Laserfiche WebLink
the ratio would vary from 3 to 1 to 5 to 1. <br /> <br /> There being no further questions from the floor the board moved on to the <br />statutory provisions under I.C. 36-7-4-918.5 for a variance from development <br />standards. <br /> <br /> 1. The board found that the request would not be injurious to the public <br />health, safety, morals and general welfare of the co--unity in that the purpose <br />of the retention pond was to prevent an increase in the normal flow rate and <br />would in fact prevent injury to the oublic; <br /> <br /> 2. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management restrictions for the <br />necessity of a retention pond will actually prevent the use and value of area <br />adjacent to the property included in the variance from being affected in a <br />substantially adverse manner; <br /> <br /> 3. The strict application of the te~s of the zoning ordinance would <br />result in practical difficulties in the use of the property in that the <br />deviations from the no~al width to length ratio in the ordinance are necessary <br />to allow for adequate and sufficient drainage, without which could create usage <br />problems for not only o~ers in~%he subdivision but for the public in general. <br /> <br /> Based upon those findings Alan Kramer moved to grant the variance request. <br />The motion was seconded by Vern Ki~el and~f~-~imously carried. <br /> <br /> Yon Barry <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br /> <br />