Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION A44 Carmel, Indiana 001 cen), SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT PO OS 7�po Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: pu1 re NcimPc of Ind. Section Variance:,SCO 6.3.3 Brief Descriptiuu of Variance. to forte incrallarinn of £tub ctror to the east property line 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 nut 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. Access to Long Branch Estates will include 3 access points w/o the stub street. The parcel to the east will have at least two access points when developed. 2. The adjacent property will maintain the ability to be developed without hardship caused by the request. 3. The location of an existing pond and residence on the adjacent parcel prohibits a viable connection south or Long beach Dated this day of s:\forms\subvarfo rm i 0/95 Commission Member • 108-00-B-SW bC0 6.3.7 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-B-SW Petitioner: lulte Section Variance: SCd 6.37 Biief Description of Variance. to Rlat a rut-de-sar s'reet eX of 600' Irl length 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 nut be injurious to the public hesalth, 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. The increased length requested is 160 feet longer than the allowable len th. The geometries, width, and construction wilt conform to the ordinance. 2. The cul-de-sac is contained within the boundary of the site while maintaining a 50 foot buffer with the_ adjoining property. 3. The additional length allows for the development of 4 additional _1(11-s which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural open space. Dated this day of s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-C-94 Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance:., 7.7(D1(6 ) Brief Drs:riptivu of variance. 'co clear more than 30%. of theyoung woodlands 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 variauc a 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 propertyfor which the variance is sought • The great 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. Theyoung woodlands on site are sparse and relatively small in area. The waiver will allow for preservation of more significant features. _ 2. Tlie young woodlands have nc2 i nt0act the value of adjacent properties. 3 The young. woodlands are located in low-lying areas where detention ponds are oeressary in_order to ccuply with Hamilton Coiaity's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this day of s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 109-00--SW Petitioner: Pulte Hares of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(j Brief Descripuuu of Variance. to clear, regrade, and excavate more than. 15% of steep slopes. 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 raaaoat: 1. Generally, the areas of steep slopes are scattered and are not significant in surface . rea. All of the slopes are between 10% and 15% in grade. 2. The outside slopes have no inuact upon the value of adjacent properties. 3 Clearing of the steep slopes wil allow for preservation of more significatn • natural features located on the site. Dated this day of s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member