Oneida County BOA upholds Minocqua Brewing Company CUP revocation

The seven members of the Oneida County Board of Adjustment (BOA) last week voted to uphold the July, 2024, revocation of a conditional use permit (CUP) by the Oneida County board’s planning and development committee. 

The CUP application, which had been approved by the committee in October, 2023, was from Kirk Bangstad, owner of the Minocqua Brewing Company.

During the Feb. 20 meeting of the Oneida County Board of Adjustment, Sgt. Brian Keller with the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office serves Kirk Bangstad with notice of an invasion of privacy lawsuit against him filed by Lakeland Times publisher Gregg Walker and the newspaper’s general manager, Heather Holmes.
(Photo by Brian Jopek/Lakeland Times)

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

Bangstad’s attorney, Fred Melms, had argued there had been “substantial compliance.” 

The BOA’s decision was made at the end of a nearly 45-minute session that was preceded by nearly two hours of a different type of board of adjustment meeting which centered around Bangstad himself before he was finally escorted out of the meeting room by Capt. Tyler Young with the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office. 

Back and forth

Bangstad began before the start of the public hearing regarding his CUP, inquiring about being able to connect his laptop to the meeting room’s system so he could use a slide presentation as part of his argument for having the planning and zoning committee’s revocation action overturned.

He expressed frustration with not being able to do so and was ultimately told by Karl Jennrich, the county’s planning and zoning director who had spoken with the county’s internet technology (IT) director, that it was the county’s IT policy not to allow outside material onto the county’s system without first being reviewed. 

Before the hearing really got underway, Bangstad placed his phone in such a way that he could start a live Facebook feed that would allow his Facebook followers to watch the proceedings. 

Once roll call was taken, Guy Hanson, chairman of the BOA, handed facilitation of the hearing to the BOA’s attorney, Ronald Stadler with the West Bend-based law firm Stadler Sacks. 

He outlined what it was the BOA was there to consider and that was the CUP itself and not any of Bangstad’s claims the CUP was revoked because of politics or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, something he would have to, over the course of the next nearly two hours, remind Bangstad of. 

Jennrich gave a brief summary of the situation and reasons for the CUP’s revocation and then it was Bangstad’s turn and he was sworn in by Hanson. 

“Just a point of order, when we present an exhibit and it is deemed potentially relevant for the discussion, will there be somebody to actually go and make photocopies for all of the members of this board?” Bangstad asked, adding there were 28 exhibits. 

He was told no.

“So, how am I supposed to present an exhibit even if you deem it relevant to this committee and yet, you’re supposed to make a decision based on our appeal at this meeting?” Bangstad asked. 

“These relate as to whether the conditional use permit was properly denied?” Hanson asked. 

“Yes,” Bangstad replied. Yes, it does.”

Stadler suggested if Bangstad had a relevant slide and wasn’t able to show it on the IT system, he could have it on his laptop and show it to each member of the BOA. 

“How about I cut a check to the IT guy for $500?” Bangstad asked. “Right now. So that anything that might happen, and there might be overtime that he needs to incur to fix whatever virus that you think might be on my computer, he can hire somebody from outside of government to fix it so I can present the exhibits that I’m hoping to present today.”

This proved to be the first item of contention between Stadler and Bangstad and a sign of what was to transpire over the course of the next 90 minutes. 

“You can show the exhibits to the members of the committee on your computer screen and after the hearing, we would ask that you supply a hard copy of any of those pictures for the record,” he said. 

“OK, you’re saying that if you take a vote that allows me to present my exhibits and you want me to walk around the room and show you my computer screen?” Bangstad asked. 

Stadler said that was the case and told Bangstad he wasn’t being asked to do that right at that moment. 

“What I’m saying is, if you have an exhibit to present, you can identify it for the committee,” he said. “If it’s relevant for their consideration, you can show everyone.”

‘Part and parcel’

His Facebook live feed very much up and running, Bangstad responded. 

“By the way, part of the reason we’re here today is ... I’ve been called into the zoning board about 10 to 15 times, along with the town of Minocqua,” he said. “Never have I been able to give my side of the story. I’ve always been cut off. So, this is part and parcel of the same process.”

Stadler remained calm. 

“Nobody’s cutting you off today,” he said. “We’re giving you every opportunity to present every item you want to present.”

“I can see that,” Bangstad said.

“Every exhibit you’d like to present,” Stadler said. 

“OK,” Bangstad responded and he began to read a statement. 

“To the Oneida County Board of Adjustment, I come before you today to appeal the revocation of my conditional use permit,” he read. “The appeal challenges the arbitrary and unreasonable and unconstitutional enforcement actions taken by the Oneida County planning and development committee.”

That’s when things really began to take off as Fugle objected “for relevance.”

“Oh, really?” Bangstad said. 

“Mr. Bangstad, let me stop you because you were out of the room when we started this and I’m going to repeat this again,” Stadler said, referring to Bangstad’s several minute long absence when he left the meeting room to find a projector. “I’m going to repeat this again for your benefit so that you understand it as well. Your attorney submitted a ... need something?”

