The Wayzata City Council narrowly approved a controversial variance request Tuesday evening, voting 3-2 to grant a shoreland setback variance at 547 Harrington Road, a peninsula property on Browns Bay owned by Dick and Elaine Swanson.
The action, adopted under Resolution 35-2025, reduces the required setback from Lake Minnetonka from 260.5 feet to 108 feet—a variance of 152.5 feet. While no redevelopment plans are on file, the variance establishes a larger buildable area should a future owner demolish the existing home and construct a new residence.
Mayor Andrew Mullin and Councilmembers Jeff Parkhill and Ken Sorensen supported the request, while Alex Plechash and Molly MacDonald opposed it. The applicant, represented by Kyle Hunt, argued the lot’s unusual shape, narrow width, topography, and position on a sharp bend of the shoreline created “practical difficulties” under city code.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18 and later recommended approval of the request, subject to conditions. Those included a requirement that a shoreland impact plan be submitted with any future building permit, and that certain non-buildable wedge areas offered by the applicant be permanently recorded to protect neighboring sight lines.
Swansons Seek Variance to Preserve Future Use of Property
Property owners Dick and Elaine Swanson, who have lived at 547 Harrington Road for decades, are preparing to sell their nearly century-old family home. To aid in that transition, the couple hired builder Kyle Hunt of Kyle Hunt Partners to act as a consultant in seeking a variance that would preserve the lot’s usability for future owners.
Hunt told the Council the application was not tied to a specific redevelopment plan, but rather to establishing a reasonable building envelope so the property could be marketed and eventually rebuilt. Without a variance, he explained, the lot’s pie-shaped layout and position on a sharp bend of Browns Bay—combined with the unusual 299-foot setback of the neighboring Leavenworth home to the north—would push most of the buildable area toward Harrington Road, leaving the site effectively unbuildable.
City code required a 260.5-foot shoreline setback at the site, yet the existing home sits just 91.9 feet from the water. The variance reduces that requirement by 152.5 feet, establishing a new setback line of 108 feet. That would still move any future home about 16 feet farther from the lake than the current structure.
To address concerns from neighbors, the Swansons also offered to record non-buildable “red triangle” areas on the lot to preserve lake views from adjacent homes.
As Hunt explained in his presentation to council: “The reason why we introduced the idea of the red triangles was to honor and take into consideration the neighboring properties when you look through the lens of sight lines from their structures to the lake and from the interior of their homes looking lakeside or lake setback side. In both cases, we’ve tried to look at that triangulation and offered that under free will.”
Public Hearing Brings Sharp Divide on Shoreline Impact
Neighbors Tracy and Dan Cosentino of 549 Harrington Road opposed the request. Their attorney, Jack Perry, urged the Council to deny the variance, warning it would invite litigation and stall any redevelopment of 547 Harrington Road.
“The reality is that 108 feet versus 175 feet is a major, major, major change — a major blockage of the lake for 549,” Perry said. “And 549 is going to [assert] rights. If you say yes, that will cause litigation. Litigation will hold this thing up for 12 months at a minimum, which no buyer is going to pay because of the setback until that’s resolved.”
Perry explained that his clients had worked with attorney Chris Pierson to develop an alternative method of measuring the setback, disregarding the unusually deep setback at 543 Harrington Road and instead using the next-nearest home to the north. That calculation produced a 175-foot shoreline setback and a 45-foot side yard setback, which the Cosentinos argued was “almost as close to the lake as possible” while still protecting their views.
In August 2025, Pierson also submitted a formal letter during the Planning Commission review, pressing for denial. “The Application does not satisfy the conditions for approval required … by Chapter 991,” Pierson wrote. “Granting the sought variance would severely adversely impact the shoreline and lake views of the Cosentinos. In addition, the Application is motivated solely by economic considerations … and granting the variance without construction and other required plans is likely to lead to problems the City should seek to avoid.” He urged commissioners to reject the request.
The Council also heard directly from Dan Cosentino, who said he was surprised to learn that the Swansons’ application sought a 108-foot setback “shaped kind of like a hexagon” without building plans, architectural drawings, or a shoreline impact assessment. Cosentino explained that he had retained Pierson and the architectural firm Mohagen Hansen to prepare 3D models showing how potential homes could affect his family’s views. Both concluded the variance would have an adverse impact.
In response, Cosentino said he directed Pierson to craft what he considered a fair compromise: a 175-foot shoreline setback with a 40-foot side yard, compared with the 188-foot setback of his own home. He described this as a “very generous variance proposal” aimed at avoiding conflict.
Not all neighbors opposed the request. Several letters of support were submitted, urging the Council to allow the variance.
Ted Bigos, a longtime property owner in the community, wrote that the application aligned with Wayzata’s residential character. “I am writing in support of the variance request for 547 Harrington Road. Based on my review, the proposed variance is both reasonable and consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood,” Bigos said.
Tom and Lindsay Pohlad also submitted a letter backing the request. They argued that the strict shoreline setback stems from rules dating back more than a century and would effectively prevent any new home from being built on the site today. “The requested variance, as we understand it, does not impact views of neighboring properties, and should be considered for approval,” they wrote.
David Erickson, a neighbor on Harrington Road, described the proposal as fair and forward-looking. “The proposed variance by the owners of 547 Harrington Road, as requested, is more than generous to existing neighbors and appears to solve the problems created by what may now be an outdated practice given the circumstances at the site. As neighbors on Harrington Road, we favor City approval,” Erickson wrote.
