Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

z.g. July 10, 1999 -- Page 5 include any use of property that substantially annoyed or endangered the com- fort, health, or safety of the public. After Schleis was convicted in a municipal court, he appealed to a state court. He claimed there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of creating a public nuisance. He also claimed conditions around his trailer couldn't be con- sidered a nuisance because the industrial district allowed junkyards. The zoning inspector presented photos showing brush growing wild and rotting debris strewn about the trailer. Neighbors said the trailer was offensive and probably harbored rats. The dairy plant, which had to maintain rat traps and was frequently inspected for pests, considered the trailer and its surround- ings a breeding ground for rodents. The plant said it would be able to use fewer traps and have fewer inspections if Schleis removed the trailer. A representative of the pizza crust company expressed similar concerns, stating that every time the company eliminated exterior problems, it reduced the company's rodent problem. Two other neighbors also said they had asked Schleis for years to do something about the trailer. According to the city, it didn't matter that junkyards were allowed in the industrial zone because they weren't allowed unless they complied with the specific conditions outlined in the zoning ordinance. The jury convicted Schleis of maintaining a nuisance, and Schteis appealed again. DECISION: Conviction affirmed. There was more than enough evidence to support Schleis' conviction. The zoning inspector's photographs and the neighbors' testimony provided enough evidence to support the jury's finding that the conditions surrounding Schleis' trailer constituted a nuisance. Evidence showed the conditions substantially endangered the public's health by providing an environment con- ducive to attracting harmful pests. Three of Schleis' neighbors were food pro- ducers subject to frequent inspections for pests. The neighbors testified that they could likely reduce the number of rat traps they used and have fewer inspections if Schleis got rid of the trailer. That the zoning ordinance allowed junkyards in the industrial district didn't prohibit the city from citing Schleis. According to the city, it didn't matter that junkyards were allowed, because junkyards had to comply with additional con- ditions. Schleis never refuted this argument or indicated he could comply with the zoning requirements for junkyards. City of Green Bay v. Schleis, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 98- 2623 (1999). .,~ see also: Village of Menomonee Falls ~: Michelson, 311 N. W. 2d 658 (1981). see also: Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed. 2d 362 (1982). ~ICi