Oneida zoning demands Bangstad pay for operating without a permit

The owner of the Minocqua Brewing Company (MBC) has filed a conditional use permit application for a beer garden at his Front Street retail location, as well as for an amended administrative review permit for other aspects of the business, including parking, but the Oneida County zoning department says owner Kirk Bangstad still owes after-the-fact fees for previously operating without a permit.

Bangstad has paid $250 for a revised administrative review permit (ARP) application and $600 for the conditional use permit (CUP) application, but the department maintains that Bangstad owes $1,800 for an after-the-fact CUP fee because Bangstad has already conducted outdoor business with outdoor seating. 

In a Dec. 5 email to Bangstad, Oneida County zoning director Karl Jennrich informed the MBC owner that the department would not start review of the CUP application until the fees were paid. Jennrich said the $250 ARP fee could be applied toward the CUP fee. With the $600 CUP fee he has already paid, that leaves Bangstad $950 short.

“On November 17, 2022 you were informed of the fee required for the after the fact CUP,” Jennrich wrote to Bangstad. “If you want the department to proceed further with review please submit an additional $950 dollars.”

Jennrich told The Lakeland Times this week that Bangstad has stated that he would not pay the after-the-fact fee and that Jennrich would discuss the matter with the zoning committee.

The Dec. 5 email followed a weeks-long set of contentious email exchanges between Bangstad and Jennrich, in which Bangstad accused Jennrich of obstruction and Jennrich steadfastly told Bangstad he needed to submit proper applications and fees.

Besides the fees, other issues surrounding the ARP remain unresolved, especially parking at the location. The county has so far deferred the parking question to the town of Minocqua, which wants six parking spaces, one less than the county code requires. 

In his revised plan, Bangstad wants to provide six spaces but wants to put the parking in an unused right-of-way that he does not own. That would free up space for the beer garden Bangstad is seeking.

The town is also demanding that Bangstad sign off on a revocable occupancy permit giving him access over town right-of-way, a permit that would limit use of the right of way to access to the property. Bangstad has so far not signed the permit.

Finally, Jennrich said the site plans included in the latest applications differ substantially from the site plan submitted for an earlier ARP that the zoning committee had reviewed.

Email exchanges
The email back and forth began on Nov. 16 when Bangstad sent an email to Jennrich, zoning committee chairman Scott Holewinski, corporation counsel Mike Fugle and others, saying he was attaching an application for a CUP to put a beer garden and “a few other enhancements” on his 329 Front Street property.

Bangstad called it an official application that was pursuant to a conceptual drawing submitted Sept. 26. Bangstad maintained that the county had not responded to that drawing. He also referenced two communications sent to county officials by his attorney, Mark Leitner — one entitled “Constitutional Violations Committed by Oneida County Against Minocqua Brewing Company/Kirk Bangstad,” and the second a follow up on Oct. 3.  

“We have yet to receive responses from Oneida County to both of these letters,” Bangstad wrote. “Prior to this in August, we submitted an amended ARP that was punted from the county planning/zoning committee to the town of Minocqua, and no action has been taken on that amendment.”

If the town and the county decided not to respond to the CUP application, Bangstad emphasized, he would assume that they preferred the issue to be litigated in court.

“Please acknowledge receipt of application materials and the earliest date that we can be included on the agenda for the county planning/zoning committee meeting for CUP/amended ARP approval,” he wrote.

Bangstad added that certain conditions in a Sept. 26 email still applied — he wanted the CUP for the beer garden and the ARP process to happen simultaneously at the county level.

In that Sept. 26 email, Bangstad enclosed a drawing that he said offered a compromise in which Oneida County, the town of Minocqua and the Minocqua Brewing Company could all achieve their goals.

Most prominently, Bangstad said an unused right of way, or what he calls the “pork chop,” should be used for parking.

“Given that the ‘Porkchop’ ownership is still in question, we propose to put parking in that spot, thus appeasing the Town’s thirst for parking lots, but also allowing the Minocqua Brewing Company to build a beer garden,” he wrote. 

Bangstad said he hoped to work with county staff to “hone” the plan.

However, to achieve the compromise, Bangstad wrote, he wanted all the votes on the compromise to be taken at the county level because, he alleged, “two members of the town board belong to a Facebook group dedicated to disparaging me and the Minocqua Brewing Company, and thus we believe it is impossible to be treated fairly by the town board.”

One option, Bangstad wrote, was for him to own the disputed land — the town could collect more property tax that way, he wrote — or, alternatively, he would be willing to lease the land from the city or county for a token amount. 

However, there was a condition for the latter option, Bangstad wrote.

“In the case of a lease scenario, we will not submit to any revokable licensing agreements that could harm my business down the road due to political harassment,” he wrote.

An amended ARP and CUP would be completed in conjunction with each other, so that the entire project would be approved and recommended by county zoning staff prior to county planning and zoning committee approval, Bangstad wrote.

