HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact/Ballot Sheets_Decel Lane CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: li-- P P
Petitioner: ) .4 LLL�
Section Variance: �. 22
1 Ce\evo\--sckOA \ kcer 1f1/4,N5k� �-
Brief Description 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 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 ( J day of pi r" 1 , 1990. '
o ssion Mem r
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 32-- '3 P j
Petitioner: \-
Section Variance: C , 3, 2-7-
Brief Description of Variance: /r ' - 1 LjrLi
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�.3
ommission Mem er
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
Docket No.: Tli- 1:5 P p
Petitioner: 7 j k-,. 1-
Section Variance: (52', 3, 2-7-
Brief Description of Variance: Chr.--- `a„-„ '41,,r -� ---
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
(I(
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day ofat _ALAI.AI _, 19'
o• fission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: T5 i-- l] P P
Petitioner: \-
Section Variance: (9, 3'S ZZ
Brief Description 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 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 y , 1990.
Co issi Member
#1066.ghs
CARM]EL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2_- P p
Petitioner: 7 W.,1"
Section Variance: (9, :?', zZ
Brief Description of Variance: r„„ '4t,1.1- r--
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 40thday of , 1990.J
3(4(4,/
ommission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 32— 1 P
Petitioner: �-��. „,„,L L
Section Variance: j, 3, ZZ
Brief Description of Variance: (/ -L----
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of 7)7) 1990.
Commission Member j
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: T3ii-- i F p
Petitioner: 'J \-1-�. L,(.
Section Variance: C9, 7. ZZ
Brief Description of Variance: ��-�� .,�-� Jr L.---
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.
fr
1/' 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 , 193
Com ' io er /
#1066.ghs
CARIVIEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3z-- F p
Petitioner: ' '\
Section Variance: C9, 3. Z7_.
Brief Description 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 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 g day of )►/Ltt- , 1990.
)L2r)dgi'"/
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: �� l] P P
Petitioner.
Section Variance: (9, 37,
2Z,
Brief Description of Variance: .��- 1_,/,r t��--
In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of
a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the following:
— — The grant of a variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
— — The use or value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will
not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
— — The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and
such condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
— — The strict application of terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
— — The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this day of , 1990.
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 31-- P p
Petitioner: „ .„•.,
Section Variance: C , 3, 22
Brief Description 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 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 " 199e.
IAl� YL VI , (/�� tO 'I
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CAI MEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 5 2-� 13 P P
Petitioner: ' �-
Section Variance: C, 3. 22.
Brief Description of Variance: r•�-� �s{c,r--
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.
-7( 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 Ma- , 199e.
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: z-' 13 P p
Petitioner: )J
Section Variance: (9, 3. 2-7-
Brief Description of Variance: .,�- f! --
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 /"l�Ct/V) , .1991. 1 9 g)
Commission Member /
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 31i-- 1� P p
Petitioner: .. „L L y�
Section Variance: (c', 3. 22,
Brief Description of Variance: 4�� c� �a.,�-� 74L ff- ---
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. 1, . , ; k. �w d l Ut,o tt-Y cL U
2.
3.
Dated this I C9v1 day of Ii i\ , 1990.
ar4.1-'rk,-.P_ t
Commission Member
#1066.ghs ��