The Entire Story of Oneida County's Illegal Zoning and 1st Amendment Abuses Against the Minocqua Brewing Company

Part 3 of 3

Finally, The Curb Requirement is Impractical and Inconsistent with Local Practice
The requirement to install curbs on my property is yet another arbitrary and capricious condition imposed on me by my CUP. This requirement is not only unnecessary but also entirely inconsistent with standard practice in Minocqua, where businesses do not have curbs due to the well-documented issue of snowplows repeatedly damaging them during the winter months.

Curbs serve little functional purpose in Minocqua’s commercial areas, where businesses rely on open parking lots and efficient snow removal to maintain accessibility throughout the harsh winter season. The absence of curbs in Minocqua is a practical adaptation to local conditions, allowing businesses to operate without incurring ongoing repair costs due to snowplow damage. Imposing this requirement on me—when no other businesses are subject to similar restrictions—highlights the selective and arbitrary nature of the enforcement actions against me.

Moreover, installing curbs would create an unnecessary financial burden, requiring additional expenditures not only for installation but also for inevitable repairs after seasonal damage. The County has not provided any legitimate justification for why MBC alone must comply with this requirement when curbs are not a standard feature anywhere else in Minocqua’s business district.

When I brought this issue to the attention of Mark Pertile, the Town’s Park’s Director, he told me to simply send an amended CUP to Karl Jennrich, and that these types of changes happen all the time and are generally approved once construction is underway. I’ve attached our submission to Karl as exhibit 28.

This condition, like the metal fence and pervious paver requirements, serves no legitimate zoning purpose and appears designed solely to impose additional obstacles on me and my business. It should be reconsidered or removed to ensure zoning enforcement aligns with Minocqua’s established business practices and remains consistent, fair, and free from undue burdens.

Now let’s talk about The Unconstitutional Conduct of the Oneida County Planning and Development Committee

The actions of the Oneida County Planning and Development Committee in imposing and enforcing the conditions of my Conditional Use Permit violate fundamental constitutional protections, including substantive due process and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Committee’s arbitrary restrictions on outdoor activities and displays, coupled with its inconsistent application of zoning ordinances, demonstrates a targeted effort to suppress my constitutionally protected rights.

Second, Arbitrary and Unreasonable Zoning Restrictions Violate Substantive Due Process

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized a landowner’s right to substantive due process in zoning cases. Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 2008 WI 76, ¶¶ 29-30, 311 Wis. 2d 1, 751 N.W.2d 780. To establish a violation of substantive due process, a landowner must show they have been deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest. Thorp v. Town of Lebanon, 2000 WI 60, ¶ 46, 235 Wis. 2d 610, 612 N.W.2d 59. Wisconsin law explicitly recognizes and protects property interests, including the right to use and develop land free from arbitrary government interference. Penterman v. Wis. Elec. Power Co., 211 Wis. 2d 458, 480 (1997).

A zoning ordinance is unconstitutional when it is “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926); Eastlake v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 426 U.S. 668, 676 (1976). The conditions imposed on my CUP fail this standard, as they were designed not to serve legitimate zoning interests, but to obstruct and suppress lawful business operations.

More explicitly, here are the Unconstitutional CUP Conditions

• Condition #12: The Revocable License Agreement Requirement
  This condition required me to obtain a revocable license agreement with the Town of Minocqua to access U.S. Highway 51. However, the County was fully aware that the Town of Minocqua would not issue such a license without undue coercion, effectively ensuring that my business would never be able to fully operate. This condition served no legitimate zoning purpose and was merely a pretext for obstruction.

• Condition #17: The Beer Garden Closure Requirement
  This condition prohibited me from opening my beer garden or allowing any outdoor seating until every CUP condition was fulfilled. Given the County’s bad-faith imposition of arbitrary and unreasonable conditions, this restriction was intended to delay, if not outright prevent, me from engaging in essential outdoor business activities necessary to my business model.

