Minutes 1-3-07 - Pierce County Home Page

Minutes are provided for informational purposes only. The official record can be obtained from the
County Clerk's office. All minutes are unofficial until approved. Minutes are generally approved at the
following meeting.
MINUTES
Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
January 3, 2007
Present: Don Nellessen, Jeff Holst, Patrick Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Emily Lund, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Paul Barkla
Chairperson D. Nellessen calls the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order
at 7:00 pm in the Pierce County Boardroom, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next meeting dates: February 7 th & 21 st , March 7 th and April 4 th , all in 2007.Pichotta suggests
eliminating the February 21 st meeting and doing his annual review at the February 7 th meeting.
All in agreement.
Approve Minutes: For the December 6, 2006 meeting. Harrington moves to approve minutes/
Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Public Hearing to request a conditional use permit for tree cutting in the Kinni River
Blufflands, for Susan Goode and Michael Miller, owners on property located in the SE ¼ of
the SE ¼ of Section 7, T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson
Nellessen invites Mr. Miller forward. Mr. Miller explains they would like to do a prairie
restoration project. They have some native prairie remnants on south and southwest facing slopes,
facing the Kinnickinnic River. They have been maintaining the area for about 10 years with
controlled burns. A couple areas immediately adjacent have been taken over by small cedar trees
and buckthorn shrubs. They’ve applied for a grant from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the
grant has been approved. So project would be funded through a grant to a private citizen like
themselves. Upon removal of the unwanted shrubs, they plan to reseed immediately with native
seeds and seeds they grow on their farm. Staff Report - Jim Kleinhans: In the past there have
been several people and the Kinnickinnic River Land Trust staff, who have asked what
requirements are needed for clearing or cutting trees in the Blufflands of the Kinnickinnic River
area. In 1998, the county adopted the Bluff land Overlay District so tree cutting along the Bluff
line protection area is allowed with a conditional use permit. Mr. Miller indicated that there are
some undesirable tree species growing on the area he’s trying to manage for native prairies. He’s
trying to encourage oak and cover types. By doing that it takes mechanical manipulation,
chemical treatment and periodic burning. Everything he has done in the past has been up away
from the bluffs and now he would like to work on the bluff faces. I visited the site with Mr.
Miller, and can see what he’s trying to accomplish. I read through the best management practices

handbook and talked with the DNR forester, Gary Zielske. Some of the area that is being
manipulated is in the Managed Forest Land Program. However, as long as Mr. Miller is
attempting to encourage a better tree stand and not manage it for prairie seed production it would
not compromise the Managed Forest Land program. Tree removal is considered removal of
merchantable timber and needs to be reported to the DNR regarding that program. They will be
using special removal equipment at the top of the bluff. The Town of Clifton approved this
request on December 5, 2006 without additional concerns. This project does not impact near
shore areas that would be regulated in the shoreland area. Staff Recommendations: Staff
recommends the Land Management Committee approve this conditional use permit for this
request which appears to be based on good land management techniques with the following
conditions:
1. All trees harvested and initial replanting will be completed within 12 months of this
approval.
2. Any land disturbance created by machinery on the bluff faces will be graded, seeded and
mulched within 24 hours.
3. Any potential merchantable timber removed will be reported to the WI DNR forester when
affected acreage is enrolled in the Managed Forest land program.
4. Chemical herbicide application of stumps will be applied topically.
5. Staff shall be notified after tree removal and planting has been completed to verify permit
compliance.
6. Notification of the Pierce County Sheriff and Solid Waste Departments before any burning
activity.
Chairperson Nellessen opens the hearing to the public. No public input. Public hearing
closed. Holst moves to approve the request for tree cutting in the Kinni River Bluffland
with conditions #1-6/seconded by Harrington. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss/take action on a request for an exception to the Nonmetallic Mining Policy by Louie
Filkins, agent for William F. Holst, III, owner, in the Agriculture-Residential and
Floodplain/Shoreland Districts located in Government Lot 2 of Section 3, Government Lots
1 and 2 and the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 10, T25N, R19W excluding C.B. & Q. RR
property in the Town of Diamond Bluff, Pierce County, WI. Jeff Holst recuses himself
from discussion and voting due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairperson Nellessen
invites Mr. Holst and Mr. Filkins forward. Mr. Filkins explains this request is for an exception
at the Morgan Coulee Mine Site. This request is for the ponding area, sedimentation basin and
infiltration basin between the Mississippi River Floodplain, Morgan Coulee Floodplain and the
property line. Adherence to the 100 ft setback requirement for the pond diminishes the size of the
pond. We’re requesting to have a 40 ft to 60 ft setback with high wall to control the storm water
off the site. Mr. Filkins has a larger map for anyone interested in viewing. Chairperson Nellessen
asks if this is being operated as a mine now and if there are existing homes in the area. Filkins
responds, No, once the detention pond is in place there will be no mining. He noted that there are

no homes within 1000 ft of the site. Harrington states that on November 20, 2002, the committee
adopted a policy stating that any new mines had to have a 100 ft setback and the committee
hasn’t deviated from that except for a Grandfathered mine. Mr. Holst states this is the ponding
site to catch sediment and water runoff - not the mining site. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr.
Holst and Mr. Filkins are requesting an exception to the Departmental Policy requiring a 100 ft
setback to property lines for Non Metallic Mining. On November 20, 2002 the Land Management
Committee adopted an updated Non Metallic Mining policy for the staff. Part of this policy
created a 100 foot setback to property lines. Mr. Holst is proposing to remove rock and create a
sedimentation basin within the 100 ft setback. By removing rock, a high wall ranging from 20 ft
to 60 ft in height will be left 40 ft from the property line. The settling basin will be adjacent to the
high wall. The existing slope of the area that will have the 60 ft high wall is approximately 3:1.
The proposed sedimentation basin is an integral part of the proposed operation. It will add to the
sites long term stability and decrease environmental pollution. The site is affected by the
floodplains of the Mississippi River and Morgan Coulee, however it appears that other viable site
design options are available. The 100 ft setback policy was established to protect public health
and safety. The committee has recently granted exceptions from the 100 ft setback policy in order
to eliminate a high wall on an existing mine. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the
Land Management Committee consider if this proposal warrants an exception to the departmental
policy prior to scheduling the public hearing for the proposed nonmetallic mining facility.
Chairperson Nellessen asks if the mining operation will be visible from the river? Filkins
responds the whole ridge along the river will be a buffer. Chairperson Nellessen asks how many
acres the operation is. Filkins states 20 to 25 acres. Sanden asks if this is in the floodplain of the
Mississippi River or Morgan Coulee? The dotted line is outside of the Mississippi but not 100 ft.
This dashed line marks the floodplain of Morgan Coulee. Chairperson Nellessen asks if the
neighboring property owners have any objections. Kleinhans states that they haven’t been
notified yet. This project has been under review and has taken different forms over the last six
months. Mr. Holst states that they have eliminated a whole phase so that it wouldn’t be visible
from the river. Filkins noted that along that property line, we used to have a slope that was 5:1
and ten feet from the river. We gained another 30 to 40 ft. The pond is about 20 ft deep and is
sized for the 100 yr storm. We’ve tried to make that the main feature on the site. Harrington asks
if this is being done to create a gravel pit or mine. Filkins states it’s for nonmetallic mining of
limestone. Sanden asks what are other viable options? Kleinhans states they could redesign it to
meet all the setbacks of the policy. They would have to put the sedimentation basin somewhere in
the confines of the quarry. Filkins states they could possibly lengthen the pond to the south and
make it narrower. To push it in another 60 ft, we would lose a lot of depth on the pond. Kleinhans
states the committee needs to consider justifying exceptions to the policy. Filkins states the policy
talks about mining and the setbacks but doesn’t say what the setback is to. The policy is vague
about the rest. The actual mining area will be 100 ft. Roy, the access roads haven’t been
considered but since rock is being removed and creating a high wall that’s why this is being
looked at. Sanden, what impact will this have on the river? Kleinhans states in the diagram there

is an overflow with a safety valve to come out into the floodplain. That’s the way it’s designed.
In a catastrophic event it’s going to come out there and head toward the river. The mining part
hasn’t been designed yet. We purposely brought this before you to deal with the runoff issue. Part
of that will be discussed when we get into the mining program, the function of the sedimentation
pond. It’s a difficult site to design and make it work. Sanden, If it isn’t a major issue, the second
thing to think about is the precedence it sets for future issues. Pichotta states for public health and
safety issues there isn’t much difference in a pond or mining site. It is what it is. Whether they are
actively mining there or not, it’s a high wall 40 ft from the property line. If you are comfortable
with that, it is a deviation from policy and should be justified. Harrington makes a motion to
reject the request for an exception to the 100 ft setback/Sanden seconds. All in favor with
Holst not voting. Motion passed.
Discuss/take action on a request for a rule exception to an erosion control plan for a Major
Certified Survey Map (CSM) recorded in V11 of Pierce County Certified Survey Maps,
P116, for Terrance and Cynthia Kusilek, owners, by Laurence Murphy, agent on property
located in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 20, T27N, R18W, Town of River Falls, Pierce
County, WI. Chairperson Nellessen invites Mr. Murphy forward. Mr. Murphy explains he is
representing the Kusilek’s. Staff visited the site with him and he believes that this site meets the
criteria the committee is looking for. Staff Report – Emily Lund: Mr. & Mrs. Kusilek are
asking for a rule exception to the erosion control plan for a 2-Lot Major CSM. They originally
created a 2 lot CSM and one of the lots they are splitting again. Surrounding land use is mostly
agricultural and residential. Since this parcel is located in the Town of River Falls, it follows their
zoning district code and was approved by the Town.
The following are questions and policy asks them to be answered for this type of rule exception:
1. No roads are being constructed as part of the land division.
2. No erosion problems are present on the property.
3. There are no problems with storm water or surface water flow on the subject property or
that originate on the subject property.
Applicant, Jerome Rodewald and staff visited the site on 9/18/06. The driveway access was
constructed and stabilized. Mr. Kusilek also stabilized much of the ditch on lot 3. The only
erosion noticed on the property was within the road right-of-way and the Town is going to fix the
drainage. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider
whether or not this situation warrants a rule exception. Sanden, this erosion is not a result of
anything they have done and the Town is going to fix it up. Should we not consider it erosion on
the property? Kleinhans, it’s not the property owner’s responsibility to take care of the road ditch.
Pichotta states typically a road ditch isn’t part of a lot. In some cases property lines go to the
center of the road but there is typically a roadway easement over them. Kleinhans, He did take
care of part of it. He did repair some of the road ditch from his driveway down toward a drainage
culvert. He has it all seeded down and it goes into a wetland area. The other area, he would need
equipment to repair. Jerome Rodewald states they have discussed it with the Town crew. It needs

some rip rap by a culvert. They did do some trimming on some trees. It’s not on the Kusilek
property per say. Holst moves to approve this rule exception due to the fact that it adheres to
policy regarding rule exceptions/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Motion passed.
Discuss/take action on a request for approval of a Major Certified Survey Map (CSM)
recorded in V11 of Pierce County Certified Survey Maps, P116, for Terrance and Cynthia
Kusilek, owners, by Laurence Murphy, agent, on property located in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼
of Section 20, T27N, R18W, Town of River Falls, Pierce County, WI. Mr. Murphy adds that
the 2 lots comply with the subdivision ordinance and the 33 ft easement has been recorded for 20
years. The neighbor, Glen Weiss, didn’t have access to his land up on top. The driveway will be
dual purpose for that and the house on lot 3. Staff Report - Emily Lund: The City of River Falls
ETZ exempts this CSM as it is over 5-acres in size. The Town of River Falls issued a driveway
permit on 8/4/06. Complete soil tests were evaluated by Mary Jo Hollister and mound septic
systems were recommended. Property is not in the Farmland Preservation Program. Pierce
County Surveyor, Bob Lannan, reviewed and approved the CSM. Survey review fees have been
paid. Staff Recommendation: If a rule exception has been granted to the erosion control plan
requirement, staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this major CSM.
Harrington asks if 910 th St is a town road. Mr. Murphy states yes. Sanden moves to approve the
2-Lot Major Certified Survey Map (CSM)/Harrington seconds. Jim Esler, Town of River
Falls property owner, distributed a series of maps regarding River Falls Township and raised
several issues regarding town zoning. Pichotta states he’s not sure this is the appropriate venue
for discussion of these issues as the Town of River Falls administers their own zoning. Regarding
the soil maps, I spoke with Corporation Counsel when it was updated by the NRCS. The
ordinance change was not necessary because NRCS maps were adopted by reference. Jerome
Rodewald states the Township Ordinance refers to the NRCS soil maps of the town without
dates. These are the official soil maps of the town. Chairperson Nellessen states there is a
motion on the floor. All in favor. Motion passed.
Discuss/take action on a resolution to accept land donation and purchase adjoining access
from John and Mary Heisler for the purpose of establishing a public recreation area.
Pichotta reports. Several years ago, John and Mary Heisler donated land located in the Town of
Gilman to Pierce County for recreational purposes. That was a 40 acre parcel off of Highway 29,
there is a sign and an interpretive trail there. The Heisler’s have now indicated a willingness to
donate additional land to Pierce County located in the Town of Martell with frontage on the Rush
River. The donation would be contingent on the purchase of an additional 3.46 acres located
along Highway 63. Access to the parcel with river frontage would be through the property to be
purchased. At the December 11, 2006 meeting, the Parks Committee approved a resolution that
would authorize acceptance of the parcel to be donated, as well as the purchase of the 3.46 acre
parcel for $14,000. County Park development funds would be utilized to purchase the 3.46 acre
parcel. Any unbudgeted park fund expenditure requires Land Management Committee approval.

If the Committee approves and Parks approves then it would be forwarded to the County Board
regarding unbudgeted expenditure of pre-use of the park fund. A copy of the resolution approved
by the Parks Committee, as well as additional background information and aerial photos, is
enclosed in the report. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee approve the draft resolution and authorize the use of park development funds to
purchase the 3.46 acre parcel which would be purchased for $14,000. Holst moves to approve
the draft resolution and authorize the use of park funds to purchase the 3.46 acre parcel/
Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Conditional use permit renewal for a dog kennel in the Town of El Paso
Ordinance Updates – Nonmetallic Mining by June ’07, Shoreland & Floodplain Ordinances, St.
Croix River Ordinance, Parking Area Design Ordinance
Performance evaluation of Administrator/Planner
Pichotta, For your information, the surveys went out in the mail last Wednesday and we’ve
received about 1,000 back, around 14%.
Motion to adjourn by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried. 8:05pm.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
February 7, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Emily Lund and Shari Hartung
Excused: Pat Harrington
Chairperson P. Barkla calls the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 pm in the Pierce County Boardroom, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next meeting dates: February 21 st , March 7 th and April 4 th , all in 2007. Andy suggests adding
March 21 st for a future meeting date. Sanden makes a motion to add the March 21 st meeting/
Holst seconds. All in favor, Approved.
Approve Minutes: For the January 3, 2007 meeting. Nellessen moves to approve minutes/
Holst seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Chairperson Barkla addressed those present regarding public hearing comments made at
tonight’s meeting; only one conversation at a time, turn off cell phones, address any
comments to the chairperson and state name and town of residence prior to speaking.
Public Hearing to request a rezone from General Rural to Light Industrial by Larry
Brenner, owner of a parcel of land located in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 33 T26N,
R16W, Town of El Paso, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invites Mr. Brenner
forward. Mr. Brenner explained that he purchased the land 12 years ago and has been planning
to start a small agri-business including a four acre vineyard and, in lieu of a winery, hosting a
weekly event called Vino in the Valley. This event would take place in an outdoor pavilion where
patrons can enjoy wine, warm bread and a pasta bar. Mr. Brenner showed an aerial photo
indicating the area that he plans to use for his business. Since this is located in the center of his
property, there are buffers all around. Unless someone drives by they wouldn’t be able to see it.
The reasons for the endeavor are to market his wine and fund the vineyards. He plans to build a
second pavilion for any neighbors interested in selling their produce at a Farmers Market. He
plans to hire neighbors if interested. Light Industrial allows him to stay in business without
having to go through renewal yearly. Chairperson Barkla asks about the hardiness of the
grapes. Mr. Brenner states the MN Horticulture Center is one of the leaders in producing grapes
that will survive. They have seven varieties that can survive minus 40 below.
Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: Applicant is requesting to rezone 4.71 acres to establish a

commercial endeavor that would include meal service in a pavilion, kitchen facilities, a gift shop,
a farm market, sanitary facilities (rest rooms) and a vineyard. The establishment of a vineyard is
considered an agricultural use and would not require the issuance of any special permits. The
Town was initially asked to react to a proposal to rezone this parcel from General Rural to
Commercial. Subsequently, they recommended approval of a rezone to Light Industrial due to the
fact that commercial uses are conditionally permitted in the Light Industrial District.
Noncompliance with established conditions would be grounds for termination of the conditional
use permit by the LMC. Additionally, any request for expansion or intensification of the
approved use would be subject to either modification of the CUP or the issuance of a new CUP,
depending upon conditions established at the time of approval. The Town of El Paso
recommended approval subject to a number of conditions. One of the recommended conditions is
a “sunset clause” for the zone should the use be discontinued. Although attaching a “sunset
clause” is problematic, County Code allows the Land Management Committee and the County
Board to limit allowable uses to one or more of the specific uses allowed permitted in that
district. Pichotta noted that the Town of El Paso had recently finalized a “Vision Statement” for
the town. A vision statement would give the town guidance by providing a measure with which to
gauge the appropriateness of a proposed land use. It should also be noted that the Town of El
Paso will, in all likelihood, begin development of a comprehensive plan in the near future.
Statutorily, all land use decisions made by a municipality after 2010 must be consistent with their
comprehensive plan. A copy of Town of El Paso Vision Statement, Resolution 2007-1 adopted
on February 5, 2007, was handed out and read. Chairperson Barkla asks if Mr. Pichotta knows if
proper notice of the meeting was given. Lester Heise, Chair Town of El Paso, stated that the
meeting notice was posted in three different places for 96 hours prior to the meeting. Pichotta
noted that although the proposed use could potentially be permitted as a Farm and Home Based
Business (through the issuance of a conditional use permit), the applicant recognizes that a rezone
would afford the project a more permanent and formal status. If permitted as a Farm and Home
Based Business the project would be considered accessory to the residential use of the property
and would be subject to periodic permit review and renewal and limitations on numbers of
employees and allowable square footage. Pichotta noted that the Light Industrial District is,
according to county code, established primarily for production, processing and assembly plants
that are operated so that noise, odor, dust and glare from such operations are completely confined
within an enclosed building. Traffic generated by these industries should not produce the volume
of traffic generated by heavy industrial uses. The district is also designed to accommodate
warehouse and limited commercial uses. (Commercial uses are permitted through issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit)
Pichotta reported that the Town of El Paso recommended approval of this request on December
11, 2006 with the following conditions attached (Conditional Use Permit)
1. Maximum open days of 45 per year.
2. Open no more than two (2) days per week.
3. Business open no later than 10:00pm with lights off no later than 11:00pm.

4. Sunset Clause – the Town of El Paso reserves the right to rezone the parcel
back to residential use if the business is retired. We ask that the County allow
Conditional use in the residential zones.
Pichotta discussed the “Town of El Paso Vision Statement” and noted that the Pierce County
Land Management Plan states that “Most commercial and industrial activity in Pierce County
will continue to be located in cities and villages where prepared sites and services are available.
The plan supports the future growth of cities and villages as commercial and employment centers.
The plan also identifies rural locations which have advantages, such as transportation, rail, and
existing businesses and are suitable for additional development. The Plan further states that:
Acceptable locations for future designation of commercial/industrial areas are at intersections of
major county and state roads, railroads, or adjacent to villages and cities in areas which are
consistent with local development plans.” The Plan also states that “the County will work with
towns to define exact boundaries as it becomes necessary,” and that specific use of a particular
site will be resolved between townships and the county.” As noted in the Pierce County Land
Management Plan, commercial and industrial development is typically located in areas served by
infrastructure (roads, etc.) adequate to handle the higher volume of traffic often generated by such
uses. Pichotta indicated that he has consulted with legal counsel and determined that, in cases
where a rezone is requested and public health and safety concerns relating to the proposed district
are apparent, the potential to “condition” the rezone upon the implementation of measures
intended to alleviate those concerns. “Spot Zoning” is defined as the rezoning of a lot or parcel of
land to benefit an owner for a use incompatible with surrounding land uses and that does not
further the comprehensive zoning plan. He noted that Section 240-80 of the zoning code gives the
Land Management Committee and Board of Supervisors the option to limit the use of land to one
or more specific uses permitted in a zoning district for which the map amendment is sought.
Pichotta also discussed site plan review, required landscape buffers around commercial and
industrial sites. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee
consider the information discussed above, as well as any information or concerns presented at the
public hearing, to determine the appropriateness of the proposed rezone.
Chairperson Barkla opens the hearing to the public. Brian Fitch, Town of El Paso, lives on
450 th Ave and is opposed to the rezone and project. We purchased the property from Larry
Brenner about 11 yrs ago and had no idea Mr. Brenner planned this sort of business having 200-
400 people a week on the Rush River area on the small country roads. This becomes a safety
issue; our property and driving home will be impacted negatively. Sharon Hills, Town of El Paso
states she is an adjacent property owner to Mr. Brenner with co-owner Becky Bersch. We
presented a petition to the Town Board with 25 neighbors who are in opposition to the proposal,
copies handed to Mr. Kleinhans. Ms Hills asks the Board to look at the Pierce County Code for
rezoning. Most of the area is General Rural Ag, there are four commercial zoned properties.
Those uses are much different than what Mr. Brenner is proposing. Two are on state highways
and one is compatible with the ag use. This area is a town road, very patchy and subject to
erosion. It’s not a county road. The Town initially denied the rezone stating that the Rush River is

not an appropriate use for a commercial use. The Planning Commission amended Mr. Brenner’s
petition from commercial to light industrial with a conditional use. The public health, safety and
welfare is adversely affected. There are only two ways in; Hwy 10 to 400 th St or Hwy 72 onto
gravel roads. That is not adequate public access for a commercial use. There will also be increase
public services needed and the taxpayers will pay for that. Water quality is trouble already, if we
add runoff from impervious surface, sewer for bathrooms and a kitchen. If you should vote for
this add conditions to keep it to what he was originally proposing; limit the days of the week, no
amplified music, no special events, weddings or live concerts. Donald Hines, I live up the valley
from Mr. Brenner. I contacted him because I wanted to see what he was proposing. A few years
ago my wife and I bought a bed and breakfast in Maiden Rock. With the zoning they have now,
we would have never been able to do it. It’s a thriving business. Pierce County has been trying to
promote tourism, Pierce County Partners in Tourism. Here is one way of doing that. Ron
Hendershot, I’ve lived on the Rush River for 37 years and it’s one of Pierce County’s pristine
treasures, help preserve it. Lynn Thomchek, my main concern is what kind of precedence will
this set. Others can have businesses and we could have them running every night of the week. It
won’t be tomorrow but down the road. Lester Heise, Chairman, Town of El Paso, I have to
defend our road. The state says it qualifies for 700 cars a day. During the fishing season there are
50 to 75 cars a day driving on them. Andy Schneider, lives in River Falls, states Mr. Brenner is
looking to rezone four acres of his 300 and keep the rest pristine. Between River Falls and
Hudson, there is no open land left pristine. The developing will continue, there is a holding tank
not a septic system. If his land gets developed it could be 20 homes and 20 septic systems. Scott
Brenner, Trimbelle, Larry’s brother received a letter from John Kaufhold, Kaufhold’s Kurds who
couldn’t be here. Mr. Brenner read the letter which was in favor of the project. He is asking that
the vote be based on everyone that would benefit not just the few people against it. Pichotta, I
received an e-mail from Don & Dorothy Armstrong stating they are against the rezone and would
like it to stay in farmland, ag use. They are concerned that if Mr. Brenner decides to sell in the
future, it is uncertain what happens with business. Paul Seeling, Gilman Township, states he has
owned a business for four years and has witnessed how the economy has ebbed and flowed away.
The farming economy has changed and tourism is going to be an important aspect to this area.
This program Mr. Brenner is proposing seems to fit the ag-tourism. Gerardo Cortez, El Paso
Township, an adjacent neighbor to Mr. Brenner, originally had a problem with this proposal but
stated he feels someone should be able to do what they want with their property within the terms
of the law. There are other commercial properties in the valley and it hasn’t had a negative impact
on the area. Public hearing closed. Sanden asks Mr. Brenner what his perspective is on the
project. Mr. Brenner states he has plans for a Thursday evening maybe 100 -200 people, May
through September. Then in October, a small pumpkin patch open on the weekends, sell
pumpkins, have spaghetti, a petting zoo. I’ve offered this to the neighbors to get them involved.
Maybe in December, sell Christmas trees and have hayrides. Sanden, the Town of El Paso has
looked at this for a year and given it full consideration. They are at the beginning of their
Comprehensive Planning process, the mission and vision statement is one in the same. The issue

of spot zoning and road conditions also is troubling. Would the Farm and Home Based Business
option work temporarily until the Town of El Paso has their “Vision Statement” complete? What
burden would that put on Mr. Brenner, would he just get up and running to find he couldn’t
continue? Pichotta, it likely could be permitted as a Farm and Home Based Business, it’s a little
different than the typical ones we see. Typically a farm and home business permit allows
someone to establish a business out of their home until such time as they need more than eight
employees or they need more than 5,000 square feet, at that time they would be expected to move
to a commercial or industrial district - this doesn’t fit exactly for that - but doesn’t necessarily fit
that well into the commercial/light industrial scheme either. If it were permitted as a Farm and
Home Based Business that would be a conditional use permit and there would be another hearing
such as this. What a conditional use is; is a use permitted in a given district with the potential for
offsite impacts. The LMC would identify conditions that would be necessary to mitigate any
negative off site impacts. The committee would have to turn down the permit if the negative
impacts were so great that they could not be mitigated. He would be limited to eight employees
and subject to periodic review. Also you can’t just pull a conditional use permit without a cause.
If a use is established as a conditional use, it does have rights. It would have to be a pretty
onerous violation for its permit to be pulled. Nellessen states that the tourism aspect would be
great for the county in terms of dollars. Every car in the state has a license plate and has paid for
the right to use any road in the state. Holst, I commend everyone here for debating civilly and
researching thoroughly. A lot of the things that have been discussed pertain more to site plan
review or a conditional use permit. I feel it would be a stretch to rezone because it isn’t an
expansion of an existing district, nor is it consistent with the county or town plans. It could be
argued that it’s a spot zone and opens the committee and county to liability. Mr. Brenner
explained that over the last few weeks, he has had more people encourage and support him and it
has made him more inspired to go forward with this project. Sanden, asks if a Farm and Home
Based Business was pursued, is that something that would be acted on tonight or deferred to
another night? Pichotta, a CUP for a farm and home business would be considered following
another separate public hearing. The issue of spot zoning comes down to this, Pierce County
Land Management Plan gives us guidance in regard to location of these types of districts, what it
says are locations on major highways and county roads, locations adjacent to infrastructure able
to handle the volume of traffic typically associated with commercial/light industrial uses. If the
Town had a Comprehensive Plan that provided clear guidance - it would eliminate the issue of
spot zoning if it was consistent with their plan. To argue that this is their plan and it is consistent
with that seems to be a stretch. This does give a little guidance but I would question whether this
would constitute a plan that would negate spot zoning concerns. As far as a Farm and Home
Based Business, it would require Mr. Brenner to go back to the Town, they would make their
recommendations and he would come back to the Land Management Committee with a
recommendation regarding the conditions they believe necessary for the business to take place.
The committee would have to take into consideration those conditions and decide if you were
going to attach them to the conditional use permit. Pichotta reminded the committee that whether

you recommend approval or denial of this request it will go onto the County Board - unless action
is deferred. Chairperson Barkla asks for the committee’s decision. Nellessen makes a motion
to approve the request for rezone, motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Brenner states that
his is withdrawing his application and that he will pursue a conditional use permit for a
farm and home business.
Chairperson Barkla calls a recess at 8:21pm. Meeting resumes 8:25pm.
Public hearing to request a conditional use permit for Filling and Grading in the Shoreland/
Floodplain District for James Edberg, owner, by Alan P. Hines, agent on a parcel of land
located in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15, T26N, R16W, Town of El Paso, Pierce
County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invites Mr. Alan Hines and Mr. James Edberg forward.
Mr. Hines explains Mr. Edberg would like to put a free span bridge across Cave Creek. They
have approval from the DNR and from the Corp of Engineers. He has a total of 73 acres, 60 acres
on the south side of the river which he would like to build a house on. It would be better to have a
bridge so he wouldn’t be driving through the creek stirring up sediment each time. Mr. Hines has
done a lot of work with the DNR on the St. Croix River and is very sensitive to the erosion and
runoff issues. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: Mr. Hines has been coming in the office for
several months now trying to get this going and talking to the Town and the DNR. They did issue
a general permit for this and the Corp of Engineers approved it based on getting all the proper
approvals. The property is actually divided by Cave Creek. The water shed above it is
approximately 21 square miles with a very high velocity. The steepness of the water shed can
provide velocities 5 – 7 feet per second in the vicinity of the road crossing. We need to be sure
what is put in the floodplain will stay there and be able to be stabilized. The potential backwater
effect of the designed bridge at this location may create one foot of backwater upstream which
will not impact adjoining properties due to Mr. Edberg’s parcel size. El Paso Township
recommended approval of this request during their Oct. 9, 2006 meeting. The erosion control
plan designed by Humphrey Engineering specifies both stream banks will be protected with
heavy duty silt fence prior to any land disturbance. Seeding and mulch will be applied within 7
days after final grades are established. A temporary seeding or nurse crop will accompany the
permanent seed mixture of #20 seed mix at 130 pounds per acre. The proposed project is to be
completed and stabilized by September 15, 2007. The approximate area of disturbance is 3600
square feet based on the analysis of the plan. The project is very close to Hwy 72 and has very
good access for machinery to get to the site. The construction schedule will include excavating to
create two concrete footings on each side of the creek where the proposed bridge will span the
creek and allow some filling from the road down to the bridge and from the bridge to the
proposed building site. The area is subject to severe flooding because of the nature of the
watershed, staff recommends that the erosion control be viable to handle up to 7.5 feet per second
in the area of bridge construction. The engineer should also establish a temporary bench mark on
the site so DNR staff and County staff can verify that the site is constructed per plans approved

here. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this
conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. Erosion control measures shall be maintained throughout the project until the entire site is
stabilized. Any damage to the stream bank shall be riprapped. Seeding and mulching of all
disturbed areas shall be completed according to plans and maintained until stabilized.
2. Construction debris, trees and excess soils leftover from this project shall be hauled away
and properly disposed of out of the floodplain.
3. The Land Management Department shall be notified when construction commences and
also after completion to verify permit conditions are adhered to.
4. The permit is valid for 12 months.
5. The proposed overflow located near station 12+00 should be armored with erosion control
product suitable for velocities in excess of 5 feet per second on the down slope portion of
the driveway.
6. The free span bridge should be set per the planned elevation with a benchmark established
on site.
7. The bridge footings shall be protected completely to the base with riprap.
Chairperson Barkla opens the hearing to the public. No public comment. Public hearing
closed. Sanden, manipulating the velocity of 5.4 to 7.5 feet per second, what does that do to the
character of the cold water creek? Kleinhans, the DNR can’t comment on conditions for a general
permit. The velocities that I’m concerned with are coming over the spillway. We want to ensure
that the soils filled in stay there and aren’t washed down stream. Holst makes a motion to
approve the request for filling and grading in the floodplain/shoreland district with
conditions #1-7/Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Motion passed.
Public hearing to request a conditional use permit for a Farm and Home Based Business for
health and wellness in the Primary Agriculture District by Heather Flock, owner on
property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 32, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell,
Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Ms Flock forward. Ms Flock explains she
has been teaching health and wellness classes for about a year and needs more space either with
expansion or a new building. Staff Report – Emily Lund: The Town of Martell recommended
approval at their June 2006 meeting. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land
Management Committee approve this conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. No more than 8 persons not residing on the site shall be employed in the business.
2. Home business shall not occupy an area greater than 5,000 square feet outside of the home.
3. The applicant shall delineate a minimum of 8 parking spaces for customer parking.
4. A sanitary permit will be required prior to issuing the land use permit and construction of
the new building.
5. The State Department of Commerce must review and approve the building plans prior to
Pierce County Land Use permit is issued and the Town building permit is issued.
6. The CUP shall be renewed every 2 years. Renewal may be completed administratively if

no complaints arise. The Land Management Committee shall act on the request for renewal
if complaints are received.
Chairperson Barkla opens the hearing to the public. No public input. Public hearing closed.
Sanden asks if any complaints have been received in the past year. Lund responds, none. Sanden
moves to approve the Farm and Home Based Business with conditions #1 – 6/Holst seconds.
All in favor. Passed.
Discuss/take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for a dog kennel
and training facility for Stuart E. West, owner, in the General Rural District located in the
SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 27, T26N, R16W, Town of El Paso, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Barkla invites Mr. West forward. Mr. West states everything is clean, he had
conflicting advice about the sound buffer, took the wrong advice, had poor establishment and is
dealing with burdock. The chemical treatment didn’t work and the pines didn’t survive the
onslaught of the burdock. A fence would not be aesthetic but less expensive. Putting in trees
would be more efficient. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: Mr. West is working on compliance
issues. We haven’t received any complaints about the operation. The Humane Society is no
longer around so it’s been difficult for Mr. West to get his reports. Staff Recommendation: Staff
recommends the Land Management Committee approve this conditional use permit for a farm
and home business with the following conditions.
1. Use of the shooting range may be reestablished contingent upon the placement of a fence
or other similar buffer. or
The use of the shooting range shall be discontinues until a vegetative buffer is established.
2. All dogs shall be housed within buildings by 9:00pm
3. Mr. West shall submit a copy of the American Kennel Club inspection report to the Land
Management Department.
4. All dogs shall be licensed with the Town of El Paso.
5. This conditional use permit shall be renewed again in 2 years. Permit may be renewed
administratively if no complaints are received.
Nellessen questions condition #1, shutting down the shooting range until the trees are
established? Mr. West explains he doesn’t have a problem with that. Most of the use is personal
rather than clients. Sanden moves to approve with conditions #1-5 choosing the second option
on condition #1; The use of the shooting range shall be discontinued until a vegetative
buffer is established. Holst seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss/take action on selection of a proposal to provide digitally acquired ortho imagery
for Pierce County. Pichotta reports: A request for proposals for ortho photography to support
the Wireless E911 Project for the Sheriff’s Department was recently distributed and two
responses received. Rand has been working with the Sheriff’s Department through our GIS
program. What’s left of the grant provides $36,000 toward the purchase of the imagery, the
remainder would be taken from the departments GIS budget. The primary use is the GIS to locate

and verify the positional accuracy of road centerlines, address points and geographic features.
The new imagery will be 1 foot pixel versus the 1 meter that we currently have. The two
proposals; one is for $44,040 and the other is $44,415 are both very similar. Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends, due to the similarity of the proposals, the lowest cost
proposal be approved contingent upon the execution of a contract. If we weren’t able to come to
terms with a contract we would go with the other bid. Sanden moves to approve the Horizons
bid contingent upon the execution of a contract/Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss/take action on proposed revisions to § 240 (Zoning Ordinances). Jim Kleinhans
reports: I’m requesting the committee consider the proposed changes to the definitions for
industrial and light industrial in the zoning code. Sanden asks if there are any model ordinances
that provide performance standards for Heavy Industry. Pichotta states that we typically cannot
just insert boilerplate language as each ordinance is typically structured differently. The proposed
changes do make sense because the definitions that we currently have suggest some things are
allowed that really aren’t. Holst moves to approve the proposed revisions to § 240 /Sanden
seconds. All in favor. Passed. Pichotta states that the understanding is that a public hearing
won’t be scheduled specifically for this item but when there are other things it will be
brought forward. Committee agrees.
Discuss/take action on proposed Departmental Policy regarding minimum landscaping
requirements. Jim Kleinhans reports: The zoning code states that “Parking lot landscaping
design shall be done in accordance with minimum landscaping requirements in the zoning
office.” There aren’t any standards so we are proposing some. This would help when we don’t get
detailed plans. We also need some guidance for parking space size. We have them for handicap
accessible but not for commercial loading docks. I have proposed some standards. Under parking
requirements we might want to change the word area to space, area could describe the entire
parking lot. Under screening we may want to use vegetation earthen berms and or fencing. Also
we might include some language on effective screening measures be maintained in good
condition. The other issue to bring forward would be the lighting standards. We’ve had some
problems on adjacent residential areas. These could be more specific or general. We have a
reference in the code but no standards to go by. Holst, Native vegetation should be utilized when
at all practical. Sanden asks about a cowling around the lights. Kleinhans states that he has
shielding in the policy. Discussion whether to adopt now or bring back before committee at a
later date. Pichotta suggests that this policy could be adopted as amended and brought back with
other policies should changes be necessary. Nellessen asks about the vegetation around parking
lots, shouldn’t we have clear vision for safety and police protection. Pichotta stated that we’re
certainly not going to have screening that is contrary to protecting public health and safety. This
doesn’t take the place of site plan review, as the committee will still conduct site plan review.
Sanden moves to adopt the proposed ordinance as amended/Holst seconds. All in favor.
Passed.

Discuss/take action on classification of unclassified use per § 240-21(B)(3) Jim Kleinhans
reports: A potential property owner in the Town of Hartland wants to rent out a single family
residence on a commercial basis - short term, on weekends for groups of up to 16 people to work
on hobbies and crafts. This is a one acre parcel. It doesn’t work as a boarding house or bed and
breakfast because she doesn’t live there. It doesn’t work as lodging because it isn’t zoned
commercial. I have a number of concerns regarding parking spaces and the size of the sanitary
sewer. I couldn’t make it work in the zoning codes. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends
the committee consider:
1. Whether such use warrants special regulation;
2. Whether the proposed use can be regulated through existing language and if so, under
which ordinance provision it should be regulated or
3. Whether an ordinance amendment to create a new classification and/or regulations is
warranted.
Do we offer enough options or do we need another conditional use permit or maybe an ordinance
amendment for another type of lodging? Another applicant asked to do this for a bunk house and
we couldn’t do anything for him. Holst, the very size of this parcel limits it, but that doesn’t mean
it couldn’t happen in another place. Pichotta suggests another type of conditional use permit
process might be appropriate to address some of these things that we are seeing. Another
classification or mechanism for some of this issues that don’t fit our current ordinance. Sanden,
does a Farm and Home Based Business work for this. Pichotta, that’s a minimum of 5 acres and
the use would need to be accessory to the residential use. We need something that would be a
classification or fourth option that doesn’t kick the door wide open. Holst states he sees more of
these things coming before us. Chairperson Barkla, Staff is being directed to come up with a new
mechanism with which to address these uses through a conditional use permitting process.
Discuss/take action on refilling of vacant part-time Zoning Secretary position. Pichotta
reports: This half-time position has been vacant since Jan. 1 st following the resignation of Joy
Olson. This position has been in existence since 1990 and funding for the position is included in
the Department’s annual budget and staffing plan. As the duties of this position include
answering questions and issuing Land Use Permits, it is important that the individual be “up to
speed” prior to the beginning of the construction season. Staff Recommendation: Staff
recommends approval to fill the part-time zoning secretary position. Chairperson Barkla states
this issue was before Finance and Personnel on Monday night and was approved contingent upon
the approval by this committee. Nellessen makes a motion to approve refilling the part-time
Zoning Secretary position/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Conditional use permit renewal for Wieser Concrete in the Town of Maiden Rock
Performance evaluation of Administrator/Planner

Motion to adjourn by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried. 9:24pm.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
February 21, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Shari Hartung, Jerry Kosin (Supervisor District 15)
Excused: Pat Harrington and Don Nellessen
Chairperson P. Barkla calls the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 pm in the Pierce County Boardroom, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next meeting dates: March 7 th , 21 st and April 4 th , all in 2007.
Approve Minutes: For the February 7, 2007 meeting. Holst moves to approve minutes/Sanden
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss/take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for nonmetallic
mining by Wieser Concrete in the Industrial, General Rural Flexible and Exclusive
Agriculture Districts in Sections 4, 9 and 10, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County,
WI. Chairperson Barkla invites Marlin Mears forward. Mr. Mears stated everything is
proceeding as it has been for the past few years. He is here to answer any questions anyone has.
Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: This is a request for renewal for nonmetallic mining in the
Industrial, General Rural and Exclusive Agriculture Districts. Mining operations are primarily
located in the Exclusive Agriculture zones. The original conditional use permit was issued in
1992. Reclamation plans and fees have been submitted for pits 1 and 2. Pits 3 and 4 have been
issued by DNR Chapter 30 permits which covers reclamation. There are no major changes
planned. Review fee calculation is $1,006. Staff contacted Paul Shingledecker, Town Chairman,
who previously stated they wanted some say in the renewal process. He indicated that the Town
hasn’t received any complaints and supports the permit renewal. At the previous renewal there
were issues regarding the Reclamation Plans and Bonds. These issues have been resolved.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee renew the
conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. Renewal fee in the amount of $1,006 shall be submitted to the Land Management
Department.
2. All required permits shall be kept current with the DNR.
3. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed in 2 years.
Holst moves to approve the conditional use permit renewal with conditions #1-3/Sanden
seconds. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss/take action on proposed policy regarding Driveway and Access Inspection
Methodology and Fee. Pichotta reports: Driveway access inspections are typically initiated by
public requests or on-site investigations to verify compliance with the Zoning Code. Typically
any issue is in relation to the grade. Often, people attempt to punch in driveways that are in
excess of the required 12% maximum. We also require that all driveways be sloped down from
the road edge for at least 20 feet from the road edge, so the elevation of the driveway is at least 6
inches below the road at a point 20 feet from the edge of the road. In some cases, staff has been
asked to make multiple trips to the same site to evaluate work being completed and has been
asked to advise the contractor on compliance strategies. The cost of multiple visits to a single
site, as well as challenges by the site owner or contractor to the methodology used to determine
slope, have necessitated the need for a policy regarding methodology. The contractor will
typically argue that we should take the top point of the driveway and the bottom and average if
it’s less than twelve percent that would be fine. What you could have is 7% – 8% in one area and
then 15% for another stretch and still have a 12% average and we don’t want that. We want to
make sure public health and safety concerns are met and that ambulance and fire trucks can get
up someone’s driveway, even in inclement weather.
Methodology:
Surveying to ascertain slope typically begins at the intersection of an existing road with the newly
constructed driveway. Elevations are taken at the following locations:
Edge of a gravel road or edge of blacktop road (This will begin our profile at zero
distance.)
Top of the culvert or top of existing utility box for benchmark reference
20 feet from the road edge to comply with § 240-57.I.
25 feet from the road edge and 25 ft increments of measure along driveway centerline
until
level ground or garage is reached to have consistency with § 240-57.H.
Establish elevations of existing culverts or other features that may affect the driveway
construction.
Distance from road edge and elevation data is gathered
Data is either profiled on-site or in the office. Data is presented either by hand drawn and
written or by computer spreadsheets and plotted graphs.
Percent slope is determined by taking the rise in elevation over the run in distance and
multiplied by 100%. For example, (3 feet rise/25 feet run) x 100% = 12%. Therefore,
where the land is over 12%, or over 3 ft rise in every 25 feet, the slope needs to be
reduced.
Staff will identify where the driveway is over 12% slope, but will not identify how to
make improvements.
Staff will advise the contractor or landowner options—regrade or variance appeal to
Board of Adjustment under § 240-57.H.