“Every step along the planning process will be accomplished solely between county planning/zoning staff and the Minocqua Brewing Company planning team,” he wrote. “Elected officials will of course have the opportunity to vote on the project, but the details will all be hammered out by professionals ahead of time. Let’s let the people hired to zone for the county do their jobs without the interference from politicians.”

Specifically, Bangstad’s revised plan would have six total parking stalls, including one ADA space. That plan would still require exceptions to the parking rules for both a single space reduction and a parking space size reduction, Bangstad wrote.

“We understand we’d need to be fenced in on all sides — with an 8’ fence between our neighbor to the West and South and Bangstad’s property and another shorter fence surrounding the serving area to ‘contain’ and control the use with a controlled/observed gate by staff,” he wrote.

Jennrich responds
The following afternoon, on Nov. 17, Jennrich responded, telling Bangstad that his emailed CUP application was not sufficient.

To start the review of the CUP application, Jennrich wrote, the department needed an original notarized application pursuant to the zoning ordinance and a review fee that was triple the normal amount.

“The fee for a CUP application is $600 dollars,” he wrote. “It is the department’s position outdoor seating, outdoor activities have already taken place so therefore a triple after the fact fee would be required or $1,800 dollars. Triple after the fact fees apply to all projects commenced without an issued permit.”

The department would also need a parcel number and legal description of where the activity would take place, Jennrich wrote. 

In addition, Jennrich continued, there were numerous references in a document titled the “Minocqua Brewing Company CUP Application Responses 11/16/2022” to an approved ARP and an amended ARP, but Jennrich said only one ARP had been issued because Bangstad had not submitted an application or paid the applicable fee to revise the ARP.

“There was an administrative review permit (ARP) … issued for 329 East Front Street,” Jennrich wrote. “If that is the ARP you are referring to you will need to reiterate the portions from the ARP that you feel are applicable to your new project on the new CUP application. The department also received a document that you refer to as an amended ARP.  If you would like to utilize portions of your amended ARP that you feel are applicable to your new project you will need to reiterate the portions of your amended ARP on the new CUP application.”

What’s more, Jennrich said, he was attaching a letter dated August 8, 2022, that had instructed Bangstad’s consultant on what was needed to revise the ARP.

“To date there has been no fee or application provided to the department,” he wrote. “Therefore there technically is no revised ARP for staff to review.”

Jennrich recommended that Bangstad reach out to the town and to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation regarding utilization of the property he called the pork chop.  

“Your CUP shows parking spaces that appear not to be on your property along with a new entrance,” he wrote. “Staff cannot recommend approval of a CUP to the planning and development committee if you cannot demonstrate approvals from the town of Minocqua and/or the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. If you believe you own the pork chop or have permission to utilize the pork chop I highly recommend you provide written documentation to that effect.”

Finally, Jennrich wrote, the zoning committee had approved a new CUP application form the day before and Bangstad needed to use that new application form because “an original CUP form with accompanying fees was not receipted into the office as of today.”

Bangstad fires back
Later that afternoon, Bangstad returned the volley, accusing Jennrich and the department of obfuscation and obstruction.

For one thing, while Jennrich said he needed a notarized original application, Bangstad wrote that no notarization was required in the newly revised application.

“But this response suggests purposeful obfuscation and obstruction on your part, as usual,” he wrote.

Second, Bangstad contested the triple after-the-fact permit fees.

“We’ve been at odds on this from the beginning, and submitted a revised ARP requesting relief on this subject on June 29 that you didn’t respond to until August 8,” he wrote. “July is the busiest part of the summer, and people like to drink beer outside. We refused to lose money because you purposefully slow-walk anything that relates to the Minocqua Brewing Company.”

Bangstad said it was also a no-brainer to serve beer at a brewery that has a state-wide permit to serve beer on-premises in the summertime in a tourist town.

“It is now extortion to require triple fees based on your original obstruction on an issue we tried to resolve a month before you started giving us citations,” he wrote.

Bangstad acknowledged that the county had responded to his June 29 application submission on August 8, requesting the fee and proper application, but “his team” did not see it.

“We provided the application on June 29, you failed to cc me, the owner and person responsible for paying the fee, in your response, and this was missed by our team,” he wrote. “I will accept fault for that, but for you to not cc me on all correspondence that relates to my business when that has been common practice throughout this process shows incompetence at best, purposeful obstruction at worst.”

Bangstad said he would resubmit the June 29 ARP with the $250 fee within a matter of days.

“Secondly, everyone in the town and county, and they are all CC’d on this email, know exactly what the issues are and where the conflicts lie,” he wrote. “As a zoning staff member, it would be quite simple for you to patch these various ARPs, amended ARPs, and new CUP together. Instead, you do nothing but toss it back to us using procedural slow-walking but offer nothing substantively helpful to advance this concern.”

