Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Commission Chambers 4243 Remembrance Rd NW Wednesday, July 24, 2024 6:30 PM 1. Call the meeting to order 2. Review Meeting Minutes 2.1. Review Meeting Minutes from June 26, 2024 3. General Public Comment This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non-public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is required. 4. Agenda Items 4.1. Case #ZBA-24-002 - 1350 Granada Dr NW - Dimensional Variance, Section 15.03 - Walls and Fences, Philip Yeiter 5. Zoning Board of Appeals member/Staff Comments 6. Adjournment Page 1 of 37  ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Wednesday, June 26, 2024 6:30 p.m. Members present: Chair Brian Boelens, Randy Smith, Greg Gaastra, Dan Harland, Jeff Portko, Mark Ratering Members absent: Thom Burke Staff present: Planning Director Paula Priebe CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chairman Boelens called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers and explained the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals to the members of the public and applicants in attendance. REVIEW MEETING MINUTES Portko made a motion to approve the minutes from March 27, 2024. Supported by Smith. Motion carried unanimously. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT This provision is made to encourage the expression of questions and concerns regarding non- public hearing items and issues not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to identify themselves by name and address. A maximum time of 6 minutes per person is permitted. There was no public comment. AGENDA ITEMS Case #ZBA-24-002 - 1350 Granada Dr NW - Dimensional Variance, Section 15.03 - Walls and Fences, Philip Yeiter Boelens invited Planning Director Paula Priebe to comment: Priebe presented her staff report: Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 6-26-24 Page 2 of 37  The property is located in the Old Mission neighborhood which is located on the northeast corner of Leonard St NW and Kinney Ave NW. The neighborhood is zoned A, Single Family Residential, and is near Kenowa Hills Public Schools’ Zinser Elementary School. Phillip Yeiter, owner and resident of 1350 Granada Dr NW since 1978, submitted an application for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03, Walls and Fences. He is asking for variances from the 15.03.A fence height limits and 15.03.E materials, to be allowed to keep an existing 8’ tall fence where 6’ is permitted and allow a fence made of wood posts and wire “slats” where wire is not on the list of permitted materials. She explained that while there is no permit required, there are requirements per the Ordinance. In areas zoned A – Single Family Residential, fences in the front yard may be up to 4 feet in height, with a zero setback and, if 4 feet tall, must be at least 50% transparent. Fences in the side or rear yard may be up to 6 feet in height and with a zero setback from the property lines. Privacy fences (fully opaque) are permitted in both side and rear yards. Section 15.03.E states that “all fences and walls other than those in commercial front yards shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following materials: wrought iron or a similar metal alloy; stained, painted, or comparably finished lumber; vinyl or composite plastic; split rail; chain link, subject to the limitations of this section; pressure treated lumber; brick; stone; stucco; other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Zoning Board of Appeals. The request before the ZBA is for: • a rear yard fence variance of 2’ (allowing the fence to be 8’ tall, when the Ordinance limits residential fences to 6’), and • an allowance for a fence made of wire, which is not on the list of acceptable materials found in Section 15.03.E. She shared that the board can grant other materials if they find them to be in the spirit intent of the ordinance. Priebe shared again the four standard criteria that must be met for a variance to be granted: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 6-26-24 Page 3 of 37  D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Boelen invited Mr. Yeiter to the podium. Mr. Yeiter explained that he has lived in the home with a garden since 1978. In the past 4-5 years, deer started eating the garden. They would jump over the previous chain-link fence. He constructed this fence to not only keep the deer out, but so that it wouldn't block the neighbor's view. He explained that he has tried many remedies to keep the deer out, to no avail. Boelens asked if he'd considered an opaque 6 ft fence. Mr. Yeiter said the deer will jump over that, and he'd like to be able to talk to his neighbors. Mr. Yeiter shared current photos of the garden that shows grapes growing up the wire. Boelens invited members of the audience to comment. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Smith made a motion to open the public hearing. Supported by Harland. Motion carried unanimously. Elaine Yeiter, daughter of the applicant, came to the podium. She stated it would be detrimental to her father's overall health and wellness if he could not have his garden. She said she has a brother at home with Downs Syndrome that her father takes care of. Judy Maatman, 1326 Sierra NW. She and her husband live on the privacy fence side of Mr. Yeiter. They have been neighbors since Yeiter move in in 1978. She stated she can't even see the fence from her window. As far as they are concerned, there is nothing negative about it. The garden has been a huge part of Mr. Yeiter's life. The garden is kept up nicely. Portko asked Maatman why aren't the deer jumping her fence? Maatman stated they've never had deer - they are just starting to come in. Priebe read public comments that she'd received prior to the meeting. Two were in support of the fence. One was not in support of the fence. