Lake Tomahawk property owner vindicated after neighbors’ complaints

The Oneida County zoning committee has for the second time vindicated a Lake Tomahawk tourist rooming house owner following a barrage of complaints and surveillance by neighbors that the property owner characterized as vigilante-like, harassing, and a substantial invasion of privacy.

In December, following a nearly 60-page complaint about the property owned by Nina Piacenza, the zoning committee met to determine whether there was enough evidence to hold a hearing to potentially revoke her tourist room house (TRH) permit. 

The committee did not find enough evidence to schedule a hearing but directed zoning staff to conduct a complete review of the file and bring back further evidence at a later date, if there was any. That later review, as well as a follow-up on a new complaint, resulted in Piacenza’s exoneration on the TRH permit late last month.

In the original complaint leading to that December meeting, neighbors charged that, among other things, the Piacenza lot was substandard with 39 feet of shoreline, without sufficient space for their own boat and lift, much less for guests, and that her guests were overcrowding the lakefront.

“While they have guests, other boats and inflatables are also left in the water,” the complaint alleged. 

The neighbors also charged that the property was not in compliance with their TRH application, was advertised for rent before permits were acquired, and that they advertised rentals for less than the minimum stay. 

In their lengthy brief, the neighbors included photos, including a picture showing eight people sitting and standing outside eating and talking during the day, and alleged that a dog was unleashed and wandering on and off neighboring properties. The neighbors also pointed out that the department had cited Piacenza for not having proper licenses, specifically a health department license.

Piacenza had offered a vigorous defense against those allegations in December, with the department acknowledging compliance on the health department license issue, compliance with the VRBO advertisement and listing, and ongoing compliance with the removal of dilapidated structures. Piacenza’s defense and the staff report resulted in no committee action, but, in the meantime, a neighbor, Shellye Schunk, sent a Feb. 9 letter to the zoning committee (subsequently obtained by The Times) raising some of the same complaints again.

However, after listening to zoning director Karl Jennrich’s report, the committee determined unanimously that the TRH complaints were without merit and that no violations of the permit exist.

Many of the complaints involve a zoning issue — specifically a deck and shoreland mitigation requirements — not directly related to the tourist rooming house but which Schunk argued should be considered. The zoning department is working separately on that matter with Piacenza. 

In her letter, Schunk accused the Piacenzas of submitting a false application in 2017 to build a deck onto their home.

“The county field inspector who approved the building of the deck was not even remotely accurate in the description of the property in his report and included our wooded lot as belonging to the Piacenzas,” Schunk wrote. “We had no knowledge of his visit at that time and did not give permission to access our property. This inspector attached an image of our wooded lot to the permit.”

Schunk said the shoreline mitigation plan had never been adhered to and had emboldened the Piacenzas to push further into their property, including placing items across the property line to give more room to their guests.

Schunk and other neighbors also complained about dilapidated structures on the property.

“The shed that we complained about, which was falling onto our property, took six years to be addressed and the wood is still lying on the property line as I write this letter, despite the permit for demolition stating it is to be removed,” Schunk wrote.

The TRH issues raised in Schunk’s complaints were that the Piacenzas did not abide by any of the TRH conditions in 2023 in terms of number of people and length of stay, and that they operated in 2023 with no inspections and no license to operate.

“However the Piacenzas stand by their statement that those rules ‘don’t apply to friends,’” she wrote. “By their account the majority of the stays in their home were ‘friends.’” 

Effective counterpunch

Meanwhile, Nina Piacenza contended that they rectified any past mistakes — and clarified an allegation from last year that guests were trespassing on neighbors’ property — that the TRH is compliant, and they have been the victims of overly aggressive and harassing behavior by their neighbors.

At the meeting, Jennrich didn’t address harassment, but the zoning director did vouch that the TRH is county compliant, and that neighbors could always appeal his administrative decisions to the county board of adjustment if they wished.

To be sure, in her defense in December, Piacenza did stand by her insistence that, on multiple occasions, they had friends and family staying at the property who were not renters. Doing so does not violate any rules or regulations.

In one instance, Piacenza wrote, a neighbor with a cottage not far away borrowed the house for extended family members to sleep in.

“Both adjacent neighbors were notified in person that the neighbor would be borrowing our cabin for extended family members to sleep only,” Piacenza wrote. “[The neighbor borrowing the house] and her sister as a courtesy, personally went to the Schunk’s & [another neighbor] to inform them they were using our house for sleeping overflow for their party at their cottage.”

That was not done with malice or intent to cause problems, merely to avoid a future misunderstanding and complaint, Piacenza wrote. 

