Zoning board denies Green Bay homeowner’s request to add front-yard parking stall at 445 South Berry Street

The Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals on April 21 in Green Bay voted 2–4 to deny a request from homeowner Antonino Bomerillo to install an 8-foot-by-15-foot front-yard parking stall and to reduce the required driveway taper from 5 feet to 3 feet at 445 South Berry Street.

Staff told the board the house is a newly constructed residence on a small lot and that the pair of variances would (1) allow an extra 8 feet of pavement directly off the garage door and (2) permit a 3-foot triangular taper where the code normally requires 5 feet (referencing Section 44-1746, sub.3[c]). The staff presentation noted the proposed stall would meet minimum stall width and depth (8 feet by 15 feet) but would not conform to the city requirement that a front-yard stall lead directly to a legal parking stall without violating the taper standard.

Bomerillo told the board he bought the property in February and said he was using the attached garage for storage, leaving his family to park one vehicle on the street; he said he began receiving parking tickets soon after moving in. “I started getting tickets,” Bomerillo said, and described the ability to park a second vehicle on the property as “not a want, it’s more of a need for a family.” He said he is willing to use pavers, concrete or other materials the city prefers.

Board members debated whether the owner’s circumstances constituted the kind of hardship required for a variance. Several members said the property’s small lot and the garage placement present constraints, but other members called the hardship “self-inflicted,” noting alternatives such as storage units, a shed, or reconfiguring interior storage. One board member said the fact the petitioner had been advised by a realtor or contractor that certain parking was permitted did not by itself create the legal hardship the ordinance requires.

Motion and vote: A motion to approve the two variances was made and seconded. The board recorded a tally of yes:2, no:4; the motion failed. The record shows the board considered the five legal tests for variances and was divided on preservation of intent and undue hardship, ultimately concluding the petitioner had not carried the burden for both variances.

The record contains a minor discrepancy between the staff packet and the petitioner about the street name (staff materials referenced “Baird”; the petitioner gave his address as 445 South Berry Street). Staff advised the petitioner to consult with city staff to explore alternatives, including a design that could meet the 5-foot taper or other compliant arrangements.

The board chair closed the item and moved to the next appeal.

Ending: With the variance denied, the property owner may work with city staff on alternatives that conform to code or pursue additional design changes; no further action was taken at the meeting.