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Smith made a motion to close the public hearing. Supported by Gaastra. Motion carried unanimously. Boelens invited the board to comment. Portko asked Priebe if there was any kind of agricultural exemptions for a grape trellis? Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 6-26-24 Page 4 of 37  Priebe stated the property is not in what would be considered agricultural due to the size. And if they were to consider it a "trellis" the materials would still be of concern. Boelens went through the four criteria. He doesn't feel it's exceptional or extraordinary. Portko agreed. Smith asked Priebe if this was complaint driven? Priebe stated that Meghann Gorby, Code Enforcement did receive a complaint. Smith asked if a "temporary" fence or "seasonal" fence could be considered? Priebe said there is precedence for temporary variances. They need to be very clear and have boundaries. Gaastra asked how a trellis could be defined vs. a fence in this case. Priebe stated it's functionally being used as a fence. However, living fences such as trees / arbor vitae are allowed. Portko asked about the temporary fence idea. Would it still have to comply with the materials requirement? Priebe stated in this case, if you as the ZBA ,wish to determine that wire as used in this capacity is appropriate for residential fencing, you could determine that. However, that sets a precedence for other residential fences to use the same wire. Harland commented that he understands why the fence was constructed as it was, but at the end of the day we cannot make this adjustment for one home. We have to go by the four qualification rules, and he just doesn't see it meeting that. Boelens reviewed the rest of the criteria: he can enjoy his property, it's not a detriment to adjacent properties, and he's never heard of this issue as to be a recurrent nature. Portko said his inclination with it is to let it go, and possibly reanalyze it as a garden trellis of some kind. Gaastra added that deer populations are exploding and that this ordinance was written many years ago, the issue of deer was probably not an issue at the time the ordinance was written. It might be a reason to justify the planning commission revisiting the rules with deer in mind. Priebe said she can bring that to the planning commission for their consideration. MOTION Portko made a motion to DENY the request for 1350 Granada Dr NW (PIN 41-13-17- 351-013) by Applicant/ Property Owner Phillip Yeiter, for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03 the Zoning Ordinance to permit an 8’ fence made of wood and wire in the rear yard, where 6’ is permitted and wire is not on the list of approved materials, Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 6-26-24 Page 5 of 37  based on the standards found in Section 19.04 of the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the fence must be taken down within 14 days. Harland supported the MOTION TO DENY. Upon further discussion, Portko withdrew the motion to DENY. Harland supported the motion to withdraw. Smith made a motion TABLE the request. Gaastra supported the MOTION TO TABLE pending Priebe's communication with the City Attorney regarding whether this could be determined to be a trellis. This case will come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals in approximately one month. Yays: 6 Nays: 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER/STAFF COMMENTS There were no further comments. ADJOURNMENT Harland made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Supported by Gaastra. Brian Boelens, Chair Laura Lundy, Recording Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 6-26-24 Page 6 of 37  MEMORANDUM To: City of Walker Zoning Board of Appeals From: Paula Priebe, AICP – Planning Director Date: June 20, 2024 July, 16, 2024 RE: Case # 24-002 Dimensional Variance Request for 1350 Granada Dr NW Applicant: Phillip Yeiter Property Address: 1350 Granada Dr NW, Grand Rapids MI 49534 Parcel Number: 41-13-17-351-013 Zoning District: A, Single Family Residential Size of Subject Parcel: 0.39 acres Type of Appeal: Dimensional Variance Request Relief Requested from 15.03 – Walls and Fences (fence height and materials) Ordinance Section: Request and Background Phillip Yeiter, owner and resident of 1350 Granada Dr NW since 1978, submitted an application for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03, Walls and Fences. He is asking for variances from the 15.03.A fence height limits and 15.03.E materials, to be allowed to keep an existing 8’ tall fence where 6’ is permitted and allow a fence made of wood posts and wire “slats” where wire is not on the list of permitted materials. The property is located in the Old Mission neighborhood which is located on the northeast corner of Leonard St NW and Kinney Ave NW. The neighborhood is zoned A, Single Family Residential, and is near Kenowa Hills Public Schools’ Zinser Elementary School. The following items have been provided for your review and reference in relation to this project: 1. Excerpts from the Zoning and Community Character Maps and site images 2. Application