There have been several occasions when we have been out on a site four or five times and
basically suggested to an excavator how to achieve 12% instead of him coming up with it and
that’s not the position we want to be in.
Fees
A site assessment fee will not be charged for two site visits, but each visit thereafter will be
subject to a $100 fee, per Resolution 04-16 (Miscellaneous Uses/Other). Payment of this fee will
be the responsibility of the party requesting the site visit.
The reason for the fee being the responsibility of the party requesting the site visit, we don’t want
any confusion over who is going to pay for it. Holst suggested charging the fee after one visit.
The contractors have transits and can figure out the slope. If they want you to inspect it, that’s
fine. Jerome Rodewald, River Falls, asked if our driveway requirements have information
regarding the vision triangle. Pichotta, yes we do have standards. Rodewald, River Falls starts
from the paved surface and gives site distance, but if there are trees in the way they can interfere.
We need to include something like that. Holst stated you may not want it from the 33 foot mark
or the township may have to maintain the right of way. Sanden moves to approve the proposed
driveway and access policy amending the number of visits to one site visit without being
charged/Holst seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss the Future of the Land Management Department. Chairperson Barkla indicated that
in the spirit of transparency he is moving this item before the closed session item. Barkla stated
that a number of us have watched events transpire in the past year and a half. Mr. Pichotta has
been a good soldier in the undertaking and overseeing of the Land Conservation Department until
the memorandum of understanding has been finalized. We’re at that point. Tomorrow, Mr. Kosin,
Ms Schilling, Mr. Pittman, Mr. Kephart, Mr. Lawrence and I will meet and take some action on
the memorandum of understanding. I would suggest now would be an appropriate time to
consider whether a restructuring of land use programs including Land Management, Land
Conservation and Parks might achieve economy in county government. Holst I see places where
these departments are quite similar and we could utilize individual strong points. Mr. Pichotta’s
strong points are dealing with the committees and isolating himself from political issues.
Chairperson Barkla stated he talked with Supervisor Mike Larson about better utilization of
employees. Mr. Larson stated that you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket. Sanden, not
having the benefit of being on as many committees and seeing the inner workings of each office,
I’m not sure I have the full picture. There’s always efficiency in streamlining. Kosin stated he
would like to see Andy continue to direct both but feels he should have some help and feels this
should get going before a new board is voted in. Chairperson Barkla, with the merger between
Public Health and Human Services there was no pre-planning. This is a good idea but it’s prudent
to have staff get together, also county board members, as long as there isn’t a quorum, about the
positive things and the drawbacks to come up with a recommendation by June. Holst, there are
other departments that could be looked at for this same type of restructuring. This could be the
leader and needs to be investigated to see if it could work. Government doesn’t work as well as it

could. If you have employees with certain managerial skills, we should utilize them to their
potential. Our Planner could be used instead of hiring consultants. Chairperson Barkla, We don’t
want to get into the habit of exploiting or overburdening employees. Holst stated he believes
Andy has a unique capability of letting you know when he can’t get the job done. It could also
allow for better utilization of personnel by merging the departments. Barkla suggested that this is
a good place to start the idea of looking to bring economies and reorganization to the county.
Holst, we need to work with the Land Conservation Committee or it isn’t going to work. They
have had six or seven months of seeing what could come of this and perhaps their mindset has
altered some. Chairperson Barkla, as long as it’s very clear that staff also has to be involved in
discussions and that they feel their concerns have been met or it could be sabotaged. We will also
have to take a look at the committee structures. There doesn’t have to be a Land Conservation
Director but there does have to be a Land Conservation Committee. Kosin feels the Land
Conservation Committee would agree with this now. Chairperson Barkla asks Mr. Kosin to take
this recommendation back to the Land Conservation Committee and let them think about it.
Kosin states he hasn’t heard any complaints and feels they need someone over there at least part
of the time. Jerome Rodewald, Town of River Falls, praised Andy for being very helpful and a
good communicator. If you make a bigger job for him, a type of promotion, it may keep him here
longer. It does work to combine departments. Chairperson Barkla suggests that Mr. Kosin should
get something on the agenda for the Land Conservation Committee. The staff from the Land
Conservation Department has been looking toward the target date in May and are going to expect
things to happen. Kosin, the next Land Conservation Committee meeting is set for March 22,
2007. Pichotta questioned at what point does Finance and Personnel get involved? Chairperson
Barkla, all the departments and committees need to be involved with discussions. If Land
Conservation doesn’t agree to this, it wouldn’t even go before Finance and Personnel.
Chair will entertain a motion to go into closed session pursuant to WI § 19.85(1)(c)
considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any
public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises
responsibility; to-wit: performance evaluation of the Administrator/Planner. Holst makes a
motion/Sanden seconds. Roll call vote in favor. Barkla, yes. Holst, yes. Sanden, yes. Passed.
Convene into closed session at 7:45pm.
Motion by Holst/seconded by Sanden to return to open session at 8:08 pm. Roll call vote.
Motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Holst/seconded by Sanden to approve a step increase for the Land Management
Administrator based upon a satisfactory annual review. Motion passed unanimously.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Conditional use permit for a monopole communication tower in Town of Clifton

Conditional use permit renewal for Monarch Paving in Town of Trenton
Review and Approval of Town of River Falls ordinances
Motion to adjourn by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried. 9:00pm.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
March 7, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen, Eric Sanden and Pat Harrington
Others: Jim Kleinhans, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Excused: Andy Pichotta
Chairperson P. Barkla calls the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 7:00
pm in the Pierce County Boardroom, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next meeting dates: March 21 st and April 4 th , all in 2007. Holst moves to set next meeting dates for
March 21 st and April 4 th , 2007/Harrington seconds.
Approve Minutes: For the February 21, 2007 meeting. Holst moves to approve minutes/Harrington
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit to construct a 180 foot monopole
communication tower in the General Rural Flexible-8 District for Pierce County and the State of
Wisconsin on a parcel of land located in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36, T27N, R20W, Town
of Clifton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invites Lt. Mike Knoll forward.
Lt Knoll explained that Pierce County has entered into a partnership with the State of WI, Dept of
Transportation, specifically the WI State Patrol, and is proposing to take down the lattice tower the
County owns now and replace it with a 180 ft monopole. The usage would be shared by both Pierce
County and the State of WI. Harrington, have all residents located within 1320 ft signed off on the
tower? Lt Knoll stated three waivers are outstanding; Jason Holz, Mr. & Mrs. Seifert and Mr. Krueger.
Mr. Krueger is out of town.
Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: This is a two acre property located in the Town of Clifton. The
property where the existing tower is located is zoned General Rural Flexible-8 Communication towers
are permitted in the GRF district with a conditional use permit. This is a shared tower with the State of
WI. They are proposing to increase the height by approximately 40 ft and replace the existing guyed
tower with a monopole tower, which is preferred by the county’s zoning code. The Town of Clifton
Supervisors recommended approval of this tower request during their February 6, 2007 Town Board
meeting. The existing site communicates with towers in the Village of Ellsworth, Town of River Falls
and Spring Lake and two other sites; one in Stockholm and one on Prairie Island. The structure is being

expanded to accommodate digital equipment as well as other public agencies. This is a noncommercial
tower operated by units of government. The preference is not to allow private users on the facility for
security reasons. The tower may not require abandonment since the use is for security purposes and the
technology the County uses with the two-way radio system would require that this tower be there
perpetually. It’s not like private cell towers that may go to satellite if communications technology would
change. I just received a copy of the formal agreement between the County and State of WI. This
twenty-five year agreement was signed a year ago between the Dept of Transportation and the County.
The Dept of Transportation will construct the 180 ft monopole facility, the county will own the property.
If the Dept of Transportation were to tear down the tower or discontinue the use, there would be
notification to all parties within 270 days from the day of termination. At that time, the County would
have first right to purchase the tower. The Dept of Transportation will be responsible for maintaining the
tower, including annual inspections. Under item 19 in the contract it states, The WI DOT may provide
space to other public entities on its tower and in it’s building for public safety and other
telecommunication purposes with the consent of the County. WI DOT may also provide space for a
private third party on its tower or in its building or in separate equipment buildings for
telecommunication purposes but under separate agreement duly executed by WI DOT, the County and
the third party. If that were ever to occur the type of facility that we’re permitting tonight may require a
different conditional use permit. The site plan included with this application shows the existing tower
with the guyed lines and the proposed tower. The site is on top of Dills Mound which is about 1052 ft
above sea level providing a good location for a tower. The site is buffered fairly well with trees. There
are homes within 1320 ft of this location but aren’t any directly adjacent to the tower site. We received a
nonhazard study from Federal Aviation Administration completed last October specifying this tower
doesn’t require additional lighting. Commercial towers require a setback of 50 ft plus the height of the
tower but the zoning code exempts noncommercial towers from property line setbacks. The code does
not exempt the tower from locating within 1320 ft of offsite residences without a waiver. The towers
foundation is going to be set on weathered bedrock and there was some discussion through e-mails about
the footings. The footing plans were not submitted yet. I’m assuming they are going to put spread
footing in which is 30 ft in diameter which is typical of most cell phone towers we’ve seen. There will
be an annual inspection performed by the DOT and the county typically would be provided copies of
those inspections. Land use permits are issued for all commercial towers for a fee according to the fee
schedule. This fee is something the committee may consider as this is a noncommercial tower that may
deviate from the commercial tower fee schedule. The staff report addressed the proposed schedule for
installation of the facility. Of the five individuals that live within 1320 ft of the tower; two have
responded, one was at the Town meeting and Mr. Krueger was recently sent a letter but is out-of-town. It
would be prudent for the committee to either issue the conditional use permit contingent upon receiving
waivers from all the residents within 1320 feet or deferring action on this request.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee take action of this
conditional use for this tower subject to the following conditions:
1. A land use permit will be issued for the tower and renewed annually thereafter along with
a facility status report to be submitted by January 31. Suggest tower fee deviation provided
commercial users will not utilize this facility.
2. The tower shall be constructed without causing negative physical impacts to nearby

esidences.
3. The tower has a surety for abandonment approved by Corporation Counsel.
4. This permit is valid for a 12 month period to construct the tower.
5. The tower facility shall be grounded with the most current electrical grounding
technologies.
6. Pierce County and the State of WI must correct any electrical interference caused by this
tower facility for adjoining landowners.
7. The tower shall be a monopole structure and painted light blue in color.
8. Ensure the surrounding residents within 1320 ft sign the required waiver prior to
construction.
Public hearing open. No public hearing. Closed the public hearing. Sanden asked if there is any
precedent for setting the tower fee. Other examples where there is noncommercial towers, how do you
charge for those? Kleinhans, stated that we don’t have any and haven’t permitted any noncommercial
towers. Sanden asked how much time is it going to take for staff compared to commercial towers. Holst,
I have a hard time deviating from the rules we hold the public to. Harrington, why is the permit only
valid for 12 months. If there is a tower there already, what’s the deviation for this tower? Kleinhans,
stated conditional use permits by ordinance you are allowed twelve months to establish the use, actually
the use is already established but the tall tower isn’t there. They need more space to put the footprint in,
the fencing will be expanded and this is a much better facility. Holst moves to defer the conditional
use permit at the present time until all property owners have signed the waiver. Harrington
seconds. Sanden asked if the anchor plans have been submitted? Brian Hudson replied this is a self
supporting tower where there are no anchors. Arlen Ostreng, with Edge Consulting, the engineer
working for the State, stated this job will be bid out for contract so the foundation isn’t designed at this
time. Sanden, stated this seems like there are two parts that need to be completed yet. Mr. Ostreng stated
the plans for the footing will be a spread footing, a rectangular pad, three feet thick, possible 30 ft x 30
ft. We tried to do a drilled pier, caison footing but because of the bedrock up there it’s not possible to do
that. It may be 30 ft by 30 ft square or 25 ft by 25 ft square. It’s going to be buried below grade out of
sight. Holst, you don’t have the neighboring residents consent and you’re coming to us without an
engineered plan. Mr. Hudson, The tower and the footings all have to meet the current DIHL code. Holst,
we need to hold you to the same requirements that we expect from private citizens. Kleinhans, typically
commercial buildings have Dept. of Commerce approval for foundations prior to the total building
approval completed. Chairperson Barkla stated we have a motion to defer and a second on the floor.
Holst, Harrington, Barkla and Sanden in favor. Nellessen against. Motion passed.
Discuss/take action on a request for renewal of conditional use permits for Monarch Paving for an
Asphalt Plant on property located in Section 34, T25N, R18W and for nonmetallic mining on
property located in Section 28, T25N, R18W, all in the Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Barkla invites Chad Kelley forward. Staff Report –Brad Roy: The mining operation
was originally permitted in 2001. The sand and gravel extraction operations commencing in 2001 were
expected to provide materials for the asphalt plant for 5 to 8 years. Permitted hours of operation are
6:00am to 6:00pm Monday through Friday 8:00am to 6:00pm on Saturday during the construction

season. The haul route for commercial trucks is from the pit entrance on County Road K to Hwy 35
towards the asphalt plant. No traffic is recommended along County Road K. The haul road was paved to
reduce and address airborne dust concerns. DNR Bureau of Air Management regulates crushing and
screening operations for ambient air quality. Equipment for the operation includes 1 backhoe, 1
bulldozer, 2-3 scrapers, 1-3 haul trucks used for overburden removal and reclamation. The processing
equipment include 1 crushing and screening plant, 1 portable generator, 1 or 2 front end loaders, and 1 to
4 conveyors/stackers. The county has received no formal complaints about this operation.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee renew this conditional
use permit for a nonmetallic mining operation with the following conditions:
Note: Conditions have been reworded to reflect current Departmental policies and language.
1. The performance bond shall be maintained for this facility.
2. Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits from other
agencies.
3. Hours of operation are from 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday through Friday and 8:00am to
6:00pm on Saturday during the construction season.
4. The haul route for commercial trucks is from the pit entrance on County Road K to Hwy
35 towards the asphalt plant.
5. The applicant shall notify the Zoning Office if groundwater is encountered.
6. Applicant shall comply with DNR NR 135 Annual Reclamation Permits.
7. Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans.
8. Applicant agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues shall be addressed to the satisfaction
of the county.
9. This CUP shall be reviewed for renewal in two years.
Mr. Kelley stated he is requesting renewal of both pits on County Road K. Sanden asked if they are able
to meet the conditions. Mr. Kelley stated yes. Nellessen asked if they are the same conditions as before
and have there been any complaints. Roy stated no.
Holst moves to renew the conditional use permit for nonmetallic mining with conditions #1 – 9/
Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Renewal of conditional use permit for a Hot Mix Asphalt Plant.
Staff Report –Brad Roy: This operation was also permitted in 2001. On the original permit this site
was permitted for Nonmetallic Mining and a Hot Mix Asphalt Plant. The Nonmetallic Mining use was
never established and therefore that permitted use has expired. This renewal is only for the Hot Mix
Asphalt Plant. This facility is closer to a high concentration of residential properties as compared to the
nonmetallic mining site on County Road K and Hwy 35. The potential for impacts is greater due to the
nature of hot mix plant operations. The original permit conditions included the establishment of a

vegetative berm around the facility that is being maintained and will require more time to become
completely effective. At the previous renewal a transportation route was designed for Minnesota
projects. Trucks traveling to Red Wing shall be routed from 830 th Ave to Hwy 35 to Hwy 63. This route
limits the impacts to the town roads. The county has received no formal complaints about this operation.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee renew this conditional
use permit with the following conditions:
Note: Conditions have been reworded to reflect current Departmental policies and language.
1. The performance bond shall be maintained for this facility.
2. Reclamation shall be according to submitted plans.
3. The hours of operation are from 6am to 8pm Monday through Saturday.
4. The haul route for trucks traveling to Minnesota projects via Red Wing shall be routed
from 830 th Ave to Hwy 35 to Hwy 63.
5. Applicant agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues shall be addressed to the satisfaction
of the county.
6. Height of stockpiles shall be limited to 35 feet.
7. This CUP shall be reviewed for renewal in two years.
Mr. Holst asks Mr. Kelley if they have kept the stockpiles at 35’ or below. Mr. Kelley responded that
they have.
Holst moves to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for a hot mix asphalt plant with
conditions # 1 - 7/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss/take action on review and approval of the Town of River Falls ordinances; Soils (Ord.
2007-02), Right to Farm (Ord. 2007-01), Public Notice (Ord. 2007-04) and Small Wind Electrical
Generation Towers (Ord. 2007-03). Jim Kleinhans reports: Petition to create Town of River Falls
Ordinance 2007-3 Small Wind Electrical Generation Towers. Mr. Kleinhans stated that he had received
comments on this ordinance from Focus on Energy and the Town on River Falls since the request was
originally submitted. This ordinance was fashioned from a model ordinance developed and partially
funded by the WI Focus on Energy. The ordinance was established to regulate smaller wind generation
facilities, generally less than 100 kilowatt capacity and 170 ft in total height. The town modified the
model code to better suit their concerns about this type of land use. The modifications generated three
concerns from Focus on Energy staff. Those three issues concern tower setbacks, access and engineering
approval.
River Falls Code
Setbacks: A wind tower for a small wind system shall be set back a distance equal to its total height
multiplied by a factor of 1.1 from:

1. Any public road right-of-way, unless written permission is granted by the governmental
entity with jurisdiction over the road;
2. Any overhead utility lines, unless written permission is granted by the affected utility; and
3. All property lines, unless written permission is granted from the affected land owner or
neighbor.
Each Wind Energy System shall be setback from the nearest residence and places of public assembly, a
distance of no less than two (2) times its total height unless written permission has been obtained from
the owner of such structure.
Model Ordinances
Setbacks; A wind tower for a small wind system shall be set back a distance equal to its total height
from:
a. Any public road right-of-way, unless written permission is granted by the governmental
entity with jurisdiction over the road;
b. Any overhead utility lines, unless written permission is granted by the f=governmental
entity with jurisdiction over the road;
c. All property lines, unless written permission is granted from the affected land owner or
neighbor.
The increased setback standard of 1.1 times the total tower height and 2 times the height to a residence
or places of public assembly provides a buffer and safety factor against tower failure, ice buildup,
generator noise, etc. Comments from Focus on Energy said that there is no evidence for the increased
setbacks based on public health and safety and that the burden of proof is on the municipality to show
that the added setbacks are needed and not on the applicant to disprove. The Town of River Falls
responded by saying that the ordinance is insufficient as it does not require base design or the likelihood
of a tower to pivot as it tips over. The county ordinance is arbitrary in adding 50’ regardless of the
tower height. They feel the 1.1 factor allows reduced setbacks for shorter towers and the 1.1 factor was
taken from the model ordinance of large wind energy systems. A second issue of concern is tower
access. The proposed Town ordinance requires that an 8 ft high nonclimbable security fence be erected
around the tower base if the tower is on climbable lattice construction. A fence is required only if the
tower is climbable. The model ordinance did not include this. Focus on Energy understands the concern
but does not think there is any evidence to justify that requirement. The Town of River Falls wants to
provide consistency with their regular communication tower ordinance. The third issue of contention
was regarding structural design and installation of a tower under supervision of a WI licensed engineer.
Focus on Energy stated that such structures have been engineered by the staff of the manufacturers of
the tower and wind turbine and such businesses must satisfy the safety requirements of their own
insurance company. The Town of River Falls agrees to striking WI. from licensed engineer for design
but would require a WI licensed engineer for installation. Staff found inconsistencies within the Town

of River Falls ordinance and recommended changes. The Town has required one million dollars of
insurance; staff had determined that amount is customary and adequate. E. Sanden discussed setback,
security and engineering issues.
Mr. Holst moves to defer action on this ordinance and send back to the Town of River Falls for
revision, seconded by Mr. Sanden.
Jerome Rodewald from the Town of River Falls acknowledges the inconsistencies in the ordinance and
stated that they will be corrected.
All in favor. Motion passed.
Petition to create Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-4 Newspaper Publication. Mr. Kleinhans
stated the Town of River Falls is seeking to rescind and recreate language regarding publication. The
new ordinance will read: Notice by three publications in a newspaper likely to give notice in the area,
one to be at least eighteen days, one to be at least eleven days, and one to be at least four days prior to
the such hearing. This would constitute a class II public notice and satisfy the notification requirements.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the committee review this ordinance amendment and
forward the amended ordinance to the county board of supervisors for approval.
Jim Essler submitted a copy of a motion for summary judgment against the Town of River Falls to be
filled to Pierce County. Robert Loberg responded that there is no time table for a response to these
motions.
Mr. Holst moves to defer action on Town of River Falls ordinances 2007-01, 2007-02 and 2007-04/
Seconded by Mr. Nellessen.
Mr. Holst cited legal concerns regarding pending litigation and the lack of legal representation on the
county’s behalf as the rationale for the motion.
Holst, Harrington, Nellessen and Barkla in favor. Sanden against. Motion passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Public hearing for a dog kennel in the Town of Ellsworth
Public hearing for Farm & Home Based Businesses in the Town of El Paso
Public hearing for nonmetallic mining in the Town of Spring Lake
Motion to adjourn by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried. 8:10pm.
Respectfully submitted by B. Roy

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
March 21, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta and Jim Kleinhans
Chairperson P. Barkla calls the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 pm in the Pierce County Emergency Operations Center, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next meeting dates will be on the first and third Wednesdays for the remainder of 2007 Motion
by Sanden/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Approved.
Approve Minutes: For the March 7, 2007 meeting. Holst moves to approve minutes/Sanden
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Chairperson Barkla addressed the audience requesting that all cell phones be turned off
during the meeting. Please address comments to the chairperson and anyone wishing to
make comments please limit speaking time to 3 minutes so everybody interested in speaking
has the opportunity to be heard. Also please provide your name and town of residence
prior to speaking.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit to operate a dog kennel in
the Primary Agriculture District by Sean and Jennifer Killen, owners on a parcel of land
located in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 3, T26N, R17W, Town of Ellsworth, Pierce
County. Chairperson Barkla invited Sean and Jennifer Killen forward. Ms Killen explained
they have several adult dogs and one litter of puppies at this time and would like to have more
breeding pairs. For that reason they need approval for a kennel. The dogs are kept in kennels in
their basement and a large fenced in area. Town of Ellsworth Supervisors approved their facility,
provided they abide by the Town’s ordinance and install an air exchanger in the basement for
health reasons. Holst specified a dog is not considered a dog until it is six months of age. Staff
Report - Jim Kleinhans: Applicant is requesting a conditional use to operate a kennel out of
their home to breed labradoodle puppies for sale. Their property is zoned Primary Agriculture
where kennels are conditionally permitted uses. The residence is located close to the middle of a
17.6 acre parcel. Setbacks to the building comply with the code considering that the dwelling is
175 feet from the south property line and the kennel is located on the north side of the 52 foot
wide home. Their children are active in raising the dogs and belong to the Pierce County 4H Dog
Project. Adjoining neighbors to the north and south submitted signed statements with no
objection to the operation of a kennel. Town of Ellsworth Supervisors recommended approval

with concerns about fencing and ventilation in the basement. There are double fences around the
area so the dogs will not be loose. Staff determined that the well location does not comply with
WI Administrative Code which requires 50 foot separation standard for dog kennels having more
than 3 adult dogs. The well is located 36 feet from the building/kennel. This is the only issue that
couldn’t be resolved here and applicants would have to contact the DNR for a variance to that
requirement.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this
request for a dog kennel with the following conditions:
1. More than 10 adult dogs shall not be kept at this facility unless the LMC amends this
condition in the future.
2. This facility shall maintain compliance with Town of Ellsworth licensing and animal
control ordinance.
3. Dogs shall be housed by 9:00 P.M.
4. This conditional use shall be renewed in two years. Renewal may be completed
administratively if no compliance issues are present.
5. Any advertising signage must comply with Pierce County Zoning code requirements.
6. The Department of Natural Resources shall be contacted to resolve the well setback to the
kennel.
Public hearing opened. No public input. Public hearing closed. Holst moves to approve the
conditional use permit for a dog kennel with conditions #1 – 6/Nellessen seconds. All in
favor. Motion approved.
Public hearing to consider a request for two conditional use permits for farm and home
based businesses for Vino in the Valley and Retail Sales and Farmer’s Market on property
owned by Larry Brenner, located in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ in Section 33, T26N, R16W
Town of EL Paso, Pierce County. Chairperson Barkla invited Larry Brenner forward.
Mr. Brenner provided comments on plans to create a unique business on his farm that he, family
and friends have cleaned up over the years. Nine of his fourteen neighbors support his proposal.
He supplied the Land Management Committee with 40 to 50 letters in support of his business
venture. The recommended conditions are suitable and he is more than willing to come back to
this committee in 6 months with a status report. Promotions include weekly dinner with wine and
light music provided by violin, grand piano and guitar. He is willing to let local residents utilize
his land and facilities to market their farm products. All of this is located out of or above the
floodplain of the Rush River. Larry explained he has never refused people access to use his
property and he feels this is an opportunity to share the beauty of the valley. Harrington asked if
there is going to be live music. Mr. Brenner stated there will be acoustic guitar, violin and grand
piano nothing overly amplified. Harrington asked if there could be a band shell to muffle the
noise. Mr. Brenner stated that the actual stage itself is in a hill and faces the east and that has been
discussed. Chairperson Barkla asked about the retail sales and farmer’s market, you are
anticipating having off sale of your wine? Mr. Brenner stated just wine. Regarding off sale liquor

licenses, what type of license is required and do you plan to sell cigarettes? Mr. Brenner stated he
has spoken to Mary Jo Bjork, Town Clerk and she checked with the ATF and off sale liquor
licenses are available for class C and Class B. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: Mr. Brenner owns
approximately 338 acres and the proposed business would take place on one 40 acre parcel. This
request is to permit the hosting of a series of “events” where food, beverage and other services
would be provided. The proposed primary event is “Vino in the Valley” which would be a
weekly event where patrons will be served wine, bread, cheese and pasta. Other proposed events
include pumpkin sales along with a petting zoo in the month of October; food, beverages and
other services will be provided. In December the applicant proposes Christmas tree sales and
hayrides along with the food and beverage services. Mr. Brenner is anticipating between 100 and
200 people attending each event. A farmer’s market and gift shop are also proposed to take place
on the property. These activities will require the issuance of an additional conditional use permit.
The conditional use permit would only permit the various “events” and food and beverage
services that will be provided to attendees. Section 240-36 allows farm and home based
businesses as accessory to single family residential uses subject to the following:
1. The farm and home based business be conducted by the owner of the dwelling unit and no
more than eight persons not residing on the site may be employed in the business.
2. If located in the dwelling unit, the farm and home business shall occupy no more than 50%
of the dwelling unit. If located in an accessory building, the farm and home business shall
not occupy an area greater than 5000 sq ft.
3. Minimum lot size shall be 5 acres.
4. Such other conditions as specified by the Land Management Committee pursuant to
Section 240-76 shall apply.
Three structures are proposed to be constructed in conjunction with this project; a pavilion, a
bathroom and a kitchen. They would total 3324 sq ft. The other structures associated with the
Farm and Home Based Business is the Farmer’s Market and Gift Shop and that will total 688 sq
ft for a total of 4012 sq ft. Pierce County Code does not limit the number of Farm and Home
Businesses that may be conducted on one parcel. Code does limit the number of Home
Businesses that may be located on one parcel to two per parcel and stipulates that total square
footage may not exceed that allowed for one Home Business. The proposed plan is for events to
be held on Thursday from 4:00pm to 10:00pm during the months of May through September.
This has been addressed by the Town. Events in October and December will be held on weekends
and directed towards children. The maximum seating capacity of the pavilion is 80 persons at
approximately 20 tables. This operation will have 8 outside employees. The recommended travel
route is from Hwy 10 to 400 th St to 450 th Ave or Hwy 72 to Cty Rd CC to 450 th Ave. These
routes will keep people off the gravel roads in the area and on paved roads designed for greater
use. § 240-54 requires parking for a restaurant or tavern to be: 1 space per 100 sq ft of primary
floor area or 1 space per 3 seats, whichever is greater. Using per seat, 27 parking spaces will be
required. The driveway and parking area will be constructed of gravel. § 240-57 D(2) states:
Access driveways for all other uses, except agricultural uses, shall be at least 20 feet wide and not

more than 35 feet wide. Land Management Committee approved a Departmental Policy regarding
lighting standards on February 7, 2007. This policy states: Power and orientation of light fixture:
No exterior light fixture may be placed or orientated so that the lighting element or associated
convex lens is visible from an adjacent lot line, ordinary high water mark line or public road rightof-way
easement line. Any place that serves meals to the public must be licensed as a restaurant
under Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services chapter 196. § 240-76 states that any
expansion or intensification of a conditional use will require an additional conditional use permit.
The anticipated service of 100 to 200 people is an estimate and for a business of this type it is
difficult to come up with an accurate number before the business begins operation. Staff would
consider an increase in seating capacity (beyond 80) an intensification of use. The Town of El
Paso recommended approval of this conditional use permit on March 5, 2007 with the following
conditions:
1. 45 days of operation per year.
2. Open no more than two days per week and no more than two days in a row.
3. Hours of operation to be 4:00pm to 10:00pm with lights out by 11:00pm.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC approve this conditional use permit for a
farm and home based business with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the restrictions for a farm and home based business.
2. Any proposed advertising signs or new construction shall receive all necessary permits.
3. Access shall comply with § 240-57.
4. All lighting shall comply with departmental policy.
5. All traffic shall be directed to use the Hwy 10 to 400 th St to 450 th Ave.
6. 27 parking spaces shall be designated and there shall be no on-street parking.
7. Applicant shall receive all necessary permits from all other state and local agencies (ie
restaurant and liquor licenses).
8. Hours of operation shall be from 4:00pm to 10:00pm with lights out by 11:00pm.
9. Seating capacity shall not exceed 80 people.
10. Applicant shall not exceed 45 days of operation per year.
11. Business shall be open no more than two days per week, with activities no more than two
days in a row.
12. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed for renewal in 1 year or if compliance issues
arise. Staff suggests that asking the applicant to provide a “status report” to the LMC in 6
months may be prudent to ascertain any unforeseen issues or concerns.
13. Applicant understands that intensification or expansion of use will require the issuance of a
new conditional use permit.
14. No amplified live music shall be allowed and a band shell shall be constructed.
Conditional use permits are a permitted use with the recognition that the use has the potential for
offsite impacts. Each request is considered on a per case request basis to determine what
conditions are necessary to mitigate impacts to the neighbors. The only way the LMC could deny
a conditional use permit is if you determine that necessary information was not provided or if the

potential negative impacts are so great that it’s not possible to mitigate them. Chairperson
Barkla asked Mr. Pichotta to go ahead and present the staff report for the Farmer’s
Market and Retail Sales. Mr. Pichotta reports: The second request is for a Farmer’s Market
and Retail Sales. Because of the size of the Gift Shop this proposal is not able to be established
through issuance of a Land Use Permit. Section 240-36 E allows farm and home based businesses
as accessory to single family residential uses subject to the following:
1. The farm and home based business be conducted by the owner of the dwelling unit and no
more than eight persons not residing on the site may be employed in the business.
2. If located in the dwelling unit, the farm and home business shall occupy no more than 50%
of the dwelling unit. If located in an accessory building, the farm and home business shall
not occupy an area greater than 5000 sq ft.
3. Minimum lot size shall be 5 acres.
4. Such other conditions as specified by the Land Management Committee pursuant to
Section 240-76 shall apply.
The two buildings in conjunction with the Farm and Home Based Business will have a total of
688 sq ft. The proposed use would be from May to December. Hours of operation will be
consistent with the event portion of the business. This operation will have 6 to 8 outside
employees. § 240-36 D(2) states at least one off-street parking space shall be provided for each
200 sq ft of indoor and outdoor display area for farm markets. § 240-54 states retail stores shall
have 1 parking space for 200 feet of primary floor area. The square footage of the pavilion and
the gift shop requires 3 parking spaces. The recommended travel route is same. The
recommended conditions from the Town of El Paso are the same. Staff Recommendation: Staff
recommends the Land Management Committee approve this conditional use permit for a farm
and home business with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the restrictions for a farm and home based business.
2. Any proposed advertising signs or new construction shall receive all necessary permits.
3. All traffic shall be directed to use the Hwy 10 to 400 th St to 450 th Ave.
4. Hours of operation shall be consistent with the event portion of the business.
5. Three parking spaces shall be designated in addition to the 27 for the events portion of the
business and there shall be no on-street parking.
6. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed for renewal in 1 year or if compliance issues
arise. Staff suggests that asking the applicant to provide a “status report” to the LMC in 6
months may be prudent to ascertain any unforeseen issues or concerns.
7. Applicant understands that intensification or expansion of use will require the issuance of a
new conditional use permit.
To the applicant, if you have any questions as to what constitutes intensification or expansion, I
suggest you contact staff before doing anything. Chairperson Barkla opened the hearing to the
public. Brian Fitch, Town of El Paso, stated he is one of 25 neighbors in opposition. Most people
believe a farm and home business is geared more for businesses like drywall and repair
contractors not what Mr. Brenner is proposing. This proposal has a larger footprint. The Town of

El Paso permit was too general. I ask that if you grant this, you limit it to no amplified music or
sound and one night per week and not on weekends. Sharon Hills, Town of El Paso, lives
adjacent to Mr. Brenner’s property along 400 th Street is opposed to the restaurant. Farm and
Home based Business should be small non-intensive uses that comply with the 5,000 square foot
restriction and 8 employees. Either it is or is not allowed under this code and should not be
detrimental public health and safety to the area. This is a restaurant, not an agriculture business. I
recommend the county restrict this use to one night per week according to what Larry initially
requested. Lester Heise, El Paso Town Chairman, commented that the state sets the number of
vehicles that can use the road after town provides road data to the state. Andy Schneider, Pierce
County resident, commented on the number of employees per business, he has sons that could use
the hours in the summer before they go to college and camping along the Rush River for trout
fishing has nothing to do with Vino in the Valley. Becky Birsch, Town of El Paso, A restaurant
does not fit the rural character. Tim Lorenz, Town of Ellsworth, This conditional use permit is the
wrong way to get this up and running. Matt Biegert, attorney representing Mr. Brenner, A
conditional use for each of the requested uses is allowed according to county code. The Town
supported this request and recognized potential conflicts so suggested a 12 month review period.
This is a little different than what you typically see. Don’t over condition the business so it will
fail, let Larry get this business up and running. Mr. Brenner - This business idea is outside the
box. The existing roads can handle the traffic. This is an agriculture based business. There is
another restaurant in El Paso that operates under a conditional use permit. I’ve never objected to
letting someone camp or walk along the river. I want to share the beauty of my property. I intend
to hire local residents for waitresses and operations. I will be back in 6 months with a status
report. Tony Huppert, Town of Gilman, Sixty seven percent of the jobs in Pierce County are
tourist related. This is important for the tax base. Chairperson Barkla closed the public
hearing. Harrington asked about the hours of operation for the gift shop. Mr. Brenner stated that
he is requesting the same hours as Vino in the Valley. Holst expressed concerns about traffic
routed from Hwy 10 to 400 th Street and 450 th Avenue or off of Hwy 72 to Cty Rd CC. Then in
your recommendations you alleviated the Hwy 72 route. Pichotta, Hwy 10 provides a more direct
route and is a better road. Holst - It would give tourists another option and I think it should be
included. As far as the number of employees, if Mr. Brenner employs family do they count
toward the eight employees? Pichotta – the code states 8 employees not residing on the site.
Sanden - The traffic routes and direction would be made available on website and flyers? The
conditional use permit under the code would allow for two businesses? Pichotta, yes, to both
questions. Chairperson Barkla asked about high water on 400 th Street. Mr. Brenner - recent high
water covering the town road did not reach the pavilion or the vineyard and the parking area.
Heise, Town of El Paso Chair, Spring runoff damaged the town road that requires repair and this
generally occurs in March or April and Larry’s business will not be operating then. Chairperson
Barkla asked Heise whether the town would make claims against the county for town road
damages? Heise - The Town approved this initially so we take responsibility for road conditions.
Chairperson Barkla asked Mr. Pichotta about commercial camping on the property. Pichotta - A

commercial campground would be covered under conditions #13, intensification of use that
would require a new conditional use. Chairperson Barkla I advise the applicant to error on the
side of caution and to not operate outside the scope of the conditions. Nellessen - Commends Mr.
Brenner for being willing to pay more taxes. How can we direct traffic and restrict street parking?
If we limit the hours of operation we are setting this up for failure. Pichotta - Staff
recommendations are based on town and county concerns and consideration for the applicant’s
request. Sanden discussed the number of operating days per year and the potential for negative
impacts by limiting. Pichotta – the LMC could word conditions so that they could adjust the days
of operation upon request in the future, if appropriate. Holst - The applicant agrees with the staff
report so I would not change the conditions. Chairperson Barkla - The applicant has come in with
a reasonable request that is understandable and I would not vote for lessening conditions.
Nellessen - Can we go over each condition individually for a vote? Motion to approve but I
would like to strike the condition concerning traffic routing. Chairperson Barkla Second to the
motion? Nellessen - Motion to approve the conditional use permit with amended conditions
for farm and home based businesses for Vino in the Valley with retail sales and a farm
market with the following conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, Strike Condition 5, Condition 6 Strike the offstreet
parking, 7, Condition 8 amend hours of operation from 2 P..M. to 11 P.M. Monday to
Friday and 10A.M. to 12 P.M. weekends, 9, strike condition 10, strike condition 11, 12, 13,
Condition 14 strike no amplified live music and bandshell construction, Condition 15 strike
Camping which is addressed under condition 13. Chairperson Barkla - Is there a second to this
motion? No second to Mr. Nellessen’s Motion. Sanden - Motion to approve with conditions 1 –
14 with amended conditions: 4 lighting per county policy, condition 5 routing Hwy 10 to 400 th
St. to 450 th Avenue and from Hwy 72 south, condition 6 minimum 30 parking spaces, condition
12 amend second phrase to allow neighbors input during status report, condition 13 …. and
including condition 14 no amplified live music and a band shell….. Holst asked about hours of
operation. Pichotta - Town recommended hours from 4 P.M. to 10 P.M. with lights out by 11 P.
M. Pichotta – Might it be cleaner if each request for a conditional use is addressed with a separate
motion? Sanden - Withdraw that motion and make a motion to approve with conditions 1
thru 14 as amended in prior motion for Vino in the Valley/Nellessen seconds. Chairperson
Barkla, All in favor. Motion carries with all in favor.
Sanden - Motion to approve the farm and home based business for retail sales and farm
market with conditions 1 thru 7 with amended conditions consistent with conditions
approved for Vino in the Valley. Holst Second. Motion carries with all in favor.
Chairperson Barkla called for a 3 minute recess. Meeting called back to order at 8:45 P.M.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a nonmetallic mining
quarry operation in the General Rural District by County Materials Corp, agent, on
property owned by Jim Weber & Greg Nelson, located in the NE ¼, EXC a 3 acre PCL

located in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, plus 9 acres M/L in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, all in Section
16; plus 9 acres M/L located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ in Section 9, T27N, R15W, Town of
Spring Lake, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Jim Small, Geologist from
County Materials Corp, Jack Sonnentag, Operations Manager and Brian Larus, Olson
Explosives forward. Mr. Small explains David Schmutzler from Jade Air Co. wasn’t able to
make it because of the weather. He was going to explain the fines recovery system that they’re
proposing but Jack will be able to do that. Mr. Small discussed the purpose of their request to
open a nonmetallic mining facility on property owned by Jim Weber and Greg Nelson. They
intend to operate similar to their facility in Eau Claire. County Materials owns their own trucks
that will move the materials and they will be selling ag lime which is a byproduct of the crushing
and washing. There would be other byproducts that could be for sale also. They chose this
location because of the lime material in this county. A lot of it is not suitable to use in concrete.
Another reason was because of its access to HWY 128 and fewer neighbors and one of the
parcels was for sale. Our original proposal and reclamation plan had a few issues that the
neighbors wanted changed. They have been modified to recycle all of the water except for the
water that would be clinging to the rocks and draining out. We propose a wider setback along the
west side of the quarry based on an identified elevation that will save additional trees and avoid
disturbance of steep slopes. We committed to planting trees in the reclamation plan after we met
with the Town of Spring Lake. We will also need DNR air permit and NPDES permits and your
permits that would deal with the 100 year storm events. A high capacity well will be required but
the water reuse system will reduce our need for continuous pumping. We would only need to
replenish the tanks at the beginning of the week when they have been sitting idle. Our mining
reclamation plan covers all code issues. Nellessen - Do you recall if I ever contacted you for
obtaining materials for local projects? Small - I remember you attended a Town meeting, but I do
not have a recollection of you asking any questions. Holst - How large is the tank for the water
reuse system? Sonnentag - We use two tanks produced by Jade Air that holds less than 15,000
gallons. The size is 10.5 ft. by 50 ft. with a depth of 8 ft. Again the major water use is only to fill
and maintain the water level. With a low volume quarry it would take a few days to fill it, which
could be done over a period of three weeks. When that is filled the water comes out of the back
side of it to another pump that gets up to the wash plant or the spray bars and comes back to the
sand screen. The overflow water comes back to a sludge pump, sand pump which pumps it back
to the tank. It works on a settling system and sensors that sense when there is more than an inch
of sand on the bottom. It’s clean water then because the particles drop to the bottom. It’s a
gradient issue to putting your sand pile at a 3% slope so that water comes right back in. The only
water we would lose is from evaporation. Chairperson Barkla asked if an environmental
assessment must be completed for this site. Mr. Small - We haven’t been asked to do that but
could complete a study on the unfarmed areas. Staff Report – Andy Pichotta: This is a request
for a conditional use permit for nonmetallic mining. County Materials has an option to purchase
approximately 196 acres owned by James Weber and Greg Nelson on which they are proposing a
nonmetallic mine. The mining operation would cover 129 acres of the site. Phased extraction and

contemporaneous reclamation would be employed so that 40 to 50 acres would be open at any
given time. They will be mining dolomitic limestone to be used as raw material for concrete
products, construction materials and agricultural liming material. The limestone will primarily be
used for concrete products for the County Materials manufacturing facilities in Roberts and Eau
Claire, WI. If a conditional use permit is granted, County Materials will remove their operation
from the Schoeder quarry in Rock Elm. The proposed operation in located in the Town of Spring
Lake. The property is zoned General Rural where nonmetallic mining is conditionally permitted.
The site is currently woodland and agricultural use. Approximately 30 acres of woodland will
remain undisturbed. The proposed access driveway is located near a vacant parcel with an
abandoned house. Residences are located in close proximity to the proposed access on the
opposite side of Hwy 128. County Materials will have no more than 9 trucks operating and these
trucks will operate approximately 15 to 20 minutes apart during peak working times. The site is
located in the Eau Galle River watershed. The nearest point of the quarry will be 1000’ from the
river. Currently the site has runoff that directly reaches the River. County Materials is proposing
to install a stormwater pond that will limit the amount of water that reaches the Eau Galle River
from the site. The storm water pond will be constructed on the west side of the site. This pond
would have certified engineer design and the capacity for a 100 year storm event. Stormwater
berms will be installed in areas of possible overflows. Other 8 ft earthen berms will also be
installed to protect the surrounding residences. Access to the mine is proposed off of State Hwy
128. The applicant has contacted the DOT about an access but will not apply for one until they
are granted the mining permit. Almost all of the truck traffic along Hwy 128 will be to the north
as the trucks travel to and from the Roberts and Eau Claire facilities. The access will have a gate
which will be locked when the site is not in operation. The quarry floor will be at 1045 ft, the
water table elevation is approximately 945 ft. The rock is removed by drilling and blasting. It is
processed and stockpiled on site, and hauled primarily to concrete products manufacturing plants
in Roberts and Eau Claire. The drilling and blasting is performed by state licensed contractor.
Typically 150,000 to 200,000 tons of material, dependant on market conditions, will be exported
form the site annually, representing an average of 2 loads per hour. Dust will be controlled on-site
by improving roadways with gravel and applying water on an as-needed basis. Activity on the
site will typically occur during the construction season, March to November. However, some
hauling of processed material may occur December through February, as conditions warrant.
Hours of operation are proposed 6am to 9pm Monday through Friday, with occasional Saturday
operations 8am to 5pm during the construction season. Typical hours will be 6am to 6pm
Monday through Friday. The applicants are requesting to have hours until 9pm for the times
when they are crushing. County Materials contracts their crushing, crushing will take place on the
site for 2 to 4 weeks and then there will be no crushing activity for approximately one month.
There will be no activity on the site on Sundays or holidays. They will employ up to six people.
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
address the practices for fueling, lubrication and repair of the equipment. Fuel storage will be
limited to one 500 or 1,000-gallon portable off-road diesel fuel tank for equipment compliant

with Department of Commerce 10 standards. Electricity will be the preferred power source onsite,
however other sources will be needed. A structure will be constructed on-site to house the
electrical equipment. A scale will also be installed near the haul road. The applicants are
requesting to bring in and recycle old concrete products on-site. This will not be a “dump” but a
way to reuse product instead of sending it to a clean fill site. The applicants have no plans to
install an asphalt plant on-site, and understand that a new Conditional Use Permit would be
required for this use. A 100 ft setback will be maintained from all adjacent properties. Post
mining land use will be agriculture land and grassland. Reclamation will be done to 3:1 slopes.
There will be a minimum 2’ of subsoil and 6” of topsoil. The main road will remain to provide
access to the quarry floor. All other temporary roads will be reclaimed. Progressive reclamation
will take place on the site. In areas where rock face is greater than 40 ft it may be necessary to
blast and use the blast rock as fill to reach 3:1 slopes. These blasts will not encroach on the 100 ft
setback. Reclaimed areas will be seeded with mixture 20 of the DOT specifications. Mulching
will be used where needed and applied to DOT specifications. Criteria for successful reclamation
will be 70% vegetative cover. Estimated cost of reclamation is $907,359; average cost per acre is
$7,033.79 (Pierce County policy is to require at least $1,000 per acre.). The Pierce County
Department of Land Management, as part of the application process, requires that an applicant
solicit a recommendation from the town’s board of supervisors regarding the proposed
conditional use. The purpose of this recommendation is to ensure that a town is aware of
proposed uses and has an opportunity to provide input as to potential negative impacts that may
result and to identify conditions that may be necessary to mitigate those impacts, if possible. It
must be recognized that if a Town is under County zoning, that it is the County that is liable for
claims arising from the issuance or denial of a conditional use permit. Village powers enable a
town to adopt a variety of ordinances, including a subdivision ordinance, but does not authorize a
town to regulate uses that fall under general zoning. The ability to exercise zoning authority is
granted to a town by the County Board of Supervisors through approval of an actual zoning
ordinance and of any amendments to that ordinance, subsequent to approval at the town level.
The Town of Spring Lake recommended denial of this request on February 27, 2007 with the
following rationale:
1. The Town of Spring Lake is zoned General Rural. Allowing County Materials
to put a quarry in would destroy prime agricultural land and woodland.
2. Increased heavy traffic on Highway 128.
3. The Town of Spring Lake is an environmentally sensitive area.
4. The proximity of the proposed quarry to the Eau Galle River.
5. The Minnesota Executive summary on gravel pits concludes that “new”
quarries should NOT be sited in areas, which may affect streams. This report
further goes on to state the quarries can indeed negatively alter the hydrologic area
in which they are located.
6. Decreased property values for the adjacent landowners.
7. Diminished quality of life to the residents of the Town of Spring Lake nearby

the proposed quarry due to noise, traffic, vibration and dust.
8. Loss of rural character to the Town of Spring Lake.
9. Permanent disfiguration of the landscape of the Town of Spring Lake.
10. Concerns over the depth and quality of the current water table.
11. Concerns with the impact of a high capacity well on nearby wells.
12. Impact of blasting on local wells (>35 within a two mile radius) with regards
to level, quality, and turbidity.
13. Does not promote a higher quality of life for current or future residents of
Spring Lake Township.
14. No direct benefit to Spring Lake Township.
15. Loss of potential tax revenue on this and surrounding parcels with the loss of
singe family housing opportunities. Spring Lake Township has a growing
population and is conveniently situated in Western Wisconsin, 6 miles south of
Interstate 94, a principle arterial route.
16. There are already two nonmetallic mines servicing our needs along with
Western Wisconsin as well as two additional nonmetallic mines just outside our
perimeter.
17. The Town of Spring Lake is full of caves, sinkholes, and other karst features.
18. Loss of recreational snowmobile trail currently running through property.
Staff has been advised by legal counsel that a conditional use is, in essence, a permitted use with
the recognition that the use may have negative off site impacts, and as such, may require the
establishment of conditions necessary to mitigate potential off-site impacts. Given that each site
is unique, conditions are established on a case-by-case basis. A conditional use permit may be
denied only if requested information is not provided or if off-site impacts are so detrimental that
mitigation is not possible. Staff has discussed the Town’s recommendation for denial with legal
counsel and was advised that the concerns do not likely constitute a legal basis for denial of the
applicant’s request.
The Town of Spring Lake also has a list of recommended conditions for this request if approval is
granted.
1. Well testing of all adjacent landowners before any activity to determine a
baseline and then testing yearly thereafter throughout the duration of the quarry.
2. No portable or permanent asphalt plant.
3. No dumping or landfill on the property.
4. Dust suppression measures such as water spray or automatic sprinklers along
the road going in and out of the quarry.
5. Resolution process if dust, noise, debris on the road or other concerns become
problematic. Jack Sonnentag has provided us with his cell phone number, email
address and other contact information.
6. Lower voluntary speed limit on State Highway 128 from the quarry site to
State Highway 29. (i.e. 50 m.p.h.)

7. Careful use on State Highway 128 for quarry site to State highway 29 until the
State upgrades and rebuilds this section of road which is scheduled for the summer
of 2009. (limited use during the spring)
8. Hours and days of operation. The Town of Spring Lake does have Village
Powers and we reserve the right to set the hours of operation as well as the day of
operation/week.
9. Careful monitoring of County Materials Corporation adhering to the depth
parameters of the proposed quarry.
10. No blasting on overcast days.
11. Noxious weed control within the quarry and on the berms.
12. Use of electric power in lieu of diesel power where possible.
13. Topsoil removal. Topsoil existing on the proposed site shall be used to
complete the reclamation as described in the reclamation plan. All topsoil will be
separated from the overburden material as described in the reclamation plan and
will be used for berms or reclamation.
14. Tree planting. A combination of evergreen and hardwood seedlings will be
planted on the reclamation slopes in addition to the grass seeding in the
reclamation plan.
15. Western Forested Buffer. In addition to the 100-foot setback requirements as
provided by Pierce County Ordinance, the proposed quarry edge along the
Western property line will be limited to 1075 feet above sea level. This will
provide additional undisturbed buffer of trees. In addition, an 8-10 foot high
beam, covered w/ topsoil, will be constructed and planted with evergreen
seedlings prior to quarry activities.
16. Public Ownership. The current application describes a return to open space
and agriculture. Should the long term comprehensive plan for the Town of Spring
Lake and/or Pierce County change in the future, County Materials Corporation
will consider transferring the property to public use or public conservation reserve.
17. Water Reuse. County Materials Corporation agrees to use an aggregate
washing system that will re-use the wash water, thereby reducing the need for
fresh water from a newly drilled well. A high capacity well permit will still be
required for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, as our estimated
water use will remain over the 70-gallon per minute threshold.
County Materials has submitted a response to the issues of the Town of Spring Lake. A copy of
this response is attached along with copies of the Town recommendations and a petition opposing
the proposed mine. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee approve this conditional use permit for a nonmetallic mining operation with the
following conditions:
1. Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits
from all relevant departments and agencies.

