The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFindings of Fact Q~ ....w.... :,'. . FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Ridge at Havden Run P~R: Centex Homes !!!!!!!.-.- Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with . /tandards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. l./ I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed - to by the petitioner. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. 11~#t 0;- .S'A~(/kKll{; it ~~ //l;~ -147 T4~' ~ Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THISLS- DAY OF JANUARY , 20..QL.. J7/~~~ . SSlon Mem er " -2- u" o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Ridge at Havden Run PETITIONER: Centex Homes ~. Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. j/ I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by the petitioner. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATEDTHIS~DAYOFJANUARY ~ _ ,20~. ~ ~ C~~ssio~ Member .. -2- 0" o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Ridge at Havden Run ~IONER: Centex Homes ~ Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with /tandards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. _ I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by the petitioner. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATEDTHIS!{ DAY OF JANUARY ,20~. ..~~~/hP 't? ComrrusslOn Member -2- v, o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Ridge at Havden Run PETITIONER: Centex Homes ~ Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. ~ I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by the petitioner. ~ndition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. "./ DATED THIS J2 DAY OF JANUARY -2- v' o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Ridge at Havden Run PETITIONER: Centex Homes t:i?I' Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations. and certifications of the ~ staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. ~ I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by the petitioner. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. k DATED TIHS "EDAY OF JANUARY '2~?1bL- Commission e ber -2- u (;;) FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Ridge at Havden Run PETITIONER: Centex Homes K Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the -0/- staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. ~, I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed ~ to by the petitioner. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS ~ DAY OF JANUARY ,20~. ~.~~~ .0 ssn emer -2- o o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP ~~: Centex Homes \)) X Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. V I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by the petitioner. NAME OF SUBDMSION: The Ridge at Hayden Run Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding reQuired road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATEDTHIS tS DAY OF JANUARY "- ; Lllilsvn -2- l w (;;) FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Ridge at Hayden Run R: Centex Homes Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the /Ri/ staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with ~r ~daf(ls of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. V I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed - to by the petitioner. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS ~ DAY OF JANUARY '~h~~ --- -2- ~ (.) FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDMSION: The Ridge at Hayden Run PETITIONER: Centex Homes #" ~~ Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by the petitioner. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATEDTHIS~AYOF JANUARY .20~. ~a. ~ C7 Commission Member '\ -2- U) (;) FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDNISION: The Ride:e at Havden Run PETITIONER: Centex Homes ~ ~\ I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed t~ to by the petitioner. Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Cannel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding required road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS DAY OF JANUARY ,20..QL. ~~Si~ -2- '-D (,) FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Ridge at Hayden Run Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the . staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with ~dards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. . V I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed - to by the petitioner. Condition 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the real estate regarding reauired road improvements. Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THI~A Y OF JANUARY '20~ . /./ . ssion Member -2- ~ u FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 139-01 PP NAME OF SUBDMSION: The Ridfle at Havden Run PETITIONER: Centex Homes ;l 2 Based upon all the evidence by the petitioner and upon the representations and certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. Ill1tted with the following specific con . . agreed on 1. The recording of the commitment concerning the use and development of the Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. --- DATED TIflS-!.LDAY OF JANUARY .2002. ~ ~mmissionM_ -2- . ..~.'" w w CARM:ELlCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel. Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex HOllIes Section Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and nnnecessa."j hardship if applied to the property for which the v~riance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. -L- /' -- Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. ,., ~. Dated this l"S' day of ....,..., . ....) ~ '" u.. ~ 'C"" 1 :h~bO~ ~ ( --a~~ ..~~ Commission Memb~ - s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 u_..., o Q.) CA.R.l\'IEUCLA Y PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or notti1e applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. .,. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessa.......J hardship if applied to the property for wh1ch The vari:tnce 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. .., .J. ~ . l "S' day of ~ -'L. ~ ~ '(""''-I s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 Dated this ,~ ----"': '-;'''-.'1,; Q.) o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the vl'lnance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this ,~ day of cl b-----'-- ~'-r l s: \forms\subvarfo. rm 10/95 tt~~ ' Commission Meml) .' ~ .. ~ w o CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION V ARMNCE FINDINGS OF FACT Dacket No.: Petitianer: Centex Homes Sectian Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Descriptian af Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether ar not .the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Cammissian should censider the follawing: The grant af a variance will nat be injuriaus to. the public health, safety, merals and general welfare af the cemmunity. ~ The use and value af area adjacent to. the praperty included in the prepased plat will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The need far the variance arises fram seme candition peculiar to. the praperty and such cenditian is not due to. the general conditians af the neighbarhaad. The strict application af terms af the ardinance to. the praperty will canstitute an unusual. and nnnecessa.....J hardship if applied to. the property for which the va...riance isseught - The grant af the variance daes not interfere substantially with the comprehensive pl~." " ~~ased an all the evidence presented by the petitianer, I apprave af the requested subdivisian variance. I hereby disapprave af the subdivisian variance request far the fallewing reasons: 1. 2. 3. ".--" Dated this A day af ~/ I~..""". /' " ..- . - .../ /" , \ Camrmssian Member s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 '. w Q <:ARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property 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 pl;m. ~Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 ~/ .