for Dimensional Variance 3. Property Survey and Building Plans Page 1 of 12 Page 7 of 37 Zoning Ordinance Sections 15.03 Regulations for the permitted height, transparency, location, setbacks, and allowed materials for fences are found in Article 15 – General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, in Section 15.03 – Walls and Fences. Section 15.03.A is a table with regulations for each zoning district. An excerpt of the table is below, including the requirements for the “A” single-family residential district. In areas zoned A – Single Family Residential, fences in the front yard may be up to 4 feet in height, with a zero setback and, if 4 feet tall, must be at least 50% transparent. Fences in the side or rear yard may be up to 6 feet in height and with a zero setback from the property lines. Privacy fences (fully opaque) are permitted in both side and rear yards. Section 15.03.E states that “all fences and walls other than those in commercial front yards shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following materials: wrought iron or a similar metal alloy; stained, painted, or comparably finished lumber; vinyl or composite plastic; split rail; chain link, subject to the limitations of this section; pressure treated lumber; brick; stone; stucco; other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff Evaluation The Zoning Ordinance permits fences on residential properties according to the regulations found in Section 15.03. Mr. Yeiter has installed a fence which exceeds these allowances in an effort to keep the deer from jumping the fence and eating the produce of the garden he maintains in his rear yard. His fence, in the rear yard, is approximately 8’ in height and made of wooden posts and wire “slats”. The two issues are the height of this fence and materials from which it is constructed. Please see the attached images to see the fence in question and how it is situated adjacent to the fences of the neighboring properties. The request before the ZBA is for • a rear yard fence variance of 2’ (allowing the fence to be 8’ tall, when the Ordinance limits residential fences to 6’), and • an allowance for a fence made of wire, which is not on the list of acceptable materials found in Section 15.03.E. Page 2 of 12 Page 8 of 37 Update after the June 2024 Meeting/City Attorney Information [NEW] The Zoning Board of Appeals first reviewed this case on June 20, 2024. A motion to deny the variance was made and supported, then withdrawn. A motion to table was made and approved, and staff was tasked to consult with the City Attorney as to whether the Applicant’s structure could be considered a trellis and what bearing that would have on the case. Definitions: Fence – an enclosure or barrier used as a boundary, means of protection, privacy screening, or confinement, composed of materials other than hedges, screen plantings, or other planted landscaping materials. (from the Walker Zoning Ordinance) Trellis – a frame of latticework used as a screen or as a support for climbing plants; a construction chiefly of latticework. (from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Note: when the Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition for a term, we look to the ordinary dictionary definition. Interpretation: When reviewing the photos considering the definitions, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that this is a fence. It could also be a trellis, making it possibly both a fence and a trellis, but it would still need to meet the requirements for a fence. Section 15.03.B of the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows: “Decorative fence tops, lattice, and rails are allowed but shall be included in the overall fence height measurement.” However, it is the Zoning Administrator who makes official determinations as to what is a fence. The City’s Zoning Administrator has determined that the construction in question is a fence, both with the initial determination and again after the case was tabled. According to the City Attorney, the Zoning Administrator determined that this was a fence and the Property Owner did not appeal that determination. Thus, it is the ZBA’s job to make a decision on the variance request regarding the fence height and materials. The ZBA should use the four standards in the Ordinance to make that decision. Criteria for Approving a Dimensional Variance Section 19.04 – Variances. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the provisions or requirements of the zoning ordinance if the board finds from reasonable evidence that all the following facts and conditions exist: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Page 3 of 12 Page 9 of 37  D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is sought is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Staff Analysis and Findings of Fact The applicant’s responses to the criteria are included below, along with a few questions to assist the Board in making their determination. The Board must determine that all criteria are met for a variance to be granted. A. