"ex(' Section Variance: .7'O P4`-f Brief Description of Variance: 7-e- S ? -' S'.4Lo;!!,' Sit- IkaY , P 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 5 day of -7 20 O je41047‘irev‘. s:\forms\subvarfindfact.frm2000 Commission Member