|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
October 25, 2003No exemption allowedProsecutor said Bill Clous needed permitByRecord-Eagle staff writer TRAVERSE CITY - Developer Bill Clous suffered a legal setback Friday when a judge ruled he could not claim a farming exemption as defense against an environmental violation that could carry fines of up to $450,000. Clous wore dirty boots, a camouflage vest and blue jeans to the hearing, and maintains he's a farmer when it comes to his East Bay Township property, although he's also president of Eastwood Custom Homes, a prominent developer.
Clous' earth-moving activities at his Hammond and Townline roads property in the Mitchell Creek Watershed do not fall under a state agricultural exemption, LaBelle argued, because he used bulldozers to clear the land of its natural cover. Knowingly failing to get a soil erosion permit is a civil infraction that can result in fines of up to $1,000 per day of violation, which in Clous' case could cost him about $450,000. District Judge Thomas J. Phillips agreed with LaBelle and rejected a motion from Clous' attorney, Matthew Vermetten, to dismiss the charge. Vermetten said he does not plan to appeal the ruling. But he maintains Clous did not need a permit and vowed to go to trial. Because the case is a civil infraction, it will be heard before Phillips instead of a jury. A trial date has not been set. Spectators crowded Phillips' courtroom, most of them opposed to Clous. Phillips ruled that when legislators wrote in a soil erosion permit statute that a person "may" enter into an agreement with a conservation district, what they meant was a person could enter into such an agreement as an alternative to getting a soil erosion permit. Clous failed to do so. Vermetten disagreed with that interpretation and argued the soil erosion law did not apply to farmers. That prompted a retort from LaBelle. "Essentially, what he's contending is, 'We don't need an agreement and we don't need a permit, but we get to screw up 360 acres of land,' " he said. Phillips also ruled against Vermetten's motion to withdraw a plea of responsibility Clous made last year to another civil infraction for failing to obtain a soil erosion permit. The previous case, involving the same property, resulted in a $500 fine, and was not as serious as the current case because it was not charged as a willful violation. Clous' plea could be used as evidence against him in the current case.
|
|
