Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact/Ballot Sheets_ROW Reduction CARMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana Docket No.: -3.,Z — 9 2 PP Petitioner: M , U B12cC,K Sui3-biJISic 3 Section Variance: _ C, . 3 (o Brief Description of Variance: -„,u i 2t'A -T. u'= vitAA46-0i) -2tlb,..,,, to 4 D 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. 5. itit ladiegnisiabikriZbdi ,.A 1 . m'I ,Mn- ,65y 1.ei irri,di Al( .1,4- .6Z- i )4ato Arpv, Al.e-81Y-L-?- 1,de eiet97/,44444 2. &t•-a-u Iti4-,exii - 3. Dated this day of t ez , inv._ c fission Me ber #1066.ghs CARAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3.2 — q, PP Petitioner. A4 , Li.B(2ocK Su(3D1VisicN) Section Variance: _ (, . 3 Brief Description of Variance: _ --etZz u t 20> -�. ur V/ (so `) -2e-tuttl) to 4 09 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. 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: I. 2 3. Dated this4 day of O ,otiorpc\i � , 199" d4u -P J~ Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAIN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3.2 92_ . 17P Petitioner: I V t , (.L B(?.C,j< Su gDj V i sr cr.) Section Variance: _ (, . 3 Brief Description of Variance: _ �-Z;:Z u t 2s.:7> --Q-v. u►= 14 444 (50 `) .2t1�►c(.t:1) lcp 4 09 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 2 eP day of et-1/ , 1994. Commissio Me er #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: -3 2 -- 9 2 - 1:7 Petitioner. M , L4 t3(ZocK .Cu 61:11 i Si CiJ Section Variance: (�, . 3 (, ')Brief Description of Variance: _ �tZ � k 2cr) VI (So ') 2t-tvta 10 4 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. 2. 3. Dated this /7<day of , 1994. ommission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: -.2 — 7 ,2, - PP Petitioner. M , L i_3 RCCAK S u BD S J+S 1 cc`) Section Variance: _ („ . 3 (o 1 � Brief Description of Variance: _ —t, 1l CS o ') 2t-��'�(r ) IQ 4 v p ���c (LC� T. U�= 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 ill day of 0(.,Jt, hQ •4" , 19911 �./r, N4 // Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: -3.2 — q,_ - PP Petitioner. M , (..L3(ZopK SugD;JisieN) Section Variance: _ C, . 3 (.o Brief Description of Variance: --ek.,Ata,...--.0 144446-0 .) -2t.,kCt� l„, 4 U ) 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. 2-7-- Dated this go day of (J 1 , 19 . mission Mem #1066.ghs CAMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3.2 — 902 _ PP Petitioner. /Vl I Li_ f3(Loci< SA G D1 V i si crJ Section Variance: _ (,) . 3 Brief Description of Variance: _ �-tiZ i 2t,-T) -T. ui= 14 t4A4 (So ') -20)%Att`) I`D 4 v 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 PIan. NBased 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 ft day of ‘2Cf-Wif/1/ , 1997. (YV — 0 / Commiss.. 1 ember #1066.ghs CA'vIEL/CLAY PLAIN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3.2 — 9 2 - PP Petitioner: 44 , LL f3(LLL,K Su+3DI J+S,c:N) Section Variance: _ (, . 3 (0 Brief Description of Variance: _ -k, 4lSO ') 244 t���(6� i`J 4 v p �Z,,�N c 2G� T. U�= 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 ?_ 0 day of 0 irk> , 1990. vju oL ,o, Commission Member #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: -3.2 — 7 0 PP Petitioner M , LL B(Zoc,K . ..),BDI J i s i cN) Section Variance: _ C, . 3 Co Brief Description of Variance: --eEZ U c 2t'n ��. ui= VI 444 (So ') -a-bt4-Ca -IQ 4 v ) 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--h''day of ,&'d' , 199�. ---71gr, nnmission Membe #1066.ghs CAMEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: i 2 9,2 = PP Petitioner. I V 1 , L.L.a(ac c K Su$Di J i Si cfJ Section Variance: _ Co . 3 (.0 Brief Description of Variance: �-ti,,,,,•t 2tir, �T. ur Let 4A4 CS-6 `) 2t-tKC61) IQ 4 Jv I) 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. rl Dated this IX Ividay of �" . , 1990:ZC-- 471-4,c1-1 .-0/C Co ission Member #1066.ghs �/ CAR V EL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: - ,Z — 902 - 71? Petitioner. 114 , L.i:312. ,(2,K Su 8D i J r s/cr.) Section Variance: _ (L, . 3 (, Brief Description of Variance: _ �-„Z,V. k 2L� --T. ur VI 4A4 (SO ') 2tZtAta IQ 4 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. 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 ;, day of (O(J i,4/ , 199t:VioA,L2}t et. 7/Ki&.,e,t,d.-) Commission Member r #1066.ghs CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: ,Z — 7 - PP Petitioner. M , LL B.I?oC,K s kA gm l N/i s/cf.) Section Variance: _ C, . 3 (4, 1)Brief Description of Variance: _ k, 14 4 Cs-O .) 2e�,uCt', to 4 v 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. i/ 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 G ,c��-‘,-- , 199 4,--, (7. cYr--,,..-e-Z--- Commission Member #1066.ghs CAR EL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana Docket No.: 3.,Z -- 9, = TT Petitioner: M , Li.. f3 R.0c,j< Su c3Thj J i s i cr.) Section Variance: _ 4, . 3 (, Brief Description of Variance: _ --ec-,ki t 2A.:7) --t. ur Irel 44 CS O `) 2t-tt,c(-t1) To 4 O j 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. Z 3. Dated this .2(? day of El c i.452 l , -7991:`1'9 f L -- --, .. ! t ,, ._ 114 / i mmisson Member #1066.ghs CA.RNIEL/CLA.Y PLAN COMMISSION Cannel, Indiana Docket No.: -S.,Z 9, 1?— Petitioner. !1 , l.j fB(1.oG1< SugThiJsS,cr.) Section Variance: _ 4, . 3 � Brief Description of Variance: -t, �� (So ') r') iv 4 v p �Z;,��n i 2t-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 PIan. r/ 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,o day of ©,� a bQ r , 1990. `z '1, Commission Member #1066.ghs