HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact/Ballot Sheets_Stubstreets CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: Z— /N
Petitioner: 7triTr/4-71/. �� 2
Section Variance: (>. 2 9
Brief Description of Variance: 54-,)14,4.,, .. - `'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. -/ AARJz
(� llCQ
2. is T ( / L-t�Y ,�fC., ,cc-c-(--0-0 "L CIFI it:;-Ce.bLr G' 3_ -La-A-4 CT) 61
. of ;
3. a ;t �<.P.�- C„ ,, �,,r,_ t-0 -( _
Dated this day of i , 1990.
/Tb ,
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: J Z— l 5 ??
Petitioner: 73O7(A }v. �,_,.,'Fill
Section Variance: (,. 2 3
Brief Description of Variance: 541�s-1),„
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 followi : reasons:
.._,d0P
1. �i �' /
le. _, _
War r 7
Z
3.
Dated this / day of /`/_ _ / , y
„.________________--
ommission Membe —
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
Docket No.: — 1 1
Petitioner: 7e:17(74-71/.
Section Variance: (c,. =T.2
Brief Description of Variance: 541)14s-f y,
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. Q/141 ;;Lwl 4Qnrvn 0.A, i,1 P ..�).,
Z
3.
Dated this day of , 194
Y k-ktP kz00�
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: J Z— /N ??
Petitioner: 73'e '/- . �-�-,,i
Section Variance: (-. • ? 9
Brief Description of Variance: 54-c)0s4y
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:
'‘f1/4/ . /
..; ---7 ,c-t,liZ:te;t-eri-rt
kr _
dill'AZI;'
1.
3.
r-PDated this day of , 1991.3
7
G- ,-2.,/,, /7
Commission • ember
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: Z 3 ??
Petitioner: 75Q:Pre 74 ,. �.� i 11
Section Variance: (,. 2 9
Brief Description of Variance: 34-c*
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. .l
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: cl 3
Petitioner: 73'err/4-71/. �� a;/1
Section Variance: (�. J'2
Brief Description of Variance: �'��o� •
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 day of 71/4 / , 1990.
\,E76‘21
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.:
Petitioner: 73)C.Pr/4-71/. �� 2
Section Variance:
Brief Description of Variance: 541)16_
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 , 19912
06
Com fission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.:
Petitioner. Fair-4717.
Section Variance: (f,. 2 9
Brief Description of Variance: 54-0[6sy
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.
VBased 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.
Commi ion Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.:
Petitioner: 73',17--/4-71/. C,�„271
Section Variance:
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 2/f1(1 , 1990.
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 Z ' ??
Petitioner. �CiTr471'. ��-,a))
Section Variance: ��. -9
Brief Description of Variance: 54c*s-1y,�
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 JJ4 day of fria , 1 . /fV3
770 /71
Co mission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: Z— l 3
Petitioner: 73)err/4-71/.
Section Variance: (c>. 2
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 �1� , 19911.
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARIVIEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: Z-- ??
Petitioner: 7:57W 4-717.
Section Variance:
Brief Description of Variance: 341)44A
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.
Corn scion Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 Z ??
Petitioner: 73'W . +-r4 7t'
Section Variance: (f>. 2 9
Brief Description of Variance: 341�st
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 (1 ity , 1990.
afiA41/4
Commission Memb
#1066.ghs