HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact/Ballot Sheets_Cul-de-sac lenght CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3
Petitioner. \LL �(Le:or< S" t y [ Si 0 K.)
Section Variance: _ 6, 3,
Brief Description of Variance: _ Cvt- S 4 c . ;, 7
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 a day of t , 199E,-
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARNIEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2 9 Z -
Petitioner. Vk r f?_t,o K S« i y i Si
Section Variance:
Brief Description of Variance: _ S 4< 14
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 PIan.
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 D day of 0-�i 1 , 1993!
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CANCEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2 9 Z
Petitioner: , ALL j(ZCGK J«a1 t C t SI o
Section Variance: _
Brief Description of Variance: S C1T}: 4 . 3. 7
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 Zs day of � 7 ,
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2 Z -
Petitioner: -u Si 0 k„)
Section Variance:
Brief Description of Variance: _ S CA.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_
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 204 day of .2c,54k , 1991.
_52.4"47,
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
Docket No.: 32 --c-tZ
Petitioner u ��t` � c)K Su 31J i ci i Si 0 JJ
Section Variance: �� . '3
Brief Description of Variance: _ S 4c G 14"
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 4''day of C , 1994.
#-VtIt'(17r
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2 Z -
Petitioner. Ai., \LL h4coK Su l i J i Sr o K.
Section Variance: _ 3 7
Brief Description of Variance: (-0 � = S C Ck N
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 a 0 day of 0- , 1991.
( /�n
Commission ember
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2-9 Z
Petitioner. &t 36 t t Si 0 j..t
Section Variance: _
Brief Description of Varianc: _>c - S C ji4-
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.
3.
Dated thisaJ! day of , 1991
gel qZ�s�-�,�
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARN EL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 5 2-9 2 - '-"P?
Petitioner. 1LL 'P..eoK S«a ic,tSI
iv
Section Variance: _ tv. 3 ,
Brief Description of Variance: _ = S C. Cci _
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.
Z.
3.
Dated this2'Dday of ( -d7)- , 1990:2---
‘,2/64_,4)-
Commi -1. Member
#1066.ghs (./
CARMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2-9 Z
Petitioner. I,u ALL �QC K Sc 86 i C i St 0 K.)
Section Variance: o. )• '7
Brief Description of Variance: _ S 4 LEA Gam#- _
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.
XBased 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 a Q day of Cf , 19904
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2-9 Z -
Petitioner. u ,( VCcr< c� � i C i St 0),)
Section Variance: _ (�, 11
Brief Description of Variance: C24- S 4 C �-�-�c fl _
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.-,v day of ()c_ V ter- , 1994. l R
Commission Member
#1066.ghs
CAR EL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2-9 Z -
Petitioner. 14�Lt_ 1� . c ( (at)I C i Sr 0
Section Variance: _ ,) 7
Brief Description of Variance: _ e_dK -6C ' S GC114
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.
V7 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 , O day of (' eLlf , 1990: / Y2
C mission Membe /
#1066.ghs
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2 ( 2 - �
Petitioner: tZ-eo K 'S.< i CIS'0 K)
Section Variance: 6. <o 7
Brief Description of Variance: _ C t=-6z - S 4 C Lc' CJ}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 � 1 day of
l
Co i (on Member
#1066.ghs
CARNIEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Cannel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2-9 Z -
Petitioner. uq k1.L j. c K Su 861 i Si 0 AJ
Section Variance: _ 1p . 5 77
Brief Description of Variance: _ C.,K L - " S 4 C �.E�GC1-74
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 �.CI, 199f
7
' 4,-7-
thission Member
#1066.ghs
CAR1V EL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: 3 2'9 Z
Petitioner: /U ALL t�eccK S« t v t Si 0�t
Section Variance:
Brief Description of Variance: _ C1/4.-L_-6c " S 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. / . 7 ide,r,ck
2
3.
Dated this ,2.t) day of ��+� , 1911E-__
/1/,14e7.- (
C- • ission Memb r
#1066.ghs