Sherburne County approves tighter conditions for Boulder Creek Wine Bar after repeated violations

The Sherburne County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 on Jan. 6 to approve amendments to the conditional use permit (CUP) for Boulder Creek Wine Bar to address documented violations and reduce neighborhood impacts.

Planning and zoning staff recommended specific changes to conditions 7, 8, 13 and 14 and amended findings of fact 1 and 5 to reflect enforcement benchmarks. The board adopted language requiring that any additional parking area created without permits must be removed and returned to vegetation by June 1; limiting employees to residents of the property or their adult children; restricting other on-site visitors to leave no later than 15 minutes after posted hours; and permitting one non-illuminated sign up to 12 square feet located outside the public right-of-way.

Lynn, the zoning administrator, told the board the changes were drafted after the board’s December direction to address violations and to provide clearer enforcement standards. Lynn also noted earlier violation letters, first documented in the record on Sept. 6, 2024, and issues around state and county liquor licensing in 2023.

Commissioner Gray argued the business is ill-suited to a rural residential neighborhood and said the county is “rewarding them for bad behavior” unless stronger measures are inserted. Gray pressed for explicit consequences if the permit is violated again. Commissioner Gray also noted attorney correspondence from August 13, 2025, in which the permit-holder’s attorney disputed violations, a point Gray flagged as conflicting with county enforcement letters.

Commissioner Hulse urged specificity in the permit language so the county can enforce it and, if the operator fails, take revocation steps. Hulse said the original permit lacked the specificity necessary for reliable enforcement and described the adopted changes as the specificity the county needs to hold the operator accountable.

Commissioner Schumacher moved to approve the modifications; the motion was seconded and accepted with a friendly amendment adding the June 1 compliance date for removal of unpermitted parking. The county attorney noted the board already holds authority under statute to revoke a CUP for violations, but agreed staff could research additional enforcement language if the board desired.

The motion carried 3 in favor, 2 opposed. The board’s vote record in the transcript reports the outcome as “That motion carries. 3 in favor, 2 against.”

The board’s action amends the CUP’s findings and conditions rather than revoking the permit. Staff indicated the amendments aim to remedy repeated noncompliance and provide clear benchmarks for future enforcement. The record shows the board asked staff to bring back specific enforcement language if problems recur.

What happens next: staff will finalize the written permit language consistent with the board’s motion (including the June 1 deadline) and the board expects to monitor compliance; the record indicates revocation remains an available remedy if the permit-holder fails to meet the new conditions.