|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
June 20, 2004Clous account reveals detailsDeveloper testified he loves landByRecord-Eagle staff writer TRAVERSE CITY - When Bill Clous learned of a stop-work order posted by the Grand Traverse County drain commissioner at his now notorious property in East Bay Township, he said he immediately called a lawyer. The attorney told him to ignore the county, according to May 27 deposition testimony Clous gave in a now-settled lawsuit filed against him by the county. Clous did just that two years ago. The decision led to a two-year legal action against him by state and county officials that ended last week with his agreement to pay the state a $140,000 fine, put 68 acres of the property into conservation easements, and enact restoration measures. The deposition offers a detailed account of what Clous calls the worst two years of his life. "I can't think of a more miserable event in my life than what my government and my - I don't know what you'd call - I will say it to you this way, this has turned into about the most miserable event in my life to date," Clous testified in the deposition. The event began with a stop-work order posted in 2002. The attorney "went out and read it, called me. I said 'So what did it say?'" Clous testified under questioning from attorney Christopher Bzdok, who represented the county in the civil lawsuit. "He says, 'It tells you to stop work on any and all land owned by you or your entities between Three Mile and Townline roads.' He said, 'That's just not reasonable,'" Clous testified. Clous said he had no comment about the deposition when a Record-Eagle reporter called. The attorney Clous called for advice in 2002 said he could not comment because of attorney-client privilege. Clous' current attorney, Matthew Vermetten, said he had no comment regarding any advice Clous may have previously received. "When I got involved, we immediately began to address those issues," Vermetten said. In the deposition, Clous described how he amassed 360 acres of land near the new entrance to Cherry Capital Airport and next to what could one day be a major traffic corridor south of Traverse City. Clous and Vermetten have maintained throughout the case that the activities that Clous undertook on the property were legal under an exemption for farmers. Clous testified he did not purchase the property chunk-by-chunk over a decade specifically to develop it. Rather, he said, he amassed the property because he loves land. "I enjoy land," Clous told Bzdok. "I enjoy owning land. I enjoy working with land. I enjoy farming and hunting and all the benefits that typically come with land." But Clous said he was shocked in August 2003 when Department of Environmental Quality officials presented him with a wetland delineation completed for the property in 1996 and commissioned by Clous' company, Eastwood Custom Homes. The delineation, which spelled out where a permit would be required for earth change or stump removal, would have been required before the property could be developed. "They laid it on the table and Matt (Vermetten) looked at me with a great big red face and I looked at back at him with about the same one," Clous said. "If I had seen this map, I had completely forgotten about it until we were in Cadillac last year at the DEQ office." Clous said a former Eastwood employee commissioned the delineation without approval from him. "Well, sometimes people just get a little bit out of control and take off and do things, you know, with their own agenda in mind," Clous said. "And then you lose track of them and then all of the sudden you've got something that - or you find out you've got something that you didn't realize that you've had." Vermetten said the delineation was not conducted for the entire property and that it did not address where Clous may have been able to plant crops under an exemption. Bzdok also questioned Clous about his contention that Clous purchased the property to farm, noting that the economics did not make sense. Based on numbers Clous provided to Bzdok, Clous paid $1.05 million to $1.17 million for the parcels that make up the property. "Does that seem awfully pricey for you, to you, for property without development plans?" Bzdok asked. "How long would it take you to recoup that kind of an outlay farming this property?" "I have no idea," Clous answered. Clous described what return he could expect for various crops planted on the property that totaled around $26,000. "Forgetting the complexity of inflation and markets, a little over 40 years to recoup the land price on the Section 19 parcel for farming," Bzdok said. "It's pretty brutal economics to use this property for farming. Would you disagree?" "No more brutal than when I go hunting or when you go boating or whatever you do," Clous answered. He admitted that while he loves to farm as others love to golf, he hasn't had time in recent years to farm so he paid others to do it for him. The DEQ is expected to post the final version of the settlement between Clous, the county and the DEQ on its Web site sometime this week at www.michigan.gov/deq
|
|
