Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board disapproves driveway variance at 1035–1039 Bellevue St., cites safety and lack of non‑self‑imposed hardship
Summary
The Green Bay zoning board disapproved a variance request that would allow front‑yard driveway expansion at 1035–1039 Bellevue St., citing public‑safety concerns, prior precedent in the neighborhood, and the high standard for variances; the building inspector will follow up on remediation options.
The Green Bay Zoning & Planning Board voted to disapprove a driveway‑width/front‑yard variance for a duplex at 1035–1039 Bellevue Street after staff and board members expressed concerns about safety, precedent and the statutory variance findings.
Staff (John Leroy) reviewed Section 44‑1746 (driveway width and front‑yard limitations) and presented site photos showing added concrete that leads directly to both front doors. Leroy told the board the code limits driveway expansion in front yards to preserve emergency access, pedestrian movement and to prevent front yards from becoming parking lots. He also presented a neighborhood history showing earlier, site‑specific variances granted in 2009–2010 and emphasized that prior variances were discrete approvals rather than a reason to change the ordinance citywide.
Applicant Brianna Hammersley testified by phone and said the expanded driveway was prompted by tenant safety concerns after car crashes on the street; she told the board the work was done so tenants could park safely in front of the house. "Car crashes for my tenants from parking on the side of the street... That's why we made those spaces so they could park in front of the home," Hammersley said.
The board discussed the five statutory findings required for a variance (preservation of intent, exceptional circumstances, preservation of property rights, absence of detriment, and hardship not self‑imposed), reviewed a fire‑department suggestion for an additional condition (extend the stoop at least four feet beyond the driveway to preserve egress) and noted that the safety argument carried some weight but did not clearly satisfy the exceptional‑circumstance and non‑self‑imposed hardship requirements. One staff member said the fire department indicated it could gain access by breaking window glass in a rescue scenario, but stressed that such measures are undesirable as routine practice.
A motion to disapprove the variance was made and seconded; the board approved the motion by voice vote. Staff told the applicant the building inspector would contact her to outline what work must be removed or altered to bring the property into compliance where possible.
The board’s decision preserves the current code interpretation and leaves the applicant with remediation options or a potential future legislative path if a broader code change is sought.
