HomeMy WebLinkAboutBallot SheetsCARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i r1 d eme r e C o r p.
Section Variance..
Brief Description of Variance: L, e rz g t 1-1 o f C u t- ci e- s a c e x c e e ct i ri g
600,
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of
# 1066.ghs
1990.
r-_1 7i
Commission Member
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 ]PIP
Petitioner: F7 i n d eme r e Corp .
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: Length o f C u t- d e- s a c e x c e e cl i. a g
600•
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
_ Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2
I
Dated this day of
# 1066.ghs
1990.
Coffnmission Member
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1— 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i ri a erne r e C o r p.
Section Variance.. 6 . 3 _ 7
Brief Description of Variance: L e n g t h o f C u 1— d e— s a c e x c e e. d i n g
6001,
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this I_ day of /I Pal L , 1994.
Commission Member �,--.—
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i ri d eme r e C o r p.
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: L e n g t h o f C u t- ct e— s a c e x c e e ct i n g
600•
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
P
3.
Dated this day of _� 1990.
C mission Member
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PIP
Petitioner: W i n d eme r e C o r p.
Section Variance.. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: Length o f
600,
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
0
Dated this day of 1994.
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i ri d erne r e C o r p.
Section Variance.. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: L en I-, t 1-i o f C u.1- cl e- --,-a w
exceed frig
600'
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
z
3.
Dated this IZ, 74 day of 1994.
Commission Member
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i n d tame r e C o r p.
Section Variance, 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: I-tan g t h o f C u l- d e -Sac ta x c ta e d i n g
600'
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
3.
Dated this - /6, day of 1994.
Commission Mem er
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1 — 91 PP
Petitioner: W i n d em e r e C o r p.
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: Length o f
exceed frig
6002
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
I
3.
Dated this � day of
# 1066.ghs
1990.
A
/a
�bfnmissio I Member
J
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1— 9 1 P P
Petitioner: W i n d erne r e C o r p.
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: L e ri g t Yi o f C u 1— d e- s a c e x c e e d s ri g
600•
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
R
I
Dated this day of _ CLi�, 1990.
Commission Member
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i n d erne r e C o r p.
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: Length o f C u t- d e -sac e x c e e a ri g
6002
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
-' Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this ( k, day of 1990.
c
Commission Member
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W :- n d em e r e C o r p.
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: Len g t h o f C u t- cl e- s a c e x c e e d i ri S
600,
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
I
3.
Dated this
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: w i n d eme r e C o r p.
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 7
Brief Description of Variance: L. ri g t Yz o f C u 1- cl e -sac e x c e e d i n g
600'
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this l L, f- day of
# 1066.ghs
1994.
Commission Member I
CARMEL%CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: w i n d eme r e Corp .
Section Variance:.
Brief Description of Variance: L o n g t h o f C u t- d e- S a o e x c
600,
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1— 9 1 PP
Petitioner: _w n a eme r e
Cc),-. r� _
Section Variance:. 6 _ 3 _ 2 1
Brief Description of Variance: 'rw o p o i n t s o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
P]
3.
Dated this day of4_
# 1066.ghs
1990.
n-
Commission Member i
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i ri d em e r e C o r p
Section Variance:. 6 _ 3 _ 2 1
Brief Description of Variance: Two points o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
KI
Dated this �f� day of CQ, ; 2 1990.
L
Commission Member h4
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i n d eme r e C o r p
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 _ 2 1
Brief Description of Variance: Tw o p o i ri tt s o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
0
Dated this day of
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: w i n d ame r e C c r p
Section Variance:. 6 • 3 . 2 1
Brief Description ' of Variance: Two P o i n -t s o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of 199$.
Commission Member
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i n d eme r e Corp .
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 21
Brief Description of Variance: Two Points o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of
# 1066.ghs
1990.
mmission Member
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: _ w i n c1 erne r e Corp .
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 21
Brief Description of Variance: 'rwo p o i n -t. s o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of / f- 1990.
Commission Member
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i n d c--me r e Corp .
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 2. 1
Brief Description of Variance: Tw o p o 1. ri t s o:f a c c 4--
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
3.
Dated this 49, day of
# 1066.ghs
1990.
r -ti_ r
ommission ember
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i n ct erne r e Corp .
Section Variance:. 6 - 3 . 21
Brief Description of Variance: °rw o points o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
91
Dated this - day of
# 1066.ghs
1990.
Commission Member
CARMEL f CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i n d eme r e C o r p
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 21
Brief Description of Variance: 'rw o p o i ri - s o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this f' ;' day of
# 1066.ghs
1990.
on Wrnber
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: _ w i n ci erne r e C o r p_
Section Variance:. 6 . 3 . 21
Brief Description ' of Variance: T°w o p o i n -t s o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of /Q.40 12 , � , 1994.
Commission Member
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: W i n d came r e C o r p
Section Variance:. 6 _ 3 _ 2 1
Brief Description ' of Variance: 'rw o points o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of G—� 199v.
Commission Member
# 1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1- 9 1 PP
Petitioner: w i n g em e r e Corp _
Section Variance:. 6 _ 3 _ 2 1
Brief Description ' of Variance: rrw o Points o f a c c s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
_ Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
0
Dated this , L day of
# 1066.ghs
90.
Commiss' n Member
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 1 1— 9 1 PP
Petitioner: w i n d eme r- Corp .
Section Variance:. 6 • 3 . 2 1
Brief Description of Variance: `rw o P o i rl -t s o f a c c e s s
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of A 2 ; t" � 1990.
F- (1) <�� M �-ttt
Commission Member
# 1066.ghs