Clear Lake homes ordered removed
TOWN OF MILTON — Owners of three flooded lakefront homes at Clear Lake have until December to remove their buildings, officials said this week.
The Milton Town Board voted unanimously Monday to order the homes be razed and removed. The houses have been flooded since waters at Clear Lake rose to unprecedented levels during the floods of 2008.
Joyce Szymberski of the Clear Lake Improvement Association attended the meeting Monday. She said she presented the board a petition from 52 property owners asking for removal of the houses.
For months, the association, a property owners group at the lake north of Milton, has sought to have the submerged houses removed, citing health and safety risks to residents and visitors at the lake.
Under the terms of the town’s raze orders, Szymberski said the property owners must:
-- Remove all personal property from the flooded homes within 30 days.
-- Submit removal plans within 90 days.
-- Complete the removal of the homes by Dec. 31.
Szymberski said the property owners association is willing to help the owners to remove their personal property, to look for funding for removing the buildings and to offer moral support.
One property owner had asked the board to set a winter deadline so ice on the lake would allow easier removal, and that’s why the Dec. 31 deadline was set, Szymberski said.
Town officials and the property owner’s association have been unable to reach the owners of the two other flooded properties, officials said.
Szymberski said owners opposed to the raze order could ask a judge to overrule the town’s decision. That process would require a judge to hold a hearing and to rule on whether the order is reasonable, she said.
It’s not clear if the town would take on the responsibility of removing flooded buildings if the property owners fail to comply with the raze orders.
“There’s really no answers to it. That’s something we’d approach at the time it happens,” town board member Leonard Stalker told the Gazette.
Stalker said the board continues to work with its attorney on details of the raze orders.
“The township’s got the authority to do (the removals), but it would be an expense that the township does not have budgeted. Hopefully, it don’t come to that,” he said.
Gazette reporter Frank Schultz contributed to this report.
Jun 18, 2010 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the house is sitting in 5 feet of water and it is a steep drop off between the road and house, how will they demo the house and haul it away?
Jun 17, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
WOODY - Your idea of throwing a match on is actually very good. Maybe we can hire BP workers.
Jun 17, 2010 at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with hardin724. People should be responsible for their property. And, why are they not responding to the "Town" (not city) of Milton concerning their own property??
Jun 17, 2010 at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
SwissChick - are they not making themselves responsible in the first place for ordering the removal?
Jun 17, 2010 at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Looking at that link under public safety, I see no other listing for fire department. Is that money budgeted for that? You do realize that the "Town" and the "City" of Milton split the funding for the trucks, equipment, etc.
Jun 17, 2010 at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Once again, what "city" should be responsible for this? And, WHY should the government be responsible for somebody's personal property?
Jun 17, 2010 at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
These homeowners still own those properties, with out without flood damage. There should records of what safety hazards these properties are causing to other residents on the lake. The city should pay at least half if not all of the expense to remove the properties weather or not they’re inhabitable. The city has $185,000 put away for public safety (http://www.townofmiltonrc.com/budget/) so if that is why they want the houses gone, then that’s what they should use that money for. Heck, I’ll remove a house for $10,000 of that! lol
“The township’s got the authority to do (the removals), but it would be an expense that the township does not have budgeted. Hopefully, it don’t come to that,” he said. --- LOL – yes, hope it “don’t”
Jun 17, 2010 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Szymberski said the property owners association is willing to help the owners to remove their personal property, to look for funding for removing the buildings and to offer moral support."
Being one of the homeowners that signed the petition, I ask the commenters here to read the above passage. The only reason for the petition is that either the property owners can't be contacted or they haven't made an effort to clean up these hazards. The township is not responsible for personal property. The people are willing to help these homeowners as stated above. Quit relying on the government to mitigate your personal responsibilities.
Jun 17, 2010 at 8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
WeOwnTheSky - What city should this fall under??
.
Even if the lake level went down, these homes have been under water for 2 years. They would have to be razed anyway. They are obviously not habitable.
Jun 17, 2010 at 4:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Only if they spill some oil.
Jun 16, 2010 at 8:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Can they just throw a match on it like BP is doing with the oil in the gulf?
Jun 16, 2010 at 8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
It would have been a nicer article had it been 52 property owners offering resources and support to help remove the homes.
Jun 16, 2010 at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Without a disaster declaration, there are no federal flood mitigation funds available. That's what Janesville, Beloit, and a couple of the townships used already for the 2008 flood damage.
Jun 16, 2010 at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
at least they are offering "moral support" its bad enough they lost their home they also have to pay for it to be removed....very sad i think this should fall under the city if they want the buildings gone...
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.