HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.b. Lot 7, Block 1 - LAN-O-Ken Addition (Laxman Sundae) t
M . . . . . . . . . . .. . � � � / �.. . � . .
tl/
� 2635-37 132 Court
Rosemount, Mn 55068
L.; _
Subject : Brief outline of presentation to Council for refund of
$8,p00 . 00 and notice of claim�
_ No sewer problems at this location in the past .
City of Rosemount' s test dated May 13 , 1987 indicated no
problems.
Neighbors never noticed any sewer problems at this location:
Dale Jahnzs 423-1496
Joe Paulson 423-2552,
Previous owners never had any problem with septic tank:
Richard E. and Judy` Thil1 452-5926.
Fire at this location on march 1993 . 6, 000 gallons of water ,
dumped to quench fire. Two days later this property was inspected
by Mr. Paul Heimke . He incorrectly attribut�d surface run off
from 6, 000 gallons to septic tank.
State of Minnesota:
Mr. Heimke' s conclusions are incorrect statement of
Minnesota State regulations .
No problems since we purchased this property:
John Watta 423 9076
Alex Sundae 423-9709
, Dawn and Dan Wiggins 423-2599•
t�l� � lx/�,� �.,-�c �� •�,,�
Private test by owners:
This property has other best septic tank system any design
engineer could dream. I have conducted five separate tests to
determine leakage and found no discharge from septic tanks .
Cauncil' s own observations :
Did you ever require security deposit from any one to -���,! �
replace septie tanksQ
Neighbor' s petition to demolish proeprty to improve lakeview:
Flagrant Violation of Law:
a
u � . . . . . . . . . .
Rosemount has no ordinance to require security deposit . fire
itself is devastating and city' s denial of permit to repair is
� even most shocking.
- Autobiography of a Irish Farmer from Rosemount .
For the past year, my Wife is wondering why your holding our
money. You can tell her why?
.
,
7 . - . � - .._ '..: .. . . .. . . . . '... . ....' ' . . . � i .
� '.- ��-.a - � ... ...... �� . . . �- . .. . _ '�. _ �-. .. . ..,' ._.� . . - . . . � .. .
� . '.� . . _ . � . .. . . � .
. � ' � . . . . _ . _ . . . �
, Ii' � ' � � � - . . . . . .. - �:. ._.', . ...:. . .� . � . �� . � ..
r]�� 5550 Nicollet Ave. S. _ 09- �g 1 g?1
Minneapolis, MN 55419 _
� CASHIER'S CHECK ,�.�,o
�l�-� :.3 �..�
F 1i,}{i E1-Iftit;ni�ir �i�li!' +�'-,,•1��t� tuil i.irF`.'i '
PAY ��st��.�;,,c�.,►,:���#��� , .
,
,�
TO THE _
ORDEROf i � '�'. e3�' x�•:�3i;€'ritiif:ll :i'�lii ACCT.NO. ��t�sj=3;+iiJil�� �r� :."r+
t i 1�!`srit 3 �,.� ,°;i ti!iil�' CUSTOMffi'S COP3( '
NOT NEG�TIABLE ��f �.-a-_ ,;�-r:
MEMO
TCF BANK SAVINGS isb,Minneapolis,Minnesota
,w..'
. �
« � l� O
(J
' � 2875-145TH ST. W
OSern 0u�� ROSEMOUNT. MINMESOTA 55068'
- 612-423-44 t t
_
. May 13, 1987 �
SUBJ: PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEM
' Lot '7, Block 1 - Lan-O-Ken
2635-2637 132nd Court West
Rosemount, Minnesota SSU68 -
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The duplex property located at 2635 and 2637 132nd
• Court West, Rosemount, Minnesota, legally described
�as Lot 7, Block 1, Lan-O-Ken Addition, is equipped '
with a private well and septic system. ,
On April 30, 198'7 I made a brief inspection of the �
system by dying the taak aad flushing water for a
period of 15 minntes. During the observed time
there was ao evidence of discharge to the surface or
into Keegan Lake.
