Track Days?

[JB34]

Ask and ye shall be rewarded...

Racetrack files
multimillion claim vs. county

Arizona Motorsports Park asserts property rights violations

by Darryl Henning
assistant managing editor



Arizona Motorsports Park has filed a notice of claim against Maricopa
County alleging that its special use permit was revoked illegally.
A notice of claim is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against a
government entity such as Maricopa County. The claim alleges numerous
violations of the racetrack's property rights, and seeks millions of
dollars in damages.

In short, AMP argued in the notice of claim that the board's action to
revoke its special-use permit was unfair, in violation of county zoning
ordinances and property rights and unconstitutional. Among the reasons
cited why the board's actions were illegal were:

The special-use permit unanimously approved by the board in December
2001 included no stipulations about noise levels. Therefore, AMP did not
violate the permit by whatever noise was generated at the track.
Nevertheless, AMP engaged neighbors, developers and others in the area
to find ways to address their concerns, and notwithstanding spending
tens of thousands of dollars on community outreach, studies, open houses
and other efforts to achieve a compromise with those opposed to its
operations.

A July 2003 report by county staff found that AMP was generally in
compliance with the terms of the special-use permit, which limited the
vehicles allowed at the track to "street-legal" vehicles and
implementing new noise standards. The report, however, did not specify
how "street-legal" vehicles were defined or what noise levels would be
acceptable. That incomplete report was part of the basis of the board's
decision.

AMP hired a noise expert to determine the actual impact of its
operations on existing neighborhood noise levels. The study found that
the track's operations had very little impact, especially when compared
to activities at the adjacent Luke Air Force Base.

County staff engaged in "bizarre and questionable activities," such as
random and unannounced site visits and providing their findings to the
board of supervisors only 20 minutes before the January 2004 meeting at
which the board revoked the special-use permit - a timeframe that did
not allow sufficient time for a proper response by AMP.

The Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that the
special-use permit be modified with new stipulations, not revoked.
However, instead of considering those stipulations, the board voted for
revocation of the permit without providing a single reason for the
decision.

The Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to revoke a
special-use permit - county zoning ordinances do not provide the board
with an option to revoke such permits.

"It's highly unfortunate that this matter has come to this point, but
the county has clearly violated our property rights and in rather
unseemly ways," AMP owner Dan Maloney said. "We have invested millions
of dollars in this facility because we were given a special-use permit
by the board [of supervisors] that was supposed to guarantee our right
to operate and provide the guidelines for use of the land. The board's
unfair and illegal decision to revoke the permit has cost us dearly. We
had no other choice but to move forward with this claim."