114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD - ZBA i
114 SWAHPSCOTT ROAD _
DANA DILISO
�.I
(I11tu of ttlpm, AusetttljitBette
i a
�ottra of �r1p}real
� r
f
r�E
1 _
sin
o ^�3
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA DILISION, TRUSTEE OFD & D
- REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD
A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 1999 with the following Board
Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen
Buczko and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow additional recreational use and a
Variance to allow parking for the property located at 114 Swampscott Road located in a
BPD zone.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6
and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming
structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots,
land structures, and used, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement
or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by
the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that
the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and
welfare of the City's inhabitants
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building
or structure involved and which are not generally affecting the lands, buildings or
structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance.
1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA DILISIO REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD
BPD
page two
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The petitioner was represented by Attorney John R. Keilty of 50 Lowell Street
Peabody, Ma
2. Michael Bahtiarian of Noise Control Engineering, made a presentation showing his
findings on Swampscott Road.
3. Many abutters voiced opposition to the plans because of increased noise levels
and hours of operation.
4. A petition was presented with names opposed to the petition from the residents of
Mariner Village.
5. Letters in opposition from Mayor Usocivz and Councillor Harvey were read.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board
Of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the ordinance.
4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the
neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and
welfare of the City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 0 in favor and 5 in opposition
to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative
votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit and
Variance is denied.
Variance & Special Permit Denied _
October 20, 1999
Richard E. Dionne
Board of Appeal
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANA DILISIO EQUESTING A VARIANCEISPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD
page four
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, is any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter
40Arand shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of
the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification
of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such
appeal have been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is
recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
DATE OF HEARING _ ` ✓ ✓
PETITIONEe �� �l c� ✓✓✓
LOCATION
MOTi0N: TO T Y SECOND APIENDiIENT SECOND
TO DENY SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
WITHDRAW SECOND
CONTINUE SECOND
i
RO'L'L CALL PRESENT GRAN? DE/NY/Ay
I17
E WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
NINA V. COHEN
MICHAEL WARD V
RONALD HARRISON
STEPHEN BUCZKO
RICHARD DIONNE
ASSOCIATE FEMBERS
?AUL. IS flrAAqm
CONDITIONS:
_/cu
APPEAL CASE NO. .
CHU of "Sa em, Ausoadjuse##s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A
Paurb of '}vein
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS :
The Undersigned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located
at NO 114 Swamnscott Road Street; Zoning District (BPD) Business Park
District and said parcel is affected by Section(s) N/A
of the Massachusetts State Building Code.
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
No Plans have been submitted to the Building Inspector inasmuch as use requires
issuance of Special Permit .
n�s
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for thQ follow ng
reasons:
6 �q
This is a Direct Appeal
,o m
N
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of -Ehe Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said Zoning
By-laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to
the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit to allow additional recreational use at 114
Swampscott Road asshownon the accompanying plan with attendance accessory building
(storage, business office) .
The Petitioner further seeks a Variance from Section 7 .3 of the Zoning Ordinance
to allow parking in compliance with zoning as to number of spaces but located on land
not owned by the Petitioner, which land is, however, subject to a perpetual parking
Agreement.
CT'
v
Owner Dana DiLisio. Trustee of D 6 D Really \
Address 700-114 Somnscott Rd. _ Salem. MA
Qc (() Telephone min a25-x056
Petitioner ��%__
Address. _ 40 Lowell St.. Peabody. MA 01960
Date September 30 1999 Telephone _531-7900__
By _
7'Jbhn@/ i t i Esquire
The copies of the application must be filed with t Secretary of t( bl Board of Appeals
with a check, for advertising in the amount of 121.26 four weeks prior to
the meeting of the Board of appeals. Check payable to the Evening News.
i
TO: the Salem Board of Appeal
FROM: The residents of Mariner Village, Salem
DATE: October 10, 1999
RE: Go-cart track
We strongly object to the granting of a special permit for the operation of a go-cart track
on Swampscott Road for the following reasons:
1. SAFETY: The condition of Swampscott Road is poor. There is no lighting, there are
no sidewalks, the road curves and there is only limited maintenance of this road by
the city and state. Furthermore,the completion of K-Mart and Home Depot will only
place a greater strain on the use of this road,which is already overburdened with'cars
and trucks. The potential danger to drivers and young children walking along this
road can only increase with further development.
2. NOISE: The proposed location is in a valley leaving the increased noise from this
operation to escape up toward us. Already the noise from the miniature golf course
can be heard in some of our homes during the summer even,Aith windows closed. To
burden us further with the noise of 8 or more lawn mowers running, simultaneously,
all day every day and evening, is both cruel and unfair. Further noise will also come
from the screaming of the onlookers as they yell at their children using the go-carts.
3. POLLUTION: Within the last year, the EPA has identified lawn mowers as one of the
major polluters of the air. Go-carts are nothing more than lawn lowers on wheels and
will be a contributing factor to the quality of air in our area.