2. Hours of operation shall be 6am to 9pm Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm
on Saturday. Operation shall be closed on Sundays and holidays.
3. Blasting shall be completed by a State licensed blaster. Blasting shall take
place no more than 4 times per week and blasting times shall be between 11am
and 2pm.
4. Stormwater pond shall be designed to handle a 100-year storm event. Design
shall be completed by a State certified engineer. The pond design shall be
reviewed and approved by the Pierce County Land Conservation Department.
5. Stormwater pond shall be constructed before mining commences.
6. Road access shall be permitted by WI DOT and a Universal Address Number
shall be obtained from the Zoning Office.
7. Reclamation shall be completed consistent with submitted plans.
8. Mine operation and design shall be consistent with the approved plans.
Zoning Office shall be notified of any deviation from the plans.
9. Zoning Office shall be notified if ground water is encountered.
10. All structures and signage shall be permitted by the Zoning Office.
11. An elevation benchmark shall be established.
12. The reclamation financial assurance information shall be reviewed and
approved by Corporation Counsel before mining commences.
13. Applicant shall comply with NR 135 Annual Reclamation Permits.
14. Property owners located within 1000 feet shall be given reasonable notice of
all planned blasting. This request shall be waived for landowners who request not
to be given notice.
15. Well tests for nitrates, suspended solids, and dissolved solids shall be
conducted for all existing wells within 1000 feet of the proposed mining operation
to establish a baseline. This shall be completed prior to blasting. Wells shall be
tested annually thereafter. All results shall be provided to the Zoning Office.
16. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures shall be submitted to the Zoning Office.
17. The recycling of concrete products shall be allowed.
18. This CUP shall be reviewed for renewal every two years.
19. Instead of the condition listed in the staff report, staff suggests County
Materials shall conduct activities consistent with correspondence submitted to the
zoning department on March 13, 2007.
That document addresses all the concerns identified by the Town of Spring Lake. Chairperson
Barkla stated that if anyone wanted a copy of the attached document they could stop by the
Department of Land Management. Holst, It is the duty of this committee to interpret and enforce
the ordinances as they are written. If a Town errors in the interpretation of the ordinances, this
committee must correct their error. Chairperson Barkla opens the public hearing. Bill
Klanderman, Town of Spring Lake, I live about a mile south of the Kraemer Quarry and about a

mile east of the proposed site. I am opposed to the quarry based on information in the zoning
code under 240-76 (2)(a); Specific criteria include adverse affects on property in the area, (g)
creation of noise, odor or dust, (n)a change in the natural character of the area by removal of
vegetation and altering topography and (o)adversely affects the natural beauty of the area
between Spring Valley and Elmwood. Item (d) in your code is to protect the value of property
and landscape. The burden of proof remains with the applicant to prove they can comply. Laurie
Dane - We purchased Jim Weber’s home and were not made aware of this. I’m afraid of the dust
that will come over the hillside and settle in our ravine for the next 40 to 60 years or however
long this will be. There is a stream that drains the hillside running through the yard. I am
concerned about the hours of operation, dust, runoff, and rocks falling off the hillside. Carter
Turner, Town of Spring Valley, We live north and west of the site and own land along the west
side of the property. We are concerned about noise, hours of operation, impacts on the water table
and surface water runoff for up to 60 years. Such uses were denied in Dane County based on
contamination from a spill and the quarry proximity to the water table. How will the County
verify compliance? Mary Thompson, Town of Spring Lake, I, on behalf of my family the
Hendricksons and Esenbocks are opposed to the permit due to health, and welfare of the citizens,
disruption to the natural flora and fauna in the natural environment, and cultural concerns.
Provided a handout to committee regarding site conditions. Fay Jones, Town of Spring Lake, I
am an adjacent landowner on the back side of the property. The property will be taxed the same
as farmland and there is potential for road damage since Hwy 128 was upgraded from a County
Road. Also opposed to recycling of concrete materials, the hours of operation, water issues, the
same as others. Dwight Johnson, Town of Spring Lake Supervisor The Town’s position was
based on input from the public. There are livestock operations with pasture on both sides of Hwy
128 and safety concerns for vehicles. Christine, representing William Sperstad who owns the
abandoned home on the parcel located along HWY 128 near the quarry entrance. She stated that
he wishes to retire there and rebuild the home and will not care to be surrounded by a quarry
operation. Student from Menomonie - The potential problems created by such uses could have
detrimental effects on the environmental quality in the area well into the future. I would request
that you table this request to allow an environmental assessment to be completed and review
safety precautions. Pete Kirby, Town of Spring Lake, I built my home near the property and am
opposed. J.Sonnentag - We are currently using Hwy 128 for transportation from our facility in
Rock Elm. We are staying back from the west property line in excess of the county minimum.
We intend to recycle process water. We propose 8 foot high berms to screen our operations and
will berm to 12 feet if necessary to help deflect noise. We will control surface waters and can
address issues raised here this evening. Clifton Robertson, Town of Spring Lake, concerns with
the holding ponds versus the surface water when it rains. Fay Jones - I would like clarification on
the property owners being notified within a 1000 ft, is that from the quarry or from the land they
own? Pichotta, Typically, that would be from the subject property and draw a line 1000 feet from
there. Chairperson Barkla closes the public hearing.

Chairperson Barkla stated we’ll take a 3 minute recess to return at 10:02 P.M. Barkla
reconvened the meeting at 10:06 P.M.
Pichotta - In regard to Section 240-76 which is the zoning code and lists the criteria with which
the committee may use to review proposed conditional use permits. There is a list, a number of
things which aid in the review of the proposed project against the above criteria, the land
management committee may evaluate the following specific criteria but shall not be limited
thereto; it lists a number of issues; including whether or not it would adversely affect property,
similar to other uses, consistency with plans, sanitary waste disposal, safe vehicular and
pedestrian access. Attorney Bill Thiel was consulted regarding this section and whether or not
any one of these are adequate to deny a conditional use permit request. Basically these are things
the committee should look at in a big picture kind of way in which to gauge the appropriateness
of the project as a whole. Any one of them is not likely significant enough to warrant denial of a
conditional use permit. My prior point regarding the fact that a conditional use permit is a
permanent use that has the potential for offsite impacts, and can only be denied if they can’t be
mitigated is the standard. The case law that was provided during the public hearing was regarding
a proposed mine in an environmentally sensitive area with very shallow ground water. The
concerns were that if there was a spill it would very quickly be drawn into the groundwater. In
that case there clearly was a problem relating to public health and safety. Sanden -There have
been approximately a dozen mining projects approved in the past since I started on this
committee and I do not recall a town referral to deny. Is it in consideration for the size and off
site impacts? What makes this one different? Pichotta – suggested that the size of mine,
proximity to residential development and Hwy 94, and the history of the Miller quarry where a
blast a few years ago knocked a whole wall into the river were likely reasons for increased
concern. Sanden - I would suggest that we ask for an environmental assessment and attempt to
address all the concerns of the people here tonight and still let the process move forward.
Nellessen - We need to consider the safety of the buyers of Jim Weber’s home. Holst - There are
still some unanswered questions. I don’t feel we know enough about this site to make a decision.
Sanden moves to defer action until an environmental assessment has been completed/Holst
Seconds.
Rich Purdy, Supervisor District 3, You may want to give them some specific guidelines to draft
their impact statement. Chairperson Barkla, we will defer to staff for guidance. Mr. Small - What
type of criteria are you interested in? Holst - My concerns would be endangered plant species,
rare flora and fauna. Pichotta -What we would be looking for is a document that looks at flora
and fauna, the groundwater depth, a snapshot of the conditions on the site, information so the
committee would have a tool to gauge whether the concerns identified are valid and can be
alleviated. Mr. Sonnentag - Other than the endangered species, I’m not sure what is unanswered.
I think most of these would be DNR permits. Could we ask you to reconsider and put that as one
of the conditions? If there is any endangered species we couldn’t proceed. We have time limits on
the option to purchase. Who do we get to do the environmental impact? Sanden - You will want

letters from the state concerning historical, cultural and road conditions. Kirstin Shilling,
Supervisor District 10, suggested that someone from the town should be involved in drafting the
request for additional information.
Chairperson Barkla The motion on this request is to defer action until the environmental
assessment is completed with the understanding that the town will have input into the
scope. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Two more farm and home based businesses
Recommendation for Reelection of Citizen Member
Motion to adjourn at 10:42pm. by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by J.Kleinhans /S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
April 4, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Excused: Jeff Holst
Chairperson P. Barkla calls the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next meeting dates will be on the first and third Wednesdays for the remainder of 2007.
Approve Minutes: For the March 21, 2007 meeting. Harrington moves to approve minutes/
Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Chairperson Barkla addressed the audience stating that cell phones must be turned off
during the meeting. He also stated that although the formal public hearing for the proposed
County Materials mining operation was closed that the committee would allow a total of 30
minutes for public comment, 15 minutes for each side.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit to operate a Farm &
Home Based Business in the Primary Agriculture District by Paul and Judith Nielsen,
owners on a parcel of land located on lot 2 in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 17, T26N,
R16W, Town of El Paso, Pierce County. Chairperson Barkla invited Paul Nielsen forward.
Mr. Nielsen explained he is requesting a conditional use permit to put up a building to sell home
crafts and Amish furniture. It will be a stud building with steel siding and will be handicap
accessible. Sanden asked if there will be any employees outside of family. Mr. Nielsen stated not
at this time. Chairperson Barkla stated in May of 2006 Mr. Nielsen obtained a permit for a pole
shed for storage, then in September of 2006 he received a sanitary permit for an oversized system
with proposed residential use, on September 20, 2006 he obtained a land use permit to convert
the pole shed into a residence. At what time did you know that you were going to be converting
this? Now you’re requesting a Farm & Home Based Business. Are you planning anymore
changes? Mr. Nielsen, originally I was going to sell furniture out of the back of my house. Then a
buyer purchased our house sooner than expected. We had planned to build this spring but then
decided to live there and build another building this spring. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr. and
Mrs. Nielsen own 8.8 acres in the Town of El Paso. They plan to conduct sales of Amish
Furniture. The business will use a 30’ x 44’ pole shed which totals 1,320 square feet. The
building and restrooms will be handicap accessible. The structure does not require Department of

Commerce approval. Proposed hours of operation will be Saturday and Sunday 10:00am to
6:00pm, Monday and Tuesday evenings from 6:00pm to 8:00pm by appointment only. Driveway
access is off Hwy 72. § 240-54 states that retail stores shall provide 1 parking space per 200 feet
of primary floor area. The proposal is consistent with this requirement, applicant also plans for
one handicap parking stall. § 240-54 I states that the minimum dimensions for all parking spaces
provided for use by physically disabled persons shall be 12 ft in width and 18 ft in length.
Parking spaces provided for use by physically disabled persons shall be located as close as
possible to an entrance which allows such persons to enter and leave the parking area without
assistance. The Land Management Committee approved a Departmental Policy on February 7,
2007 which sets parking requirements. This policy states parking space dimensions shall be a
minimum of 9 ft wide and 18 ft in length unless specified in the code. Where wheel stops are
utilized, an allowance for vehicle overhang shall be provided. All parking spaces on hard
surfaced parking areas should be clearly marked or labeled by paint, tape or parking blocks.
Deviation from the standards for handicap accessible parking may occur if a minimum of 5 foot
adjacent access aisle is provided. No outside storage or operation equipment is needed. No
outside employees will be hired. Mr. Nielsen intends to connect the new building to the existing
septic system. The septic system is large enough to handle the added use. Mr. Nielsen has applied
for the septic permit and the permit will be issued prior to the issuance of the Land Use Permit for
the accessory structure. The Town of El Paso recommended approval of this conditional use
permit on February 28, 2007 with the condition that the new building not be used as a domicile.
The proposed new structure will be an accessory structure. To use the building as a domicile
would require an additional conditional use permit for an Accessory Residence. If the applicant
wishes to take this route the Town of El Paso would have the ability to examine the new
proposed use. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee
approve this conditional use permit for a farm and home based business with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the restrictions for a farm and home based business.
2. The new structure and any signage shall receive all necessary permits.
3. Hours of operation shall be Saturday and Sunday 10:00am to 6:00pm, Monday and
Tuesday evenings from 6:00pm to 8:00pm by appointment only.
4. The applicant shall delineate 7 parking spaces with at least one being handicap accessible.
All parking spaces shall be consistent with Pierce County Code and Departmental Policy.
5. This permit shall expire in 2 years or if compliance issues arise. Renewal may be done
administratively if no compliance issues arise.
Public hearing opened. Scott Schoepp, El Paso Township. Are you planning on having a road
sign or having a wagon in the yard? I want it clear where things are being sold. Mr. Nielsen, I
checked with Jim Kleinhans and he stated I would need to check with the state because of being
on a state highway. It’s a lengthy process so I won’t be putting a sign by the road. Public hearing
closed. Harrington moves to approve the conditional use permit for a farm & home based
business with conditions #1 – 5 as presented/Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Motion

approved.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based
Business in the General Rural District by Dave and Krista Deusterman, owners on a parcel
of land located in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ in Section 4, T27N, R16W Town of Gilman, Pierce
County. Chairperson Barkla invited Dave Deusterman forward. Mr. Deusterman explained
they intend to use a pole shed on the property to do sign painting, lettering on vehicles, tractors,
snowmobiles, etc and hand painted graphics, airbrushing, light restoration of collector cars and
illustration. Also one room in the house will be used as an office and for the graphic design. One
third of the garage will be used as a preparation and detail room for the graphics. Approximate
hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 7:00am to 5:00pm. Equipment that will be
used is an air compressor, auto lift, sandblast cabinet and mig welder. Everything is located in the
pole shed. The business will be operated by me, my son and part-time by my wife, Krista. Sanden
stated that one condition reads all project vehicles shall be kept in the buildings or shielded from
the public, will this be a problem? Mr. Deusterman answered no, right now he has four of his
own project vehicles outside and he either has to put up a cold storage building or get rid of them.
There are two other vehicles that will be scrapped this summer. Harrington, I see where you have
an air filter. Is that for the sandblasting and the spraying? Mr. Deusterman, the inside of the pole
shed, I have a booth that is for airbrushing on small objects. That’s filtered and vented outside.
The blast cabinet isn’t vented outside, it has a vacuum system enclosed. Staff Report – Brad
Roy: The nature and character of the property is rural. The closest neighbor is approximately 900
ft away. An electrical substation is located on an adjacent property. The business will use a 42 ft
by 72 ft pole shed, two rooms that are 12 ft by 14 ft each and one stall of an attached garage that
is 13 ft by 22 ft. The business will use a total of 3,646 sq ft. This business is not intended to have
drive up traffic; traffic will be from supply deliveries and scheduled customer visits. Deliveries
for supplies are typically made once or twice a week. Driveway access is on to 890 th Ave. Pierce
County Code requires that parking shall be provided. This type of operation does not fall into any
of the categories listed in § 240-54; however this operation has some resemblance to “Auto
Repair”. § 240-54 requires that auto repair shall provide 3 parking spaces per service bay with at
least one space handicapped accessible. This operation would have one service bay. Employees
will be Mr. and Mrs. Deusterman and their son, the son does not live onsite. The Town of Gilman
recommended approval of this conditional use permit on March 14, 2007. No specific conditions
were recommended. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC approve this
conditional use permit for a farm and home based business with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the restrictions for a farm and home based business.
2. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday 7:00am to 5:00pm.
3. All project vehicles to be worked on shall be kept in the buildings or shielded from the
public view.
4. The applicant shall delineate 3 parking spaces with at least one being handicap accessible.
All parking spaces shall be consistent with Pierce County Code and Departmental Policy.

5. This permit shall expire in 2 years or if compliance issues arise. Renewal may be done
administratively if no compliance issues arise.
Public hearing open. No public input. Public hearing closed. Nellessen moves to approve the
conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based Business with conditions #1 – 5 as stated/
Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Pichotta noted that since this was not published as a public hearing, it is not a requirement
to open the discussion to the public; it would be the discretion of the committee.
Chairperson Barkla reiterated that the committee will allow 30 minutes of discussion
divided evenly between the two sides.
Discuss/take action on deferred request for a conditional use permit for a nonmetallic
mining quarry operation in the General Rural District by County Materials Corp, agent, on
property owned by Jim Weber & Greg Nelson, located in the NE ¼, EXC a 3 acre PCL
located in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, plus 9 acres M/L in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, all in Section
16; plus 9 acres M/L located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ in Section 9, T27N, R15W, Town of
Spring Lake, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Jim Small, Jack Sonnentag,
James Schmitt and Attorney Robert Loberg forward. Attorney Loberg, representing County
Materials explained that since the last meeting County Materials queried what was to be done
regarding concerns raised by the public. Quickly, Mr. Barkla, Mr. Pichotta and Mr. Holst put
together a list of additional items to be addressed. Mr. Johnson, Town of Spring Lake
representative was notified immediately following the meeting. We have an application for a
conditional use permit that was supplemented by a letter from Jim Small that addressed each of
the issues raised by the Town. One was a basis for denial and we addressed each one of those.
Then we addressed each of the concerns they raised with the respect to the appropriate conditions
that should be imposed should you grant the permit. With respect to the fifteen items they listed,
five were issues we volunteered. Of the 15, there was one we took issue with regarding blasting
on overcast days. The people that do the blasting do this for a living and they won’t be blasting
under conditions that cause undo concern to the neighbors. You can have an overcast day and
have clouds at 30,000 ft. The blasting will be controlled and conducted between the hours of
11:00am and noon. All the concerns of the Town were addressed by us. County Materials now
owns the Weber property and has an option to purchase the Greg and Vicki Nelson property. The
project will be done in phases. There will be progressive excavation and contemporaneous
reclamation. This won’t be a 126 acre open-pit mine. It will be done in stages. Originally the plan
called for a dam or dike at the head of the ravine, that is no longer part of the plan. There will be
no runoff from this site. The quarry operation is right in the middle, below is where the dike
would have been. There will be immediate excavation to remove the topsoil and a few feet of
overburden. That will be used to build a berm around the quarry area. While digging down 4 to 5
feet they will be creating a berm another 5 to 6 feet. You’ll have a berm that will be 8 to 12 feet.
When they get to the area where Mrs. Dane expressed concern regarding flood waters, there will

e less runoff when they start mining than there is now. They will be recycling the water and
water lost to the site will be from evaporation and will be replenished on Monday from their high
capacity well. With respect to the ground water, we will have testing of adjoining wells to
establish a baseline. Filtration system of any runoff, snowmelt, storm water will stay right on site
referred to as the Jordan sandstone formation. At any given time the quarry will not be any closer
than 100 ft to the groundwater. No runoff will reach the Eau Galle stream or groundwater
contamination. Hwy 128 traffic from the DOT count is a maximum of 70 vehicles per hour,
County Materials has eight trucks operating now. They will have a total of nine trucks, not
additional trucks, running on Hwy 128. We don’t feel we’ll have any negative impact on Hwy
128. We can comply with the regulations of your code and mitigate offsite impacts.
Break for public to look at the map presented by County Materials. 737pm
Reconvene at 7:42pm.
Ms. Jones, Town of Spring Lake, stated she feels the people’s dreams are at stake here; bed and
breakfast, dream home in the woods, retirement home. She sent a letter to Dr. Sanden. She
thought they would be consulted with regards to concerns and would like to still see it happen.
She asked if her well would be tested even though she’s more than a 1,000 feet away. Mr.
Schmidt and Mr. Small answered yes. Glenn Stoddard, Attorney representing Ms. Jones, Joe
Bacon, Bill Klanderman and Carter Turner, explained that he practices environmental and land
use law. It is his understanding that staff has been advised by Attorney Thiel that a conditional
use is essentially the same as a permitted use. He stated that is not correct. A conditional use is a
discretionary of decision where as a permitted use, if an applicant comes in with a complete
application to meet the standards of the ordinance then they are entitled to a permit. If it does not
meet any of the standards of the ordinance, it should be denied. The burden of proof in satisfying
the ordinance is on the applicant. Attorney Stoddard handed out information regarding citing law
cases. Chairperson Barkla stated it is very difficult for the committee to make a decision when
information is being sent to only one committee member. We had a rule if information is not
forth coming in due time then it gets set aside. Jim Schmitt stated we do care about the neighbors.
He disagreed with Ms Jones and that they did have a representative at the table. There was talk
about an environmental impact statement. That is not required of us but of governmental
agencies. Chairperson Barkla stated this is the second hearing that we have had regarding this
issue. There was an e-mail received with the implication that the committee is trying to hurry this
thing along. Mr. Holst, Mr. Pichotta and myself got together to review a questionnaire that was
sent out that was loosely based on an environmental worksheet developed by the Dept of Natural
Resources. Bill Klanderman feels the committee is taking issue with some of the neighbors who
have taken time to make their feelings known. I made my points very clear the last time I was
here. The code clearly gives the committee discretionary power to make a decision based upon
some sixteen criteria. Any one is issue enough. There were four or five that very clearly would
result if the conditional use permit be granted; the beauty of the area, wells are going to somehow

e harmed, traffic, the noise. I’m concerned because I already have a quarry a mile north of me,
now there will be another one and I’ve heard neighbors say that if Nelson’s can do this, then they
want a quarry on their property. Attorney Loberg reiterates that County Materials is a good
neighbor. They operate several quarries across the state that require conditional use permits that
have to be renewed. They have to keep people happy. County Materials has purchased a piece of
land and wants to use for what is a permitted use. The discretion of the committee can never be
arbitrary or unreasonable. I submit that the criteria in your code 240-76(E)(2), is such that there is
no factor therein that would reasonably justify denial. Any alleged offsite impacts are mitigated
in the plan that has been submitted to you. The Land Management staff has twice recommended
the approval of this permit. Where is the evidence that there is some unmitigated offsite impact
here? Mr. Small is a hydro-geologist and a geologist. He was involved in the Minnesota
Executive Summary on Nonmetallic Mining. Reference was made to this article that was
misquoted. The article had to do with streams adjoining quarries with a mining operation that was
below the water table. This operation will be 100 ft above groundwater. Carter Turner stated he
was on the Town Board and they spent hours on the zoning. He doesn’t recall nonmetallic mining
even coming up. Why is it allowed in the General Rural not just the Light Industrial? Are all
counties this way? Pichotta, many counties are. Basically nonmetallic mining is a conditional use
permit allowed in any ag district. Some counties only allow it in an Industrial district. If you were
to change the rules in Pierce County so it was only allowed in the Industrial District, it would
likely create a situation where many of the 40 or so pits in the county would become
nonconforming. That’s probably why they allowed them in ag districts. Kleinhans, previous
zoning code allowed nonmetallic mining in the ag district as well so that didn’t change. Mike
Jacobsen, Spring Lake Township, re-elected to Town Board. Spring Lake Township stated that
they don’t want the conditional use permit granted. Our area is full of karst, fissures, caves, you
may think you are above the groundwater but I’m not assured that’s the case. Attorney Stoddard
stated that he and Attorney Loberg would probably agree on several points of the law here. Staff
recommendation is somewhat useful but the legal advice from Attorney Thiel is incorrect as I
read it. You have to act reasonably. If you have reasons based on karst topography, groundwater,
noise concerns, traffic, those are good reasons and the court will uphold your decision. My clients
have gone beyond that. The burden of presenting evidence lies on the applicant. Ownership
makes no difference nor does it give them greater rights. Kleinhans, staff does technical review of
a project and wouldn’t make a recommendation if it didn’t feel the information submitted was
sound. We verify elevations of groundwater and karst topography in the area. It is not an issue.
This is based on valid research. Staff Report – Brad Roy: The storm water pond has changed as
they indicated. The pond is moved inside the quarry boundary which makes the whole quarry
internally drained. It will be adjacent to the processing area. The new pond will be a 3 acre 25 ft
depression. All storm water from the quarry will be directed to this area. The storm water pond
and processing area will be approximately 15 acres. Mining will have to be employed to construct
this area. Therefore, the original condition #5 will be deleted. Chairperson Barkla asked how
many acres will be open for this operation. Roy, I was under the assumption that it would be

around 40 acres of active mining or un-reclaimed area. If they reclaim the area it would not be
considered part of the active mine. Chairperson Barkla asked if the erosion control plan comes
into affect if they are done mining. Roy, yes, they have to follow the reclamation plan and erosion
control would be part of the reclamation. Mr. Small clarified that the map presented today shows
that the active mine will be 23 acres. This gives us room for the process area and the quarry. As
we get further away we will need to make roads to get from one place to another and that
couldn’t be reclaimed so between 23 and 40 acres. Sanden, Brad under the possible conditions
sited you mentioned no more than 30 acres open at one time. Is that something that would work?
Roy, the sediment pond will always be open along with the processing area so they would have to
be included. It is something to consider. Sanden, how large is the pond and processing area? Roy
stated about 15 acres. Mr. Small, we can live with that size, the problem will be when we put the
soil back but it takes time for it to grow. It won’t be actually reclaimed. Roy, It has to be at 70 %
for reclamation. Nellessen asked as you reclaim, you’ll seed it down and plant trees on it? There
are a lot of maple trees in the area. Mr. Small, we could plant that it will be a mix of evergreens
and grasses, it will be native and noninvasive. Harrington asked how long before you would have
to open another 25 acres. Mr. Schmitt, we wouldn’t open the whole area at once. We would open
what we need for the following year or two years. As we move forward, we’ll fill and reclaim the
area behind us. Sanden, reading through the environmental assessment, I was glad to see you
documented vegetation and no archeological areas but there were two areas of quantification; one
was noise, could you quantify it in terms of decibels? Mr. Schmitt, decibels is the measure at
which they measure noise. When I’m speaking right now it is probably at 60 or 70 decibels, a
lawn mower is probably 95 decibels, a door bell is around 80 decibels, a jet taking off is about
150 decibels. I was immediately adjacent to a primary crusher and it was 88 decibels. We have to
monitor this for our employees. I went 500 ft from the crusher and it was at 60 decibels. Sanden,
how would you characterize it on the other side of the berm? Mr. Schmitt, berms are used as best
management practices for mitigation of noise. The 80 to 90 decibel level will be right at the
process plant. Sanden, on the other side of the berm it would be less than 80 decibels or 60
decibels. Mr. Schmitt, I went on the other side of the berm and it was 500 ft and it was 60
decibels. Sanden, any PSP numbers for a comparative analysis of dust offsite? Mr. Schmitt, this
is going to be a wet process, by wetting down the aggregate it helps limit dust. Also by watering
down the haul roads or putting calcium chloride on haul roads. These are all things we normally
do for part of our air emissions permit for the State of WI. They regulate us. We are within our
emissions limits set forth by the DNR. Sanden, I was given some material on hard rock mining
and some of its effect on the environment. Limestone mining is not hard rock mining, correct?
Mr. Schmitt, metallic mining and nonmetallic mining are two very distinct processes. Metallic
mining is very noxious and uses chemicals to extract the ore. We will be using equipment that a
typical construction site uses. Sanden, visibility, with the berm in place will you see the mining
process from the road or see it from the surrounding hills or an airplane. Mr. Small, you could see
it from an airplane. Today, with no leaves on the trees you wouldn’t see it from the road. Maybe
on the top of a conveyor at some vantage point you can see. But there are a lot of hardwood trees

that we are leaving so it’s not visible. Sanden, does staff see any standards of the ordinance that
would not be met and would justify us not granting this permit? Pichotta, stated the standards of
the ordinance are:
Basis of approval.
The Land Management Committee shall review each conditional use permit application
for compliance with all requirements applicable to that specific use and to all other
relevant provisions of this chapter. In approving conditional uses, the Land Management
Committee also shall determine that the proposed use at the proposed location will not be
contrary to the public interest and will not be detrimental or injurious to the public health,
public safety or character of the surrounding area.
To aid in the review of the proposed project against the above criteria, the Land
Management Committee may evaluate the following specific criteria but shall not be
limited thereto:
1. Whether the proposed project will adversely affect property in the area.
2. Whether the proposed use is similar to other uses in the area.
3. Whether the proposed project is consistent with adopted Pierce County plans or
any officially adopted town plan.
4. Provision of an approved sanitary waste disposal system.
5. Provision for a potable water supply.
6. Provisions for solid waste disposal.
7. Whether the proposed use creates noise, odor or dust.
8. Provision of safe vehicular and pedestrian access.
9. Whether the proposed project adversely impacts neighborhood traffic flow and
congestion.
10. Adequacy of emergency services and their ability to service the site.
11. Provision for proper surface water drainage.
12. Whether proposed buildings contribute to visual harmony with existing buildings
in the neighborhood, particularly as related to scale and design.
13. Whether the proposed project creates excessive exterior lighting glare or spillover
onto neighboring properties.
14. Whether the proposed project leads to a change in the natural character of the area
through the removal of natural vegetation or altering of the topography.
15. Whether the proposed project would adversely affect the natural beauty of the area.
16. Whether the proposed project would adversely affect any historic or
archaeological sites.
Pichotta, there criteria are basically types of issues that you should look at. If you were to look,
for example, solely at whether natural vegetation would be removed, if you are going to gauge a
project’s appropriateness based on this one issue, you likely wouldn’t grant a CUP for anything.
Sanden, then farming wouldn’t be permitted. Pichotta, You need to look at them in a big picture
kind of context. But it may be that any one of them wouldn’t rise to such a level to that it alone

would a rationale for denial. Sanden, with the 40 plus nonmetallic mines in Pierce County, they
all meet that criteria or they wouldn’t be granted a permit. With this being 30 acres - it isn’t not
that much out of the norm. It would seem to me that if the other mines meet the criteria I haven’t
heard anything that is substantially different for this mine. Pichotta stated that it should be
recognized that a good number of the other mines have been in existence prior to zoning. And
were an established use when zoning came into being in the 70’s. Some of the others were
permitted under prior ordinances and the reality is that things have gotten harder to permit.
Sanden, in the two years that I’ve been on the committee, I don’t remember any complaints. We
hear these every month or two and no one shows up for these hearings except maybe the Maiden
Rock one. Pichotta, the Maiden Rock mine was the expansion of an existing mine into a non
incorporated area. Our code calls for renewal of all mines every two years by the committee.
Sanden, would it be a fair statement to say that the mining industry is heavily regulated by the
State agencies such as the DNR and others. Pichotta, that is correct, there is a number of permits
required. Chairperson Barkla stated he recalls just a couple months ago that there was a complaint
situation regarding an adjacent family. Sanden, if they do not comply in two years we can yank
the conditional use permit. So they have to be good neighbors and comply with conditions. Ms
Jones stated that this mine is different. There is only one mine in the county this big. Mr. Schmitt,
I worked for another quarry, the Elmwood one is over 100 acres. There are a number of mines
that aren’t reclaimed and we are going to reclaim ours. Joe Bacon, Spring Lake Township,
between Jerry Larson and myself, we are the largest land owners near this site. Where wouldn’t
you allow a quarry? I think there are so many other places this quarry could go and that this is the
worst place. Kleinhans, there is a similar facility in the county that is renewed every two years.
That is Wieser Concrete, a concrete facility located right on the Rush River on both sides. They
have a lot more acreage and operate between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm. They have
approximately 40 acres open. That facility is regulated by the DNR because of their proximity on
the river. This one is quite a ways away from the river. Nellessen stated that since there isn’t a
full committee, he would move to defer until they have legal counsel review the new
information. Two weeks from today at the next meeting. Harrington asked if we would have
counsel review the material. Nellessen stated that he would want counsel to go over it.
Chairperson Barkla asked if it could be moved to a night where it would be the only item on the
agenda. Pichotta, the agenda for April 18 th meeting has a public hearing for another nonmetallic
mine and Town of River Falls Ordinances. Attorney Loberg stated this is the second public
hearing on this matter. The County has very competent legal counsel and has reviewed these
issues specifically. It’s important to have people heard. But at some point, we’re entitled to a
vote. I was here four weeks ago and an e-mail was sent just prior to the meeting and CMC was
heavily chastised for that. Here tonight you have an attorney come in and submit something new.
Nellessen withdraws his motion.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this
conditional use permit for a nonmetallic mining operation with the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits

from all relevant departments and agencies.
2. Hours of operation shall be 6am to 9pm Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm
on Saturday. Operation shall be closed on Sundays and holidays.
3. Blasting shall be completed by a State licensed blaster. Blasting shall take
place no more than 4 times per week and blasting times shall be between 11am
and 2pm.
4. Stormwater pond design shall be completed by a State certified engineer. The
pond design shall be reviewed and approved by the Pierce County Land
Conservation Department.
5. Erosion control shall be installed prior to any mining. All erosion control
measures shall be submitted to the Zoning Office for review and approval prior to
any mining.
6. Road access shall be permitted by WI DOT and a Uniform Address Number
shall be obtained from the Zoning Office.
7. Reclamation shall be completed consistent with submitted plans.
8. Mine operation and design shall be consistent with the approved plans.
Zoning Office shall be notified of any deviation from the plans.
9. Zoning Office shall be notified if ground water is encountered.
10. All structures and signage shall be permitted by the Zoning Office.
11. An elevation benchmark shall be established.
12. The reclamation financial assurance information shall be reviewed and
approved by Corporation Counsel before mining commences.
13. Applicant shall comply with NR 135 Annual Reclamation Permits.
14. Property owners located within 1000 feet shall be given reasonable notice of
all planned blasting. This request shall be waived for landowners who request not
to be given notice.
15. Well tests for nitrates, suspended solids, and dissolved solids shall be
conducted for all existing wells within 1000 feet of the proposed mining operation
to establish a baseline. This shall be completed prior to blasting. Wells shall be
tested annually thereafter. All results shall be provided to the Zoning Office.
16. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures shall be submitted to the Zoning Office.
17. The recycling of concrete products shall be allowed.
18. This CUP shall be reviewed for renewal every two years.
19. Staff suggests that the LMC review conditions recommended by The Town of
Spring Lake to determine whether inclusion of any or all is warranted.
20. All loaded trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site.
21. The quarry shall have no more than 30 unreclaimed acres at any given time.
The storm water pond and processing area are to be included in the unreclaimed
acres.

Chairperson Barkla, when there are two attorney’s involved in this sort of a circumstance, I want
to be certain we are on solid ground. I want us to have a chance to visit with our Corporation
Counsel. Sanden, if we were to make a motion to approve this when would we discuss the Town
of Spring Lake’s conditions? Pichotta suggested that as County Material responded to each of
their questions and concerns that they be held to their responses to those issues. One thing not
addressed was the potential of limiting open acreage to 25 to 30 acres. That would be condition
#21. Nellessen makes a motion to defer action to April 25, 2007 until counsel can review
material/Harrington seconds. All in favor/Eric Sanden descends. Passed.
Nellessen takes over as acting chairperson
Discuss/take action on recommendation to County Board regarding Pat Harrington reelection
as a citizen member. Pichotta reports: The term of Land Management Committee
member Pat Harrington will expire in April of this year. Mr. Harrington has expressed a
willingness to serve an additional term with the possibility of resigning in one year. We staggered
the terms so we wouldn’t have 100% turn over, so the term would be to 2009. My
recommendation is for the committee to forward a recommendation to the County Board of
Supervisors supporting Pat Harrington’s re-election. Barkla makes a motion to forward the
recommendation/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Barkla returns as chairperson.
Discuss/take action to accept Phase II Smart Growth Planning effort completed by Rudd
and Associates. Pichotta reports: We are utilizing a three phase effort to develop a
comprehensive plan. The first two phases are basically data collection. The first phase was data
adequate to address the nine elements. Phase II was the development, distribution and
compilation of a community attitude survey. Now the third phase will be to secure a consultant to
develop a public participation plan and to begin deliberation to identify a vision, goals and
objectives and policies for the county. If you have had a chance to review the Phase II work
product and if you agree with my assessment that it is satisfactory, you could make a motion to
accept it and enable us to pay Rudd and Associates. Sanden moves to accept Phase II and to
pay Rudd and Associates/Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Conditional use permit for nonmetallic mining in Town of Diamond Bluff
Conditional use permit expansion renewal for Red Wing Airport
180 ft monopole communication tower in Town of Clifton
River Falls Ordinances
Motion to adjourn at 9:00pm. by Nellessen/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting April 18, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans and Shari Hartung
Absent: Don Nellessen
Chairperson P. Barkla calls the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Special meeting date: April 25, 2007.
Approve Minutes: For the April 4, 2007 meeting. Harrington moves to approve minutes/Sanden
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Chairperson Barkla addressed the audience stating that two agenda items are being removed,
Agenda item #1, nonmetallic mining for William Holst, by request of the applicant, and Agenda
item #3, a deferred request for a monopole tower for Pierce County in the Town of Clifton.
Discuss take action on an extension of a conditional use permit to expand the Red Wing
Airport runway apron on property located in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 6, T24N,
R17W, Town of Isabelle, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Dennis Tebbe
forward. Mr. Tebbe explained this is the same project as last year. Under the original contract
there was a 90-day retention of the bid. They were waiting for the State of MN to take action on
funding going to the legislature. That took longer than anticipated so the contractor would not
honor his bid. The overall design stayed the same. In looking at the quality of the base, they
determined they wouldn’t need to put as much aggregate to carry the load. Under the Portland
Concrete Cement Association, this particular cement section was originally laid out to have
additional tie bars to transfer the load. When re-evaluated they determined they could eliminate
some of the steel based on the previous aprons and the performance of others; making a little less
gravel base and less transfer of load. We changed the pavement width to 15 ft, making less joints
to reseal. So the bids came in with a reduction from the original bid. The bid was awarded to
Hoffman Brothers out of Mankato. We met all the criteria for FAA and MN DOT approvals. We
awarded the contract late last fall. They looked at the site and decided to wait until spring when
conditions would be more favorable. They are asking for an extension of the conditional use
permit to complete the job.
Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: The City of Red Wing has really kept me informed of the progress
over the past year. In looking over the conditions approved last March, some trees have been
replanted and an irrigation system has been installed. Those trees are going to make it. More will
be planted this year around the perimeter of the project. Signage was obtained for the roads and

the buildings. Following SEH Safety Regulations won’t occur until the construction starts. They
played it safe holding off until spring. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land
Management Committee approve this apron expansion at the Red Wing Airport for an additional
6 months to allow the project to be completed provided the redesigned plans are consistent with
the original approval. Holst moves to extend the conditional use permit for the expansion of
the Red Wing Airport for a period of one year/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Motion
approved.
Discuss/take action on a request for renewal of a conditional use permit for a Dog Kennel &
Training Facility by Greg Dixon on the parcel owned by Elizabeth Barrett, located in the
NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 17, T27N, R16W, Town of Gilman, Pierce County, WI. No one
is present. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: The facility was initially started in 1999 and renewed
previously. They train hunting dogs and a kennel as well. We haven’t heard any complaints.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC renew this conditional use permit for a
Dog Kennel and Training Facility with the following conditions:
1. No more than 45 dogs shall be allowed in the kennel.
2. Register personally owned dogs with the Town of Gilman as required.
3. Noise abatement measures shall be continued.
4. All dogs shall be housed within buildings by 9:00pm.
5. This conditional use shall expire in five years or if compliance issues arise. Renewal
may be done administratively if no compliance issues arise.
Chairperson Barkla asked about the Humane Society inspecting kennels. Kleinhans stated the
reason it was eliminated from the conditions is because there isn’t a Humane Society any longer.
Harrington asked if 45 dogs allowed wasn’t a large number for a kennel. Pichotta stated that the
Town of Gilman has a rather comprehensive dog ordinance in place. Holst moves to approve
the conditional use permit renewal with conditions #1 - 5/Sanden seconds. All in favor.
Passed.
Discuss/take action on review and approval of the Town of River Falls Ordinances; Right to
Farm (Ord. 2007-01), Soils (Ord. 2007-02), Small Wind Electrical Generation Towers (Ord.
2007-03) and Public Notice (Ord. 2007-04). First ordinance, Right to Farm (Ord. 2007-01).
Chairperson Barkla states he is going to lay some ground rules and indicated that he will stop the
proceedings immediately if any personal slurs denigrating anyone are made and stated that
discussion should be directed to the Chairperson. Jerome Rodewald is invited forward. Mr.
Rodewald stated the Right to Farm Ordinance has been reviewed for some time and is pretty
straight forward.
Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: The committee has reviewed this ordinance about a year ago and
there were some requested modifications to the ordinance regarding some of the verbage and a
definition to be consistent with the WI Farmland Preservation rules. So the modifications were
made. The definitions of “Nuisance” were modified. The ordinance amendment included

changing operations to use and operators to users. The ordinance was posted in three public
places as of May 1, 2006 and revisions were posted in three public places the week of October 9,
2006 prior to the LMC review on October 18, 2006. Staff Recommendation: I recommend the
committee approve this ordinance and forward to the County Board of Supervisors for approval.
Jim Esler, Town of River Falls property owner, presents the committee with information
regarding a summary judgment filing made on his behalf. Chairperson Barkla states the
committee has tried to adhere to a rule where information needs to be presented to the committee
in a timely manner ahead of the meetings so the committee has a chance to review it. Jim Esler
stated the document was filed today. We are going to challenge the Town on their zoning
authority. Holst stated he would like to see the proceedings tonight go on the merit of what is in
front of us and not previously construed wrong doings; this is a committee not a court of law.
Sanden agrees and asked how the proposed ordinance meshes with the confined animal feeding
operation or DNR jurisdiction. The Right to Farm law - does that include any type of agricultural
activity? Kleinhans stated this is meant to deal with nuisances in an agricultural community. This
doesn’t deal with feedlots or intensive agriculture. Pichotta stated the State of WI has Right to
Farm language adopted at the State level. He indicated that it is his understanding that there was a
challenge to that and it was weakened to some degree so the Town felt the need to get some
language in place to protect the rights of farmers to continue to farm. It protects them against
nuisance complaints from encroaching residential development. This doesn’t impact large
feedlots, etc those are separate regulations. Pichotta noted that on the front of Mr. Esler’s handout
is a reference to a State Statutes which indicates that the County is responsible for any liabilities
that arise. That would be in regard to Town approval of a County Zoning ordinance not a Town
ordinance, so this is not actually pertinent to our discussions of the Town ordinances. Sanden
moves to approve the Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-01 and forward to the County
Board for approval/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Request for approval of Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-02 (Soils). Jerome Rodewald
stated this ordinance is a revision to a current ordinance that has been in effect since 1977. They
have tried to put into effect current language with a new soils map and some language that the
previous ordinance was silent on. They feel it is ready with one change in terms of a date in
subsection three. It was left open until last Monday when it was passed by the Town Board. So
the reference date should be April 16, 2007. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: The committee has
seen this previously and there were suggested changes. The previous version was reviewed last
October and again March of this year where the committee deferred action due to questions
regarding technical aspects of the ordinance. In 2000, they adopted the soils classification for
locating non-farm buildings. There is a recent modification to the County Soils Survey Map that
they want to use as a reference for determining different types of soil. The soil survey is a general
tool, it’s not exact. It’s a very good guide. I think the committee should consider that soil
scientists could submit applications to verify soils or question the accuracy of soil survey when it
comes to permitting a non-farm building. If the ordinance is adopted it should be a workable
ordinance and have some options for appeals. I know the Town has suggested an appeal of

