April 14, 2023 at 9:28 a.m.
The plat approval vote by Commissioners Dunne, Dahlberg and Swenson accepted the “reluctant” recommendation from staff.
Commissioners Montzka and Greene opposed the lot creation, and agreed with the neighbors.
The deed, however, lacks any mention that the lakeshore was open space, and belonged to the surrounding plat as a whole.
Board Chair Montzka said he recalls this cluster development going through the review process in 2006 and expressed his irritation about an omission in recording the necessary restrictions.
A nearby property owner said the county is making two errors: allowing the subdivision and allowing the parcel to be sold off when it was supposed to be held in common by everybody.
Assistant Chisago County Attorney Jeffrey Fuge advised the Board no evidence could be found demonstrating the outlot was ever formally dedicated as open space. Montzka and Green noted that the existing lot density of the cluster plat is evidence enough. The “cluster’ is authorized only when a certain percent of a plat involved is retained as green space. But, lacking the proper paperwork, the county does not have a solid basis for prohibiting subdivision of the outlot, because the new proposed lots meet the county code, Fuge advised the Board.
The twist is the county put new standards in place not long ago, defining a “buildable” lot and revising the septic system prerequisites— so now these two lots being created have become “buildable.”
Environmental Services Director Kurt Schneider observed that those new conditions may have changed how the property, under the same ownership since 2010, “...was being looked at.”
Attorney Fuge said the “property rights” questions impacting neighbors who for years thought the outlot was common space, are not an issue for the county. Questions arising from this replatting can always be brought to civil court, he added.
In another matter:
There was a public hearing scheduled to review actions to allow for “setups” and two in the morning closing, as well as beer brewery “tap room” operations but nobody from the public spoke.
County Auditor Bridgitte Konrad brought the ordinances to the Board saying she’d had requests mostly from wedding venues on a couple of these. The state of Minnesota actually issues the licenses but there must first be a local ordinance that allows it.
None of the commissioners favored the set-ups (display and consumption) license because it’s impossible to secure and keep a bottle of liquor within sight in a crowded party atmosphere, they said.
Sherrif Thyen commented that law enforcement staff do liquor trainings and instruct servers on consumption monitoring but when there is no professional server involved, it could cause concerns.
Commissioner Dahlberg motioned to okay the 2 a.m. (which he said probably nobody in the rural areas will take advantage of anyway) and the taproom operations, and eliminated the bring-your-own license. But the motion failed, with only he and Dunne voting aye.
The license fees are doubled on the 5-0 action taken — on sale intoxicating liquor is $2,000, Sunday liquor is $200, off sale is $200, wine sale is $600 and wine plus 3.2 beer is $750. Malt liquor and temporary license fees also were increased.