Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies 7 Brew warming hut proposed in front setback at 2435 W. Mason St.
Summary
The Green Bay Zoning & Planning Board denied Milbrue Holdings’ request to place a warming hut in the front setback at 2435 W. Mason St., concluding the application did not meet the statutory variance findings, including exceptional circumstances and preservation-of-intent requirements.
The Green Bay Zoning & Planning Board on Monday denied a request by Millbrew Holdings, the franchisee for 7 Brew Coffee, to place a detached warming hut in the front setback at 2435 West Mason Street.
Kevin Schmolt, a partner in Millbrew Holdings, told the board the hut was designed as a staff respite to protect workers from cold and inclement weather and described the unit as part of a pilot roll‑out in northern locations. Schmolt said the structure was built to match the building’s materials, could be moved seasonally, and had a temporary electrical whip to connect to site power. He presented site plans and photos showing the proposed location adjacent to the drive‑through lanes and under the shadow of an existing pylon billboard.
Board members spent most of their deliberation focused on the five statutory findings required for a variance. Staff cited the municipal code limiting detached accessory structures to side and rear yards (Section 44‑741 and related provisions), and multiple members said the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional or extraordinary circumstances unique to the lot. One board member said, “I don’t see any way to get through these,” and several others noted the request appeared to be a self‑imposed operational choice rather than a hardship arising from the property itself. The board also discussed whether allowing the hut would undermine the ordinance’s intent to keep accessory uses from becoming the principal, public‑facing feature of a site.
The board moved to deny the variance; the motion received a second and passed by voice vote. Board members did not adopt conditions that would allow the structure in its proposed front‑yard location.
The record includes differing descriptions of the hut’s size in testimony: at points the petitioner referred to the unit as approximately 66 square feet and elsewhere as about 600 square feet. Staff and the petitioner also described the structure as movable but sited on a concrete slab; the board emphasized that permanence, placement and public visibility weigh against a front‑yard accessory placement under current code.
The denial leaves the applicant the options of relocating the unit to the side or rear, modifying the design to attach it to the principal building (which would change its classification), or seeking to have the feature included in an initial site plan in the future. The board’s action was a majority voice vote denying Appeal 26‑02.
The meeting moved next to a separate variance request on Bellevue Street.
