Milwaukee appeals board denies several owner appeals, reschedules nuisance hearings; offers fee-reduction paths in some cases

The Milwaukee administrative appeals panel on Feb. 13 denied multiple property-owner appeals of reinspection, nuisance and solid-waste fees, and held several cases for additional evidence or legal guidance.

The panel denied an appeal by Tisha Coleman of reinspection fees tied to 3229 West Village Street, upheld a code requirement for mechanical bathroom ventilation at 4838 South 14th Street and denied that owner’s appeal, and denied an appeal by a property owner at 2109 West McKinley Avenue after the city documented a contractor cleanup charge. The board also set aside four nuisance-property designation appeals for additional police-witness testimony and rescheduled them for a later special hearing.

Why it matters: The board’s rulings uphold the city’s ability to charge reinspection and contractor cleanup costs when inspectors find continuing violations. In several cases the city said staff can work with owners to reduce future accruals of reinspection fees if owners submit a written “work plan” and pursue corrective steps, a concession the board noted when it denied some appeals.

What the board decided and key details

Tisha Coleman, 3229 West Village St. — denied. The Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) told the board the property was placed in a monthly reinspection program after repeated exterior violations and that eligible reinspection fees then totaled $1,422.40; the single fee before the board was $355.60. DNS witness Peter Larrison said DNS had waived two months of reinspection fees, was willing to negotiate a reduced accrual for the 2025 tax year if the owner submitted a work plan, and had emailed orders to the owner. The board voted to deny Coleman’s appeal.

4838 South 14th St. (owner: Gregory Nawrocki) — denied. DNS supervisor David Silver and inspector Mike Stoller testified that a reinspection found the bathroom did not meet the code requirement that a toilet/bathroom have a window, skylight or an approved mechanical ventilation device to provide light and ventilation. Silver cited historical plumbing/ventilation requirements and showed photos of ceiling and moisture damage. The owner argued the building (1960s-era construction) had a supply vent above the door, but inspectors said that was not intended as mechanical exhaust. The board voted to deny the appeal; the owner was told he may seek circuit-court review.

2109 West McKinley Ave. (appellant: Hassan) — denied. Code enforcement manager Laurie Gallo said a contractor cleanup after a solid-waste posting on Aug. 20, 2024, cost the city $520.67; DNS offered to waive administrative charges but not the contractor cost. The owner told the board he had called DNS after receiving an automated e-notification and was told by a staffer that the matter was closed; DNS said its record shows no phone call was logged before the contractor was dispatched. The board denied the appeal by motion.

Nuisance-property designation appeals (items listed as 23–26 in the board packet) — held/rescheduled. Property owners and counsel (including attorney Dan Conway) contested the city’s reliance on police reports to connect nuisance incidents to people “associated with the premises,” an ordinance-defined term. The board asked the city to present a police witness (or other appropriate witness) to walk the panel through the underlying reports and how the records tie named individuals to the properties. The board voted to hold those matters for a later special session so the parties and the board can examine the reports with live testimony.

Other procedural outcomes and nonappearances

- Multiple appeals were denied for nonappearance or otherwise dismissed (motions carried): appeals listed as denied for nonappearance included cases with addresses and item numbers shown in the meeting packet (examples discussed on the record included cases identified in the packet as involving tall grass, bulky waste and overhanging-branch nuisance fees). - Several hearings were continued or set for the next calendar meeting so the city could supplement the record (examples: vacant-building/LLC representation questions for 4030 N. 11th St. and 4527 West Medford were held to allow consultation with the city attorney about whether an LLC must be represented by counsel in these proceedings). - The board accepted the 2024 annual administrative report and then adjourned.

What the city said about reducing fees: DNS staff repeatedly told the board that when owners enter into a simple written work plan describing when repairs will be completed, DNS can substantially reduce or waive reinspection fees accruing in the following tax year. DNS also offered, in at least one solid-waste case, to waive administrative fees while leaving contractor costs in place.

Next steps: The board scheduled follow-up hearings for the nuisance-designation matters and directed city staff to secure police or other witness testimony to support the documentary record. Owners denied today’s appeals were informed they may seek circuit-court review and that written appeal instructions would be provided by the board’s administrative assistant.

Quotes (from testimony and rulings)

"We, in effect, we've waived two months worth of reinspection fees...if we can get a work plan...we can either waive or greatly reduce the accrued 2025 fees," Peter Larrison, Department of Neighborhood Services.

"Every bathroom and toilet room shall comply with the light and ventilation requirements...to have at least one window or skylight or such other device that will adequately ventilate the room," David Silver, DNS supervisor, paraphrasing the cited plumbing/ventilation standard.

"We would be willing to waive the admin fees, but because of the expense that we occurred, the $520.67 with the cleanup being done by our contractor, we would want to hold this over and provide those pictures," Laurie Gallo, code enforcement manager (explaining the city’s offer in a solid-waste case).

Ending

The board’s decisions reaffirmed DNS’s enforcement posture that, absent timely correction or a qualifying work plan, reinspection and contractor charges may remain as assessed on tax bills. The panel also signaled it expects clearer documentary or witness evidence when a nuisance-property designation is pursued and set several complex matters for further evidentiary hearings.