HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact/Ballot Sheets_Street Widths CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2- q 2 -
Petitioner \L .1.1 ,(Z. o K
Section Variance: _ . 3 , i�i i,t 1p
Brief Description of Variance: _ � ti��"5 1/0 J Til
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 24 day of )0h , 1991
Alot-
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 Z - ----
Petitioner \tk•I-l R(7--c o K t Si IS/0 &)
Section Variance: _ . , 6
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 1'day of t-e , 19
Commiss on Member
#1066.ghs
CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2` q 2 - ---FP
Petitioner. kt-k•LL-g 2e,o K 3i t d I S/c A;
Section Variance: , -3 . f_;,.1,i, (o
Brief Description of Variance: --(C1-k�� W 4t7W
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.I 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 ' 6 day `of 06Ze t9L , 194
r
, izaj4__,....4y.",1/42,.
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 32' ? 2 PF
Petitioner. 1,1k L U(Lc O K sic k;
Section Variance: _ . 3 . . .'
Brief Description of Variance: _ ►C‘, )bT
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 im' , 1990.
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARTEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2 ` q ?:- l
Petitioner. LLk•ll- lze;oK ' sick)
Section Variance: _ .
Brief Description of Variance: -ti��S idi
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 c2o day of Ceezorrs/ , 199Sc
04Le-7-4;
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2- 2
Petitioner. L(-{.•L.1 .Ci-c o K 1 t d I S/C A;
Section Variance: (p . -
Brief Description of Variance: _ � -��� ), >TW
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.
/
t� 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 ,' C7 day of e/�. yy--
� f�
L�� r 04i4i(
Co mission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 32
Petitioner 1,L .‘..l - Z o K
Section Variance: ( . - , ' (19
Brief Description of Variance: _ -�� ( U b7,
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 1994. '
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 32- q 2 PP
Petitioner: LL •1.1 (L c o K ► I S iC&;
Section Variance: . -3 , ';, I
Brief Description of Variance: _ 144(Zf- � -tit-TS /1)T7-fS
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 ,2y day of U' , 1991 .
,ye‘ 7r)rie--4-)
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 32- 2 -
Petitioner. \Lt•�l S iC k;
Section Variance: _ . 3 , loop
---P
Brief Description of Variance: -1-(2-k�T"5 W 11JT lf'$
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 7/7`day of sC ) 4? 'L. , 19917i
Co ission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2- q 2 ^ ---Fe
Petitioner: \L L c.-g 2c o K J A 3b i i (S/C A;
Section Variance: , -j , lift (Q
-4111 Brief Description of Variance: —. �-(Z-��� L )67it�
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.
:::.:
0 day of
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2- q --P-P•
Petitioner: 1,44•1..l3(z oK idISiCA;
Section Variance: _ c . 3 , In (p
Brief Description of Variance: _ _ �-C2-CE7 W )b 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:
I.
2.
3.
Dated this -ICJ day of ,(7. � 1 , 19,____
...;tif./
eion M
#1066.ghs
CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2- q 2 - 1P
Petitioner. \,L •L l U(Z.c;o K
Section Variance: _
Brief Description of Variance: _ ��CZ-�� T5 W
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.
V I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1. � (( =, ., o -t_co
r7,4,
3.
Dated this 2 0 day of /,,A g9`, , 1990.
nr,
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAIN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2` ? 2 ^ ��
Petitioner. \LL,t_1.$(Z o K b I S is
Section Variance: . 3 , 1111L
Brief Description of Variance: _ -Peti Ate-
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.
1� I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1. i f'+d &11- Ae4 foli-n;&fale,' .42CG
tfrit,
3.
Dated this 4,70 day of 4,e11(:),‘-' , 19
Co ► ssion Mem er
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2- --FP
Petitioner. __lack. l l 3(Le;O K kV I S is A;
Section Variance: _
Brief Description of Variance: _ '�-�� 75 1)T}lrg
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.
X I hereby disapprove the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
tvf>x 40-0-44( (
decA,-.04-6 Are(41 .
3.
Dated this 2 D 1' day of Cat ii , 1991.
Commission i emb r
#1066.ghs