Zoning committee votes to extend permits to three years

The Oneida County planning and development committee has voted unanimously to change the county’s zoning ordinance to address practical delays faced by property owners during construction, as well as to tighten rules that enable zoning scofflaws to continue obtaining zoning permits.

At its Dec. 10 meeting, the committee voted to send a proposed ordinance amendment to a public hearing that would extend the lifespan of zoning permits from two years to three and restrict the issuance of new permits on properties with outstanding violations and fines.

County staff said minor technical corrections would be made to ordinance cross-references prior to that hearing, while zoning director Karl Jennrich said he would run the proposed changes by corporation counsel Chad Lynch one more time.

The first ordinance revision would extend zoning permits, shoreyard alteration permits, and administrative review permits from two to three years. Under current rules, a zoning permit expires two years after issuance unless the project has been “substantially commenced,” meaning the footings, foundation or slab and the outside shell of the structure must be complete within two years.

Practically speaking, Jennrich said, if he issues a building permit, the person has two years from the date of issuance to start the project.

“It’s supposed to be substantially commenced, which for the most part you’re looking at a foundation and a finished shell,” he said. “If you have that done, you really do not have to come back in for additional permits, but it doesn’t come up often.”

The proposed change came about, Jennrich said, because of a project on Lake Tomahawk involving a person’s purchase of an old resort.

“It took him time to have buildings removed, to get adequate power brought in,” he said. “And the suggestion was that for the expiration of zoning permits, that they go from two years to three years, just because of people running into snags during construction.”

In the Lake Tomahawk case, Jennrich said, the property owner ran headlong into a pandemic brick wall.

“What happened in this situation was this individual applied for a permit, got the permit, ran into problems during Covid — getting materials, getting contractors, getting WPS,” he said. “So again, I think [surveyor] Jimmy Rein was there on behalf of the applicant, saying that maybe you should look at three years. So the committee wanted to change it.”

Under the proposed and current rule, the permit is not renewable.

“So what that means is, if you don’t have it substantially commenced or you haven’t done the project, you’d have to come back and get a whole new permit and then you have to comply with the ordinance at the time that this new permit is issued,” he said.

Committee members noted that the extension would not eliminate the requirement for substantial progress, nor would it guarantee project approval beyond the three-year window.

“We don’t get the complaints that often,” Jennrich said. “Typically, if the house is under construction, we’re not going back out there to make sure everything’s in place. Where the question comes in is when they’ve done nothing, and that permit expires after two years and this would stretch that out to three years.”

Unresolved ordinance violations

The second proposed amendment would prevent property owners with unresolved violations from obtaining new zoning permits.

“What we are doing is adding outstanding violations,” Jennrich said. “No zoning permits, administrative review permits, conditional use permits, ordinance amendments, or variances shall be considered or issued if any violation or violations of any regulation enforced by Oneida County Planning and Zoning exists on the property or properties for such requests.”

The prohibition would apply broadly to violations enforced by the county, including certain provisions related to public health ordinances, subdivision regulations, floodplain rules, airport height restrictions, and private onsite wastewater system regulations.

An important exception would remain. Permits could still be issued if they are specifically required to correct an existing violation. In other words, the ordinance would not prevent compliance efforts, but it would block unrelated development activity until violations are resolved.

Jennrich said staff reviewed similar ordinances in other Wisconsin counties and found that while the approach is not universal, it is not uncommon.

“Out of the 71 counties [Milwaukee excluded], about a half dozen have provisions that would prohibit people from reapplying,” he said.

The amendment would also clearly address revoked permits. Under the proposed changes, if a zoning-related permit is revoked by the zoning committee, the applicant would be barred from reapplying for the same type of permit for one year following written notice of revocation.

“No zoning permit, shoreyard alteration permit, administrative review permit, or conditional use permit which has been revoked by the planning and development committee shall be considered again within one year of the written notice of revocation, and I believe the committee knows where that language is coming from,” Jennrich said.

Jennrich said similar one-year waiting periods already exist in other sections of the ordinance for denied permits.

“If you deny a zoning permit, shoreland alteration permit, or an administrative review permit, the language already exists in the ordinance that you cannot reapply within one year,” Jennrich said. “If you deny a CUP, you cannot reapply. If you have tourist rooming house permit and if a permit is revoked or denied, you could not reapply for a year.”

Zoning committee chairman Scott Holewinski  asked whether unpaid penalties or fees associated with violations would also trigger the prohibition on new permits.

“I believe so, but I can confirm that with Chad [Lynch],” Jennrich said.

Holewinski reiterated the point: “It should say that so it’s understood that you have the violation, but you also paid up your penalties.”

During the meeting, staff acknowledged that several ordinance cross-references would need to be corrected to reflect the new enforcement language. Those corrections would be made before the public hearing and reviewed again by corporation counsel.

“I would have one more final review, but again, this is trying to correct some problems with individuals that are in violation continually reapplying for different types of permits without addressing initial violations,” Jennrich said.

The committee voted unanimously to forward the ordinance amendment to a public hearing, contingent on those final revisions and legal review.

Committee members characterized the proposal as a cleanup effort prompted by real-world enforcement challenges.

“I think what he’s doing is cleaning up the ordinance so that we eliminate the problems we’ve had in the last year with some of the things that don’t line up in the ordinance,” Holewinski said.

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.