USDA Soil Determinations working with Mark Biel’s Office. I think it’s important to have site
specific data for a determination if you are going to use soil surveys as a guide for pinpointing
buildings. There were some modifications to the code to be consistent with Pierce County
subdivision regulations regarding parcels of 15 acres in size.. Mr. Rodewald, regarding Section E,
if a fire, storm, or other non self-imposed casualty causes substantially damages the building, the
new dwelling can be built within 100 ft of the existing dwelling. Usually on the older homes,
there is an issue of setbacks. The 100 ft was to be a limitation and to force them to put the new
dwelling within the farmyard. Section F is when someone wants to live in the home while the
new one is being built. The Town Board could allow them to do that but it would have to be torn
down within 180 days. The appeals process on soils is quite clear. I’m bound to the USDA NRCS
Soils Maps. These are universal and standard. If someone disagrees with the maps they can
appeal to the Board of Appeals. If someone has a question about soils, they can request another
opinion. Rather than having someone come with their own data, I feel it needs to go to an appeals
process where it is more than just the zoning administrator making a decision. Esler - The
question of a soil scientist has been brought up. In 2002, I had received a letter from NRCS
stating they are not recognizing severely eroded map use in any of these updated surveys. If there
are soils that are severely eroded, they are not going to be on any update. That guarantees that
you will have inconsistencies in Class IV soils and that’s what the Town uses for its use. NRCS
says soil surveys very seldom contain site specific information and are not to be used as primary
regulatory tools on site specific permitting decisions. Mr. Esler had a list of questions that had
been presented to the Town of River Falls regarding inaccuracy of soils maps. Chairperson
Barkla asked if the Town had responded to his questions. Mr. Esler stated no. This last week the
Town had there public hearing on Monday and several of us had quite a few questions. The Town
refused to answer our questions. I have documentation from Steven’s Engineering from January
2006 the Town’s Engineer states the difficulty with this procedure is that some home sites have
been approved which later have been found to be inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. In
2003 the Town put together a draft ordinance to allow information from a soil scientist be
submitted which they later did not pass. In 2004 at a Town meeting, LeRoy and Louie both
agreed they needed to amend their town ordinances on building residences only on number four
soils, some type of consideration should be given to slopes. From that one could conclude that
building on slopes is not allowed. I brought in a surveyors map with the slopes delineated. I was
told slopes don’t count and they told me every person that ever had a home built on slopes had to
go through the Board of Appeals. They could not give me that list and I could not find those
records. On Feb 14, 2003, a letter from Mr. Loberg stated that if indeed the maps are wrong,
those maps have substantial impact once used the property there shouldn’t be a mechanism to
modify the maps. I have examples of former of Town Board Members being able to build on
good soils. Here is how the appeals process works in River Falls, there was an appeal and before
the appeal could be heard, the permit was issued. That’s a pretty good indicator as to how the
Board should vote. There has been great discrepancy on who has been allowed to build and who
hasn’t. The provision for having a soil scientist, someone certified by the State of WI, being able

to have that not go through the appeals process. What is going to happen is the Board of Appeals
says yes, they have bad soil. Holst, I have a problem with the USDA maps, they say I have a 25%
slope on my property and I wouldn’t be able to spread manure if I did. I contest their accuracy. I
don’t feel this part of their ordinance is ready. I would like to see the appeal process easier rather
than go through the Board of Appeals. They are going to have to hire a soil scientist anyway, why
go through the rest. Sanden, would this be something similar to the soil morphology tests? Mr.
Rodewald, I would like to see something far more sophisticated than the people that do the septic
tests. If there is no issue, why have everyone spend $500.00 on a soil scientist. Sanden, I wasn’t
suggesting it be done with every procedure for a building permit, but in areas where someone
wants to contest it. Soil doesn’t behave that way anyway. You see a line on a map and you realize
you don’t take one step and go from clay soil to sandy soil. You can’t put a bore hole every
square meter. If there was a suitable appeals method, then using a soil map would be fine. I
would take issue with soil maps not considered a planning tool; Regional Planning Commissions
use it, Cities use it, Towns use it. Mr. Rodewald stated Counties use it, the purpose the
Department of Agriculture set up the NRCS to provide a uniform system of soils evaluation. I
would rather see the appeals done at the Board of Appeals level rather than having a home owner
come to me with a document that says I don’t agree with those soils. Esler - On my property, a
soil scientist came out and dug holes all day and all but one of the sites he found were buildable
in terms of being Class IV. To have it that particular body making judgment on that is
problematic. A surveyor was there with a GPS and we could tell where we were on my property
within an eighth of an inch. I fail to see how a Board of Appeals could be anymore help than that.
A surveyor isn’t going to sign it unless it is accurate. There has been a change in standard as to
how much land you have to have. I was told you have to have enough for the driveway, septic,
well and the house. Lately, it has changed to just touching it. Pichotta stated that his recollection
of previous discussions regarding the appeals process had to do with involving NRCS and
reviewing data provided by a soil scientist. My recollection is that the Town’s position was that it
was permissible for someone to appeal soils data by approaching the NRCS and if NRCS would
approve the new data the Town would then recognize that data. But the issue was that the NRCS
wouldn’t accept appeals from land owner’s, they would only accept appeals from municipalities.
What I’m hearing from the committee is that everyone recognizes the NRCS maps are the only
real definitive guidance document that we have as far as what type of soils are out there. If you
are going to use a general tool for site specific determinations that it makes sense to have a
process through which additional detail could be added to the NRCS Soils Maps. I think the
committee would like a well defined process through which additional information can be
presented that clearly delineates the steps in how one would go about doing this. We don’t expect
you to react to additional information presented by a soil scientist. You would just be the conduit
to NRCS. Mr. Loberg responded that he understands the committee wants the appeal process
redefined. One concern is that persons applying for a permit not be able to seek the services of a
hired gun to get the opinion they are looking for. I suggest that if somebody takes objection to the
determination of the Zoning Administrator, which will be based upon those maps, they can

present their own maps and the Zoning Administrator will then present them to the NRCS for
review. It will be incumbent for the applicant to furnish the map or scientific report, if the Town
takes issue with it, they can hire their own. Mr. Rodewald stated the response from the NRCS is
they don’t want to be the mediators. If there is error they will correct them over time. Mr. Loberg,
the NRCS will review them upon request of the Town. Mr. Esler stated that people get perk test
all the time, those perk tests can be a big determination as to whether someone can build or not.
But I don’t see any Town contesting perk tests. The same thing can be said about slopes, in some
instances they count and I was told they don’t. Mr. Loberg explained based on what Mr.
Rodewald said, they have to go one step further in the appeals process. In the event there is a
definitive answer not issued by NRCS, they can go to the Board of Appeals and make it clear that
the Board of Appeals is not bound merely by the NRCS maps. Holst, I want to make sure I
understand you correctly, if NRCS would drag their feet, you could overrule them. Mr. Loberg
stated that Mr. Esler, for example, could appeal to the Board of Appeals and as part of his appeal
present that soil scientist report. Mr. Holst asked even though NRCS has not changed their map?
Mr. Loberg stated yes. Kleinhans, I think about how this works and how our floodplain ordinance
works. Our floodplain ordinance is based on maps, general maps as a whole and some have
specific delineations so we know exactly where the floodplain is. Otherwise those maps are based
on general topography data. We know there are some errors. What we do when there is an error is
have a surveyor or engineer bring their certified elevation to clarify the information. I can react to
that by building a permit but I can’t change the map. FEMA changes the map if we get certified
elevation certificates to them. Fill out all the right forms and then it’s changed. That is about as
close an analogy I can come up with but you hire a professional to do that. A surveyor, depending
on where he picks up the benchmark, will determine the cost. I think it’s important where we get
a professional involved because the basis for the maps is general. Holst moves to defer action
on Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-02 (Soils) until the correct verbage can be
incorporated regarding the appeals process. Mr. Esler stated that the original soil survey is
based on aerial photographs taken in 1939. They did not go out and drill holes so they are not site
specific. Sanden, I don’t agree with that. That is the first level of mapping. They have soil
scientist in a laboratory based on tone, elevation and vegetative distribution. They make a general
soil map from there then refined by field crews that go out and look at the landscape. These are
very talented people that look at the soil breaks and know where they are going to occur. There
isn’t any soil survey published in the US that hasn’t gone through that second step. Mr. Esler
stated in his case he had a soil scientist come out and in every place that he dug except for one the
maps were incorrect. Sanden, soils don’t behave in the way that the map implies. Lines on a map
do not capture the behavior of soils. Soils are gradient, they go from one to another. You can put
a hole down anywhere and unless it’s the quintessential representative horizon of that soil type
it’s going to be wrong to some extent. Mr. Esler I am aware of so many examples of fudging on
the map and I’m requesting that everyone to be treated fairly. Holst, I believe that’s the end that’s
going to come out of this by what’s presented by Mr. Loberg. Chairperson Barkla asked Holst to
restate his motion. Holst moves to defer action on Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-02

(Soils) until correct verbage can be incorporated regarding the appeals process/Sanden
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Request for approval of Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-03 Small Wind Electrical
Generation Tower. Mr. Rodewald states he has met with Jim Kleinhans and they are in
agreement. He is not totally in agreement with the Focus from Energy group. Staff Report – Jim
Kleinhans: This ordinance has been before the LMC previously. There has been a group in the
State that has objected regarding the setbacks, the engineering review and access to the tower.
The Town wishes to have those things in the ordinance as far as the tower access those things are
addressed; accessibility of the tower and climbing ability of the tower depending on the type of
project requested. There have been some modifications and improvements. My issue with the
$1,000,000 worth of liability ended up not an issue since it’s readily available to the landowners.
These are smaller facilities, the kilowatt variety versus the megawatt variety. Because of the
resent interest in wind and green energy, the Town wanted to have something that’s more in tune
with what the State has recommend for a model ordinance. Staff Recommendation: I
recommend the Land Management Committee review this ordinance and consider forwarding it
on to the County Board of Supervisors as written. Chairperson Barkla asked about the fencing.
Kleinhans stated he is satisfied with the 8 ft fencing. The fence would only go into place if it’s a
climbable tower like a lattice tower. If it’s a monopole where your first climbing peg has to have
a ladder to get to it, it wouldn’t be an issue. Holst asked if you have some of these television
towers with three legs would you have to put a fence around that. Kleinhans, no this only deals
with wind electrical generators. Mr. Rodewald presented a photo of a tower that is climbable and
stated their concern was if the tower was climbable it would need a fence. Sanden moves to
approve the Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-03 Small Wind Electrical Generation
Towers and forwarding to the County Board of Supervisors recommending approval/
Harrington seconds. Holst asked Mr. Rodewald how this is affected by the ETZ. Mr. Rodewald
stated they have the same ordinance in consideration right now. They met last night and made no
changes to it. ETZ is ready to approve it. All in favor. Passed.
Request to approve amended Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-04 (Newspaper
Publication). Mr. Rodewald explained the ordinance change is to update the publication to 18
days, 11 days and 4 days. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: The amended text will go two
publications in the local Town newspaper at least 11 days prior to the hearing and one at least 4
days prior to the hearing. It’s amended to read “Noticed by three (3) publications in a newspaper
likely to give notice in the area, one to be at least 18 days, one to be at least 11 days and one to be
at least 4 days prior to the hearing. This would give them a little bit more notification and still
qualifies as a Class II Notification. Staff Recommendation: I would recommend the committee
review this ordinance amendment and forward a copy to the County Board of Supervisors for
consideration. Mr. Esler, this is a requirement of State Statute that zoning ordinances by Class II
notices. Until recently the Town of River Falls ordinances have been processed without being
Class II notices. Statute 889.04 gives them grace after three years. Holst moves to approve the
Town of River Falls Ordinance 2007-04 (Newspaper Publication) and forward a

ecommendation to the County Board of Supervisors/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Chairperson Barkla responded to Mr. Esler’s statement, generally people are cynical about
government. The minimal responsibility in those positions is to give answers in a timely manner.
Also for the one asking the questions, to be considerate and show courtesy in allowing time to be
answered.
Discuss take action on recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors regarding
reelection of Eric Sanden to the Land Management Committee as a Citizen Member. Andy
Pichotta reports: Last February, Mr. Sanden was reelected for a two year time period, however,
at the April County Board meeting, the rules for the Land Management Committee in the County
Code were changed so the Citizen Members would be staggered from the County Board
Members. Holst, that wasn’t the intent. The intent was to have at least one of the Citizen
Members on the Board at a time. Mr. Pichotta - My recommendation is for Mr. Sanden, who has
indicated he will serve another term, be reelected for a two-year term as Citizen Member to the
County Board of Supervisors. Then we would be consistent with the County Code as well as the
legal opinion which was received from Corporation Counsel regarding this issue. Harrington
makes a motion to recommend to the County Board of Supervisors that Eric Sanden be
reelected as a Citizen Member to the Land Management Committee for a two-year term /
Barkla seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items will be discussed at the April 25, 2007
Special Meeting.
Motion to adjourn at 8:28pm. by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
April 25, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta and Shari Hartung
Absent: Don Nellessen
Chairperson Barkla calls the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Discuss/take action on deferred request for a conditional use permit for a nonmetallic
mining quarry operation in the General Rural District by County Materials Corp, agent, on
property owned by County Materials & Greg Nelson, located in the NE ¼, EXC a 3 acre
PCL located in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, plus 9 acres M/L in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, all in
Section 16; plus 9 acres M/L located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ in Section 9, T27N, R15W,
Town of Spring Lake, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla asked Andy Pichotta to give
his report. This is a request for a conditional use permit for nonmetallic mining by County
Materials for a proposed quarry in the Town of Spring Lake. As you are all familiar with the
request I will present only the supplemental staff report. The information in front of you is
intended to assist the LMC in its discussion and deliberation regarding the potential issuance of a
conditional use permit to County Materials for a nonmetallic mining operation in the Town of
Spring Lake. We previously received legal advice from counsel regarding conditional uses I will
clarify that advice somewhat. A conditional use is, according to the Center for Land Use
Education, a land use or activity that is not suited to all locations in a zoning district, but is
allowed if it meets specific conditions set out in the zoning ordinance as well as the ordinance’s
general purpose. These conditions generally relate to site suitability and compatibility with
neighboring land uses due to noise, odor, traffic and other factors. In short, conditional uses must
be custom tailored to a specific location. The decision to grant or deny a conditional use permit
(CUP) is discretionary. In other words, a conditional use permit may be denied if the project
cannot be tailored to a site to meet the specific conditional use standards and general purposes of
the ordinance. For your information I have included a variety of information out of the Pierce
County Code.
§ 240-4 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote and protect public health, safety, aesthetics and other
aspects of the general welfare. Further purposes of this chapter are listed in the report.
On page 2, § 240-88 Definitions: Conditional Use Permit – a permit, issued by the Land
Management Committee, stating that a use permitted as a conditional use may be established,

expanded or enlarged subject to any conditions placed on the authorization and the provision of
this chapter. Use Permitted As A Conditional Use – a use whose nature, character or
circumstance is so unique or so dependent upon specific conditions that predetermination of
permissibility by right is not practical but which may be permitted on a case-by-case basis subject
to the conditional use permit procedure.
§ 240-76 Conditional use permit, talks about Applicability, Application, Fee, Public Hearing,
Determination and Basis of Approval. In approving conditional uses, the Land Management
Committee also shall determine that the proposed use at the proposed location will not be
contrary to the public interest and will not be detrimental or injurious to the public health, public
safety or character of the surrounding area. To aid in the review of the proposed project against
the above criteria, the Land Management Committee may evaluate the following specific criteria
but shall not be limited thereto: and a list is provided for the committee to consider. We will refer
to those later. On page 4, The criteria that are listed in subsection E (2) need to be satisfied and
the burden to satisfy remains with the applicant. Under F, Conditions and restrictions: The Land
Management Committee may, in approving an application for a conditional use permit, impose
such restrictions and conditions that it determines are required to prevent or minimize adverse
effects from the proposed use or development on other properties in the neighborhood and on the
general health, safety and welfare of the county. The rest of the information deals with
termination and appeal rights. The next section deals with Issues Raised by Neighbors and
Concerned Citizens. General issues, including but not necessarily limited to those set forth below,
have been raised regarding the proposed use at the proposed site (a complete list of specific
concerns along with County Materials response to those concerns is included in your packet):
Generally these concerns include:
1. Noise Pollution (blasting and back-up beeping)
2. Traffic impacts to Hwy 128
3. Ground water contamination concerns (wells)
4. Storm water runoff concerns
5. Impact to character of the area
6. Impact on land and property values
We will revisit these and clarify and insure this is a complete list of concerns. It should be noted
that in Wisconsin it is proper for area residents to testify about the impact they believe a proposed
use will have on their general welfare. The weight to be given such testimony lies within the
discretion of the Land Management Committee. The Land Management Committee should
evaluate each of these concerns and determine the likely magnitude of each potential impact and
determine whether, and to what degree, each issue can be prevented or minimized. Each concern,
as well as the standards contained in Pierce County Code, should be weighed and balanced in
formulating a determination as to whether the proposed use at the proposed location will be:
1. Contrary to public interest
2. Detrimental or injurious to the public health, public safety or character of the
surrounding area.

There doesn’t seem to be a consensus as to exactly what some of these things mean. They are a
conceptual type of thing where the committee will have to use their discretion.
Public interest – is generally used to refer to “common well being” or “general welfare”
Public health – is generally considered to be the overall health of a community
Public safety – is generally considered to relate to the protection of the general population
from all manner of significant danger, injury, damage or harm.
Character of the surrounding area – is generally understood to include types of land uses
present, visual characteristics including natural beauty, etc.
One of the criteria is what the Piece County Comprehensive Land Management Plan says
regarding the proposed use. The Plan states that “mining operations will be required to submit
and adhere to plans for the neighborly and environmentally sensitive operation and retirement of
the pits.” Any decision must be supported by substantial evidence, even if there is substantial
evidence to support the opposite conclusion. Substantial evidence means relevant, credible and
probative evidence upon which reasonable persons could rely to reach a conclusion. Staff has
discussed with legal counsel whether issuance or denial of a CUP sets any precedence for future
actions and has been advised that it does not. Each CUP request is evaluated on its own merits
and on a case-by-case basis. It should be noted that, according to Pierce County Code, if the
application is denied, the reasons for denial shall be stated. If a decision of the LMC regarding
issuance of a conditional use permit is appealed the following certiorari review standards are used:
1. Did the Committee keep within its jurisdiction;
2. Did the Committee proceed on the correct theory of law;
3. Was the action of the committee arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable, and did it
represent the will of the Committee rather than its judgment;
4. Was the evidence such that the Committee could have reasonably reached the
determination under review.
There is a suggested framework list in the report for the committee to discuss and deliberate
whether to issue this permit.
I. Ask applicant to review criteria set forth in § 240-76 E(2). The items are
on page 3 that were referenced. Discuss each in relation to the proposed use. The
burden of proof to demonstrate satisfaction of these criteria remains with the
applicant.
II. Identify list of concerns/issues regarding proposed use. A list is on the
bottom of page 5, the committee may want to involve the citizens to some degree
to make certain we’ve covered each concern.
III. Discuss each concern /issue.
a. Determine likelihood and magnitude of potential adverse impact.
b. Identify degree to which prevention or minimization is possible.
c. Consider whether other uses with similar impacts (type and magnitude)
have been permitted and in what circumstances.
d. If concern(s) can not be prevented or minimized – determine if specific

issue rises to level to warrant denial of request. I suggest that process be
followed for each concern.
IV. Review project (proposed use) as a “whole” to determine if it is:
a. Contrary to the public interest.
b. Detrimental or injurious to public health.
c. Detrimental or injurious to public safety.
d. Detrimental or injurious to the character of area.
e. If proposed use is found to be contrary to, detrimental, or injurious to the
above, the request should be denied.
V. If it is found that adverse impacts can be prevented or minimized and the
proposed use at the proposed location will not be contrary to the public interest
and will not be detrimental or injurious to the public health, public safety or
character of the surrounding area, the permit should be issued with conditions
necessary to prevent or minimize impacts.
Chairperson Barkla - I’m going to suggest that we now ask the people from County Materials to
look at page 3; Basis of Approval, E (2) to aid in the review of the proposed project against the
criteria, the LMC may evaluate the following specific criteria but shall not be limited thereto… I
would ask someone from County Materials to respond as we go through one by one. Then we
will move to page 5, Issues raised by Neighbors and Concerned Citizens and then have some
input from the community. Chairperson Barkla, as we go along the committee may ask questions.
Jim Small, County Materials, on letter a. Whether the proposed project will adversely affect
property in the area; the best example is the Weber parcel, the couple that is buying it has known
about the quarry from the beginning and that was not a factor in their offer to the Weber’s. There
have been many studies around quarries and the property values around the quarries have risen
just like every other property. b. Whether the proposed use is similar to other uses in the area. It’s
similar to the other quarry operations in the area. There are several in the Township and in the
County. Chairperson Barkla asked Mr. Pichotta the number of mines throughout the County.
Pichotta, stated that he believed that there are four within the confines of the Township, in the
County as a whole there are between 42 and 45. Mr. Small c. Whether the proposed project is
consistent with adopted Pierce County plans or any officially adopted town plan. It is listed as a
conditional use in the General Rural which this property is zoned. Pichotta, I noted in the staff
report what is contained in the Pierce County plan, I am not aware of any town specific plans, I
believe the Town would have made us aware when they forwarded on their recommendations.
Mr. Small d. Provision of an approved sanitary waste disposal system, in our red binder report, it
states we will have port-a-potties out there for our employees that will be serviced by a local
vender. e. Provisions for a potable water supply, as stated in the report we will need a well for
washing. Jim Schmitt, a licensed well driller will drill the well so it will be according to code,
with regards to potable water supply, everyday the foreman will bring out a large jug of water for
everyone to drink on site. Mr. Small, f. Provisions for solid waste disposal. We will have 55

gallon drums marked trash for the employees. We don’t know what the volume will be. We may
haul it to our Roberts facility or hire the local service to pick up the trash. g. Whether the
proposed use creates noise, odor or dust. There is no odor involved with the activities. There is
noise. The different studies that have been done with the equipment we will be operating are
within 300 ft, at conversational levels. There will be berms installed to eliminate offsite impact.
Chairperson Barkla I believe some document that was submitted stated 500 ft. Mr. Small, I’m
sorry, we have a document with the accurate information that can be submitted. Mr. Schmitt,
Also regarding the noise, there are mitigation measures that will be involved such as berms and
eventually putting the crushing equipment down in the excavation itself. Those are all best
management practices. For dust, we provide water on the road ways and calcium chloride,
seasonably. Mr. Small, the processing itself is regulated by the DNR so there are standards on
testing the equipment and monitoring visible emissions of the crushing equipment. h. Provision
of safe vehicular and pedestrian access. We are working with the DOT on access. They would
like to see engineered plans. Pedestrian access will be limited on site. Mr. Schmitt, we are
required under federal law not to allow anyone on site without site specific training. It’s called
Part 45 of MSHA Code, Miner Health and Safety Act Administers. At the gate, it will be
monitored and have signage and speed limits. Mr. Small, i. Whether the proposed project
adversely impacts neighborhood traffic flow and congestion. We are currently using highway 128
for hauling from our leased property. There will be no increase in traffic. We are up to nine
trucks. j. Adequacy of emergency services and their ability to service the site. One condition
would be to get a fire number and address for the site. When the employees are on site the gate
will be open so emergency vehicles have access. There wouldn’t be any structures to catch fire.
Mr. Schmitt, Every one of our miners have to go through miner safety training, which includes
CPR and First Aid. Many have been First Responders in the community. We have cell phones in
all the equipment and also use walkie talkie radios. Mr. Small, k. Provision for proper surface
water drainage. We have altered our wash water pond to meet the concerns of the citizens. The
site will now be internally drained. Any storm water that contacts disturbed ground will be
directed into the quarry itself which will be more than adequate to hold any storm. l. Whether
proposed buildings contribute to visual harmony with existing buildings in the neighborhood,
particularly as related to scale and design. We will have a scale house/trailer on the site but no
other building. m. Whether the proposed project creates excessive exterior lighting glare or
spillover onto neighboring properties. The hours of operation as part of the conditions show we
will not be operating during the evening hours. We’re not planning on having lights there. n.
Whether the proposed project leads to a change in the natural character of the area through the
removal of natural vegetation or altering of the topography. Quarrying is altering of the
topography, the removal of the natural vegetation would happen for a period of time but the
reclamation states the natural vegetation would be put back on the site. We did some calculations
of the wooded areas and there will be an increase of vegetated land. o. Whether the proposed
project would adversely affect the natural beauty of the area. It depends on your point of view.
There are some 60 quarries and outcroppings in Pierce County. One of the changes in the plans is

to limit the mining on the slope, even in the winter with the leaves off the trees you won’t see it.
From highway 128 you will see the berms and possibly the top of a conveyor. From County Road
B, you would have to be flying to see the quarry. p. Whether the proposed project would
adversely affect any historic or archaeological sites. I did talk to a lady from the State Historical
Society and she said there is nothing on record for the site. As good operators we will watch for
that. If we would find something we would notify the State. Sanden, regarding g, the noise, when
you discuss the equipment and a 300 or 500 decibel reading, what about the blasting and the
backup beeping? Mr. Small, from the blasting, I can’t say what it could be from the receptor. It’s
more of a pressure than what you can hear. That’s regulated by the State and Federal guidelines.
The blasting hours are from 11:00am to 2:00pm. Mr. Schmitt, those are both monitored by our
licensed blaster and there are regulations by the State and the Department of Commerce. Back-up
alarms are required by the Mine Health and Safety Association because a lot of the times the
operator in heavy equipment can’t see who is behind them. There is a provision in the Act that
would allow for strobe lights but it’s more applicable for night and it’s not as effective. Sanden,
on the traffic flow, if you have leased land and x number of trucks on highway 128, wouldn’t the
frequency if not the number increase? Mr. Small, one would be replacing the other. The effect
would be that they would be pulling in, instead of going by. The number of trucks on highway
128 will remain the same. Mr. Schmitt we will be using the same employees and the same trucks
that we used before. We may have to split them until we get the stockpile hauled out. Holst, there
will not be contract haulers? Mr. Schmitt, I can’t say that for sure. If we have trucks that go
down, we may have to call in someone. Mr. Small, there are by-products like ag lime so there
might be trucks in there for that. We wouldn’t be hauling or spreading it. Holst, nine trucks for
County Materials, that’s what you are saying? Mr. Schmitt, yes. Sanden, regarding letter k,
provision for proper surface water drainage, the basin would be able to handle any storm. Was it
configured for a 500 year storm, 100 year storm, what do you mean by any storm? Mr. Small,
when a site is internally drained, everything flows in. No storm water will leave the site. When
ponds are designed for any storm event, they have to make sure they can hold enough water and
give it enough time for the suspended solids to settle out. You meet your discharge limit to
discharge clean water. A quarry with a lip approximately 25 ft high will hold a lot of water. Mr.
Schmitt, we have software in house to utilize to do the USDA TR55 runoff method. We
determine the sizing through Hydocad. We do best management practices with berms and water
directed away. Harrington, how many hours a week do you plan on crushing? Mr. Small, we have
our own crushing crew and sometimes we hire out crushing. The number of hours depends on
how much rock we have blasted out. We drill and blast a certain amount of rock during hours
listed on the condition. The material that’s been blasted would be crushed for a stockpile. We
would use the stockpile as feed for washing. Mr. Schmitt, typically when we bring in a crusher, it
will be a portable crusher, for a period of three to five weeks, it will crush up all the material and
then it will be washed. There is maintenance or repair work so it’s not crushing for the entire 8
hrs. Harrington, on your berms where will you be diverting water? Mr. Small any rain that falls
on the quarry site, the area stripped down to bedrock, the wash plant site, the stockpile site, would

e directed into the quarry hole. Any rain that falls outside that area would do exactly what it’s
doing today. Mr. Schmitt, any rain that is intercepted by the berms will go outside the quarry
area. Chairperson Barkla, what special product did you suggest you will use to keep the dust
down? Mr. Schmitt, calcium chloride, a typical dust inhibitor. Or we would have a water truck
and water as we see the dust come up. Chairperson Barkla, we are concerned about what the
calcium chloride would do to vehicles as far as rust. Would the Land Management Staff and
Committee and interested neighbors be able to come out to the site and look at the operation? Mr.
Schmitt, Yes, we would go over the safety procedures for that site. They would sign off saying
they have been site specific trained and know what the hazards are. The Federal Government
wants every person who goes out to a site to be site specific trained. It’s part of the safety issue.
They would be escorted around. We don’t like people wandering around who aren’t familiar with
mining. Chairperson Barkla what is the closet emergency or trauma facility to the site? Mr.
Schmitt, I believe Hudson, Menomonie has a hospital, Baldwin and River Falls also. We go over
all of this information and have employees working in pairs so if one guy goes down there is
someone to get emergency help. Chairperson Barkla, I want to go back to the noise issue. How
far away would you monitor the noise? Mr. Schmitt, it’s a hand held monitor that we could bring
out to anyone’s house. We have to monitor for our employees by the Mine Health and Safety
Administration. We’re regulated to no more that 90 decibels for 8 hrs. Even with that they have
to have hearing protection. Holst, you said there would be no lighting on site. 9:00pm is one of
the conditions. Would the only lighting be from the equipment? Mr. Schmitt stated yes.
Chairperson Barkla, regarding l, whether proposed buildings would be in harmony with the
neighborhood, you stated perhaps a trailer would be installed. Mr. Schmitt, we would have a
scale so we need a trailer, a nonpermanent structure. The computer equipment needs to be kept
dry and also for warmth for the employees. Chairperson Barkla we received a letter from Mr. Bill
Sylla. I’d like to make the letter a part of the record. Mr. Schmitt, part of the reason we are
coming to this site is because we pay such a high royalty to the current owner. Also we are not
the only operator on that site. Mr. Schoeder is responsible for the site and reclamation of it.
Chairperson Barkla we are going to move onto issues raised by neighbors and concerned citizens.
There are six issues. I’m going to ask that one person address those issues. We are going to take a
break and you can decide who is going to be the spokesperson for the neighbors.
Break to determine who will be the spokesperson for the public. 7:57pm. Reconvene at
8:06pm.
Chairperson Barkla Issues Raised by Neighbors and Concerned Citizens: General issues,
including but not necessarily limited to those set forth below, have been raised regarding the
proposed use at the proposed site. Has the community chosen a representative? Mike Jacobson,
Town Supervisor II for Spring Lake as well as a concerned citizen in Spring Lake, 1. Noise
Pollution (blasting and back-up beeping), the decibels we’re hearing about are not the ones we’re
interested in. When we fire up our Town trucks and back them up you can hear them for about 5

miles. You are going to constantly have trucks backing up. Mr. Small, we use the same
equipment as the sand and gravel operations in the county. Mr. Jacobson, 2. Traffic impacts to
Hwy 128, it was pointed out by Greg Wells that lives along Hwy 128 that County Materials
started diverting traffic on Hwy 128 and they are no longer the same size trucks. They are larger
and can haul more material. 3. Ground water contamination concerns (wells), we would like to
know what if the CUP goes through and they hit a spring? What would there reaction be to that?
We know the water gets turbid in wells for a certain amount of time, adjacent to the Miller
Quarry. Point #4, I think they have done a good job and identified that it all goes in, nothing goes
out. 5. Impact to character of the area. You see strong opposition to a quarry this size and for this
duration. A lot of these people are adjacent neighbors and the surrounding neighbors are
concerned about this type of activity in the township. We are in close proximity to Hwy 94 and
are destined for growth. We have Smart Growth coming out in 2010 and it would be nice to see
how the township and Pierce County respond to that. This type of activity really belongs in an
industrial zoning not a General Rural. General Rural was to maintain those that wanted to farm
could farm and those that wanted to build single family residences could without clustered
development. 6. Impact on land and property values. We would like to see proof that property
values go up next to quarries. 7. We would like to fill that in with perimeter fencing, with up to
100 ft drop offs, what is to prevent someone from going in and getting hurt. Also will emergency
vehicle have access after site hours? Holst, as far as impact on land and property values, Trenton
Township has several gravel pits and the County has land they sold for $8,000/half acre. I don’t
think the value decreases as much as people believe. I do agree it will impact the character of the
area. It will do that but to what degree we don’t know. For the turbidity problem I would like to
hear what County Materials would suggest. The beeping and the noise can be mitigated. The fact
that it’s an enclosed berm facility will help keep the noise down. We could also ask for vegetation
around the berm. Mr. Small in regards to springs, as a Hydro-Geologist, it is well documented
that the water table is 100 ft below the deepest part of the quarry. There are no springs 100 ft
above the water table. Springs are a natural example of the water table intersecting the surface of
the ground. Should there be water in a pocket, some oddity of nature, it would be in the quarry
and wouldn’t get offsite. As for the turbidity, MN Ground Water Report looked at that specific
issue. In the quarry where they did the study, the well was right next to the blasting and they were
below the water table. There was no turbidity in that well. That was a carefully monitored study
done by the DNR. Mr. Schmitt, Other factors affect that also, if it’s a large 100 ft face blast that
could have an affect on any sediment in the cracks that would cause any kind of turbidity. We are
intending to bench this and make smaller blasts. Sanden, are either of you familiar with the Miller
Quarry, how does this differ? Mr. Schmitt, without knowing what the condition or the
construction of the well is, it’s hard to say what is going on there. We’re more than happy to test
these wells, but as professional geologists we are required to report any wells not up to code.
Sanden, could you address the perimeter fence issue and the night emergency access issue. Mr.
Small, We don’t have a problem with giving keys to the gate, to the emergency service vehicles.
The fence hasn’t been mentioned through all of these meetings and it’s not on the list of

conditions. Mr. Schmitt, what we’re intending is the berm act as that same barrier. We’re
planning on putting signs up regarding no trespassing and steep drop off. Harrington, how high a
drop off will there be? Mr. Schmitt, we would try and find the quality of the rock so there could
be 25 ft to 50 ft benches. They could be two 50 ft benches, it could be three 25 ft benches.
Harrington, how long before you start benching them down? Mr. Small the steep climbs pretty
rapidly so after the first few shots we could be high enough, getting close to a 50 ft shot.
Chairperson Barkla I know you can’t keep everyone out, but the fence will go the extra mile to
keep people from being injured. We have asked the applicant to review the criteria and list of
concerns by the citizens. The burden of proof remains on the applicant. A special thanks to Mike
Jacobson and the citizens for raising questions for consideration. No matter how it turns out, what
has gone on here in the last month to six weeks restores my faith in the democratic process.
Discuss each concern one by one raised by the community. Chairperson Barkla, Mr. Small is
there some way down in the mine to minimize the backing so we don’t hear the beeper? Mr.
Small, There are things we can do to minimize it. In loading a hopper for a crusher, you have to
go up, drop it in and back up. Holst, Its advantages to have drivers minimize their backing as
much as possible. Scott Dickinson, Spring Lake Township, we’re probably the newest to Spring
Valley, has anyone addressed the quality of life. Chairperson Barkla, It was raised in this
document. Pichotta, it’s issue #5. Mr. Dickinson, my wife and I moved here four years ago from
St, Paul and Minneapolis. We moved here because we enjoy the serenity of the area. We make a
lot of sacrifice by driving a long distance to work each day. I know the quarry will meet all the
State and Federal guidelines but that still doesn’t address how they will detract from everybody’s
life in the area. Shilling, when we did our tour, this led us to a discussion of people’s dreams.
How do you decide whose dreams are more important than someone else’s? This committee has
to decide what is fair and just for everyone. Chairperson Barkla, #2, Traffic impacts to Hwy 128.
Pichotta, to ensure an adequate record, please go through and discuss the likelihood and
magnitude of the potential impacts, the degree to which it’s possible to prevent or mitigate, if it
can’t be mitigated or minimized - if it rises to a level to warrant denial. Holst, noise pollution and
blasting can be mitigated through the berms, sound buffers, strobe lights versus beepers, the site
itself is favorable because it will be self-contained and hours of blasting. Once the facility is
established, usually the blasting goes down. Pichotta, so it’s the committee’s position that #1 can
be mitigated. Might it be appropriate for the committee to vote on each one individually?
Chairperson Barkla, would it be appropriate, since it is a hand-held instrument, for County
Materials to monitor the decibels in different areas. Holst, in other conditional use permit we
have had seismic readings offsite. Let’s pick three areas and three different distances to have
them check. Sanden, at the property boundary would be one, at 1,000 ft from the property
boundary. Holst, how about we do it a 40 acre parcel away to make it easier, then how about a
mile and a half away, three times a year. This will give us a bench mark number to work from.
Harrington, what restrictions would we put in if it’s not acceptable? Holst, we could ask for more
berms or vegetative buffers or change the size of their shots. Do you want this in the form of a
motion or consensus? Pichotta, consensus would be adequate. Holst, for the record, my

ecommendation is for County Materials to use their hand-held meter to take readings three times
annually during their normal everyday operation, at the property line, 1320 ft from the property
line and 1 ½ miles away from the property line. Those sites should be consistent, in the same area
each time and decided upon with the Land Management Department. Blasting shall be completed
by a licensed blaster between 11:00am to 2:00pm. Pichotta, Mr. Chairperson what I would like to
do now is discuss each issue or concern and determine whether they can be mitigated and not go
into the conditions at this time. Sanden, do I understand the blueprints correctly and the trucks
will go directly from the mine onto Hwy 128? The number of the trucks will not increase but the
size of the trucks has increased already, from this information I would say that it could be
mitigated. Chairperson Barkla has there been a recent report from the DOT on access to Hwy
128. Pichotta stated we have received information from the DOT that access is possible from the
existing property at the proposed location, however, there is a requirement that engineered plans
have to be submitted, there would be a turn lane and some earth work would be required to make
that happen. DOT suggested another site might be better however, they could permit it at the
given location should County Materials choose to jump through the hoops. Chairperson Barkla,
Sanden, Holst and Harrington all stated that the concern could be mitigated. Chairperson Barkla,
Ground water contamination concerns (wells). Pichotta, for discussion sake, what is the potential
for adverse impacts, do you believe there is a likelihood of that and can that be mitigated?
Chairperson Barkla, they have a plan. Pichotta, reads the bullet from the last staff report
regarding spill prevention plans and storm water prevention. The Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures address the practices for
fueling, lubrication and repair of the equipment. Fuel storage will be limited to one 500 or 1,000gallon
portable off-road diesel fuel tank for equipment compliant with Department of Commerce
10 standards. Sanden, I would like to direct attention to proposed conditions #9, Zoning Office
shall be notified if ground water is encountered and #15, Well tests for nitrates, suspended solids,
and dissolved solids shall be conducted for all existing wells within 1000 ft of the proposed
mining operation to establish a baseline, and for all other properties as agreed upon by County
Materials. This shall be completed prior to blasting. Wells shall be tested annually thereafter. All
results shall be provided to the Zoning Office. Chairperson Barkla with regards to #14, property
owners will be given reasonable notice, etc. Ms Jones is outside of the 1000 ft. Mr. Small, we
mentioned at the Town meeting, we will do testing to contiguous property and Ms Jones’. They
have to notify us otherwise it will be property owners within 1000 ft. Chairperson Barkla asked
for consensus as to whether the issue could be mitigated, Sanden - yes, Holst – yes, Harrington –
yes, Chair – yes. #4 Storm water runoff, we have addressed that at the same time. Harrington, did
the DNR take up the issue with the Eau Galle River? Pichotta, the distance from the Eau Galle
River is such that a DNR review was not required because of runoff, nor was a Chapter 30 permit
required. Storm water runoff would be less because the site is internally drained. Chairperson
Barkla, so we have consensus? All replied, yes. Chairperson Barkla, Impact to character of the
area. Page 6, staff has been advised by legal counsel whether issuance or denial of a CUP sets any
precedence for future actions and has been advised that it does not. Each CUP request is

evaluated on its own merits and on a case-by-case basis. To be fair in the future, on any granting
of conditional use permit for any kind of economic activity in this county, I would have to say to
each petitioner because of unique character, I can’t do it. In thinking about this and the economic
development, those things come into play. Sanden, I echo your sentiments and would like to
direct the committees attention to conditions #2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 18 & 21; hours of operation,
blasting being done as per regulation, reclamation being completed consistent with the submitted
plans, mine operation consistent with approved plans, reclamation financial assurance given,
applicant compliant to NR 135 Annual Reclamation Permits, quarry shall have no more than 30
unreclaimed acres at any given time and also the CUP will be up for renewal every two years. So
if there are unforeseen problems, we will be looking at this every two years. Holst, impact to the
area, I, too, echo the concerns of this committee. I live in a very scenic part of the county except
for the railroad tracks about 20 yards in front of my house. Your situation is unique and I think
County Concrete can be a better neighbor, given the chance, than you can perceive at this time.
Also, in your township, you have four mines already so this is consistent with the area. Sanden, I
would also mention the berming, it won’t be visible, sounds like the noise will be minimal,
although the total gross acreage is large there will only be 30 acres open at one time, the traffic
won’t increase. Chairperson Barkla, in regard to character, DOT is suggesting a turn lane which
will mitigate any hazard on Hwy 128. Is there consensus? All replied, yes. Chairperson Barkla,
#6 Impact on land and property values. Holst, this is another area with some subjectivity, what
could be perceived as possible negative affect could perhaps turn out to be a positive affect.
You’re closer to raw materials. An adjoining property owner, fifty years down the road if County
Materials is still in business, could possibly sell their property or lease to them. Chairperson
Barkla, has any information been received to show property values haven’t decreased? Mr.
Loberg, it’s undisputed that the Weber property has been sold at a price acceptable to him. We’ve
also submitted a study tonight. Chairperson Barkla, a new question gets raised every time people
get together. There are some unknowns about this. Is there consensus? All replied, yes. Then
there is one more issue, the safety issue; fencing. Pichotta, it seems that would be a public health
and safety issue, considered under that. You could choose to address it on its own. Holst, since
the community brought it up as a concern that we should address it but ask the applicant for their
input. Would it be beyond reason to fence the high wall portion that is actively being mined? Mr.
Schmitt, with respect to that issue, we would be willing to do whatever other operators in the
county are doing. I just want to be treated fairly. I would put in a three-strand barb-wire fence
around the high wall areas. Holst you could either fence the high wall portion or fence a four-wire
around the property line. I’m open to suggestions. Sanden, is there any other precedence in the
county for this. Pichotta, as part of reclamation in cases where we have had mines that weren’t
subject to conditional use permits or subject to reclamation standards we have in place and a high
wall has been allowed to remain we have required that a fence be established at the top or back of
the high wall to ensure for safety sake that no one can stumble over the wall. But we have not
required this in an active quarry. Holst, I think we can reach consensus on the fence as to what
type we can discuss that at condition time. Sanden, yes. Chairperson Barkla, IV Review project

(proposed use) as a “whole” to determine if it is: a. Contrary to the public interest. Pichotta, I
would remind the committee that it refers to the common well being or general welfare. The
committee needs to make a determination as to whether or not this project is consistent with the
public interest. Sanden, unfortunately public welfare includes character of the land and economic
viability. It has positives and negatives to both. Again, the mine is quite similar to other ones we
have seen on this committee; active mine is only 30 acres, out of site, dust free for the most part,
will have no impact on ground water, it will bring in economic vitality. I’ve done several studies
and found that residences and ag residences cost more than they give in taxes. It’s industrial and
commercial that make the tax base. Compared to other operations we have approved on this
committee, I would say it’s not unduly contrary to public interest. Chairperson Barkla asked if it
is contrary to public interest, All replied, no. Chairperson Barkla, is it Detrimental or injurious to
public health. Sanden, stated with the turn lane on Hwy 128 and if we come to consensus on the
fencing issue, I would have to say no. Chairperson Barkla the dust and the noise issues, whether
or not they can be mitigated. It seems they have come up with a plan to mitigate the noise levels
out there. Consensus? All replied, yes. Detrimental or injurious to public safety, Sanden, testing
of the wells has been covered, the storm water runoff will be improved. Chairperson Barkla,
consensus? All replied, yes. Chairperson Barkla, Detrimental or injurious to the character of the
area. Holst, due to the fact that there are four quarries in the township already, it isn’t out of
character of the area. Chairperson Barkla asked for consensus, All replied, yes. If proposed use is
found to be contrary to, detrimental, or injurious to the above, the request should be denied. At
this point the committee has found that it is not contrary, detrimental or injurious to the area. If it
is found that adverse impacts can be prevented or minimized and the proposed use at the
proposed location will not be contrary to the public interest and will not be detrimental or
injurious to the public health, public safety or character of the surrounding area, the permit should
be issued with conditions necessary to prevent or minimize impacts. Mr. Pichotta is asked to state
the conditions. Pichotta, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee approve this conditional use permit for a nonmetallic mining operation with the
following conditions:
1. Applicant shall follow all recommendations and receive all necessary permits from all
relevant departments and agencies.
2. Hours of operation shall be 6am to 9pm Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm on Saturday.
Operation shall be closed on Sundays and holidays.
3. Blasting shall be completed by a State licensed blaster. Blasting shall take place no more
than 4 times per week and blasting times shall be between 11am and 2pm.
4. Storm water pond design shall be completed by a State certified engineer. The pond design
shall be reviewed and approved by the Pierce County Land Conservation Department.
5. Erosion control shall be installed prior to any mining. All erosion control measures shall
be submitted to the Zoning Office for review and approval prior to any mining.
6. Road access shall be permitted by WI DOT and a Uniform Address Number shall be
obtained from the Zoning Office.

7. Reclamation shall be completed consistent with submitted plans.
8. Mine operation and design shall be consistent with the approved plans. Zoning Office
shall be notified of any deviation from the plans.
9. Zoning Office shall be notified if ground water is encountered.
10. All structures and signage shall be permitted by the Zoning Office.
11. An elevation benchmark shall be established.
12. The reclamation financial assurance information shall be reviewed and approved by
Corporation Counsel before mining commences.
13. Applicant shall comply with NR 135 Annual Reclamation Permits.
14. Property owners located within 1000 feet shall be given a minimum 48 hr. notice of all
planned blasting. This request shall be waived for landowners who request not to be given
notice.
15. Well tests for nitrates, suspended solids, and dissolved solids shall be conducted for all
existing wells within 1000 feet of the proposed mining operation to establish a baseline,
and for all other properties as agreed upon by County Materials (Jones, etc). This shall be
completed prior to blasting. Wells shall be tested annually thereafter. All results shall be
provided to the Zoning Office.
16. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures shall be submitted to the Zoning Office.
17. The recycling of concrete products shall be allowed.
18. This CUP shall be reviewed for renewal every two years.
19. County Materials Corporation shall conduct operations on the site consistent with the
standards specified in the letter from CMC to Pierce County dated 3/13/07.
20. All loaded trucks shall be covered (tarped) prior to leaving the site.
21. The quarry shall have no more than 30 unreclaimed acres open at any given time. The
storm water pond and processing area are to be included in the unreclaimed acres.
22. Applicant shall conduct decibel readings during mining operations at; the property line,
1320 ft from the property line and at 1½ miles from property boundary, and shall submit
results to the Land Management Department. Such readings shall be taken three times
annually, and at locations agreeable to Land Management Department staff and County
Materials. An initial reading shall be made prior to operations to establish a baseline.
23. A four-strand barb-wire fence shall be placed around the active mining operation along
with appropriate signage.
24. A lockbox with access key shall be made accessible to emergency personnel.
Chairperson Barkla, Anything further? Holst makes a motion to approve the conditional
use permit for County Materials for a nonmetallic mining quarry operation for this site
with conditions #1 - 24/Sanden seconds. All in favor/Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
180 ft monopole communication tower in Town of Clifton

Chairperson Barkla asked if the agenda item could be moved to the second meeting date in
May. Pichotta responded he will check into it.
Motion to adjourn at 9:37pm. by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
June 6, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Emily Lund, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: June 20, July 5 & 18, in 2007. ve minutes; Harrington makes a motion to
approve minutes for the April 18 and April 25, 2007 meetings/Sanden seconds. All in favor.
Motion carried.
Discuss/take action on deferred request for a conditional use permit to construct a 180 foot
monopole communication tower in the General Rural Flexible 8 District for Pierce County
and the State of Wisconsin on a parcel of land located in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ Section 36,
T27N, R20W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Holst asked Jim Kleinhans
to give his staff report. There was initially a problem with property owners within 1320 ft
signing waivers. Since the last meeting all signatures have been acquired. The staff report is the
same except for a few highlighted areas. There has been a bid submitted to contractors for the
foundation of the tower, nothing else has changed. Erik Sande from the State of WI is here. He
can address any questions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee approve the conditional use for this tower subject to the following conditions:
1. A land use permit will be issued for the tower and renewed annually
thereafter along with a facility status report to be submitted by January 31. Staff
suggests permitting this as an institutional use which serves a public purpose, since it
won’t be used by commercial venders and therefore the fee would be $250.00.
2. The tower shall be constructed without causing negative physical impacts to
nearby residences.
3. The tower has a surety for abandonment but there is a contract between the
County and the State because they operate on a land basis not rely on satellite
technology. Erik has assured me that they have shared contracts with other counties
and have never had a surety. I talked to Corporation Counsel and he does not see the
need in doing this so I recommend that we strike #3.
4. This permit is valid for a 12 month period to construct the tower.
5. The tower facility shall be grounded with the most current electrical
grounding technologies.

