CBretFlashback
On Monday, Jan. 23, the East Troy Village Board voted to proceed with the use of eminent domain to forcibly seize land from two homeowners in East Troy on the cul-de-sac of Brooks Court.
And Then
- The Village Board’s information packet did not include information relating to eminent domain issue.
- The homeowners may not have had knowledge the meeting was taking place.
And Now, The Flash
The Village issued clarifications Monday, responding to news articles published in last week’s issues of the East Troy Times and East Troy News covering the eminent domain issue.
- RE: Village Board packets missing info
Village President Randy Timms placed the property access topic on the Jan. 23 Village Board agenda at the request of Village Attorney Linda Gray. Gray made the request on behalf of vacant landowner Mary Pulliam’s attorney. Village staff said this is why they were unable to provide materials for the packet.
- RE: Landlocked parcel
Vacant landowner Pulliam wants to combine three parcels adjacent to Brooks Court, which creates a landlocked parcel. The current three parcels have an access issue.
- RE: Adversely affected homeowners left in dark
The Village worked with Pulliam from late summer through September of 2016 to investigate access options for her three vacant parcels. Staff met with Pulliam and one of the affected property owners in September. No further contact was made until Pulliam’s attorney revived the issue by contacting the village attorney, Linda Gray.
The issue will be revisited at the Feb. 6 Village Board meeting.
Village clarifications per Village Administrator:
Regarding the article pertaining to the village board meeting held on January 23, 2017, and the eminent domain topic I would like to offer some clarifications. The vacant property owner’s attorney requested the topic to be placed on the agenda through the village attorney, who sought approval from the Village President for the item to be placed on the agenda. This is why staff was not able to provide materials for the packet. The vacant property owner does want to combine the three parcels into one parcel, which does create a land-locked parcel. However, as it stands currently the three separate have no existing access. Regardless of whether the three parcels are combined or separate, an access issue exists. I would also like to further explain my comment regarding working with property owners. It needs to be clarified that the village had been working with the vacant property owner to investigate options to address the issue from late summer through the end of September. Staff held a meeting in late September with the vacant parcel owner and one of the other property owners in attendance to explain potential options they may agree upon. There was no further contact until the vacant property owner’s attorney contacted the village attorney. The issue will be revisited at the February 6, 2017, Village Board meeting.
