Motorsports Holdings, LLC applied for a special use permit under the Town of Tamworth’s Wetlands Conservation Ordinance (“WCO”), as directed to due so by a prior judgment of the superior court. The Town of Tamworth denied the application for the permit, deciding that the proposed project did not meet five of seven Section A criteria under the WCO. Motorsports appealed to the superior court, which granted leave to certain abutters and town residents to intervene and vacated the planning board’s decision and remanded the matter. The intervenors appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in its decision. Motorsports cross-appealed.
The court first addressed the issue of whether the planning board adequately provided grounds for its decision in accordance with RSA 676:4, I(h). The board did not issue a written decision but the intervenors argued that the minutes from the November 8th meeting constituted an adequate statement of the reasons for dismissal. The court disagreed, holding that the minutes were unclear as to whether the Section A criteria were applied correctly, which protected tracts of land were considered problematic, and didn’t indicate that any discussion occurred before voting. Since the minutes did not provide an adequate record of the board’s reasoning, the minutes did not satisfy the requirement of RSA 676:4, I(h).
The intervenors argument that the trial court erred in ruling that the planning board, on remand, must initially make explicit findings as to whether particular provisions of the WCO applicable to Motorsport’s application were more stringent then state and federal wetlands regulations, was accepted by the court. The court held that the trial court misconstrued the holding in the Anderson case, which merely held that the WCO did not eliminate the need to acquire a special use permit even if state and federal regulations were in conflict and more stringent than the WCO requirements.
Motorsports Holdings, LLC v Town of Tamworth, 2010 WL 1407604 (N.H. 4/9/2010)
The opinion may be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2010/2010030motor.pdf
