Other side of new track story?

[RKramden]

Originally posted by Dave Patten:

I do believe under the current schedule that a May or June double regional at CMI could be added into the schedule without severally impacting our current staffing requirements or entry levels while still keeping our current dates intact.

Dave,
What workers did you talk to?

The end of April had two drivers schools and a regional at NHIS.
Early May had a National at NHIS.
The week after that was the Drivers School and Regional at Lime Rock
The last Weekend in May was Memorial Day at LRP, which NER staffed.
The next weekend was the National at Lime Rock
Two weeks later was the Drivers school and regional by MoHud, which looked like NER was providing over half the workers.
Two more weeks and it was the 4th of July at Lime Rock which NER staffed, again.

Crammed in to that was the double regional at Pocono.

Most of the workers were burned out. And it was only the 4th of July! I had worked enough days by then to renew BOTH of my worker licenses for NEXT year.

Sure we could fit it in. Right. Not a Problem. There is lots of slack in that schedule.

Just pass the Speed and Uppers, please.

[Steve Ostrovitz]

>>>It appears that we are generally on the same page as far as wanting “new pavement to abuse”. What we are at odds about is the level of commitment as individuals and as NER that we should make toward CMI.<<<

Dave, I agree, no "normal" racer (is there such a thing?) would not want to see more venues. I also agree that we have different opinions on the best course of action our mututal representatives, namely, the NER officials, should take as it relates to this particular venture.

>>>As for the community, I in no way feel that our support of CMI can or will effect the decisions of the local authorities in the required permitting process. Trust me when I say no amount of outside influence will sway the community to allow CMI to build their facility. They will make their decision with or with out or support and under their terms. <<<<

Again, I agree with you all around on this. Peronsally, knowing what I now know about the history of this project, I am sympathetic to the position of the local community. I know from oast personal conversations that the approach of the NER NTC has been more concerned about the opinion of local communities that have been considered, an approach I endorse. In short, if we won't be welcomed, we won't come. Most for-profits enterprises don't have the "luxury" of being that sympathetic.

>>>The biggest thing we all can do as individuals is talk with the people at CMI. Tell them that you hope to some day make hot laps around their track. Let them know you are interested in seeing them succeed, take a site visit, consider membership and even join if you feel that is what’s right for you.<<<

Well, I've heard the pitch in person, and even if I had the money for that kind of thing, I'm a Club *Racer*, so the appeal of a club where I can lap 'til I'm dizzy has limited appeal.
Thats aside from the investment issue: Add in the unanswered questions about the viability of this thing (either for a monetary return or simply if members will get have long to enjoy the place), and I am also not willing to hop on the bandwagon. But thats me. Certainly others will find value in this type of facility and will be willing to risk large sums of money in the hope it pans out.

>>>What I have urged is that a dialog between NER’s RRB and/or BoD needs to be started to actually discuss firm terms of a rental agreement with CMI. To my knowledge, other than generalizations, no serious discussion has ever occurred from either side. <<<<

Like I said earlier, I don't know either, but whatever they've done, or not done, I have no doubt that its not from lack of discussion and due consideration. They certainly have been in contact with the CMI people and will act on our Regions behalf in the same well-considered way they always do.

>>>Steve and others, please be aware that these views you’ve reprinted are editorials.<<<

I think I made it clear from the get-go that these were editorials letters.

>>> The ones Steve has reprinted are all from the same newspaper, the Conway Dailey Sun. This paper has a reputation of printing fringe viewpoints and acting as a soap box for the extremely outspoken vocal minority. They thrive on bringing controversy to their front page, so view what they publish with an open mind.<<<

I'll take it then that you're a regular reader of that paper and others in the area. Have other local papers not published lettes in opposition to the track, perhaps letters from some of the same people who write the Sun? They all can't be from people on the "fringe" can they? When CMI writes a letter to the editor smearing a local, what do you call that? Good business? I don't know the demographics, but based on the fact the locals *passed* home rule ordinances to keep the track out, I'm not sure how you can qualify local opposition as a minority.