Anne Johnson, another Harrington Road resident, called the request both reasonable and appropriate for the site. “As a resident of Harrington Road, I can confirm that the variance requested regarding 547 Harrington Road is very reasonable and does not impact any neighbors. I am familiar with the property and also believe that the existing setback no longer makes any sense due to the site’s topography,” Johnson wrote.
From just down the street, James E. Johnson and Lucy Rosenberry Jones expressed their backing for the application. “We live at 562 Harrington Road and fully support the Swanson’s request for a variance,” they wrote.
Hans and Carolyn Hagen, neighbors on Harrington Road, urged the Council not only to approve the variance but to make it permanent. “As neighborhood residents, we support the Wayzata Planning Commission resolution granting the variance to the shoreline setback requested by the owner of Tract B, the Swanson family,” they wrote. The Hagens emphasized that the Swansons’ proposed setback and view corridor matched existing conditions established by adjacent homes to the north and south, and argued that the family would face “an unusual hardship” if the variance were denied.
John Nolan, who lives nearby on Harrington Road, said he carefully reviewed the Swansons’ application before weighing in. “After reviewing their request, I feel the request is reasonable, appropriate and meets both the spirit and the technical requirements for variance relief for all the reasons expressed in their variance application. I am in support of the city approving this request,” Nolan wrote.
Carole Hunter added her voice in favor of the application. “Hello – we are fine with the variance request for the Swansons,” she wrote.
Joann W. Leavenworth, whose family home at 543 Harrington Road sits immediately north of the Swansons, pointed to the site’s natural challenges. “Because of the topography of this property, the existing 1920s house is located where it is. It would not meet the current ‘lakeshore set back’ code. Please take this into consideration … One look and the situation would be very apparent to you,” Leavenworth wrote.
Council Discussion
Councilmember Alex Plechash gave a detailed critique of the application, saying he recognized the property’s unique challenges but felt the requested relief went too far. “The fact that the residence to the north was built so far back creates a setback requirement that is skewed and untenable in my opinion. I think everyone agrees on that … As it is, an appropriately sized house would be unbuildable within the constraints delineated and begs for a variance,” he said.
Even so, Plechash argued the proposal was “granting a variance in a vacuum” without construction plans and could set a troubling precedent. He said the request would still adversely affect views from 549 Harrington Road and was not in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. “The letter of the law on a setback requirement for this property is draconian, but the requested variance goes too far, I think … The bottom line is that for all the reasons stated, I will be voting to deny the variance tonight.”
Councilmember Molly MacDonald echoed many of Plechash’s concerns, while adding that the city’s focus on preservation was being overlooked. “Our comp plan does value a diverse housing stock and neighborhood charm … maybe someone would appreciate a beautiful 100-year-old well-built home to not be just thrown away,” she said. MacDonald agreed a variance was needed but felt the Swansons’ request went too far. She also questioned claims that the proposal would preserve trees and concluded it would negatively affect shoreline views. “With all of that said, I will not be voting to support this variance request,” she said.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen said he saw strong arguments on both sides but ultimately leaned toward approval. He noted the property’s unusual topography and shoreline bend created genuine practical difficulties. Sorensen said that while a home built at 108 feet might be partially visible from 549 Harrington Road, “to me, [that’s] not adverse, not significant,” especially given that mature trees already obscure the shoreline from that vantage point.
He also pointed out that pushing construction farther back would force a new house into steep ravines and heavily wooded areas, creating other challenges. Reviewing the variance standards, Sorensen concluded the request was in harmony with the ordinance and comprehensive plan, and not driven solely by economics. He added that the Council should not base its decision on litigation threats. “I’m inclined to approve this variance,” he said.
Councilmember Jeff Parkhill acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, noting that both the Swansons and the Cosentinos had strong arguments. He said the property’s topography created an “insurmountable burden” under the code, making a variance necessary. Parkhill praised the Swansons’ approach of shaping the building envelope with “red triangles” to protect views, calling it considerate.
After visiting both homes, he concluded any obstruction to 549 Harrington’s lake view would be minor and not significantly adverse. “There may be minor and inconvenient and distant view obstructions of the lake, but not something that I believe to have a significant adverse effect,” he said. While he wished the neighbors had reached a compromise privately, Parkhill stated he was inclined to support the variance as a reasonable solution to a difficult situation.
Mayor Andrew Mullin said the Council’s role was not to redraw a different setback line but to decide on the application before them. He noted the challenge of weighing subjective criteria like views and neighborhood character alongside objective standards.
Mullin pointed to several factors that led him to support approval: the setback would remain more than 75 feet from the water, satisfying the base ordinance; the Planning Commission had found no adverse impact on shoreline or lake views; and a shoreline impact plan would be required to address erosion and tree loss.
He also stressed that the property’s difficulties were unique and not created by the Swansons, and that economic considerations could not be the sole reason to grant or deny relief. “I’m a very pro property rights individual,” he said. “I’m leaning in support of this variance for all the reasons I’ve stated.”
In the end, the Council split 3–2, with Mayor Andrew Mullin, Jeff Parkhill, and Ken Sorensen voting in favor of the variance, while Alex Plechash and Molly MacDonald opposed. The decision allows Dick and Elaine Swanson to move forward with a shoreline setback of 108 feet at 547 Harrington Road, though any future redevelopment will still require a shoreline impact plan and compliance with all other city codes. The debate underscored the tension between preserving neighbor views, respecting property rights, and applying ordinances to unusual sites along Wayzata’s shoreline—questions the city is likely to face again as more historic lake homes come up for reinvention.
