Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for accessory building at 1201 North Webster after finding alternatives exist
Summary
The board denied a variance request to allow an accessory building in the front yard at 1201 North Webster, citing that the structure was begun without a permit and that alternative compliant locations exist on the lot; the applicant said water and theft concerns motivated the placement.
The Green Bay Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals denied a variance request by the occupant of 1201 North Webster to retain an accessory building placed within the front yard setback.
City staff explained the property had sought a conditional use permit for a second accessory structure over 150 square feet but that the accessory structure in question was started without the required permits. Staff noted the building sits about 18 feet from the right of way while comparable homes on the block are set back about 31 feet, and said there are compliant locations elsewhere on the lot. "If you want to keep it in that spot, you would need to prove a hardship and receive the variance," the staff presentation said.
Applicant Dwight Pinkerson said he erected the structure because of repeated thefts from his other storage and because he needed a secure place for snow‑blowers and tools. "I need a place to lock my stuff," Pinkerson told the board, and he described persistent standing water in part of the backyard that he said would require filling if the shed were moved.
A neighbor, Steve Kunis, testified the area "does take on water" and that water can remain for a week or longer in the spring, supporting the applicant’s observations about drainage.
Board members applied the five‑factor variance test and concluded they could not find the required exceptional circumstances or hardship that are not primarily economic; members repeatedly observed that the lot had alternative locations that could meet code and that the structure was started without proper permits. The board moved to deny the variance and voted to do so. Staff told the applicant inspection staff would follow up on enforcement options and timing.
The board’s decision was denial; the applicant was advised to meet with inspection staff to discuss options, which may include moving the structure or submitting a compliant site plan and applying for the required permits.
