Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact/Ballot Sheets_Private Streets CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 32' q Petitioner. \Lk•1.1 CLi ,oK �►diSiC�; Section Variance: . 3 . Z.O Brief Description of Variance: _ —PZ% PrrE 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 r ons: 1. ..4--,--,s4- O l _f_A)-PAz 2. 3. Dated this 1, day of (Y Q . , 1990. /12,0 (Da Commission Member #1066.ghs CA.RMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3 2- q 2 --- Petitioner: �-�,Ll.-g(Le;o K Section Variance: _ . 3 . z Q 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 p may of , 1990. Commissions ember #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3 2` q ?:- Petitioner: ILk�L1.�,(Lc oK kVIS/CA; Section Variance: _ t , 3 . Z O Brief Description of Variance: _ -12-C_-TS 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 46` day of a Joie t , 1991. Commission Me r #1066.ghs CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 32' q 2 1P Petitioner: \L •LL-RCZ oK bici1S/0A; Section Variance: . 3 . Z Q 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 ,(20 day of ,/!, 4 , 19 C fission Mem er #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3 2- q 2 --- Petitioner: 1(4•L l 2.c.,o K 1 t d I S is Section Variance: _ . 3 . Z.0 Brief Description of Variance: _ �Z�.; A-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. / V 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 2.$ day of Z7(J ; ,e,7 , 199� 4-1./M4 Commission Member #1066.ghs CAR'YLEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana Docket No.: 3 2- 2 -- lF • Petitioner. \'� l t?,(Z o K I S ro A; Section Variance: , 3 , Z O Brief Description of Variance: _ �Z v r4t�, �� p• _ 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 , 1991.2 Commission Member #1066.ghs CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3 2- ? 2 - 1P Petitioner. \Lk 1.l R(L.t;O K k V 15/C Section Variance: (p . 3 . Z 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 "0 day of , 199' XX; Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 32' 2 -- --PP Petitioner: \t ,LL-g - o K Section Variance: _ . 3 , z C) 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 -< r day of (/ d-lek , 199$ 2_ ), - mmission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: -2 - 2 --- petitioner. Section Variance: _ (p . - . Z O Brief Description of Variance: Pcz v +4-tr. 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. y 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' day of ©Cf , 1991 Ygaiti-a46, 7nita_J Commission Member r #1066.ghs CANCEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 32` Petitioner. \L& _L-R(L c,o K sic Aj Section Variance: _ Brief Description of Variance: _ �Z v A-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 ao day of ( k‘t, r 199i. 'q 1-- Commission Member #1066.ghs CAR IEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 32' q 2 -P-e Petitioner. \L •L.l ,(Z.t;o K -3b t d I S iC A; Section Variance: _ (p . 3 . Z O 13:17? Brief Description of Variance: _ —PZ L v s�. - -tip 1. d C) 1" - In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the gran g 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. — — e 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 2'D day of t, ? ' - , 1994. A AA taliee-t.et Comm' n Member #1066.ghs C.ARIMIEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3 2- Petitioner. \L •l.1 U(Z. o K kV I S/c A; Section Variance: (p . , Z.O Brief Description of Variance: _ Prz -r� -��7'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. z 3. Dated this day of a2119,42- , 1990 . Co n Member #1Q66.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3 2- q 2 - PP Petitioner. ��-'�.1.1,.(L o K b k si I S is A; Section Variance: co , z Q 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. )c 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 '0 day of e7 C,Zr , 1994. z 7-77(aPc-e‘ ommission Member #1066.ghs CARNIEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3 2- ? 2 - PP Petitioner. jiLk•l..l U(I-c o K 31 t V I S iC k.; Section Variance: _ . 3 , z O Brief Description of Variance: _ -i % Pt-th. - -��TS 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 , 192k fissi o on Memb #1066.ghs