Assembly passes racetrack ordinance

MAT-SU -- The Mat-Su Borough Assembly recently adopted its third racetrack ordinance in just over four years.

The assembly, at its Sept. 18 meeting, agreed via a 5-1 vote to adopt a more bulky racetrack ordinance than the borough's previous ordinance. The lone opposing vote was cast by departing assembly member Larry DeVilbiss.

Racetrack ordinances have had a tumultuous history in the borough. According to background information provided by the borough planning commission, a relatively comprehensive ordinance of standards was adopted by the assembly in July 1997.

Amendments to that ordinance addressing grandfather rights were made in January 1998. Then in September 1999, the borough assembly repealed the 1997 ordinance altogether and substituted an ordinance made up of four conditions -- significantly less restrictive than the 1997 ordinance.

"I believe this is a compromise on a bad deal," said assembly member Talis Colberg. "It was easy for the previous owners to come forward and say we've complied with all the rules when there essentially [were] no rules. This is about trying to reduce future problems."

At the meeting, Colberg introduced a substitute ordinance, taking out portions of the ordinance Colberg said seemed to extend beyond the necessary bounds for a conditional-use permit. The deleted portions included specific requirements for signs, lighting, maximum lot coverage by buildings and temporary storage of junk.

The ordinance tightened restrictions on noise levels significantly, changing the maximum acceptable noise level from 88 decibels at peak and an average of 75 decibels to 70 decibels at peak and 60 average in areas within 2,000 feet of a residential neighborhood.

The ordinance breaks out different acceptable levels for the operation of racetracks according to the types of neighboring land uses. Noise levels are less stringent if the track is located near commercial districts, for example.

Earl Mullins, a sound engineer who, in 1997, performed sound tests in various areas around the North Star Speedway racetrack and on neighboring properties, spoke to the assembly about noise levels and what tactics can be used to dampen sound.

When questioned about any recent data obtained at the track, Mullins, planning staff and others asked were loathe to give answers.

"This staff has not gathered information on North Star Speedway regarding [recent noise levels]," said planning director Sandra Garley. "We didn't because this ordinance is not targeted at North Star. I don't want people to get confused and get too focused on what the noise levels are at North Star. That isn't what his ordinance is trying to do -- this ordinance is saying if you want to have another one, this is what you need to do."

But North Star will likely be directly affected by the ordinance.

North Star currently has an appeal on file with the borough's board of adjustment and appeals and is, according to North Star president Lud Larson, set for a Nov. 2 appeal hearing. The hearing is to determine whether North Star will retain its grandfather permit -- the track is currently out of compliance with its grandfather permit because it traditionally uses a different portion of its property for a parking than what was originally proposed.

Assembly member Larry DeVilbiss asked borough attorney John Aschenbrenner whether North Star Speedway would be able to grandfather in its existing use if the ordinance passed. Aschenbrenner explained that the non-conforming use must be grandfathered in by a specific time in order to continue its existing use outside the bounds of the new ordinance.

"It's possible that they could apply for a non-conforming use, providing that they don't use more acreage than originally grandfathered in," Aschenbrenner said. He added that any changes made to the property would have to move toward further compliance with existing ordinances.

Larson said the ordinance is simply too restrictive to allow a company such as North Star to operate as a business.

"We would never be able to comply with this ordinance," Larson said. "No racetrack would ever be able to comply with this ordinance."

Larson stated two specific areas with which the track would have trouble complying -- the noise levels and not being able to expand the track under its grandfather rights, if the track is able to retain them.

Although at the meeting, assembly member Dan Kelly said he and a planning department staffer visited the track during a race day and recorded levels in the mid-50s range, and in the mid-60s when the gravel pits were in operation. The levels were below the levels mentioned in the ordinance, although Kelly said he stopped recording before the races ended.

Nevertheless, Larson said the noise mandate is too low.

"It's unachievable because of the maximum, and it depends how they measure it," Larson said. He explained that a car's backfire, a crash or a lost muffler, all relatively common occurrences at the track, could cause them to come in at higher-than-allowed decibel levels.

When asked whether zoning would have provided a more fair solution to the problems currently facing the racetrack, Larson said zoning, had it been in place in 1997 when the track was built, may have provided an amenable solution.

"Had the core area been zoned and these houses here been given residential status, they would have had those parameters," Larson said. "That would have solved the problem back when, but you can't regulate something that wasn't regulated prior to -- that's the whole problem."