The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFindings of Fact u ! \ ..-;.... U FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIONER: Platinum Properties. LLC -- + Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, 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. con~~uJ~y{;1J t~~~~ ~O~{~~~~ Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disaoprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 2)~~ ~,\ DATED THIS JJii" DAY OF feBRlary, 2002. ~ \ .. ~ .- CommissiOn Member H:\KeUy\J\m MPlatlnum Proporti..\Townhom..\f of f - pp conslderation.doc , J (J o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLA T CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 1 59-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIONER: Platinum Properties. LLC -~ Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I determine that the plat - complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. ~/ r I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by ,the Petitioner. ~~~~~~--. ~... rl+- (1' ____ C\ :..Y. ~ --... ~ ~ ~~ Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 2.3~ Pc . I DATED THIS # DAYOF~,2002. H:\Kell,"\Jim N\Platlnum Properti..\Townhome.\f of f - pp consideration.doc r u o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIqNER: Platinum Properties. LLC ~ ~ Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. 1/' I hereby aoorove of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by {the Petitioner. Condition 2, Condition 3. I hereby disaoorove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2, 3, 23 ,..~ Apt-; \ DATED THIS # DAY OF ~mMy, 2002, J~/~ I Commission Member H:\KeUylJlm MPlatlnum Pmperti..\Townhome.\f of f - pp conslderatlon,doc I o o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIO~: Platinum Properties. LLC ~Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I determine that the plat - romplies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. . j I hereby aoorove of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific I conditions as agreed to by Jthe Petitioner. CO~~iOfi~ Ii ~~%~~1Vi7tIm4ik Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disaoorove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Z3"~ A,,., \ DATED THIS# DAY OF FcblUdry, 2002. ~~ H:\K.II,.\Jim N\Plallnum Prop.rties\Townltom.o\f of f - pp conold.ration.doc w Q FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIONER: Platinum Properties. LLC ~ ~ Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, 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 ,tb,e Petitioner. ~ cond~' 1~l..i . (J4 Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 'Z 3"'..! Apr~ l DATED THIS ~ DAY OF Feet t1ll~, 2002. ~~ Commission em er . H:\Kelly\Jlm MPlatinum Prop.rtl..\Townhom..\f of f - pp conslderatlon.doc u u FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLA T CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 9-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIO : Platinum Properties. LLC Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I determine that the plat r /' complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. ~ . I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specif.ic conditions as agreed to by ,the Petitioner. , Condition L ~/~~ ~ ~ ' Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 23"l APr~\ ~ DATED THIS iii" DAY OF Eeb...a.y, 2002. ~~~~ . Commission Member H:\Kel1y\Jlm N\Platlnum Propertl..\Townhome.\r of f . pp consideratlon.doc u w FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIONER: Platinum Pro erties LLC -1'- J- e(l upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. I hereby aoorove of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agr to by ,the Petitioner. ~~~ Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disaoorove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Z3~ AP~ \ DATED THIS vi" DAY OF~, 2002. QfJIL H:IKell)"\Jlm N\PIatlnum Propertl..ITownhom..lr or r - pp consideratlon.doc w Q I I. I FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana ~~ DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIONER: Platinum Properties. LLC ~ Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitiouer, 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 L ~d<7' 6d~.p ~~SI- Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS 19th DAY OF February, 2002. m~,4J;v~ . C mission Member H:\Kelly\.Jlm NlPlatlnum Propertl..\Townhon.e.\f of f - pp conslderation.doe u o FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIONER: Platinum Properties. LLC 4 Based upon all tbe evidence presented by tbe Petitioner, 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. /U.<'...cf7~ ~ ~ ---d,~~ Condition 2. Condition 3. I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 2..''''~ Apt'; \ DATED THIS ~ DAY OF F-dnuluy, 2002. Z=. ~ --- ." - Commission Member H:\Kelly\Jlm N\Platlnum Properties\Townhome.\f of f - pp consideratlon.doc u u FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIONER: Platinum Properties. LLC Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, 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. Condition 2. Condition 3. i4 I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 'vJ .v1J-11 '} p 1~ ~ J2~'y till:" t-vp f p t de tI~k p~.-rr , I U'I 2. 3. t?J r.! A p,.: I DATED THIS JRk' DAY OF Feel'tl9l)', 2002. 1:. 7of~ Commission ember H:\Kelly\JIm N\Platlnum Properties\Townhome.\r or r. pp conslderatlon.doc u /, U FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana DOCKET NO. 159-01PP NAME OF SUBDIVISION: The Townhomes at Hazel Dell PETITIONER: Platinum Properties. LLC Based upon all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. I hereby aoorove of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to by ,the Petitioner. Condition 1. Condition 2. Condition 3. ~ I hereby disa~~rove of the prima~s submitted for the following reasons: L~ rS ~ ~. ~~ t-pubk- 2. 