4. DECREASE IN VALUE OF HOMES: It is also obvious that any diminution in the
use of our homes will cause a decrease in their value. This, in turn will be reflected in
lower taxes to the city.
We moved here for the quality of life and the benefits to the city of a go-cart operation
pales in comparison to the quiet enjoyment of our homes by over 100 families, the risk to
the environment and the dangers posed by increased traffic on Swampscott Road.
NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS
���4,b h ,
J6W7 o c d o, e 6
—S .
A s
_ S sKA
0 _
xz�
Ir - , - oli C2
— � AtC-AiAc� 7 _ t7 oyOE
2 V 1 rlej
i Co
C /kq de-o-'
[. j mir a /1961c :s
)caw SN A" Al 5 <b 1� �DS 6
/fn�Io erzr 41 Gc rq/ aJ.rif, .,-
M w, CAJ oR/�iL L
d-ko Q— IA Ftowa LO
I -
TECHNICAL MEMO 99-012
MAKING 4 QUIETLY
NOISE
GO-CART NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY
Michael Bahtiarian
September 7, 1999
NCE JOB No. 99-038
-�n
Prepared for:
CASTLE CREEK ADVENTURELAND
100 Swampscott Road
Salem, MA 01970
Attn.: Mr. Dana Diltsio
Prepared by:
NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING, Inc.
799 Middlesex Turnpike
Billerica, MA 01821
978-670-5339
978-667-7047 (fax)
noise@tiac.net (Email)
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering, Inc.
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................3
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
2.0 NOISE REGULATIONS......................................................................................................4
3.0 MEASURED NOISE............................................................................................................4
3.1 Noise Monitoring.........................................................................................................5
3.2 Octave Band Measurements.........................................................................................5
4.0 NOISE ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................................6
4.1 Vendor Noise Data.......................................................................................................6
4.2 Prediction of Go-Cart Noise.........................................................................................6
5.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................7
•
APPENDIX A: Instrumentation, Calibration &Noise Units
APPENDIX B: Acoustical Calculations and Worksheets
•
- 2 -
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering,Inc.
•
0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An acoustic assessment of a Go-Cart track operation was performed. Castle Creek
Adventureland proposes such an operation at its location on 100 Swampscott Road in
Salem Massachusetts. Noise Control Engineering(Billerica, MA) conducted a site noise
survey. Measurements of ambient noise and frequency based octave band noise
measurements were conducted from August 20 to 24, 1999. The measurements provide
information on existing noise levels in and around the Castle Creek business.
Noise data from two Go-Cart manufacturers was used to calculate expected noise levels
at two locations adjacent to the business. The assessment showed that the expected noise
level for both carts would be below the State limit. The louder cart would produce noise
levels above the ambient noise. Noise from the quieter cart would not exceed existing
ambient noise levels.
•
- 3 -
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering,Inc.
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Noise Control Engineering (NCE) has been contracted by Castle Creek Adventureland to
perform an assessment of noise from a proposed "Go-Cart" operation. The proposed Go-
Cart operation will be located adjacent to current miniature golf operation at 100
Swampscott Road in Salem Massachusetts.
This report discusses appropriate noise regulations in section 2. Measured noise data at
the existing facility is presented in section 3. Noise data from the Go-Cart manufacturers
is discussed in section 4 along with a computation of expected noise at the adjacent
properties. Section 5 presents the conclusions.
2.0 NOISE REGULATIONS
A noise ordinance does exist in the Town of Salem, but it does not include any technical
requirements for assessing impact. The appropriate regulation for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts is 310 CMR 7.10. The technical requirements for this CMR citation are
given in the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EDEA) policy letter dated
February 1, 1990, reference [1]. The EOEA policy letter states that source of sound will
be considered to be violating if the source:
• Increases the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above the
• ambient, or
• Produces a"pure tone" condition—when any octave band center frequency
sound pressure level exceeds the two adjacent center frequency sound
pressure levels by 3 dB or more.
According to the EDEA policy letter, "Ambient noise is defined as the background A-
weighted sound level that is exceed 90% of the time measured during equipment
operating hours without the facility operating". This level is referred to as the L90 value
and is capable of being measured by the Rion Sound Level meter listed in Appendix A.
3.0 MEASURED NOISE
A site noise survey has been conducted in order to assess potential for compliance with
the state regulations cited in section 2. This required two types of noise measurements:
(1)Noise monitoring of ambient overall dB(A) noise levels, and (2) measurements of
octave band noise levels'. The locations and type of measurement taken are summarized
in Table 1. Figure 1 shows approximate locations of the three measurement sites. A
brief discussion of the measurements is presented below.
• Octave band noise levels describe the coarse frequency components of noise. This allows the
determination of noise character and tonal requirements for state regulations.
- 4-
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering,Inc.
• TABLE 1: Noise Measurement Locations
Octave
Noise Band
Id # Location See Figure 1 for Graphic Presentation Monitor Noise
1 Telephone Pole on Castle Creek Property, 6511 from YES YES
Swampscott Road.