No other statement of compliance can be made at
this time.
Sincer ly, ,
�GGftGC_ -
Ron Wasmund
Building Official
RW:DQ
�
r
,,
Laxman S. Sundae
2653 132nd West Court
- Rosemount, Mn 55068
_ April 10, 1994
Mr. Thomas Burt
City Administrator
City of Rosemount ,
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, Mn 55068-0510
Property address: 2635-37 132ND court
Rosemount, Mn 55068
Subject : A claim under M.S.A. 466 . OS for refund of my securi�y
deposit and restitution for damages caused by city's action under
color of law.
Dear Mr. Burt •
On October 12, 1993, I applied for a building permit to re air
P
fire damage at 2635-37 132nd Ct, Rosemount. This request was
denied and I was informed that I would have to install a new ��
mound type septic tank before a building permit co�ld be issued.
I knew a little bit about septic tanks and somehow, I was turned
off by city's reply. Immediately, I contacted numerous state
agencies to find out the truth. Based on the technical
information provided by various agencies of the State of
Minnesota, University of Minnesota and Dakota County, -
conversation with the tenants, neighbors and my personal
experience with the septic tanks, I found that in the recent past
there had been no sewer trouble at this address and the septic
tanks were in good working conditions.
Ori November 2, 1993, previous owners, Mr. and Mrs Richard E.
Thill, and I appeared before Mr. Paul Heimkes and again xequested
a building permit. This requested was also denied. From October
15, 1993 to November 2, 1993, several inquiries were made on my
behalf and the City had prepared a defamatory information package
slandering the title of this property and justifying it ' s
position. On November 2, 1993, both of us were given copies of
this document.
Since, winter was approaching fast, on December 23, 1993 I
deposited $8, 000 foz installing a mound type septic tank system, '
if necessary. Despite my readiness and cooperation, I was not
issued a building permit till January 7, 1994 . During this period
property suffered substantial freeze damage. Furthermore, due to
delays cased by cold weather I was not able to make repairs
efficiently and lost large sums of moneys. None of these damages
would have occurred, if the City had not attached septic tank
issue to fire damage and had issued a permit in timely fashion.
f '
�
r;;
• As mentioned previously, I had contacted various agencies of
state of Minnesota, Dakota County and the University of
- Minnesota. I has been informed that the existing system meets all
code requirements applicable to older homes. As per instructions
from these institutions, I have tested the system four times and
did not notice any leakage or malfunctionin� of anyo uf the three
tanks. This merely confirms tests conducted by the City of
Rosemount on May 13, 3987.
The city is welcome to conduct further retesting to verify my
results. I have no desire to influence the out come of test
results, but I would like to be present when retesting is done.
However, these tests should be conducted when water from storm
sewer (dirt road} is not being discharged in the lake.
Recently, I discovered, that there are three septic tanks located
on this property and a 42-ft long and 4-ft wide drainage trench
runs between the �irst two tanks. Sewer water runs toward the
house and the drain field is connected to third tank. Previous
owners have also have told me that if there is any need in future
to install extra trenches, there is space for one or two more.
On March'29, 1994, I had a meeting with Mr. Heimkes and he told
me as to what was acceptable to the City of Rosemount. The '`
proposed sewer system would be much smaller than one currently
existing on the property and the drain field will be located at
_ the same site where old one is located. Therefore, it will not
accomplish any thing.
There are two homes located on east and west side of my home.
Both of these homes have foundations at the same elevations,
their septic tanks are located at the same distance and height
from the water level of the lake Keagan. These home owners are
not being required to install new septic tanks.
Since October 15, 1993 I have been closely watching the pollution
problems in the Lake Keagan. Much to my surprise, I find that
dirt and water run off from unpaved road is being discharged by a
storm sewer as opposed to septic tanks' from the near by homes.
This property is suitable for low income families and I believe
that I am being punished for that reason.
Therefore, in view of above mentioned facts, I am asking you to
refund my security deposit and make restitution for damages
caused by city's deleterious tactics.
Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation. .
Very Truly yours,
Laxman S. Sundae
� ` y � � �
� .
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AND CONTACTS
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
MINNESOTA
Property: 2637-2635 132nd Court West
PID # 34-44300-070-01
Lot 7, Block 1 - Lan-O-I<en Addition
Zoned: RR- rural Residential
Existing house is a duplex residence
Owner: Richard and Judy Thill (previous)
Mr. Laxman Sundae (current)
Inspector. Paul R Heimkes/Ron Wasmund
This is a report on the chronology of events as I know them for a fire damaged duplex(non-
conforming) residence on 132nd Ct. in Rosemount At the preliminary investigation we found
a failed septic system leaching sewage to the surface of the ground which led to this report.
3/28/93 Home destroyed by fire. Fire was caused by a barbecue on the rear deck of
8:23 p.m. the house. The majority of the roof was destroyed. The deck was destroyed
and major interior damage to kitchens and family rooms. Smoke and water
damage to other areas upstairs and basements.
3/28/93 Building Department was contacted by Fire Chief(Scott Aker) for request to
Late p.m. do structural assessment ASAP. (via voicemail)
after fire
3/29/93 Visited site with Building Official (Ron Wasmund) to verify structural
11:00 a.m. conditions of safety for tenants to remove personal belongings from the
building. At this time inspection was only for interior structural review and
safety. I only inspected inside of the building for occupant safety and wallced
the site to view overall damage. This was not a detailed/in-depth inspection
of components. During the walk around the site, it was then that the surface
discharge of sewage from the septic system was noted in the rear yard area.
(see inspection report) Did approve use of building to remove items. The
general observadons were verbally conveyed to Mr. Thill, the owner,who
was at the site during this inspection.
. i
� y
r �
. ' .
4/8/93 Did fire evaluation inspection with Ungerman Construction-Ted Brinkman
1:00 p.m. and Ron Ungerman. Also present was owner and owners insurance
representative. Detailed nnini�ium requirements for repair. Noted code
violations. (finished basement without pernut including bedrooms with
egress windows, electrical wiring, gas fireplace and septic system failure at
rear yard) I did verbally tell owner with Ungerman Construction
representative present, that septic system must be corrected in conjunction
with building repairs. (see inspection report)
Through-out Had discussions with Mr. Thill- owner, Ungerman construction about
summer 1993 obtaining pernuts, reconstruction requirements, septic requirements, etc. No
work was done on residence except boarding up to secure - for most of
summer. Basically, I think pernuts and reconstruction were delayed due to
septic system requirements. Around September/October of 1993, Mr. Thill
the owner started discussions about selling the duplex to someone else who
in turn would make required repairs.
10/27/93 I prepared a list of requirements necessary for repairs to duplex.
, 11/2/93 I met Mr. Sundae and gave him copies of PCA 7080, Dakota County
Ordinance 113 and City Codes. Discussed the house repairs with him. He
indicated he was considering purchasing i� I also gave him a copy of repair
requirements. I indicated to him at that time the septic system must be
repa'vred. A security deposit would be required until repairs would be made.
11/3/93 Ron Wasmund discussed permit delay, septic issues, security deposit with
Mr. Thill (see note in file) Mr. Thill indicated there was a buyer prepared to
provide a security deposit for septic repairs if a building permit would be
issued.
11/93 Met with a Mr. Laxman Sundae one afternoon in November of 1993 to go
over all requirements. We discussed the duplex non-conforming use in a RR
zane. 13 of City Zoning Code allows fire repairs if repairs do not exceed
50%of assess value. Discussed septic system failure and compliance
requirements. Mr. Sundae did argue the point that in his opinion nothing
was wrong with the septic system. He did not want to do anytlung with the
septic system or provide a security deposit.