3. Z3 r_ fr; I DATED THIS ~ DAY OF ~e~, 2002. '- · bhksn H:\Kelly\Jlm N\Platlnum Properti..\Townhon...\f of f - pp conslderation.doe ~ w FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 fthe 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 oftherms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. . The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. 1 x I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. Wnn'1 'PJCJ.(!..I' {;;Y' tlt/17 1- VP" t9 {' d~ velo/::m1<!!'"7 . , 2. 3. 2-3".1 A; ( Dated this ~ day o~, 2002 ~~/~ Plan Commi ston Member ~ u FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 variahce will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare fthe 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. I . The strict application oftherms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. . The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. v I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: ~ 1. r &tltAU'. ~ ~s. Ncl- ~. b.ut-tl~ 1; $~ =v- - 2. 3. '-- tJt.l .A.v:( Dated this # day of~, 2002 ~ (D o FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e swl Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 fthe 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 therms ofthe ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. ygran, of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. I Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 2'1"~ Aor. \ Dated this ~ day of~, 2002 A~# an ommlSSlon em er v o FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' I 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 the public health, safety, morals and general welfare f 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 oftherms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. . The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. -$- Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 23':.~ A it Dated this~ day ot~, 2002 pQ~..~ (j) o FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 fthe community. The use and value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will n9t be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 1 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 oftherms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. . . . . L- Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. tfo:l~~l Dated this # day of Mm-eft, 2002 ... ~~~ber --.,. (J) o FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 fthe 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 therms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. . The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. I ~- Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 2 JIJ .I.Vr: ( Dated this ~ day ofMafCh, 2002 ~. . . . Ie p Ian Comm . n Member u (;) FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW;159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 fthe community. I . 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 therms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. . The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. / Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 2.J"~ A~a Dated this ~ day ofMard1, 2002 ~&j;4Q~ L Plan 1 s on ember u o FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street I Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 fthe 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 oftherms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. . . . . >< , I Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. z,':' ~~:f Dated this ~ day of~, 2002 ~~ u Q FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 fthe 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 therms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. . The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. /// Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 2.3~ Ao..~\ Dated thi~th day otMMCh, 2002 u u FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: Petitioner: 159-01a SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinum Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 andl general welfare fthe 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 oftherms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. The grant of the variance does not interfere with th4e comprehensive plan. . . . . \j Based on all the evidence presented by the Petitioner, I APPROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 21"~ A.~( Dated this W' day of~, 2002 ~ Plan CommIssion Member ~ --' u u FINDINGS OF FACT SUBDIVISION VARIANCES Carmel Plan Commission . Carmel, Indiana Docket Nos: . Petitioner: 159-0la SW; 159-01b SW; 159-01c SW; 159-01d SW; 159-01e SW Platinnm Properties Section Variances: 6.3.24 6.3.20 6.5.1 7.0.1 7.6.3 Frontage Place> 600' and doesn't terminate in a street Every residential property served from a public street Minimum lot frontage of 50' at building line Minimum distance between units of 6' Minimum width of open space of 75' 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 fthe 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 oftherms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the properties for which the variance is sought. /~ml offue ::: :::::o~:~::=::~b:o::::e:~::PROVE of the requested variances. I hereby DISSAPROVE of the subdivision variances requested for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Z1"i 4: I Dated this~ day of~, 2002 ~~.A Commission Member -