Planning board members deliberated for about an hour last Wednesday night (Dec. 28) before making their decision to accept the application as complete. The meeting took place in a full meeting room at Tamworth Town House last Wednesday evening.
Before planning board members addressed the issue of whether the application is complete, they first had to make a decision about whether or not any member of the board should recuse himself from sitting in review of it.
Board member David Cluff raised the issue of recusals, asking if those members who had recused themselves for previous applications by Club Motorsports should recuse themselves once again. Board members Herb Cooper, Tom Cleveland and Dom Bergin recused themselves in past reviews of applications from Club Motorsports, after the company showed evidence that they had spoken out publicly or signed petitions or letters in opposition to the company's proposed racetrack.
The board consulted with town attorney Rick Sager and Sager recommended that the board ask the applicant if the company is seeking recusals.
Cooper objected to the suggestion, saying that it is up to the planning board, not the applicant to make such decisions. "If they said they want us recused, why does that make it correct?" he asked.
"It's the applicant's application and they're entitled to a board that meets the juror standards," Sager said.
He also said without a request for recusals from the applicant, he saw no reason for the board to even discuss the issue.
Chairman David Goodson asked Club Motorsports representatives if the company was looking for recusals in regard to this application.
Thomas Quarles, representing Club Motorsports, said the company continues to ask for recusals from those board members.
Quarles said, "Just for the sake of consistency, I think its important and imperative that those gentlemen not consider this request under any board." By law, he said, the applicant is required to make such requests at the beginning of the process. "We have to be consistent, and we have to ask that the board be consistent."
But given that the applicant was requesting recusals, Sager said, he saw no reason why the planning board members should recuse themselves if the application does not pertain to a racetrack, unless an individual board member feels he or she cannot meet the juror standard.
Quarles did not offer any information as to whether the intended use was a race track or any other facility, but said, "I don't think anyone sensibly can draw a distinction between CMI and access. Feelings have clearly set in on this project one way or another. I think its pretty clear that their feelings are set with this project."
He said it was not intellectually honest for the planning board to say that members do not have set feelings about the issue.
Quarles said at least one member of the board was on record as referring to a member of Club Motorsports as a "liar," which would go beyond the issue of the track itself.
Cooper said he believes that Club Motorsports should be willing to say what its plans for the land are. "I think if you were honest in your proposal of this application, you would have been more forthcoming with what the proposal is," he said. "You are telling the board nothing. You could be developing a spa as far as I'm concerned. You're telling me to be intellectually honest? Come on."
He said he signed something dealing with a racetrack, and has no personal vendetta against Club Motorsports or any of its members.
"The activities are road way and access. It has nothing to do with a racetrack," Cleveland said, and so he too saw no reason to recuse himself.
"That sounds quite practical but you have to consider the juror standpoint," Cluff said.
The board passed a motion to review the application with the current board, with a vote of 4-2 in favor of keeping the current board. Board members Wayne Lloyd and David Cluff voted against the motion.
But what's it for?
Cooper pressed Club Motorsports representatives for more information about the company's plan. I think we're entitled to know what their going to do to the wetlands," he said before determining that the application is complete.
Other planning board members agreed, including alternate Tom Peters, that more information was needed. "Is it a completed application if we don't know the use?" he said.
Board chairman David Goodson, said "It doesn't matter what they want to do with the property."
"It does. It's loose," he said.
"I'm not saying its not loose," Goodson said, but he said he believed it was adequate for an application for access ways.
Goodson said later that the board has approved applications for driveways and other access ways to property without having information about what would ultimately be built on the land. In fact, he said, he does not believe the town has ever denied an application for access ways.
There were also questions about the details of the proposed stream crossings and effects on wetlands areas given in the application.
Quarles said the application refers to the same maps and engineering specifications presented in the previous application made to the planning board. The company has kept the numbering the same, but has reduced the number of impacts being considered from16 to six.
But some planning board members said those plans included greater impacts to wetlands at some of those six locations than would be needed simply for an access way, because they included affects on wetlands for tracks, parking lots, and other facilities.
Quarles said Club Motorsports has already done more than most applicants. "This board in its recent review of other applications has certainly accepted simple sketches and tax maps marked up. If that's the standard I think it certainly is a low standard,' he said.
The board voted 4-3 to accept the application as complete. Board members Cooper, Cleveland and Bergin voted against the motion. Cluff, Roberts, Lloyd and Goodson voted yes.
The board has 65 days to review and make a ruling on the application. Club Motorsports has presented two previous applications to the board, both of which included detailed plans for a 3.3-mile road course. One of those applications was withdrawn by the company. Another application was denied this fall. That decision is currently under appeal in Carroll County Superior Court (See related article, this page).
After the decision had been made to accept the application, Cooper asked if there was a question of regional impact for the proposal, since past proposals for the land had been deemed to be of regional impact.
But board member John Roberts said, "I don't think we should be discussing it. The applicants left."
"As far as I'm concerned they're just looking for access to their property. This town has never denied anybody access to their property. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's ever happened," Goodson said.