2 Across Street between telephone pole and pumping YES YES
station, l Oft from Swampscott Road
3 1 Whaler Lane in Front of Closest House NO YES
3.1 Noise Monitoring
All noise monitoring was conducted with a Rion NL-06 Sound Level Meter (SLM), listed
in Appendix A. The L90 (background), Lto (sustained maximum) noise levels were
recorded on an hourly basis. The SLM was set to slow response and A-Weighting. The
instrument was field calibrated using the acoustic calibrator listed in Appendix A.
3.1.1 Location#1: The measurements within the property were taken to understand the
noise levels currently generated by Castle Creek. The noise levels were measured from
6pm on Friday August 20, 1999 through 7pm on Sunday August 22, 1999. The weekend
was selected as a heavy business time for the Castle Creek. Figure 2 is a graph of the
• maximum and ambient3(minimum) noise levels. This data shows that the noise levels
are very constant and range from 63 to 66 dB(A) when the business is open. The noise
levels during operating hours are very constant and attributable to three(???) water
fountains on the property.
3.1.2 Location#2: The measurements across the street from Castle Creek were taken to
determine the ambient(or background) noise levels in the adjacent areas. Noise
monitoring were conducted from 8pm on Sunday August 22, 1999 through 9am Tuesday,
August 24, 1999. Figure 3 also shows the maximum (Lto) and minimum or ambient (Lgo)
noise levels. This location has greater variation in noise levels due to greater affect from
street traffic. During business operation hours of 9am to 11 pro the ambient noise varied
from 49 to 54 dB(A).
3.2 Octave Band Measurements
Octave band measurements were taken with a Larson Davis 2900 acoustic analyzer,
which was field calibrated with the calibrator listed in Appendix A. The purpose of these
measurements is to record the frequency character of the noise around the proposed
2 The maximum sustained noise level is defined as the"L10" level which is the noise level that is exceeded
• 10%of the time tested.
3 The minimum or ambient(also called background)noise level is defined as the"190"level which is the
noise level that is exceeded 90%of the time tested.
5 -
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering, Inc.
• project site. Octave band measurements were averaged for a period of 15 minutes at the
locations#1, #2 & #3. This data will be discussed further in section 5.
4.0 NOISE ASSESSMENT
An assessment of the Go-Cart operation has been performed by taking noise levels of the
proposed go-carts, adjusting for various factors discussed below and comparing these to
existing levels discussed in section 3.
4.1 Vendor Noise Data
NCE reviewed noise data supplied to Castle Creek by the Go-Cart manufacturers.
Overall, A-weighted noise levels were reduced from data provided in two acoustical
studies, references [2] & [3], to result in noise levels for a single cart at a distance of 50
feet. In addition, reference [3] provided frequency based, 1/3 octave band sound levels,
which NCE adjusted to match the overall sound pressure levels. This data is summarized
in Table 2. The effectiveness of exhaust mufflers are not included in this data, since only
anecdotal effectiveness of exhaust mufflers were available.
TABLE 2: Go-Cart Noise Levels at 50 feet for Single Vehicle,
o Exhaust Mufflers
• CaztT 31.5 63 125 250 500 lk 2k 4k 8k dB(A) Ref
J&J Amusements 71 67 671 57 1 58 1 55 52 49 41 61 2
Formula 1 63 59 1 59 1 49 1 50 1 47 44 41 33 53 3
It should be noted that neither of these Go-Cart noise sources contain a pure tone
condition as described in the reference [1] noise policy.
4.2 Prediction of Go-Cart Noise
The Go-Cart source levels presented in Table 2 were used to evaluate the potential for
compliance with of state noise regulations. The prediction of expected noise was
conducted by adjusting the noise levels in Table 2 by two factors. First, is a factor to
account for distance from the edge of the proposed Go-Cart track to measurement
locations#2 & #3 from Table 1. The second factor is an adjustment for multiple numbers
of Go-Carts operating at the same time. No other adjustments were possible or used,
except for reduction due to use of exhaust mufflers. As mentioned above since only
anecdotal information regarding exhaust mufflers were available this attenuation factor
was not used. The calculations were performed for both the overall noise (dBA) and
octave band noise. These calculations are described in Appendix B on the calculation
worksheets.
The overall noise level at the two locations for the two types of carts is summarized in
• Table 3. The noise levels predicted are for operational tracks with 10 carts operating at
one time. Figure 4 plots the noise values for location#2 against the measured
- 6 -
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering,Inc.
• background noise data for one day. Figures 5 & 6 compare the measured octave band
levels at location#2 & 43 against the predicted octave band noise levels.
TABLE 3: Predicted Noise from Track Operation with 10 Carts
at Locations#2 & #3.
Predicted Noise Level, dB(A)
Cart Mfg. Location#2 Location#3
J&J Amusements 55 51
Formula K 47 43
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
• The assessment of Go-Cart noise shows that both cart models would be far below the
State requirements for overall noise.
• An examination of the octave band source data for a typical cart does not show tonal
condition as described in reference [1].
• The J&J Amusements cart is expected to produce noise levels below the state limits,
but just above the current ambient noise levels.