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Applicant Response: I have a garden, have had a garden for 46 years (I built the house in 1978), and the deer are destroying it. They jump the existing 4’-5’ fence. I need a taller fence to keep the deer out. I studied how to keep deer out, this should work. Staff Considerations: The standard is that “there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question” that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Typically, these are related to peculiarities of the lot, such as challenging topography, odd shape, easements, etc., which is what creates the exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. What unique or challenging circumstances does this lot have that apply to this standard? What types of fences do “A” neighborhoods look like in other parts of the City? B. Preservation of Property Rights Applicant Response: I can’t have a garden without deer destroying it. They eat the flowers off my rose bushes. Staff Considerations: The standard asks if a substantial property right “similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity” needs to be preserved or cannot be enjoyed. What substantial property rights do other “A” single-family residential lots enjoy that this property would not also enjoy without the variance? What size fences do other houses in this neighborhood have? C. No Substantial Detriment Applicant Response: You can see through the fence, and I can still talk to my neighbors. The tall fence is in the back yard and is not visible from the street. Neighbors with shared lot lines are ok with the fence. Staff Considerations: Are there ways in which granting this variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties? Would granting this variance negatively impact the public interest? D. Not a Recurrent Request that would Warrant a Change in Zoning Ordinance: Applicant Response: Deer are around all the time. But if you don’t have a garden, you may not mind them as they won’t eat your beans or pumpkins, rosebushes or tomatoes. Page 4 of 12 Page 10 of 37  Staff Considerations: Has the ZBA seen other cases such as this in the recent past? Action The Zoning Board of Appeal members should hear the case, discuss the specifics, evaluate the request against the standards, and decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance being requested. Section 19.04, Variances, requires that all criteria must be met for a variance to be granted. It is recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals take all the above information into account when making their decision. Please note that the Zoning Enabling Act states that “the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be final. A party aggrieved by the decision may appeal to the Circuit Court of the county in which the property is located” (MCL 125.3605). An appeal to the Circuit Court must be filed within 30 days of the decision. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this request. Paula Priebe, AICP City of Walker Planning Director CC: Philip Yeiter- Applicant Page 5 of 12 Page 11 of 37 Excerpt from the Zoning Map: Site is currently zoned A. Excerpt from the Community Character Map: Site is designated Retrofit Mixed Use. Page 6 of 12 Page 12 of 37 Excerpt from Google Earth – facing north (imagery date 6/24/2022) Excerpt from Google Maps, Streetview, facing southeast – (imagery date 2024) Page 7 of 12 Page 13 of 37 Excerpt from Kent County Parcel Mapper – (basemap 2023 Aerial) Page 8 of 12 Page 14 of 37 Photos from April 2024 Page 9 of 12 Page 15 of 37  Page 10 of 12 Page 16 of 37  Page 11 of 12 Page 17 of 37 Photo provided by the Applicant, from June 2024 Page 12 of 12 Page 18 of 37  CODE OF ORDINANCES · CITY OF WALKER, MI Section 15.03 Walls and Fences A. The following requirements apply to fences and walls: Front yard Side or Rear Yard District Min. Min. Transparency Min. Transparency Max. Height Max Height Min Setback Setback (<3 feet tall) (>3 feet tall) AA 4 feet None 0% 50% 10 feet None A 4 feet None 0% 50% 6 feet None A-2 4 feet None 0% 50% 6 feet None SA 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None S 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None ARM 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None ARM-1 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None RMT 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None RPUD-1 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None RPUD-2 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None RPUD-3 4 feet 2 feet 0% 50% 6 feet None C-1 3 feet 2 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None C-2 3 feet 2 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None ORP 3 feet 2 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None CPUD 3 feet 2 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None I-1 6 feet 50 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None I-2 6 feet 50 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None F IPUD 6 feet 50 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None F Front yard fences prohibited unless specifically permitted by MPUD 10 feet None PUD Agreement. P/SP 6 feet 50 feet 0% 0% 10 feet None B. Decorative fence tops, lattice and rails are allowed but shall be included in the overall fence height measurement. C. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing outwards, which does not show the supports, posts or similar structural components. D. Commercial front yard fences and walls shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following materials: 1) Wrought iron or a similar metal alloy. 2) Brick. 3) Stone. 4) Other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Board of Zoning Appeals. E. All fences and walls other than those in commercial front yards shall be primarily composed of one or a mix of the following materials: 1) Wrought iron or a similar metal alloy. Effective February 8, 2024 190 Page 19 of 37  CODE OF ORDINANCES · CITY OF WALKER, MI 2) Stained, painted, or comparably finished lumber. 