6. Pierce County and the State of WI must correct any electrical interference
caused by this tower facility for adjoining landowners.
7. The tower shall be a monopole structure and painted light blue in color.
Because we don’t have an engineered plan for the grounding mechanism right now, when that is
established with the contractor we need a copy of the engineered plans. Chairperson Holst stated
that should be a condition. Erik Sande, we actually have a grounding plan established, the only
one not established is the footing for the tower. Mike Knoll will be receiving copies. Pichotta, I
would suggest that condition read like this; an engineered plan for anchoring of the tower shall be
submitted prior to construction. Sanden moves to approve with conditions #1 A land use
permit will be issued for the tower with a fee of $250.00 and renewed annually thereafter
along with a facility status report to be submitted by January 31. #2 as written, strike #3,
conditions #4-#7 as written and adding condition #7, an engineered plan for anchoring of
the tower shall be submitted prior to construction. Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on proposed revisions of Chapter § 241 of Pierce County Code,
Nonmetallic Mining Reclamation. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Last year the DNR revised their
Reclamation Code, therefore Chapter § 241 needs to be revised. The revisions really only
removed the language regarding existing mines in operation prior to August 2001. While
reviewing this, staff was concerned that NR 135 was becoming a ceiling law and would limit
Pierce County’s ability to impose reclamation conditions that we deemed necessary to protect
public health, safety and welfare. Staff had discussions with the DNR regarding this. The DNR
also amended its fee schedule. If we revise our code we should also look into changing our fee
schedule. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee review
the proposed revisions, and if appropriate, direct staff to schedule a public hearing to consider its
adoption. Pichotta, regarding the ceiling law issue, the program was intended to insure all mines,
even if they were in an area where there was no zoning or they were grandfathered mines, if
active, would be reclaimed to some standard so open pits weren’t sitting out there. The latest
incantation to NR 135 basically specifies the standards to which we can hold mines to. It allows,
in many circumstances, a mining company to leave a high wall if they so choose. What it doesn’t
do is differentiate between a nonmetallic mine located immediately adjacent to residential area
which could clearly create a public health and safety issue versus leaving a high wall in a much
less developed area. I spoke to Tom Portle, with the DNR, regarding this issue. He suggested that
issues relating to public health and safety, even if associated with post mining land use, be
addressed in a conditional use permit, suggesting that it would be difficult for someone to
challenge the placement of such conditions. Harrington, can we ask for the 3:1 on a conditional
use permit? Pichotta, yes we can if we can reasonably tie it to public health and safety. Sanden, I
have a question about the standard of reclamation, referring to article two, paragraph E, 2 & 3.
Pichotta, we don’t have the ability to deviate from this, we have to adopt NR 135. This has not
yet been subject to a thorough review by our legal counsel – but will be completed prior to a
public hearing. Harrington makes a motion to direct staff to schedule a public hearing to

consider amendments to Chapter § 241 Pierce County Code/Sanden seconds.
Discuss take action on draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for Phase III of Pierce County’s
Smart Growth Comprehensive Planning process. Pichotta reports: The pertinent section of
this starts at the bottom of page one, Scope of Work. My thought about this is to allow the
consultant to come in and propose a planning process and committee structure that they and the
committee are comfortable with. We lay out the parameters of what we’re trying to accomplish
and ask them to bring in a proposal for a process and structure. So what RFP says is: Required
services will include, but may not be limited to, the following:
1. Finalize planning process to be utilized (work program). Work with Land Management
Committee to identify structure, roles and responsibilities of groups to be involved.
Develop and finalize a public participation plan. The reason public participation plan is in
here is because until you have a sense of what the structure is going to be, it’s difficult to
know how you’re going to build in public participation.
2. Facilitate a public process through which a County-wide vision, as well as goals,
objectives and strategies, to address the 9 mandated elements are identified. Utilize Phase I
and II data. GIS data development will be completed by Pierce County staff with input
from the selected consultant. Based on my experience by doing the GIS portion in house
we will probably save half. We will probably be generating GIS for all the Towns to help
keep their expenses down.
3. Attend public hearing(s) and assist with adoption process as necessary.
4. Compile final document. Provide hard and digital copies.
The interested firms shall submit the information listed in the report. Here is the projected
schedule I suggest; proposals due by June 29 th , we would review the proposals at the July 5 th
meeting, conduct interviews the week of July 16 th and award by July 20 th . Sanden makes a
motion to approve Requests for Proposals (RFP) as presented for Phase III of Pierce
County’s Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Pichotta, at the same time we are doing our plan the Towns will be doing theirs. The County plan
will be to encourage the types of things we want to see, not so much on the ground zoning. We
will be asking the Towns to provide a zoning scheme and supporting plan. Sanden, do we want to
be in front of the Towns or behind them in the process? Pichotta, I think we want to do this
simultaneously. Our plan will be general and we will be relying on the Towns plans for detail.
Right now we defer to the towns on density issues, rezones as long as they can justify them.
According to state law their decisions will have to be consistent with their plans. It really is a
formalization of our existing process. Sanden, the Towns can decide for themselves if they want
to be more or less restrictive. Also this plan can be rewritten once every five years. Pichotta,
actually it can be rewritten anytime if they decide there is something that is no longer accurate.
Holst, so what could happen is a shift every time there is an election. Pichotta, you’re right, they
could theoretically rewrite it every time there is a change. We’re going to ask the Towns for a
zoning map. They will have to provide a rationale along with the map explaining how the map

furthers the goals they have identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Towns are probably going
to get more guidance than they want.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Rezone request for Scott Zimmer in the Town of Salem
Rezone request for Paul Nielsen in the Town of El Paso
Conditional use permit renewal request for an airstrip for Carl Stine in the Town of Martell
Conditional use permit request for car sales in the Town of El Paso
Fullerton Lumber compliance issues with outside storage
Motion to adjourn at 7:46pm. by Harrington/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
June 6, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Emily Lund, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: June 20, July 5 & 18, in 2007.
Approve minutes; Sanden makes a motion to approve minutes for the May 16, 2007 meeting/
Harrington seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Public hearing to consider a request for a rezone from Exclusive Agriculture to General
Rural by Scott Zimmer, owner of parcels of land located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ and the
NW ¼ of the NW ¼, all in Section 9, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Barkla invited Scott Zimmer forward: Mr. Zimmer explained he is asking to
rezone his property from Exclusive Agriculture to General Rural. Holst asked if the land is
currently being farmed and how many tillable acres there are. Zimmer stated yes, and there are 29
tillable acres. Sanden asked if that acreage would remain in cultivation. Zimmer stated all of it
would remain in cultivation. There are no plans for construction. It will remain tillable. Sanden
asked if the property is in the Farmland Preservation Program. Zimmer, not that he is aware of.
Harrington asked if Mr. Zimmer is only planning on building on the non farmable land. Zimmer,
The non farmable land is probably not buildable unless you build right along the bluff. Staff
Report – Emily Lund: Scott Zimmer is requesting a rezone from Exclusive Agriculture to
General Rural on property located in Section 9, Town of Salem. The Town Board of Salem
supported this rezone request at their May 8, 2007 meeting and stated the “parcel meets the
previously established steep slope requirements to rezone from Exclusive Agriculture to General
Rural”. The Town of Salem is working with DATCP to complete a comprehensive revision of the
town zoning map. Said map revision will require the development and approval of a town-wide
farmland preservation plan, and is underway. The applicant has indicated that he does not want to
wait for the Town to complete the Town-wide rezone. Adjacent land uses include woodlands,
agriculture and down the road are a couple residential lots. Adjacent zoning districts include EA,
GR and Industrial. At the current zoning it would allow him to have two lots, with the rezone it
would allow for six lots on the property. Jon Krauss, Land Conservation Department, stated that
the land is not in the Farmland Preservation Program. Soils information is discussed in the staff
report as is the towns recommendation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land

Management Committee approve this request to rezone and forward a recommendation to Pierce
County Board of Supervisors. Staff will inform DATCP of the final decision as required. Sanden,
The Town of Salem is for this rezone - on the other hand about 17% of the soils are prime ag
soils or of state wide importance. What is the compelling reasoning for approving this? Pichotta,
The Town of Salem has identified a number of criteria with which they gage the appropriateness
of a rezone. The criteria has been in place for a number of years and have uniformly applied it
across the board. Even though this has more than you might typically see of prime soils on it, we
supported it because the Town has well established criteria and this determination is consistent
with those criteria. Sanden, is the criteria primarily the slope? Chairperson Barkla opens the
public hearing. Mike Graham, Chairman of the Town of Salem Planning Commission, the
criteria has been in place for 3 – 4 years. This is a consistent application with the criteria - the
methodology that matches the resources that the Town has available to it. There are between 5 - 7
categories of the criteria. The primary one used is the steep slopes maps, where slopes are unfarmable.
In Mr. Zimmer’s case it was the steep slopes. Holst what’s the slope percentage that
you look at? Graham, the 12% that the County identifies as steep slopes. Pichotta, what’s the
percentage of the parcel that triggers the threshold? Graham, we looked at the entire township and
went 40 by 40, 40% of the 40 acre parcel meets the 12%. I’m guessing that Mr. Zimmer property
in the north 40 wouldn’t - by itself - meet the criteria. However, the entire 40 is reviewed and if it
meets the criteria (40% of the 40 is steep slopes) – all parcels within the 40 are eligible. His 40
acres in the southern half meets the steep slopes criteria. Pichotta noted that Pierce County may
approve petitions for rezoning areas zoned for exclusive agriculture use only after findings are
made based upon consideration of the following:
a. Adequate public facilities to accommodate development either exist or will be
provided within a reasonable time.
b. Provision of public facilities to accommodate development will not place an
unreasonable burden on the ability of affected local units of government to provide
them.
c. The land proposed for rezoning is suitable for development, and development will
not result in undue water or air pollution, cause unreasonable soil erosion or have an
unreasonable adverse effect on rare or irreplaceable natural areas.
Chairperson Barkla closed the public hearing. Nellessen makes a motion to approve the
rezone from Primary Agriculture to General Rural/Harrington seconds. Holst stated this is a
unique request in an Exclusive Agriculture Township. Definitely a good portion of this fits the
criteria but I would offer a compromise. Holst makes a motion to find that the request meets
criteria in the code and to amend the request to rezone the south 40 acres to General Rural
and the remaining acreage to Primary Agriculture/Sanden seconds. Holst, Harrington,
Barkla, Sanden in favor/Nellessen opposed. Graham voiced concerns about the liability if
deviating from the Town’s criteria since others have gone through. Holst stated that the
committee has the option to change requests that come before them. Chairperson Barkla asked
for a vote on Nellessen’s motion as amended and forward a recommendation to the County

Board. All in favor. Motion passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a rezone from Primary Agriculture to General
Rural by Paul Nielsen, agent, for Scott & Melissa Ryden, owners of a parcel of land located
in the NE ¼ of the SE ¼, Section 17, T26N, R16W, Town of El Paso, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Barkla invited Paul Nielsen and Melissa Ryden forward: Paul Nielsen stated his
daughter Melissa purchased the land from him in 1999, built the house in 2000 and planted 20
acres into trees. Melissa Ryden stated they actually purchased two different parcels, a 20 acre
parcel in 1996 and then later purchased a 5 acre parcel in 2000. Sanden asked about the trees
planted and how long ago that was? Ms Ryden stated that they planted 15,000 trees and left the
spot they wanted to build their house and have the driveway about six years ago, maybe seven.
Sanden asked the last time it was cultivated. Nielsen stated it has better than 12% slope, not good
farm land. Holst asked if it was in a program. Nielsen stated Scott bought it from him to put in a
fifteen year program and plant trees. Staff Report – Emily Lund: The rezone request is for
property located in Section 17, Town of El Paso. The Town Board of El Paso supported this
rezone request at their May 14, 2007 meeting. Current zoning is Primary Agriculture does not
permit owners to split the property. Owner plans to create one additional residential parcel, sell
their current home and build one home on the new parcel. The southeast part of the current
property fronts the cul-de-sac on 410 th St, where road frontage and access will be gained. Current
use is agriculture with many young trees growing throughout the property. Adjacent land uses are
woodlands, agriculture and residential parcels. Adjacent zoning districts include PA and GR.
With this rezone it would allow for one additional lot. Jon Krauss has indicated that the land is
not in the Farmland Preservation Program. Soil information is contained in the staff report. Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this request to
rezone form Primary Agriculture to General Rural and to forward a recommendation to Pierce
County Board of Supervisors. Harrington asked if there is enough room for a driveway? Nielsen
stated yes, Lund stated there is an easement established. Sanden asked Andy if there is any
problem with creating an area island. Pichotta stated that a 20 acre island would not be an issue
because its large enough to be its own district. Chairperson Barkla opens the public hearing.
Scott Schoepp, El Paso Township, asked if they are required to declare where the house will be
built and if Mr. Nielsen didn’t already rezone his property.. Pichotta, No, they are not required to
preplan the site – Mr. Nielsen went before the Town and asked about bringing in the General
Rural Flexible zone for a different parcel. Schoepp stated that Mr. Nielsen stated this is greater
than 12%. The map shows the majority is less than 12%. When he purchased his property,
everything was Primary Agriculture. Now if I want to build a house in the middle of my woods,
in the winter I’d see houses all around. Tom Genslak, Town of El Paso, The property they have is
Primary Agriculture. Then when they built on the property did the top twenty become General
Rural? Pichotta, Mr. Nielsen has been advised of the status of density. All the way back to when
this development was created there has been a consistent message sent on the density. Lund noted
that a property can have more than one zoning district on it. Harrington, back when I was on the

Board for the Town of El Paso, the lower 40 was rezoned to General Rural and the upper 40
stayed Primary Agriculture. Pichotta noted that zoning is not static - zoning changes as the views
and desires of the people in the town change - when a town’s plan changes, their zoning may
need to change to reflect the new view. Ms Ryden, when we originally purchased the 20 acre lot,
we believed there could be one house there. Then we bought the other lot thinking we could build
one house there. Only Tom’s house was there at that time. That has always been our plan to build
our dream home on that lot. Nielsen, it was on two separate 40’s. The south 40 was for 4 lots. We
built her house on it and three other homes and sold them. Somehow a density point was robbed
from the north 40 and put on the south 20. Lund, to clarify what Scott was bringing up on the
percent slopes, if you add up the information that I submitted to you, the 2-6 and the 6-12 is
12.98 acres. The acres over 12% are 7.014 acres. The history of the property which I researched
from 1998 is the southern 40 acres is actually 33.991 acres because part is the State Right of Way
along Hwy 72. They only have three lots available. To the north they are Primary Agriculture and
that allows two lots per 40. So they had five lots available. With your approval they can get one
more lot. Holst moves to approve the rezone from Primary Agriculture to General Rural
with the reasoning that it’s the last lot available in this development/Nellessen seconds. All
in favor. Motion passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based
Business in the General Rural District for used car sales for David & Krista Capatske,
owners on a parcel of land located in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 30, T26N, R16W, Town
of El Paso, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited David Capatske forward: Dave
Capatske stated that he would like to have a Farm & Home Based Business for used car sales. He
is working on his Retailer Car Dealer License now. Would like to order, buy and deal over the
internet and keep the vehicles inside. Harrington, most of your dealing will be over the internet?
Capatske, yes, it will be pretty low-key. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr. Capatske operates a beef
cattle farm on his property and would like to obtain a Dealer License to buy and sell used
vehicles. Mr. Capatske indicated to us that no more than seven vehicles will be for sale at any
given time. There will be one vehicle displayed outside the rest will be inside. The display
vehicle will not be along the road; it will be displayed adjacent to the sales area. The display area
will be a 50’ by 40’ (2,000 square feet) section of an existing 50’ by 120’ pole shed. The rest of
the pole shed will continue to be used for agriculture. Hours of operation will be 3:00pm to
7:00pm Wednesday to Friday and 8:00am to 5:00pm on Saturday. A business sign will be
displayed along the road. The applicant is planning on using the internet to advertise and for most
sales. The business will not have an adverse effect on the character of the area. Test-drives will
take place on Hwy 72. A restroom in the residence on the property will be provided to the
customers. Driveway access is on to 850 th St. Pierce County Code requires that off-street parking
be provided. This type of operation does not fall into any of the categories listed in § 240-54; the
code does allow for the Zoning Administrator to determine the number of parking spaces when
the specific use is not listed. Staff has determined that for this type of use at least one parking

space shall be provided and the space shall be handicapped accessible. § 240-54 I states that the
minimum dimensions for all parking spaces provided for use by physically disabled persons shall
be 12 feet in width and 18 feet in length. Parking spaces provided for use by physically disabled
persons shall be located as close as possible to an entrance which allows such persons to enter
and leave the parking area without assistance. The applicant plans to add one employee in the
future. The Town of El Paso recommended approval of this request on May 14, 2007 with no
specific conditions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee approve this conditional use permit for a farm and home based business with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation.
2. Business hours are to be 3:00pm to 7:00pm Wednesday to Friday and 8:00am to 5:00pm
on Saturday.
3. The applicant shall delineate 1 handicap accessible parking space which is consistent with
Pierce County Code and policies.
4. The business sign shall be permitted by the Pierce County Zoning Office and there shall be
no other displays to promote the business.
5. This conditional use permit shall expire in 2 years or if compliance issues arise. Permit
may be renewed administratively if no compliance issues arise.
Sanden stated the parcel looks like it is pretty well screened from the highway. There will be only
one car on display? Roy, There isn’t a way to display cars along the highway because of the
vegetation and it’s on a hill. Holst, if this is issued to Mr. Capatske it doesn’t transfer with the
property, correct? Roy, it does transfer with the property. Chairperson Barkla opens the public
hearing. Paul Nielsen, El Paso, stated under the conditions recommended he felt it should be
approved. Close the public hearing. Holst moves to approve the conditional use permit for a
Farm & Home Based Business for used car sales with conditions #1 – 5/Sanden seconds. All
in favor. Passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a wind electrical
generation tower in the Agriculture Residential District for Jerold & Sharon Fleming,
owners on a parcel of land located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼, Section 7, T26N, R15W, Town
of Rock Elm, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invites Jerold & Sharon Fleming and
Dennis Jarosch, Renewable Energy Team, forward: Sharon Fleming stated they would like to
establish a wind tower on their farm. It will be a 120 ft tower with rotor blades 15 ft each. They
have talked to Pierce Pepin Electric and they will meter with them. They’re filling out forms
now. Harrington asked if there are any neighbors opposed to the tower. Fleming stated no.
Sanden asked how tall the tower will be. Jarosch stated the blades are 31 ft in diameter, 15 ft
radius. Harrington asked Jarosch if they have installed many. Jarosch stated seven, including one
in northern MN and one in southern MN. Sanden asked how much of the household power this
will generate. Jarosch stated the monthly average use is about 800 – 900 kilowatts per month and
this tower will produce about 22,000 kilowatts per year. The net metering law pays back the

amount they don’t use. Lund asked about any grant programs. Fleming stated the USDA has a
grant that covers about a quarter of the cost. Jarosch stated they also offer grant loan programs for
a quarter of the cost at 0% or 1% through their bank guaranteed through the government. Sanden
asked if WI has any program. Fleming stated they have Focus for Energy but Pierce Pepin is not
a member so we can’t apply. Chairperson Barkla, I’m curious whether or not when the wind
exceeds a certain amount if there is an automatic shutoff. Jarosch stated that with the Jacobs, if
the wind speed exceeds a certain amount the tower turns the system off or shuts itself down. If
the power is lost to the residence, you have a millisecond before it shuts down. Over 50 - 60 mph
winds the tower will change direction. It’s rated for 120 mph wind. Harrington, what is the
projected cost of the tower. Jarosch stated $63,750 with a $250 site plan fee also. Jacobs wants to
keep it reasonable. Harrington, will Pierce Pepin pay you? Fleming, It’s a net metering program
and the law states they pay you what you pay. Holst, Pierce Pepin charges more than NSP but
they will pay you back their rate? Jarosch, that became law about a year and a half ago. There is
power purchase agreement paperwork that has to be signed. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: Mr.
& Mrs. Fleming have applied for a wind electrical generation tower. Their home is located in the
Town of Rock Elm, they have a parcel of 80 acres and are zoned Agriculture Residential where
our code allows for wind electrical generation towers with a conditional use permit. The zoning
code calls for a setback of 50 feet plus the maximum height of the tower. It should be at least
185.5 ft from the property line. They have plenty of room. The plan that was provided tonight
shows the actual schematic with an output is one phase and the alternator is a 3-phase. Jarosch,
stated it starts in DC and gets converted to AC power to 3-phase. What needs to be decided by the
power companies is how big the transformer is going to be. There are two shutdown modes on
the system. The automatic shutdown if the power goes out they don’t want back feed into the
system. Then there is a manual shutdown. The only thing that has brought down any of these
towers is tornadoes. Jacobs has been around for 70 years and they do maintenance on them. They
are scheduled to last 20 years if not 30. Kleinhans, there is a diagram of the tower with the
foundation and grounding. Jarosch, they are 9 or 10 ft in the ground with concrete. Kleinhans,
within one to two miles of the home are a number of residences. Mr. Traynor lives to the north
and then to the south is another residence. Looking at the siting of the tower, there shouldn’t be
many concerns for the surrounding neighbors. Town of Rock Elm Supervisors supported this
request without any specific concerns. The tower site location in relation to airports and
environmentally sensitive areas does not create a concern at the proposed site. Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this request for
a wind generation tower subject to comments from impacted neighbors with the following
conditions:
1. A land use permit will be issued for the tower at a cost of $100.00.
2. The use shall be established within 12 months of approval.
3. The tower will be grounded to national electrical code standards.
4. Provide the Land Management Department with a copy of the power purchase agreement
with Pierce Pepin Cooperative to insure the intertie on the grid is approved.

5. The tower shall be painted a non-reflective, non-obtrusive color. Staff suggests the tower
be painted light blue.
6. Warning signage shall be placed at the base of the tower for safety concerns.
Jarosch, could I address the last two conditions. Our tower blades are hot-dipped galvanized and
after a month the color dulls and there is no reflection. Paint will not stay on the galvanized
blades. What do you need on the warning signage? Chairperson Barkla stated that could be
discussed with staff after the meeting. Holst, the point is most of the cell towers are made out of
steel. This is a hot-dipped so it won’t hold paint. On a bigger wind tower we would demand it be
uniform. Chairperson Barkla opens the public hearing. Michael Traynor, Town of Rock Elm,
I live next to the property and don’t want a tower next to my home. I think it will lower the value
of my property. Sanden asked Jim Kleinhans about the fencing issue around the base of the
tower. Kleinhans, that’s a River Falls ordinance, we don’t have that in our code. That’s why I
recommended the signage. Harrington, Is this the first tower that’s been built in the county.
Kleinhans, there are four of them. We have one in River Falls, Gilman & Salem. Jerome
Rodewald, Town of River Falls, I’ve spent a lot of time working on this issue. Two concerns are
the annual maintenance agreement and a minimum liability insurance policy. Jarosch, Jacobs
comes up once a year climbs the tower, changes the oil, grease and make sure all the bolts are
tight. Fleming, we have the insurance policy. Chairperson Barkla closed the public hearing.
Holst moves to approve the conditional use permit for a wind electrical generation tower
with conditions #1 – 6, striking #5/Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Passed. Holst stated that
the reason for deviating from former practice is because the cost of putting up the tower will
increase and then they won’t be put up. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Pichotta noted that there is a budget status report in your folders, the first page is the County
Planner, we’re where we should be. The next thing is GIS, in Profession Services there is no
money budgeted and we’ve spent $6,256.00. The money will come out of the Land Records
Modernization Fund. County Surveyor, nothing surprising there. Zoning, no surprises either. We
probably haven’t been billed for gas. Barkla asked Pichotta to discuss recent collaborative efforts
with the Sheriffs Dept and Highway Dept. Pichotta stated that the County acquired land on
Trenton Island as part of the ’93 buyout. There have been some concerns raised about what is
happening on County property. There are multiple driveways that used to go into homes, we are
working with law enforcement and the highway department, we’re going to pull out the former
access roads. If people are down there, they are going to have to park on the road. That will make
it easier for law enforcement to keep an eye on things. Nellessen suggested the county open a
marina or look into other ways to get the land back on the tax roll. Pichotta, there are fairly
stringent parameters on us, we can transfer the property to a governmental entity or we can lease
the land.
Conditional use permit renewal for Karl Foster, Town of Salem
Fullerton Lumber compliance issues, Town of Ellsworth

Motion to adjourn at 8:40pm. by Holst/Harrington seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
June 20, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen and William Gilles
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: July 5 & 18, August 1 & 15, in 2007.
Approve minutes; Nellessen makes a motion to approve minutes for the June 6, 2007 meeting/
Holst seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Discuss take action on renewal of a conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based
Business in the Exclusive Agriculture District for Karl Foster, owner on a parcel located in
the SW ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 23, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Barkla invited Mr. and Mrs. Foster forward: Mrs. Foster explained they would
like to change the conditional use permit so they do not have to drain the engine fluids out of the
antique cars. It ruins the engine. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Neither the Land Management
Department or the Town of Salem have received any complaints about the operation. When they
first started there were some but none since. Staff and representatives from the Town of Salem
inspected the site and found no violations with conditions.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee renew this
conditional use permit for a farm and home based business with the following conditions:
1. All fluids shall be drained from the vehicles and disposed of properly.
Or
Absorption mats, or other absorptive material, shall be utilized to ensure fluids do not run
off or enter the ground water table.
2. All junked, inoperable and unlicensed vehicles shall be kept out of the public view.
3. This conditional use permit shall expire in 2 years or if compliance issues arise. Permit
may be renewed administratively if no compliance issues arise.
Holst makes a motion to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit for a Farm and
Home Based Business with conditions #1 – 3, amending condition #1 to read Absorption
mats, or other absorptive material, shall be utilized to ensure fluids do not run off or enter
the ground water table/Nellessen seconds. Holst stated this satisfies the safety concerns of the
public. All in favor. Motion passed.

Discuss take action on review of conditional use permit compliance for Fullerton Lumber
Co. on property located in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 21, T26N, R17W, Town of
Ellsworth, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Dave Stocker forward: Mr.
Stocker explained that when they originally received the conditional use permit they did not
review it closely enough. Staff told them they were zoned light industrial and that within that
district all operations shall take place indoors and screening shall take place along fencing and the
perimeter. Mr. Martin said we would build a covered lumber tree and outside storage, paper
covered. He indicated we would have a three-sided shed which we did not build because we ran
into an underground river that cost us more than anticipated. We should have read the conditional
use permit then and we would have seen that number nine stipulated inside storage. We still
intend to build the building but can’t estimate when it will be. We do intend to address the fence
screening and plant the black hills spruce along Highway 10 at 25 ft intervals. We also observed
we need to submit another drawing. We did notice our land is zoned two different ways;
Industrial and Light Industrial. We want to keep the neighbors happy by putting up the screening.
We have removed all the lumber from that side of the lot. Everything else is stored below the
fence line. We have some unusable metal in the back we intend to remove quickly. We have
some rock on the north and northeast side for erosion control and have contacted someone for
lawn care. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: Last year we had a consultant from Derrick
Construction come forward working on this project. The conditional use permit was issued with
11 conditions. We had issues with conditions #5, 8 and 9. A site plan was submitted but things
changed. Another issue was a free standing advertising sign and some erosion. They would need
a permit for the sign. Everything in Light Industrial District stays inside the buildings plus some
screening should be in place to soften up the view from residential and agricultural districts. Part
of the issue was the building wasn’t erected and lumber was stored outdoors with a residential
district across the street. There was a 70 ft x 180 ft pole building put up because there was some
ground water issues discovered when developing the facility. The committee should consider
condition #9, whether outdoor storage will be allowed.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee review this
conditional use permit for compliance with original conditions to insure compatibility with the
surrounding area and compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit and zoning code. If
commercial storage is allowed outdoors - how will it be mitigated to protect the scenic resources
and adjoining properties. Holst stated that he is not favorable to another site plan review process
– given that one was already submitted by Fullerton and now they aren’t following it. People run
into unforeseen circumstances all the time. Nellessen, I’ve seen the site. I don’t have a problem
with outside storage in a retail lumber yard. Chairperson Barkla asked Mr. Pichotta to expand on
his conversation with Brad Lawrence, County Corporation Counsel. Pichotta, Light Industrial
uses have to be conducted indoors, typically because there is fabrication going on, and to keep
sight, sounds and smells contained. A commercial use in the Light Industrial District is
established through a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit is a mechanism in which
the appropriateness of a particular use is determined on a site specific basis allowing the

committee to consider the impacts on the neighborhood and identify conditions that will be
necessary to mitigate those impacts from the neighbors. If the committee is comfortable that
screening can be used to mitigate impacts then you could remove that condition to allow for
outside storage, and or could ask for a new site plan. That new site plan should accurately depict
what is on the ground now, what is planned for in the future, to determine if berms and screening
are necessary or adequate to protect the adjacent uses from potential negative impacts. So
theoretically you can allow a commercial use to have outdoor storage even in a Light industrial
District. I suggest Fullerton be asked to submit a new site plan for the committee to react to.
Chairperson Barkla asked if the committee could say the conditions remain the same and what
the impact would be. Pichotta, if outdoor storage was not allowed and Fullerton continued to
violate their CUP - theoretically, the conditional use permit would be rescinded and it would not
be an allowed use and operations would need to cease. Nellessen asked if trees were planted, how
close to highway 10 would they be. His concern is that police officers will not be able to see the
site when on patrol. Gilles asked if Fullerton could have security lights. Holst stated Fullerton
deviated from their site plan. Now we need an accurate and current site plan from them. Rick
Martin, We didn’t build the lumber tree because they don’t look good. When we came upon the
underground river it really changed things. We had to stay within a budget. We’re looking at our
options. What is outside is paper wrapped and moved away from the road. We’ll move the steel
racks and are going to get the lawn mowed. Pichotta, if you are comfortable with outdoor storage
and believe aesthetics issues can be addressed through the site plan review process, the
committee could remove that condition contingent upon the submission of a new site plan. The
new site plan would include their plans for trees, etc and you would review it to determine if
anything additional was necessary to mitigate impacts. It’s entirely possible that you’ll find that it
is adequate. Holst, I’m not overly comfortable with outdoor storage. Does this set a precedence
and will we have to allow it for everyone? Pichotta, a conditional use permit allows you to react
to each proposal on a site specific basis. Chairperson Barkla asked for a response regarding
security issues. Stocker, the only security we have there besides the building is the security
lighting that had to be located not to reflect on the neighbors. Kleinhans, they opened in
December and condition #7 stated the fencing should be established around the parameter within
12 months so they need have plantings established by December. Stocker, is there a need to do
something with the property because of the duel zoning? Kleinhans, Joe Plummer owned all that
property when it was zoned and it was done by section lines. Then when he started developing it,
he did it by what he felt would look good for the commercial lots. So they no longer followed the
section lines. Holst moves to modify the conditional use permit to amend condition #9 to
stacked lumber shall not exceed the height of the fence and change #11 to read a new site
plan, including all materials required by § 240-75 (C), shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Land Management Committee within 60 days/Nellessen seconds. All in
favor. Motion passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items

Conditional use permit request for a sign in Town of Oak Grove
Conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based Business in Town of Martell
Conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based Business in Town of Spring Lake
Review of the Request for Proposals due June 29 th , interviews will be held third week of July
Joint meeting with Parks and Land Management at 9:00am on July 10, 2007. Items on that
agenda are:
A request from Town of Diamond Bluff’s Park Committee regarding financial assistance for Sea
Wing Park, a request from the Town of Martell for a land purchase recently completed, a request
for the Kinni River Land Trust for $500,000 for some land located in the Town of Clifton, Site
visit in the Town of Trimbelle, Bike trail from Elmwood to Spring Valley. Pichotta also noted
that there was a
a meeting in Dunn County on Monday morning with their Environmental Services Division to
discuss their experience with the combining of numerous departments.
Chairperson Barkla requests an agenda item be added to an upcoming meeting regarding
compliance checks for conditional use permits and site plans.
Motion to adjourn at 7:45pm. by Holst/Nellessen seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
July 5, 2007
Present: Jeff Holst, Pat Harrington, Don Nellessen and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Emily Lund, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Paul Barkla
Chairperson Nellessen called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: July 18, August 1 & 15, in 2007.
Approve minutes; Holst makes a motion to approve minutes for the June 20, 2007 meeting/
Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a 32 square foot
advertising sign in the General Rural Flexible 8 District by Joan Lentsch, agent for Prescott
Stone, LLC on a parcel owned by Neil and Consuelo Riley Family Trust located in the NW
¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 12, T26N, R20W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Nellessen invited Greg & Joan Lentsch forward: Joan Lentsch explained they
have a sign in the entrance of the quarry that states hours and phone numbers. We went to the
Town of Oak Grove meeting and they approved it. Harrington questioned whether it blocks the
view. Ms Lentsch stated it’s off the road and doesn’t block the view. Mr. Lentsch stated they
didn’t realize the size was an issue. Sanden questioned what the color scheme of the sign is. Ms.
Lentsch stated it’s light tan aluminum with black lettering. Holst stated that it is tastefully done.
Sanden asked how far off the road the sign is. Brad stated it was approximately 80 ft. Staff
Report – Brad Roy: Prescott Stone has a lease with Neil and Consuelo Riley Family Trust to use
the nonmetallic mining quarry on their property. The quarry is a grandfathered site. Prescott
Stone has operated the mine since 2006 and has placed a 32 square foot freestanding sign at the
entrance of the property. The sign is located off of US Hwy 10 at the entrance outside of the rightof-way.
The dimensions are 4’ x 8’. § 240-60N(1)(d) requires free standing sighs over 24 square
feet but no more than 32 square feet located outside of the commercial and industrial districts
receive a conditional use permit. The Town of Oak Grove recommended approval of this request
on April 16, 2007. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee determine whether the proposed use at the proposed location will be contrary to the
public interest or will be detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety or character of the
surrounding area. As it does not appear that this use is contrary to the above standards, staff
recommends approval of this request for a 32 square foot sign. Public hearing opened. No
comment. Public hearing closed. Holst moves to grant an after the fact conditional use

permit for 32 square foot freestanding advertising sign in the General Rural Flexible 8
District/Sanden seconds. Kleinhans questioned if the Land Management Office would be
issuing a permit. Roy stated that it was his recollection that a land use permit is not required for
conditionally permitted signs. All in favor. Passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit to expand a Farm & Home
Based Business in the Primary Agriculture District by Mark Bernecker, agent for Joseph
Dohmen, owner of a parcel of land located in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 26, T27N,
R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Nellessen invited Mark
Bernecker forward: Mr. Bernecker explained he would like to add a trucking business to the
conditional use permit. He has four trucks over the road. The Town of Martell approved this. He
would like to sell and do minor repairs on farm equipment. Land Management staff sent
information regarding this business. One was if he has a full-time mechanic that he provide a
restroom. He will provide a satellite and contract to have it maintained. Another is the business is
only to be 5,000 square feet. One building is 26’ x 50’ and the other building is 60’ x 120’ and
only half of this building will be used. One other issue is the driveway; it’s not 35 ft wide but it’s
his understanding that he can make it 35 ft wide. Harrington asked if we can transfer a
conditional use permit? Pichotta stated yes. Holst asked if they were planning any auctions there
that might block traffic. Mr. Bernecker stated no. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: Mr. Bernecker
has been talking to us about a business and he came across this property that already has a
conditional use permit on it. The property is zoned Primary Agriculture where farm and home
based businesses are conditionally permitted. Employees would park within the buildings while
trucking on the road. The trucking business presently includes four semi tractors with two
trailers. The application indicated the business intends to expand. Up to eight employees who do
not reside on the premises are allowed under the ordinance. The parking requirements for home
based businesses would require a one acre area. Rest room facilities should be provided if a full
time mechanic is employed or if drivers remain at the facility to work on their vehicles.
Advertising signage was permitted in 2002 for the agriculture equipment sales business. Original
permit allowed Mr. Dohmen to operate sales of equipment during daylight hours and that
equipment was to be maintained at the setbacks off the road. I’ve noticed some of the equipment
is located between the sign and the highway. If you get your permit that equipment should be
moved back in line with the sign. The Town of Martell recommended approval of this permit on
June 12, 2007. The access driveway along 690 th Avenue will be widened to accommodate larger
truck traffic. Mr. Bernecker is proposing to elevate the shop building several feet to accommodate
higher entrance doors for his trucks. I request we get a plot plan from Mr. Bernecker indicating
what area of the building he is proposing to use for business purposes. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider amending the original permit
issued to Mr. Dohmen provided Mr. Bernecker buys the property and the request is determined to
not be contrary to the public interest, nor injurious to public health, safety or character of the area,
subject to the following conditions:

1. Mr. Bernecker will have to reside on the property to initiate the business.
2. Employees shall keep noise to a minimum when entering and leaving the site to avoid
conflict with neighbors.
3. Delineate where the business will be located in the pole building.
4. Waste materials, parts, fluids recovery, etc. shall be disposed of according to solid waste
guidelines.
5. Abide with the previous conditions as follows:
Sales business to be conducted during daylight hours,
Display and storage of sale items shall be located in an area not to exceed three acres in
area and located a minimum of 110 feet from the centerline of Highway 63 and 75 feet
from 690 th Avenue.
One acre of open space be delineated and left open for parking.
6. The permit shall be renewed in two years by staff to verify establishment of the use and
compliance with conditions. Compliance issues regarding this permit will be directed to
the committee.
Public hearing opened. No comment. Public hearing closed. Sanden asked if there had been
any previous complaints. Kleinhans, they acquired the permit for the sign but that may have been
the only complaint. The business needs to be established within a year if the property is
purchased. Sanden asked if condition #5, open during daylight hours is too vague. Holst, when
the original conditional use permit was issued it was recognized that farmers drive around after
their work was completed, making the hours more accessible for their use. Pichotta, it’s not your
typical retail operation where people are coming into a store. Sanden asked about the solid waste
guidelines. Kleinhans stated they need to work with Solid Waste Management and the DNR. We
don’t want open containers of fluids. Sanden questioned if there is a need for screening. Mr.
Bernecker stated everything will be indoors. Sanden moves to approve the expansion of the
conditional use permit for a existing Farm & Home Based Business with conditions #1 – 6/
Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a Farm & Home Based
Business in the General Rural District by Faye Jones, owner of a parcel of land located in
the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 16, T27N, R15W, Town of Spring Lake, Pierce County,
WI. Chairperson Nellessen invited Faye Jones forward: Ms Jones explained she is the
executive director of Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service. The business is
expanding and they need more staff. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Ms Jones is the director of
Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Services. The business is currently operating under a
Home Business permit which was received in July of 2002. This type of permit restricts the
number of outside employees. She would like to expand and add more. The business is operated
in a 1288 square foot trailer. There are no intentions to expand the office size. A restroom is
provided in the trailer. Typically only the staff is present in the office. Hours of operation are
8:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday. Driveway access is off of County Road B and there are six

available parking spaces. § 240-54 requires five spaces for this type of use of which one is to be
handicap accessible. § 240-54I states that the minimum dimensions for all parking spaces
provided for use by physically disabled persons shall be 12 feet in width and 18 feet in length.
Parking spaces provided for use by physically disabled persons shall be located as close as
possible to an entrance which allows such persons to enter and leave the parking area without
assistance. Land Management Departmental Policy states that parking space dimensions shall be
a minimum of 9 feet wide and 18 feet in length unless specified in the code. Deviation from the
standards for handicap accessible parking may occur if a minimum of 5 foot adjacent access aisle
is provided. The office and parking area cannot be seen from County Road B. There is no signage
currently on the property and no plans for signs in the future. The Town of Spring Lake
recommended approval of this request on June 12, 2007. No specific conditions were
recommended. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee
consider the above and, if determined to be not contrary to public interest, nor injurious to public
health, safety or character of the area, grant this conditional use permit with the following
conditions:
1. Operations are to be conducted according to the submitted plans.
2. This conditional use permit shall expire in 2 years or if compliance issues arise. Permit
may be renewed administratively if no compliance issues arise.
Public hearing opened. No comment. Public hearing closed. Sanden asked if any of the six
parking spaces are handicap accessible. Roy, yes. Sanden asked if there have been any
complaints. Roy stated no. Holst moves to grant the conditional use permit for a Farm &
Home Based Business in the General Rural District with conditions #1 – 2/Sanden seconds.
All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for a rule exception to the requirement that an Erosion
Control Plan be submitted for a 2-Lot Major Certified Survey Map for John Holst, owner,
by Larry Murphy, surveyor, on a parcel being Lot 3, CSM Vol 10 Pg 173, located in the SE
¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 12, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI. Jeff
Holst recused himself for this and the next two agenda items due to possible conflict of
interest. Chairperson Nellessen invited John Holst forward: Mr. Holst stated he is asking for
an exception to the erosion control plan for the 2-Lot Major CSM. Staff Report – Emily Lund:
Pierce County Code (PCC) Subdivision of Land requires that an erosion control plan be
submitted with a major CSM. Dan Reis was the previous owner and wrote to our department on
8/25/2005 stating that the sale of 7.834-acre Lot 3 CSM Vol 10 Pg 173 on 7/11/05 was to John A.
Holst and included the transfer of 2 density units. Rule exceptions per PCC Subdivision of Land
§ 237-30 states:
A. Where the Land Management Committee finds that undue difficulties will result from
strict compliance with the regulations of this chapter or better design will result, it may
vary the regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured,
provided that such rule exception will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and

purpose of this chapter.
B. A majority vote of the entire membership of the Land Management Committee shall be
required to grant any rule exception to these regulations and any rule exception thus
granted shall be entered into the minutes of the Committee setting forth the reasons which,
in the judgment of the Committee, justified the rule exception.
The property is in the Town of Oak Grove. Surrounding land use is residential and agricultural.
The parcel is zoned General Rural Flexible 8. Staff visited site on 6/26/07 and noted slopes are
stable and had much vegetative cover. The following are questions that are true and policy asks
them to be answered for this type of rule exception”
1. No roads are being constructed as part of the land division.
2. No erosion problems are present on the property.
3. There are no problems with storm water or surface water flow on the subject property or
that originate on the subject property.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether
or not this situation warrants a rule exception. Harrington asked if the driveway is going off the
main road. Morris Holst stated it will go off 570 th and there is an existing driveway which will be
shared by two lots. Chairperson Nellessen asked if it is all in grass. Sanden asked what the
estimated slope is. Lund, northwest corner is the most sloping area. The driveway is going in the
center where it is the flattest. Pichotta, on the CSM it is indicated that slopes in excess of 12% are
shaded. Sanden moves to approve the rule exception to the requirement of an erosion
control plan for the 2-Lot CSM based on the facts that there is vegetative cover, there are
no erosion or storm water problems and no roads are being built at this time/Harrington
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for approval of a 2-Lot Major Certified Survey Map for
John Holst, owner, by Larry Murphy, surveyor on a parcel being Lot 3 CSM Vol 10 Pg 173
located in the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 12, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce
County, WI. Chairperson Nellessen invited John Holst forward: Mr. Holst explained this is
the same property. Staff Report – Emily Lund: This is the same property. Surrounding use is
residential and agricultural. The parcel is zoned General Rural Flexible 8, density calculation
shows 1unit. With the purchase of land from Dan Reis, 2 density units transferred to John Holst.
Town of Oak Grove approved the 2-Lot CSM and the shared driveway access on 570 th Ave. at
their 6/19/07 Town meeting. Per 237-17(B)3, staff reviewed if the land was subject to any
hazards to life, health, or property; no such hazards were found. Soil tests were completed and it
was found that each lot is suited for a mound system. Pierce County Surveyor reviewed and
approved the CSM. Property is not in the Farmland Preservation Program. Survey review fees
have been paid. Staff Recommendation: If a rule exception has been granted to the erosion
control plan requirement, staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this major
CSM. Harrington makes a motion to approve the 2-Lot Major Certified Survey Map for
John Holst/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request for approval of a Concept Plan for Emerald Ridge
Addition for John Holst, owner, by Morris Holst, agent and Brad Bohlen, surveyor, located
in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ and the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ lying south and west of US Highway 10
and northwesterly of 560 th Ave, all in Section 14, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce
County, WI. Chairperson Nellessen invited John Holst, Morris Holst and Brad Bohlen
forward: Mr. Bohlen stated they are here to get approval of a concept plan for Emerald Ridge
Addition, a 7-Lot subdivision. Staff Report – Emily Lund: They are here asking for concept
plan approval for the 36 acre, 7-Lot subdivision in the Town of Oak Grove. Surrounding land use
is predominantly agricultural with some residential. This land is not in the Farmland Preservation
program. The zoning district is General Rural Flexible 8. This plat conforms to the surrounding
land and meets the zoning density for 7 residential lots. The Town of Oak Grove minimum lot
size of 3 acres is met and they approved concept plan on 6/19/07. The Wisconsin Wetland
Inventory map indicates no wetlands in this project area. The FEMA Firm maps indicate
approximately 0.37 acres of floodplain located in the northwest area of Lots 3 & 4. This
shouldn’t be a problem for the project to move forward. Existing land slopes that exceed 12% and
20% slopes are identified on the map handed out. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the
Land Management Committee approve this concept plan with the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall secure preliminary plat approval prior to beginning construction of
roads or installation of erosion control and storm water measures.
2. Applicant shall obtain all necessary sign permits.
Chairperson Nellessen asked about the old highway easements running through the lots. Mr.
Bohlen stated those were the old alignments of the road and some are accurate, some are not.
Some of the land transfers align with those. The deeds actually clarify that. Sanden, asked about
lot 3 having very little area that is less than 12% slope. Will there be a problem with erosion
control that can’t be addressed? Lund, our code states a half acre has to be under 12% and an acre
under 20%. We have that. Speaking with these gentlemen they indicated that they would not be
close to the floodplain. Sanden moves to approve the concept plan for a 7-Lot, 36 acre
subdivision in Town of Oak Grove/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on review of Request for Proposals (RFP’s) for Phase III of Smart
Growth Comprehensive Plan and selection of consultants to interview. Pichotta reports:
Our deadline for the proposals was last Friday. I was expecting more proposals but only received
one from the gentleman that has prepared Phase I and II. Mr. Rudd’s proposed price is $61,000
roughly to complete the project. He is proposing to divide the County into four areas and develop
goals and strategies for each area in recognition that issues in the County are not the same. I
propose we invite Mr. Rudd to present his proposal for the committee to determine if we could do
less areas. Fewer areas would result in less meetings. I believe the areas he is proposing would
result in approximately 42 meetings. I encourage each of you to take a copy of the proposal. If the
process we envision is somewhat less than what he envisioned, we could maybe get by for less

than he has proposed. I have $48,000 or so in funds left from Phase II. If we are to go with his
proposal as is we would need another $12, 000 in the budget for next year. Chairperson Nellessen
asked if the Town Chairman would be invited during the process. Pichotta stated we would keep
the Town Chairman involved. The theory was that the County plan would be more general and
the Towns would give us more town specific guidance. The Town plans will be an integral part of
the County plan. Sanden moves to invite Mr. Rudd to appear before the Land Management
Committee to determine the ability to complete Phase III/Harrington seconds. All in favor.
Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Conditional use permit request for a Private Institutional Use in Town of Ellsworth
Conditional use permit for a Wind Electrical Generation Tower in Town of Oak Grove
Conditional use permit for an Airstrip in the Town of Martell
Rezone request in Town of Salem
Review of the River Falls Soils Ordinance
Motion to adjourn at 7:52pm. by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES – Joint Meeting of Pierce County Land Management Committee and Parks
Committee July 10, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Pat Harrington, Don Nellessen, Eric Sanden, Mel Pittman and
Dan Reis
Others: Jerry Kosin, LeRoy Peterson, Scott Schoepp, Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Chairperson Barkla called the Joint Pierce County Land Management Committee and Parks
Committee meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth,
Wisconsin.
Staff Report From Andy Pichotta: Discuss take action on recommendations for several
requests for Pierce County collaboration and financial assistance for proposed park and recreation
projects including; Sea Wing Park, Town of Martell Parkland Acquisition and a Parkland
Acquisition by Kinnickinnic River Land Trust. Each applicant will be making a presentation
regarding their project, the scope and desired County involvement. A copy of the Park Fund Use
Parameters is enclosed. Although the parameters do not directly discuss collaborative efforts with
towns or other entities, the potential for entering into such arrangements was recognized and
discussed during the approval process. The discussions centered around such projects being
regional in significance and scope. The Pierce County Outdoor Recreation Plan was amended to
include both the Town of Diamond Bluff and the Town of Martell Recreation Plans. The
submission and subsequent adoption of those plans was in recognition of likely future requests of
County collaboration. Land Management and Parks Committees need to keep in mind that the
County has lost its ability to collect Park Fees as part of a land division process. That occurred
early in 2006. Also keep in mind there are several County owned facilities that will likely require
the development of facilities (Heisler property in Martell, additional facilities at project on Cty
Rd O, etc.). Any improvements in the Pierce County Park Property Plan currently being
developed by the Parks Committee would also likely be funded through the Park Development
Fund. An effort to establish a county/regional bike trail is also underway. Unbudgeted
expenditures of the park development fund requires a recommendation of both the LMC and
Parks Committee regarding a request. It then needs to go to the Finance and Personnel
Committee. Finance and Personnel will then forward a recommendation to the full County Board.
Mr. Pittman asked Chairperson Barkla if the committees were going to be listening to all requests
before making any decisions. Chairperson Barkla stated they would like to have an idea of the
amount of the requests before any actions are taken.
Chairperson Barkla stated we will be voting by committee on these issues and indicated
that each applicant will be asked to make their presentation prior to any committee
decisions regarding the requests.

