Oneida County zoning cites Bangstad for permit violation

The Oneida County zoning department has issued a citation to Kirk Bangstad and the Minocqua Brewing Company for violating the conditions of his administrative review permit at his Front Street location, specifically for setting up a tent and outdoor seating that the permit proscribes.

In an August 4 letter to Bangstad, county zoning director Karl Jennrich informed Bangstad that the department had received inquiries regarding the placement of outdoor seating for customer use at the E. Front Street property.

“On July 29, 2022, staff conducted an on-site inspection from Highway 51 and observed outdoor seating that consisted of chairs, coolers, and a portable awning,” Jennrich wrote. “On August 1, 2022, staff conducted an on-site inspection from Highway 51 and East Front Street and observed patrons utilizing the outdoor seating area. The department issued [an administrative review permit] for the operation of a craft brewery retail outlet.”

Jennrich then reiterated one of the conditions of the administrative review permit (ARP), which states “(n)o outdoor sales, displays, storage, or activities of any type allowed.”

The zoning director also said he believed Bangstad knew the seating was a violation of the permit.

“The department believes through multiple discussions with your consultants and yourself that you are aware outdoor seating was not approved through [the administrative review permit] and were also informed as early as August of 2021 of the need to obtain a conditional use permit if you wanted to have outdoor seating,” he wrote.

Jennrich said he was enclosing a single citation for the alleged violation.

On August 10, the county filed a citation for a non-traffic ordinance violation in Oneida County circuit court for violating permit conditions and requirements. The court date is scheduled for September 19, unless Bangstad pays the citation or otherwise does not contest it. 

The bond amount is $462.50. As of this writing, it has not been paid.

The county filled a single citation, but Jennrich informed Bangstad that he could be fined for each day he continues the violation.

“Please be advised that each day this situation continues may be considered a separate and distinct violation for which this department may seek injunctive relief and/or forfeitures in Oneida County circuit court,” he wrote.

Jennrich told The Lakeland Times he did not want to comment more on pending enforcement but that technically the department could issue a citation for each and every day it could prove there is a violation.

“But a citation is just a forfeiture,” he said. “It does not bring the owner into compliance if they continue to violate.”

On August 15, Jennrich sent an email to Bangstad’s attorneys, Joseph Goode and Mark Leitner, apprising them of the situation.

“I have had no contact by Mr. Bangstad or his attorneys after the citation was issued,” Jennrich wrote. “It was sent to Kirk Bangstad, [his address], via affidavit of mailing. The letter and citation has not been returned ‘undeliverable.’” 

Since the citation was issued, Jennrich wrote, staff took pictures on August 12 of two tents being used for outdoor seating.  

“I state to the both of you the department is getting pushed by the actions of your client to have to take enforcement action pursuant to Chapter 9,” he wrote. “That includes citations for a date specific violation or I have the ability to take the continued violation of ARP to the Planning and Development Committee pursuant to Chapter 9, Article 8 specifically 9.82 (D) for them to amend, suspend or revoke the permit.”

Jennrich told The Times on Tuesday he still had not heard from Bangstad or his attorneys.

ARP revision
In an August 8 letter to consultant Christopher Max Naumann, of Christopher Max Design & Development CMDD, LLC, Jennrich also addressed Bangstad’s recent request for a revision to the administrative review permit, responding to a June 29 request from Naumann.

Jennrich informed Naumann that the zoning committee, which has no specific authority over ARPs, had nonetheless reviewed the proposed revisions. While the committee had no objections to any of the proposed revisions — it declined to offer an opinion on one proposal concerning economic impacts because it does not assess such impacts — Jennrich said Bangstad would still need to seek a new permit to get what he was seeking.

“At the July 13 meeting, the Oneida County planning and development committee stated that if your client would like to pursue revisions to [the ARP], your client would be required to submit a new ARP application and a fee of $250 to revise the existing ARP,” Jennrich wrote.

Once the application was received, Jennrich wrote, department staff would conduct a formal review.

Bangstad would also still need town approval on proposed parking revisions, one of the most critical components of the proposed revision.

Bangstad has been adamant in his opposition to a required parking lot, wanting instead to have space for a beer garden or other activities — precisely the activities he was cited for. On the island, however, because parking is at a premium, the town has traditionally required businesses that have the space to provide parking per the county code — though it does sometimes concede some of the required number of spaces, as with Bangstad’s property — except for those properties built lot line to lot line or that otherwise do not have space.

