---

A rarely-utilized process where citizens can argue that a building permit has been issued in error, was put into action Monday night this week in a hearing format at Giese Memorial Wyoming Area Library.  But, the citizens did not convince the five member volunteer “appeals board” that the permit for construction of a single family home on East Comfort Drive should be revoked.  About 20 people contended this lot is “unbuildable” to which the Appeals Board disagreed. Their vote was 5-0 to uphold the city building official’s issuance of the permit, which remains in effect but on-hold pending a court case.

The last time Wyoming entered into a permit appeals process was 12 years ago, explained Appeals Board Chair Mark Lobermeier.  

He said while the gathering was noticed legally as a public hearing; in actuality state law requires the speakers to be limited to only the appellants, in this case Judy and Greg Coughlin on behalf of about 18 others, the party who was issued the permit — Dave Freemore and his legal counsel Peter Frank — and staff who okayed the permit, Zoning Administrator Fred Weck.

Meanwhile, the home construction activity has been voluntarily stopped; as a separate lawsuit under review by a district court judge argues the entire lot was encumbered by an earlier easement,  providing for lake access ‘over and across’ this parcel to more than a dozen persons.  The judge has several weeks from when this suit was heard in September. The suit asks for a judgment on the issue of the house in effect denying legal rights to access the lake.

Frank commented that this district court decision on what exactly is meant by “easement” for lake access, is expected soon.  He shares this to “provide context” as to the extensive interest in revoking the permit, he stated.

In their presentation — the Coughlins argued that Weck’s calculations of impervious surfaces were inaccurate. An application should have included a request for a variance and specialized review for not meeting the 25 percent impervious maximum called for. 

They also presented their contention that the lot — on Comfort Lake — is undersized for an individual sewage treatment system and added that the home proposed will have the potential for five bedrooms but plans depict only two.  The needed septic system capacity has been under-estimated they contended.

A Department of Natural Resources lakes and rivers shoreland manager, stated in a voice recording Judy provided that 5,000 square feet would be needed for the siting of the original septic and for a replacement second system should the initial mound fail to function. A minimum for one system is 2,400 square feet, which this lot lacks and does not have 5,000 square feet identified for two systems.

There were auxiliary arguments that the permit application did not contain percolation test results nor sufficient soil borings data.  Greg Coughlin said an applicant might declare he “can” install a certain septic system but the applicant ought to be required to “prove” the potential location before getting a permit.

Judy Coughlin, who has  been involved in Wyoming on the city planning commission and in other capacities for years, acknowledged this battle was not undertaken lightly. She said some of what the appeal will present “...will be hard to hear...(but) we have the right to expect the city to follow ordinances.” She added this is difficult for her and the 18 or so other residents involved in the revocation.

Weck responded that much of what the Coughlins presented on sewage treatment ideal conditions was Department of Natural Resources related guidance, which is not what certified septic inspections and installations are based on.   Weck said in his decades of professional activity (first with the township and then the city when the two merged) he based decisions on Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards.  The lot can accommodate an individual sewage treatment system, he declared.  There are multiple septic treatment systems available. The city has small-sized lots that are not posing sewer hazards and operating well individually.  Soils in this appeal are undisturbed and haven’t been exposed to prior sitework, Weck continued, which he also weighed.  

The lot was platted in the mid-1960s.

Testimony was that the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District issued a permit to Freemore’s builder but this was clarified as solely for erosion control measures on the worksite, an appeals board member noted.  

Chair Mark Lobermeier said, “There is no denying it’s a small property” but the impervious surface question (difference in calculations) is “manageable”  He felt the 25 percent everybody has in their impervious standards is general guidance.  In this case he said a section of roof overhang could be reduced, or a section of pavement eliminated to trim the impervious.  He understood that the applicant had been relying on his professionals who developed the residence project and did calculations.

Mark Holl agreed, saying he’s seeing a “couple of miniscule things” that can be addressed.  Appeals Board and Council member Brett Ohnstad stated he couldn’t find “anything concrete” on which to conclude that the permit was issued in error.  

The second city council member on the appeals board, Dennis Schilling, added he has been ‘satisfied” with staff explanations and explained the applicant can’t be held to the presented conjecture about how many “bedrooms” there might be in the future causing the septic system to be undersized.

On his behalf, Freemore spoke briefly and said he “...hasn’t done anything wrong” and he didn’t understand where this pushback from neighbors was coming from. The Coughlins responded that this is not directed at Freemore.  The experience caused concern because the whole process is what they describe as a “breakdown of trust” between the city and its citizens.

---