Minocqua town board rejects Bangstad ARP

The Minocqua town board at its Oct. 21 meeting voted to reject an administrative review permit (ARP) application submitted by Minocqua Brewing Company owner Kirk Bangstad.

Town supervisor Brian Fricke’s motion also included the provision that the ARP “should be submitted as a CUP (conditional use permit) based on the outdoor seating that he’s called for in his own writing in the permit (application) and that no outdoor seating is allowed under ... no outdoor services, displays or storage allowed.”

He made the motion toward the end of a 20-minute discussion that had no representation by Bangstad or anyone associated with him to answer any questions members of the town board or Karl Jennrich, director of the Oneida County planning and zoning department, might have had.

Here again 

Jennrich began the discussion with a reference to no representation by Bangstad at Tuesday’s town board meeting, explaining he had invited Bangstad and legal counsel to attend. 

He explained the process for this latest ARP application began in July of this year when it was submitted to the zoning office and there was subsequent back and forth as county zoning staff sought clarification. 

Jennrich said under the circumstances outlined in the ARP application, he would advise the Oneida County board’s planning and development committee “to push this through as a conditional use permit.”

He said Bangstad submitted a new ARP application on Sept. 11, 2025, “we had a little bit of back and forth,” it was determined to be complete on Sept. 25 and sent it to the town in a letter dated Oct. 8, 2025.

“The question is ‘I don’t know why we’re seeing this again,’” Jennrich said and he further explained since it is an ARP application, according to county zoning ordinance, it was required to come before the town board for consideration.

Jennrich said the Oct. 8 letter had comments from department staff “regarding the off-street parking requirements” and there had been “a lot of internal discussion” and he reiterated his reasoning to “push it through as an administrative review permit.”

Jennrich said his decision was based on a line in the permit application in the section asking for proposed property use details.

“All sales, service & business activities remain indoors, Elizabeth’s Art Garden featuring murals & art offers limited (4-6) passive seating,” Bangstad wrote in the application. 

Elizabeth Smith was Bangstad’s late wife and to this point, the business’s beer garden has been “Elizabeth’s Beer Garden.”

Jennrich referred to the “Project details” portion of the application down the page. 

“Minocqua Brewing Company is a craft brewery retail outlet located in Minocqua, WI.,” Bangstad wrote. “We offer on-site, indoor only, sales of draft beer, packaged beer for off site consumption and branded merchandise. In addition to sales, we have an outdoor space, ‘Elizabeth’s Art Garden’ (formerly Elizabeth’s Beer Garden) which is a small, fenced, open air and landscaping feature dedicated to the memory of Elizabeth. The area functions as decor and public art integrated into the property — murals are painted directly on the interior fencing.”

Bangstad stressed in the application there would be “NO alcohol sales, service, or consumption” occurring outdoors and there are no plans for retail sales, live entertainment or amplified music.” 

“All business operations remain indoors,” he wrote. “The space is only used during retail hours for passive viewing. As a licensed brewery outlet, the taproom operates within all applicable local & state alcohol regulations, ensuring compliance with health, safety & permit requirements.”

The same train

Town chairman Mark Hartzheim asked Jennrich for clarification regarding why he decided to proceed with the application as one for an ARP. 

“I guess my assumption would be outdoor displays, regardless of the type or purpose, is part of a business plan,” Hartzheim said. “It wouldn’t be encompassed in an ARP. It’s part of their business plan.”

He said there was “limited interior space” for the business’s retail operations and seating. 

“The way this business is set up with basically overhead garage doors, stuff can’t help but flow outside,” he said. “I think we’d all be very naive to assume that, or to believe that there won’t be any activity or consumption outside. That puts us in the position to be the enforcers, the county’s got to be the enforcers. ‘Hey, somebody’s got a glass of beer over there’ and it puts people in a ridiculous situation.”

Hartzheim said for everything to be contained within the building “is an unrealistic expectation.”

