Like I said, the lawyers will be busy!
Sounds like a technical argument over whether all the fine points of the
Special Use Permit were complied with.
However, a death penalty without opportunity to rectify any situations would
(I'd guess) be looked at unkindly by most judges above the municipal level.
I also love comments of "I heard noise from the track." IMHO, the existence
of sound does not constitute noise. Where I live, I can hear *sound* from my
local roundy-round track, MORE than six miles away, if the night is clear
and the breeze is westerly. And those are unmuffled stocker with no dB
limits. I can hear traffic on the Interstate two miles away too. The fact I
am aware of the sound does not make it disturbing noise.
The bad news is picky neighbors usually equate sound with noise just because
they do not like it. Fact is, measured from a property line (or the
complainant's front door), the dB level of the alleged "noise" is often less
than the conversation between the complainant and the cop.
I noticed on the AMP website (it's on the SCCA site also), there was a 98dB
limit at 50 feet set for the Tour. That's pretty damn quiet. Last year,
faced with a new housing development next to our playground, we used the
occasion of a Divisional event to take dB readings. At 50 feet we had maybe
6-8 cars over 100 dB (loudest, a couple at 106) out of 100. Measuring at the
property line of the housing development, 400 feet away, the leaves in the
trees overhead, blown by the wind, were louder (~82dB) than the cars. When
one of the loudest cars went on course, you'd be aware it was there but
you'd still be able to hold a normal conversation. BTW, in taking those
sound measurements, we did it both days of the event and chose a location
where they'd be accelerating just off the start on day one, and decelerating
just after the finish on day two -- we specifically wanted the cars at their
noisiest point.
AMP needs to be a good neighbor, but they also have to be given the
opportunity to be a good neighbor.
Rocky Entriken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Kline" <solo2dmmr2@hotmail.com>
To: <rocky@tri.net>; <davekizerian@hotmail.com>; <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:31 PM
Subject: Arizona Motorsports Park
> Not all the answers or questions but what was in Wednesdays paper.
>
>
>
> Racetracks use permit revoked
>
> Before a standing-room-only gallery of more than 300 people, the majority
> from Litchfield Park and PebbleCreek in Goodyear, the Maricopa County
Board
> of Supervisors revoked the special use permit of Arizona Motorsports Park
> Wedneday, Jan. 21.
>
> The board took the better part of two hours to consider the matter,
hearing
> from county Planning Commission staff; Scott Rose, the racetracks
attorney,
> of the Cavanaugh law firm; Nick Wood of Snell & Wilmer, representing
SunCor
> Development Co.; and about a dozen citizens, some speaking for and others
> against the track.
>
> As the clock approached noon, Supervisor Max Wilson, R-District 4, made a
> motion for the revocation of AMPs special use permit, which quickly was
> seconded. Without further discussion, the board voted 5-0 in favor of the
> revocation, after which applause broke out and the meeting adjourned.
>
> Im very happy about it. I think it was the right thing to do; thats why
> Im happy, Goodyear Mayor Jim Cavanaugh after the meeting. At this point
> in time, I think the board did the right thing.
>
> Litchfield Park Mayor Woody Thomas was equally exuberant.
>
> I was very pleasantly surprised, he said. I was hoping to get them back
> in the box to where we could have that original intention. But I think the
> supervisors recognized what Id stated at a previous meeting was their
[AMP]
> unwillingness to follow the stipulations and play by the rules.
>
> Rose was far from exuberant.
>
> Were going to evaluate all of our options he said. We had tried
> really, really, really hard to reach a compromise that worked out with
> everybody, but the board was not interested in a compromise.
>
> They took a very draconian action, and they put my client in a position
of
> having to look at all their legal remedies My client has a $6.5 million
> investment in that property, and hes not just going to walk away from
it.
>
> The decision, effectively immediately according to planning department
> staff, means the track cannot operate until it obtains another special use
> permit.
>
> Unless we get a court to stay the action, Rose said. We absolutely
would
> not rule that out.
>
>
> The hearing
> The supervisors heard first from staff members of the county Planning
> Commission, which voted Dec. 3 to recommend a major amendment to the use
> permit that includied imposing stringent noise-level standards.
>
> They showed a videotape of the Dec. 19, 2001, supervisors meeting at which
> the original special use permit was granted for Arizona Motorsports Park.
>
> P&Z staff advised the supervisors they had several possible courses of
> action they could take, among them:
>
>
> Accept the P&Zs recommendations for a major amendment to AMPs special
use
> permit.
>
>
> Accept the foregoing recommendations with some additional provisions
> regarding noise and hours of operation that were proposed by Wood.
>
>
> Go back to the original stipulations of AMPs special use permit and add
> noise-level restrictions and/or a requirement that all cars using the
track
> be street-legal.
>
>
> Revoke AMPs special use permit altogether.
>
> Surprising just about everyone in the room, the Board of Supervisors chose
> the latter course of action.
>
> Your client has not lived up to the things required of it now. How do you
> explain that? Supervisor Don Stapley, R-District 2, asked Rose.
>
> Many of those things have been resolved, Rose replied. Such as the
shade
> structures getting building permits. And with other items, there are
> questions whether they ought to be done, given proposed restrictions on
days
> of operation and the number of people to be allowed on site.
>
> Its your clients obligation to be in compliance [with the special use
> permit stipulations], not the county to make sure you are, Wilson told
> Rose. The county has taken a lot of time with this thing And this is a
> big county, with a small staff.
>
> Youve had ample opportunity to be in compliance with what the county
gave
> you. Its ludicrous to think that if youre behind the podium [as a party]
> that we dont think what you say youre going to do.
>
> I made the motion, Stapley said, referring to the original motion Dec.
19,
> 2001, to approve AMPs special use permit. The term street-legal was
> important then I would have voted differently if that was not the case.
>
> Noting that she had two racetracks in her district, Manzanita and Phoenix
> International Raceway, Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, D-District 5, said, I
> always was concerned that this track might turn commercial, after being
> advised that AMP received money from race clubs and auto manufacturers
that
> tested their vehicles there.
>
> I camped with my daughter in the White Tanks last Saturday [Jan. 17],
> Chairman Andy Kunasek, R-District 3, said. Sunday morning, I definitely
> heard noise from the track And if I could hear it that loud, maybe six
> miles away, what must the neighbors be hearing?
>
> I stopped and visited the track that morning, and the cars that were
> running definitely were not the same ones that Id heard earlier. And it
> looked like there were more than 200 people there at that time.
>
> Arizona Motorsports Park has another application for a major amendment to
> its now non-existent special use permit pending; no hearing date had been
> set as yet before the Planning Commission. AMP now will have to amend its
> paperwork to be application for a new special use permit, starting the
> process from the beginning once again.
>
> Darryl Henning can be reached at dhenning@westvalleyview.com.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ) 2004 West Valley View-Material may be copied for private, non-commercial
> use only. No material may be copied for commercial use. All Rights
> Reserved.
|