|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
March 30, 2004TRAVERSE CITY: Lawyer says Clous used careAttorney seeks to block injunctionByRecord-Eagle staff writer TRAVERSE CITY - Bill Clous may be accused of wetlands and soil erosion violations on East Bay Township land he owns, but his attorney said he used the "utmost care" and concern for the environment during earth-moving there. A brief filed by attorney Matthew Vermetten underscores the widely varying opinions over what happened on property between Hammond and Townline roads in the Mitchell Creek watershed that is the subject of state and county investigations. Vermetten wants to block a preliminary injunction sought by Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Dennis LaBelle and environmental attorney Chris Bzdok that would prevent Clous from additional work on the property and force the implementation of soil erosion control measures. LaBelle this month settled a district court case against Clous for $75,000 in payments and in-kind services from Clous and his companies, Eastwood Custom Homes and Eastwood Excavation LLC. Clous, who did not admit responsibility as part of that settlement, has until early May to make the payments. Vermetten argued the land has not been "reshaped" and wetlands have not been dredged, as state and county regulators have charged. Vermetten said trees were cut from sections of the property, referred to in legal documents as Section 19, and construction equipment was used to clear the stumps. "Furthermore, Mr. Clous has, at all times, undertaken the subject activities on Section 19 with the utmost care, and has made every effort to minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation to the greatest extent possible," Vermetten wrote. The other side disagrees. In a brief opposing Vermetten's motion, LaBelle argued it is urgent to place restrictions on Clous. "The Defendants cannot be trusted to not enter on the Section 19 property to continue with an earth change or encroach into regulated wetlands," LaBelle wrote. A hearing on the injunction is scheduled for April 7. Vermetten argued that an injunction is unnecessary because Clous operated under a farming exemption and didn't need soil erosion permits. He also said that because the district court case settled, Clous should not have to defend the same suit twice under a legal doctrine that prevents redundant lawsuits.
|
|