• The Formula K cart is expected to produce noise levels below the current ambient
noise levels(and thus below state limits). It is difficult to discern a source whose
• noise levels are below the ambient noise.
• The analysis was conducted without taking into account use of exhaust mufflers.
However, these devices are intended to be used, which would only reduce noise
further.
REFERENCES
1. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Air Quality Control,
DAQC Policy 90-001, dated February 1, 1990.
2. Acoustech Consultants Report, "Noise Assessment Study Go-Cart Activity at
Proposed Recreation Centers",Report No. 791-A9, dated July 10, 1991.
3. Emanuelle Garcia Consulting Engineer in Acoustics, "Noise Assessment Study Go-
Kart Activity at Proposed Recreational Centers", Report#674-721, dated August 14,
1978.
- 7 -
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering, Inc.
FIGURE 1: Site Map with Measurement Locations.(See Table I for descriptions).
Location 3A was used for noise measurements and location 3B was used for noise
computations.
.. . . . ....
.............
togs,
.............
IOWA
JOS, ...... ...�4v.
A :
]�el
W,
..... .. .... ... .
On:
W 0 AMID on.n A
.........................
no A too 1 1 R .......
X
t0511Y51 vo .............
............... WN 1515"A R.
........................
- 8 -
Noise Control Enginering Inc. (Billerica, MA)
FIGURE 2: Location #1 (On Property) Existing Noise Levels
80
70
60
a
3
d
d
a
N
50
W
M
a
J
a
N
40
30 —H Minimum(L90)
--®—Maximum(L10)
20
bpm 10pm tam Gam loam 2pm bpm 1Opm tam Gam 10am 2pm 6pm
Time of Day
09/07/1999 Graphs Chart 1
Noise Control Engineering, Inc. (Billerica, MA)
FIGURE 3: Location #2, (Across Street) Existing Noise Levels
80 -
70
60
a
3
a
d
o_
a
50
m
0
J
a
m
40 -
0 Minimum(L90)
30 --11 Maximum(1-10)
20
4.
^off
Time of Day
09/07/1999 Graphs Chart 2
Noise C•ol Engineering Inc. (Billerica, MA) • •
FIGURE 4: Predicted Cart Noise vs. Ambient.
06050 70 -
60 - -
50
a
a
0
v
m
a
y 40
--m Ambient
Ambeint+10
JJA Carts
30 s s FK Carts
20
9am 10 11 12nwn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11pm
Time of Day
09/07/1999 Graphs Chart 3
Noise.rol Engineering, Inc(Billerica, MA)
FIGURE 5: Location #2 Measured vs. Predicted Noise
80
70
m
60
•
a
v50
m
j A
a
m
40
F—a--Ca1c.
Measured
Calc.JJA Cart30 FK Cart
20
31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB(A)
Octave Band Center Frequency,Hz
09/07/1999 Graphs Chart 4
Noise•Control Engineering, Inc. (Billerica, MA) • i
FIGURE 6: Location #3 Measured vs. Predicted Noise
70
60
so •
a
A
d 40
m
a
J
a
N
30
-'0 Measured
0 Calc.JJA Cart
20 —6—Calc. FK Cart
10
31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB(A)
Octave Band Center Frequency,Hz -
09/07/1999 Graphs Chart 7
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering, Inc.
•
APPENDIX A
Instrumentation, Calibration Certificates &Noise Units
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering, Inc.
• INSTRUMENTATION
Noise levels were measured using two different Sound Level Meters (SLM). Table A-1
lists all instrumentation used. The calibration data refers to the most recent laboratory
calibration to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)traceable standards.
Wind screens were installed on all microphones. All SLM's were field calibrated by an
acoustic calibrator at 94 & 114 dB (re//20 µPa) at 1,000 Hz. Calibration certificates are
given at the end of this appendix.
TABLE A-1: Instrumentation mary
Calibration
Instrument Manufacturer&Model Serial No. Date*
LOGGING SOUND Rion,NL-06 01270251 01/13/98
LEVEL METER
Acoustic Analyzer Larson-Davis,2900 0725 03/08/99
Acoustic Calibrator Larson Davis,CAL200 0101 03/08/99
*(Calibration to NIST Traceable Standards)
NOISE UNITS
All noise levels are presented as Sound Pressure Levels (SPL) in decibels (dB) relative to
20 micro Pascal's (dB//re 20 µPa). All overall Sound Pressure Levels are presented as A-
• Weighted noise levels. SPL as a function of frequency was measured in octave bands
from 31.5 Hz to 10,000 Hz. The A-weighted noise levels represents the sound level
perceived by the ear. A SPL of 45 dB(A)would be considered quiet, whereas a SPL's
over 90 dB(A) would be hazardous under prolonged exposure. Table A-2 lists common
noise levels in dB(A).
TABLE A-2: Common Noise Levels in dB(A).