“I think if everybody was being honest, it’s really impossible the way that business is set up,” he said and he touched on the parking for the business, which has been a contentious issue the past couple of years. 

“I think we all remember when the applicant repeatedly claimed that he needs the outdoor parking area to build that beer garden,” Hartzheim said and he proceeded with arguments Bangstad had presented the town and county. “‘I need that beer garden in there. You can’t force me to have those parking spaces. I need that outdoor beer garden because economically, I cannot make this business work without the beer garden. It simply won’t work financially and won’t be profitable.’ Now, he’s asking to get rid of the beer garden and put in an art display?”

He said he felt what was happening was “yet another way around the process,” a reference to what’s become more than a contentious issue the past couple of years between Bangstad, the town and Oneida County with regard to Bangstad being written up by Jennrich and zoning staff for violations of previous ARPs and CUPs for the business. 

“We keep getting on the same train and going around in a circle and we get to the same destination,” Hartzheim said. “Here we are again.”

Public confusion

Town supervisor Billy Fried, on the county board and member of the planning and development committee, said he didn’t understand, “and I don’t think people understand, how someone who’s been out of compliance, has been fined and not paid anything to this point ... how the county allows an application for the same property to come forward when ... is that because we don’t have language to support it?”

“For conditional use permits, that language exists,” Jennrich said. “For other types of permits at this time, it does not.”

He further explained with Chad Lynch coming in as Oneida County’s new corporation counsel, that portion of the county ordinance was something the planning and development committee “wanted to explore.”

“At least, look at some type of language to prevent this from happening,” Jennrich said and added the current ordinance language was put in place in the 1990s. 

Fried said it “would be hard for me to support this ARP” because of the fines Bangstad has accrued “and continuing to not follow county ordinances.”

“I question whether it should be a CUP because there is some outdoor experience being offered in the permit,” he said. 

Jennrich said the town board does have the right under county ordinance to provide any objections it has.

“I think the point about the outdoor display, regardless what type it is, we can talk about murals, artwork, those are on a wall,” Hartzheim said. “They’re not occupying outdoor space. The claim here was ‘I don’t want to have those dedicated parking spaces because I need this beer garden to economically support my business. I need to generate that revenue.’ Now we’re saying ‘I don’t need the beer garden but I want to put something else out there that’s generating no revenue.’ In that case, we would say ‘Then put the parking spaces back because the reason we’re allowing you not to have the parking spaces is because we gave you consideration for this outdoor beer garden.’”

He said he couldn’t think of any reason the parking would be waived for an outdoor art display. 

“Or whatever this is actually going to be,” Hartzheim said. “We don’t know and I do think it’s ridiculous for anyone to think with the space limitations there and layout of that building that service and possession won’t find it’s way outside.”

With all that in mind, he said, it should be a CUP. 

“There’s plenty of reasons to question the CUP, too,” Hartzheim said. “What ends up happening here is we’re waiving parking spaces for some outdoor art display ... that was never the original intent of the waiver. It was claimed he could not function and exist without the beer garden revenue which now appears to be unnecessary. I think the town’s ready to be done with this.”

Fricke asked if this ARP application was something the town board could abstain from and let “the county deal with it?”

“I think the county has a record of what our concerns are from the whole list of permit applications that have come before us,” Hartzheim said. “The concerns, I think, are still there.”

Fricke initially, on the recommendation of Jennrich, made a motion to that the application should be for a CUP and not an ARP. 

Hartzheim asked for input from members of the audience. 

Krystal Westfahl, president of the Minocqua Visitors Bureau, alluded to Fried’s earlier comment about the public being “confused about the process.”

“I don’t really understand where we’re at when it comes to fining and why is that business allowed to be open if they’re not following county rules and regulations when other business are required to,” she said. “It’s very confusing for the general public.”

Fricke a few minutes later withdrew his motion and made the motion to reject the ARP which passed unanimously.

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