Bangstad suit against Oneida County P&D committee and BOA dismissed

Oneida County circuit court judge Mary Sowinski last week dismissed a lawsuit filed against members of the Oneida County board of adjustment (BOA) and the Oneida County board’s planning and development committee by Minocqua Brewing Company owner Kirk Bangstad.

The seven-member BOA in February of this year voted to uphold the July, 2024, decision by the planning and development committee to revoke a conditional use permit (CUP) for Bangstad’s business that had been approved by the committee in October, 2023. 

In essence, the BOA agreed with Oneida County corporation counsel Mike Fugle that although Bangstad had made an effort to come into compliance with conditions outlined in the CUP, those efforts weren’t enough to warrant overturning the planning and development committee’s decision. 

Bangstad’s attorney Fred Melms (no association with Melms, Hogan & Francois law firm) argued during the February BOA hearing there had been “substantial compliance” achieved by Bangstad toward fulfilling the requirements of the CUP. 

In April, Bangstad filed his lawsuit against the Oneida County BOA and planning and development committee. 

No statutory basis

The July 24 motion hearing was less than 10 minutes in length, the motion to dismiss brought by attorneys for the BOA and the planning and development committee. 

Andrew Kramer, an attorney representing the planning and development committee, attended via video. 

Fugle was also in the courtroom but took no part in the proceeding. 

Bangstad wasn’t in attendance but was represented by Melms. 

Sowinski, in reviewing the motion, said the defendants were asking the court “to find excusable neglect” under provisions of state law. 

She asked Kramer if he had anything to argue. 

Kramer answered he anticipated Ronald Sadler, the BOA’s attorney, would be present as well. 

“I think we can probably still proceed,” he said. “We jointly moved to dismiss and we jointly filed the brief and the reply brief. So, I can make the arguments.”

Sowinski offered Kramer the opportunity to call Stadler. 

Melms spoke up. 

“I would actually ask that this be rescheduled,” he said to Sowinski. “I was not anticipating arguing this today.”

Melms explained his client’s motion briefing was put together by another attorney, Alex Hess. 

“I was thinking ... I guess I learned 30 minutes ago that we were going to be here on my way back from Eagle River ... I just turned around to make this hearing,” he said. “I’m just talking about the argument. I was not involved in the briefing.”

“Your honor, I object to continuing this out,” Kramer said, the basis for his objection being the statute of limitations for Bangstad’s legal team to file a petition in response to a brief related to the case had expired; they had 30 days to do so. 

Sowinski, continuing to review documents, acknowledged Hess had filed the necessary petition but his filing was “untimely” under state law.

“I certainly understand, your honor,” Melms said. “If that’s all the argument was, I understand why we’re moving forward.”

Sowinski indicated she understood Melms’ situation.

“I think we all have an obligation to do what we can to make sure that counsel are able to meet the needs of their clients but in this particular case, as much as I appreciate that, there’s simply no statutory basis that this court has been able to find or that’s been pointed out by any of the counsel here that allows this court any discretion,” she said. “I do think this court has no choice but to grant the motion to dismiss.”

Neither Kramer or Melms had anything further. 

“With that, we are adjourned,” Sowinski said. 

Brian Jopek may be reached via email at [email protected].