Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact/Ballot Sheets FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKETO. d8•0� NAME OF SUBDIVISION: LA beaks cii � � PE TTONER: Er--57005. Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, 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 I I DAY OF k10140464 ,,Ael' Cr. / ommission Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Cannel, Indiana DOCKET NO. foô °° NAME OF SUBDIVISION: I.O1u19 PETITIONER: Rifere Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Cannel 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 2 1 DAY OF aIgaWele'1° ,014W 2°111.d Commission Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Cannel, Indiana DOCKET O. f(J.)( 0O NAME OF SUBDIVISION: LOA/9 1984141c4 PETITIONER: ______ReisrMIC V Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, 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 2 1 DAY OFkidlieggele° ,,AJr 2CPelf.d osi n Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact - Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana c4 DOCKET NO. •°° NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Lô&t9be lX08 PETITIONER: __Reilrffer Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, 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 klelAn4gag° ,,A'1 01111° Co $ ion Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revise ay 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana KET NO. •Q° ` ' NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Low9 tieostic4 PE TIONER: gliZre,___________ Eiverer Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, 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. 1 , DATED THIS 7DAY OF 1 .1 ' ' . , 1' 27 - . ,41,77007 / Commission Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Cannel, Indiana DOCKET NO./050° pc NAME OF SUBDIVISION: LAI9 bostatc4 PETITIONER: PaCITE" giirPfregi. jt _f_.7- Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and -rtifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Cannel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. `g;' 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 2. 1 DAY OF kildWP4154 ,,A'!l OC".. or- - , Commission Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Cannel, Indiana c4DOCKET NO. -00 NAME OF SUBDIVISION: LAiI9belgaX08 PETITIONER: RICTE". EMPIRIC )(1 Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Cannel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. 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 42. ( DAY OF kle ,,A,- 2Ce'd //di Commission Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Cannel, Indiana DOCKET NO. NAME OF SUBDIVISION: IO� ee(060° � mac 4 PETITIONER: griserWar / Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Cannel 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 21. ( DAY OF klavoldee- ,A�l 2god mmission Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Cannel, Indiana DOCKET NO.105 00 re d NAME OF SUBDIVISION: aeloac ieroOPOS. PETITIONER: RiCre. Gam.• Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Cannel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. �l►�1� 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 g 1 DAY OF klowleig- ,Joel' 200.• , / Commission Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO.fOô'oo NAME OF SUBDIVISION: 1.04 PETITIONER: Eilrfiffer Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Cannel 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 2 1 DAY OF 26/0° ,,Ael 2 d ommissio s' ember s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel/Clay Plan Commission Cannel, Indiana DOCKET NO. NAME OF SUBDIVISION: �� fO5')0 f 4166114C4 PETITIONER: L eierfrigg. Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Services, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Cannel 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 I DAY OF klawmikee ,tel 2cre2.d Commission Member s:\plancomm\app\pcfindfact Revised May 1998 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMELJCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVLSION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: pill rP Hnmac. of Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 BriefDescriptivn of Variance. forgo ineral1t--1 nn of z r„tub ctrootfn 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 parcel771-77177cable connection south of Long Beach Dated this J day of ,T�-` s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Dmmission Member 108-00-B-SW 5C0 6.3.7 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-B-SW Petitioner: .Eu] to _ Section Variance: SCd 6.37 Brief Descriptivu of Variance. to plat a cul-fie—sar street of 600' in 1 ength 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 variauue 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. The increased length requested is 160 feet longer than the allowable length. The geometries, width, and construction will contorm 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 Ants which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural open space. Dated this day of po J 2 6' �j , ��- Croerr ' s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 1 -C-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7N(6 Brief Desscriptivn of variance. :o clear more than 30%, of theyoung. woodlands In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the grunting 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 compreha usive 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. 11-e young woodlands on site are sparse and relatively small in area. The , waiver will allow for preservation of more significant features. • 2. - have • i •.ct ee the value of ad'acent properties. . 3 The young. woodl ands are located in 1 cw-lying areas where detention ponds are n ssary in r to carply with Hamilton County's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this day of �✓ ^ ��-- � `� s:lforms\subvarfo rm 10/95 mission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-0-SW Petitioner: Pulte Homes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(8) Biief Description 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 variative 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 MU 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. Generally, the areas of steep slopes are scattered and are not significant in surface .prea. All of the slopes are between 10% and 15% in grade. • 2. The outside slopes hive no intact tion the value of adjacent properties. 