Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays zoning-code overhaul for additional review after website outage and council concerns
Summary
Following public and aldermanic concern about the breadth of proposed zoning-code changes and a technical outage of the city's public portal, the council voted 8-4 to hold zoning-code items for further review and stakeholder outreach.
The Green Bay Common Council voted 8-4 on Oct. 21 to hold consideration of a major overhaul to the city's zoning code and associated ordinances so council members and residents could seek additional review and clarification.
Alder James Johnson (first reference by title) moved to hold the zoning-code item until the next council meeting; Alder Grant seconded the motion. Councilors cited two main reasons for the hold: the large number of proposed changes and limited public access to materials during the week because the city's public website was unavailable. One councilor noted that the existing zoning code dates from February 2006 and that the proposed rewrite contains dozens of changes; staff and other alderpersons said many changes came from prior housing- and development-focused studies.
Why it matters: The proposed rewrite affects development rules used by homeowners, builders and developers. Council members said they supported the overarching intent of increasing housing options and encouraging investment, but multiple alderpersons asked for additional time to consult constituents, review technical language and coordinate stakeholder outreach.
Council discussion and process: Speakers cautioned that the volume of edits (councilors referenced roughly 90+ changes discussed at plan commission) required careful review. Several alderpersons said they had participated in planning commission discussions but that some residents lacked access to the commission materials because the city's website was down; they requested more time to gather community input. Staff told the council they would be available for one-on-one briefings to answer specific technical questions and noted that the zoning reset could still move forward across two council readings if the body chose to advance it.
Outcome and next steps: The motion to hold passed by 8 votes to 4; the item was rescheduled for the next council agenda so alderpersons could meet privately with staff, solicit resident feedback and prepare any amendments. Councilors and staff said they expected to address specific proposed edits before a second reading; any final zoning changes would return to the council for formal votes.
