We presented to two action requests to the county board. The first was to direct the Land Services Supervisor to issue the construction permit without fee. The second, and unreported by the Dispatch, was for the board to waive the variance fees, the survey requirement, and recommend to the Board of Adjustment that the variance be granted without condition.

Chairman Houge's response was the board could not legally do the first requested action. Assuming that is correct, it still left the second course of action in which would we go through the variance process. Chairman Houge and the rest of the board were silent on this request for action.

Before commencing any work whatsoever on the beach house, I contacted then Planning & Zoning via a detailed email setting forth the renovations that were now being compelled by a leaking roof. The response I received was that I would need a re-roof permit and a number of unfounded allegations of violations. P&Z refused to issue the re-roof permit, citing the alleged violations.

At the time the county ordinance did prohibit the issuance of permits when there was outstanding violations. However, the ordinance also defined a violation as a misdeamenor. As such, for any one to be denied a permit, they would have to been convicted of a misdeamenor violation of the county land use ordinance in a court of law. That was not the case here. While P&Z staff made the allegations, which we promptly refuted, charges were never filed. There refusing to accept the application for permit was not only exceeding the scope of their authority, but is was a denial of due process for us.

After two years of attempting to work within the system, which included a hearing before the Board of Adjustment, the matter came before the county board. At that time the county board directed the county attorney to investigate the matter. This resulted in one hour meeting between County Attorney Don Ryan and myself. Following that meeting, Mr. Ryan phoned, stated all issues and allegations had been dismissed and the re-roof permit was in the mail.

We began renovations shortly thereafter, June 2007. The flat roof leak had become progressively worse, beyond attempted patches and more than could be caught in buckets in the two years we were refused a re-roof permit. As such, the ceiling collasped, the plywood sub-floors delaminated and mold had set in. This required demolishing the structure down to the concrete block. This was far beyond what would have been required two years prior, at the time of my initial contact with P&Z. It also added significant expense.

As we learned in this process, the ordinance did not provide P&Z the authority to issue "Administrative Notices of Violations" and, in turn, an appeal process through the Board of Adjustment. As such, following the permit issuance, we requested a refund of the Board of Adjustment hearing fee from the county board. Our request was granted.

In March of 2008, I received a Notice of Violation from P&Z and a cease and desist order regarding the beach house renovations now in process. The primary allegation was that we did not have the proper permit for the work being performed. This came, despite the fact, that in my initial email, I layed out in much detail, with supporting references in the ordinance, the scope of the renovations. It was alleged that "everything was new" and therefore a construction permit for a new dwelling was required, not just a re-roof permit. We promptly responded refuting the allegations in their entirety. Construction permits are required and based upon square footage of ground cover. As the beach house is a non-conforming structure and cannot be expanded upon, a new dwelling construction permit would only be required if the structure had been a total loss, which it was not. The response was a long from criminal complaint and arraignment notice. The county attorney had charged me criminally with violating the county land use ordinance.

A year had passed while each month the case failed to rank in sufficient priority to be scheduled for trial. As I had been charged criminally, I had the right to a speedy trial. In May of 2009, the Demand for a Speedy Trial was filed. This compels the court to schedule the case for trial within 60 days. When the county attorney learned of my intent to demand a speedy trial, they began offering settlement proposals. I refused. While a settlement would have been far more expedient and less costly than a trial, it would have been an admission of wrong doing. At the June trial call, in which scheduling the trial would have been mandatory, the county attorney dismissed the charges, citing "technical reasons". We completed the beach house construction in the spring of 2010.

The unlawful refusal of the P&Z to accept our permit application and the frivolous and harassing prosecution by the county attorney delayed the beach house renovations over three years as well as adding thousands of dollars in consequential expenses (attorney's fees, added materials, interest, time away from my occupation, energy expenses, etc.)

Photos presented to the county board established the deck was an intial design feature of the main house, evident by the rim joist and flashing, brick post pier columns and landscaping features. Construction of the deck was postponed when the beach house roof began to leak. The beach house would have been finished three years earlier, if not for the unlawful and frivolous actions of the county. As such, the deck would have been constructed before the impervious surface limitations of the revised Land Use Ordinnace became effective in the spring of 2011 and, in turn, the requirement for a variance.

We hold we've been unjustly and unfairly treated by Crow Wing County. We're not suing the county for damages. We're only asking that we be granted what we would have received if the county had treated us in a timely manner and within the confines of the ordinance effective within the time frame of that timely treatment. The county's unlawful and harassing prosecution added thousands of dollars in consequential expneses to our beach house renovation. We hold that requesting relief from the variance fees and permit fees is well within reason considering what we've endured.

While County Attorney Ryan is quoted as stating that his silence is not an agreement of the facts as I presented them, his not bringing any charges from the alleged violations by P&Z and his dismissal of the later charges does. If I had violated the Land Use Ordinance, the county attorney is obliglated and duty bound to prosecute.