3 Clearing of the steep slopes wil allow for preservation of rrore significatn natural features located on the site. Dated this day of /\/-0\--) s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 mmission Member 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: P„1 tp Hnmac _nf Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 Brief Descriptive of Variance. $o forte instal 1 arinn rf Ctub cfQotrn 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 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. Lc--- 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. Z The adjacent property will maintain the ability to be developed without hardship caused by the request. 3 The location of an existin• .ond and residence on the ad'acent p�`ara cel prohibits a viab e connection sout o ong :eac Dated this „ l day of k' c.`L Ai s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member r CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION 108-00-B-SW SCO 6.3.7 Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-B-SW Petitioner: _Xulte _ Section Variance:,. SCO 6.37 Biief Description of Variance. ." . -•-- -- 4 -X •f 600' ;n 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 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. The increased length requested is 160 feet longer than the allowable len,gth. The geometries, width, and construction will contorm 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 _1nts 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 ommission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-C-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(0(6) Brief D s criptivu of Variance. 1.0 clear more than 30%, of theYoung. woodl ands 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 coinmunity. 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 vitrienoo 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 masons: r' 1. Theyoung woodlands on site are sparse and relatively small in area. The diver will allow for preservation of more significant features. 2. - • na .•••1 .1.: have • i ..ct .• the value of ad'acerrt properties. . 3 1he young. woodlands are located in low-lying areas where detention ponds are necessary in_order to catply with Hamilton County's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this ' t day of 6A1C, / . s:\forms\subvarfo rm 1 0/9 5 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-0-SW Petitioner: Pulte Fomes of Iodi ana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(8) Bricf Descriptiuxz 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 cut 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. 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 sl ave_no impact 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 7 day of k'y , s:lforms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Coinission Member r 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana OCI:' � SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT 40• <4 < i Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: Pu1 tP Hnrnac. of Ind, Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 Brief Descriptive of Variance. to foriv inctal larinn of 2 czub grraotr2 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 parcelpro i its a viable connection `outh of Long Beach Dated this Z / day of /20 I/ s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Mem er 108-00-B-SW DCO 6.3.7 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-B-SW Petitioner: Eulte _ Section Variance:. SC 6.37 _ Brief Descriptimi of Variance. to 14-Fat a cul-de-sac street pirpnac of 600' ;rl 1 eng*h 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 riot be injurious to the public health,h, 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_reguested is 160 feet longer than the allowable length. The geometrics, width, and construction wily 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 _lots which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural open space. Dated this 7i9 day of / //0 / oi s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 ommiss on Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 10O-00-C-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(0(6 ) Brief Descriptiun of Variance. o 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 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. Theyoung woodlands on site are sparse and relatively small in area. The giver will allow for preservation of more significant features. 2. The voung woodl ands have nq impact talion the value of adjacent properties. 3 11-e young woodlands are 1 orated i n low-lying areas where detention ponds are necessary in Drder to canply with Hamilton County's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this 1- / day of /U /&/ z Alid/Liggi s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 / Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PIAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-0-514 Petitioner: Pulte Nomas of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(J Brief Desuriptiuu 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 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. 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 meant: 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 stones Live no intact ueort 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 2- 9 day of /101/ / etj A s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 /Commission Member 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: P„1 -e Hnmes•-°.f Ind. Section Vanance:.SCO 6.3.3 • _ ._ the east property line •• ief De ;ripeivu of Variance. 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: i_ 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 parce pro i its a viable connection south oI Long Beach Dated this -� day of NUv }', g/ C't), n/Q5 � m s'•n Member 108-00-B-SW bC0 6.3.7 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-B-SW Petitioner: _plate Section Variance: SCtf6.37 B►ief Descriptiuu of Variance. to Al at a cul-de-sar street p-sr—c o of 600' In 1 e-'g*_h 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. The increased length requested is 160 feet longer than the allowable length. The geometrics, width, and construction will- 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 _1nnts which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural open space. Dated this day of (Vou1/3G,R - s:\forms\subvarfo rrn 10/95 ember CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 10.8-004-54 Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7M(6 ) Brief Derscriytiva of Variance. :10 clear more than Kg, of the youngwoodlands 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 Theyoung woodlands on site are s..rse and relativel small in area. The waiver wi11 allow for preservation of more signs lca ea . 