By LeAnn R. Ralph
Editor’s note: LeAnn R. Ralph serves as a supervisor on the Otter Creek Town Board
MENOMONIE — A Dunn County judge has ruled that the placement of a serious child sex offender in house that is 625 feet from a house where minor children reside is legal.
Judge Rod Smeltzer issued his opinion on a motion filed by the Town of Otter Creek to vacate the placement of Jamie Lane Stephenson at a court hearing August 6.
Stephenson, 34, has been placed on supervised release in a house located on 570th Street in the Town of Otter Creek.
At issue was whether the house where Stephenson has been placed is fit for habitation, whether Dunn County’s 980 Committee gave adequate notice of the meetings to find a residence where Stephenson could be placed on supervised release and whether the location of the residence violates state law in regard to being too close to another nearby residence where minor children are living.
State law, under Chapter 980.08 — Supervised release; procedures, implementation, revocation —requires offenders identified under that chapter to be placed on supervised release in their “home county” and also requires the county to form a temporary 980 Committee to find appropriate housing.
According to state law, “if the person is a serious child sex offender, ensure that the person’s placement is into a residence that is not on a property adjacent to a property where a child’s primary residence exists. For the purposes of this subdivision, adjacent properties are properties that share a property line without regard to a public or private road if the living quarters on each property are not more than 1,500 feet apart.”
No response
Katherine Avoles, an attorney with Bakke Norman Law Offices who represented the Town of Otter Creek, objected to the fact that the state Attorney General’s office had not filed any response to the briefs she had filed with the court in support of Otter Creek’s motion to vacate the placement.
Avoles said without a response from the state, the hearing amounted to “a motion hearing by surprise” and that she did not have an opportunity to prepare any responses.
The state did not follow the judge’s scheduling order, Avoles said.
The state’s position is Stephenson’s placement meets the criteria for placement, said Nathaniel Adamson, an assistant state attorney general, who made his appearance at the court hearing by telephone.
Judge Smeltzer said he did not object to the state not filing a response and said that while a judge’s scheduling orders are important, the state believes Stephenson’s placement meets the criteria.
Less than 1,500
Although the Dunn County 980 Committee met several times during 2018 to find housing for Stephenson and settled upon the residence in the Town of Otter Creek, the Otter Creek Town Board did not find out about Stephenson’s placement until late last fall.
Mark Warner, chair of the Town of Otter Creek, was called as a witness and testified he became aware of Stephenson’s placement in November.
The house where Stephenson is on supervised release is less than 1,500 feet from a house where minor children are residing, Warner testified.
A letter from the Dunn County corporation counsel states the house is 625 from the residence with minor children, Judge Smeltzer said.
The two properties in question share a common diagonal point, said Barbara Fagan, Dunn County assistant corporation counsel.
Fagan called Bob Colson, Dunn County zoning administrator, to testify.
Much of Colson’s testimony focused on whether a strip of land used as an access road to a 40-acre parcel behind the property where Stephenson is living on supervised release is a private road.
The statute states “without regard to a public or private road” when considering whether properties are adjacent.
Fagan referred to the access road as a “trail.”
Colson testified that in his opinion, the 33-foot wide strip of land used to access the 40 acres was not a private road.
In other words, according to state law, if the 33-foot wide access road is not a private road, then the parcels would not be adjacent.
Avoles, the attorney representing Otter Creek, asked if Dunn County has any adopted standards for private roads.
There are no standards for private roads in the zoning code, Colson said.
State statue also says the properties must “share a property line” to be considered adjacent, and since the two properties share a point, Colson said in his opinion, the two properties in question do not share a property line.
Adjacent
The question, Judge Smeltzer said, is whether the two properties are adjacent.
“I do not believe they are adjacent,” he said.
The 1,500 feet makes it difficult to place serious child sex offenders, Judge Smeltzer noted.
The statute states “share a property line,” but the statute does not define what that means, whether it refers to the entire property line or part of the property line, Avoles said.
Otter Creek has not met the burden of proof that Stephenson’s placement is an illegal placement, Judge Smeltzer said.
Avoles told the court she objected to Fagan representing the county and objected to the lack of response to the judge’s scheduling order.
Proper notice
In addition to deciding Stephenson’s placement is legal, Judge Smeltzer also expressed his disappointment in the 980 Committee’s notification process.
More effective notice should be given to the township. A town board is a unit of government and should have a clear understanding of what is being considered, he said.
There was not enough notice to the township, Judge Smeltzer said.
Meetings of 980 committees are public meetings subject to the state’s open meetings law and are subject to giving proper notification for public meetings.
The issue of whether the house where Stephenson was placed was fit for habitation due to an illegal/suspected non-functioning septic system at the time Stephenson was placed there was not addressed by Judge Smeltzer during the August 6 court hearing.
