Monona board affirms denial of building‑permit appeal for 4539, cites lawful "raise" order

The Monona board approved a written decision denying an appeal by property owners George Kinsler and Ramona Rohrer of building‑permit denials for 4539. The board said the building inspector properly denied the applications because the proposed plans did not comply with an existing lawful state order to raise the property and because the plans were insufficient.

The decision, recorded as part of case Z12025, incorporates a finding that the building inspector’s second denial (dated Jan. 13, 2025) was based on a lawful state order requiring the property to be raised and cited Monona code provisions (referenced in the meeting as section 175‑8(e) and related code language). The board had voted at an earlier meeting to deny the appeal; the action at this meeting was to approve a written decision and order reflecting that vote and to add the code citation to the document.

Discussion at the meeting focused on one sentence requested by appellant counsel, submitted by Attorney Fleming via email. That sentence—read into the record during the meeting—would have said, in part, “Appellants may, however, construct an entirely new structure within the footprint of the existing structure as shown in the survey by Williams and Survey and Associates dated April …” City counsel present (Attorney Tierney) objected to inserting that language, saying it was beyond the scope of the appeal and might be read to allow construction without a later permit review. Tierney said including such an affirmative sentence would be “contrary to the board’s decision” and would improperly preempt any future building‑permit review.

Board members who spoke during the discussion agreed the board could not make a binding decision about a future, unreviewed permit application. They asked that the written decision explicitly note the building inspector’s stated grounds: (1) the plans were insufficient and (2) the proposed work did not comport with an existing lawful order requiring the property to be raised. The board directed that language be added citing the relevant Monona ordinance provision (recorded in the meeting transcript as section 175‑8(e)); the draft decision was revised accordingly.

Jesse restated the amended language as a motion to adopt the decision and order with the added sentence noting the inspector’s reliance on the lawful state order and the code citation. Brad seconded the motion. The board approved the decision by voice vote; the transcript records the ayes and that the decision order was approved but does not record individual roll‑call votes.

City staff and counsel clarified during discussion that the board is an appellate body: issuance of any new building permit would be made by the building inspector and would be subject to later appeal if a permit were denied. The board did not adopt language saying the appellants could proceed to build on the footprint without further review.

The written decision and order was signed and will be filed with the city clerk, and staff indicated they would coordinate signature and filing logistics after the meeting.