2. The young - s have no i nQact talon the value of adjacent properties.es. 3 The young. woodlands are located in 1 ow-1 yi ng areas where detention ponds are jxcessarv,in r to caipl y with Hamilton County's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this day of . , • 'nrn Ceti n Mornhnt CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-0O4s4 Petitioner: Pulte Hares of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(8) Brief Descciptivu 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 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. Generally, the areas of steep slopes are scattered and are not significant in surface rea. All of the sl apes are between 10% and 15% in grade. 2. The outside slopes have no impact uoatikvalue of adjacent properties. • 3 Clearing of the steep slopes wit allow for preservation of more significatn natural features located on the site. Dated this ' day of 4"o a Fwt t') ) s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Corn.•-ssi• Member F . 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: p„1rP HnTfPQ.rf Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 _ Brief Desi.ciptivn of Variance. ;o fort inGta11nr1nn of a Gt-a b traatta, 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 masons: 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 of Long Beach Dated this day of U s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member //Pr 108-00-B-SW bC0 6.3.7 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FIND T GS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-B-SW Petitioner: .Zulte rs _ Section Variance: SCCS 6.37 Brief Derscriptivn of Variance. to ;liar a nil-SIP-sac' s_-reet Pu '.Q`' of 600' -In l e"gt_h 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, .safaty, 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,gth. The geometries, width, and construction wilt contorm 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 _lots which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural- open space. Dated this )A day of s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 1O8--00-C-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(0(6 ) Brief Dess,:riptiuu of Variance. to 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 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: I. Theyoung woodlands on site are sparse and relatively small in area. _ The , waiver will allow for preservation of mare significant features. • 2. The young rondl_ands have no i npact wail the value of adjacent properties. . _ 3 The young woodlands are located in 1 ow--1 yi ng areas where detention ponds are nrxessary in_order to carply with Harrril tan Conty's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this \ day of V c , - , , 1 _s_ _- 1 iliac f nmmittinn TV1rmhr CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-4-5W Petitioner: Pulte Herres.of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(a) Brief Descriptive 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 uvt 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. 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 otrtsicie slppes have no tmoa . spa 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 < ,1 day of s:lforms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 Aft CARMELlCLAY PLAN COMMISSION p�Cs 478Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: Rate Hnmes- ai Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 Brief Descriptivu of Variance. ;o of a stub .1T-Qott . the east property In deciding whether or not the applicant ffi has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following: The grant of a variautz 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_ 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 oI Long Beach Dated this 2I day of -11.0V-c444-4/L,{ 1 L_ 111/Q5 II Commission Member I ' 108-00-B-SW bC0 6.3.7 CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-B-SW Petitioner: _pulte ,c. Section Variance: SCv 6.37 _ Baer Description of Variance. to Real R rul-de-sar s'reet c' of 600' ;n 1e^gth 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. `fz' • 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 masons: I. The increased length requested is 160 feet longer than the allowable length. The geometries, width, and construction will 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 lr}ts which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural open space. Dated this "2-1 day of ')1A VI tt— s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 105-00-C-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7M6 ) Brief Dessc:riptiuu of Variance. 10 clear more than 30%. of the Young woodl ands 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 varianto is sought The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. Based on all the evidence presented by thepetitioner, I approve• of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. The.young woodlands on site are sparse and relatively small in area. _ The _ , waiver will allow for preservation of more significant features. 2. The vouna wt7odl ands haven impact uRon the value of adjacent properties. 3 The young. woodlands are located in l ow-1 yi ng areas where detention ponds are necessary in r to comply with Haiti 1ton County's Drainage 0rdinance. Dated this 2-I day of f oV /4/ /r-fA4,..Rjr(4..A44, s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-0-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(a) Biief Description 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 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. 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 hi9VP no irmact ilmn the value of adiacent properties. 