May appeal ... Anthony Tauszik leaves the Land and Environment Court after an earlier hearing.
Posted on 04/22/2005 7:19:02 PM PDT by NCjim
A day's work in the garden nearly three years ago has proved an expensive exercise for Anthony Tauszik.
His decision in June 2002 to illegally cut down two Norfolk Island pines standing between his Pearl Beach weekender and the ocean has cost him a $25,000 fine and several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees.
Last month Tauszik was found guilty of illegally removing two of three pines he felled from the front of his $1.35million property. In the Land and Environment Court yesterday, the resident of Circular Quay's Toaster building was fined and ordered to pay costs.
The prosecution's bill is estimated at $212,000. Tauszik's own legal fees could be similar.
The 41-year-old hotelier was also told to plant two new pines where the old ones stood and nurture them to maturity. He was required to pay a $10,000, 10-year security bond.
But the fight - and legal bills - might not be over. Tauszik's counsel, Ian Lloyd, QC, asked the court to keep the exhibits. "I suspect this battle may go elsewhere," he said.
Tauszik did not appear in court because his wife, Angelique, was due to give birth.
Mr Lloyd said his client was a man of good character who had already been publicly shamed through media coverage: "The world has been told in no uncertain terms of what he has done."
He also asked the extent of the legal costs be taken into account.
David Buchanan, SC, for Gosford City Council, called for a penalty well below the maximum $1.1million but still "significant and substantial" enough to act as a general deterrent.
The court's chief judge, Peter McClellan, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Tauszik removed the trees to "extend the available views from within his property to the water".
The community expected someone who wanted to modify the urban environment to seek consent. "Accordingly, a significant penalty should be imposed," he said.
But Justice McClellan was not convinced by the council's argument that Tauszik's motivation was to increase the value of the property - which, according to a prosecution valuer, went up by more than $150,000.
"I am satisfied that the motivation was to enhance the enjoyment of the property without considering whether or not the value would be improved," he said. In time the new trees would undo any benefit gained from felling the old ones.
Justice McClellan noted Tauszik's lack of contrition and the vigour with which the charges were defended. But he said his personal references were impressive and the publicity would have made him aware of the way the public viewed the offence.
May appeal ... Anthony Tauszik leaves the Land and Environment Court after an earlier hearing.
The trees weren't on his property?
They are probably protected. They are probably like Oak trees in California. You can't cut them down.
How do people live up there?
That part is not made clear in the article.
He should have put the trees on a feeding tube - the judge would have ordered them chopped!
By definition, weren't the trees PVS? He should press for a change of venue - to Florida and Judge Greer's court!
If he wanted them gone, he could have ringed them and pretended it was vandalism.
How do people live DOWN THERE? ya mean
"tralia iz down undr ya know!
He cut down two of HIS OWN trees and got fined...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.