|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
April 14, 2003Developer may face fines for clearing treesHe says it's for farming; others say it's not rightByRecord-Eagle staff writer TRAVERSE CITY -Developer Bill Clous paid a $500 fine last fall after officials said he moved earth on property he owns in the Mitchell Creek watershed without a permit. Since then, Clous has kept on bulldozing. Depending on whom you ask, up to 90 acres of wooded wetlands may have been disrupted. Clous may face civil sanctions from the attorney general and stiff fines from Grand Traverse County. Clous maintains that he has been the victim of a misunderstanding. Although as president of Eastwood Custom Homes he is one of the county's most active developers, Clous says he is also a farmer and a naturalist who has planted more trees than he has chopped down. Clous said the property - more than 300 acres between Townline, Hammond and Three Mile roads - is being cleared of trees so it can be farmed. His attorney, Matthew Vermetten, says Clous can do so legally under agricultural exemptions in the law. "I don't know of one farmer out there who has had to even talk to the drain commissioner," Clous said. The drain commissioner disagrees. Farming land is one thing, but if Clous is able to clear land and move earth without soil erosion and wetland permits, Maureen Templeton fears that some of the state's most important environmental protection laws could become meaningless. Templeton, Grand Traverse County's drain commissioner, said the penalties for Clous need to be severe to discourage others from disregarding the law. "I hope whatever can be done legally can be done, that's why I've been trying from every end to get someone to do something on this," Templeton said. "I'm very hopeful that now it's at the attorney general's office something will be done." County officials learned that Clous started clearing woodlands and wetlands last summer after a resident called in a tip, said Pete Bruski, deputy drain commissioner. At that point, Bruski estimates 13 acres of wetlands had been disturbed. The drain commissioner's office ordered Clous to cease and desist because he had not applied for a permit. In October, the matter was turned over to Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Dennis LaBelle, who issued a ticket on Nov. 5. Clous agreed to accept responsibility and he paid a $500 fine. Clous' attorney, Vermetten, says his client's acceptance of responsibility is not an acknowledgment that he has no agricultural exemption. "That was a negotiated settlement with Dennis LaBelle to try to resolve it quickly," Vermetten said. Since then 90 acres have been disturbed, Bruski said, citing a Department of Environmental Quality estimate. Clous says the land only contains an 11-acre corridor of wetlands. LaBelle said he also plans to take action. Because two issues are at stake - wetlands and soil erosion - LaBelle said his office will handle soil erosion violations and leave the wetlands issue to the DEQ and the attorney general. LaBelle said he plans to cite Clous for a willful soil erosion control violation - which carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 per day of violation. In this case, depending on when investigators determined Clous resumed clearing the property, he could be found to be in violation for more than 100 days. "It could be very hefty," LaBelle said of the potential penalty, which would be decided by a judge if Clous was found to be in violation. "I guess I find it a little bit odd that he kept doing this after we did the first prosecution." LaBelle and others find Clous' insistence that he has no plans to develop the property somewhat suspicious. Clous may be a farmer, but he is also a businessman. And the property, observers say, is prime real estate: - It sits on what is expected to become the Hartman-Hammond bridge corridor, a busy bypass south of Traverse City. - It also will be just southwest of what is slated to be the new entrance to Cherry Capital Airport, near Townline and South Airport roads. - Under new zoning rules slated to take effect in East Bay Township beginning in May, farming will not be a permitted use on the property unless the land has already been farmed. "He's in a very strategic location where he's doing this," Templeton said. Templeton said she is not opposed to the land being developed. On the contrary, before the bulldozers arrived the land seemed prime for development. As long as soil erosion and wetland controls were observed, she said, the property could have been the site of an attractive development. "I am a firm believer that that piece of property was a very picturesque, prime development piece," Templeton said. LaBelle says, however, that if Clous changes his mind in several years and decides to develop the property, he would be obligated under the law to restore the wetlands to their original condition. Restoring a wooded wetland that has been cleared is possible, but it is expensive and takes a long time, said Scott McEwen, water resource program director at Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council in Petoskey. "Yes, it's possible, but it obviously takes a long time to grow trees," McEwen said. A restoration strives to reproduce the functions provided by the wetland, such as flood control, water quality protection and wildlife habitat. McEwen said developers sometimes ignore environmental regulations and deal with the consequences after the damage has been done. "There's a phrase that goes around in the regulatory world - it's easier to ask forgiveness than ask permission," McEwen said.
|
|
