Neighbors ask Nisswa planning board to rescind lot split approval, citing covenants

Residents of Centennial Estates urged the Nisswa Planning Commission Board of Adjustment on July 7 to rescind a conditional lot-split approval for property at 25871 Centennial Lane, saying the split violates neighborhood covenants and undermines the area’s character.

Deborah Cruz, of 25829 Centennial Lane, told the commission she found restrictive covenants that say "lots may not be subdivided or split without prior written consent of all lot owners," and said the recently recorded split and rapid transfers in late June left neighbors alarmed. "I respectfully request that the commission rescind its approval of the lot split and take whatever action necessary to restore it to its previous condition," Cruz said.

Why it matters: neighbors said the subdivision changes the pattern of large, country lots in Centennial Estates and raised specific procedural and notification concerns — including that owners who maintain Centennial Lane, a private road, were not contacted before the split was recorded. Cruz said she has gathered declarations from most neighbors opposing the split (she described declarations covering 13 of the 14 lot owners and 15 of 16 lots in the subdivision).

City response and limits of authority: city planning staff — addressed as Steven Timmons — told the commission the staff review focused on compliance with the city's land-use ordinance (lot-size minimums, septic, site suitability) and that the city attorney's opinion is that administration and enforcement of private covenants is a civil matter among landowners, not a municipal enforcement action. "Administration and enforcement of private land covenants amongst the owners would not be a role that the city holds authority in," Timmons said. Staff outlined next steps available to residents: present the issue during a future agenda item, request a special meeting for board consideration, or pursue the appeal process through the city clerk and, if applicable, the City Council.

Neighbors’ questions and offers: several residents, including Holly Holm (25681 Centennial Lane) and Charlene Michael Bust (25702 Centennial Lane), asked why property owners who maintain the private road were not notified and how the city verified continued access to Centennial Lane (whether by recorded easement or other documentation). A representative identifying himself as Chad with Council Realty said he purchased the back lot to assist sellers with health issues, said prior owners may have bought via bank-owned title and not known the covenants, and offered $20,000 toward road maintenance to try to resolve neighbors' concerns.

Next steps: staff advised the neighborhood that answers to detailed legal questions are best handled through the appeal process or on a future agenda; Cruz indicated she will seek placement on the next available agenda and has filed an appeal with the clerk. The commission did not rescind the approval at the meeting; staff and commissioners reiterated their understanding that resolving covenant disputes rests with the civil courts or private resolution among owners.

Ending: residents were advised to pursue the formal appeal route or request a focused agenda item; the Planning Commission moved on to its scheduled public hearings after the open forum.