Dave, either way, I appreciate your hashing this out here. I think its a fine use of this Northeast Forum for people who are inclined to follow the thread. What we say here won't change the outcome, but I think its provided all of us with some food for thought about the implications of what people may undertake on our behalf.

Steve

[irondragon]

A short report aired by NH Public Radio this week contained the information that CMI has withdrawn its remaining applications to NH DES and will 'regroup'.
Does anyone have an idea of what this means?
I'd like to see CMI succeed but not at the expense of a lot of lost deposits
Bill Miskoe

[dickita15]

caution this is hearsay.
I heard that CMI has determained that the use permit application that was withdrawn is not needed in their opinion.
dick

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by RKramden:
While it is in the rules, it is un-used/unenforced, and I cannot remember the last time anyone tried to use it.

Nelson is in NEOHIO, and they are another division, and they certainly don't "give permission" to NEdiv regions to run races there. NER doesn't "Give Permission" to the other three regions that run at Lime Rock. NEPA doesn't give permission to Jersey region to run at Pocono, and Glen doesn't give permission for Finger Lakes to run at "The Glen".
(But IANAL.)

FYI - The BOD has tightened up the "Region of Record" requirements for 2005 and beyond. While Regions were supposed to get permission to hold events inside the geographic confines of another Region (and may Regions didn't know or care about it), the new rules require at WRITTEN request to the "Region of Record", and WRITTEN permission.

Fact.

[Steve Ostrovitz]

Bill, found these zrticles in the locals papers.

***************************

Conway Daily Sun

8/24/2004

CMI withdraws application for planning board permit
Developer says it won't slow down race track
David Carkhuff

TAMWORTH—Club Motorsports Inc., announced Monday that it is withdrawing its application to the Tamworth Planning Board for a special-use permit under Tamworth's wetlands ordinance. A hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, but now, without an application, it's unlikely the planning board will meet to conduct its review.
The application was submitted June 17, as part of the project review and permitting process for Club Motorsports to construct Valley Motorsports Park, a three-mile racecourse where people can operate cars and motorcycles.
Scott Tranchemontagne, spokesman for Club Motorsports, said the decision to withdraw the application was specific only to this permit and did not hamper the overall project.
"Everything remains on course, the project is still moving forward, in fact we continue to work with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on those permits. We simply realized in this process that our current application as it was submitted ought to be withdrawn, and we want to look at our options moving forward," he said. "We're not saying anything about the process overall."
CMI President and CEO Stephan Condodemetraky agreed in a press release that the application withdrawal was based on new information.
“Based on some new information and further research, we believe we have made an application to the Planning Board that exceeds our permitting needs, and we are withdrawing it at this present time,” he said. “We are currently reviewing our options and determining if and or when we need to return to the planning board.”
Tamworth Planning Board uanimously had voted to schedule a new hearing on Aug. 25 so planners could decide whether the track would pose a regional impact.
Kate Vachon, member of the steering committee for Focus: Tamworth, a local watchdog group, said she was nonplused by the news.
"We are very unclear about what they mean here," she said. "If they're suggesting that they don't need this permit, we certainly disagree with that. This is a racetrack built over, around and in wetlands. There's no way that they don't need this permit."
Tranchemontagne cautioned, "We're not saying anything at all about what we may or may not do in the future in respect to the planning board."
Vachon said, "If they're trying to do something else to exempt themselves from local control, we think that is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed. Who knows?
Our position is that they are definitely governed by this ordinance, and that they definitely have not shown much respect for the planning board and the conservation commission by applying and then withdrawing."
Tranchemontagne responded, "My only response is it's unfortunate that diehard opponents like Focus: Tamworth make unfounded speculations.
Asked to confirm that the group was not going to try to avoid planning board review through a legislative remedy, he said, "That's not the issue here."
Senate Bill 458, which took effect May 4, prompted an outcry from race track opponents. The law "defines private driving instruction and exhibition facilities and exempts such facilities from local regulation of motor vehicle race tracks."
Opponents saw SB 458 as a legislative end run that exempted the development from local control of the Tamworth Race Track Ordinance.
Tranchemontagne said it was a necessary clarification of local authority.
The state has already issued Club Motorsports a wetlands “dredge and fill” permit, determining that the Valley Motorsports Park will impact less than three-quarters of an acre of wetlands and will not significantly impair wetlands, surface waters, and groundwater resources, CMI points out.