Noise Level,
dB(A) Apparent Loudness Typical Sources
130 Deafening Jet Plane Take-off
110 Very Loud Thunder, Artillery
90 Moderately Loud Truck, Bus
70 Loud Automobile, Radio/TV
60 Moderate/Comfortable Average Office
50 Low/Comfortable Average Home
30 Faint Typical Rural Area Night
10 Very Faint Rustle of Leaves
0 Threshold of Hearing Audiometric Booth
as
•
/
III,NeI�w , \t1
1 Certificate of Calibration and Conformance
Certificate Number 1999-18999
J
Instrument Model 2900, Serial Number 0725, was calibrated on 03-08-1999. The
Illjr instrument meets factory specifications according to Larson • Davis Test a
Procedure TP-1016, ISO 10012, ANSI S1.11 1986, ANSI S1.4 1983,
IEC 651-Type 1 1979, and IEC 804-Type 1 1985.
jInstrument found to be in calibration as received: YES
Date Calibrated: 03-08-1999
;j Calibration due: 03-08-2000
x l ! Calibration Standards Used
' 'Iat�-i MANUFACTURER MODEL SERIAL NUMBER INTERVAL CAL. DUE TRACEABILITY NO.
Larson•Davis LDSigGn/2209 0617/0104 12 Months 02168/20001999-18497
r
�i Certified Reference Standards are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST)
f Calibration Environmental Conditions
Il,
I,
II Temperature: 22 ° Centigrade Relative Humidity:22°G
Affirmations
This Certificate attests that this instrument has been calibrated under the stated conditions with Measurement and Test
Equipment(M&TE)Standards traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST). All of the Measurement
.. TI Standards have been calibrated to their manufacturers'specified accuracy/uncertainly. Evidence of traceabilityand accuracy
I,fl°"+i�'' is on file at Larson•Davis Corporate Headquarters. An acceptable accuracy ratio between the Standard(s) and the Rem
all
a.IMF
calibrated has been maintained. This instrument meets or exceeds the manufacturers published specification unless noted.
�Yd
I`\t\J.y+.Y. This calibration complies with ISO 10012. The collective uncertainty of the Measurement Standard used does not exceed 25%
of the tolerance for each characteristic calibrated unless otherwise no
F., ted.
Due to state-of-the-art limitations, 4:1 calibration ratios are not possible on pressure measurement standards, microphones
and acoustic calibrators. Calibration ratios for these types of devices are limited to 1:1. p
Il�.11lll"'u' The results documented in this certificate relate only to the items calibrated or tested. Calibration interval assignment and Ill i
v fi{ adjustment are the responsibility of the end user. This certificate may not be reproduced, except in full, without the written
I` approval of Larson•Davis Laboratories. '1
s
F i
I..�:Fq 1II
` Nll I�
,
\ ii nI
li Technician: Brent Heaton
Service Center:Larson•Davis Laboratories, Utah Signed:
111 �.i I
a LARSON • DAVIS LABORATORIES
iBBI well e20 P;crh Pmvu,Ulan 0:601 Phone(801)3750177it
111111' In ., _
111 lit, '• I�f /'bq NY�.n I drR , rr r II I t r 11
\n r , is_d t V
Ih. � iil .]. V c•_w ...1.1 y=slit S.!.wJ•,..,.sr.,.al` .:l��ht ,t. AV /• t
lli Certificate of Calibration and Conformance
ll1'(II Certificate Number 1999-18969
G Instrument Model CAL200, Serial Number 0101, was calibrated on 03-05-1999.
The instrument meets factory specifications according to Larson • Davis Test
Procedure TP-1027, ISO 10012.
Instrument found to be in calibration as received: YES
C Date Calibrated: 03-05-1999
lA Calibration due: 03-05-2000
Calibration Standards Used )
J MANUFACTURER MODEL SERIAL NUMBER INTERVAL CAL. DUE TRACEABILITY NO.
I'll(III� Hewlett Packard HP.94401A US36015216 12 Months 07!3111999 1136A03 1'
I\ Larson•Davis1 2900 0276 12 Months 08/17/19991998.15718
i`��� Larson-Davis 2559 250<i1 12 Months 09(30/1999 7291
fj lt�i( Larson•Davis PRM915 0107 12 Months 12/15/1999 1938-17760
Larson•Davis MTSIODD/2201 1004/01021 12 Months 12/15/1999 12152-1996
Illllli' Certified Reference Standards are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST)
Calibration Environmental Conditions
IJlilp,
• ..,,
Temperature: 22 ° Centigrade Relative Humidity: 19% l
II II'iiiF; ,
Affirmations
This Certificate attests that this instrument has been calibrated under the slated conditions with Measurement and Test
Equipment(MBTE)Standards traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST). All of the Measurement
iit, a Standards have been calibrated to their manufacturers'specified accuracy/uncertainty. Evidence of traceability and accuracy
I'il tl' is on file at Larson•Davis Corporate Headquarters. An acceptable accuracy ratio between the Standard(s) and the item
calibrated has been maintained. This instrument meets or exceeds the manufacturers published specification unless noted.
h,11
This calibration complies with ISO 10012. The collective uncertainty of the Measurement Standard used does not exceed 25% i 11
of the applicable tolerance for each characteristic calibrated unless otherwise noted. I
Due to state-of-the-art limitations, 4:1 calibration ratios are not possible on pressure measurement standards, microphones
and acoustic calibrators. Calibration ratios for these types of devices are limited to 1:1. `
The results documented in this certificate relate only to the item(s) calibrated or tested. Calibration interval assignment and
adjustment are the responsibility of the end user. This certificate may not be reproduced, except in full, without the written
fjn. approval of Larson•Davis Laboratories.