1 I/9/93 Ron tallced with Mr. Sundae about security deposit for septic system repair
so build permit could be issued for building repaizs. Mr. Sundae wanted to
post $4000.00 security not $8000.00 as specified. Ron gave Mr. Sundae
info on licensed contractors (ie. Sauber,Weierke, Bauer Reamer, Klamm
Mech., etc.) and confirmed $8000.00 security was required.
11/3/93 Received building permit application from Mr. Sundae for building fire
repairs. He did not submit security deposit Continue arguing that system
.�
did not need repair. Building permit was denied until security deposit is
received.
12✓23/93 Mr. Sundae submitted a cashiers check for security deposit for repair septic
system as soon as possible in spring 1994. (see letter from Mr. Sundae SL
check no. 081871 for$8000.00 in file) He also submitted a check for the
building pexmit fee of$244.00
12/30/93 Cover letter dated 12/30/93 was mailed to Mr. Sundae. (see file) Explained
all requirements of septic and building repairs. Permit was issued on
condition septic system would be repairs up to code. (permit#6664 issued
1/1/94)
1/21/94 Mr. Sundae called- scheduled a preliminary inspection to start construction.
1/24/94 Did preliminary construction inspection with Mr. sundae and his son at the
2:15 p.m. site. (see inspection notes in file) Discussed what had to be done to house.
Gave roof framing handouts. Discussed deck reconstruction and fire rated
wall separation. Also discussed next required inspection.
2/22/94 Mr. Sundae scheduled roof frame inspection. I did inspection. Met with
2:00 p.m. Mr. Sundaes son at the site. Roof frame was per code. House was not re-
roofed yet though. Interior of units were being cleaned out and readying for
interior sheetrock repairs. Told to have electrical inspection prior to
insulating and covering wires in attic. Roof still had blue tarp over and no
heat yet Discussed basement gas fireplace gas piping and venting repaizs
req�ired. so far construction slow but going well. Tagged gas lines so heat
could be turned on- gas turned on.
March I received calls from Roger Weierke, Mr. Sundae and Pat Lynch of the DNR
1994 regarding installation of or repairs to the septic systems on this property.
(see file) We were all lookzng for ways to resolve all the non-complying
septic issues to repair this system. With I<eegan Lake as a backyard 35 feet
from the house and the lot being less than 10000 square feet there was no
room for a comply system.
In discussion I had with Ron Wasmund, it was decided that more property '
info was required. I requested access to the property from Mr. Sundae,
which he allowed to survey the backyard area to obtain a better idea of
exactly what was there. We had decided it would be best to notify owner of
allowable septic variance we could contend with. In March 91 1994, Boyd
Baily, Rich Lonnquist, and myself surveyed the yard. (See plan in file) We
also noted it was evident tenants ere living�occupying the house. The house
was all complete. No further inspections were called for after the roof frame
inspection and no final inspection or certificated of occupancy has been
issued.
• ' , ,
April � Mr. Tom Burt(City Administrator) received letter(dated April 10, 1994 in
1994 file) from Mr. Sundae. Mr. Sundaes letter requested a refund of his security
deposit and restitution for claimed damages.
7/20/94 Tom Burt sent Mr. Laxman letter notifyuig staff research of his questions
and concems. (copy in file)
11/26/94 Called Mr. Sundae to see what info he was requesting copies of from City.
11:05 a.m. (Tom Burt) He wanted: copy of regulation requiruig security deposit; copy
of petition from I32nd Court neighborhood to have City tear down house.
11/16/94 I called Mr. Sundae back to answer his questions - no answer. Left voice
2:35 p.m. mail message. There is no law or regulation requiring security deposit; and
City never received a petition or was even aware of a petition to tear down
house. I told him to call if he had any further questions.
1/30/95 I was notified Mr. Sundae has been or is contacting City officials to gather
support for his case. I have not heard from him since 11/16/94.
2/I/95 Drafted this chronology. As it stands, Mr. La�anan has not repaired his
septic system and I have had no contact with him since November 1994. He
also never called for any other inspections on the house nor a final
occupancy inspection. No certificate of occupancy has been issued. We are
waiting for him to make repairs and schedule inspections.
� �