Bangstad and town of Minocqua will have another date

The Oneida County zoning committee told zoning staff last week that it has no problems with “revisions” proposed by Minocqua Brewing Company owner Kirk Bangstad to his administrative review permit for his Front Street retail business, but that doesn’t mean the town of Minocqua is out of the loop: In a preliminary review of the proposal, county staff defers the most critical issue —parking — to the town.

At last Wednesday’s zoning meeting, zoning department staff presented to the zoning committee Bangstad’s “revised” administrative review permit (ARP) proposal for direction. It was for consultation only; the zoning committee has no actual code authority to act on an ARP.

Instead, zoning staff decides whether an administrative permit can be given (staff can decide a conditional use permit is needed, which heads to the committee). When an ARP is issued, the permittee cannot appeal to the committee but can appeal to the Board of Adjustment within 30 days. 

In this case, Bangstad did not appeal but later asked the county to amend his permit by eliminating the requirement for a six-stall parking lot, which was part of the original ARP and which the town has insisted upon.

Bangstad has been adamant in his opposition to the parking lot, wanting instead to have space for a beer garden or other activities. 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.

Despite being called a revision, the proposal submitted to the committee last Wednesday is effectively a new ARP, and Bangstad will be charged the standard fee for an ARP, $250.

The details
As it has been all along, the parking issue is central.

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 repaired 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 yields 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 on-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 stormwater 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 kicks 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, 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.