Minocqua town board denies new Minocqua Brewing Company CUP application

The Minocqua town board Tuesday, following nearly 45 minutes of discussion and deliberation, denied an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) from Kirk Bangstad, owner of Minocqua Brewing Company.

It’s the latest local chapter in an ongoing dispute between Bangstad, the town of Minocqua and Oneida County; a previous CUP application Bangstad had submitted was approved in October, 2023 by the Oneida County board’s  planning and development committee. 

The committee in July of 2024 then revoked Bangstad’s CUP due to non-compliance by Bangstad. 

In February of this year, the Oneida County board of adjustment (BOA) made the decision to uphold the planning and development committee’s action against Bangstad, who had filed an appeal. 

Bangstad subsequently filed a lawsuit against members of the BOA in federal court, a case which awaits a decision. 

In the meantime, Bangstad, who Minocqua town clerk Roben Haggart told The Lakeland Times prior to Tuesday’s meeting wouldn’t attend because he said “the town has no jurisdiction,” filed a revised CUP application with the county again in March.

It was forwarded to the town by Karl Jennrich, director of the Oneida County planning and zoning department.

Getting clarification

Jennrich was at Tuesday’s town board meeting and gave an overview of Bangstad’s CUP application, which, as was noted more than once during the subsequent discussion, is nearly identical to the application that had been approved at the county level in October, 2023, and then revoked by the planning and development committee last year. 

That time-frame was also mentioned during Tuesday’s discussion; according to county ordinance, a business that has had a CUP revoked or a CUP application denied has to wait a one year before submitting another CUP application. 

While there were a few technical items and minor changes regarding the CUP application discussed, much of Tuesday’s town board discussion centered around the process and why it was Bangstad’s application, with items such as a pending decision in federal court as well as citations against him from Oneida County for violations of the CUP before it was revoked in play, had been forwarded to the town board for its consideration. 

Town chairman Mark Hartzheim began the town board discussion, his opening remarks directed at Jennrich. 

“I want to go back and understand by the applicant’s own admission and your statement, this CUP application is almost a carbon copy of the currently revoked one or you said there weren’t a lot of differences,” he said. “You said you cannot prevent an owner or an interest from applying for a CUP but you have to allow an application to be forwarded?”

“My understanding is, because I am the director, those decisions have to be made by the committee,” Jennrich said. “That’s the only reason this is going through the process that it is.”

“I’m just asking because I’m curious,” Hartzheim said. “We’ll deliberate about it but ...it begs to question why would the county consider a nearly identical CUP application for a CUP that’s currently revoked? If a permit is revoked, can a business get around the revocation by simply submitting a new permit application?”

Jennrich said he couldn’t answer that question. 

“So, the county committee directed you to forward this?” Hartzheim asked. 

Jennrich answered he had talked to Oneida County board chairman Scott Holewinski, also chairman of the planning and development committee, “about this.”

“He made the decision to push it through the process pursuant to the ordinance,” he said. 

“From what we understand, the applicant has numerous unpaid citations for permit violations,” Hartzheim said. “So, even under those circumstances, the county would process an application for a new permit when the nearly identical permit, or most recent permit, still has outstanding citations?”

“Yes,” Jennrich responded. “How I look at citations, I’ve said the same thing to the committee, this is not a disrespectful comment, unpaid citations mean nothing to me.”

He used a hypothetical to demonstrate his position in which he would issue a septic system citation to town supervisor Billy Fried “and he fails to pay.”

“He (Fried) can still come in and apply for building permits,” Jennrich said. “He still can apply for use-type permits. I’m not the collection agency for citations that are unpaid. That’s the court system.”

He said an additional four citations were issued to Bangstad for violations of the CUP which will be going through the court process. 

Those citations were issued to Bangstad for having his business in Minocqua opened on Thursday, May 1, through Sunday, May 4.

“The county got default judgement on those citations,” Jennrich said. “They were not dismissed. He was found guilty by default. He did not show so now it’s up to the courts and the long arm of the law to collect those forfeitures.”

