MINOCQUA – The size of a pier system on a Minocqua waterbody drew criticism again at the Minocqua town board meeting Tuesday.
Bearing the brunt of the rebuke by town chairman Mark Hartzheim was local Realtor Mike Meyer, who is acting as an agent for pier owner William Campbell, Lake Mills. Campbell has built a multi-slip pier system on the northwest side of the Thoroughfare Road bridge. The county contends that the system is too large as it exceeds 20 feet in width and as such violates the county Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance.
The thoroughfare is a short river system that connects Lake Tomahawk with Minocqua Lake. Campbell owns about 1,700 feet of frontage along that section, according to Meyer, and is within his riparian rights to have that size of a pier system. He alleged the county had no problems with the piers until they were built. “There were complaints and then Oneida County took a relatively strong stance on those piers,” Meyer said. “Now the situation is on hold for litigation for Mr. Campbell’s pier pending (outcome of) another litigation for another similar pier system in Lake Tomahawk.” Meyer also alluded to selective enforcement of the county ordinance. “On the Minocqua chain (of lakes) there are over 120 piers over 20 feet wide,” Meyer said in defending the Campbell piers.
Later, he pled ignorance about knowing in advance about the county’s prohibition of pier systems over 20 feet in width. Hartzheim said the town office has received “a lot of questions” from the public on why the pier system is being allowed.
neida County had issued citations to both the owner and Meyers, but withdrew them pending a court ruling on a similar situation on Tomahawk Lake. That didn’t stop the town chairman from asking for, but not receiving, a motion to recommend to the county that it enforce its ordinance with citations despite the ongoing litigation. Town supervisor Billy Fried, who sits on the county planning and development committee, suggested waiting until after that committee’s meeting Wednesday, April 17. The committee was to have taken up the two lawsuits in closed session.
The county has prevailed on some aspects of that other court case, but the defendant has appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals, including on whether the county can even regulate piers (the state also regulates piers). “During the timeframe of getting an answer, the owners of both pier systems have the ability to use and maintain their piers, at their own risk,” county planning and zoning director Karl Jennrich said in his April 16th e-mail to Hartzheim. Hartzheim was not happy with that, saying “What’s to prevent others from doing something illegal, (then) challenging it in court and (continue) using it?” Though he didn’t get a motion, Hartzheim did get support from supervisor John Thompson who also criticized both the pier owner and Meyer, the latter for not being up front with the facts. “I get the game you’re playing,” Thompson chastised Meyer. Jennrich said Campbell in the meantime couldn’t lease or rent the piers. “The county would consider their piers a marina, if they did so,” Jennrich wrote.
Any violation would be followed up on.
In a related matter, Campbell, who was not present, withdrew a driveway permit to access his boardwalk to the piers from Thoroughfare Road. The piers are some distance from a house he owns there. Campbell has also applied for a county administrative review permit (ARP) to rent that house as a tourist rooming house for not less than seven consecutive days. The board on a 4-1 vote agreed to recommend to the county that they issue Campbell the ARP, but for only four guests and not eight as Campbell had requested. The town planning commission had recommended approval also, but also for only four guests also because of the size of the septic system for the two-bedroom home.
Hartzheim voted against the motion, clearly not wanting to have any ARP issued. Last August, the town board decided to post both sides of Thoroughfare Road in that vicinity with “no parking” signs. They also placed restrictions on the small parking lot servicing the public pier there. Both measures were designed to prevent Campbell’s pier users from parking either on the road or for long periods in the parking lot.