“Nina Piacenza did not tell them to trespass,” she wrote. “This was not a rental — no money was exchanged. The information provided is not factual and misleading to this committee.”

The neighbors who borrowed the house corroborated Piacenza’s story.

As for not being compliant with application requirements, Piacenza in December emphasized that a health department license was issued in November 2023, a fire inspection was conducted also in November of last year, and that rental insurance had been obtained. 

The zoning department, which monitors VRBO and AirBnB ads, said Piacenza’s ads are in compliance, too.

Also in December, Piacenza said they had not been aware of all the meetings their neighbors apparently were having with zoning staff or of the number of complaints lodged against them.

“This situation has become a financial and emotional hardship for our family, while our neighbors who have been driving these complaints, have been awarded with in-person meetings,” she wrote. “We would like it formally documented, we have not consistently been notified of the entirety of official complaints/letters submitted/emails until Wednesday, December 13, 2023. We have not received the same courtesy and if zoning at Oneida County is looking to be a fair and equitable — we deserve the same notices, meetings, and responses.”

In December, Piacenza said it was she who was concerned about her safety and about how far her neighbors might go.

“Our concerns are these neighbors are not just watching from afar, the TRH permit has unleashed the vigilante in them,” Piacenza wrote. “What level of privacy is fair to expect? This is our home where we would like to relax, enjoy, and have fun. The way this ongoing surveillance has threatened our sense of safety and invaded our privacy is highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

Piacenza wrote that it was absurd that photos were being taken of her property and the people on it from boats, bushes, and windows at all hours of the day. 

“Furthermore, minors are being photographed without their permission in bathing suits, which is highly inappropriate and feels like a violation,” she wrote. “The detailed reports of the coming and goings concerning our private life and the continual personal attack on Nina Piacenza’s character as well as people who perform work at our property clearly infringes on harassment.”

Piacenza did acknowledge that mistakes had been made, but that all those issues were either resolved or in the process of being resolved with the zoning department — which Jennrich attested to during the meeting.

No TRH violations

During the meeting, in his report to the committee, Jennrich said the staff had found no current TRH violations — that the Piacenzas were compliant — and the deck/mitigation issue was completely separate, though the property owners were working with the department to resolve it. 

“The neighbors provided specific violations that they believed, and the owner of the property provided specific responses to, again, what they believe was not a legitimate complaint,” Jennrich told the committee.

To be sure, Jennrich said, the owner was previously found to be in violation of her TRH permit — Piacenza had failed to obtain a health department license — and an enforcement action was taken. He issued a citation to Piacenza and that was paid. She also now has a health department license.

“At this time the department believes the owner is in compliance with the original permit as far as length of stay and occupancy requirements,” he said. “Furthermore, the department obtained a renewal application, which included the county health department lodging license number, the Wisconsin seller’s permit number and the town room tax number. Additionally, the owners indicated they’ve had a fire inspection by the town of Lake Tomahawk.”

What’s more, Jennrich said, the neighbor had a picture of the Lakeland Tomahawk fire truck when it was at Piacenza’s property, so they were aware that a fire inspection was complete.

Jennrich said some of the complaints surrounded a substandard lot with a shore length of 39 feet. 

Because the substandard lot — created before shoreland zoning — only has about 40 feet of frontage, as does a neighboring property, Jennrich said the water in front of those properties is congested with piers.

“But I don’t get into the business of regulating piers anymore,” he said. “Again, we don’t get into the business of regulating the uses of water because there’s complaints about swim rafts. We got complaints regarding the placement of piers in front of other people’s riparian zones and we told all parties, contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources if you believe there’s a complaint.”

Jennrich said staff had in fact received a response from the DNR.

“The DNR basically said that, due to the volume of complaints that they’re dealing with, they’re not going to deal with it, that it’s a civil matter, which I found very interesting,” he said.

Committee chairman Scott Holewinski underscored that the county’s jurisdiction ended at the ordinary high water mark.

Jennrich also addressed the complaint about a dog at large.

“[That’s] a sheriff’s department issue,” he said. “Reference was also made regarding trespass, which again, if there was, it’s a sheriff’s department issue.”

That said, Jennrich continued, if somebody complains about trespassers, the department tries to work with the TRH’s resident agent, and Piacenza’s resident agent had been cooperative.

“In [Piacenza’s] case, we have been working with the resident agent on a lot of these type of complaints,” he said.

Jennrich then said that when he talked with the person who complained about Piacenza, they mentioned dilapidated structures.

“And so we looked at the pictures and there was what appeared to be a dilapidated structure, which was a outhouse, if I’m not mistaken,” he said. “There was also a pole building that partially collapsed because of snow.”