-.
In: 113.98 dB,94.01 dB,1000.06 Hz @ 1013 mBar.
W Out: Refer to Certificate of Measured Output.
\'1
llTechnician: Scott Montgomery
IIii�lll Service Center:Larson•Davis Laboratories, Utah Slgned:-�-
�II•(lil' LARSON • DAVIS LABORATORIES
1081 West 020 North Provo,V1ah 84601 Phone(801)3750177
l�It"
/l - - -
i
r� E 1011
n�as�caut¢or✓ �" " I
RION CO., LTD.
3-20-41 Higushimotomachi Kokubunji Tokyo 185-8533
Phone:042(359)7888,Pacsimile:042(359)7442
Certificate of Calibration
t
Name : Integrating sound level meter
Model : NL-06
• S/No. : 01270251
Date of Calibration January, 13, 1998
t
We hereby certify that the above product was tested and calibrated according to the prescribed Rion
procedures, and that it fulfills specification requirements.
The measuring equipment and reference devices used for testing and calibratinE this unit are managed .
under the Rion traceability system and are traceable according to official Japani se standards and
official standards of countries belonging to the International Committee of Wei lits and Measures.
RION CO., LTD.
Manage , Inspection Department
H
TM 99-012 Go-Cart Noise Study
Noise Control Engineering, Inc.
h
•
APPENDIX B
Acoustical Calculations and Worksheets
d
ti
•
P
i
P
i
Noise Con rol Engineering, Inc. (Billerica MA) •
Castle Creek, Go Cart Operation
Calculation of Received Noise Levels
For J&J Amusments/JJA)Go-Cart
Input
_Calculation to Location#2. Across Street Data 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB(A)
A Lp, JJA Engine Noise Only @ 10ft 70 66 66 56 57 54 51 48 40 60
Adjustment Factor for 50ft 50 it -14
B Lp, JJA, Engine Noise Only @ 50ft 56 52 52 42 43 40 37 34 26 46
Track Adjustment for Overall Noise @ 61 dB 15
C Lp, JJA, Engine&Track Noise @ 50ft 71 67 67 57 59 56 52 49 42 61
Distance Attenuation Factor 300 (ft). -16
Multiple Source Adjustment 10 #Carts 10
E Lp, Location#2 for Multiple Carts on Track 66 62 62 51 53 so 46 44 36 55
F Lp, Measured 67 73 73 69 66 67 64 60 54 71
1 Difference, Predicted - Measured -2 -11 -11 -18 -13 -17 -18 -16 -18 -16
Input
_ _ e Calculation to Location 93. Whalers Lane Data 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB(A)
A Lp, JJA Engine Noise Only @ 10ft 70 66 66 56 57 54 51 48 40 60
Adjustment Factor for 50ft 50 ft -14
B Lp, JJA, Engine Noise Only @ 50ft 56 52 52 42 43 40 37 34 26 46
Track Adjustment for Overall Noise @ 61 dB 15
C Lp, JJA, Engine&Track Noise @ 50ft 71 67 67 57 59 56 52 49 42 61
Distance Attenuation Factor 520 (ft). -20
Multiple Source Adjustment 10 #Carts 10
D Lp, Location #3 for Multiple Carts on Track 61 57 57 47 48 45 42 39 31 51
E Lp, Measured I60 61 54 48 43 43 40 42 33 49
F Difference, Predicted-Measured 0 -4 3 -1 5 2 1 -3 -2 2
NOTES:
(A)Vendor Source Data, Engine Noise only provided by Castle Creek, Converted from 1/3 Octave Band.
(B) Noise Levels adjusted from 10 to 50 feet per 20xLOG(10/50).
(C) Noise Levels adjusted to give 61 dB(A) at 50 feet as measured on real track.
