| Local
News |
||
| Wednesday,
March 5, 2008 Todd County Board of Commissioners-Work Session Subdivision change could cause litigation by Karin L. Nauber When an ordinance changes it can make things that were done in the past under a previous ordinance, in a word, ugly. That's how Environment and Land Management Resources Manager Andrew Dahlgren described what is currently happening with a subdivision near Lake Osakis. A subdivision was created by Darwin Sibell known as Sibell's Subdivision in 1999. It was approved with the stipulation in declaration form that ownership of Lot 1, Block 1 shall at all times be concurrent with the ownership of Lot 1, Block 2 and that ownership of Lot 2, Block 1 shall at all times be concurrent with the ownership of Lot 2, Block 2 and that neither of these two lots could be separated unless a public road were constructed completely to an existing public maintained road. "If the unbuilt road ever got built and was accepted by the township, then the two lots could be split into four lots. The road did not get built and the township abandoned the area where the road would have been built," said Dahlgren. When this subdivision was created, shoreland ordinances required a minimum lot width at the front lot line of no less than 100 feet. Sibell sold the land in 2004. In December 2005 ordinance changes went into effect that no longer required the 100 feet. Now the requirement is only 50 feet. That gave the new owners the opportunity under the changed ordinance to split the lots. The problem is, according to Dahlgren, Sibell was told he could never split the lots. The declaration that this could not be done was recorded on the deed. The new landowner is wanting to split the lots into two fifty foot lots and according to the ordinance, they can do so. Chair Randy Neumann said he agreed with Mr. Sibell that the land should not be divided because he was told no. "I know rules do change. He sold it as one chunk because he was told he had to and couldn't divide it," said Neumann. Commissioner David Kircher asked where the access was. Dahlgren said they didn't have to put in a road, just a driveway because the property was adjacent to Highway 10. Dahlgren said he met with County Attorney Chuck Rasmussen and they both felt that the language stating the lots could never be divided could be removed because of the ordinance changes. Dahlgren said the Sibells signed a document that said they were "okay with the zoning administrator making the determination." The declaration of restrictions for conveyance of real property was signed March 26, 2004. Kircher said that because these were all legally recorded instruments, they would have shown up during an abstract search. Dahlgren said he has been working with the new property owners for about six months. He said that he would like to bring a resolution to the March 4 meeting that would rescind the restrictions and allow the division of the property. His concern was that no matter what they did it would probably end up putting the county in litigation. Kircher said he didn't understand why the county attorney would draft something that would put the county into litigation. "Based on the information we have, this is the most defensible position and would most likely result in a negative declaration for the county," said Dahlgren. "If we passed this resolution, would it be in accordance with the ordinance?" asked Kircher. Dahlgren said it would be. Neumann said he would like more time and would like to see Dahlgren bring the information back to the board on their March 18 meeting. Kircher asked what the past practices of the board have been in a situation where an ordinance was passed and they conflicted with former ordinances. He wanted to know if the old ordinances were no longer enforceable. Dahlgren said he didn't know of any other situation like this. "If it is now an allowed use, but not one in the past because of a condition, it is now an allowed use," he said. "Why are we dealing with this if the ordinance nullifies the declaration?" asked Kircher. "Because the declaration has to be rescinded and removed from their deed," answered Dahlgren. "The thing that bothers me is that the declaration said it could only be divided if they have an existing publicly maintained road," said Neumann. "They are taking a driveway to a publicly maintained road so it meets the specification," said Dahlgren. "We have to make a decision that won't put us into litigation," said Kircher. He added that someone had put the county in a real bind by requiring the declaration. "No matter what decision you make it could put us in litigation. But you are right, someone put us in a bind," concluded Dahlgren. He also had two other topics for discussion with the board. One was that he has been budgeting $10,000 a year for two years for a new vehicle. He asked for direction from the board as to whether he should purchase the vehicle within the county or out and if he should look at new or used. Commissioner Mark Blessing said he should look at the state bid process as well. Dahlgren said he has done some initial checking and would be able to get a type of midsize SUV with better gas mileage for around $20,000. The other issue was his concern about the county comprehensive plan. He said the information is not getting out to the public through the radio or newspapers about the meetings. He wondered if the county could set up a bulk e-mail process for people who wanted to get the information. The suggestion was made that he should try bulk mailing. He said it would be very expensive to do that. They would send out approximately 22,000 parcels at 42 cents each which would cost $9020. Kircher said that not everyone has e-mail. Dahlgren said that e-mail would give them a third way of notifying people (along with the radio and newspapers). It will be further discussed. |