Chairperson Barkla invited Fred Ottum, Fred Haverland and John Norquist forward to
present the request from the Town of Diamond Bluff/Sea Wing Park: Mr. Ottum explained
the Park Committee determined that Sea Wing Park in Diamond Bluff is a significant regional
park. We wanted the designation so we could apply for State and Federal grants. We have applied
for those grants and would need matching funds. We have a comprehensive park plan,
engineering drawings and a land survey. The park is located next to the Town Hall. There is a
boat launch. This boat launch is significant because it’s the only access between Red Wing and
Prescott. The biggest problem we have is storm water down from the bluffs. A slide show was
presented. Diamond Bluff built the boat launch in1992, paved the parking lot in 1995 and
purchased the land west of the Town Hall and River Frontage in 1999 for $85,000, they brought
sand in and made a beach in 2004 and purchased playground equipment in 2006 for a total cost of
$116,000. We put a Park and Recreation Plan together and presented it to the County in 2005.
The engineering plans, park survey and elevations were done by Tec Designs at a cost of $9,000.
We’re receiving $22,500 in funding by sport fishery restoration for the handicap accessible
fishing peers and blacktop to them, river bank stabilization, picnic tables, signage, etc;. This is
50/50 matching funds. Next we would like to do a park pavilion, picnic tables, signage and kiosk.
The funding is coming from the National Scenic Byway Program. They match 80/20 so they’ll be
matching $26,560 out of the $34,000. The storm runoff control will be costly for us but the
National Scenic Byway Program will be matching 80% of this. We need a walkway down to the
beach and estimate that at $8500. We are asking for additional funding of $54,240. Harrington
asked how many acres the park is. Holst stated about 3 acres with approximately 640 ft of river
frontage on the Mississippi River. Mr. Norquist explained the story behind the name of the park.
A boat, called the Sea Wing, was built in Diamond Bluff and set sail July 13, 1890 with a local
group going from Red Wing to Lake City for a military event. It capsized and 98 lives were lost;
ten from Diamond Bluff, ten from the Trenton area and the rest from Red Wing. The boat was
later rebuilt. The park is named after this historical steel boat. Sanden asked about signage on
site. Norquist stated yes, we have a sign near the town hall and it names the victims and
indicateds where they were from. Tony Huppert asked if an economic impact study had been
done. Mr. Ottum stated no they did not request that but they did ask for a hydraulic study of the
Mississippi River. Fortunately, we were able to get around that. Pittman asked what their
intentions are as far as maintaining the park. Mr. Haverland stated they have a good volunteer
group to maintain it and are not going to be asking the County to help with maintenance.
Chairperson Barkla invited Arby Linder forward to present the Town of Martell request:
Hand outs for the committees were distributed. Town of Martell Supervisors Tim Wiff and Rich
Eggen are here with Mr. Linder. They have a park that was privately built on the Rush River on
Highway 63, about 3 ½ acres. When the owners no longer wanted to continue the upkeep, they
put it up for sale. They started to work on how the township could purchase this valuable
property. Being Mr. Linder has background with the Conservation Congress, they worked with

Stewardship Money, Wisconsin Land Trust, Trout Unlimited Chapters in Minneapolis, St. Paul,
Hudson and Eau Claire. The debt left on the property is $25,000 from the original $90,000. The
first year, the Eau Galle Sportsman Club maintained it, since then we have budgeted for it and
maintained it ourselves. It’s busy all summer. We are planning on putting in a restroom. We need
a parking lot. If it rains, people drive right across the yard making ruts that are hard to mow over.
We would like a walk path over to the area and a pavilion. Our first concern is the river. We’ve
done some studies on the trout stream. We’re gathering money from the local Trout Unlimited
and Eau Galle Rush River Sportsman’s Club. Our plan totals about $70,000 and we’ve come
down to $23,923. We are proposing four trout stream handicap fish structures. These would be
some of the first ones in the state. We’re down to the labor expense. We have trout funding for
next year. If we put this trout habitat in, that will be more funds. We are asking for $75,000 but
would accept anything we can get. Pittman questioned how close the park is to the Heisler
property. Mr. Linder stated a half mile directly west of us and the land will be on the north end of
the property. Holst asked if they adjoin. Mr. Linder stated that they do not join.
Chairperson Barkla invited Margaret Smith and Eric Forward forward to present the
Kinnickinnic River Land Trust’s request: We would like your assistance on a project on
County Rd. FF. The Kinnickinnic River Land Trust was formed in 1993. Our mission is to
protect the natural resources, land protection and conservation easements (voluntary land owner
agreement where we do not own the land but protect the natural resources). A slide show
presented. We have purchased land in the Headwaters in St. Croix County, a trumpeter swan
preserve and hunting area there, Kelly Creek and at the Swinging Gate. We currently only own
property on Kelly Creek. It’s the site of a spring which pumps 700,000 gallons of water per day
into the Kinnickinnic River. It’s a cold water spring that helps keep it a class one trout stream.
Our prairie has been used for field trips. Swinging Gate is on highway 65, sold to the DNR and is
open for public access. We also do land restoration, removal of invasive species like buck thorn,
etc. and preservation of endangered species like rare Oak Savannah. The Manion property is 232
acres on County Road FF; 157 acres are farmland, 27 acres of Oak Savannah. The Manion
property has three scenic views overlooking native prairie plants. It is ideal for hunting, hiking,
bird watching, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, nature photography and prairie restoration. It
complements Kinnickinnic State Park. We are asking for help on purchasing the property. There
are a couple options for you to consider. The first is for the purchase of 232 acres for a County
Park with Pierce County contributing $500,000 and the DNR Land Trust contributing the
remainder. Option two is to have the upland area be a Pierce County Park with Pierce County
contributing $300,000 and the rest of the area being sold to a farmer with an easement put on it.
Pittman asked if Pierce County contributes would it be a County Park and who would maintain it.
Ms Smith stated they would donate it as a County Park. They are working with the DNR and
applying for a wildlife habitat stewardship grant and the DNR would be willing to work out a
Memorandum of Maintenance. Pittman asked if you have a conservation easement on the other
area and it is purchased by a farmer who has the liability on any impacts. Ms Smith, if we have

the conservation easement on the property we monitor that property and the farmer has to abide
by the agreement. Pittman, who has the liability in the case of a hundred year storm and flooding
occurs or damage on the property? Ms Smith, the land owner still owns the land and has to
maintain it. What we would own is the development rights and the conservation and rights to get
the natural resources on the property. Pittman, have you checked into stewardship funds from the
State on this property. Kosin, on option one how much are you going to contribute? Ms Smith,
the purchase is $2 million and we would pay the remainder. Tony Huppert, is this in Clifton
Township? What about the tax base, if you take that property off the tax base. Would it be based
on recreational or farm tax? Did you do a study on the Kinnickinnic State Park to see how many
visitors they have each year? Ms Smith, We did not do a study. If this were purchased, the only
property that would come off the tax roll would be what was purchased by Pierce County. Leroy
Peterson, The State Park pays very little tax, around 10%. When someone puts it into a
conservation easement, the farmer pays the taxes on it. What better habitat than a corn field or
bean field for deer and turkeys? Ms Smith stated that it is her understanding that the tax rate does
not go down when a conservation easement is put on. Pittman asked about the 157 acres of open
land, what are your intentions if you obtain this land? Ms Smith, to restore it to native prairie.
Pichotta, what constraints are put on the property if Stewardship Fund dollars are utilized? Ms
Smith, the property can not contain any buildings or facilities designed for intensive recreational
use such as playgrounds, picnic areas, boating, camping, etc. unless the facility occupies only a
small portion of the property or the DNR determines it does not diminish the wildlife habitat. The
best trails would be around the parameter of the property and that way you get a fire break.
Chairperson Barkla asks if there would be horse trails. Ms Smith stated no, if the DNR is going to
be putting in a lot of money for prairie restoration they don’t want horses bringing in invasive
species.
Chairperson Barkla stated the three requests have been heard and around $700,000 is being asked
for here today. Mr. Pichotta handed out information earlier summarizing Park Development
Activity which showed that there is $978,012.58 through July 6, 2007. Pichotta stated there is
$120,000 budgeted for the Trimbelle project that has not yet been expended. Chairperson Barkla
stated that a total of $858,000 is available for all projects and that there will likely be another
project request forthcoming.
Discuss take action on a request by the Town of Diamond Bluff for financial assistance from
the Park Development Fund for facility development/expansion of Sea Wing Park.
Nellessen stated that the Sea Wing Park project seems like a worthy project because it will
promote tourism and spending in the County. I feel it’s worth the total amount for the project.
Sanden, I agree. The location is strategic and they have already contributed $116,000 of their own
money. Reis, the agreement states that the Towns are able to receive 10% of Park Fees generated,
5% per year. How will this work? Pichotta, indicated that Mr. Reis was referring to parameters
regarding Town projects. Basically, the 10% cap is for a Town specific project such as a play

ground. Diamond Bluff believes their project is regionally significant and worthy of County
collaboration. Pichotta again noted that the Park Fund Use Parameters do not specifically discuss
collaborative efforts but that discussion at that time included the potential for county
collaboration on “regionally significant” projects. Nellessen makes a motion to approve
collaboration on the Sea Wing Park Project in the Town of Diamond Bluff in the amount of
$54,240/Sanden seconds. Parks Committee voted (Mel Pittman, Don Nellessen, Jeff Holst
and Dan Reis). All in favor. Passed. Land Management Committee voted (Paul Barkla, Jeff
Holst, Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden). All in favor. Passed. This request
will be forwarded on to Finance and Personnel for their consideration.
Discuss take action on a request by the Town of Martell for financial assistance from the
Park
Development Fund for the purchase of several parcels of land located in Section 14 in the
Town
of Martell.
M. Pittman, Mr. Linder made an interesting comment when he stated that he wasn’t sure the
County should do much development of the parcel recently acquired near the project site. Maybe
we should take time as a Park Committee to consider those options. Mr. Linder, what is your time
line for securing money? Mr. Linder, we’ve gone two and one half years now so we’ll continue to
maintain the park. We’re very interested in what the County will do with the Heisler property.
Nellessen, if your park could be connected to the property we’re going to acquire and you had
one main entrance would the Town of Martell be interested in one big park? Mr. Linder, yes, but
the problem is when property is off the highway, there are possible problems. We would try to
leave that as natural as possible. It is easier for trout stamp, stewardship or grant money if the
Town or County own the land. Chairperson Barkla asked Mr. Pittman how much time would be
needed to discuss this issue. Pittman, we have a meeting on August 6 th . My concern would be to
check with the party that donated the land to the County to make sure this is alright with them.
This is something we can put on our agenda for August 6 th . Holst moves to defer action on the
request for financial assistance from the Park Development Fund for the Town of Martell
until after the August 6 th meeting of the Parks Committee/Reis seconds. Nellessen
commented that he feels the park does have regional significance for the County and it needs
consideration. Pittman asked if the motion was intended for no action to be taken by the Parks
Committee at their August 6 th meeting. Holst, that is not the intention, it was meant to get a
united front with what the Town and County want. If we have a better idea of what is going to
happen to both properties, we can work in cooperation. Pittman asks if the Parks has the option to
take action on August 6 th . Pichotta stated yes. Chairperson Barkla stated if the Parks Committee
takes action in the affirmative, we can get it on our agenda for further consideration by the Land
Management Committee. Parks Committee votes on above motion. All in favor. Passed. Land
Management Committee voted. All in favor. Passed.

Discuss take action on a request by the Kinnickinnic River Land Trust for financial
assistance for the purchase of approximately 230 acres in the Town of Clifton. Chair Barkla
indicated that two options have been presented. Sanden stated that a few of the committee
members have toured the property and he was impressed with the quality of the land, rolling
topography, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, a lot of large areas of ag land that could be
converted to native prairie. It’s near Prescott, Ellsworth, River Falls and provides for a lot of
recreational opportunities. With $800,000 in the bank maybe it’s time to make some bold moves,
investing in land, it’s only going up in price. Kosin, who is going to own the land if we
contribute? Ms Smith, we would donate it to the County. Peterson stated he doesn’t want to see
most of the Parkland Development Funds go for one project. We’re within a mile and a half of a
Park that doesn’t get much use. The habitat is already there. We need to preserve the farmland.
Nellessen stated he would rather see the money go to projects with more visibility and better
opportunity for tourists. Harrington stated he would like to see the funds go to more projects
throughout the County since there isn’t any more parkland fees coming in. Pittman makes a
motion to deny any park funds to the Kinnickinnic River Land Trust for the purchase of
the Manion property/Nellessen seconds. Reis stated he liked the presentation, valid points were
brought up but noted that it’s not on the Kinnickinnic River. It’s a large sum of money at this
time in our economy. Pittman stated with the Kinnickinnic State Park close by, visitors have an
opportunity to see the area. Park Committee votes on above motion. All in favor. Motion
passed. Land Management Committee votes, Barkla, Holst, Nellessen and Harrington in
favor. Sanden opposed. Motion passed.
Discuss the Veterans Memorial Bike Trail. Nellessen reports: The main part of the trail will
be between Elmwood and Spring Valley with a walking, biking, horse and cross-country skiing
trail. The Red Cedar trail is showing a lot of interest in connecting with it and then the DNR
would maintain the trail. If the trail was split off between Elmwood and Spring Valley it could
connect to Nugget Lake. The Army Corp of Engineers would like to connect right away. They
have horse trails already. We have grant writers working on this now. We are meeting on July 9 th
with the DOT and DNR to lock down a trail route. We’ve done an impact study that shows for
every mile there is a $53,000 income impact every year. I marked off where it could go through
Olivet, El Paso, Beldenville, then branch off to Prescott and River Falls. It would be an
aggressive project over several years. We should capitalize on the tourism. Holst asked about the
County’s bike trail plan and how this fits into it. Nellessen, Elmwood to Spring Valley is in the
County plan. This is a good way to connect east to west. St. Croix County would like to have this
trail connected to theirs. Chairperson Barkla asked if Don has any idea of the amount of funds
that will be asked for. Nellessen stated that if we can get an 80% grant we would be talking about
$100,000 to $200,000. The name of the trail is the Wisconsin Veterans Memorial Trail because
there is someone interested in donating a small piece of land in the middle and possibly putting a
Memorial Park there. There will be fishing along where the trail meets the river. Huppert, every
tenth post marker will have the name of a veteran in Pierce County, not only the ones who have

given their lives. The goal is to continue in the next County with the names and markers.
Discuss status of the park development project located on the Trimbelle River in Sections
20 and 21 in the Town of Trimbelle. Pichotta reports: There is a project underway on about 13
or 14 acres that had been donated as part of a land division several years ago. Last year $150,000
was budgeted for a parking lot, paved trail that is handicap accessible and screen bank
improvements. There has been some progress on the site; a parking lot has been excavated and
staked off, silt fencing is up to address runoff issues and there is a great deal of rock stockpiled
along the stream bank. We had another meeting scheduled to visit the site later this morning. We
visited the site yesterday and there isn’t a lot to look at. If folks want to drive by on their own we
could cancel the scheduled on-site meeting.
Nellessen makes a motion to cancel the second meeting this morning to visit the Trimbelle
River property/Reis seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Motion to adjourn at 10:45am. by Holst/Reis seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
July 18, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Emily Lund, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Don Nellessen
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a Private Institutional
Use in the Primary Agriculture District for Northwest Counseling and Guidance Clinic,
agent for Ellsworth Community School District, owner on a parcel of land located in the
NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 12, T26N, R17W, Town of Ellsworth, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Barkla invited Nick Kalambokidis, Edward Wehmas, Tim McIntyre, Steve
Ammund and Jim Pajel forward: Mr. Kalambokidis explained that he and Steve Ammund are
on the Board of Northwest Counseling and Guidance. Ed Wehmas is the program coordinator for
Ellsworth Day Treatment, Jim Pajel is the Clinical Coordinator and Tim McIntyre is the Regional
Coordinator. The property is still owned by the school district and we have entered into a one
year lease with the school district for use of the building. We have met with the Township Board
and one of the issues is what will happen with the playground area and football field. The
property is larger than we need. We are open to some kind of use for the community. Mr.
Wehmas, the students come to us from the school districts in the area. Either the parents, schools
or the County refer the student to us mostly with mental health issues or family issues. The
students come to the clinic at 8:00am from vans that we provide or we work with transportation
companies. A quick check in and then we work on mental health issues, anger, stress, anxiety,
coping, etc. We provide hours of education and that’s where we work closely with the school.
When the kids leave they get back on the vans. Chairperson Barkla asked what kind of behavior
issues of the students will there be? Mr. Wehmas, There are a lot of depression issues. Jim does a
lot of the screening of the kids. We also work with the state. Kids that have a lot of violent
tendencies, we can not take for our type of setting. We make recommendations. Mr. Ammund
stated this isn’t a new program, We were in Ellsworth in a neighborhood and didn’t have any
issues. Chairperson Barkla asked how many students are in the program. Mr. Ammund stated
right now they have 13 but have had up to 23 students at one time. The average is 16 – 17
students. They have 6 full-time staff as well as part-time staff. Most of the time the students are
in the building, but if they do go outdoors, there are two staff with them. If they cause any
problems they go right back in. Chairperson Barkla asked if the students eat at the school. Mr.

Ammund stated they bring their own lunch. We have access to the kitchen so they can earn
privileges to use the microwave. Chairperson Barkla asked what the credentials of the staff are.
Mr. Ammund has a Doctorate in Counseling and Human Services, a Master’s in Counselor
Education, Bachelor’s in Social and Behavioral Sciences. I’m licensed by the State of Wisconsin
as a professional counselor and certified as an independent Social Worker. Our Educational
Coordinator has a Master’s Degree in the Educational Field and is licensed by both the State of
Wisconsin and Minnesota. Mr. Wehmas has a 2 year experience (working with kids with mental
health issues) to qualify as a Bachelor’s Degree as a Mental Health Professional. Everyone has at
least a bachelor’s degree. Holst asked what success you have with the kids and do they ever get
back in the mainstream. Mr. Kalambokidis stated their goal is to have no kids graduate from high
school that are still in the program. The average length of stay is five and a half months. Any
child that comes into the program, we invite the parents to communicate with us to see what they
want for the child when they come back in the home. Harrington asked if this is a State funded
program. Mr. Wehmas stated most is funded by medical assistance, private insurance, or
contracts with parents. The program itself is regulated by Medical Assistance and Dept of Health
and Human Services. They come in and do audits and make sure that the work is up to the States
standards. Sanden, so this is not a half way house and no one is incarcerated. In the last five years
have you had any complaints? Mr. Ammund stated the only incident he can recall was a young
lady that decided to run from the program and she ran straight to her Human Services Social
Worker. At the present, if we can not get the child to calm down, we will get the police involved.
Sanden asked how often that has occurred. Mr. Wehmas stated he has been back for almost a year
and he can recall only one incident. Because we are mandated reporters, if a student stated this
happened at home then we have to report it to the authorities. Sanden asked if these are local kids.
Mr. Pojel stated yes, most of the kids are from St. Croix and Pierce County, some from Pepin
County. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: explained Mr. Kalambokidis had contacted him some
time ago and submitted an application. The property they are considering is approximately 7.74
acres and is zoned Primary Agriculture, located at the intersection of Cty Rd G and 530 th St.
Section 240-38A Private Institutional Uses; principal buildings for such uses shall maintain a
minimum of 50 foot setbacks form any property line. The existing school building is situated 184
feet from the centerline of 530 th St and only 23 feet from the right-of-way on Cty Rd G with
greater than 300 feet from the east and south lot lines. Looking at the zoning code with the
nonconforming structures and uses; a conforming use in a nonconforming structure may be
changed to another conforming use without complying with the setback or yard requirements of
these regulations, provided the new conforming use does not result in an increase in floor area
nor change the footprint of the structure, and provided that all parking and other site requirements
are met. After looking at the parking requirements for schools, my analysis would be with 10
proposed staff and 14 to 22 clients that would require a minimum of 10 spaces for staff and 2 or 3
additional spaces. There is a handicap accessible sign right by the main entrance and typically the
handicap parking space is marked a little larger than a typical spot. One thing this facility needs is
a handicap accessible parking a little closer to the main entrance. The property has two road

access points; one on Cty Rd G that is 18 feet wide and the other access on 530 th St is a minimum
of 25 feet wide paved surface. The existing onsite sanitary system should accommodate the
proposed use and appears to be in good working condition. Proposed hours of operation are
8:00am to 3:00pm Monday through Friday with occasional in-service days. Staff was advised this
company started operations in this building on July 9, 2007. The application was received in time
for the July 5 th meeting but was postponed until the July 18 th meeting because the applicant was
unavailable the first week in July. An advertising sign for this facility was posted on an accessory
building facing the parking lot. The size of the wall sign is 15 sq ft and complies with the zoning
code standard of 15%. The applicant indicated this property is larger than they need. Under
primary agriculture zoning, the parcel cannot be subdivided. Excess acreage could be sold to
adjacent landowners or an outlot created. The Town of Ellsworth approved this request on June 4,
2007 with a recommendation to check with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Dept to determine officer
response time if needed. The Sheriff’s Dept was contracted by their company. The Ellsworth
Police Department stated the facility is staffed well and if students are outside, staff is monitoring
them.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this
conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. The Pierce County Sheriff’s Dept response issue should be addressed to the satisfaction of
the Town and surrounding residents.
2. Additional advertising signs shall comply with county zoning code standards.
3. Two additional parking spaces should be defined with one designated as handicapped
accessible.
4. This permit shall be renewed again in 2 years to verify the established use and property
ownership. Renewal may be done administratively if no compliance issues exist.
Public hearing opened. Fred Parameter stated he was at the Town meeting. The land for
Sunnyside School, other than what the building sits on, was donated by his wife’s parents for
$1.00. His son has adjacent property and would be interested in taking the property back in the
O’Brien Family. Public hearing closed. Sanden asked about condition #4; does compliance
include complaints? Kleinhans stated follow-up will be done in two years to make sure they own
the property. If complaints are generated by surrounding neighbors prior to two years, we would
put it on the LMC’s agenda.
Holst moves to approve the conditional use permit for a Private Institutional Use with
conditions #1 - 4/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a Wind Electrical
Generation Tower in the General Rural Flexible 8 District by Robert & Shelley Fleming,
owners on a parcel of land located in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 14, T26N, R19W,
Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Robert Fleming and
Dennis Jarosch forward: Mr. Fleming explained he is applying for the tower due to the high
cost of energy. It’s quite windy on our site. We went to the State to see what size we are allowed

for personal use. Harrington asked about the tower being only 120 ft away from the home. Mr.
Jarosch stated the tower is rated for 120mph winds. It would take a tornado to knock it down.
Holst stated you are only 90 feet away from the fence line. Mr. Fleming, yes, we had to move it.
Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr.& Mrs. Fleming are interested in putting up a 120 foot steel lattice
structure to support a 20 kilowatt turbine. The proposed hub is 120 feet above grade with 15.5
foot blades for a maximum height of 135.5 feet. The tower has a cut-in wind speed of 8mph, a
peak output wind speed of 25.5mph and a cut-out wind speed of approximately 45-50mph. The
tower is designed to survive 125mph winds. The Focus on Energy estimates the annual average
wind speed for this area at a height of 120 ft is 12.2mph. The tower setback is 185.5 ft to property
lines. The applicants own two contiguous parcels. The tower will be located approximately 150 ft
from the property line of the applicants adjoining parcel. The applicants have no intentions of
selling the other parcel. Staff visited the site and measured setbacks. The measurement was done
off an estimated tower placement designation. The distance of the tower to the south property line
is approximately 192 ft. The orientation of the tower could cause an encroachment of the setback.
The anchoring for this tower will be a Pier and Pad Foundation depending on the soil type. The
anchor goes down approximately 10 ft into the ground. The output is one phase and the alternator
is 3-phase. It starts in DC and gets converted to AC power to 3-phase. The electrical generation
equipment will be connected to the house via an Intertie System that takes the power that the
wind plant produces and converts it to useable energy and transfers it to the utility grid (power
company) through the customers circuit breaker panel. When the customers usage exceeds the
wind systems output, the additional power required is drawn from the utility grid. If the electrical
needs are satisfied by the wind system, no power is used from the utility. During periods of
sustained high winds the system may produce more power than is consumed. The excess power is
sold to the utility company. There is an automatic as well as manual shutdown if the utility power
goes out. Grounding for the tower is designed by the contractor, Renewable Energy Team and
should be to national electrical code standards. The proposed site is located at the intersection of
Hwy 10 and Cty Rd E and is very visible. Many residences will have an unobstructed view of the
tower. The site location in relation to airports and environmentally sensitive areas does not create
a concern. The tower producer provides annual maintenance and servicing on the tower. The
Town of Oak Grove recommended approval of this request with no specific conditions. Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this request for
a wind electrical generation tower subject to comments from impacted neighbors with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the construction of the tower, staff shall be contacted to verify setbacks.
2. A land use permit shall be issued for the tower at a cost of $100.00.
3. The use shall be established within 12 months of approval.
4. The tower will be installed according to submitted plans and shall be grounded to national
electrical code standards.
5. The Land Management Department shall be provided a copy of the agreement with Pierce
Pepin Cooperative to insure the intertie on the grid is approved.

6. Warning signage shall be placed at the base of the tower for safety concerns.
Sanden asked Mr. Roy to expand on the encroachment issue. Holst stated they are talking about
the property line to the north which they own both properties. Roy, my concern was with the
south property line. It depends on where the leg of the tower goes. It’s going to be close. Holst,
they could sell the property and there could be a problem. Pichotta, at that point it would become
nonconforming. If it’s in compliance when it is put into place, it can continue even if it is
rendered nonconforming.
Public hearing opened. Sharon Fleming, we’re in the process of setting up our tower. People
need to look into this. It’s not much different than the old windmills that pumped your water.
Public hearing closed. Sanden moves to approve the conditional use permit for a wind
electrical generation tower with conditions #1 – 6/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for an airstrip in the
Primary Agriculture District for Carl Stine, agent on property owned by Carl Stine, Garry
& Daphne Keute and Russel Oberg, located in the N ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 28 and the
NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 29, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Barkla invited Carl Stine forward: Mr. Stine explained he is applying for a
renewal on a conditional use permit he has had for 17 years. The airstrip was approved in 1990
and it has been used all these years. He carries a $1 million liability policy on it. He hasn’t had
any complaints from the neighbors. Sanden asked what type of plane Mr. Stine flies. Mr. Stine
stated its a piper, 4 place. I usually set it up for two. Sanden asked if the airstrip use had been
abandoned at anytime during the 17 years. Mr. Stine stated he has continually used it. Staff
Report – Brad Roy: Mr. Stine originally permitted the airstrip on his property in 1990 and has
renewed the C.U.P. as required. In 2004 he subdivided his land and the airstrip is now located on
two parcels no longer owned by Mr. Stine. The airstrip was last renewed on June 12, 2002 with
the following conditions:
1. The conditional use permit shall be renewed again in 5 years.
2. Any potential changes in the use of the airstrip shall be approved by the zoning committee.
Staff along with Corporation Counsel has determined the change in ownership changed the use of
the airstrip. It was also determined that a new conditional use permit shall be applied for by all
property owners for the airstrip. Mr. Stine is the primary user of the airstrip. Use typically occurs
three to four times a month. There is one single-engine plane based at the airstrip. The airstrip is
grassed and approximately 2100 ft and has trees on each end of the strip. The surrounding area is
rural, but there has been increased residential development since the airstrip was originally
permitted. The 1990 permit application did not provide information regarding the layout and
setbacks for the airstrip in regard to DOT and FAA standards. The Town of Martell
recommended approval of this request on June 19, 2007 with no specific conditions. Staff has not
received any complaints regarding the airstrip.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider the
above and, if determined to be not contrary to the public interest, nor injurious to public health,

safety or character of the area, grant this conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. Only the property owners of the airstrip may have a plane based at the site.
2. Any change in the use of the airstrip shall be brought to the Land Management Committee
for approval.
3. Applicant shall submit verification that the airstrip continues in compliance with FAA and
DOT regulations. This shall be completed by November 1, 2007.
4. Proof of adequate liability insurance shall be submitted for approval.
5. This conditional use permit shall expire in 5 years or if compliance issues arise. Permit
may be renewed administratively if no compliance issues arise.
Public hearing opened. John Lewis, a neighbor to Carl stated Carl flies over his property and is
quiet, courteous and a very good pilot. Public hearing closed. Sanden asked about condition #1,
only the property owners may have a plane at the site. Is it my understanding that Mr. Stine no
longer owns the property? Roy there are actually three property owners of the airstrip and Mr.
Stine is one of them. Chairperson Barkla stated the committee has to consider two motions for
this C.U.P. Sanden moves to recognize that the use isn’t contrary to the public interest, nor
injurious to public health, safety or character of the area/Harrington seconds. All in favor.
Passed. Holst moves to grant the conditional use permit for an airstrip in the Primary
Agriculture District with conditions #1 – 5/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
7:53pm Chairperson Barkla calls for a five-minute recess.
7:57pm meeting resumed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a rezone from Exclusive Agriculture to General
Rural by Bruce and Colleen Anderson, owners of a parcel of land located in the SE ¼ of the
NW ¼ and the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 9, T25N, R16W, Town of Salem, Pierce
County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Bruce Anderson and Travis & Ann Anderson
forward: Mr. Anderson stated he would like to give his son and daughter-in-law 17 acres to
build a house on, located off of 370 th Ave. Sanden asked if the area that isn’t wooded was in hay.
Mr. Anderson stated no, it’s not farmed. Holst asked if the property is right above Wieser
Concrete Plant. Anderson stated yes, it’s known as State Hill. Staff Report – Emily Lund: The
property is approximately 34 acres. The Town Board of Salem supported this rezone request at
their January 9, 2007 meeting and stated the “Salem Plan Commission voted unanimously at its
December 5, 2006 meeting to allow the rezone. The Town of Salem is working with DATCP to
complete a comprehensive revision of the town zoning map that will require the development and
approval of a town-wide farmland preservation plan, and is underway. The north part of the
current property fronts 370 th Ave. Most of the land is currently wooded. It is not in the Farmland
Preservation Program. Current zoning would allow only one lot. But the rezone would allow
three. Jim Kleinhans sent a letter to the applicants on June 22, 2007 to inform them of another
option. A parcel of 5 acres or less in size may be created upon issuance of a conditional use
permit but obviously they wanted a larger parcel so they are pursuing another option. Mr.

Anderson asked if according this information there wouldn’t be a lot available at all. Pichotta
stated with the Exclusive Agriculture minimum of 35 acre lot that is correct. Lund, According to
§240-80(D), Zoning amendments in the Exclusive Agriculture District states,
1. Pierce County may approve petitions for rezoning area zoned for exclusive agriculture
use only after findings are made based upon consideration of the following:
a. Adequate public facilities to accommodate development either exist or will be
provided within a reasonable time.
b. Provision of public facilities to accommodate development will not place an
unreasonable burden on the ability of affected local units of government to provide
them.
c. The land proposed for rezoning is suitable for development, and development
will not result in undue water or air pollution, cause unreasonable soil erosion or
have an unreasonable adverse effect on rare or irreplaceable natural areas.
2. Pursuant to § 91.77(3), Wis, Stats, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection shall be notified of all rezones pertaining to the Exclusive
Agriculture District.
Soils information is mapped and dated. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land
Management Committee consider whether it is appropriate to approve this rezone prior to the
development and finalization of a Farmland Preservation Plan. If approval is granted have the
motion include the reference to § 240-80(D) and staff will forward a recommendation to Pierce
County Board of Supervisors and will inform DATCP of the final decision as required. Holst
asked about the timing issue. Mr. Anderson stated at the time they went to the Township and got
that approval they decided to wait thinking the maps were going to be completed and trying to
save the $500. We went ahead without going back to talk to Mike. Public hearing opened. Mike
Graham, Planning Commission for Town of Salem, issue with timing, we were on an intended
faster track to get our rezone done. We met with DATCP after we met with Bruce Anderson and
things shifted. Sanden asked Mike when they anticipate the rezone being completed. Mr. Graham
stated the Town has basically put a moratorium on rezones until January 2008 so that is my
deadline. Public hearing closed. Holst moves to recommend approval of the rezone from
Exclusive Agriculture to General Rural upon finding that adequate public facilities to
accommodate development either exist or will be provided within a reasonable time, and
the provision of public facilities to accommodate development will not place an
unreasonable burden on the ability of the affected local governments to provide them, and
the land proposed for rezoning is suitable for development and development will not result
in undue water or air pollution, cause unreasonable soil erosion or have an unreasonable
adverse affect on rare or irreplaceable natural areas /Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for approval of Town of River Falls Ordinance; Soils (Ord.
2007-02). Chairperson Barkla invited Jim Kleinhans to report: There were some issues on
the appeals process that the Town of River Falls had submitted for your review. Also there is the

2 acre minimum on the project area with soil types 1, 2 & 3. Also, Diana Smith is now the Town
Chairperson not Louie Campbell, this needs to be updated on the ordinance. If you agree how the
appeals process works through the NRCS office, you should consider approving it. Chairperson
Barkla asked how long and how much the process will cost a citizen. Pichotta stated he did some
checking with NRCS on the appeals process and Mark Biel provided documentation that went
out to the Town and Mr. Esler. There statement is “It is NRCS Policy that the unit of government
using the soil survey for their jurisdictional use, decide on the policy and procedure for
implementing requests for changes in the soil survey. It would be up to the Township to decide if
they want NRCS to review proposed changes for comment and adoption. If it was decided there
is an error in the soil survey that would warrant a change, NRCS would note the deficiency and
make the appropriate change.” Sanden stated when he worked for NRCS they did all the technical
work for no charge. Pichotta stated NRCS was afraid of being too intimately involved with each
one. They wanted to be a check and balance. Sanden asked if it would be safe to say it cost the
same as a soil evaluation test. Pichotta asked how many holes are required for a soil boring. Lund
stated they do three borings. Pichotta asked Jerome how many borings they require. Jerome
Rodewald stated they do three borings and the distance between them depends on the shape of the
property. Pichotta asked if they could determine there was two acres of class 4 soils with three
borings. Mr. Rodewald stated that would be part of the design, the spacing and the layout. We got
into discussions on how far apart they are. I think if you use $1,000 would be about the cost.
Kleinhans stated he thought $300 -$400 is the typical cost. Holst stated he has a problem with
interpretation and he doesn’t see a formula. Mr. Rodewald stated it could be open to
interpretation because of the lot lay out and size. We started trying to lay out a grid with an
engineer. We don’t do that for septic systems. Harrington asked if this refers to everyone building
a new home. Mr. Rodewald stated no, only someone challenging the soil maps. Holst asked how
much class 4 soils do you need to issue a permit according to your ordinance. Mr. Rodewald
stated it could be just touching class 4. Holst, Yet through the appeals test they need to have a
minimum of 2 acres. Do you feel that is equitable? Mr. Rodewald explained it is equitable in the
fact that when NRCS did their original maps they were based on a 2 ½ acre size. If we are going
to ask NRCS to change their maps based on a postage stamp size piece of class 4 they’re not
going to do it. Harrington stated your ordinance doesn’t state that. Mr. Rodewald stated that if
they are following the soils map and there is class 4 on the property, they only have to be
touching it. Pichotta, is it necessary for the NRCS to revise their map for you to issue a permit?
Mr. Rodewald stated no. Pichotta, If it’s determined that there is a lesser amount why would that
have to result in a change to the NRCS map? Couldn’t you just verify the presence of class 4,
without changing the NRCS map? If making a request for a mapping change to the NRCS map,
there would have to be a 2 acre minimum. It seems like the threshold for NRCS changing their
map may or may not be an appropriate for permitting a dwelling. Diana Smith, stated the NRCS
maps are what we use when people want to build. We felt we were being lenient by saying they
only had to touch the class 4 soils on the property. We didn’t want people having a soil scientist
come in and state there was a small area of class 4 where they wanted to build. That’s not what

we wanted. As a Board we didn’t want to have people coming to us to say there is a small area
that is class 4. We want to say we’re going by the NRCS maps. If someone comes to us saying
that they can prove with a soil scientist and borings that the NRCS soil maps are wrong, then we
would be willing to look at that and go back to them. Sanden, so the 2 acres wasn’t to have the
NRCS to change their maps - it was for a different purpose that you chose the 2 acres. Jim Esler,
Town of River Falls property owner, stated this ordinance doesn’t talk about slopes at all and that
is a very important aspect with class 4 soils. I went out with the zoning administrator to my
property with a map done by a surveyor and was told that day that slopes don’t count. At
subsequent Board of Appeals meeting, things had changed to “we’ve been using that for years -
it’s a part of our policy”. It is not a policy you will find in writing in any of the Town’s policies.
To say that touching works in one instance and not another is inconsistent. To have a soil
scientist come out with three borings and to say that is two acres is facetious. There aren’t
guidelines for the zoning administrator as to when a soil scientist should be brought in. The
ordinance does not require the Town to submit their findings to the NRCS. Ms Smith stated
slopes count on the NRCS maps, they aren’t something that we go out and do separately. Steve
Lavoie, River Falls Township, the ordinance takes into no account what the topography is. It
could have a rock every foot and still be a class 1, 2 or 3. It could have a grove of trees and they’d
say it’s ag soil. Sanden stated that if it had a rock every foot it would be a class 4S that stands for
stony. What is the benefit of passing this ordinance? Sanden stated it’s a community benefit to
maintain prime ag soils. Pichotta, in the first whereas in Section 17.065(3)(b), it makes reference
to cropland classed 1, 2 or 3. Does the fact that it is or ever was in cropland a factor or is it just
straight soils? Mr. Rodewald stated it’s soils, farmland classification is the proper term. Sanden
asked about the minimum of 2 acres, should that be contiguous acres? Mr. Rodewald stated that
is addressed. Holst stated there are a lot of inequities here with 2 acres versus touching and that
you don’t have your formula written somewhere. Through interpretation it could be abused.
Pichotta stated that there are three different levels of soil scientist so the town may want to
specify what level of certification in a soil scientist you would accept. Holst makes a motion
refer the ordinance back to the Town of River Falls for further clarification/Harrington
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Next Meeting Dates: August 1 & 15, September 5 & 19, in 2007.
Approve minutes; Holst makes a motion to approve minutes for the July 5, 2007 meeting/
Sanden seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Discuss take action on the establishment of financial parameters for collaborative park
development efforts. Pichotta reports: The Land Management Committee met with the Parks
Committee to consider several requests from several entities for County collaboration on park
development projects. Following the meeting, it was suggested parameters should be established
for use of county park funds on collaborative park efforts. Staff suggests a cap or maximum may
be appropriate for projects that are determined to be of regional significance, thus warranting

county involvement. Given the fact that projects are often “phased”, you may want to consider
establishing a minimum timeframe before funding for subsequent phases or new projects. Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC consider whether parameters establishing a
maximum amount that could be awarded to “regionally significant projects” should be adopted
and whether those parameters should include minimum timeframes for additional requests. I’ve
heard it suggested a $50,000 cap for collaborative efforts. This would stretch the funds that our
left. They would have to have matching funds. For you to take a project seriously, they would
have to have partners identified, it needs to be a viable project and an approved outdoor
recreation plan included in the County Outdoor Rec Plan. That would qualify them for other
funding through DNR and other entities. Sanden asked if the cap would be the County’s share.
Pichotta stated yes. Holst stated $50,000 for projects is a realistic amount. We can always grant
less money. Pichotta stated if a project warranted more funds, you could always change the
policy. Harrington asked about the Trimbelle project. Pichotta stated we have budgeted $150,000
that has been carried for the last several years. We have expended out of the Park Fund an
additional $30,000 - $40,000. You may want to consider timeframes. If there are phases in
projects, a particularly ambitious Town could monopolize the funds. Harrington makes a
motion to establish a $50,000 cap for financial assistance to collaborative projects out of the
County Park Funds and entities shall not be eligible for more funds within a three year
period/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed. Pichotta stated he will inform the Parks
Committee of the parameters and this would have bearing on your recommendation to Finance
and Personnel. It might be appropriate for the Parks Committee to consider similar language on
their level.
Discuss take action to contract with Rudd and Associates to complete Phase III of Pierce
County’s Comprehensive Planning process. Pichotta reports: Rudd and Associates was the
sole consultant to submit a proposal for Phase III of Pierce County’s planning process. At the
July 5, 2007 meeting the Land Management Committee passed a motion to invite Mr. Rudd to
appear before the LMC to determine his ability to complete Phase III. He has done a lot of very
similar projects. When I was in the process of setting up that meeting, Chairperson Barkla
suggested that rather than inviting Mr. Rudd, if the committee were comfortable with staff
working with Mr. Rudd we could finalize a process. I had a discussion with Bob, he talked about
dividing the County into four different areas. I reminded him the intent of the plan is to be more
general to look at County wide policy versus Town specific policies. To some degree this negates
the need to divide the County into four distinct areas. That would potentially eliminate up to ten
meetings and up to $10,000. If you were comfortable with staff negotiating with Mr. Rudd in
finalizing a process as well as a structure for the plan, what the roll of the Land Management
Committee would be, you could approve contracting with Mr. Rudd contingent upon reaching an
agreement regarding project structure, cost and contract terms. Sanden makes a motion that to
approve contracting with Rudd and Associates to complete Phase III of Pierce County’s
Comprehensive Plan contingent upon staff agreement regarding structure, cost, and

contract terms /Holst seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Chairperson Barkla read a letter he recently received that was sent out by the Town of River Falls
Zoning Administrator, Jerome Rodewald, and dated March 29, 2007 to Ad Hoc Committee.
“Attached is a packet of information regarding recent happenings with the Exclusive Agriculture
ordinance. The March 14 th letter from DATCP indicates the need for minor additions to the
ordinance but a major problem with the 1982 County Farmland Preservation Act.” Barkla stated
that he wanted committee members to carefully listen to these next two paragraphs. “I discussed
this 25 year old report with Andy Pichotta, Director of Land Conservation. He is willing to revise
the report with new soil maps but suggested the Township would be better off doing their own
Farmland Preservation Plan. Also attached are parts of the 1982 County Farmland Preservation
Plan. This is a wonderful plan that County Land Management ignores. These maps are old
technology but the wording is good, also attached are part of the governors working land report.
This report indicates we are on the right track with our efforts and should proceed with our own
Farmland Preservation Plan. We could include a number of the ideas presented in this report and
in our plan. I realize this is a lot to read and digest at one time. We will be meeting with Foy,
Pichotta, Campbell and Smith on April 18, to talk about the contents of the Town of River Falls
Farmland Preservation Act. The Town of Salem will also be present. Regards, Jerome”
Chairperson Barkla stated that he wants to bring this to your attention and make sure other
committee members that aren’t present are aware of it. Pichotta noted that it isn’t that we ignore
the 1982 Farmland Preservation Plan, its contents were utilized extensively in the development of
the Pierce County Land Management Plan. As you are all aware, a comprehensive plan is the
guidance document for a municipality and decisions must be consistent with that plan. Pichotta
additionally noted that a zoning ordinance is the mechanism through which a municipality
implements a comprehensive land management plan.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Conditional use permit request for Filling and Grading in Town of Hartland
Conditional use permit for a Wind Electrical Generation Tower in Town of Salem
Approval of a 2-Lot CSM in Town of Hartland
Rule Exception for a 4-Lot CSM in Town of Trenton
Approval of a 4-Lot CSM in Town of Trenton
Approval of a 1-Lot CSM in Town of Clifton
Modified Site Plan for Fullerton Lumber in Town of Ellsworth
Motion to adjourn at 9:17pm. by Holst/Harrington seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
August 1, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Don Nellessen and Pat Harrington
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Emily Lund, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Jeff Holst and Eric Sanden
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: August 15, September 5 & 19, in 2007.
Approve minutes; Harrington makes a motion to approve minutes for the July 10, 2007 joint
meeting with the Parks Committee/Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Nellessen makes a motion to approve the minutes for the July 18, 2007 LMC meeting/
Harrington seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chairperson Barkla stated that two items on the agenda will not be heard; Discuss take action on
a request for a rule exception to the requirement that an erosion control plan be completed on a 4-
Lot Major Certified Survey Map, and a request for approval of a 4-Lot Major Certified Survey
Map for the Charlotte Mahler Estate by Brandon King, agent on property located in the SW ¼ of
the NE ¼ of Section 3, T24N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI. He stated that action
will likely be taken on those items at the September 5, 2007 meeting.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a Wind Electrical
Generation Tower in the Exclusive Agriculture District for Trygve & Vicki Aarsheim,
owners on a parcel of land located in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 6, T25N, R16W,
Town of Salem, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Trygve & Vicki Aarsheim
forward: Mr. Aarsheim explained they would like to do something of interest to them and help
the environment. The tower will be 106 ft high located toward the top of their hill. Harrington
asked what company will be constructing the tower. Mr. Aarsheim stated Energy Concepts and
Steiner Electric. Southwest Wind System builds the towers.
Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr. & Mrs. Aarsheim are requesting to construct a 106 ft tower for
support of a 1.8 kilowatt turbine to generate electricity for the residence and sell excess power
back to Pierce Pepin Cooperative. The property is zoned Exclusive Agriculture. Wind towers are
allowed in Exclusive Agriculture by WI Stats 91.75. DATCP has been notified of the application.
The proposed hub is 106 ft above grade with 6 ft blades for a maximum height of 112 ft. The
tower has a cut-in wind speed of 8 mph, a peak output wind speed of 21 mph and is designed to
survive winds up to 110 mph. The generator will survive winds up to 140 mph. Focus on Energy