3 Clearing of the steep slopes wit allow for preservation of more significatn natural features located on the site. _ Dated this 9-I day of oVI-'c^'"A''`'i s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member rY 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: Pull-fa AnmpQ.rf Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 Brief Description of Variance. ;o forte inRtal latinn of Z sLub crraottn 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 vatianco 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�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 of Long Beach Dated this _7,/ day of ,f O s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 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: Pulte r Section Variance:_ SCCI 6.37 Brief Description of Variance. . is p:1 at a cul-ale-sac street eV^ncC' of 690' In 1 moth 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 riot 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. The increased length requested is 160 feet longer than the allowable len,gth. The geometrics, width, and construction will contorm 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 _lnrs which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural open space. Dated this day of n�� ✓ s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: i -C-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7D) ) Brief De scriptiaa of Variance. 'co clear more than 30%, of the young. 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 variauce 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 meow: 1. Theyoung woodl ands on site are sparse and rel ati vel y small in area. _ The , waiver will allow for preservation of more significant features. • 2. .una .• 0 .I.A. have . i ..ct u• the value of ad'acent properties. • 3 The young woodlands are located in low-lying areas where defierrti on ponds are .LEC:essary in_ r to corrpl y with Hamilton County's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this day of i. � _s_ _._ 1 nioc Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-0-S14 Petitioner: Pulte I-lorr5 of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(5.) Brief Dascriptiun 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 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. 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 otrtsicle slopes ve no irroact non 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 1146-v-- s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: py1 rP NOMPC.ff Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 BriefDesscriptivn of Variance. .to forgo inct ll 1.i-inn of Z tr,lb crraotrn 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 variauve 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. 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. Access to Long Branch. Estates swill 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 parce pro i its a viable connection south of Tong Beach � t Dated this day of JU aU. u"4,�e�v( li 1 s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Co ission 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: 2ulte Section Variance: SCO 6.37 Brief Descriptive of Variance. to Kiat rut-__cle-sac street pvhC QC• of 690' -,;Y) 1 ength 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. The increased length requested is 160 feet longer than the allowable length. The geometries, width, and construction jrwjconform 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 _lots which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural open space. Dated this day of 44' C 2472V:i s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Memb CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 1 08-00-C-5W Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(0(6 ) Brief Des:riptiun of Variance. 1A clear more than, 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 variawe 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 varianto 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 masons: 1. Theyoung woodlands on site are sparse and relatively small in area. _ The , .yiwaiver will allow for pres&vation of nn-e significant features. _ . 2. The vouno woodlands have n4 i npact upon the value of ad' properties. • 3 the young woodlands are located in low-lying areas where detention ponds are necessary inr to comply with Hamilton County's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this ` /f day of 10)1 ' Jeri " om�-�i s:lforms\subvarfo rm 10/95 mission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-0-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(5) Brief Description 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 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. 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 s1ones_liy- no imQacc von the value of adjacent properties. 3 Clearing of the steep slopes wil allow for preservation of more significatn natural features lccated on the site. _ �'U Dated this day of ?' ,� 0 s:lforms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Co 'mission Member 108-00-A-SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION0I 41qCarmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE T �� FINDINGS OF FACT DOCS+ j Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: pu1 re Hnmac. of Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 Brief De scriptiem of variance. to forg inara1 1 ari nn of s tt- b ctroottrri 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 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. x1 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 existin: .ond and residence on the ad 'acent parce pro i.its a via. e connection sout o ong teac Dated this '24 day of )if+\f"-- s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 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: pu1t Section Variance: SC8 6.37 Brief Descriptive of Variance. , to Al at a rul—de—sar street PY^.Q' of 600' in 1 c.,Sth 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. The increased length requested is 160 feet longer than the allowable lenth. The geometrics, width, and construction will conform to the ordinance. _ • 2. The cul-de-sac is contiained 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 _lets 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 SUBDIVLSION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 10S-CO-C-94 Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D1(6 ) Brief Desscriptiuu of Variance. /0 clear more than 30%, of the young 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 variaw a 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 vatianco 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.young woodlands on site are sparse and relatively small in area. _ The , waiver will allow for preservation of more si gni fi cant features. 