Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves front‑setback variance for 30‑unit building on Mason Street block
Summary
The board granted a variance to allow a 20‑foot front setback for a proposed 30‑unit multifamily building on an infill lot after petitioners and staff outlined averaging rules, stormwater constraints and the parcel's unusual history with pre‑annexation setbacks.
The Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals approved a variance to reduce the required infill‑averaged front setback to 20 feet for a proposed 30‑unit building on a parcel near Mason Street in Green Bay.
Applicant Garrett Bader and engineer Brad Reimer said the parcel was recently rezoned to R‑3 to permit multifamily development and argued the block's irregular history — including pre‑annexation setbacks from the former Town of Hobart — produced an average front setback of about 24 feet that they characterized as a quirk of the code. "The r‑1 existing residential to the south was likely a holdover from what was the town of Hobart before this property was annexed into the city of Green Bay roughly about 1969," Bader said.
Staff explained the city's code requires averaging front setbacks on infill lots (table 44‑2, note c) and that the calculated average for the block is 24 feet; the applicant requested 20 feet. Petitioners said pushing the building back to the 24‑foot average would jeopardize grading and stormwater management on the site. A member of the public, Cathy (525 Antelope Trail), testified in support: "I am very much in support of the variance," citing the city's housing needs.
Board members discussed preservation of intent, exceptional circumstances and potential detriment to adjacent properties. Several members cited the geometry of the lot, differences in adjacent building types (single‑family to the south, commercial to the north), the parcel's size and the stormwater constraints as factors that satisfied the variance tests. After deliberation the board voted to approve the setback as requested.
The approved variance applies only to the front‑yard averaging calculation for the infill lot; other required permits and engineering approvals remain necessary. Staff noted the project otherwise meets zoning for a 30‑unit building and that earlier variance requests associated with the site had been resolved.