~ ~J2j} ~ . ~. Dated this ~ day of Commission Member 'CD o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex HOlIles Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the.appIicanthas 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unneceSSaI"j hardship if applied to the property for which the va-Tiance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. ~ased on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: L 2. 3. ~- /' / Dated this II day of r-. ,m~, Co s~~n. mb~~ s: \forms\subvarfo. rm 10/95 ., r. .~ o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 1;/7 - B) f P Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 condi.tion is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood. The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessa..ry hardship if applied to the property for which. the va...ri::mce 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 I. requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. .., .J. Dated this I ~ day of J-..1W} , J.S)9-- ?-~t) -:L ~ ~ Commission ~er ~ s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 ... ~ o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: t1.:>'7 ...(){ - p:P Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual. and unnecessa.'"'j hardship if applied to the property for which the v~riance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. y I Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this 10 day of J-. &-vJ. .Wf^G07~~_*, Commission ~mber ! s: \forms\subvarfo. rm I 0/95 ... OCD o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION V ARlANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: t~ tJ; ..-!) J p p o Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and nnnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the v~riance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. x , Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: L 2. .., oJ. Dated this /0 day of J t"'V/ ~-:L , ~~J?5d Commission Member s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 l r 'CD o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FlNDINGS OF FACT Dacket No.: Petitianer: Centex Homes Sectian Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Descriptian af Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether ar nat .the applicant has presented sufficient praaf to. permit the granting af a variance, the Plan Cammissian should cansider the following: The grant af a variance will nat be injuriaus to. the public health, safety, marals and general welfare af the cammunity. The use and value af area adjacent to. the praperty included in the prapased plat will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The need far the variance arises fram same canditian peculiar to. the praperty and such condi.tian is not due to. the general canditians af the neighbarhaad. The strict applicatian af terms af the ardinance to. the praperty will canstitute an unusual and unnecessa.1'"'(j hard:'!hip if applied to. the property for which the va.ri::lnce issaught. The grant af the variance daes nat interfere substantially with the camprehensive plan. / Based an all the evidence presented by the petitianer, I apprave af the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprave af the subdivisian variance request far the fallawing reasans: 1. 2. ... .). Dated this /.r day of . :J ~ , ~ 2~.o ~ l\. 5( ~---.J "'" , Commissian Member s:\farms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 CJ) Q C:ARMEUCLA Y PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FlNDlNGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex HDlDes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the applicanthas 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessm"'j hardship if applied to the property for which the va..riance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this J 5"""- day of ~ . ~ , ~ JlDo "2- &_. ~ J\ C7 Commission Member s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 " '..... '0 o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for whi~h the va..Tiance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this / S-"" day of --- . \J ----; -t-99- ~I# 'L- , <2 ~.. - .. ~ / Commission Member s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 ".'1 -CD (,;) CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessa.ry 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. " ~. ~ .. Dated this /5 day of ~.I.1~ s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 '1/:Y hL Commission Member 'CD (;) CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDMSION VARIANCE FlNDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not tb,e 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, The use and 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 condi.tion is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood. The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessa.ry hardship if applied to the property for which the vari:mce 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this I~ day O~4UL(JAi s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 .~~ / Commission Member .' . 'CD u CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and nnnecessa.~J 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this IS day of q"'J.Jd~_ s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 ')l:tt!;d~ Commission Member -- .~ l_ _.... '0 u CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and mmecessa.....J harrlC!hip if applied to the property for which the va...-riance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. ... J, Dated this r s ~ .. day of JClh.lJs:1JU(.. ~a~~~ s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 'U u CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FlNDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex HOllIeS Section Variance:' 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Nf:)t platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 condi.tion is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual. and nnnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the va.-riance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Datedthis t& daYOfJ~." ~3~~:m~~ s: \forms\subvarfo. rm 10/95 'W) w <:AR.M:EUCLAY PLAN COl\'IMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and nnneceSSaI"'J 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this l S day of J s: \forms\subvarfo. rm 10/95 ., _ ._:'"i!..._ . w Q CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION V ARlANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and l'nnecessa.."J 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. .., .J. Dated this ? q;-#t day of \ I ~ s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 - . a.J Q CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FlNDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 condi,tion is. not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood. . The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for wn1ch the variance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. x "' Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. / <-111 -r .. Dated tI1iB .L.i- day of '_ ~.. s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 /~-?~ ,. . ComIIllsSlon Member ." . -...--....... . Q) w CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for whir.h the Y8-1":iance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. K , Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. '" .J. ~~ / Commission Member t: . Dated this 15!::- day 0'-.,7 s:lformslsubvarfo.rm 10/95 .. ~. cw o CARMEUCLA Y PLAN COMMISSION CarmeI~ Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ,. The use and 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 condi.tion is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood. The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessa.