Village of Denmark Rejects Registered Sex Offender's Request for Residency

The Village of Denmark’s municipal Sex Offender Residency Board convened prior to last Monday’s monthly Village of Denmark Board of Trustees meeting and denied a registered sex offender’s request to establish residency inside the village, with the board citing public-safety concerns in its action, village reporting shows. The Denmark News published the denial on Feb. 16, 2026 under the headline “Village rejects residency for sex offender.”

The applicant’s identity was withheld from The Denmark News story. “Due to the sensitive nature of this topic and out of concern for their family, we have elected to not include the name of the applicant in this article,” the paper wrote. The news fragments provided do not include the applicant’s address, conviction or charge information, registration dates, or any criminal-history details.

The board’s decision was made against the backdrop of the village ordinance that restricts where registered or designated offenders may reside. The municipal code excerpt states: “It is unlawful for any designated offender to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence in a restricted zone, including within 1,500 feet of any school, licensed day-care center, park, trail, playground, place of worship, or any other place designated by the Village as a place where children are known to congregate.” The ordinance excerpt also shows the provision was amended Aug. 3, 2020 by Ord. No. 2020-06.

The village code sets a specific appeals and application framework that applicants must follow. The excerpt reads: “The appeal request shall be on a form approved by the Village Clerk. A designated offender shall furnish the following information under oath:” and lists required items including “Name, address, telephone number and date of birth,” “Age and relationship of the persons the designated offenders currently lives with,” “The address to which the designated offender wishes to move, including a letter from the property owner stating the owner is aware the designated offender is a registered sex offender and the owner's willingness to rent to the designated offender,” and “Age and relationship of the persons the designated offender plans to live with.”

Publicly available fragments do not show a roll-call vote, a written denial letter from the Residency Board, the specific property address that the applicant sought, distance measurements tying the proposed address to any school, day-care, park, trail, playground or place of worship, or whether the board’s denial invoked one of the ordinance’s enumerated exceptions. The Ecode360 excerpts also display formatting anomalies in statutory references, alternating between “§ 301.45, Wis. Stats.” and “§ 301-45,” which leaves statutory cross-references unclear in the fragment provided.

The denial underscores the village’s 1,500-foot residency buffer and the procedural requirements for any future request or appeal under the municipal code. It remains unclear from the published fragments whether the Village Board took subsequent action at its monthly meeting, whether a formal written determination was issued by the Residency Board, or whether the applicant has filed an appeal on the Village Clerk’s approved form.