Bangstad had leaned over from the podium to check his phone. 

“I’m making sure the TV’s catching you cutting me off when I’m trying to give you an appeal,” he told Stadler. “I’m not cutting you off,” Stadler said. “There are procedures that we need to follow, there’s information that everyone needs to have and so if you would listen to what I have to say, you’ll understand the scope of what we’re here today for and you’ll be able to address that with evidence you want to present, OK? Is that fair?”

Bangstad made it obvious, for the BOA as well as his Facebook audience, he didn’t believe it was fair and it was a theme he’d stay with for the rest of his time at the hearing. 

“You’re telling me what I’m allowed to do is fair in terms of what you’re telling me I’m allowed to do,” he said. “Whether or not I agree it’s fair that I’m not allowed to talk, I don’t agree that ... that’s probably not fair. I believe it’s probably illegal.”

“Nobody’s told you that you can’t talk and I believe I’ve told you three or four times we’re going to give you the opportunity to present any evidence that you want to present today,” Stadler said. “You’ll have the opportunity to call any witness you want to testify today and you’re going to be able to present any exhibit you want to the board of zoning appeals.”

Once again, he went over what Melms had submitted, much of it dealing with First Amendment and “Constitutional issues” Stadler said the BOA would not be dealing with. 

“Testimony and evidence with regard to alleged political retaliation and suppression of free speech is not at issue here today,” he said. 

“But it provides context, does it not?” Bangstad asked and his question was answered immediately by Stadler with “No.”

“Yes, it does, actually,” Bangstad said. “Are you the attorney or just the head of the committee?”

“I’m the attorney,” Stadler said. 

“I thought Fugle was the attorney,” Bangstad said. 

“I’m the attorney for the board (BOA)” Stadler said. “I help the board understand the legal process it needs to follow.”

“Did Fred agree with you that has no context with what we’re dealing with here today?” Bangstad asked. “He’s my attorney.”

“It doesn’t matter whether Mr. Melms agrees with me,” Stadler said. “This is what the committee has discussed and this is what the committee is going forward for.”

A number of options

Stadler continued to reiterate the BOA wouldn’t be taking up items

related to the Constitution such as the allegation by Melms that the planning and development committee engaged in selective enforcement of the county’s zoning enforcement. 

That’s something Stadler said is “rooted in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.”

“That, too, is a Constitutional issue,” he said. “We won’t be addressing issues of selective enforcement today because it’s a Constitutional issue that this committee does not have the jurisdiction or authority to address.”

Stadler said that was the same of item five in Melms’ pre-hearing brief in which he alleged the unconstitutional conduct of the planning and zoning committee. 

He said in item 4 of the Melms pre-brief it is alleged that the conditions in Bangstad’s CUP “were designed” to put Bangstad “in a precarious position.”

“The conditions of the conditional use permit were approved back in 2023 when the conditional use permit was issued,” Stadler said. “If you had challenges as to the appropriateness of conditions for the conditional use permit, you were required to raise those back then within 30 days of the issuance.”

He said what was at issue for the BOA at the Feb. 20 hearing was whether the planning and development committee was “correct in

revoking the conditional use permit because you weren’t in compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit.”

“So, I would ask you on behalf of the committee to confine your argument, your evidence and your witnesses to that issue. Do you understand that?”

Bangstad said he did and Stadler said he could proceed. 

“I will assert my right to be able to speak in front of this august body with things that I feel are important to me here,” Bangstad said. “And I think we all have rights and I think I’ve spent about four years trying to simply tell my story. So, I’m going to proceed to tell my story.”

“We’re not here ...” Stadler began and he was interrupted by Bangstad. 

“If you don’t want to hear it, then you’re going to have to physically remove me from this place,” Bangstad said. 

That set the tone for the next 60 minutes or so, a time frame that included a break for the BOA members in which Bangstad, his Facebook live feed still going, read from his statement even though no one on the BOA was listening. 

Toward the end of the break, Bangstad, still at the podium, was approached by Sgt. Brian Keller with the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office and served with 300 pages of documents containing an invasion of privacy lawsuit filed by Gregg Walker, publisher of The Lakeland Times, and Heather Holmes, the newspaper’s general manager. 

The back and forth between Bangstad and Stadler continued until Hanson determined Bangstad out of order and ordered him removed by Young. 

Once Bangstad was out of the room, the meeting continued and the BOA, after hearing from Melms and Fugle and a brief deliberation by BOA members, voted unanimously to uphold the revocation of Bangstad’s CUP. 

It had been determined during the BOA’s discussion a vote to uphold the revocation means the Minocqua Brewing location in Minocqua is to remain closed. 

However, Bangstad would also be able to apply for another CUP after a year.

After the meeting, Melms, with another lawsuit against Bangstad now filed, was asked what the next steps might be with regard to the CUP. 

“I’ll have to talk to my client,” he said. “We will figure it out. There are a number of options, some of them better than others.”

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