Incompetence at best, Bangstad wrote, obstruction at worst.

As far as the use of the pork chop, Bangstad wrote, that was more obstruction.

“We submitted a proposed compromise that included parking to be installed in the porkchop on 9/26 that you never responded to,” he wrote. “You could have said at that time, ‘Please put that in the form of an ARP, and by the way, we’re still waiting for that $250 fee from my letter telling you we weren’t even going to LOOK at your amended ARP on Aug 8 until we had $250. Your job is to help make this process easier for constituents, and thus it is your job to respond to emails from developers and provide answers, not leave them hanging for months.”

Bangstad said Jennrich purposefully failed to respond via email and refused to get on a conference call or meet in person to hash out details prior to county and town board meetings. 

“You and the county/town have made this process frustrating, confusing, and unbearable,” he wrote. “This is obstruction and a violation of due process, all of which run afoul of federal laws that attorney Leitner referenced in earlier communications.”

The answer to the “pork chop” issue, Bangstad wrote, was for the county, not the town, to take up the issue of allowing the required parking spaces to be put in the “porkchop,” which Bangstad characterized as an abandoned right-of-way owned by no one, or grant the Minocqua Brewing Company the requested parking exemptions because parking had never been required on the parcel for the last 90 years.

“Why is this the right answer?” Bangstad asked. “Because the town is unincorporated and all zoning issues are technically the county’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the town, in our June meeting, told us to go to the county for resolution.”

Bangstad again alleged that two town board members were part of a Facebook group organized against him and he could not get due process in the town. The MBC owner said he would submit the $250 fee for the revised ARP and $600 for the new CUP, and expected a timely zoning staff review process of two weeks that would involve the Wisconsin Department of Transportation “and to be put on the agenda for a vote by the county board before the new year.”

So far that hasn’t happened. Jennrich said this week that Bangstad had paid the $250 ARP fee and $600 for the CUP application but has not ponied up the after-the-fact fee.

“He has not paid ATF (after-the-fact) fees and stated he will not,” Jennrich said. “I believe I will discuss with the committee.”

For his part, Bangstad says a continued refusal to address the issue as a whole and in a timely manner with the county, the only entity with proper jurisdiction, would force him into litigation.  

“This is your choice,” he wrote in the Nov. 17 email.

On Nov. 21, Bangstad sent a follow-up email, attaching, among other things, an updated ARP application to move the parking lot into the right of way; a signed ARP application, attached as a PDF; an updated PDF CUP application to create the beer garden; a signed PDF CUP application; a revised PDF site plan that he said applied to both the ARP and CUP; a civil engineering document used for the first ARP; and a storm water management memorandum that he said didn’t change with the new CUP/ARP application.

He said he was also going to send the ARP revision proposal submitted on June 29 that he said “was apparently never read.”

”This proposal provides a lengthy analysis on why we still believe it is FOLLY to force us to put parking in our space in the first place, and a reminder that the county code explicitly states that exemptions can be provided for old lots exactly like ours where adding parking is a hardship,” he wrote. “And one final reminder that most every business on the island of Minocqua does not have their own parking lots, but only street parking, and that has sufficed for those businesses, and the town, for decades.”

With that email, Bangstad said the county should have everything it needed to approve the ARP and CUP and he again wrote that he expected a prompt review within two weeks and a hearing/vote at the county level before the new year.  

“If you delay this process any longer, we will be forced into federal litigation,” he wrote.

Jennrich responded the next day, saying the review would start when the original CUP and ARP applications were in hand and the application fees paid, including the after-the-fact fees. He acknowledged Bangstad’s submission of the normal $600 fee and said he would discuss that matter with the committee.

The time frames for review were spelled out in the code, Jennrich wrote.

In a response on the afternoon of Nov. 22, Bangstad again said Jennrich had everything he needed to review the applications.

“Please step into the 21st century,” he wrote. “You can print the attachments I sent you and these emails would suffice as verification of my signature in a court of law. If you MUST have a verified signature, my lawyers can have me sign my name via docusign.”

Bangstad said the department should stop obstructing him.

“Thanksgiving is 44 hours away. Chop chop,” he wrote. “My taxes pay your salary like everyone else’s does. It’s time to start doing your job expeditiously instead of slow-walking everything from my company that comes across your desk.”

On Dec. 5, Jennrich informed Bangstad that, on Nov. 29, the department had received the ARP application with the $250 fee and a CUP application with an accompanying $600 fee. 

Staff conducted what Jennrich called a very cursory review of the ARP and found it to be much different than the plan previously submitted.

“The site plan provided for each application is titled ‘Siteplan for updated ARP & CUP (combined),’” he wrote. “This site plan is completely different than the one that accompanied your letter to Todd Troskey dated June 29, 2022 and subsequently reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee.”

Richard Moore is the author of the forthcoming “Storyfinding: From the Journey to the Story” and can be reached at richardmoorebooks.com.