Monona zoning board upholds denial of permits for lakefront property at 4539 Winnequah Road

The Monona Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the city building inspector’s denial of two permit applications for 4539 Winnequah Road, according to a January hearing. The denial prevents owners George Kinsler and Ramona Rohrer from demolishing and rebuilding the lakefront residence on the existing foundation while the city’s raise order remains in effect.

The board’s decision affirms the inspector’s finding that the property is subject to a lawful raise order and that the permit submissions did not demonstrate compliance with Monona’s zoning rules. The case is Case Z-1/2025 on the board docket.

The issue before the board combined two threads: whether the proposed work would further encroach on local setback and grading rules governing legal nonconforming buildings, and whether the applications could proceed while a municipal raise order—an order requiring demolition and site restoration—remains in force. Attorney Matt Fleming, representing the applicants, told the board the plan was “to overlay on the existing footprint” and asked the board to permit rebuilding at the same lakeside location. Fleming argued the applicants sought only to reconstruct in place and, in his words, “what we are asking for is to simply do what is allowed by the city ordinances.”

City staff and the inspector urged the board to affirm denial. Danielle Tierney, who handled the city’s presentation, said the applications showed additional encroachments and that the raise order remained operative after litigation: the circuit court upheld the raise order, the Court of Appeals left that decision in place on May 31, 2024, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined review on Dec. 10, 2024. Tierney told the board, “We think that the BCA should affirm the denial of the permits.”

Mike Garrett, who performed the December 2021 inspection on behalf of the city, described the structure as unsafe and uninhabitable in his inspection report and testified to visible structural collapse and active roof leaks. Garrett summarized his findings in testimony: the house was “not safe… not sanitary… not habitable.” Doug Plowman, Monona’s director of planning and economic development, told the board the property “is not” in conformity with current zoning and identified missing materials that staff would ordinarily require—stamped survey, a grading/site-disturbance plan and clearer site dimensions—before concluding the applications met code.

A mix of neighbors and other members of the public spoke during the hearing. Several adjacent-property residents urged the board to uphold the city’s prior actions and to require full compliance with the raise order; one nearby resident, Michael Fritz, said the owners “have shown themselves to be bad actors” and urged denial. Other speakers, including relatives and long-time lakefront residents, urged allowance for rebuilding on the existing site. The board heard written comments on both sides that were entered into the record.

After questions of the applicants and staff and extended discussion about the practical consequences of a partial demolition while a raise order remains in effect, a board member moved to uphold the building inspector’s denial on the grounds stated in the denial letters (citing Monona zoning code section 480-40(a) regarding legal nonconforming structures and the standing raise order); another member seconded the motion. The board voted to uphold the denial; the formal motion passed and the denial will stand.

The board did not set a separate timetable for further action. Staff said the city had issued an RFP to implement the raise order after the stay on enforcement was lifted in December 2024 and that the city was moving toward contracting demolition work. The applicants and their attorney indicated they could revise and refile applications but would first need to resolve the legal issue posed by the active raise order and supply the additional plan materials staff identified.

The zoning board’s action leaves in place the building inspector’s determination and the court-affirmed raise order. The applicants may pursue additional administrative options or legal remedies outside this hearing; next procedural steps and any future filings were not specified by the board at the hearing.