Opinion ID: 2057001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Issuance of Building Permit

Text: Section 24 of the Douglas County zoning regulations in effect at the time of the Brazers' application states that written application for building permits shall be accompanied by plans in duplicate, drawn to scale, showing ... existing and proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities, as may be necessary to determine and provide for the enforcement of this regulation. The building permit application states: Include drawing of proposed building  dwelling requires two sets of plans (well & septic permit also required). Ekberg testified that the Brazers submitted a set of plans for the building with their building permit application, but did not prepare and submit any site plans. A May 1, 2007, comment in the Permit Record Report for the Brazers' permit notes that someone from the construction company came to the permit office to request an extension of the building permit and that while there, present[ed] a site plan version of project. The record does not reflect whether this site plan version would have been sufficient to meet the building permit application requirements, and the site plan presented at that time is not in the record. A series of Douglas County authorities, including Ekberg, his supervisor, and the supervisor of sanitary engineering for the Douglas County Health Department, testified that well and sewer permits were required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ekberg testified that the Brazers did not submit any proof of obtaining a septic permit with their building permit application, and the supervisor of sanitary engineering testified that no permit has been applied for or issued for the Brazer property. According to Ekberg, building permits are granted as a matter of course when an application is made and any deficiencies in the application result in a plan review. In the Brazers' case, Ekberg's plan review noted that the Brazers needed to obtain well and sanitary sewer permits through the Douglas County Health Department, among other things. Despite Ekberg's testimony that it was customary for his office to issue a building permit before all preliminary requirements were met with the understanding that no construction would begin until that time, Douglas County zoning regulations do not specifically provide for such a system. Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to the Conleys, we conclude that a material issue of fact exists as to whether the Douglas County building permit was valid when issued.