3) Vinyl or composite plastic. 4) Split rail. 5) Chain link, subject to the limitations of this section. 6) Pressure treated lumber. 7) Brick. 8) Stone. 9) Stucco. 10) Other materials as deemed compatible with the intent of this chapter after review by the Walker Board of Zoning Appeals. F. Drainage Easement. No fence, wall, or other structure shall be constructed or located within a drainage or utility easement described in a final subdivision plat or a final site condominium project plan, or within a drainage or utility easement of the city or other governmental entity which is recorded with the Kent County Register of Deeds or otherwise established by law. No fence, wall, or other structure will be constructed so as to prevent access to a drainage or utility easement which is lawfully established without written consent by the relevant agency maintaining the easement. Section 15.04 Dwelling Unit Size and Design A. Single Family. All dwellings located outside of mobile home parks shall comply with the following requirements: 1) Area. (a) Every dwelling unit shall have, exclusive of porches, garages, breezeways, terraces, attics and basements (except as provided in subsection (1)b.) a floor area of not less than: (1) Single-family dwelling: 960 square feet. (2) Two-family dwelling: 960 square feet per unit. (3) Multiple-family dwelling: square footage as required for unit size as listed in Section 7.01. 2) Finished basement; floor area. Notwithstanding any provision of this article to the contrary, a basement, or a part thereof fully enclosed by four walls, may be used for dwelling purposes and the floor area of the basement, or of the fully enclosed part thereof, as the case may be, shall be included in the floor area of a dwelling unit for the purposes of subsection (1)a., provided that the following conditions are met: (a) The basement, or the fully enclosed part thereof, shall comply with the building code of the city, as amended from time to time; and (b) All walls and the ceiling of the basement, or of the fully enclosed part thereof, shall be covered with an interior finish. For purposes of this section, "interior finish" means wainscoting, paneling, drywall, plaster or other similar finish, excluding paint, applied structurally or for acoustical treatment, insulation, decoration or similar purposes. 3) Foundation. There shall be a foundation of concrete or block around the entire exterior perimeter of all dwellings. The foundation shall have a minimum depth of 42 inches below grade. The foundation shall provide maximum exposed foundation above grade of 16 inches and a minimum exposed foundation above grade of eight inches. A wood foundation is also acceptable provided it meets the standards established for wood foundations contained in the construction code adopted by the city. The requirement of a foundation around the exterior perimeter of a dwelling as set forth in this subsection shall not apply to a "four season" porch used as living space in the dwelling Effective February 8, 2024 191 Page 20 of 37 Page 21 of 37 Page 22 of 37 Page 23 of 37 Page 24 of 37 Page 25 of 37 Page 26 of 37 Page 27 of 37 Page 28 of 37 Page 29 of 37 Page 30 of 37 Page 31 of 37 Page 32 of 37 Page 33 of 37 Page 34 of 37 Page 35 of 37  Zoning Board of Appeals Sample Motion – Case 24-002 Property Description 41-13-17-351-013 Property Address 1350 Granada Dr NW, Grand Rapids MI 4953 Applicant Phillip Yeiter, Property Owner Sample Motion I make a motion to APPROVE / DENY the request for 1350 Granada Dr NW (PIN 41-13-17- 351-013) by Applicant/ Property Owner Phillip Yeiter, for a dimensional variance from Section 15.03 the Zoning Ordinance to permit an 8’ fence made of wood and wire in the rear yard, where 6’ is permitted and wire is not on the list of approved materials, based on the standards found in Section 19.04 of the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Applicant’s response: I have a garden, have had a garden for 46 years, and the deer are destroying it. They jump the existing 4’-5’ fence. I need a taller fence to keep the deer out. I studied how to keep deer out and this fence should work. Findings: B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a variance. Applicant’s Response: I can’t have a garden without deer destroying it. They eat the flowers off my rose bush! Findings: C. That authorizing such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent and purposes of this chapter or the public interest. Applicant’s Response: You can see through the fence and I can still talk to my neighbors. The tall fence is in the back yard and is not visible from the street. Neighbors with shared lot lines are ok with the fence. Findings: Page 36 of 37 D. That the condition or situation of the piece of property or the intended use of such property for which the variance is south is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such condition or situation. Applicant’s Response: Deer are around all the time. But if you don’t have a garden, you may not mind them as they won’t eat your beans or pumpkins, rosebushes or tomatoes. Findings: Conditions of Approval 1. _____________________________________________________ 2. _____________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________ Motion made by ______________________ with support from ___________________. Ayes _________________ Nays _________________ Motion CARRIED / FAILED. Page 37 of 37