HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of FactSTEVEN A. WILSON, INC.
BUILDER/DEVELOPER
937 Keystone Way * P.O. Box 649
Carmel, Indiana 46082
Carmel Plan Commission
Carmel, Indiana
RE: Kendall Wood Subdivision
After meeting with the Subdivision Committee, I have agreed to the allowance of
$5,000.00 per lot including planting for front and rear yards. I have also agreed to the
exclusively wood fence of the same type along the west property and a maximum of three
street lights at the entrance in addition to dusk to dawn yard lighting.
Steven A. Wilson
Office (317) 846-2555 * Fax (317) 846-9594 · Email: SawbuilderOaol.com
FI.~INGS OF FACT FORM'~OR
PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION
Carmel Plan Cmranission
Cannel, Indiana
DOCKET NO. 04100034 PP NAME, OF SUBDIVISION: Kendall Wood
PETITIONER: Steven A. Wilson
Based upon-all the evidence presented 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 g. pprove of' the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed to
by the petitioner'.
Condition I.
Condition 2:
Condition 3.
I hereby _disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the follonving reasons:
1.
Commission Member
Z:\shared\forms\PC applications\primaryplat Rev. 01/05/04
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
SUBDIVISION WAIVER
FINDINGS OF FACT
DocketNo: 04100035 SW
Petitioner: Steven A. Wilson
Section Varied: 33.4.02 (e) Paee 33-3
To allow buffer area adjacent to right-of-way to be reduced
Brief Description of Variance' to a minimum of 25 feet.
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 cmmnunity.
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 ik 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:
Dated this X'tt~ dayof
,200