Board asks staff to review whether Ticks Harbor Lights pavilion can be used for NFL draft weekend

The Suamico Village Board debated on Jan. 6 whether an outdoor pavilion at Ticks Harbor Lights can be used beyond the State of Wisconsin commercial code’s 180-day temporary-use allowance, and voted to ask staff to review possible exceptions for the 2025 NFL draft weekend.

Zoning Administrator Dunks explained that the pavilion was constructed and later discussed as an open-air structure. "One of the conditions of that ... we approved it for temporary use prior to him pulling the permits ... and one of our conditions was the hundred and 80 consecutive days," Dunks said. Under the state commercial code, the village building official or the fire chief can approve a temporary use for up to 180 days; Dunks and Fire Chief Burtler had signed the letter with that condition before the applicant pulled permits.

Trustees and the applicant discussed whether the NFL draft weekend could be handled as a special event (using a tent/permitting process) rather than counted against the 180 days, or whether a documented "demonstrated cause" (for instance, construction delays) could justify an extension. Several trustees, staff and the applicant also addressed safety concerns if the pavilion were enclosed and heated with propane: those changes would convert the structure into a permanent/commercial building under code and would trigger additional restroom, flood-elevation and safety requirements.

The applicant told the board he typically opened in early May and closed in early November, and said limiting the pavilion to 180 consecutive days would reduce his usable season and business. He also said removing plastic window covers to keep the space open-air was an option but raised concerns about equipment and durability.

A trustee moved to request Administrator Dunks and Chief Burtler review whether demonstrated cause or the village special-event permit process could allow an exception for the 2025 NFL draft at Ticks Bar. The motion was seconded. During final remarks the chair objected, calling the request "coercion of village employees"; supporters said staff review would merely clarify the code and that staff could return a recommendation to the board.

On roll call the vote was: Trustee Andrews — Nay; Trustee Eckert — Aye; Trustee Neto — Recused; Trustee Grama — Aye; Trustee McKeefray — Aye; President (named in the roll call) — Nay. The motion to have staff review the options passed by majority. Staff asked the applicant to submit a written request for formal staff review.