Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact I ' u CJ FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION Carmel Plan Commission CaTIllel, Indiana NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Ballantrae DOCKET NO. 28-03-PP PETITIONER: The Anderson Corporation IX- Based upon all the e"idence presented by the petitiQner, I determine that the plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance. I hereby avprove 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 disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2003. s: \plancomm\applictn. pc\primplat.apx Rev. 1117/2000 u u CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 28-03a SW Petitioner: The Anderson Corporation Section Variance: Section 7.1 ofthe Subdivision Regulations Brief Description of Variance: Variance from open space requirement 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 \:llhich the variance is sought. The grant of the variance does not inLerfere 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. Dated this 17th day of June, 2003. ~~ Plan 0 . 101F: reS1 ent II :\lal1ct\Anderson\\F of F 28-03. SW Rcduced Open Spaee.doc u u CARMEL PLAN CO.MMlSSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION V AIUANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 28"03b SW Petitioner: The Anderson Corporation Section Variance: Section 7.5.7 of the Subdivision Regulations Brief Description of Variance: Variance regarding clearing of woodland areas 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 Plan. -U- Based on all the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested subdivision vanance. I hereby disapprove of the subdi vision variance request for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Dated this 17th day of June, 2003. ~ l-l:\Janer\Anderson\F of F 28-03b SW Woodland Clearing_doc u u CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION Carmel, Indiana SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Docket No: 28-03c SW Petitioner: The Anderson Corporation Section Variance: Section 6.5.1 of the Subdivision Regulations Brief Description of Variance: Variance requiring lots to have a mlmmum of 50' frontage at the street right-of-wav In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to pennit 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 conununity. 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 vanance 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 vanance. T hereby disapprove ofthe subdivision variance request for the following reasons: 1'. 2. 3. Dated this 17th day of J nne, 2003. H:\lanctIAndcrson\F of F 28-03c SW 50' Frontage.doc