Minutes 1-3-07 - Pierce County Home Page

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