Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback Pool Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green Bay board denies variance for pool at 502 15th Avenue
Summary
The Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals denied a request to allow a 16-foot above-ground pool to remain within side-yard setbacks at a corner lot after members said the placement did not meet setback standards and raised concerns about potential impacts to neighboring property.
At its meeting, the Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals of the City of Green Bay denied a variance that would have allowed a permanent, above‑ground pool to remain closer than code allows to a side property line at 502 15th Avenue.
The petitioner, Hilkiah Easterling, asked the board to allow a 16‑foot‑diameter above‑ground pool that staff said sits about 4 feet from the westerly property line and roughly 13 feet from the southern property line. Easterling told the board she had children over regularly and said she had already paid multiple fines and fees related to the pool. "I'm just requesting the variance because I have children ... they enjoy spending time with dad," Easterling said.
The board discussed whether the lot shows exceptional circumstances that would justify a variance and expressed concern about potential impacts if the pool were too close to the lot line. Members noted the code treats pools as permanent structures if left in place more than seven days and described worries about containing water or other problems on the property rather than affecting a neighbor. After deliberation a motion to deny the variance carried.
Supporting details: staff presented aerial photos and property sketches showing the pool placement and confirmed the front yard setback for a corner lot is 25 feet while side and rear setbacks are 10 feet. The petitioner's submitted sketch indicated the 16‑foot pool would come close to, or could touch, the primary dwelling depending on exact placement; the applicant said the pool is about 4½ to 5 feet from the house.
The board's action was a denial of the requested variance; members said options for the petitioner included selecting a smaller pool that would meet setbacks or relocating the pool on the parcel. The petitioner's expenditures and neighbor correspondence were discussed but were not determinative of the legal tests the board must apply. The decision concludes the appeal as presented; the petitioner may pursue other remedies allowed by code.