estimates the annual average wind speed for this area at a height of 106 ft is 10.3 miles per hour.
The tower setback is 162 ft to property lines. Staff visited the site and took measures. The
distance of the tower base to the east property line is approximately 163 ft. The tower is made of
21 ft sections of 5” galvanized steel joined together by couplers and secured at the base by guy
cables connected to anchors at four locations. There are five concrete foundations; one for the
tower base and four for guy cable anchors. The cable anchors are 43’6” from the base. The
foundations are concrete blocks 5’x5’x6’ with reinforcing rebar. This is similar to other towers
requests. There is an automatic, as well as a manual, shutdown. Grounding for the tower is done
with 8’ grounding rods installed at each foundation. Grounding wires at least 18” below the
surface will connect the rods. The generator is designed for 20 years of maintenance free
operation. The proposed tower location in relation to airports and environmentally sensitive areas
does not create a concern. The Town of Salem recommended approval of this request with no
specific conditions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee approve this request for a wind electrical generation tower, subject to comments from
impacted neighbors, with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the construction of the tower, staff shall be contacted to verify setbacks.
2. A land use permit shall be issued for the tower at a cost of $100.00.
3. The use shall be established within 12 months of approval.
4. The tower will be installed according to submitted plans and shall be grounded to national
electrical code standards.
5. The Land Management Department shall be provided a copy of the agreement with Pierce
Pepin Cooperative to insure the intertie on the grid is approved.
6. Warning signage shall be placed at the base of the tower for safety concerns.
Public hearing opened. Bill Paider, a neighbor, stated he will see the tower daily and would like
to see Aarsheim’s get their request. Mark Sandstrom and wife, Jennifer, are neighbors and stated
they think it’s a good idea and would like to see more people putting towers up. Public hearing
closed. Chairperson Barkla asked how many towers have gone up in the County in the last year.
Kleinhans stated three or four. Nellessen moves to approve the conditional use permit for a
Wind Electrical Generation Tower with conditions #1 - 6/Harrington seconds. All in favor.
Passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for Filling and Grading in
the Shoreland District for Scott Zimmer, owner on a parcel of land located in the SE ¼ of
the SE ¼ of Section 3, T25N, R17W, OL 1 CSM V11 P108, Town of Hartland, Pierce
County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Scott Zimmer forward: Mr. Zimmer explained that
he obtained a County permit to put in a driveway and they came out and marked where the
driveway was to be installed. Now he understands that it is within 300 ft of a navigable
waterway. So he is here requesting to maintain or stabilize what was disturbed when the driveway
was installed. Tomorrow he is meeting with Land Management, the engineer that did the soil
erosion plan, and the contractor so he is seeking approval tonight. Nellessen asked if this is a

waterway or is there water in this? Mr. Zimmer stated perhaps once a year it has water. Kleinhans
stated that right now it is dry. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: Mr. Zimmer is developing a piece
of property in Hartland and he requested that staff review his site for erosion control requirements
in order to come before this committee. Emily visited the site in March and she noticed the
driveway work was completed. We both looked at the site and determined the stream channel
adjacent to the driveway was located in the shoreland district. We had that verified with Dept of
Natural Resources Shoreland Specialist. The shoreland provisions in our zoning and shoreland
code are to protect service water from sediment and erosion. The access driveway was created
through dense woods. Trees were originally placed in the stream channel but they were removed.
The floodplain is directly below this property. No ditches are proposed. Ogden Engineering
created a plan to stabilize the site. Greg Adams of Ayres and Associates reviewed the plan and he
submitted some comments with recommendations that are included in the staff report. The fees
have been paid for review of this project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land
Management Committee approve this conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. Contractor shall follow all notes on the revised erosion control plan dated June 18, 2007
and recommendations suggested by Greg Adams, Ayres and Associates.
2. The sediment pond shall be established only after other erosion control elements of the
plan are implemented.
3. The Land Conservation Department and Ayres and Associates shall be notified when the
project is complete to verify compliance with the approved plans.
4. Any permits required by the WI Dept of Natural Resources shall be obtained.
5. A preconstruction meeting with the engineer and excavator to discuss implementing the
approved erosion control plan.
6. A statement of completion signed and stamped by the engineer certifying the erosion
control plan was implemented according to the approved plans. Any deviation from the
approved plans shall be submitted with an as-built plan with the statement of completion.
7. The project should be completed by September 15, 2007 to establish ground cover.
Public hearing opened. Dave Esterby, Town of Hartland Chairman, I’ve looked at Scott’s
property. I’ve had a problem with the DNR before and I don’t understand the navigable stream or
shoreland. The property looks good and doesn’t have any erosion. The Town of Hartland doesn’t
have a problem with it. Public hearing closed. Harrington moves to approve the conditional
use permit for filling and grading in the shoreland district with conditions #1 – 7/Nellessen
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on approval of a 2-Lot Major Certified Survey Map for Scott Zimmer,
owner on property located in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 3, T25N, R17W, OL 1 CSM
V11 P108, Town of Hartland, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Scott
Zimmer forward: Staff Report – Emily Lund: Scott Zimmer is asking for approval on a 2-Lot
CSM. He created two lots and one outlot in 2006 and is planning to convert the outlot into two
lots. Due to erosion control issues and the conditional use permit for filling and grading in the

shoreland area, an erosion control plan is required. Surrounding land use is agricultural and
residential. General Rural Flexible is the zoning district. His property has enough residential
density for six lots. Two houses have been built on the properties, so four additional lots could be
created. The minimum lot size of one acre is met. The Highway Department issued a driveway
permit for Lots 3 & 4. Staff reviewed the site to determine if the land was subject to any hazards
to life, health, or property, no such hazards were found. A soil test was evaluated by Kurt Funk
on April 9, 2007 and a mound system was recommended on both sites. Jim mentioned the
chronological order of the staff visits with DNR. Ayres reviewed it and there are seven issues as
Jim mentioned earlier. The property is not in Farmland Preservation. Pierce County Surveyor
reviewed and approved the CSM. Review fees have been paid. Staff Recommendation: Staff
recommends the Land Management Committee approve this CSM with the following conditions:
1. A conditional use permit for Filling & Grading shall be obtained and the erosion control plan
shall be implemented and the site stable prior to final approval by staff. Nellessen makes a
motion to approve the 2-Lot Major Certified Survey Map for Scott Zimmer with condition
#1/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for approval of a 1-Lot Major Certified Survey Map by
Larry Murphy, agent for Ronald L. Stark, owner, on property located in the SW ¼ of the
NE ¼ and the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 24, T27N, R20W, Town of Clifton, Pierce
County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Larry Murphy forward: Staff Report – Emily
Lund: Larry Murphy is here on behalf of Ronald Stark to request for a Major Certified Survey
Map for a 1-Lot land division. In 2004 land was deeded to a Jeff Lasar and he split the property
into 3 lots and 1 outlot. The Family Trust deeded Mr. Stark property in 2005. He wants to split
off 5 acres of his 38 acres for his daughter to build on. Mr. Stark falls under the Code as this
would be the fourth lot created in a 5-year period by the same or subsequent owners so he needed
to come before the committee. Surrounding land use is woodlands, ag and residential. The zoning
district is General Rural Flexible 8. The density calculation would allow for seven lots. Property
drains north toward the floodplain. Jim, Larry Murphy and I walked the proposed lot and no
erosion problems were apparent. Staff reviewed the property to determine whether the land was
subject to any hazards to life, health or property; no such hazards were found. A soil test was
evaluated by Mary Jo Hollister and the site is suited for a mound type system. Property is not in
the Farmland Preservation Program. Pierce County Surveyor reviewed the CSM and said it is
suitable for recording as long as it meets zoning office requirements. Review fees were paid. At
the Town Board meeting, Town of Clifton approved the 1-Lot Major CSM “depending on the
county interpretation, or final approval.” The Town also said, “The private road is going to be
built according to Township standards but will not be paved. The owners are aware the town will
not accept the road because it will not have four houses per ½ mile. The highway department
approved access west of Cty F. Land Conservation Dept’s Stormwater Sediment and Erosion
Control Review fees were paid. A preliminary draft of the roadway maintenance agreement was
submitted. The maintenance agreement is being reviewed by Pierce County Corporation Counsel

and shall be approved by them prior to construction. A “Dead end” and “Stop” sign shall be
placed on site before construction is completed. The proposed road shall have a street named in
accordance with the County’s uniform numbering system; 1225 th Street. Ayres and Associates
has reviewed the project submitted by Ogden Engineering Co and their review comments are
listed in the staff report. A drainage easement, recorded in the Register of Deeds Office on
7/6/07, for the private road has been created to keep permanent structures and septic systems out
of areas that may back up during extreme rainfall events. A Notice of Intent (NOI) has not been
submitted to the WI DNR and shall be submitted prior to construction.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this
Major CSM with the following conditions:
1. All conditions of this Major CSM approval shall be met prior to final approval of the CSM.
2. All required WI DNR permits (i.e. NOI permit) shall be secured and any conditions
addressed prior to any construction.
3. A preconstruction meeting with Ayres, Design Engineer, County Land Management Staff
and Contractor to discuss implementing the approved erosion control plan.
4. Contractor shall follow all conditions recommended by the Pierce County Land
Conservation Department’s agent, Ayres and Associates, (1-7) and follow the revised
erosion control plan dated June 18, 2007.
5. Erosion control measures shall be installed according to approved plans and associated
conditions, and the site stabilized, to the satisfaction of the Land Conservation Department,
prior to final approval. Applicant understands that final approval will not be granted until
the Department of Land Management is notified by the Land Conservation Department (or
its agent), in writing, that the project is eligible for final approval.
6. A statement of completion that is signed and stamped by a certified professional engineer
that the erosion control and storm water measures have been installed according to
approved plans shall be submitted. Any deviation from approved plans shall be noted on
as-built plans that shall be submitted with the statement of completion. Any issues
requiring follow-up (punch list) should be listed along with a proposed schedule for
completion.
7. Applicant agrees that any unforeseen erosion issues that arise during construction will be
addressed to the satisfaction of the county.
8. The maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by Pierce County Corporation
Counsel prior to final approval.
9. The CSM shall reference the drainage easement area and Document Number for future
land owners.
10. Road shall be inspected and approved by the Town verifying the road is constructed to the
Town standard prior to final approval.
11. Road shall have a street named in accordance with the county’s uniform numbering system
and the road shall be numbered as 1225 th Street.
12. Road shall have a “dead end” and “stop sign” placed on site before road construction is

completed.
Harrington asked how many homes will be on the private road. Mr. Murphy stated the daughter
will be on the road and maybe later one other family member. He can’t say for sure. Nellessen
makes a motion to approve the 1-Lot Major Certified Survey Map with conditions #1 – 12/
Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on review and approval of a modified Site Plan for Fullerton Lumber
Co on property located in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 21, T26n, R17W, Town of
Ellsworth, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Dave Stocker and Brad Lippert
forward: Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: The committee was here in May 2006 to do the site
plan review. Fullerton was invited back in front of the LMC in June 2007 due to changes from
original site development plan. The previous land owner did plant evergreens around the
perimeter of the property. The chain link fence was erected around the property for security
measures. At the June 20 th meeting the committee requested a revised site plan be submitted by
Fullerton Lumber within 60 days to show original conditions and changes to original plan. The
revised site plan includes the location of existing and proposed trees, a future building site and
various locations of outdoor stored lumber and materials including a cantilever rack on the
northeast side of the cold storage warehouse. The submitted vegetative buffer plan is included for
your review. The proposed tree spacing is 25 ft along highway 10 and 25 ft from the fence. The
site plan shows various locations of where items are stored. At this time they are looking at 2 – 3
ft Blackhills Spruce along Highway 10. The rest is all internal. Staff Recommendation: Staff
recommends the LMC review the revised site plan/vegetative buffer plan and approve changes
where warranted. Harrington makes a motion to approve the modified Site Plan for
Fullerton Lumber LLC/Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Conditional use permit request for tree cutting in the Blufflands
Conditional use permit for filling and grading in Town of Hartland
Concept plan for Oskey in Town of Trenton
Status review for Vino in the Valley
Pichotta reported that the Park Committee will be discussing the plans for the Heisler Property in
Town of Martell at their next meeting. It was noted that the parking lot has been stubbed in and a
path is being worked on. Pichotta stated that it is his understanding that all permits have been
acquired and rip rapping has commenced.
Pichotta reported that staff will be meeting with a representative from the Ho-Chunk Nation and
an archeologist from the State on Aug. 15 th regarding the Mahler Estate.
Motion to adjourn at 7:44pm by Harrington/Nellessen seconds. All approve. Motion
carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
August 15, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Jim Kleinhans, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: September 5 & 19, October 3 & 17, in 2007.
Approve minutes; Harrington makes a motion to approve minutes for the August 1, 2007
LMC meeting/Nellessen seconds. Barkla, Nellessen and Harrington in favor. Holst and
Sanden abstained. Motion carried.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for tree cutting in the
Kinni River Blufflands, for Kinnickinnic River Land Trust, agent for Neil Anderson, David
& Karin Meyer, Gregory Erickson and Lee Sheehy, owners, on property located in the NE
¼ of the SE ¼ in Section 8, the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 9 and the N ½ of the SE ¼, the
NE ¼ of the SW ¼, the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ and the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 10, all in
T27N, R19W, Town of Clifton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Eric
Forward forward: Mr. Forward explained he is the Natural Resources and Land Project
Manager for the Kinnickinnic River Land Trust. In the Kinnickinnic canyon on the south and
west facing bluffs; there are dry, very poor soils. The Land Trust applied on behalf of the land
owners for grant funding through the United States Fish & Wildlife Service to restore the historic
goat prairies and oak savannah communities. We got the funding and what we need to do is apply
as the agent for the land owners to do the work. We’re hiring the contractors and have the funds
and the expertise to work with them and make recommendations to restore these communities.
The owners have all signed their affidavits. We’re proposing to do all the work this fall once the
ground freezes but before there is too much snow. Sanden, are you going to be removing any
shade trees that may increase the waters temperature? Mr. Forward, most of these are very far
above the waters edge. All of these sites are 100 ft or 150 ft above the river. Staff Report – Jim
Kleinhans: The four property owners have some unique exposures along the Kinnickinnic
canyon where you can find remnants of the prairie they would like to establish. Some areas have
dense cover like buckthorn, prickly ash and red cedar. We saw another project like this last
January done according to the same type of program. It seems to be working fine with the side
hills opened up and more desirable land cover now. The cedars would be trimmed out and
removed with chainsaws, tractors or mowers if accessible. Mr. Erickson’s property is enrolled in
a Managed Forest Land Program. Any tree cutting in that area would be scrutinized so it would

not violate his MFL requirements. I spoke with Gary Zielski, DNR Forester, and he suggested we
may want to add this as a condition: Forest products to be felled or removed from MFL lands
must be designated and estimated volumes entered on a Managed Forest Law Cutting Notice
filed 3 days prior to cutting. Trees that will produce one or more 8 foot pulp sticks to a 4 inch
minimum top diameter are reported as pulpwood. Trees that will produce one or more 8 foot
lengths to a 10.6 inch minimum top diameter (9.6 for conifers) are reported as saw timber. Yield
tax is due on all products cut whether utilized or not, except for fuel wood for the landowners
personal use. If he abides by that he will not have any issues with his MFL criteria. The
delineations touch on the top bluff land area. You need to stay on top of the bluffs and not the
shoreland area. Mr. Forward, because it’s Bluffland, it’s very steep and contractors won’t be
getting too close to the edge of the slopes. The lines on the map show that it does go very close to
the river but in some cases you’re 100 ft above the river. Kleinhans, The Town of Clifton
approved this request on June 5, 2007 with the condition that the County oversee these projects.
The Anderson site includes 5.2 acres, the Meyer property is 2 sites of over 8 acres, the Erickson
site which is in the Managed Forest Land Program has 2 sites on 7.7 acres and approximately 1.4
acres on the Sheehy property. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee approve this conditional use permit for this request which appears to be based on
good land management techniques with the following conditions:
1. All trees be harvested and initial replanting will be completed within 12 months of this
approval.
2. Any land disturbance created by machinery on the bluff faces will be graded, seeded and
mulched within 24 hours.
3. Any merchantable timber removed from Mr. Erickson’s property will be reported to the
WI DNR Forester consistent with the statement read from Mr. Zielski from affected
acreage enrolled in the Managed Forest Land Program.
4. Chemical herbicide application of stumps will be applied topically.
5. Staff shall be notified after tree removal and planting has been completed to verify permit
compliance.
6. Notification of the Pierce County Sheriff and Solid Waste Departments before any burning
activity.
7. Accepted forestry best management practices shall be incorporated on any disturbance on
steep sloping sites and keep slash out of drainage ravines.
Public hearing opened. No public comment. Public hearing closed. Holst questioned the
disturbance of land by machinery to be graded, seeded and mulched within 24 hours, done yet
this fall after frost? Kleinhans, the issue of doing this project after frost just came up tonight. We
may have to modify that condition. Mr. Forward stated they have done work in that area where it
doesn’t fall into the ordinance and essentially all they did was cut out the buckthorn, prickly ash
and red cedar and didn’t do anything else. There is native seed on the ground just waiting to have
enough sunlight. Even with the dry conditions, they visited the other site this spring and
everything had greened up. Kleinhans stated Mr. Meyer’s property is a lot of pasture and the

power lines go right past that site. There is a vast amount of mulching on that site. It’s pretty
open. Again it’s just best management practices if you disturb and open up a big area. You don’t
want runoff because the soils are pretty thin over bedrock. Some of those sites are not accessible
to get large equipment up there. So there won’t be a lot of disturbance in those areas. Sanden,
does condition #3 cover what Mr. Zielski had mentioned. Kleinhans, I added it, just to be clear.
Mr. Erickson has some large white pine up there. If those are going to be cut they need to be
reported. Be sure the contractors are aware of the Managed Forest Land requirements. Holst, I
feel the statement Mr. Zielski made should be added to the conditions. Sanden asked about
condition #2 being modified to include: best management practices will be applied to control
excessive ground disturbance. Sanden moves to approve the conditional use permit for tree
cutting in the Kinni River Blufflands with conditions #1 – 7 modifying condition #2 to read
best management practices will be applied to control excessive erosion where applicable
and condition #3 to include Mr. Zielski’s language/Holst seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for Filling and Grading
and a Watercourse Alteration in the Floodplain District for Schoeder Partners, owner on
property located in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 31, T25N, R17W, Town of Hartland,
Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Bernard Schoeder forward: Mr. Schoeder
explained he wants to straighten the waterway to help straighten 170 th Ave when they replace the
bridge. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: We just received this map revision on Monday and there
will be a third revision because of things Mr. Schoeder noticed in the plan that he thought might
work better. The site has been reviewed by the DNR. Gary Lepak met with Mike Tiry and they
went over the proposed revisions where they are going to drop the elevation of the chute near the
bridge by a foot. That will help the upstream portion with the velocities. It will help super critical
flow downstream from the bridge. Mike and Gary are very confident that will work. There is a
first rate engineer working on the project, you could either table the project or approve the plan
having the engineer sign off on final plan and construction and provide an as-built. The Town of
Hartland did approve this project. The engineer is going to work with the highway department to
replace the bridge on 170 th Ave. There are two components to this; the part going on in the rightof-way
and the part that is upstream and downstream where they are going to alter the
watercourse. That area is mapped floodplain so we will need to submit final reports to Federal
Emergency Management Agency so when they change the floodplain maps that change will be
delineated. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee
approve this conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. Erosion control measures shall be maintained throughout the project until the entire site is
stabilized. Damage to stream banks from runoff events during construction shall be riprapped
or reshaped and seeded within 14 days of the damage. Seeding, matting and
mulching of all disturbed areas shall be completed by September 15, 2007 and maintained
until the site is stabilized.
2. Construction and erosion control elements shall be implemented according to approved

plans and permit conditions. Any deviations from the approved plans shall be submitted on
an as-built by the consulting engineer.
3. Old abandoned stream bed shall be reclaimed per the plans and seeded by September 15,
2007.
4. The Land Management Department shall be notified when construction commences and
also after completion to verify permit conditions are adhered to.
5. Permits shall be kept at the project site until completion. This permit is valid for 12 months
provided the project is not completed during 2007.
6. Permits or approvals required by the Department of Natural Resources must be issued
prior to construction and construction complies with any required Department conditions.
7. Follow-up inspections by the Land Management Department and Land Conservation
Department during the spring of 2008 and 2009 to verify stability.
Public hearing opened. Elwyn Manore, Town of Hartland Supervisor, I don’t believe this
project can be far enough along to be seeded by September 15 th . Kleinhans stated that is
generally the cut off for this part of the state. Dave Esterby, Town of Hartland Chairman, we’ve
been working with Bernard on this project and it’s been delayed for a year and a half already.
Bernard is doing the part of moving the water run because the Township couldn’t do it. The
bridge isn’t really a bridge at all but a box culvert in very bad shape. It also serves as a cattle
path. The minor changes Bernard suggested was because the one design the grade was higher
above the bridge than below it. The type of structure will be the same as on County Road C.
Public hearing closed. Holst, I’m familiar with the area and what they’re asking isn’t out of line.
The September 15 th date is going to be hard to achieve. Kleinhans stated Gary Lepak and Mike
Tiry have discussed the changes. Gary stated it’s a good plan. It’s just a matter of adjusting the
plan so we don’t end up with super flows that send sediment to the Bay City Creek and so there
isn’t much maintenance for Mr. Schoeder. The September 15 th date is just the date we always use
for land divisions any time we have a big open area. In Mike’s recommendation he has a seeding
plan and one is to put in a cover crop so something grows right away. Mr. Schoeder stated the
channel could be seeded by the 15 th . Nellessen stated that he feels they should go ahead with the
project and seed and mulch as soon as possible. If they have to reseed in the spring that’s what
will have to be done. Holst stated we’re actually talking about two projects; the waterway and the
Town’s bridge and that he feels Mr. Schoeder’s project can be achieved. Harrington, stated it’s an
asset to the Township. Nellessen moves to approve the conditional use permit for filling and
grading and a watercourse alteration in the Floodplain District with conditions #1 – 7 with
some flexibility on the date/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on conditional use permit status review for a Farm and Home Based
Business (Vino in the Valley) by Larry Brenner, owner, on property located in the SW ¼ of
the NE ¼ of Section 33, T26N, R16W, Town of El Paso, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson
Barkla invited Larry Brenner forward: Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr. Brenner received two
conditional use permits for Farm and Home Based Businesses on March 21, 2007. One of the

permits is for “Vino in the Valley” and other various events that Mr. Brenner would host where
food and beverage services are provided. The other is for a farm market and gift shop. This
permit is utilized to sell souvenirs, produce and crafts from neighbor producers and artisans. A
condition of each permit was that a status report would be provided in six months. One of the
conditions that is causing a large amount of concern is the amplified music. The minutes were
reviewed and it was found that they reflect “no amplified live music”. The conditions that seem
to be getting the most concerns for “Vino in the Valley” are #8 Hours of operation shall be from
4:00pm to 10:00pm with lights out by 11:00pm. #9 Seating capacity shall not exceed 80 people.
#10 Applicant shall not exceed 45 days of operation per year. #11 Business shall be open no more
than two days per week, with activities no more than two days in a row and #14 No amplified
live music shall be allowed and a band shell shall be constructed. Some complaints staff has
received regarding operations are; #1 The applicant has been using a PA system, #2 The applicant
has been using fireworks, #3 The applicant has been using a stereo to amplify music, #4 Lighting
installed did not comply with departmental policy, #5 A pavilion had been located on the
property without a permit and #6 Applicant has been using a temporary cooking facility. Staff has
inspected each complaint and found that the property is in compliance of the conditional use
permits. An after-the-fact Land Use Permit was issued for the pavilion. The Town of El Paso has
indicated that it has not received any complaints. The applicant has made an effort to remain in
contact with zoning staff to ensure compliance with permits. The applicant has modified the
delineation of the handicap parking at the recommendation of zoning staff. The applicant would
like to discuss potential future modification to the CUP’s and they are listed in the staff report.
The conditional use permits are to be reviewed for renewal on March 21, 2008. Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine whether
modification to the conditional use permit(s) is appropriate prior to the renewal of each CUP
based on the concerns brought forward by the applicant and others. It should be noted that the
original staff report for this request indicated that it is staffs position that an increase in seating
would constitute an intensification or expansion of use, and would require the issuance of a new
CUP. Chairperson Barkla asked when operations were started. Roy stated May 31 st . Kleinhans
stated the status report was to be six months from the date of approval on March 21, 2007.
Pichotta read a letter he received from Sharon Hills and Becky Bersch on issues they have had to
deal with regarding people asking them for directions on days that “Vino in the Valley” isn’t in
operation, also noise issues and they questioned the number of employees allowed. Chairperson
Barkla asked for this letter to be made a part of the record. He asked Brad Roy if it was correct
that the Town of El Paso hadn’t received any complaints. Roy stated that is correct. Chairperson
Barkla asked if the Sheriff’s Dept had received any complaints. Roy stated no. Nellessen stated
he had been to Vino in the Valley when there were gunshots and fireworks going off but they
weren’t on Larry’s property. The number of workers planting in the vineyard would be
agricultural so it shouldn’t affect the CUP. Sanden asked about the pavilion being located on the
property without a permit and that staff had inspected the site, the property was in compliance
and then it was stated that an after-the-fact permit had been issued. Roy, when we received the

complaint about the pavilion, the next day Mr. Brenner came in to get the after-the-fact permit. I
hadn’t had time to inspect it yet. Pichotta stated it is possible to be out of compliance with the
zoning code and not with the conditional use permit. My understanding about the pavilion is that
it is on skids and was unloaded instead of constructed. People often don’t realize that a building
that is movable requires a permit. In reality every time the building is moved it requires a new
permit. Harrington stated he has received one complaint from a neighbor, Chris Chard, regarding
amplified music. Mr. Brenner stated he checks near his house for noise. He also visited Danny
Fischer and he stated he could not hear the music, only a burst of laughter or hand clapping. The
people aren’t able to hear the performers. That is one of the issues he wants to address. Jean
McClusky, friends of the Chard’s stated the sound does carry. You can hear it at the campground.
Brian Fitch, I can corroborate that there was amplified music early on and that there is a big tent
near the pavilion right now. Paul Seeling stated he has had the opportunity to be there three times
and was aware of the conditions. He also corroborated that it is difficult to hear the music.
Chairperson Barkla asked Mr. Brenner what he is asking for. Mr. Brenner stated that the day they
planted the grapes they had 50 or 60 friends that helped out and then had pizza and acoustic
music for them. There has never been a DJ or Karoke. On opening night he had so many people
call that he hired Joe Ortwerth to cook chicken wings as an appetizer. Michelle Williams, Pierce
County Health Dept, was there and oversaw the operation. Attendance is between 140 – 170
estimated, on a weekly basis. The neighborhood kids have planted a large pumpkin patch with
over 800 pumpkins and gourds to be harvested by guests on family weekends this fall. The kids
have worked hard weeding it this summer and they will keep all the proceeds. The farmers
market has been utilized by two neighbors continually. The food has continually evolved as we
feel our way through the first year. We serve pastas, summer salads, pizzas, Italian nachos and
warm bread. A full 90 % of our employees are either neighbors or residents of El Paso or Pierce
County. Most of the Gift Shop is loaded with pottery, sausage, coffee, cheese, maple syrup,
chocolates and wearable’s all by local producers of Pierce County. To date, all entertainers have
been from Pierce County. In terms of the future, when first asked about the hours, I said 4:00pm
to 10:00pm because that’s when most people have dinner. Not thinking at that time in October
it’s not going to work for the family weekends. Also in December to be open noon to 8:00pm for
the Christmas trees with El Paso Town Board approval. With the music, what I’m asking is that
the entertainers can plug their guitars into my system so they can be heard. Brian Fitch, I’m
concerned that this is going to diminish the quality of our lives with increased seating and
amplified live music. Scott, Brenner, On Saturday evenings I work on a tree farm on the south
property of Larry’s, which is half way to the nearest neighbors. I have never heard anything.
Allen Whitney, states he is the chef and does the hiring for Larry. They have five El Paso High
School students working for them. Being the chef, he goes from the kitchen to the outdoor oven.
While walking around, he can not hear the music. He cuts off the wait list at 8:30pm so everyone
is served by 9:00pm.
Chairperson Barkla declares a recess, 8:12pm.

Meeting resumes 8:16pm.
Colleen Raye, a singer and entertainer who sang for the opening, feels this is a real asset to the
community. Kari Hendrickson, from Menomonie, works as an assistant to Larry and is a student
at Stout. She stated that they are environmentally conscious. She feels this could be an asset to
the community as far as students, FFA, college students, etc to learn. Emily Huppert, contacts the
musicians who entertain as well as entertains herself. She stated it’s very hard as a singer to sing
that loud all night. They would just like a little reinforcement to be heard. Chairperson Barkla
asked Mr. Brenner about the roaster operation on June 29, 2007 and reference being made to
Michelle Williams inspecting the operation. Mr. Brenner stated she was there to inspect the
kitchen set up and asked what the roaster was doing there. She observed the rugs and the three
different sinks for washing his hands. It was in conjunction with the normal inspection. Jeri Lou
Brenner, Larry’s sister-in-law invited the neighbors that haven’t been there, to come down and
experience it. Chairperson Barkla stated it may be incumbent to see what they are hearing where
the complaints are coming from. Mr. Brenner stated he has offered to pay for speed limit signs to
help with the traffic issue. Tim Blodgett, pours concrete all day and works as a server for Larry.
It’s a unique experience for him to meet people and have them experience how we live in Pierce
County. They haven’t had any complaints from the people that have been there. Denise Fetzer
stated she has been to Vino in the Valley with friends visiting from out-of-state and it was the
most fun they had. Sanden asked about the complaint about 13 employees versus eight
employees. Paul Seeling stated he wrote that article and that in conversations with Larry he may
have been talking about total employees that he has had, not at the present time. Pichotta stated
that with each conditional use permit Mr. Brenner is allowed eight employees. Lynn Tomchek
stated the operation hasn’t bothered her. She has noticed a little more traffic but is concerned with
the increase of amount of days open. Holst stated this is a status review of the conditions in place
at this time. Staff has to go over some of the conditions for the one permit. I suggest we not do
anything tonight. Chairperson Barkla stated because the noise level gets raised from time to time,
in the past, one of the conditions we attached was to get a measurement on the amount of noise. It
may be prudent to take a look at that. Nellessen asked if the fall events with pumpkins and trees
would be agriculture related. Pichotta stated that if only pumpkins or trees were for sale that it
would be considered agricultural, the issue is the retail component - if chili and other retail items
are offered for sale it is not agricultural. Because there is a retail component that makes it subject
to the CUP. Pichotta noted that the October activities were discussed at the public hearing so it
may be appropriate for the committee to think about clarifying these conditions associated with
those events at those times. What we would do is clarify and potentially modify, not to suggest
that we would have the ability to intensify or expand what he wants to do. An expansion of days
or seating would fall on the side of intensification. Pichotta noted that it was within the LMC’s
jurisdiction to schedule a discussion regarding modification of conditions at an upcoming
meeting. Holst moves to delay action on modification to the CUP’s allowing staff to clarify
and review the March 21, 2007 meeting and workout some formula regarding noise levels.

Sanden seconds. Pichotta stated no action can be taken tonight because it wasn’t worded that
way on the agenda and recommended the issue be put on a future agenda. Holst withdraws his
motion. Chairperson Barkla directs staff to bring forth an agenda item in the near future
regarding clarification and modification of the conditions associated with Vino in the Valley and
the Farmer’s Market and Gift Shop. Mr. Nellessen pointed out there are events coming up in
October. Chairperson Barkla asked if staff has the ability to work something out for the next
LMC meeting, September 5 th . Pichotta stated yes.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Conditional use permit for a nonconforming structure expansion in Town of Hartland
Annual Budget
Pichotta stated he and staff met with representatives from the Ho Chunk Nation and from the
State Historic Office regarding concerns about archaeological and historical resources on a site in
the Town of Trenton. We have come up with a plan to address those concerns. There is a
mechanism in every case where we can request an archaeological assessment be completed on
development on any of the sites whether they are subject to our subdivision ordinance or not. It
may be that representatives from the Ho Chunk Nation are going to go to the Town of Trenton
and request a moratorium on development of those sites be passed. It makes good sense to go to
the Town first and make sure that they support the effort. Holst questioned if this affects the
County’s gravel operation in Town of Trenton. Pichotta stated there is a specific area identified
where an ancient Indian village was located. Any moratorium would be limited to that area.
Chairperson Barkla asked about the Town of River Falls. Pichotta stated the Town of River Falls
Chair and Zoning Administrator requested a meeting with Mr. Barkla and himself, along with
their attorney to discuss Land Management Committee concerns. Pichotta stated that he indicated
to them that Paul does not feel he can engage in discussions with them since he has not engaged
in discussions with the other party, and also recognizing he cannot speak for the entire
committee. He feels it should be brought to the full committee. It appears that the Town believes
the County’s roll in approving town zoning ordinances is, in a sense, to rubber stamp them, to
review them for process and to move them along. The County should not worry about substantive
considerations of their ordinance. I have sought legal opinion on that regard and preliminary
indications are that our attorney suggests it clearly is more than process but he’s not sure what the
parameters are. Chairperson Barkla stated if it meets with the consensus of the committee, we
will invite their attorney, Mr. Rodewald and Ms Smith to meet with the committee regarding
policy matter. Could you make a quick report on Trumpeter Valley. Pichotta, stated the County
requested a Summary Judgment in regard to the Trumpeter case. The motion was denied so now
it will proceed to trial.
Motion to adjourn at 8:50pm by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
September 5, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen and Eric Sanden
Others: Andy Pichotta, Emily Lund, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Pat Harrington
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: September 19, October 3 & 17, in 2007.
Approve minutes; Sanden makes a motion to approve minutes for the August 15, 2007 LMC
meeting/Holst seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit to expand a
nonconforming structure in the Primary Agriculture District for Betty Ann Webster, owner
of a parcel of land located in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ in Section 7, T25N, R17W, Town of
Hartland, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Dana Webster forward: Mr.
Webster explained that when the house was built in 1980 it was constructed at the minimum
setback of 100 feet from County Road C. A seven foot deck was added to the front. They are
asking to extend the deck and move the stairs out further, build an overhang and a ramp for
safety. Pichotta explained why the committee is seeing this rather than the Board of Adjustment.
Pierce County has large highway setbacks compared to other counties. For example -our least
restrictive setback from a town road is 75 feet, Dunn County’s is 50 feet from the interstate.
Because of this Pierce County has a lot of nonconforming structures located wholly or partially
within those setbacks. Several years ago the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that if you
have a reasonable use of your property you qualify for a variance. Since we have a lot of
nonconforming structures, we came up with another mechanism to deal with expansion of
nonconforming structures; not looking at the three standards of a variance but looking at public
health, safety and public interest. This request probably wouldn’t have been granted a variance
because this was self imposed where they built. Sanden asked if this mechanism has ever been
legally challenged. Pichotta, Corporation Counsel was consulted to make sure this was a viable
mechanism. Nellessen asked if we could just change our setbacks. Pichotta stated yes, there was
discussion with the committee when they decided to go this route instead of changing setbacks
due to public safety concerns. Holst stated the topography is so different through out Pierce
County, what may be safe in one case would not be in another. Staff Report – Emily Lund: This
is a request for a conditional use permit to expand a nonconforming structure, located in the
Town of Hartland. The parcel is one acre. The main entry into the home is on the second floor

toward Cty Rd C. Pierce County Zoning Code Ch. 240-27(B) summarized states 100 ft from the
centerline of the road is the setback for structures. An existing deck already encroaches. They
would like to increase 5 feet toward the road and 12 feet long. Pierce County Code 240-67A(2)
which Andy summarized states additions to or extensions of nonconforming structures are
permitted, provided that such additions or extensions comply with all the provisions of this
chapter or a conditional use permit is granted. Attached are maps submitted by Dana and Betty
Webster. The west side of the house has the sanitary system. The well is located to the south. A
two-car garage is located north of the house. Mature trees border the property line and are
between the house and County Road C. It was raining during a site visit and staff observed the
rain fall onto the existing stairs and entry of the home. The home owner expressed issues she
encounters with snow and ice. A deck is a permitted use on a residential parcel. Chapter 240-76
(E)(2) states: The LMC shall review each conditional use permit application for compliance with
all requirements applicable to that specific use and to all other relevant provisions of this chapter.
In approving conditional uses, the Land Management Committee also shall determine that the
proposed use at the proposed location will not be contrary to the public interest and will not be
detrimental or injurious to the public health, public safety or character of the surrounding area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine
whether or not this request is contrary to the public interest and whether it would be detrimental
or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding area. If found to be
not contrary to the above, staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow the
deck expansion to 12 ft by 24 ft, the replacement of stairs, a future wheel chair ramp, and a roof
over the deck, subject to the issuance of a Land Use Permit. Public hearing opened. No public
comment. Public hearing closed. Sanden asked about the encroachment issue. Mr. Webster
explained it would be 12 ft. There is already a 7 ft encroachment. With the expansion they would
be 88 ft from the road. Holst stated when he first came on this committee and when he sat on the
Board of Adjustment, a request like this would never have been granted. He recalled the thought
process they went through and this is a stereotypical request. This is not detrimental or injurious
to public health and he would be in favor of the request. Nellessen moves to approve the
conditional use permit due to the fact that the request isn’t contrary to public interest nor
detrimental or injurious to public health, public safety or the character of the surrounding
area /Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on Whispering Pines Concept Plan approval for Jeff Oskey, Joyce
Anderson and Lorelei Grines, owners, by Louie Filkins, agent, on property located in the
SE ¼ of the NE ¼, the fractional NE ¼ of the NE ¼ and the fractional NW ¼ of the NE ¼,
all in Section 2, T24N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla
invited Louie Filkins and Joyce Anderson forward: Mr. Filkins, Ogden Engineering,
explained that they are proposing 21 lots on 42 acres in the Town of Trenton, north of Hiawatha
National Bank, west of 770 th St and south of 170 th Ave. Most of the land is level with no slopes
over 12%, the north side is in corn and the south in grasses right now. The proposed road pattern

comes down from 170 th and winds down and lines up straight across from Hager Heights
Schoeder Addition. All the lots are at least an acre, meeting the minimum lot size. Lots 14 and 15
are larger. They decided to add some open space there; outlots 1 & 2, creating walking trails.
Holst asked about lot 7 coming off of the town road. Mr. Filkins stated Lot 7 is the only lot not
coming off the road. Outlot 2 has a 40 ft access easement for Mr. Oskey’s driveway. Staff
Report – Emily Lund: The current land use is agricultural. Surrounding land use is agricultural,
residential and one commercial property (bank). The land is not in the Farmland Preservation
Program. They will have 21 lots and 2 outlots. Trenton approved the concept plan on 8/14/07.
The Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Map indicates no wetlands in this project area. The FEMA
FIRM maps indicate no floodplain in the project area. To determine suitability of the site for
subdivision, staff reviewed the site for hazards of life, health or property, no such hazards were
apparent. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve
this concept plan with the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall secure preliminary plat approval prior to beginning construction of roads or
installation of erosion control and stormwater measures.
2. The proposed Town road shall be numbered in accordance to Pierce County Code Ch. 115
(Numbering of Building & Roads) and shall be numbered 161 st Ave.
3. Applicant shall obtain all necessary sign permits.
Sanden asked if the property across Highway 35 is zoned Industrial and if there were any
potential conflicts. Holst stated Meyer Industry and the wash plant for the gravel pit is 70 – 80 ft
in elevation below the residential area. Pichotta stated any expansion in the Industrial District
would require the LMC to review a site plan so steps to mitigate could be taken. Holst moves to
approve the concept plan for Whispering Pines with conditions #1 – 3/Nellessen seconds. All
in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for modification of conditions associated with the
conditional use permits for a Farm and Home Based Business to operate “Vino in the
Valley” and other various “events” and a Farm and Home Based Business to operate a
Farmer’s Market and Gift Shop on property owned by Larry Brenner, located in the SW ¼
of the NE ¼ of Section 33, T26N, R16W, Town of El Paso, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson
Barkla invited Larry Brenner forward. Mr. Brenner explained that in October he will focus on
family events with a pumpkin patch and the hours of 4:00pm to 10:00pm would not be conducive
to that. November he will be closed and December he will be open to sell Christmas trees. He is
planning to have a bonfire, petting zoo, chili, pizza, horse drawn carriage rides and hayrides. He
is asking for 10:00am to dusk. Chairperson Barkla asked if the speed limit signs have been put
up. Mr. Brenner stated speed limit signs are up and that he offered to pay for them but the
Township took care of it. He is also asking for modification of the condition regarding amplified
live music. Nellessen stated he has been there and you can not hear the musicians unless they are
right by the tables. Chairperson Barkla asked Mr. Brenner about asking for changes so soon. He
stated that Mr. Brenner agreed to these conditions back in March. Pichotta noted that he had

listened to the tape of the public hearing and the condition relating to amplified live music
appeared to pertain to live bands, to make it clear that the committee didn’t want to see a
“Country Fest” type event occurring on the site. Nellessen asked about decibel levels.
Chairperson Barkla asked about the cost of the equipment to get sound readings. Mr. Brenner
stated he spoke to Brad Parmeter who does sound readings for a living. He told Mr. Brenner he
didn’t want to have him do readings because it was very expensive. Mr. Brenner explained that
when he first came to the committee he didn’t know exactly how the business was going to go.
Now that he has been in operation, he can see what is needed. The customers can not hear the live
music. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr. Brenner is asking for a modification to the conditions
associated with his conditional use permits. His original proposal stated there would be pumpkin
sales and a petting zoo in October and Christmas tree sales and hay rides in December. Food,
beverage and other services would be provided during each of these events. The existing hours of
operation do not work for these proposed fall and winter “events”. The applicant would like the
LMC to consider modifying the hours of operation to better accommodate the fall “events”. The
applicant would also like the committee to allow for live music to be amplified through the
existing PA system. Brad asked Mr. Brenner if he had any information for the committee
regarding his PA system. Mr. Brenner stated no.
A list of each of the approved conditions for each of the permits is submitted. Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee determine whether
modification to the hours of operation or any other condition is appropriate. If the LMC
determines it is appropriate to modify the hours of operation, staff recommends the following:
Hours of operation shall be 4:00pm to 10:00pm with lights out by 11:00pm May through
September and 4:00pm to 10:00pm with lights out by 11:00pm Monday through Friday and
10:00am to dusk Saturday and Sunday October through December.
Holst asked if the conditions were for the Farmer’s Market. Roy stated both. He would need it for
both because of the food sales and the gift shop. Nellessen stated he would like to see amplified
live music because he has been there several times and you can’t hear the musicians. Sharon Hill
presented the committee with photos from the website of Vino in the Valley showing entertainers
and Larry using a microphone. She stated they are still being bothered by people stopping and
asking for directions. Chairperson Barkla shared a story about how his neighborhood was torn
apart and how it affects people for a long time. Brian Fitch asked Andy Pichotta if he had
received an e-mail today from a Ms. Brantley. Pichotta stated that he had not. Brian Fitch
summarized the e-mail stating everybody has paid a cost and they would like to see peace
returned to the valley. He feels this can be accomplished if the committee does not allow Mr.
Brenner to expand or intensify. Sanden stated the hours of operation don’t seem to be too much
of an issue. What if we required a reading of the music before it’s amplified and then after
showing data at the boundaries. A quantified standard would need to be set. The problem is if
there is a level and someone stated it had been exceeded do they have the instrumentation to go
out and prove it. Mr. Brenner stated he could give Brad Parmeter a call and stated the amplified
music would be no louder than when the music is played through his system during the breaks.

