9/24/2004

Merrow files legislation to repeal law allowing racetrack

Rep. says bill restores loss of local control

Nate Giarnese

CONCORD—Legislators pulled the trigger Monday on a bill that would knock down Senate Bill 458, the controversial state law exempting the proposed 251-acre motorsports park from Tamworth's race track ordinance.

Developers contend that the town's track ordinance is actually an overly restrictive zoning ordinance in a town that doesn't have one, citing the words of town counsel who once likened it to a "mini-zoning ordinance."

Senate Bill 458, which took effect May 4, "defines private driving instruction and exhibition facilities and exempts such facilities from local regulation of motor vehicle race tracks." The bill has fluttered in the cross-hairs of selectmen and state representatives since its passage in March in what some opponents say was a back door deal sped through the legislature by the developers, Club Motor Sports, Inc.

As promised, Rep. Harry Merrow of Ossipee filed legislation, co-authored by Rep. David Babson Jr., also of Ossipee, Monday in Concord that would repeal the bill. The ciizens' group, Focus: Tamworth, contend CMI scripted and covertly slipped past legislators, stripping local control from Tamworth and paving over the Tamworth race track ordinance.

Merrow said in February that he would act immediately once the filing period opened following September's state primary elections: "I went to Concord and introduced a bill to repeal SB 458," Merrow announced Tuesday.

"I've said all along I'm not against racetrack, I'm against the town losing local control," Merrow said. There are twenty-two towns in New Hampshire that like Tamworth, do not have zoning ordinances. Merrow argued that because of SB 458 these towns would also find themselves powerless to impose local restrictions should a similar non-exhibition racetrack attempt to set up shop within their boundaries. "If you put this type of track in any town," he said. "That town would not be able to pass ordinances of any kind."

Scott Tranchemontagne, spokesman for Club Motorsports, clarified the project's relationship to the bill, "We're not a racetrack, we're a motorsports country club," he said. Club Motorsports supported the state law to clarify state oversight of race tracks, including the club's proposed three-mile course at the base of Mount Whittier, he said.

Tranchemontagne said "the racetrack ordinance was passed back in the '60s, 40 years ago almost, to deal with big-spectacle racetracks," and Club Motorsports had questioned from the beginning whether the Tamworth track fell under state law. Developers also argue that the race track ordinance was too harsh in that it went beyond appropriate regulation of track operations and interfered with the building stage.

Tamworth, without its own zoning ordinance, used state law to adopt a race track ordinance. But Tamworth's racetrack ordinance inappropriately became a zoning ordinance, Tranchemontagne contends.

At a January 14 Senate Committee on Transportation, the bill's prime sponsor, Sen. John Gallus of Berlin said, "A private non-spectator club should not fall under the same law that regulates public, spectator racetracks. Public racetracks and private motorsports clubs are apples and oranges. The existing state law RSA 31:41- a and RSA 31:42, which was adopted three decades ago, is a good law. It was designated to help municipalities regulate the operation of professional spectator-based facilities and to lessen the municipal burdens associated with those types of facilities. Club Motorsports Development in Tamworth is not a racetrack like any of the public, spectator-based circular tracks around Now Hampshire and should not be regulated the same," according to the Senate record. Senators Gallus and Joseph Kenney of Wakefield, chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

"There is an RSA that says a town can legislate race tracks," said Kate Vachon of Focus: Tamworth, noting that the RSA applied also to amusement parks and drive-in theaters. "The RTO was designed to control operation of the facility and make sure that it would not infringe upon all the things it might infringe on: noise, wetlands, storm-water... "

Focus argues that in the face of SB 458, "if a developer wanted to put an amusement park in the middle of a town and the town's zoning didn't specifically prohibit an amusement park — in this case it is a race track— the town may not have the authority to prevent it," according to Vachon.

"It's very scary issue for the idea of local control that is particularly important to New Hampshire and particularly important to Tamworth," she said. "The problem is that legislation completely took away local control. And it was done very, very quietly."

A hearing will be scheduled next year where the House will allow about one hour for discussion on the anti-SB 458 legislation. "As prime sponsor, I testify first," Merrow said. "I am going to say they ought to repeal it." Public comments and those of other state reps. comments will also be heard.

"I was told (the bill) probably would be assigned a number in a few days and it will be several weeks before it's on the Net," which is the first look the general public will probably get at the bill, Merrow explained. "There won't be action until after January," Merrow added. "They can't do anything until after the speaker of the House is elected," after which committees are formed.

"My personal opinion is that it will pass the House," Merrow predicted. "I don't know about the Senate or if the governor will sign it."

Conway Daily Sun, letters

9/25/2004

Intent of bill is not to stop race track

—To the editor

The Sept. 24 edition of The Conway Daily Sun carried the headline “Rep. Merrow files legislation to repeal law allowing racetrack." While the associated article is accurate regarding my conversation with your reporter, this headline is far from being accurate. I did not file a bill, nor would I, to stop the racetrack. I am not against the track, and, as I have said many times before, I have not taken a public stand on it as I believe this is an issue that should be settled between the town of Tamworth and CMI.

Last session a bill was “snuck" (my opinion) through the legislature that renamed the track and negated RSA 31:41 and RSA 31:42. This in effect removed any local control over anything the track does in Tamworth and any other town in the state where a track fits this description. This would particularly affect the 21 towns in the state (Tamworth included) that have chosen not to have zoning but would still like to have some control about what goes of in their town. This was a bad bill and has the potential of opening the flood gates to pass legislation to allow any businesses in any town no matter what the town’s wishes are.

This is wrong.

The bill I filed to repeal RSA 287-G simply negates the above bill passed last year and gives authority back to the towns. It does not, nor is that the intent, stop this race track (or anything else you may call it) from being built.

Harry Merrow

State Representative, Carroll County District 3