2. The vounn woodlands have n4 i ntpact uRon the value of adjacent properties. . 3 The yon.ng. woodlands are located in low-lying areas where detention ponds are necessary i n order to comply with Hani l ton County's Drainage Ordinance. Datedof 20 LT) 1 this r I day �' s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-004-SW Petitioner: Pulte Haas of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(0)(0 Brief Dexscriptiuu 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 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 reasonr. - 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. l/, • 1 '•.- •t- I. - 1• •01.•1 10,1 - v. - of ad'acent • so-rties. 3 Clearing of the steep slopes wil allow for preservation of rrore significatn natural features located on the site. _ Dated this ?-0°U l � day of 7�� 1, s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member 108-00—A—SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00—A—SW Petitioner: Pulte i-Inmec rf Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 Brief Desc:riptiun of Variance. ;o forte ;nc ral 1 t--nn of ztub ctroatrn 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 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: Access to Long Branch. Estates will include 3_ access pointso 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 parce pro i its a viable connection soufh of Long Beach Dated this 7/51i- day ofAL/t1-1/ s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member 108-00-B-SW SCO 6.3.7 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-B-SW Petitioner: Eulte rs Section Variance: SCv 6.37 B►icf Desscriptivn of Variance. to pear a rul—de-sac street p j co of 690' in 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 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 res oris 1. The increased len•th re.uested is 160 feet longer than the allowable _lenth. The geometries, width, and construction wi con orm 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 _lrnts which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve naturar open space. Dated this 4-1 day of __Al s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 1C8-00-C-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance. SCO 7.7(0(6 ) B,icf Desscriptivu of variance. "co clear more than 30%, of the young. woodl ands 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 variauve 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 propozed 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. /.1Based 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 young woodlands on site are sparse and relativel' small in area. _ The waiver will allow for preservation of erre significant features. 2. - .una .•••1 .1• have . i e.ct .. the value of ad'acent properties. . 3 The young. wicodl ands are located in low-lying areas where detention ponds are necessary inr to canply with Hamilton Cointy's Drainage Ordinance. Dated this 7/S.rday of 0,/61,,e,y,.,,lt.e4./ , ' s:lforms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission Member r CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-004-SW Petitioner: Pulte Homes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(8) Brief Descripuvu 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 nut be injurious Co 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 constittrte 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. Generally, the areas of steep slopes are scattered and are not significant in surface area._ All of the slopes are between 10% and 15% in grade. - • 2. The outside sl n S v_e nono rrnact_,�rxxr 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 ' / S day of n , tea. s:lforms\subvarfo rm 10/95 Commission M mber r • 108-00-A--SW SCO 6.3.3 CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION I Carmel, Indiana < �I` SUBDIVISION VARIANCE .007 '-eik p FINDINGS OF FACT 4006, ?ppb Docket No: 108-00-A-SW Petitioner: pl,l rP HnmPc. of Ind. Section Variance: SCO 6.3.3 Brief Description of Variance. t.o fora incral lar-inn of P grub etrQtattn 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 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. _ Access to Long Branch. Estates will include 3 accesspoints 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 p2nd and residence on the adjacent parcel prohibits a viable connection south of Long Beach Dated this,Z/ day of///� 2e66 , 4/, / s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 C/mission 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: 5-Cd 6.37 thief Descripuvn of Variance. to ;11 at a cul-de-sac street pvli-c,cc of 600T 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. 7<- 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 length. The geometrics, width, and construction will- 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 _lots which would need to be relocated elsewhere on the site compromising the ability to preserve natural open space. Dated this 21 day of � ��/ -,000 0/ f ,i Ad . s:\forms\subvarfo rrn i 0/95 ,immission Member CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 1C"3-C-1 Petitioner: Pulte Hanes of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(0(6 ) Brief Derscriptivn of Variance. clear more than VA, 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 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 properly 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: I The young woodlands on site are sparse and relatively snail in area. The waiver will allow fa^preservation of more significant features. 2. - Gunn ....I ,c.. have • i •.ct •• the value of ad'acent properties. 3 The young . woodlands are located in law-lying areas where deterrti on ponds are tx essary in order to comply with Hilt County's Drainage Ordinance. Z day of 4/1/- 2 C 1 Dated this ' _s_ __ ,n/oc /Commission Member • CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION • Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 108-00-0-SW Petitioner: Pulte Hares of Indiana Section Variance: SCO 7.7(D)(5.) Brief Descriptiuu 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 variauce 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. Generally, the areas of steeQ 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 irmact ,•, r.- v.lue of adjacent properties. • 3 Clearing of the steep slopes wil allow for preservation of more significatn . al fea -s located on the site. Dated this 2 day of i-&/ 2-COD s:\forms\subvarfo rm 10/95 �mmission Member