Citizens bring drain complaints to Abby council
Two residents of Abbotsford attended the Abbotsford City Council meeting on Tuesday night to voice concerns about water that has been pooling up and flooding a resident’s basement on North Second Street in Abbotsford.
Jim Colby brought up a recurring issue which has plagued his and another land owner’s properties and gave the council some background on what has happened to that property throughout the years.
His overarching claim was that the city has caused the pooling of water to happen to his and Jose and Josefina Zuniga’s properties. His argument stemmed from a 2021 incident in which he was told by then City Administrator that he was not allowed to speak at a meeting in which a permit was being discussed for a property across the street.
During a 22-minute address to the council, Colby staked claims that the city had not followed due process in that 2021 incident. Colby stated that the city allowed property owner Mike Hryndej who owns the lot across the street to dump truckloads of fill on his lot and cover up culverts without obtaining a permit. Colby said the action should have required a permit which would have sent the issue to council for a vote before it had ever happened.
Instead, Colby said since the owner filled in culverts that water has since backed up, forming a pool that does not drain on Zuniga and Colby’s properties. Colby said the pooling of water has resulted in flooded basements on more than one occasion. Hryndej was not in attendance at the meeting.
Colby cited Abbotsford City Ordinance Sec. 6-1-4 (b) which states, “A permit from the Public Works Department Manager shall be required if the filling, cutting, grading or other change in the topographic characteristics of the property involves the placement, removal or movement of more than twenty cubic yards, but not more than fifty cubic yards, of material and will not result in any alteration to the existing drainage of the property.”
The same ordinance says the common council would need to review a permit application if the proposed placement, removal or movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material is planned. Colby argued Hryndej had brought in anywhere from 15-20 truckloads of fill that was spread throughout the lot.
He also read ordinance 6-1-4 (d) which states, “The filling or cutting of any property grading or other change in the drainage or topographic characteristics of any property shall also be subject to the following requirements and restrictions: (1) Impact on Other Properties. No change shall be made in the existing topography of any property that would alter the existing drainage or topography in a way so as to have a material adverse effect on any other property, except with the written consent of the owners of each affected property.
“None of that was done. I didn’t sign anything. Jose didn’t sign anything,” Colby said.
Colby finished his claim against Hryndej saying the council gave the owner a permit after the fill was brought in and the drainage problem had been created. He also said he was not allowed to speak at a council meeting about the permit by City Adiminstrator, Dan Grady.
Colby said the city told him he could solve the problem by installing drain tile and a drainage pipe which would tie into the storm drain. However, Colby said he did not think it was his problem.
“I do not agree that it is my problem,” Colby said. “First, Hryndej filled up that lot without a permit. Secondly, he did not follow the code as in causing a material adverse effect on another property except with a written consent of each owner’s affected property as stated in 6-1-4 ordinance. The city should have never allowed this to happen.”
The city has offered to install a yard drain when Second Street is to be reconstructed but that street has not currently been listed on Abbotsford’s five-year street plan.
Colby said the Department of Public Works attempted to fix the problem by placing a section of small drain tile onto the culvert but Colby said it freezes during the spring and late fall.
“I think that the solution should be that the city should install two yard drains at the lowest part and run large-enough drain tile to the north catch basin on the corner. Hopefully they can use that same drain tile when and if they reconstruct that road. That would solve the situation permanently.”
Colby then added that the city added elevation to Second Street “years and years ago.” He said that’s why the culverts were needed in the first place.
Stuttgen refuted the claim and said the reason the water drains like it does is because a railroad company used to own the lot in the 1980s and was allowed to drain water along the property. Now, the property is residential and the method used to get rid of the water in the 80s is not viable because ordinances state you cannot use another resident’s land to drain your property. Stuttgen argued that according to the ordinances, Zuniga and Colby were not abiding by the law because they were letting their water flow onto another person’s property.
He said the current system requires developers to grade their land so that the water flows to the curb and gutter system where it travels to a storm sewer catch basin.
Alderman Jeremiah Zeiset said, “The culvert that is going under the road is higher than the lowest point of this water problem. So it was never draining all the water to start with. Even if we look at the city’s responsibility to have given Mike a permit, that culvert wasn’t the solution to the problem to begin with.”
Kristen Lustila attended the meeting and said her son is at the Zuniga’s house as they are his grandparents and she confirmed the fact that the water accumulation had begun after the lot across the road was filled and the culverts were affected.
Lustila said the water and culvert are considered a natural runoff which are protected under Wisconsin law and cannot be altered.
“It’s horrible. [Jose] can’t even mow part of his lawn,” Lustila said.
She also read off a rule called the Natural Flow rule that reads, “This rule holds a person who alters the natural flow of surface water runoff accountable for any damages caused to neighboring property.”
Zeiset argued that the drain could not be considered a natural runoff because there is a culvert involved in transporting the water to another location. “We would have to be convinced that it is a natural runoff.”
Stuttgen said both Colby and Lustila were reading off ordinances and rules that don’t apply to them.
“What you just read, what that applies to is if someone grades their property so that their water ran across your property and you were affected, that is what that refers to,” Stuttgen said. “What you guys are missing is all your property, if it is up to the city standards, should drain to the curb. It should never drain across the street. Mike Hryndej could plug that culvert off on the other end you are in charge of grading your lot to a level so it runs over the curb. That’s the way everybody’s property is supposed to drain.”
Colby referred back to ordinance 6-1-4 which said the grading and filling of another property cannot affect an existing property.
“You cannot affect another person’s property,” Colby responded.
“Let me read you the ordinances, Jim. In no event shall a drainage area include a property owned by another party. Are you telling me you own Mike Hryndej’s property? Your water is supposed to stop at the street, go down the street and to the storm sewer. It is not supposed to cross,” Stuttgen responded.
Colby argued that if someone else changes their property and it affects another citizen, they should not be able to perform those changes without the written consent of the affected citizens.
“He’s done it and the city has gone ahead and let him fill it up and the city went ahead and gave him a permit which he never should have got. It does adversely effect the properties across the road,” Colby stated.
“What we’re saying is we think your water adversely affects Mike Hryndej’s property,” Zeiset said.
“It’s a natural runoff. That water went that way in the year 1600,” Colby said.
Arguments continued on both sides but ultimately the sides could not come to a consensus. The item was brought up as a discussion piece so no action would be taken and the council later discussed whether the item should be on a future agenda.
Dale Rachu who was a lead voice in the argument said he didn’t want the item on a future agenda at this time. He said he would go to city hall one day and hash out the options with Stuttgen and others before bringing it to the council.
n The Linden Street project bids were opened with seven interested contractors. Bids ranged from $882,746 to $1,313,279.75. The low bid was recommended by the Cedar Corporation and awarded to Switlick and Sons Inc. from Athens. The project will be partially funded using a grant through the Local Roads Improvement Program by the amount of $326,113.
“It’s a good price. The plan is to fund the rest of the project through TIF 5,” Soyk said.
