Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Coppins Road driveway variance for up to 60 days pending survey verification
Summary
The board did not grant a variance for a driveway alignment at 931 Coppins Road and instead voted to table the application for no more than 60 days, asking the applicant to provide a certified survey or other third‑party verification of distances between the chimney/house and the property line.
The Green Bay Zoning Planning Board of Appeals on June 17 tabled a variance request for a driveway leading to a detached garage at 931 Coppins Road and asked the applicant to supply a certified survey or comparable third‑party verification within 60 days.
The request, filed by an applicant on behalf of the property owner, sought relief from the side‑yard setback standards in Section 44‑1746 so the new driveway alignment could remain closer than the 4‑foot accessory setback. Planning staff told the board that the approved site plan required the driveway “to run directly to the corner of the garage” and noted the constructed driveway does not follow that alignment. Staff said the built concrete appears to come within about a half‑foot of the property line in places rather than meeting the four‑foot side‑yard requirement.
Owner Francis Woyak (self‑identified in testimony) told the board he replaced an old, failing garage, poured new concrete and spent substantial sums on the work; he said the configuration improves access for his wife and family and described the changes as aesthetic and functional improvements. He said the contractor “just did it,” when asked why the work did not follow the approved plan.
Board members said they were sympathetic to the owner but questioned whether the situation was self‑imposed because the driveway does not match the plan approved by public works and city inspection. One member moved to deny the variance, citing self‑imposed hardship and the requirement that the board meet legal tests for granting variance relief. Another member then proposed tabling the item to allow the applicant time to present precise, certified evidence of distances.
The board adopted a motion to table the request for no longer than 60 days, conditioned on verification by a surveyor or other credible third‑party evidence of the distance between the chimney (the board repeatedly referenced the chimney location) and the property line. The board asked staff to confirm whether removal of any excess concrete would leave the drive at least 8 feet wide at the narrowest point (the board said it did not want a compliance requirement that would reduce the usable width below minimum driveway standards). The chair instructed staff and the applicant to return with the survey or equivalent documentation within the deadline so the board could decide the variance request without relying on aerial estimates.
No formal approval or denial was entered at the June 17 meeting. The board said the property owner bears the burden of providing the required measurement evidence; staff suggested a certified land survey would be appropriate and noted the matter concerns inches of difference on the lot.
