A 91原创 man is going to court, asking a judge to overturn $80,000 of a $105,000 fine he received for cutting down trees on his property earlier this year.
Thomas Kreisz and his family members, who own a property in rural 91原创, are facing the fines after Thomas removed 10 trees that were planted in a row near the edge of the road.
The petition to the court, filed on July 8, says that Kreisz started removing the trees on March 30, due to concerns about safety due to branches overhanging the road, as well as a wish to increase privacy by replacing them. He planted 56 cedar trees in place of the 10 removed trees.
Before cutting down the trees, Kreisz checked a local website, which told him that there was no tree removal permit required for trees smaller than 30 centimetres in diameter.
However, this was incorrect. The Township had changed its bylaws and smaller trees did require a permit to remove.
After an attempted inspection of his property by a Township staffer, on April 26, Kreisz got a letter from the Township fining him $5,000 鈥� $500 per tree 鈥� for removal without a permit.
When he picked up his mail again on May 31, he had received three more letters, including an April 24 letter asking him to submit a retroactive permit for tree removals by May 3, a May 10 letter extending the time to get the retroactive permit to May 24, and one telling him he had until June 7 to pay the total fees, now up to $105,150.
The fine now included $80,000 for a "cash-in-lieu fee," which the Township would use to plant replacement trees on its own lands.
According to the petition, Kreisz and his brother, who live at the property, are both CN Rail conductors and are away from home for considerable periods of time. They pick up their mail in town when they are back.
Kreisz went to the council on June 10 and asked for a reconsideration of the fees,
"Firstly, I would like to sincerely apologize for removal and replacement of a hedge," he told the council.
He noted that he had replaced the trees, which he considered a form of hedge, with new plants, but after some discussion, council voted unanimously to deny his request.
Councillor Kim Richter raised the issue of the difference between a hedge and trees. A Township staff member said that the trees that had been removed were mature, individual conifers, and they'd been replaced with a cedar hedge.
Photos of the hedge were in a report for information to council.
After a brief debate, the council voted against waiving the fees.
Kreisz's petition argues that the council's decision should be overturned by the courts, on the grounds that it was unreasonable, arbitrary, and biased, and was made "without the required degree of fairness, openness, and impartiality required."
Among other arguments in the petition to the court, Kreisz's lawyer argues that the cedars planted to replace the trees are just as much "trees" under the bylaw's definition as the ones that were removed.
The petition argues that Kreisz is willing to pay the $25,000 fine, but calls for the $80,000 cash-in-lieu fee to be thrown out, since the trees have already been replaced.
"Indeed, Thomas's actions increased the total number of trees on the property," the petition said.
As of the week of July 18, the Township had not yet filed a response with the court. None of the claims in the petition have been tested in court.
