Claremont
Chuck Egbert and Reverdy and Rebecca Ford submitted separate rehearing requests, which will be discussed by the ZBA on Nov. 21.
Egbert, who lives next to the speedway and was one of the most vocal opponents of the variance, said in his appeal that the ZBA’s approval of a second non-conforming use in the rural residential district should not be allowed because it is not part of the grandfathered use of the speedway.
Egbert said the variance does not meet all five criteria that must be met under state law. He further claimed that the board never gave a “firm explanation” to support the decision on how the criteria for a variance were satisfied.
“Failure to meet even one of the criteria is grounds for not approving a variance application,” Egbert wrote in his Nov. 1 appeal letter.
The board approved the variance in a 3-2 vote after individually approving each criterion, which include effect on property values, public interest and spirit of the ordinance.
Egbert criticized the board for not considering a third party review of the application that the city planner said was a possible course of action. He said the board’s actions during the hearings revealed “negative attitudes, opinions, biases and overall lack of concern for understanding what the criteria needs to meet the state-level standards. It appeared to us that the Zoning Board’s decision to grant the variance was already decided before the formal process began.”
Egbert also charged the board with “advocating” for the applicants while ignoring and denouncing opponents.
“These actions, lack of action, attitudes and biasness were done with malice, gross negligence and in bad faith,” Egbert wrote, concluding that reversing the decision “will avoid Superior Court review.”
The Fords, who also live on Thrasher Road, agreed with Egbert and made several points claiming the board violated procedural rules. Among these were: allowing two members who recused themselves because they had missed meetings to sit with the board, provide input and then let one of them take part in the final vote, which led to the approval; an incorrect vote; and allowing discussion on new information that the public had not viewed before the meeting.
Richard Uchida, a Concord attorney representing the speedway owners, filed a response to the appeals on Monday.
Uchida asked the board to deny the rehearing. Citing land use law and court rulings, he said rehearings should only be granted if there is new evidence that was not available at the time of the first hearing or the petitioner can demonstrate a technical error on the board’s part.
“Mr. Egbert has not claimed or identified that there is new evidence the ZBA should have considered or that anything the ZBA did rose to the level of ‘technical error,’ ” Uchida wrote. “He simply urges that the ZBA should have reached a different result given the record before it. That is not a valid legal reason for to grant a rehearing.”
He made the same argument — no new evidence or technical error — when addressing the Fords’ claim of failing to review traffic impacts on Thrasher Road.
Regarding charge of bias by members, Uchida said the record fails to back up those claims.
“At no time was there any evidence that any ZBA member prejudge the application and no specific details were offered,” Uchida said.
The campground still needs site plan approval from the Planning Board.
Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.
