Posted on 06/24/2003 7:44:16 AM PDT by Darkshadow
Town of Cedarburg - Jim and Connie Helnore thought they did everything right in pursuit of their dream of building a home for themselves and one for their daughter and grandchildren.
|
Then the word came from the state Department of Natural Resources:
The land the Helnores had owned for 10 years, already built a house on and were about to build a second on amounts to a swamp and must be restored to a wetland. That means their house must go, along with the one they hope to build for their daughter, the Helnores fear.
"It's a terrible and tragic situation, a good example of government run amok," said Donald Murn, the Helnores' lawyer.
But the Helnores should have known they couldn't build on the land even before they bought it, according to a state attorney defending the DNR in a lawsuit filed by the Helnores.
"The maps marking them as wetlands pre-exist their purchase of the property. This is not something new that we're springing on them," Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg said in a telephone interview Monday.
Jim Helnore contends that the DNR position came to light only recently, after years of successfully receiving numerous permits for work on his property, including his own home, a gazebo, shed, pumphouse and installation of a pond.
He obtained the necessary permit for every improvement and was never informed that the DNR had any objections, he said.
Things started to unravel when he went to Ozaukee County to get a septic permit for his daughter's house and found that the DNR considers both properties to be wetlands.
"I wouldn't have bought the property if I'd known all this," he said. "It sure puts a sour note on our life."
And even though the DNR almost routinely issues after-the-fact permits to allow existing structures to remain, a DNR inspector told the Helnores in an October letter that it is "unlikely" they would get such a permit to bring their existing home into compliance.
As to the state's contention he should have known about the problems with his land, Helnore said he bought the property in 1993 only after a DNR staff person who came out to the undeveloped site told him it was buildable.
"A lady from the DNR came out and never left the street. She said it was OK," Helnore said, remembering back to July 16, 1993.
Three days later, however, the staffer wrote to Helnore telling him the second lot was completely wetlands.
She mailed a copy to the Town of Cedarburg, a copy to the county and a copy to Helnore's brother, but not to Helnore.
"I don't even know how she got my brother's address," Jim Helnore said.
He and his wife had a post office box at the time, and the letter was never forwarded to them by his brother, he said.
Even though he feels he has done everything right, Helnore said the mistakes of local and state government officials have cost him so much in legal expenses that he has taken out a mortgage on the property.
"I'd like to just get my permits and all the money back that I've paid out," Helnore said. "They all dropped the ball, and I'm sitting here in this big mess."
In addition to suing the state, Murn and the Helnores also have filed a notice of claim, a precursor to filing suit, against Ozaukee County. In that notice, the Helnores are seeking $600,000, roughly the value of the properties, Murn said.
Kloppenburg filed a motion on June 17 asking Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Tom R. Wolfgram to dismiss the lawsuit against the DNR.
Kloppenburg contends that the correct procedures for the Helnores to follow is to first seek a judicial review of the DNR opinion before they can file a lawsuit.
"The state has done nothing more than inform them that their property contains wetlands," Kloppenburg states inher motion.
Murn said that's all it would take for the Helnores to lose control of their property.
"Do you think anyone would buy this property with this hanging over their head? Would they be able to refinance through a bank? The DNR has already effectively taken the property through their action," Murn said.
In the suit against the DNR, the Helnores are seeking unspecified damages and legal costs and that the state either buy the properties or allow them to build the house for their daughter.
"Case law is pretty clear that if the DNR regulates a use out of existence so as to make a property useless, they've basically taken it and they have to pay for it," Murn said. "My common sense tells me they don't want the Helnores' house."
Get it in writing, me boy, get it in writing.
AND make sure the person writing it has the authority to do so.
I've been to Milwaukee...I don't think there are any!!!
Well, at least he was able to find a bank that was even more clueless than he was. Obviously the guy knew back then, that's why he brought the woman out there. He gambled, got lucky, got greedy and gambled again (second house), and crapped out.
Btw, all of Washington DC is built on a swamp. Something for the environuts to think about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Wetlands Dispute
I'd like to just get my permits and all the money back that I've paid out. They all dropped the ball, and I'm sitting here in this big mess. 
