2020-043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City makes the following specific findings related to the alleged misrepresentation from the School District: i. As found above, at the time of its occupation of the Property in October 2019, the School District had installed a temporary septic system. That septic system was not permitted or approved by Washington County. ii. On November 5, 2019, the School District applied for an amendment to the CUP to legitimize its use and occupation of the Property. The letter stated, in relevant part, "the temporary septic services have been approved by Washington County, pending acceptance by the City and a timeline for when City services will become available." iii. The City finds that this statement was knowingly made and was false. The septic tank was not approved by Washington County on November 5, 2019. The temporary septic tank has never been approved by Washington County. iv. In defense, the School District has made it clear that it does not regret its wording; nor does it claim a mistake. Instead, it provides an e-mail from a Washington County employee, which they claim supports their statement that they had approval from Washington County. V. This e-mail was not provided to the City prior to the revocation process and there was no evidence presented that City staff were aware of the School District's claim that City staff were a roadblock to approval. Even if City staff had approved the use of temporary toilets and provided a timeline for extension of City sewer and water (which would not have been possible at that time), the e-mail itself states, "If we can get those things, we should be able to move forward with the permitting process." (Ex. A, p. 2) (emphasis added.) The e-mail does not mention the word "approval" or suggest that if those two issues were satisfied that the tank was approved by Washington County. vi. In addition to the fact, admitted by the School District, that the septic tank was not permitted or approved at that time, the April 1, 2020 letter from Washington County (Ex. 21) casts significant doubt on the proposition that it would ever have been approved. The County noted that, "[t]his tank size is not sufficient as it does not meet the requirements of MN Rule chapter 7080 or Washington County Ordinance # 206 requirements." vii. At best, given the e-mail provided by the School District, the phrasing of the sentence, purposefully made, concealed the truth that the permitting process was not complete pending acceptance by the City and a timeline for when City_ services_ will_ become_ available. The City_ also _finds _that _this- _ _— - statement, knowingly made, contains a material omission by suggesting that approval was fait accompli. 16