Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies variance to add third parking stall at 1300 Edgewood Drive
Summary
The Green Bay Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals denied Appeal 26‑11, a request by property owner Sher Bamante Sana to place an additional parking stall in the corner front yard at 1300 Edgewood Drive. The board concluded the parcel did not meet the statutory hardship and setback exceptions required for a variance.
The Green Bay Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals denied a request from property owner Sher Bamante Sana to add a third on‑site parking stall at 1300 Edgewood Drive, ruling the proposal conflicts with front‑yard setback rules.
John, city staff, told the board the proposal would place a 12‑foot‑wide driveway adjacent to an existing two‑stall garage and that the resulting stall would lie within the corner front‑yard setback regulated by Sec. 44‑1746. Staff said the property does not qualify for the limited exception that allows an additional front‑yard stall when a dwelling has only a single enclosed stall.
At the hearing, Sher Bamante Sana said the household has four vehicles, including two teenage drivers, and that she stores items in one enclosed stall so she currently can park only one car inside the garage. She told the board that stacking vehicles in the driveway has led to repeated tickets for blocking the sidewalk and that she wanted a paved area beside the garage to avoid obstructing the sidewalk.
Donna Hayes, a neighboring resident, testified that vehicles parked near the corner interfere with sight lines when she backs onto the street and force her legally blind partner to step into traffic to pass on the sidewalk, creating a safety concern.
Board members questioned whether the parcel is uniquely burdened by lot geometry or whether the circumstances (multiple vehicles and in‑garage storage) are self‑imposed. Several members said the hardship standard and the ordinance's five tests for a variance were not satisfied and noted that similar corner‑setback requests recur on Eileen Street.
A board member moved to deny the variance request; the motion was seconded and the board voted. The motion carried, and the variance was denied. The transcript records that one member opposed the motion but does not identify who cast the dissenting vote.
During closing remarks the petitioner expressed frustration at paying a permit fee and urged that the city provide alternatives. Board members said they sympathize with practical parking challenges but that the board's authority is constrained by state law and the standards in local code.
The board adjourned after confirming its next meeting date.
