Oneida County seeks to limit permits for properties with violations

The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee moved closer this week to defining how and whether zoning permits can be issued for properties with existing violations, though some legal realities will prevent the ordinance from going as far as some members had hoped.

During discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment, planning and zoning director Karl Jennrich underscored the committee’s intent to prevent property owners from continuing to obtain permits or approvals while unresolved violations remain on the same property, but he said county corporation counsel Chad Lynch had raised a valid point about the original language.

In particular, Jennrich said Lynch advised that certain triggering mechanisms, particularly those tied to unpaid citations, could create complications.

Jennrich said the proposed amendment grew out of two separate issues that have previously surfaced before the committee earlier this year: concerns about the expiration timeline for zoning permits and frustration over repeat violations tied to the same properties.

“One, it was going to change the expiration of zoning permits from two years to three years because of a situation that happened in Lake Tomahawk, in which a gentleman came in and told us how long it took to build homes these days, to get his contractors moving,” Jennrich said. “So the committee wanted to see the expiration of those permits within three years.”

At the same time, Jennrich said, the ordinance review encompassed a broader discussion about enforcement and penalties when property owners apply for additional permits despite outstanding violations. Jennrich said the proposed language would prohibit the county from issuing zoning permits, administrative review permits, conditional use permits, variances, or ordinance amendments if any violations of any regulation enforced by the department already exist on the property. 

Under the draft language discussed by the committee, permits could still be granted if the requested permit is specifically needed to correct the violation itself.

But the committee had also wanted to hold up additional permits for unpaid citations, and that’s what gave Lynch pause.

“I think what the committee wanted as part of that was that, if there’s any outstanding violations, that if I issue citations to an individual, and the individual is found guilty by default and the individual may not have paid the citations, they shouldn’t be able to apply for a permit,” he said. “… The committee, under enforcement and penalties, wanted to address some of these outstanding violations and people coming in to reapply for basically the same thing.”

Committee chairman Scott Holewinski said the intent simply was to prevent property owners from end-running enforcement actions by applying for a different type of permit after one had been revoked.

“I think you know the direction we want to go,” Holewinski told Lynch during the meeting. “We just want to make sure that this is going to cover a situation where we have a CUP and we have violations and we take the CUP away and then they apply for an administrative review permit (ARP) the next week and get an ARP to do the same thing they were doing before, even though they haven’t paid the fines for the last one.” 

A question of jurisdiction

Lynch agreed with the committee’s objective but cautioned against including provisions that would deny permits solely because a property owner had unpaid citations with the court. He said that once citations are issued and adjudicated, enforcement largely falls under the court system rather than the zoning department.

“There’s so many unknowns,” Lynch said. “The judge can put them on a payment plan. I would feel more comfortable including forfeitures as a result of a [zoning] long-form complaint [a civil enforcement action in court rather than a citation, which is akin to a ticket], because we have the ability to go after and enforce those forfeitures outstanding — contempt of court motions, order to show causes.”

But if there are unpaid citations, Lynch said, those go to state debt collections. 

“The judge can issue warrants for unpaid citations,” he said. “We have no way to address any of those. So, I think it’s a little bit of a breach, and I would suggest not including the outstanding unpaid citation portion.”

Lynch cited the example of septic system pumping records, which can sometimes create apparent violations even when property owners have actually complied.

“We run into so many times every year where the septic is pumped, but they don’t pay the bill, and the septic companies believe they can withhold sending us the little card,” Lynch said, referring to documentation that confirms a system has been pumped. “So we issue citations, whether or not they show up, whatever happens, they’re found guilty, they have an outstanding forfeiture. And then once we get that judgment, then all of a sudden the septic companies send in the card and then they file a small claim.”

That’s just one example of elements out of the department’s control, Lynch said, where the department could be denying permits because the department believes there’s an outstanding septic violation, but the property owner really did get the septic pumped.

“The septic company is just holding them hostage, and then there’s the extra administration to check [online court records] for everyone who is applying for zoning permits,” he said.

Because of such complications, Lynch recommended that the ordinance focus instead on enforcement mechanisms the county directly controls, such as long-form complaints.

“That’s within our control,” Lynch said. “We can go back to court and enforce those.” 

Jennrich said staff will revise the ordinance language to add language that people can’t apply for improvements until they have settled up with any judgment awarded as a result of a successful long-form complaint.

Committee member Billy Fried said the goal was never to penalize property owners for unrelated legal matters or minor issues but rather to ensure that violations tied to the property itself are addressed before new permits are granted.

But he sought clarification about what was being said.

“I just want to make a point to speak to what Chad was just talking about,” Fried said. “I don’t think any of us were looking to say, ‘Hey, if someone’s got some problems anywhere, we want to hold back.’ But if the specific property that they’ve been cited on, let’s say he didn’t have a retention pond or something, and he didn’t do it and didn’t do it, and then we started issuing citations and then we revoke, can’t we require them to pay citations before you apply for a new permit for that same property?”

Lynch said he would not be comfortable doing so.

“Again, there’s so many unknowns,” he said. “Once we get judgment for citations, it’s the court’s. So let’s say we issue five, 10 citations. They can ask for a payment plan from the judge and they’re on a payment plan for the judge. We can’t ask that that payment plan be revoked or anything. And if the property or every other aspect is in compliance, I wouldn’t feel comfortable adding the citation part.”

Even so, Jennrich said, under the proposed language, zoning permits could still be denied if a property remains in violation of county regulations, regardless of whether a citation has been paid. The key issue, Jennrich said, was compliance with the underlying ordinance requirements.

“To me, if they’re still in violation and they still have not paid the citation, I believe [the proposed ordinance] would still be applicable because I’m not holding up [permits] because they didn’t pay the citation,” he said. “I’m holding it up because they’re still in violation.”

Committee members said residents have raised concerns about situations in which businesses or property owners continue to seek approvals despite unresolved enforcement actions. The committee directed Jennrich to work with Lynch to finalize language and bring it back to the committee.

Jennrich said the changes will also maintain existing provisions in the county ordinance that prevent permits from being reconsidered for one year after they have been formally revoked by the planning and development committee.

Officials hope the ordinance will close gaps that have allowed some property owners to continue applying for permits despite ongoing violations.

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