Focus: Tamworth

PO Box 18

South Tamworth, NH 03883



Home

Contact F:T

Addresses


Hearings & meetings


F: T press releases

Latest release


F: T 
in the news

 HB90; 

Roll call votes in

House

Senate


Mission

Links


Conway Daily Sun
March 3, 2008

Federal court sides with Club Motorsports, Army Corps over noise worries

For now, only town permit blocking path of track

Nate Giarnese

CONCORD—A federal court has ruled the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not abuse its discretion in granting Club Motorsports Inc. permission to build a massive driving club on a mountainside overlooking Route 25, the company announced this week.

The ruling rejects an appeal of the corps' 2005 decision by members of activist group Focus: Tamworth, and specifically the group's assertion that the corps ignored key scientific sound data even as it put the $20-million-plus plan through a rigorous environmental review.

It further leaves only a town-level permit denial standing between CMI and its ability to break ground on its 251 acres on Mount Whittier. Without local approval under the Tamworth Wetlands Ordinance, the company cannot build on its undeveloped hillside near what in earlier times was a bustling ski area. The town planning board has twice rejected CMI, leading CMI to file appeals that remain pending.

Members of Focus, whose lawyers are now working hand-in-hand with the town, appealed the Army Corps decision that noise from CMI's proposed resort, including a high-performance private track and hotel, would not disturb the town, a nearby church or wildlife. Focus said the corps' decision to disregard a sound level study done by its own expert, and instead accept noise restrictions put forward by CMI, “constituted an abuse of discretion and rendered the [corps'] decision arbitrary and capricious,” according to the recent ruling. Focus has insisted the track threatens to upturn habitat, pollute groundwater and become a noise nuisance.

But the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire ruled the Army Corps provided a “reasonable, logical and thorough explanation” for its findings that the track would not have an “unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, wildlife or recreation areas.”

CMI Monday called the Focus: Tamworth arguments “weak,” and in turn condemned as “capricious” substantially lower sound restrictions put forward by the group.

“Based on the decision by the ACOE and the federal court, the Focus Tamworth proposed sound limit of 69 decibels maximum at the property line would be completely arbitrary and capricious,” company vice president Jim Hoensheid said in a statement. “The ACOE and the court both saw through Focus' weak arguments and illogical conclusions.”

CMI has been at the center of a legal war and a political and public relations gale storm that has pitted environmentalists against pro-business groups in Tamworth and surrounding towns for nearly a half-decade.

In 2003, CMI first approached the Army Corps for a permit over plans for its first-in-the-region European-style driving circuit, which its Web site says could wind near a golf club and such luxury and high-tech amenities as a vehicle dynamics area, professional instruction and a spa. Custom “garage mahals" would allow car buffs to sleep in rooms over their vehicles.

Along with a key state environmental approval, over which an earlier Focus: Tamworth appeal was also denied, CMI won the Army Corps go-ahead in 2005. Fourteen months later came an appeal of the corps by concerned citizens and abutters, including St. Andrews in the Valley Church. On Feb. 14, the appeal was denied.

“We're disappointed in the decision; we still feel the science indicates there is a problem here,” said Focus press coordinator Kate Vachon.

She said Focus lawyers from Rath and Young are now working with the town on the case in which CMI sued the planning board for twice denying building permits under the municipal wetlands ordinance. The first denial rejected the full-scale driving club, while the second denied CMI the right even to build a road to the top of the mountain.

A court date was set for June.

Hoensheid Tuesday said the company continues to believe its plans meet the letter of the ordinance and that the board has never provided an explanation for its rejection.

“We have no earthly idea what part or any of our proposed wetlands impacts the planning board found fault with,” he said.

The federal ruling in favor of CMI, which could be contested, for the first time in years has narrowed the number legal battles being fought at one time down to a single front. While a dizzying swirl of appeals and new complaints has often overlapped in several courts, including the N.H. Supreme Court, the sole remaining cases reside in Carroll County Superior Court in Ossipee.

 

Last update: June 4, 2008

Site hosted by Beverly Woods Web Services