(D)Computation for noise at locations with adjustments as follows:
Multiple Source Adjustment= 10 x LOG(N), where N = number of carts, &
Distance Adjustment=20 x LOG(d/50ft), where d =distance
(E) Data Measured by NCE for 15 minutes
(F) Difference between Predicted less Measured
09/09/1999 CastieCreek_Calc.xls
Noise ConZFol Engineering, Inc. (Billerica MA) • •
Castle Creek,Go Cart Operation
Calculation of Received Noise Levels
For Formula K!FK) Go-Carts
Input
Calculation to Location Q.Across Street Data 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB(A)
A Lp, FK, Engine Noise Only @ 10ft 70 66 66 56 57 54 51 48 40 60
Adjustment Factor for 50ft 50 It -14
B Lp, FK, Engine Noise Only @ 50ft 56 52 52 42 43 40 37 34 26 46
Track Adjustment for Overall Noise @ 53 dB 7
C Lp, FK, Engine&Track Noise @ 50ft 63 59 59 49 51 48 44 41 34 53
Distance Attenuation Factor 300 (ft). -16
Multiple Source Adjustment 10 #Carts 10
E Lp, Location#2 for Multiple Carts on Track 58 54 54 43 45 42 38 36 28 47
F Lp, Measured 67 73 73 69 66 67 64 60 54 71
1 Difference, Predicted-Measured -10 -19 -19 -26 -21 -25 -26 -24 -26 -24
Input
Calculation to Location 0. Whalers Lane Data 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB(A)
A Lp, FK, Engine Noise Only @ 10ft 70 66 66 56 57 54 51 48 40 60
Adjustment Factor for 50ft 50 It -14
B Lp, FK, Engine Noise Only @ 50ft 56 52 52 42 43 40 37 34 26 46
Track Adjustment for Overall Noise @ 53 dB 7
C Lp, FK, Engine&Track Noise @ 50ft 63 59 59 49 51 48 44 41 34 53
Distance Attenuation Factor 520 (ft). -20
Multiple Source Adjustment 10 #Carts 10
D Lp, Location #3 for Multiple Carts on Track 53 49 49 39 40 37 34 31 23 43
E Lp, Measured 60 61 54 48 43 43 40 42 33 49
F Difference, Predicted-Measured -8 -12 -5 -9 -3 -6 -7 -11 -10 -6
NOTES:
(A)Vendor Source Data, Engine Noise only provided by Castle Creek, Converted from 1/3 Octave Band.
(B) Noise Levels adjusted from 10 to 50 feet per 20xLOG(10/50).
(C) Noise Levels adjusted to give 61 dB(A)at 50 feet as measured on real track.
(D)Computation for noise at locations with adjustments as follows:
Multiple Source Adjustment= 10 x LOG(N), where N = number of carts, &
Distance Adjustment=20 x LOG(d/50ft), where d= distance
(E)Data Measured by NCE for 15 minutes
(F)Difference between Predicted less Measured
09/09/1999 CastleCreek_Calc.xls
_��`, 4Al
- - - - -
�rQX ,4 Lyme
�ccz
/Jon. /�` ,� 2 !/" } -��i/��W�-p✓L!J
.? ' •,�C/ Y
Dale_ ' We-A A
S CAYK W v4 +0 0 fbSe
j
0- q o - c6EI�-�- �, vs , Yt e So;1 Jw�, ri S-
C4 Ylva�/1 �t s vv.j\5 l ; ✓.e- a ver,
r 1 R
Tv n1 bus { e ss � c�c��S« �� e
M Ir � � jUlf cr,U,-S e- �, � �� L� �s
q TUN - a �'Afl I �d � z
SiJC.�'✓k �JS c � CI /0� " Vis: . �
c-yr /vr`v� I voa� �� hck3 �S��l � hs
ivav� l �cT vv ✓ DWN r1.5lC . fvT L4E--
r e �6 0 n v VIA,P- ul
cis wJ e vav , e4-1 o� v� iYNp
-� ss �s
1 lJ /s u ^A hQ � � � A eXe ✓ .-L-
c is Q ct c � � r (
p
x
SrU VJ S �1 p ' a 1�4 cj ( ril p( s41l- ,G
-PG c " 6vF-e al �i/�ti Y'c1vt
4 5 5
S4-o P,
J
LU o u �� / e- (� Z G ✓IO 15 Gi G2 dC kI d r 51Y
losc G
i
v .i s. �a' F e;,ori ra,
23,q •+a'tS c �` .," l < i. —'____—_
.':Nota„���iur"4ec.Tc�at�• �.x�.�� - -.
r
n rJ , 0- i
- � 0, 6 - c�� � CuIILJl�
Lo
I s f
VAC' eelsIn
, t }� ea -)- �y- � L ,4, v, y
.
f1
�oG y< Svc Son . � � very
cL 0 - Ccs ec- v \rs e. 1 h
TI.n.,) CAVI c� Ip l,cc sV ve
- I--1ll -D IY I k2� av0- VA I0cG +�� T� GZ b 4 y
Gt J ` Ht t C$ l,()0 L/ J
IIA
o f v O S Q- � L/�5 i /vt-e S-J-e` 1 kk
Sa� kr . IAIP_ cv� � � _�rva1 a
� e Ss Duey aY�a� � 4Zac --p( oLIS aveq )
L16v--}� 6-7
(� i, r � 1
J
-;; L� � 1h Li �l 1 1G /OddI�G �Y, ��e
vvl
J �
f i i l
ll
S
._...-. ;�.. v
Board of Appeals
City of Salem
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board,
I would like to express and have read into the record my complete and unequivocal opposition to a go-cart
track operation on Swampscott Road. The close proximity of this proposed enterprise to neighborhoods
would render the quality of life for residents untenable. I.would respectfully ask you to,without
reservation, deny this application.
