Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves rear‑yard setback variance at 200 Packerland Drive to preserve fire‑lane access

Green Bay Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals · November 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Green Bay Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals approved a variance allowing a 6‑foot rear setback instead of the 15‑foot requirement at 200 Packerland Drive, citing existing fire‑lane access and the applicant’s desire to maintain current paving and building access.

The Green Bay Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals on a voice vote approved a variance for property at 200 Packerland Drive that allows the applicant to keep an existing six‑foot rear setback instead of the 15‑foot rear‑yard setback required in a BP (business park) zone.

City staff member John Leroy told the board the ordinance requires a 15‑foot rear yard setback for new improvements but that a fire lane runs roughly six feet from the property line at the back of the parcel. "The new requirement for improvements is 15 feet. The applicant is requesting a 6 foot setback," Leroy said, noting the proposed paving and addition would be considered a new improvement under the code.

Applicant William Aubrey said the request is intended to "maintain" existing conditions and to allow the business to maximize use of the property. "We're not asking to change the condition that exists today, we just want to maintain," Aubrey said. He emphasized that the building addition would remain above grade and the variance request was principally to retain the current paving configuration.

Board members applied the five‑factor test — preservation of intent, exceptional circumstances, preservation of property rights, absence of detriment and hardship — and debated whether circumstances were "exceptional." Several members cited the need to preserve safe fire access and the lack of a reasonable alternate layout that would both provide access and allow the proposed addition. A board member moved to approve the variance "as requested," the motion was seconded, and the board voted in favor.

The board directed staff to work with the applicant on final details and conditions before closing the file.

The zoning board’s action was procedural; staff will document any conditions and compliance steps required by the variance.