Oneida BOA postpones Yacht Club appeal

The Oneida County board of adjustment (BOA) decided last week to postpone a public hearing and vote on an appeal filed by Minocqua Hospitality Holdings LLC, which includes the Yacht Club, related to the business’s county permits and its boathouse.

According to discussion during the panel’s Oct. 3 meeting, the county’s planning and zoning department received a complaint from the public, and after further investigation, found the business’s boathouse was being utilized as a bar. 

“There was no mention and no approval given to utilize the boathouse as a bar,” planning and zoning director Karl Jennrich said in an Aug. 2 notification letter to the business. 

Jennrich quoted from prior correspondence between the business and the county’s planning and zoning department about the conditional use permit. He outlined the proposed use by the business, which indicated food and drinks would be served from inside the existing bar/restaurant building and the boathouse roof would be used for “outdoor dining.”

Part of the complaint also included mention of the business’s dumpsters not being screened, which was also something the business indicated it intended to do. Jennrich referenced the county’s zoning and shoreland protection ordinance as it relates to the use of a boathouse by a riparian owner. 

“The construction of a boathouse is confined to the viewing area and shall be at least 10 feet from the side yard lot line,” the ordinance states. “With the exception of 9.94(A)(1)(k) below, boathouses shall be designed and constructed solely for the storage of boats and related equipment. Patio doors, fireplaces, plumbing, living facilities and other features inconsistent with the use of the structure exclusively as a boathouse are not permitted.”

Jennrich made it clear to the business then that the boathouse on the property cannot have the bar and plumbing that was installed. 

“It was solely to be constructed for the storage of boats and related material,” he said in the Aug. 2 letter. “Furthermore, the dumpsters will need to be screened and there will need to be discussion on a new location for them.”

While the BOA decided to postpone the hearing and decision, it reviewed the matter in its regular meeting just before the scheduled hearing. 

During that discussion, an email from the business’s attorney, Tim Melms, was mentioned, which indicated the owners desired the BOA adjourn its hearing in order for further discussion with the planning and zoning department to reach a possible solution.

It was also mentioned by assistant director Todd Troskey that Jennrich was onsite at the Yacht Club during the time of the BOA meeting and scheduled hearing to meet with “people involved with what would need to be removed from the Yacht Club boathouse in order to make it comply with the boathouse section of the ordinance.”

“And so they’re currently meeting at the site in order to try to determine what needs to be removed from the boathouse in order for it to meet code of requirements and there wasn’t really any discussion of ‘Yes, we’re going to (comply)’ or ‘No, we’re going to not (comply),’ they wanted to know first what they were going to be required to move before they made a decision to not go ahead with the appeal,” Troskey said. 

He indicated to the BOA that the appeal could be withdrawn and a hearing and decision wouldn’t be needed if the business decides to remove the bar and plumbing. 

BOA chairman Guy Hansen asked Troskey if the boathouse would need to be suitable to fit an actual boat. 

Not necessarily, Troskey replied,  but noted it was more about what needed to be removed than what it can or can’t house. 

“They can put boats or boating related items only in it,” he said.

“But then they went and put a bar in it,” BOA member Dan Chronister said. 

“Correct,” Troskey said. 

“So it would mostly be removing the bar,” Chronister said. 

“Yes, and probably the plumbing, other than the sprinkler system,” Troskey said. “The sprinkler system, I believe, would probably be able to stay, if they want to protect their investment in case of fire.”

Hansen asked about a “30-day time limit.”

Planning and zoning program assistant Erica Sauer explained the appeal had to have been filed within 30 days, which it was, and the hearing by the BOA would need to be held within one year of that filing date.

“So their request is that it be postponed?” Hansen asked.

Troskey said though that wasn’t the language specifically used in the letter from Melms, he felt a decision by the BOA to postpone the hearing and decision would be “accurate” with what was being requested. 

“So, nothing we can do, we just wait,” Hansen said. 

“And after today, you (Troskey) should probably know what the deal is,” Chronister said. “Either they’re going to remove the stuff, or if they want to leave it, they’ll come back with an appeal.”

Trevor Greene may be reached via email at [email protected].