Jennrich said Piacenza promised to take care of the pole building and had pulled a permit to do so. 

“Hopefully I’m articulating this correctly, but again the complaint — and it’s still the argument — that a pile of wood [from the outhouse] was left there, and I’m just like, ‘yeah, there’s a pile of wood,’” he said. “But if we would go up there and try to consider this a dilapidated structure or a junkyard, it isn’t. I mean, it’s just a pile of wood, but, with that, the owner of the property is saying they would like to get a whole load of material to take to the dump.”

Bottom line, Jennrich said, he wasn’t going to waste time and effort to try to order someone to remove the remnants of an outhouse that’s just a pile of wood. 

“Basically the pole building that they’re complaining about, the owner of the property is in the process of repairing it and they just actually sent us a picture, if I’m not mistaken, with the roof on, so that issue is taken care of,”  he said.

In fact, Jennrich said, most of the issues in the complaint had been taken care of.

“The owners, because they were having issues or there were perceived issues about trespass or not the best feelings for each other, the owner, Nina Piacenza, constructed a fence between themselves and the other property, which again, we believe that the fence is in compliance, the smooth black side is facing toward that property, and so that’s an additional break,” he said. “They’ve also placed trees between Nina’s property and [one of the neighbor’s] property. And again, a lot of the complaints that have been brought forward have been taken care of so to speak.”

The deck and mitigation

That said, Jennrich said the main issue for the complainant is that Piacenza needs to comply with a zoning permit to construct a deck — actually to replace a deck — and add up 200 square feet of open deck or patio between 35 and 75 feet. 

“So as part of that, they had to mitigate,” he said. “Staff was on-site in 2017. The complainant is arguing that we may not have understood the entire layout of the property.”

To simplify, because they didn’t understand the property layout, staff thought a required 10-foot buffer existed. In fact, they weren’t in compliance, and the mitigation issue exists still, Jennrich said.

“The complainant is stating that you should revoke the administrative view permit [ARP] because of violations with that permit, and I respectfully disagree with that,” he said. “To me, you should revoke the permit or administrative review permit if there’s actual violations that they’re not taking care of.”

For instance, if they failed to correct their VRBO ads and were still advertising for 10 people, or if they continued to advertise for one- or two-day rentals — those situations would be ripe for revocation, Jennrich said. 

“To me, if the people that are complaining are that upset about how the department is handling that [zoning] permit, they have the ability to request that that permit be revoked and/or take any administrative decision I make to the Oneida County Board of Adjustment,” he said. “I just don’t believe it’s relevant.”

Jennrich said that the complainant is arguing that, because Piacenza is in violation of a different permit, that means they’re going to continually violate the TRH administrative review permit. But there is no violation and no reason to revoke it, Jennrich said.

“We check the Airbnb or VRBO and the listings are in compliance,” he said. “With their renewal, they have provided all the proper health department licenses, seller’s license, Lake Tomahawk seller’s license, room tax number.”

As for the deck permit, he said he was having discussions with Piacenza, emphasizing that they got the permit because they were willing to mitigate and the issue now was what they’re going to have to mitigate. 

“I believe it’s a separate subject from the tourist rooming house,” he said. “[Schunk] is arguing that you should consider that as part of the revocation.”

Zoning supervisor Bob Almekinder said the complainant’s position — to take a zoning permit and use it against an ARP — didn’t make sense to him.

But supervisor Mike Timmons and Holewinski said that did raise a question — if you have a current violation on a property, would you be issued another permit without remedying the ongoing violation?

Jennrich said he would have to consult corporation counsel to see if that would be a valid reason for denial of an administrative review permit, which he distinguished from a zoning permit.

“The way I’ve always been determined, brainwashed, I have to take a look at 9.58 provision of that specific portion of ordinance and if they comply with that portion of the ordinance I have to issue that permit, even though there may be violations with the house too close to the 75-foot setback or something,” he said.

If another zoning permit was sought and there was a current zoning permit violation, no new zoning permits would be issued, Jennrich agreed, but that was not the situation.

After listening at length to Jennrich’s explanation that no TRH violations existed and the property owners were working with the department to remedy the deck violation, the committee voted unanimously not to schedule a revocation hearing.

Piacenza hopes it is the end of the line.

“We have proven through our actions we are working with all necessary agencies to comply and finally put an end to these open-ended complaints,” she wrote. “While constantly thinking ....What’s next? We do not see anything listed in this complaint that would constitute this review committee to amend, suspend or permanently revoke our TRH permit for the future.”