Jennrich used examples of unpaid citations dating to 2011. 

“People’s bank accounts are garnished and they’ll call to ask me why,” he said. “We’ll go through our old files and find they were issued septic citations.”

In a case such as Bangstad’s new CUP application, Jennrich said the county can’t consider “he’s been in violation and continues to be in violation in their deliberations.”

The “compromise”

A little later, as Hartzheim was going over the parking space portion of the CUP application, a September, 2024 email between zoning staff and Bangstad was mentioned by Jennrich, a correspondence that ended up involving Holewinski. 

“What would be the compromise with Holewinski he (Bangstad) mentions in September?” Hartzheim asked. 

“I can’t speak to that right now,” Jennrich said. “All I know is what he (Bangstad) was proposing is five spaces.”

The current revoked CUP has six parking spaces. 

Hartzheim asked if Holewinski was able to make compromises with CUP applicants “outside of his commission duties?”

“I’m not going to speak to that,” Jennrich said. 

Hartzheim said Bangstad had mentioned in the email “a compromise reached with the chairman.”

“I’m just wondering if there’s a public record of that from a meeting,” he said. “What direction he (Holewinski) had from his committee to compromise?”

“Again, I’m not going to speak to that,” Jennrich said.

A lot of emotion 

A few minutes later, Fried, also a county supervisor and newly appointed member of the planning and development committee following the death of Mike Timmons in late March, weighed in on the matter. 

“I think what takes my breath away, and I hear in the community, is not even comprehending how this can be in front of us,” he said. “I’m in the unique position that I was appointed to Mr. Timmons’ seat. I’ve been to two meetings for planning and zoning and this has not been a topic yet but there’s a lot of questions to be answered that I plan to take to the meeting it will be (on the agenda for).”

One of those questions was one Fried said Hartzheim touched on in his comments earlier in the discussion. 

“How does someone that’s been revoked, has outstanding citations, able to apply for the same permit?” he asked. “County code says, I believe, if you have a denial of a CUP, you’re not even allowed to apply for another year.”

Fried said he hasn’t yet had the opportunity to ask in a public meeting at the county level “but I was under the impression that revoking of the permit was synonymous to denial.”

“To put us through this process with these questions out there seems ludicrous,” he said. “There’s a lot more for me to bring to the table when I am formally asked at the county to make a decision on this. There’s certainly a lot of emotion out there.”

There’s been with this issue, Fried said, “a lot of negativity that’s very hard to ignore.”

“There’s a lot of things that don’t make sense to the general public,” he said. “It’s hard for me to defend.”

Fried said he doesn’t believe Holewinski took anything to the committee regarding again starting the process and sending Bangstad’s new CUP application to the town.

“It sounds like he gave you direction,” he said to Jennrich. “Let’s start the process, send it to the town, we’ll talk about it at committee but I think the committee should have talked about it to see if the process should have even been started.” 

Fried asked Jennrich if that was the case and Jennrich acknowledged the new Bangstad CUP application hadn’t gone to the planning and development committee to discuss starting the process with a CUP that was already revoked. 

Jennrich also said he was unaware, with the exception of the Northernaire in Three Lakes during the late 1990s, of another case in which a business owner applied for a CUP within a year of having another CUP denied or revoked. 

The Northernaire situation, he said, is what led to that provision of the county’s zoning ordinance. 

“I think the town deserves some answers on the concerns of why we’re being presented this while there’s outstanding citations that haven’t been paid,” Fried reiterated. “There’s been a revocation. Why does it qualify do it in less than a year?”

“You as a committee member are going to have to make some of those decisions on the committee,” Jennrich told Fried, which Fried acknowledged. 

“I hear pretty clear from our chairman here and my fellow board members of their concerns,” he said, a reference not only to Hartzheim but also town supervisor Brian Fricke, who questioned the need for the matter to be before the town with the current litigation involving Bangstad’s first CUP at the federal court level still pending. 

“We’re basically seeing a permit that we saw the year before,” Fried said. “It’s been a long process and it’s like a merry-go-round that keeps coming around.”

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