-ry hardship if applied to the property for which the va.riance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. K . Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the B-- requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. ... .J. Dated this / 5' day of ~ s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/t" ~~..z , ~~ --- Commission Member .~ ~-. Q.) Q CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex HOllIes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not tb,e applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the v~riance issought.-" The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. c?O Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. " .J. Dated this ~ day of ~~ )~ y ~ .~ ~, ~ Commission Member s: \forms\subvarfo. rm 10/95 ~ o CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDMSION VARIANCE FlNDlNGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission. should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unneceSSaI"j hardship if applied to the property for which the va..riance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this /,s- day of - . vav .~ ..;2a:> ~ ~ ..~ M b OmII1lSSl0n em er s:\forms\subvarfo.rm lO/95 =' ... CD o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and mmecessa.'y hardship if applied to the property for which the va.ti~nce 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this /5' day of Il'~ s: \forms\subvarfo. rm I 0/95 ~2(}~1. /Y~fr ~~~~~-- ommission Member .; CD o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ,. The use and 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 condi.tion is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood. The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessar<j hardship if applied to the property for which the va..riance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this /}' day of ~ . s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 ~ 2&/71.- /)~ / r /~#J^__ ~ission Member .); Q) o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unneceSSaI"j hardship if applied to the property for which the va.Tiance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this I ~ day of ~ s: \forms\subvarfo. rm 10/95 ~1f~~~tl<- J2~ ~~4?-AJ / Com 'ssion Member -""..- CD w CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Decket No.: Petitiener: Centex Homes Sectien Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description ef Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether er net the applicant has presented sufficient preef to. permit the granting af a variance, the Plan Cammissian should cansider the follewing: The grant af a variance will net be injuriaus to. the public health, safety, merals and general welfare af the cammunity. ~ The use and value afarea adjacent to. the praperty included in the prepased plat will nat be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The need far the variance arises fram same canditian peculiar to. the praperty and such conditian is nat due to. the general canditians af the neighbarhoad. The strict applicatian af terms af the ardinance to. the praperty will censtitute an unusual and nnnecessa....J hardship if applied to. the property fer which the va..riance issaught - The grant af the variance daes nat interfere substantially with the camprehensive plan. x Based an all the evidence presented by the petitianer, I apprave af the requested subdivisian variance. I hereby disapprave af the subdivisian variance request far the fallawing reasans: 1. 2. .., .J. /' ~...J Dated this -f-L- day of ~ v- s:\forms\suhvarfo.rm 10/95 s:~~:: 1- .. .._.;~ . CJ) o CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDMSION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual. and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which The va.riance 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. " .J. ----- Datedtbis fJ day of ~ ~ Y(' ~ s:lformslsubvarfo.rm 10/95 ; '. Comniission Member CD o CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. .,. The use and 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 to the property 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. x Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner. I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: L 2. .., .). ,.--- ------. Dated this -+.L- day or -.J ~ . ~ -V€>~ ~--- .?- Commission Member s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 ;;"f!....}r~ o o I,~ i:J CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: / j ~ -0 I a..- -I J.1 . r / J..- ~L ~ ~- {..l/~ Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not .tb.e 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. .,. The use and 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 to the property will constitUte an unusual and Hnnecessa.."j 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. ~. Dated this L I day of r . s: \forms\subvarfo. rm 10/95 .;zo (j :;:L.. '~~U~ Commission Member .r. ...... Q Q CARMEUCLAY-PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana - SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: /3 q ~ 0 I b Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 to the property 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 intrnere substantially with the comprehensive plan. - L-/' Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. '" ~. / D~~~~~YOf~ s: \forms\subvarfo. rm 10/95 - ;).A 0 :L '~~){g!t P Commission Member .., "-'"""'.. o (;) CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: /31 -0 I c Petitioner: Centex HCIIIles Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessa."J hardship if applied to the property for which the va.riance is sought. The grant of the variance does not intedere substantially with the comprehensive plan. ~.. Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. /' ~ Dated this -f..2- day of A-- s: \forms\subvarfo. rm. 10/95 ,~ .;2-6 (J ::2-- .. .. ~/~tJ-/kf Commission Member .1' .....-. - 'u Q CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION V AR1ANCE FlNDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Vanance: 5.1.7 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or n.otthe 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, ~ The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual. and mmecessa.."f hardship if applied to the property for which the VlL-r1J:lnCe 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. " .J. Dated this If day of ~. -~~ s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 I / d_. 'U u CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex Homes Section Variance: 6.1.1 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ,. The use and 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 condi.tion is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood. The strict application of terms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the va...t1l'lnce 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 of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. ... ~. Dated this /S- day of ~. t~) .o~~~ s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95 J . .~.. - u u CARMEUCLAY PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FlNDINGS OF FACT Docket No: Petitioner: Centex HOllIes Section Variance: 6.3 Brief Description of Variance: Not platting a north-south collector road through subdivision In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance, the Plan Commission should consider the fonowing: The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ~ The use and 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 to the property will constitute an unusual and unneceSSaI"j hardship if applied to the property for which the va..riance is sought The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. vi Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision variance. I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons: L 2. 3. Dated this .f,&", day of ~ · (;~7<<J~ ~mmiSsiOn ber s:\forms\subvarfo.rm 10/95