• The Requirement for Curbs
  The County imposed a condition requiring curbs in the parking lot, despite the fact that very few other businesses in Minocqua have curbs due to the well-documented issue of snowplow damage. In Minocqua, businesses operate without curbs because heavy winter snowfall and snow removal efforts inevitably destroy them, rendering their installation a futile and unnecessary expense. The County has provided no legitimate justification for imposing this requirement solely on my business, further demonstrating the arbitrary and selective enforcement of zoning laws.

• The Requirement for a Metal Fence
  The Committee also insisted that the Beer Garden fence be made of metal rather than wood, despite the fact that other businesses in Minocqua have been permitted to use wood, vinyl, or composite materials. The County has provided no explanation as to why MBC must use a more expensive material that provides no added safety, noise reduction, or aesthetic benefits over wood. This selective enforcement violates equal protection principles and imposes an unnecessary financial burden on Respondents with no corresponding public benefit.

The inclusion of these conditions reveals the County’s true intent: to weaponize zoning laws as a means of preventing me and my company from lawfully operating their business. Courts have consistently held that zoning restrictions lacking a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare are unconstitutional. Scudder v. Town of Greendale, Ind., 704 F.2d 999, 1002 (7th Cir. 1983); Polenz v. Parrott, 883 F.2d 551, 558 (7th Cir. 1989). The County’s enforcement of these conditions fails this test and represents a blatant violation of substantive due process.

The curb and metal fence requirements, like the revocable license agreement and beer garden closure conditions, are wholly arbitrary and serve no legitimate governmental interest. Their imposition deviates from established local practices, imposes unreasonable financial burdens, and reflects the County’s bad faith in obstructing my business operations. These conditions were unconstitutional and should have never been the basis for a CUP revocation.

Now lets discuss The Unconstitutional Revocation of my CUP
Oneida County’s decision to revoke my CUP represents a blatant violation of my constitutional rights. The County’s actions demonstrate an effort to suppress speech and retaliate against me for my political activism.

Effectively, Oneida County has used its zoning authority to engage in a four-year-long campaign of harassment and retaliation against me and my business for engaging in various protected political activities, including advocating for progressive candidates and causes, criticizing local elected officials, and challenging prominent local conservatives. The County’s actions, including its enforcement actions against me and the revocation of my CUP, are part of a broader effort to silence me. This constitutes a violation my rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The County’s intent to suppress political speech is evident in its disparate treatment of me and my business compared to other businesses. Oneida County has waived zoning requirements for similarly situated businesses but has refused to do so me.

The County selectively enforced zoning violations against MBC while ignoring similar infractions by neighboring businesses. Furthermore, internal communications among County officials and conservative community leaders indicate a concerted effort to use zoning laws as a tool to punish me for my political beliefs and advocacy.

The County has used the zoning process as a tool of retaliation against me and my business for my political speech and litigation against government entities. Retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights is unconstitutional. Hobgood v. Ill. Gaming Bd., 731 F.3d 635, 648 (7th Cir. 2013). The revocation of my CUP was part of that campaign and the Board of Adjustment should overturn the revocation to uphold the constitution.

In closing, The Board of Adjustment Should not Endorse the County’s Unconstitutional Conduct.

The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee’s actions amount to an unconstitutional campaign to suppress my business operations and speech. The revocation of the CUP is a clear act of retaliation for protected First Amendment activities. The CUP conditions imposed are arbitrary, unreasonable, and lack any substantial relation to legitimate government interests. Furthermore, the County’s zoning laws operate as a prior restraint on speech, granting officials excessive discretion to suppress disfavored viewpoints. Finally, the County’s enforcement actions are clearly retaliatory, targeting me and my business for my political expression and legal advocacy.

For these reasons, the Board of Adjustment must overturn the revocation of the Minocqua Brewing Company’s Conditional Use Permit.

Thank you for your time today.