CMI President Jim Hoenscheid said, "We were stunned at the Planning Board's decision, especially when the Planning Board has never denied any other landowner a Special Use Permit under the TWO for access or road ways. The denial is a complete misapplication of the TWO."
The Planning Board and the Tamworth Conservation Commission (TCC) have repeatedly claimed they support the rights of landowners to access their property and to use the "dry land" as the landowner desires. They have repeatedly said that access ways and roadways are presumptively allowed under the TWO. Nevertheless, the Planning Board denied a permit for access ways without a review of the merits of the application and without explanation. The TCC and the Planning Board have also acknowledged the limited authority and jurisdiction of the TWO. However, these rules are thrown out when it comes to CMI. We will defend our constitutional right to access our property and challenge this decision not only for ourselves but for every landowner in Tamworth. It is important for every landowner that the TWO not be allowed to be incorrectly applied and used as a form of spot zoning or general zoning ordinance."
Complete wetland delineations on CMI's property were agreed upon by N.H. DES, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Tamworth Conservation Commission after numerous site visits and the review of multiple wetland and soil scientists. CMI has secured all required federal and state environmental related construction permits for both the construction of the Motorsports Country Club and the access ways. In 2004, the N.H. Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) issued both a "Wetlands and Non-Site Specific Permit" and an Alteration of Terrain or "Site Specific" Permit to CMI. In April 2005, N.H. DES denied the opposition group, FOCUS: Tamworth's appeal of the state wetland permit(sic). After an 18-month review, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) granted CMI a federal wetland permit in August 2005 to proceed with the construction of the entire development. N.H. DES has also issued a Water Quality Certificate that further demonstrates CMI's ability to protect both surface and ground water resources. On Nov. 8, 2006, despite all state and federal approvals, the Planning Board denied CMI's, SUP application for the wetland impacts associated with the Motorsports Country Club without providing an explanation for the denial, and without deliberating and ruling on the impacts associated with the access ways.
On Dec. 8, 2007, CMI applied for a SUP to access the property by converting existing logging roads to paved access roads. Hoenscheid stated, "We felt our original application more than met the requirements of the Special Use Permit Section E 1 (a) of the TWO that a permit be granted for Streets, roads, and other access ways…if so located and constructed as to minimize any detrimental impact to such uses upon the wetland. As we were either incorporating existing logging roads that already legally impact the wetlands, or selecting the narrowest point to cross a wetland, the locations requested were the best alternative. We then applied extreme engineering methods to those crossings so we absolutely minimize any further detrimental impacts to the use upon the wetland and therefore met and exceeded the standard."
During the review process for the application, the TCC made the following recommendations to the Planning Board concerning the CMI application for access to their property:
1. The TCC believes additional minimizations of wetland impacts are possible, resulting in the project impacting 1,112 square feet (of wetland).
2. The TCC further recommends that an SUP not be granted until a specific use(s) of the uplands is known and shown on the plans.
Hoenscheid continued, "Again, we felt our original application exceeded the standards of the TWO; however, in order to meet the recommendations of the TCC and gain approval for basic access to our property, we eliminated three access ways and redesigned three others. At considerable expense, we added additional engineering and reduced our wetland impacts to only 674 square feet. We far exceeded the recommendation of the TCC by reducing the impacts by another 438 square feet or nearly 40 percent. We provided a use in the uplands and this use was reflected in plans submitted to the Planning Board to show that in fact we had minimized any detrimental use upon the wetland. In this application, the only use of the wetland was for the construction of access ways for the commercial development of the property. In a town that does not have a general zoning ordinance or site plan review, any development that occurs outside the jurisdiction of the TWO (outside wetlands or waterbodies) is not under the authority or review of the town. Without a doubt, we met or exceeded the requirements under the TWO and we far exceeded the recommendations of the TCC. Our design and engineering standards exceeded those of any other applicant who have received a permit. Since the town first started to enforce the TWO in 2004, with the exception of CMI, no other applicant has been denied a permit. Clearly, the record supports the fact that CMI is held to an unattainable standard. It is obvious that with the application of the TWO, we continue to be discriminated against. Unfortunately, we now have to rely on the court to defend our rights and correct the mistreatment that we have suffered."