The original approved ARP yielded eight total on-street and off-street parking spaces. Two on-street parking spaces would have been removed for entry access to the property from Hwy. 51, while one existing on-street parking space would have been preserved and one new space would have been added in lieu of right-of-way curb cuts.

In addition to those two spots, the ARP required  the creation of a six-stall parking lot on the property, for a total of eight. In recommending the six-stall requirement, the town conceded one spot under the county code’s required seven spots.

Under the new plan, Bangstad would add two off-street spots for employees, and the other four on-site spots would be eliminated. The Hwy. 51 access would be eliminated, too, preserving all three existing spots, and creating one additional on-street space on Hwy. 51 in lieu of repaired right-of-way curb cuts.

In other words, the new proposal yielded six total on-street and off-street spots, two less than in the approved ARP.

In a July 13 preliminary review of the revised proposal, zoning staff observed that the ordinance does not address on-street parking but only considers off-street parking for an ARP, and the staff said the call to exempt the county code’s parking requirements was the town’s to make.

“Town would need to give waiver for five parking spaces,” the preliminary review stated. “If a CUP would be applied for at some point, additional parking spaces may be required.”

The need to exempt five one-site spaces results from the actual code requirement of seven spaces for the property. Bangstad’s new proposal would add two for employees.

The new proposal would also eliminate a one-way pass-through lane for service vehicles, which could temporarily block traffic flow on the property, for a back-in driveway and removable bollard access for deliveries and service vehicles off of Front Street.

In their preliminary review, zoning staff approved the new service vehicle plan conceptually but reiterated that the department would defer to the town, as it has in the past, to provide a waiver for four or five parking spaces.

A third change would eliminate a single lane one-way entry onto the property from Hwy. 51. Instead, there would be no access from Hwy. 51, and a natural mulched path would cut through the site connecting Hwy. 51 to Front Street. The zoning department had no issue with that proposal.

The new plan would ditch existing storm water plans calling for on-site water retention and a paving/concrete surface — full impervious surface coverage — for alternative pervious surfaces, mulched walkways,  activity spaces, and new lawn and landscaping plantings.

Zoning staff indicated that it approved of recently installed stormwater infrastructure. However, staff observed, “[t]he mulch/walkway appears to be on the town property” known as the pork chop, and the county “cannot approve of use of that property without town approval.”

Other issues addressed in the proposal for the new ARP such as economic impact and future development potential were beyond the purview of an ARP review, staff stated.

As for use of the right-of-way parcel owned by the town, which the town controls through its Revocable Occupancy Permit, the county said it had no jurisdiction: “Town determines use.”

The bottom line is, while the committee informally approved of the new proposal, the staff’s preliminary review of that proposal kicked some decisions, including the parking, back to the town — which the county has the legal right to do — and so Bangstad and the town of Minocqua are headed for at least one more date.

In public comment at that meeting, Bangstad called upon the county not to defer such issues.

“The county zoning code says that parking issues will be determined after conferring with and receiving recommendations from the town board,” Bangstad said. “Other than precedent, there is no law that says the town board has the right to make these decisions. Yet county zoning staff has deferred most of our amendment to the ARP to the town board.”

Bangstad said he knew why.

“Because the county board staff wants to cover its a—,” he said. “No one wants to get fired over making the politically wrong decision. It’s not important if you are a staff member.”

Bangstad said the county should not keep with the precedent of giving all the power to make parking exemptions to the town “in this particular case.”

Bangstad said that’s because the town has shown that it has a conflict of interest in the situation, and he began to say that his due process rights had been violated when a town board member allegedly told “a hate group” to come to the town board meeting to intimidate him.

At that point, zoning committee chairman Scott Holewinski shut down Bangstad’s public comments, saying the county would not get involved in his matters with the town board: “We’re not going to listen to this anymore,” Holewinski said.

“I get three minutes, don’t I?” Bangstad asked.

“Yeah, but we’re not going to listen to this,” Holewinski replied.

Bangstad said that, if he wasn’t allowed three minutes, his due process rights were being violated, and the county would be hearing about it.

“I’m sure,” Holewinski said.

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and can be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.