flag image
Burlington Chocolate Fest

23 property owners want to be in village of Bloomfield

September 24, 2013 | 01:44 PM
BLOOMFIELD — The first village annexation request of the year has been made, and it involves almost 53 acres mostly along the northeast side of Daisy Drive.

On Sept. 9, a petition signed by 28 town of Bloomfield residents was filed with the village. It calls for direct annexation, and currently is on hold at the state Department of Administration (DOA) level.

"This was a unanimous consent annexation," Village Clerk Cindy Howard said on the phone Sept. 18.

According to the petition documents, 31 people live in the area — on 13 properties, a total of 52.91 acres.

The petition was signed and filed by Eugene and Mary Rush, N894 Daisy Drive.

(click for larger version)
Other property owners who signed it include Kenneth and Gaela Bergloff, N884 Daisy Drive; Brad and Ellen Bauman, N872 Daisy Drive; Jeffrey and Robin Hill, N856 Daisy Drive; Stephen Jacobsmeyer, N844 Daisy Drive; Edward and Marguerite Sylvester, N824 Daisy Drive; Edward and Jodie Yi, N814 Daisy Drive; Rose Lewallen, W916 Twin Lakes Road; Timothy and Lana Madole, N744 Highway H; Donna Jones, W943 Twin Lakes Road; Donald and M.G. Holden, W934 Twin Lakes Road; Marjorie Holden and Philip Robinson, N959 Daisy Drive; and Timothy and Lynn Zelinski, W942 Twin Lakes Road.

Once the petition was filed at the village clerk's office, it had five days to forward it to the DOA, which Howard said she did. Now, the DOA has 20 days to review it.

But she said the DOA has put the review on hold.

"The petitioners gave us individual maps and individual legal descriptions of their properties," Howard said. "The DOA wants one map and one legal description. So, it's on hold until they receive these two items, and then, I think, the 20-day review period will start. They're looking for a scale map with legal description."

The petition states that the land in question is contiguous to the village, that the annexation would create "no town islands," and the proposed annexation is necessary "to sustain continued services through the village, and to retain minimal municipal real estate taxes."

A smaller scale

Technically, it's not the first time the village of Bloomfield received an annexation request.

The first request was made two years ago, and it involved a much larger area.

The village tried to annex the entire town not long after the DOA certified the results of a referendum in which the majority of Bloomfieldians supported the incorporation of a roughly 12-square-mile region northeast of Highway H.

The DOA made the village incorporation official in December 2010.

However, on Jan. 23, a Walworth County judge dismissed the village's mass annexation request.

On Feb. 21, Bloomfield Village President Ken Monroe said he believed that decision "didn't give the people true democracy." He had said he wanted town residents to decide the outcome of the annexation request in another referendum election, which in that case would have been required.

But over the last several years, as village proponents worked to receive DOA approval, they had said they wanted to incorporate the entire town.

On Dec. 7, 2011, Monroe said that was the original intent of the village incorporation petition and "that's what the people asked for."

However, the DOA had ruled that the entire town did not meet all of the village incorporation requirements. Proponents reduced the size of their request, which is how the current village boundaries came to be.

On Feb. 21, Monroe was asked how village officials would handle future annexation requests.

"We will never turn anyone down who wants to be in the village," he said.

There wouldn't be a referendum to approve the Rush request. That approval rests with the DOA and the village board.

During a Sept. 18 phone interview, Monroe's position on annexation requests didn't change. He said he would support the Rush request, if it meets DOA approval.


Tags: Bloomfield-Genoa

Comments ()
Walworth County
Regional News