Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe council continues appeal over doubled permit fees for large commercial project, requests more information
Summary
Council heard an appeal from CSKW over the building inspector’s decision to apply doubled permit fees after construction began before final permits were issued. Building Inspector Ryan Lindsey said code requires doubling the fee; CSKW’s owner and counsel said there was miscommunication and prior practice. The council voted to continue the appeal to their next meeting to collect a detailed fee breakdown and related documents.
The City of Monroe Common Council continued an appeal by CSKW challenging a building inspector order that doubled permit fees after the developer began on-site work before the required final permit package was submitted.
Building Inspector Ryan Lindsey told the council he did not grant verbal approval to start construction and that city and state rules require a properly packaged submittal — including state conditional approval letters and the final plan set — before work may begin. Lindsey said the city code states that a person who proceeds without a required permit shall pay twice the fee otherwise required; he said in this instance some required plans were not packaged and the inspector therefore applied the code as written.
CSKW’s owner, identified in the record as Christian (owner of CSKW), and the owner’s attorney, Peter Kine, disputed that characterization and said there had been a series of meetings in which plans were discussed and that state-approved plans were on the table. Attorney Kine told the council, "The code the ordinance is black and white. You cannot start a project without a building permit... The code was violated." Christian and a contractor (Ryan Wild of Tri State Gutters) said they believed they had verbal permission and that they would pull permits promptly.
Council members asked for more detailed documentation: which permits and fees were doubled, how much of the work was in place when the permit was signed, and whether a warning policy had been applied in prior, smaller cases. A memo in the record listed itemized charges (as read aloud during the meeting) including an erosion-control permit ($300), post-construction stormwater permit ($1,525), a review-of-plans fee ($200), a Group 3 building permit itemized at $31,820 (as stated in the record), and trade permit fees (electrical, HVAC, plumbing) listed individually in the record. Several council members said the total doubled amount and the justification for doubling the entire-scope fee versus only charging for work actually commenced needed clearer documentation.
Alder Toman moved — and Alder Cleveland seconded — a motion to continue the appeal to the next council meeting to allow staff to provide a written fee breakdown and any related documentation; the motion carried and the matter will be revisited at a subsequent meeting. Staff offered to prepare clearer fee schedules and the applicability of double fees to each trade so that the council can decide on the appeal with complete information.
The procedural outcome: The council did not reverse the building inspector’s decision at the meeting and instead voted to request further information and set the matter for another meeting.