Holst stated the season is just about done and it will come up for renewal in March. Tony
Huppert stated he can understand how Larry wouldn’t know exactly how it’s going to go and
what he would need when he started. Rosemary Riga stated that condition #14 says no amplified
live music and a band shell shall be constructed. Wouldn’t that help focus the music better? No
band shell has been constructed. Mr. Brenner stated that is the gazebo is functioning as the band
shell and there is a back wall to it but they hardly use it because the performers can’t be heard.
Nellessen makes a motion to amend #14 to allow amplified music through the PA system in
the building. No second. Chairperson Barkla stated that the motion failed for lack of a
second. Nellessen makes a motion to amend the hours for the fall events to read; Hours of
operation shall be 4:00pm to 10:00pm with lights out by 11:00pm May through September
and 4:00pm to 10:00pm with lights out by 11:00pm Monday through Friday and 10:00am
to dusk Saturday and Sunday October through December/Sanden seconds. All in favor.
Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for a rule exception to the requirement that an erosion
control plan be completed for a 3-Lot Major CSM for Island Country Side Builders, Inc. by
Phil Willgrubs, owner on property located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 28, T25N,
R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Phil Willgrubs
forward. Mr. Willgrubs explained he bought the property one year ago and at this point they
have had the property surveyed. The large lot has a lot of mature pine trees. The reason for the
exception is that they haven’t done anything yet. They would like to get the lots approved and
come back at a later date with the erosion control plan. Staff Report – Emily Lund: Rule
exceptions relating to subdivisions must not affect or nullify the purpose and intent of the
subdivision code and require a majority vote from the Land Management Committee to grant any
rule exception. It has to be entered in the minutes setting forth the reasons that the committee
justified the exception. Land use is residential, agricultural, woodland, mining and other
commercial and industrial uses. The parcel is zoned General Rural Flexible. Staff visited the site
and noticed the topography is flat on Lot 1 and hummocky topography on Lot 2, 3 and 4. The site
is very well vegetated and no erosion problems were apparent. The following standards were
adopted by the LMC to assist in determining the appropriateness of granting a rule exception for
a given property:
1. No roads are being constructed as part of the land division.
2. No erosion problems are present on the property.
3. There are no problems with stormwater or surface water flow on the subject property or
that originate on the subject property.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether
or not this situation warrants a rule exception. Sanden asked if this will be put in the Managed
Forest Land Program. Mr. Willgrubs stated at this point all he is going to do is manage the pines.
He has talked to the County Forester. He has a shop and so he’s harvesting and making log
homes and cabins. The back lots are not useful for agriculture. There is marketable timber that

needs to come out so the young trees can grow. Sanden moves to approve the rule exception to
the requirement of the erosion control plan with the justification that:
1. No roads are being constructed as part of the land division.
2. No erosion problems are present on the property.
3. There are no problems with stormwater or surface water flow on the subject
property or that originate on the subject property.
Holst seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for approval of a 3-Lot Major CSM for Island Country
Side Builders, Inc by Phil Willgrubs, owner on property located in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼
of Section 28, T25N, R18W, Town of Trenton, Pierce County, WI. Mr. Willgrubs stated he
has met with Land Management staff. He has his driveway permit approved. The lots all perk
conventional. Sanden asked about the Industrial across the road and any conflicts with that. Lund
stated there are trailers stored across the road. Pichotta noted that Mr. Willgrubs may seek a
commercial designation for the front part of the property. Staff Report – Emily Lund: Mr.
Willgrubs got approval from the town to increase the density - so 5 lots would be allowed. The
County Highway Department approved the driveway permit with the four conditions that are
listed in the staff report. Per § 237-17(B)3, Staff reviewed the property to determine whether the
land was subject to any hazards to life, health or property; no such hazards were found. An
intermittent stream was determined by the DNR to not be navigable. The Wetland Inventory Map
showed there weren’t any wetlands on the property. According to FEMA it didn’t appear to be in
the floodplain. To promote 911 emergency we recommend the shared driveway be numbered
233 rd Ave. We recommend to your surveyor to add a drainage easement on the CSM. Applicant
will need to apply for a NOI Permit from Jim Devlin, WI DNR, for disturbing over an acre of
land prior to construction. Soil tests were completed on each lot. Pierce County Surveyor
reviewed and approved the CSM. Property is not in the Farmland Preservation Program. Survey
review fees have been paid. Staff Recommendation: If a rule exception has been granted to the
erosion control plan requirement, staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve
this major CSM with the following conditions:
1. A ‘Notice of Intent’ (NOI) Permit from Jim Devlin, WI DNR for disturbing over 1 acre of
land shall be obtained prior to the construction of the driveway, if required.
2. The surveyor shall identify a drainage easement on the CSM where the intermittent
drainage is located and other information as described per Wis. Stats 236.20(5).
3. After the construction of the proposed shared driveway, the developer shall obtain and
place a road sign identifying it as “233 rd Avenue” near the intersection with County Rd K.
4. After the construction of the proposed shared driveway, the developer shall obtain and
place a stop sign on at the intersection of 233 rd Avenue and County Rd K.
5. After the construction of the proposed shared driveway, the developer shall obtain and
place a dead end sign near the entrance of 233 rd Avenue.
6. During the construction of the proposed shared driveway, the developer shall follow the

Pierce County Highway access connection conditions 1-4.
Nellessen moves to approve the 3-Lot Major CSM for Island Country Side Builders, Inc
with conditions #1 – 6/Holst seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on proposed 2008 Land Management Department Budget. Pichotta
reports: The total budget for 2007 is $710,846 and the proposed budget for 2008 is $694,721; a
2.3% decrease. Typically what we shoot for is 75% revenue versus expense ratio. Pichotta
explained the Other professional services; that is Comp Planning Budget, after Phase II is done
will have about $45,000 – $46,000 remaining. We will need around $15,975 to complete Phase
III. Holst asked if the 15% for health insurance is a realistic number. Pichotta stated yes, he
received all the figures for salaries and benefits from administration. What we’re looking at for an
overall decrease is about 15.6% because we had almost 57,000 in other services in 2007 and in
2008 we will have $15,975. Chairperson Barkla had a question on the category Publishing Legal
Notices and Training and Conferences. Pichotta stated that he had previously over estimated the
demand for public hearings and stated that staff regularly attends annual conferences.
Chairperson Barkla asked about the Gasoline and Diesel Fuel in the County Surveyor Budget. He
noted that the amount budgeted is less than what was spent in 2005 and 2006. Pichotta stated that
we need to bump that total up to $5,000 and asked if the committee wanted him to offset the
difference somewhere else. Holst asked what type of new equipment the surveyors purchase.
Pichotta stated that they typically buy pipes, nails, monuments etc. They typically conduct digs in
October. It depends on the town that they are in. He could try to estimate what township they will
be in next year and offset the Fuel with the New Equipment. County Planner – GIS, salaries are
relatively fixed. However, there is a reduction of .1% in Rand’s salary. He will be double
checking on this. In the Other Professional Services column it looks like we’ve spent $6,256,
which we haven’t but those dollars will be coming out of the Land Records Modernization Fund.
Most of the expenditures for GIS are proposed to come out of the Land Records Modernization
Fund. Chairperson Barkla asked about the job descriptions. Pichotta stated he has been meeting
with Administration and the committee will be seeing the two new job descriptions at the next
meeting. The proposed 2008 Budget Revenue, Planning, last year received $300 in grant money
this year we received $3000. The revenue table is based on five month current and the estimate is
for the last seven months of the year. The GIS revenue is being revised because we’ve never
exceeded $5,000 for GIS. In Park Development we will need an additional $25,000 to finish the
project on the Trimbelle Property. The Highway Department was unable to begin or complete in
2006 and the cost of services has gone up so we may need more money. Holst asked if they don’t
want to honor their bid? Pichotta stated no. Holst suggested they should put the job out for
private bid then. Chairperson Barkla and Nellessen agreed that it could be put out for bid. Land
Records Modernization, these are dollars received every time someone records a document in the
Register of Deeds Office, a portion of the fee goes into a fund and the use of those dollars has to
be consistent with the County’s Land Records Modernization Plan. We’re proposing another
temporary 500 hour position for next year for a total expenditure for Land Records

Modernization of $83,236. There is a capital improvement plan and a five year budget attached.
Holst moves to approve the budget, staffing plan and capital improvement plan/Sanden
seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Nellessen asked about putting the Outdoor Recreation Plan on an agenda because the Plan needs
to be updated to finish the grant paperwork for the bike trail. Pichotta stated he would put it on
the agenda if it is necessary.
Shoreland Ordinance
Ordinance Amendments
Position Descriptions
Motion to adjourn at 8:54pm by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
October 3, 2007
Present: Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen and Eric Sanden. Paul Barkla participated by polycom.
Others: Andy Pichotta, Emily Lund, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Pat Harrington
Chairperson Nellessen called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: October 17, November 7 & 21, in 2007.
Approve minutes; Barkla makes a motion to approve the minutes for the September 19, 2007
LMC meeting/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Public hearing to consider proposed amendments to Chapter 241 of the Pierce County Code:
Nonmetallic Mining Reclamation. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Last year the DNR rewrote their
reclamation rules so we have to be consistent with theirs. Roy explained the language and definition
changes, noting the change from a licensed professional geologist instead of registered geologist from
the old ordinance, under Standards for Reclamation, subsection E, this allows the County require an
engineer to study stability of a highwall or slopes. Also noting under Alternative Requirements, if an
operator wants to do something different, requests for alternative requirements shall be made to the
LMC. They could be sent to the Board of Adjustment instead. If you want it sent there we could make
that change. Chairperson Nellessen suggested that they can apply to the Board of Adjustment if they
don’t like the outcome from this committee. Roy asked the committee about their position on including
subsection 4 pertaining to public information hearings, with property owners within 300’ receiving
notice. Sanden stated it would likely be a rare instance when it would be used but he saw no harm in
leaving the language in. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee review the proposed revisions and send the approved revision to the Finance and Personnel
Committee for review. Public hearing opened. No public input. Public hearing closed. Barkla
moves to approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 241 of Pierce County Code: Nonmetallic
Mining Reclamation and forward to Finance and Personnel for review/Sanden seconds. All in
favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on proposed amendment to Resolution 01-11 (Fee Schedule for Nonmetallic
Mining Reclamation) Staff Report – Brad Roy: With these changes the DNR also changed their fee
schedule so we need to modify the resolution to match those changes. This may be a good time to
consider whether we want to change the County fees brought in by reclamation. Under Plan Review
Fees, we have suggested changing the fee from $30.00 per acre to $100.00 per acre. This is largely due
to a couple pits which had a lot of revisions before it even came to the committee. Pichotta explained
historically what we have tried to do is recoup, through fees, 75% of cost of providing a given service.
Another thing that should be a factor, about a year ago we had a discussion at the committee level
regarding modification to our fee structure. The committee decided that until we complete the

comprehensive plan that we would not revisit those fees. It may be that you view this as a separate
program or as part of our fee schedule and then we would review that after the plan sometime in 2010.
Roy stated another change to the Plan Review Fee is: Modification to existing plans shall be
accompanied by a fee of $35.00 per acre and the Annual Permit Fee is increased to $40 per acre. The
table shows the changes to the DNR Fees necessary to be consistent. Also included are the fees
charged by surrounding counties. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management
Committee review the proposed revisions and if appropriate, approve the resolution with the proposed
revisions and send the approved version to the Finance and Personnel Committee for review. Sanden
asked if the 75% recoup for fees are based on actual hours spent. Pichotta stated some general
calculations; the reality is we’re not going to recoup all costs. Sanden also stated it seems like the
annual permit fee is in line with surrounding counties fees. Holst moves to adopt the DNR Fee
Schedule and forward to Finance and Personnel for review, leaving County Fees the same until
after the Comprehensive Plan is complete. Sanden agrees. Barkla disagrees. Holst stated we’re
mandated to change the DNR Fees but we open ourselves up to review all the fees if we change the
County mining reclamation fees now. We should carry through with decisions we make. Sanden asked
if delaying the change in the fee schedule would have a negative impact on the budget. Pichotta stated
that in reviewing numbers with Brad it appeared the impact would be somewhere in the neighborhood
of $2,000. Sanden seconds the motion. Holst, Sanden, and Nellessen in favor. Barkla opposed.
Motion carried 3 – 1.
Discuss take action on proposed revisions to Departmental Policy regarding Nonmetallic Mining.
Staff Report – Brad Roy: The purpose of this policy is to protect public health, safety and welfare
and to limit negative impacts to surrounding landowners. There are language changes and some
deletions. We’re proposing an additional change to number 7. A ground water response plan detailing
resources used to protect the quality of groundwater beneath and adjacent to the extraction operation
and proposed response to encountering groundwater shall be provided. Pre testing for nitrates,
suspended solids and dissolved solids shall be conducted for all existing wells within 1000 feet of the
proposed extraction operations “when blasting takes place.” This is because if it’s a sand pit and
they’re just digging out the side of a hill there is no need to test wells. Sanden asked if the changes
were being made because of the DNR issue? Roy stated because of some of the changes in our ability
to control reclamation it was determined that this was an appropriate time to make the changes.
Pichotta stated that changes are necessary due to changes to NR 135. NR 135 when it was first put into
place was to basically insure that all pits, if they were grandfathered in or in an area without zoning
would always have some sort of reclamation and wouldn’t be left wide open. They basically turned it
into a ceiling law where you can require reclamation - but not above and beyond a certain point. In
recognition of that - the only way we can have anything different out there is for pits that are subject to
a condition use permit and if it’s directly related to public health, safety and the public interest. So
that’s why this policy is framed in public health, safety and welfare concerns. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Land Management Committee review the proposed revisions and if appropriate
adopt the revised policy. Sanden moves to approve and adopt the proposed revisions to
Departmental Policy regarding Nonmetallic Mining/Holst seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for a rule exception to the requirement of every lot in a land
division front or abut a public or private street for a distance of at least 66 feet per Chapter 237-
26 (C) for Margaret Werner and Kathleen Flagge on Lot 1 CSM V12 P9 (doc. #496801) located
in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 18, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Nellessen invited Margaret Werner, Kathleen Flagge and Wes Anderson forward:
Mr. Anderson, with C & M Land Surveying, explained he created a CSM and it was his understanding
that this lot didn’t need to go through the review process. There was a 19 acre parcel which he made a
5.47 acre lot and the remainder was added to the other property the applicants own. There is a 66 ft
access easement to 690 th St. The created lot has a dwelling and driveway. They did not create a

uildable lot, change or add an access. The Town of Martell is fine with the parcel with an access
easement. Staff Report – Emily Lund: The applicants happen to own the acreage to the south which
they are going to add the remaining acreage. They live on that parcel. This land division was created in
violation of Pierce County Code 237-6(F)(3) because the 5.47 acre does not front a private or public
road. Pierce County Code § 237-6(B) states not more than four buildable sites of 15 acres or less has to
be reviewed by our department. Pierce County Code § 237-7 “Compliance” They shall not be entitled
to recording or improvements unless they are in compliance with our code. Pierce County Code § 237-
26(C) states “Every lot in a land division shall front or abut on a public or private street for a distance
of at least 66 feet unless a rule exception is granted by the Land Management Committee. This lot does
not abut 66 ft on that type of road. On September 6, 2007 staff sent a letter to applicants and agents
informing them of the land division violation. Ty Dodge contacted staff to request a rule exception.
The Real Property Lister also noted errors in the legal description. The code for rule exceptions states
the Land Management Committee has to review the applicants request and it should not be made in
effect for nullifying the intent and purpose. You need a majority vote of entire membership and state
the justification of the rule exception. There are two alternatives here for the applicants. They could
create a private road where the new lot has 66 ft of road frontage. The other option is to record a lot
over 15 acres in size. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee
consider whether or not this situation warrants a rule exception. Chairperson Nellessen asked if
anything is changing if we grant the rule exception. Holst states you can’t record these lots. They could
adhere to the code but they didn’t. Pichotta stated rule exceptions do not set precedence. Each one is
based on its own merit. You don’t have to take into consideration what you did on the last one.
However, I will remind you that on the last one, the applicant had a trailer on a large acreage of
property and he was seeking to separate that off. At the suggestion of the committee he withdrew his
request and created 66 feet of a private road to adhere to the code. Sanden stated he is sympathetic to
the fact that ownership isn’t changing. They are just moving property lines around. However, rules are
put in place for a very good reason. There may be other options available. Chairperson Nellessen asked
how long the driveway or road has been there that the people have been using. Lund stated the
easement agreement was recorded in 2003. Chairperson Nellessen stated the house and road have been
there long before our code was in effect. Mr. Anderson stated the only reason they are shrinking it in
size is because they have no use for the second residence and want to keep the majority of the land.
Lund states the first soil borings found in the file are from 1979. Barkla makes a motion to grant the
rule exception to the requirement per Chapter 237-26(C)/Nellessen seconds. Opposed Holst and
Sanden. Motion denied. Pichotta stated the applicants could designate a private road or talk to the
Township about a public road. The other option is to keep it to more than 15 acres. Barkla suggests Mr.
Anderson meet with staff and with the Town of Martell for further options.
Discuss take action on proposed Public Participation Plan for Phase III of Pierce County’s
Comprehensive Planning Process. Pichotta reports: In order to begin work on Phase III we need to
get in place a Public Participation Plan. Mr. Rudd brought a draft plan to me and I’ve altered it slightly
and have brought it to you for your consideration. The Plan forms the basic framework for achieving
an interactive dialogue between local decision makers, county staff, the planning consultant team and
the citizens of Pierce County. The objectives we would like to achieve throughout the development and
subsequent adoption of the Plan:
• To make all residents aware of the importance of participating in the development
• Designed to engage people of all races, ethnic backgrounds and income levels
• Ensure the public has opportunities to provide input (both formally and informally)
• Members of the county and municipalities have input from the broadest range of perspectives
and interests
• Such input is elicited through a variety of means

• The public involvement process should strengthen the sense of community present in the
municipalities and further the vision of active and positive participation by all aspects of the
community in the decision making and civic life of the municipality over the long term.
We’re looking for opportunities for written comment, specific details, meeting notices and what they
will contain.
Provisions for Open Discussions:
• An agenda established early on with a convenient meeting place, date and time to provide
maximum participation.
• A clearly identifiable facilitator or chair will conduct the meeting. That same person will
provide opening remarks that clearly outline the purpose of the meeting and the process of how
input will be obtained.
• As appropriate, all documents or proposals will be presented and an overview will be
discussed.
• All persons attending the meeting that desire to participate will be allowed to do so. However,
specific factors may require that constraints be applied.
• Special arrangements will be made under the provisions of Americans with Disabilities Act
(AD) with sufficient notice.
There is proposed to be five Sub-Area Group meetings for four sub-areas for a total of 20 meetings.
We’ve identified four sub-areas. The purpose is to insure that everyone in the county has the ability to
attend meetings close to their home. Barkla asked why River Falls is included in the planning since
they have their own zoning. Pichotta, our plan is for the entire County, whether they are under our
zoning or not, as such the citizens of that Town are entitled to participate and provide input. Sanden
asked why the Villages aren’t included. Pichotta stated they aren’t under County zoning and are
mandated to do their own. The four proposed sub-areas include:
• Town of Clifton, Town of Oak Grove, Town of River Falls, Town of Trimbelle
• Town of Diamond Bluff, Town of Trenton, Town of Hartland, Town of Isabelle
• Town of Martell, Town of Gilman, Town of Spring Lake, Town of El Paso, Town of Ellsworth
• Town of Rock Elm, Town of Union, Town of Salem, Town of Maiden Rock.
Basically the County Plan will look at general goals, objectives and strategies for the entire County.
We will count on the Townships to provide future land use maps as well as zoning maps and Town
specific goals and objectives. Any land use decision coming out of the Towns, whether it be rezones or
supporting conditional uses or anything, has to be consistent with their land use plan.
The consultant will lead each meeting and facilitate the following activities:
1. Review trends, survey results and planning process;
2. Conduct a visioning/issue identification activity;
3. Review countywide goals;
4. Review future land-use scenarios;
5. Review draft/comprehensive plan.
County Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee: This committee will be responsible for the planning
process and development of the draft comprehensive plan. It will conduct a minimum of 12 meetings
and two public hearings. These are open meetings and the public can comment about the plan and the
process. The Pierce County Board will be responsible for final adoption, by ordinance, of the
comprehensive plan. Public meeting notices will be placed in appropriate newspapers. It’s
recommended that any meeting notice be published at least one week prior to the meeting. The
following steps will be followed to make the public aware of such meetings:
• Name of the governmental body that will meet.
• Date, time and location of the meeting.
• General description and purpose of the meeting.
• Contact person for further information about the meeting.
• Information and updates will be posted on the Pierce County Web Site.

I have handed out a copy of an email received from Bill Werner who is the executive director of the
Pierce County EDC who stated he is writing in his personal capacity. He had a couple comments
regarding the public meeting notices; posting and publications, and soliciting prospective members for
the planning committee. John Lenarz, Spring Valley, I think it is important that you take the business
of announcing when and where the meetings are going to be very seriously. Because there are those
people who want to attend and give their input and also when you get a plan put together, you have
less nay saying and grumbling because they have had their say. Holst stated the last time they went
through the planning process, they had excellent participation and anyone that wanted to had ample
opportunities to be heard. This one perhaps will be better organized. Gary Peterson, Chairperson for
Spring Lake Township, when each Township gets a plan then does each Town have to have a Board of
Adjustment? Pichotta - If you had zoning authority you would need a Board of Adjustment. However,
in order to develop a comprehensive plan you will need to create a planning commission. That
planning commission will be the steering committee for the planning process to make
recommendations to the Town Board. As things in your Town and the folks living in your Town
change, periodic revisiting of the plan may be necessary. Chairperson Nellessen asked about the Town
setting up a Plan Commission and they advise the Town Board, The Town Board still has the right to
do what they decide? Pichotta stated a Town Plan Commission only has as much authority as the Town
grants to it and the ordinance that creates them. In theory you could set up a Plan Commission and
delegate all your land use authority to it and give that Planning Commission the ability to do land
divisions and those sorts of things. Typically the Planning Commission is only advisory to the Town
Board and the Town Board is not bound by their recommendations. Sanden stated the way the SA
meetings are carried out that they all have their say, ground rules about being respectful. In a
democratic system it gets messy and the best you can hope for is a plan that is acceptable to everyone
and ideal to no one. You have to accept when you win and when you are defeated. It would benefit this
process if there is an educational process regarding what the alternatives are, what tools are out there,
what the realities of the decisions they make are. Pichotta clarified that the sub-area group meetings are
to solicit input not to develop the goals. Barkla moves to approve the proposed Public Participation
Plan for Phase III of Pierce County’s Comprehensive Planning Process/Sanden seconds. All in
favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on resolution establishing planning committee for Phase III of Pierce
County’s Comprehensive Planning process. Pichotta reports: A nine member committee,
consisting of members living or owning property within the four sub-areas identified in the public
participation plan is proposed. Upon passage of the resolution by the County Board, the LMC would
place an ad in the Pierce County Herald soliciting letters of interest from individuals wishing to be
involved in the planning process. We could go above and beyond placing the ad and that was the
comment from Bill Werner. He stated the LMC should do more to solicit prospective members than
just place an ad in the Pierce County Herald. If the cost of “advertising” is prohibitive, a draft news
release sent to the editors of the publications and radio stations listed above might get printed as a news
item without charge. He would also like to see the soliciting of interest posted in the same channels
that he listed. The LMC would then conduct interviews and make the final selection of the committee.
Nine members in four break-out areas would mean two representatives from each area as well as one
from some other area dependent on the LMC. The draft resolution was presented with discussion
regarding alternates besides the nine member committee suggested by Barkla. Barkla moves to
approve the resolution establishing planning committee for Phase III of Pierce County’s
Comprehensive Planning process amending the committee members to include two
alternates/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Proposed Amendment to Outdoor Recreation Plan – Village of Spring Valley update
Incorporate Town of River Falls Park Plan into the Outdoor Recreation Plan
Working today for a better tomorrow 5

• The public involvement process should strengthen the sense of community present in the
municipalities and further the vision of active and positive participation by all aspects of the
community in the decision making and civic life of the municipality over the long term.
We’re looking for opportunities for written comment, specific details, meeting notices and what they
will contain.
Provisions for Open Discussions:
• An agenda established early on with a convenient meeting place, date and time to provide
maximum participation.
• A clearly identifiable facilitator or chair will conduct the meeting. That same person will
provide opening remarks that clearly outline the purpose of the meeting and the process of how
input will be obtained.
• As appropriate, all documents or proposals will be presented and an overview will be
discussed.
• All persons attending the meeting that desire to participate will be allowed to do so. However,
specific factors may require that constraints be applied.
• Special arrangements will be made under the provisions of Americans with Disabilities Act
(AD) with sufficient notice.
There is proposed to be five Sub-Area Group meetings for four sub-areas for a total of 20 meetings.
We’ve identified four sub-areas. The purpose is to insure that everyone in the county has the ability to
attend meetings close to their home. Barkla asked why River Falls is included in the planning since
they have their own zoning. Pichotta, our plan is for the entire County, whether they are under our
zoning or not, as such the citizens of that Town are entitled to participate and provide input. Sanden
asked why the Villages aren’t included. Pichotta stated they aren’t under County zoning and are
mandated to do their own. The four proposed sub-areas include:
• Town of Clifton, Town of Oak Grove, Town of River Falls, Town of Trimbelle
• Town of Diamond Bluff, Town of Trenton, Town of Hartland, Town of Isabelle
• Town of Martell, Town of Gilman, Town of Spring Lake, Town of El Paso, Town of Ellsworth
• Town of Rock Elm, Town of Union, Town of Salem, Town of Maiden Rock.
Basically the County Plan will look at general goals, objectives and strategies for the entire County.
We will count on the Townships to provide future land use maps as well as zoning maps and Town
specific goals and objectives. Any land use decision coming out of the Towns, whether it be rezones or
supporting conditional uses or anything, has to be consistent with their land use plan.
The consultant will lead each meeting and facilitate the following activities:
1. Review trends, survey results and planning process;
2. Conduct a visioning/issue identification activity;
3. Review countywide goals;
4. Review future land-use scenarios;
5. Review draft/comprehensive plan.
County Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee: This committee will be responsible for the planning
process and development of the draft comprehensive plan. It will conduct a minimum of 12 meetings
and two public hearings. These are open meetings and the public can comment about the plan and the
process. The Pierce County Board will be responsible for final adoption, by ordinance, of the
comprehensive plan. Public meeting notices will be placed in appropriate newspapers. It’s
recommended that any meeting notice be published at least one week prior to the meeting. The
following steps will be followed to make the public aware of such meetings:
• Name of the governmental body that will meet.
• Date, time and location of the meeting.
• General description and purpose of the meeting.
• Contact person for further information about the meeting.
• Information and updates will be posted on the Pierce County Web Site.
Working today for a better tomorrow 4

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
October 17, 2007
Present: Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden.
Others: Andy Pichotta, Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Paul Barkla and Jeff Holst
Chairperson Nellessen called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: November 7 & 21, December 5, in 2007. Meeting dates were also set for January
2 & 16, 2008.
Approve minutes; Sanden makes a motion to approve the minutes for the October 3, 2007 LMC
meeting/Nellessen seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Discuss take action on requests to amend the Pierce County Outdoor Recreation Plan. Staff
Report – Brad Roy: In 2004, the County Board of Supervisors adopted the Pierce County Outdoor
Recreation Plan. The objective of this plan is to provide the framework for guiding future development
of the County’s recreation properties and to compile a single document containing all of the individual
community plans. River Falls just completed a Parks and Recreation Plan for 2007 to 2011. This plan
is consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the Pierce County Outdoor Recreation Plan. The
purpose of this plan is to promote ways and means of providing recreation for the citizens of the Town.
In the County’s plan, the Town of River Falls has a small section briefly describing what’s available.
Our idea is to eliminate all of that referencing and just add the new plan as an addendum to the
County’s Rec Plan. Pichotta stated a few years ago we incorporated the Town of Diamond Bluff’s Sea
Wing Park Plan and the Town of Martell’s Tyson Park Plan as addendums into the Outdoor Recreation
Plan. The reason they wanted them included is because there is a potential for acquiring funds through
the Park Development Fund, through our Township Program. Also inclusion in the Outdoor Recreation
Plan makes you eligible for some DNR Grant Funds that you wouldn’t otherwise be eligible for.
Sanden asked if there was anything contrary to County goals. Pichotta stated it would be ideal if each
Township would do a park plan. Diana Smith, River Falls Town Chairperson and Dennis Zielski,
Chairman of the Park and Recreation Committee, commented on what the Park and Recreation
Committee is working on and what they have accomplished. They meet once a month and work with a
budget, stating River Falls has 50 acres of parks that very few people know about. They are working
jointly with the City creating walking paths. They are also putting up signs. Roy stated the other
request is the Wisconsin Veterans Memorial Trail proposed to follow the Eau Galle River between
Spring Valley and Elmwood. The trail will be designed for non-motorized traffic and has the potential
to expand and connect with the St. Croix County Wildwood Trail and the Red Cedar Trail in Dunn
County. There is also the possibility of other expansions throughout Pierce County. What we’ve done
is added a study that was completed, into the tourism section of the Pierce County Plan. We also
mention it in the Needs and Actions for all Trail Users section and in the Village of Spring Valley
section under Proposed Outdoor Recreational Facilities. Pichotta stated the important thing is to get it
mentioned in appropriate areas so we can support it when plans come through. The Plan is effective
until 2008. He received an e-mail from Greg Flogstad Director of the Mississippi River Regional
Planning Commission responding to an e-mail he sent him asking if we could get on his work program
next year to get an update done to the plan. Elmwood and Spring Valley will all have an opportunity to
provide updated information as part of that update. Andy and Brad met with a consultant working on
grant writing for the Village of Elmwood. Harrington moves to approve the proposed amendment
to the Pierce County Outdoor Recreation Plan and generate a resolution to forward to Finance
and Personnel for consideration/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Working today for a better tomorrow 1

Discuss take action on request to amend the Pierce County Bicycle Plan. Staff Report – Brad
Roy: We made the appropriate changes to the bike plan as well, noting the Veterans Trail and the
existing trails in River Falls and their future plans. Sanden moves to approve the Pierce County
Bicycle Plan proposed amendment and generate a resolution to forward to Finance and
Personnel for consideration/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Request for a rule exception on an erosion control plan on a 2 Lot, 1 Outlot Major CSM for Morris
Holst in Town of Oak Grove
Approval of a 2 Lot, 1 Outlot Major CSM for Morris Holst in Town of Oak Grove
Rezone request from General Rural Flexible 8 to Light Industrial for Morris Holst in Town of Oak
Grove
Renewal for Nonmetallic Mining for Kraemer Company
Pichotta stated the USGS has completed a three County groundwater study. We’ve got a couple of
focus areas, Clifton/Oak Grove and the Town of River Falls. There will be a presentation on October
22, in River Falls at 1:30pm and 7:00pm if anyone is interested in attending.
Chairperson Nellessen asked if the committee could look at ways to make Pierce County more
conducive to business development, reducing setbacks, signage issues, etc. Pichotta indicated that the
county will be developing the Comprehensive Plan. One of the elements is economic development;
what can we do as a County to make it more conducive to attract the types of development we want to
see here. Sanden asked about the Pierce County Economic Development Corporation (EDC), have
they been effective in stimulating business? Pichotta stated they just got Bill Warner back as the
executive director and he is leading a lot of good efforts and has expressed a real interest in
participating in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. We can expect good things out of him.
Motion to adjourn at 7:20pm by Harrington/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung
Working today for a better tomorrow 2

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
November 7, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden.
Others: Emily Lund and Shari Hartung
Absent: Don Nellessen and Andy Pichotta
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: November 21, December 5, in 2007, January 2 & 16, 2008.
Approve minutes; Harrington makes a motion to approve the minutes for the October 17, 2007
LMC meeting/Sanden seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Discuss take action on a request for a rule exception to the requirement that an erosion control
plan be completed for a 2 Lot, 1 Outlot Major Certified Survey Map for Morris Holst, owner, on
property located in part of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, SE ¼ of the NE ¼ and the SW ¼ of the NE ¼,
all in Section 14, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County, WI. Staff Report – Emily
Lund: Mr. Holst is proposing to create his 4 th parcel within a five-year period. He is asking for a rule
exception for the requirement of an erosion control plan. Rule exceptions per PCC Subdivision of Land
§ 237-30 asks the committee to find that such a rule exception will not nullify the intent and purpose of
the chapter, a majority vote of the entire membership shall be required and the reasons set forth
justifying the rule exception. The land division is in section 14, in the Town of Oak Grove. Staff
visited the site two times in October and it was noted the driveway is already in, there is much
vegetative cover and no apparent erosion on sites. The following are questions and policy asks them to
be answered for this type of rule exception:
1. No roads are being constructed as part of the land division.
2. No erosion problems are present on the property
3. There are no problems with storm water or surface water flow on the subject property or that
originate on the subject property.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land Management Committee consider whether or not
this situation warrants a rule exception. Jeff Holst wishes to recuse himself because of possible
conflict of interest. Morris Holst stated Emily has presented the request quite well, he has no
comment. Harrington asked if Emily has walked the site and everything is alright. Lund stated she has
and you can see it visually from all roads as well. Sanden moves to approve the request for a rule
exception to the requirement that an erosion control plan be completed, finding that, per LMC
policy;
1. No roads are being constructed as part of the land division
2. No erosion problems are present on the property
3. There are no problems with storm water or surface water flow on the subject property or that
originate on the subject property /Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action on a request for approval of a 2 Lot, 1 Outlot Major Certified Survey Map
for Morris Holst, owner, on property located in part of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, SE ¼ of the NE ¼
and the SW ¼ of the NE ¼, all in Section 14, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak Grove, Pierce County,
WI. Staff Report – Emily Lund: stated now we would like to ask the committee to approve the CSM
for which the rule exception was just granted. Surrounding land use is residential and agricultural.
Zoning is General Rural Flexible 8. There are three density units allowed. The Town of Oak Grove
approved the pending CSM and driveway access at their 10-15-07 Town Board meeting. Per § 237-17
(B)3, staff reviewed if the land was subject to any hazards to life, health or property; no such hazards
were found. Soil tests were completed on each lot and Lot 7 is suited for a conventional system and
Working today for a better tomorrow 1

Lot 8 is suited for a mound septic system. Bob Lannan reviewed and approved the CSM. The property
isn’t in the Farmland Preservation Program and the survey review fees have been paid. Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends the LMC approve this CSM. Mr. Holst has no comment.
Sanden just wanted to clarify the lot being divided are lots 7 & 8 and Outlot 1. Lund stated yes and it is
her understanding that the adjoining property owner on the original Buss property to the west is going
to purchase the Outlot 1 and have that added on to their property. Sanden asked if there is any need for
drainage easements. Lund stated no. Harrington asked what road Outlot 1 goes to. Lund stated 560 th
Ave and the Outlot is not buildable. Sanden moves to approve the 2 Lot, 1 Outlot Major Certified
Survey Map/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action to authorize publication of an ad seeking individuals interested in serving on
the Land Management Committee as a Citizen Member. Sanden moves to approve publication of
an ad seeking interested individual to serve on the Land Management Committee/Holst seconds.
All in favor. Passed.
Discuss take action to authorize publication of an ad seeking individuals interested in serving on
the Smart Growth Planning Committee. Sanden moves to approve publication of an ad seeking
interested individual to serve on the Smart Growth Planning Committee/Holst seconds. All in
favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Request for a conditional use permit for a wind electrical generation tower in the Town of Rock Elm
Motion to adjourn at 7:08pm by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung
Working today for a better tomorrow 2

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
November 21, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst and Eric Sanden.
Others: Brad Roy and Shari Hartung
Absent: Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Andy Pichotta
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: December 5, 2007, January 2 & 16, 2008.
Approve minutes; Sanden makes a motion to approve the minutes for the November 7, 2007 LMC
meeting/Holst seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for a wind electrical generation
tower in the Agriculture Residential District for John and Jane Eager, owners, on a parcel of
land located in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 17, T26N, R15W, Town of Rock Elm, Pierce
County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Mr. Eager forward: Mr. Eager explained they would like
to install a 20 kilowatt wind turbine on their property to supply their energy and sell back any excess.
Sanden asked about the tower being a minimum of 50 ft plus the maximum height of the tower away
from the property line. He stated it looks like they are only 130 ft from the property line. Mr. Eager
stated they will be at least 230 ft from his property line. Staff Report – Brad Roy: Mr. Eager owns
two adjoining parcels. He will be within the setbacks from one of his adjoining parcels. Basically it is
the same situation as the Fleming tower that was permitted earlier. Staff Recommendation: Staff
recommends the Land Management Committee determine if this request for a wind generation tower is
consistent with the permitting guidelines set by the State and if so, approve this request with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the construction of the tower, staff shall be contacted to verify setbacks.
2. A land use permit shall be issued for the tower at a cost of $100.00.
3. The use shall be established within 12 months of approval.
4. The tower will be installed according to submitted plans and shall be grounded to national
electrical code standards.
5. The Land Management Department shall be provided a copy of the agreement with the electric
company to insure the intertie on the grid is approved.
6. Warning signage shall be placed at the base of the tower for safety concerns.
Chairperson Barkla opened the hearing to the public. Randy Campbell, land owner in Rock Elm
Township asked what a conditional use permit is. Roy stated it’s a use that would likely have offsite
impacts so conditions are attached. Holst stated if the conditional use permit is not followed, the permit
can be pulled and the tower would have to come down. Mr. Campbell asked about a tower going up in
the ETZ area. Would you have to have a conditional use permit? Roy stated not from the County. They
have their own rules in the ETZ area. Holst stated the ETZ is governed by the Township and Village
that creates it. No further public comment. Public hearing closed. Sanden asked if this would not
allow the sale of the adjoining property? Roy stated no, it wouldn’t affect the sale of the property but it
would make the tower a nonconforming use. There couldn’t be any expansion to the tower. Holst
stated the committee determined the wind tower meets WI Statutes 66.0401 permitting guidelines.
Holst moves to approve the conditional use permit for the wind electrical generation tower with
conditions #1 – 6, noting consistency with WI Statutes 66.0401 guidelines/Sanden seconds. All in
favor. Passed.
1

Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Request for a conditional use permit for an accessory residence in the Town of Martell.
Rezone request from General Rural Flexible 8 to Light Industrial in the Town of Oak Grove.
Motion to adjourn at 7:09pm by Sanden/Holst seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung
2

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
December 5, 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington and Eric Sanden.
Others: Jim Kleinhans and Shari Hartung
Absent: Andy Pichotta
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Next Meeting Dates: January 2 & 16, 2008.
Approve minutes; Sanden makes a motion to approve the minutes for the November 21, 2007
LMC meeting/Holst seconds. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chairperson Barkla wanted the committee to know Eldon Duncan died recently.
Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit for an accessory residence in
the Primary Agriculture District for Alfred and Sara Cardwell, owners, of a parcel of land
located in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 5, T27N, R17W, Town of Martell, Pierce County, WI.
Chairperson Barkla invited Mr. Cardwell forward: Mr. Cardwell explained they moved to Martell,
W6562 870 th Ave, River Falls and own less than 22 acres in the Primary Agriculture District. They
have a need for an additional bedroom for visitors and family. They have a small Amish barn they
would like to convert to a bedroom and full bath upstairs and the lower level would be an office for
creating recreational maps. He stated he would have no employees and no customers would come to
his residence. They plan to connect to their septic system which was installed in 1996. Chairperson
Barkla asked Mr. Cardwell what a recreational map is. Mr. Cardwell explained they are hiking maps
for mountain climbing or backpacking. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: Mr. Cardwell contacted the
Land Management office to obtain a permit for his business and also discussed converting the Amish
barn into an accessory residence. Accessory Residence is defined in our code as “A dwelling unit
located in an accessory building located on a residential parcel.” It’s going to be a modest type
building with one bedroom and a loft. Accessory residences are permitted in the Primary Agriculture
District. As Mr. Cardwell stated he did record a per capita flow statement regarding his septic system
so he wouldn’t have excessive use on his system which was installed in 1996. The Town of Martell
approved this request on November 13, 2007. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Land
Management Committee approve this conditional use permit for an accessory residence with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall hire a Wisconsin Licensed plumber, who shall obtain a Pierce County
Reconnection Sanitary Permit.
2. The Town of Martell building inspector shall conduct an inspection of the accessory residence
to ensure that it meets the uniform dwelling code.
3. If the accessory residence is ever rented out, it shall be rented out only as a single unit and also
would need to have a universal address number obtained.
4. A land use permit would need to be obtained for the proposed deck on the building.
Chairperson Barkla opened the hearing to the public. Sandy Roen, a neighbor of Mr. Cardwell’s
asked for a copy of the plans. He was provided a staff report and a copy of the plans. Mr. Roen stated
he doesn’t have a problem with it. No further comment. Public hearing closed. Sanden asked Jim if
the square footage of the accessory residence is less than the house. Jim stated yes, it’s more modest
than his residence and that is typically what the committee has looked for. Sanden moved to approve
the conditional use permit for an accessory residence with conditions #1 – 4/ Holst seconds. All in
favor. Passed.
Working today for a better tomorrow 1

Jeff Holst stated he wished to recuse himself from the next agenda item because of possible
conflict of interest.
Public hearing to consider a request for a rezone from General Rural Flexible 8 District to Light
Industrial by Morris Holst, owner of Lot 5 of CSM V11 P173 and Lot 8 CSM V12 P26, located in
the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ and the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 14, T26N, R19W, Town of Oak
Grove, Pierce County, WI. Chairperson Barkla invited Morris Holst forward: Mr. Holst stated he
was at both the Town of Oak Grove planning committee and town board meetings. He would like to be
able to utilize his property for Light Industrial. Nellessen asked what type of business he would have
there. Mr. Holst stated on Lot 8 he would like to put self-storage. The other Lot could be a contractor
or a welding business. Nellessen asked about the access. Mr. Holst stated Lot 5 will come off of
County Road E and that driveway is already in. The other lot will be off of 560
Working today for a better tomorrow 2
th Avenue. Sanden
asked what the current use is. Mr. Holst stated he bought the property last June and divided it into lots
planning to sell the property off as lots. Previous to that, it was rented out for agricultural use.
Harrington asked about easements on the property. Mr. Holst stated there is a shared road agreement
on Lot 5 & 7. He thinks that is an old road on the drawing. Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: This land
is open right now. There are two separate parcels that have been created. Mr. Holst went to the Town
on two occasions, once in October for Lot 8 and November 15 th he had amended his request to include
Lot 5. Driveway access is on County Rd E and Lot 8 is off 560 th Ave. Light Industrial District is
established primarily for operations that are confined within enclosed buildings and could include
some warehouse use and limited commercial use. A contractor or welding shop could work as long as
it’s operated indoors. As far as the rezone, the pattern of land use would be allowable to accommodate
the desires of each Town. The Town has supported this request and has a couple commercial districts
in close proximity. The development is close to a County Road which fits in with Light Industrial
proposals in the County and is consistent with the Land Management Plan. Site Plan review would be
required for any new industrial or commercial property within the County. So after this property is
rezoned and prior to development it would come back to this committee for review of the site. I
reviewed where we have mini warehouses in the County already. There are two in Trenton, one in
Ellsworth, one on the south side of River Falls and one in Cleary’s facility in the Town of Trimbelle.
There appears to be a need in the County. Staff Recommendation: Given the Town of Oak Grove’s
support for this application and the apparent consistency of this request is with the Pierce County Land
Management Plan, staff recommends the Land Management Committee approve this rezone and
forward a recommendation to Pierce County Board of Supervisors. Chairperson Barkla opens the
hearing to the public. Robert Fleming, a neighbor to the proposed development, regarding Lot 5 & 7
shared driveway, is that acceptable to have a business share a driveway with residential? Kleinhans
stated with the Light Industrial everything is contained indoors. Mr. Holst stated the driveway is
already in. He talked to the Township and they didn’t have a problem with the shared driveway. There
won’t be any ongoing business with a lot of traffic. Mr. Fleming expressed his concern of what type of
business can go onto the proposed property. Kleinhans stated we always go back to the Town with any
map amendments or conditional use permits to see if there are concerns or conflicts. Mr. Holst stated
he isn’t sure what will go on Lot 8 because he plans to sell it, Lot 5 he is going to build on. It fits in
with the Town’s plan and they were very supportive. Chairperson Barkla asked Jim Kleinhans to read
the last bullet on the first page of the staff report.
§ 240-15(J) states, “Light Industrial (LI). This district is established primarily for production,
processing and assembly plants that are operated so that noise, odor, dust and glare from such
operations are completely confined within an enclosed building. Traffic generated by these industries
should not produce the volume of traffic generated by heavy industrial uses. The district is also
designed to accommodate warehouse and limited commercial uses.
When people hear the word industrial district they get a little worried because they’re thinking fuel
formulation, manufacturing, rendering plants and such things like that. This is not designed for those
types of uses. This will be a cleaner district. It will come back to this committee again for site plan

eview for lighting, fencing, vegetative buffers, traffic circulation, parking and signage. All of that will
be reviewed before it’s developed. Chairperson Barkla asked Jim Kleinhans to read the bullet on the
second page, third from the bottom.
If this rezone request is approved, the permitting process would require site plan review by the LMC.
Section 240-75A(1) states, “Permits for new construction or additions to existing structures and
buildings for commercial, industrial, institutional or multifamily uses shall require site plan approval as
set forth in this section. The purpose of such approval is to assure site designs which promote
compatibility between land uses, create safe and attractive site layouts and structures, provide proper
access to streets and transportation, protect property values and contribute to efficient land use in
Pierce County.”
Mr. Fleming asked if we’re getting ahead of ourselves by allowing the rezone when we don’t know
what’s going onto the lots. Chairperson Barkla stated Mr. Fleming would have an opportunity to view
the plans when they come in for site plan review. Jeff Holst, as a citizen, stated this is consistent with
the County Plan and consistent with the Town Plan. I have been around this type of request for about
15 years. What he is asking is no different than any other rezone in Pierce County. You ask for the
rezone and come back with the specific use later. Chairperson Barkla asked Jim Kleinhans to read the
bullet on page two, the third from the top.
The Pierce County Land Management Plan also states, “Acceptable locations for future designation of
commercial/industrial areas are at intersections of major county and state roads, along railroad, or
adjacent to villages and cities in areas which are consistent with local development plans.”
This is one of the reasons they included Lot 5 is because it is adjacent to a County Road. Staff wasn’t
comfortable with the first request as it was presented and that’s why Mr. Holst went back to the Town
and included Lot 5. The new proposal is more consistent with County planning. Mr. Fleming asked if
this could possibly expand to Lot 7 and all the lots on that property including Lot 1. Kleinhans stated
no this is only for Lot 5 & 8. Mr. Holst stated Lot 1 is actually Outlot 1. Kleinhans stated an outlot is
not buildable. Mr. Fleming asked if a sewer system could be put on the outlot. Kleinhans stated you
can put a sewer system just about anywhere but you have to have a soil test done. Mr. Holst explained
he has a purchase agreement for Outlot 1 with the people who bought the property containing the
buildings. He doesn’t know what their intentions are other than maybe some agricultural gardening. No
further public comment. Public hearing closed. Sanden stated his question was why Lot 5 was
stressed to be included with the outlot and it was answered because of the County Road access. He
wanted to be sure this wasn’t motivated by a spot zoning. Kleinhans stated we’ve created some Light
Industrial Districts along state corridors already and they seem to fit with our land use plan; along
Highway 10 and one along Highway 29 and County Road E. Harrington asked what proportion he
could build on each lot and what size. Kleinhans stated he has to meet all the setbacks. Everything has
to be indoors. Sanden moves to approve the rezone from General Rural Flexible 8 to Light
Industrial on Lots 5 & 8 and forward a recommendation to the County Board/Harrington
seconds. All in favor with Jeff Holst not voting. Passed.
Chairperson Barkla stated to Mr. Fleming that this will come before the County Board for two
readings; the first should be December 18 th and the second would be January 22 nd . He asked Jim
Kleinhans to make sure Mr. Fleming was advised of the dates.
Discuss take action to extend the deadline for Smart Growth Planning Committee Applications.
Staff Report – Jim Kleinhans: As you are aware, the LMC is seeking individuals interested in
serving on a Smart Growth Planning Committee. This committee will be the steering committee for
Pierce County’s Smart Growth comprehensive planning effort and is to include representation from
each of the areas identified in the Public Participation Plan. To date staff has received 13 applications
for the 11 member committee (9 members and two alternates). Additional applications will be
necessary to ensure adequate geographic representation on the committee. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Land Management Committee consider extending the deadline for
Working today for a better tomorrow 3

applications for the planning committee to December 14, 2007. Kleinhans stated he didn’t know if an
ad would be run. Chairperson Barkla stated he thought that was the intent. Nellessen moves to extend
the application deadline to December 14, 2007 for Smart Growth Planning Committee
applications/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Chairperson Barkla stated the application deadline for the Citizen Member for the Land
Management Committee was inadvertently left off of the agenda and will call a special meeting
on December 18, 2007 at 6:45pm for the committee to extend that deadline.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Request for a conditional use permit to add onto a residence in the Town of Oak Grove.
Request for preliminary plat approval for Whispering Pines in the Town of Trenton.
Motion to adjourn at 7:40pm by Holst/Sanden seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by S. Hartung
Working today for a better tomorrow 4

MINUTES - Pierce County Land Management Committee Meeting
December 18 2007
Present: Paul Barkla, Jeff Holst, Eric Sanden, Don Nellessen, Pat Harrington.
Others: Andy Pichotta
Chairperson Barkla called the Pierce County Land Management Committee meeting to order at 6:45
p.m. in the Pierce County Board Room, Ellsworth, Wisconsin.
Discuss take action to extend the deadline for Land Management Committee Citizen Member
Applications. Staff Report – Pichotta stated that the deadline for Citizen Member applications had
passed and that staff had received only one application. He noted that in the past the LMC had sought
to achieve geographic balance and that, ideally, the new citizen member would live in the eastern part
of the County and that the sole applicant did not live in the eastern portion of the County.
Pichotta suggested that the LMC consider extending the deadline until December 31 st or later.
E. Sanden moves to extend the application deadline to January 11, 2008 for Land Management
Committee Citizen Member Applications/Harrington seconds. All in favor. Passed.
Departmental Update and Future Agenda Items
Pichotta noted that the application deadline for the smart growth planning committee had passed and
that it appeared that an adequate number of applicants had applied and indicated that the process for
selecting individuals would be finalized at the January 2 meeting.
Motion to adjourn at 6:55 pm by J.Holst / D. Nellessen seconds. All approve. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by A. Pichotta
Working today for a better tomorrow 1