********************************

8/24/2004

Focus: Tamworth launches process to appeal CMI wetlands permit
Lengthy process could take up to a year
David Carkhuff

TAMWORTH—Club Motorsports Inc. vowed that a pending appeal of its state wetlands dredge-and-fill permit will not slow down its private race track development.

"This appeal process will in no way delay our development schedule," said
Scott Tranchemontagne, spokesman for Club Motorsports.

Focus: Tamworth filed a request for reconsideration of the permit with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services on Aug. 18. The agency granted the dredge-and-fill permit on July 29. Club Motorsports wants to build a 242-acre race track — what Tranchemontagne calls a "private driving motorsports facility" — on the north face of Mount Whittier in Tamworth.

The DES now has 30 days to grant or deny the request for reconsideration and to rule on the specifics of the Focus: Tamworth challenge.

"The appeals process is a natural part of the process, and we expected Focus to appeal based on their longstanding opposition," Tranchemontagne said.

But Focus: Tamworth predicted the filing will make it more difficult for Club Motorsports to begin construction.

"This is a lengthy process," said Charles Greenhalgh, Focus: Tamworth spokesperson. "We have been told it can take as long as a year, and will certainly take several months. Throughout the permitting process, Focus: Tamworth will continue to support careful and fair regulations that protect Tamworth's economic and natural resources."

The Focus: Tamworth request for reconsideration of the permit was submitted on behalf of more than 30 Tamworth property owners, the group reported.

"The request is the first step in an appeal of the DES decision," the group stated.

Tranchemontagne defended the DES permit, calling it exhaustive and adding, "We provided every piece of information that was required."

"Our appeal is based on a variety of grounds," said Sherry Young, an attorney with the firm of Rath, Young and Pignatelli in Concord, which is pursuing the appeal on behalf of Focus: Tamworth. The grounds, Young said, include:

• That there was no opportunity for public comment on the significant plan revisions that CMI made after DES requested changes in May.

• That CMI increased rather than decreased its wetlands impact. When the wetlands were re-examined in May, there were found to be more than the original delineation indicated, and the redesigned track crosses streams or wetlands 17 times instead of the previous 14. DES requested that impacts be decreased, not increased.

• That CMI failed to present realistic alternative sites for the development, as the law requires.

• That the permit was issued prematurely, before all effects to wetlands from construction of the project were considered.

• That several important issues raised by the Tamworth Conservation Commission, including stormwater management, the effect of runoff on abutters and the impact of increased water flow on stream banks near the project, were addressed by deferring to the site specific process.

• That the land that CMI proposed for off-site mitigation does not meet the requirements of the law. The parcel is more than 65 percent wetlands that are already be protected under current laws. The proposed "mitigation" does not protect more than a few acres of new land, the group alleges.

• That DES failed to consider the impacts of the project as a whole on recreation-based tourism, the aesthetic interests of the general public and the risk of MtBE and other gasoline contamination of the Ossipee Aquifer and private drinking water supplies throughout the region.

The DES may choose to hold a hearing before it decides whether or not to reconsider.

There are several more possible steps in the appeal process, including a hearing before the New Hampshire Wetlands Council, Focus: Tamworth reported. The Wetlands Council includes the commissioners of the state departments of Resources and Economic Development, Fish and Game, Transportation, State Planning, and Safety, plus seven members appointed by the governor. The appointed members include a conservation commission member, an elected town official, natural resource experts and members of the construction and marine industries.

The Wetlands Council's decision can be appealed to the Carroll County Superior Court, and then to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Either the Wetlands Council or the courts can instruct DES to deny the permit or to impose additional conditions.

On separate regulatory tracks, Club Motorsports needs a site-specific or "alteration of terrain" permit from DES as well as a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act, Section 404.

"We've very focused right now on the permitting process, the site-specific permit with DES" and the Army Corps of Engineers review, Tranchemontagne said.

Tamworth planning board decided that the project had a potential regional impact and scheduled a local hearing for 7 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 25, at the K.A. Brett School.