HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact
FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR
PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION
Carmel Plan Commission
Carmel, Indiana
DOCKET NO. 66-03 PP NAME OF SUBDNISION: The Trails 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, the Plan Commission determined that the
plat complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance.
The Plan Commission hereby approves of the primary plat as submitted with the following
specific conditions as agreed to by the petitioner.
Condition 1. The recordint; of the commitment concerning the use and development of
the real estate regarding required road improvements.
Condition 2.
Condition 3.
The Plan Commission hereby disa pp roves the primary plat as submitted for the following
reasons:
1.
2.
3.
DATED THIS ~ DAY OF hme , 20 03
esi ent, rme - a an Commission
Mll501 DRW 594156 2
~~
i _~
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT
Docket No.: 66-03 PP and 66-03c SW
Petitioner: Centex Homes
Section Variance: 6.03
Brief Description of Variance: Provision of north-south collector road
In deciding whether or not the application has presented sufficient proof to pemrit the gzanting of a variance,
the Plan Commission should consider the following:
The Plan Commission disapproved of the subdivision variance request for the following
1.
2.
3.
- 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.
Based on all of the evidence presented by the petitioner, the Plan Commission approved the
requested subdivision variance.
reasons:
Dated this 17th day of June, 2003.
r
President, arm 1-Clay Plan Commrsston
MDS01 DR\V 594150v1
I\
•
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
StlBDIVISION VARIANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT
Docket No.: 66-03 PP and 66-03b SW
Petitioner: Centex Homes
Section Variance: 6.01.01
Brief Description of Variance: Conformance with the comprehensive Ulan
In deciding whether or not the application 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 [he 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 of the evidence presented by the petitioner, the Plan Commission approved the
requested subdivision variance.
fhe Plan Commnission disapproved of the subdivision variance request for the following
reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this 17th day of June, 200,3.
President, rmel-Clay Plan Commission
MDS01 DRW 594150v1
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT
Docket No.: 66-03 PP and 66-03a SW
Petitioner: Centex Homes
Section Valiance: 5.01.07
Brief Description of Variance: Extension of facilities included in tiie master clan
In deciding whether or not the application 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 [o the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan
Based on all of the evidence presented'oy the petitioner, the Plan Commission approved the
r uested subdivision variance.
The Plan Commission disapproved of the subdivision variance request for the following
reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this t7th day of June, 2003.
Pre~t, ~ r e]- lay Plan Commission
IND501 DRN 59i150v1