Sincerely,
� �)z
Scott J. McLaughlin
Councillor At-Large
Sent By: Biotek, Inc. ; 781 938 8938; Oct-20-99 10:24AM; Page 2/2
Oct. 20, 1999
City of Salem
Board of Appeals
Dear Sirs,
This letter serves to inform you of my opposition to the Special Permit application being
sought by D & D Realty to build a Go-cart track on Swampscott Rd. As the owner of a home
located at 8 Admirals Lane, I have asked my neighbor, Mr. Richard Gaeta to speak in my
behalf against this application. The Mariner Village and Green Dolphin developments are
relatively new neighborhoods where neighbors get together for barbeques and to walk around
the tree lined streets of the complex. By granting this Special Permit , you allow a business
whose only intent is profit , to establish a noisy and odorous enterprise that would deny this
quiet sanctitude it now enjoys. A Go-cart track would produce gas and oil fumes because of
the notoriously noisy two cycle engines they utilize. My wife and myself saved for ten years to
purchase our home and we bought where we did because of the quiet beauty the area had to
offer. A Go-cart track would not only ruin the quiet sanctuary that we all call our neighborhood,
but would also lower the property values of our homes. As a taxpayer of Salem, I strongly urge
the Board of Appeals to reject this Special Permit application for the construction of a Go-cart
track and save our neighborhood.
Si ly
Phillip Blaskovich
8 Admirals Lane
Salem, MA. 01970
1-978-744-7976
t .
. l
w
Sent By: Biotek, Inc. ; 781 938 8938; Oct-20-99 10:24AM; Page 1 /2
.. ... .... .
........ .....
Dctober 19, 1999
To.
:roar. Lovely
City Councilor-Ward T!IT ee
Salem, NIA
From
JohnlBarbara Sullivan
4 iJood Hope Laiie
Salem, NIA
Subject Construction and ope,atiop c fa Go-'init bus! oil Swa:nprco t Roars
Dear Councilp,�rson Lovely,
Barbara and I ale residents of the Fafard condos ltwated above 4,varnpscott Road We
are very aoacerned with the possibility that the City may allow the +cons:n:ctton of a Go-
Kart business ilii cif that road. Our primaryconcern, iS for the so,'Lld pollution that suet! a
facility would create and the subsequent negative f.ffect that this wottid stave on uur lives,
and on our investment Secondailly ixare concerned' xith the increase of traffic and
safetv cowoderations
I believe that the development taken in its entuer; has a positive impact upon the Citv in
a variety of ways' taxes, interested voters, wialive.ly high end c;7nsun-iers, an esthetically
pleasing and attrac dye Petghborhood, etc M"hile there are few negative aspect:„, lavv City
infrastructure investment, arsd small demand upon City service(schools).
Toe proposed Go Kart location is directly be low our d-veloprnent, wid against an
opposing rise Consequently. any Boise cr.:ated viould have a clear line of siglit to our
home I believe that a negative impact would ultimately have q negative impact upon the
values of just not our hOrne. but on the development as a 9.'1'cole That tri Karn would have
a negative impact upon the community of Saiert7.
Speaking for Barbara and 1, we have;; made a substaeitml tang;-tern± investment in the City
of Sale-,n Aly observation is that our netghbots lalve dowse• the same- an rsap red a e of
millions of dollars We request that the City of Salem hav; an eq ial and long;-term
commitment with us Thank you for adding our t t t=ms to r'IQ warty others you have
received, Councilor Lovely
We ass:that the application for a ('110-Kart business Ie deselect..
Sincerely
3olttt,a Rarbat Sullivan
- r
s% .LL i
s ., i
Alizabeth Marcy
73 Whalers Lane
Salem, MA 01970
October 20, 1999
City of Salem
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Re: D&D Realty Trust request for a Use Variance to allow a Mini-Kart Course
Dear Members of the Board:
I am an abutter in close proximity to the proposed site for the Mini-Kart Course. I purchased a condo at
Mariner Village because it bordered conservation land. I enjoy sitting out on my deck and having my win-
dows open where I can hear birds, crickets and a running brook during the day and at night. These serene
natural sounds would be disrupted by mechanical sounds of mini-kart motors if this Mini-Kart Course
were built. The reason I believe I would hear these sounds is because I can now hear people talking from
the miniature golf course even though my unit is across the road and on higher ground.
I am also concerned about my view. I look over trees, a natural pleasing view; however, I can also see the
sitelanned for the Mini-Kart Course. If a course and floodlights were installed, this again would disrupt
P g g P
a tranquil environment I now enjoy. Therefore, for these reasons, I am opposed to granting the Use
Variance to allow the Mini-Kart Course as it would adversely affect the peace and quiet of my residence.
Thank you,
iAii bet'hM a
Opposed for all the reasons stated above.
James B. Hacker
4 Mayflower Lane
Salem, Ma 01970
October 17,1999
Salem Zoning Board
1 Salem Green
Salem,MA 01970
Dear Board Members:
Due to a previous engagement,I am unable to attend this evenings scheduled meeting,However,I
wish to voice my strong opposition to the proposed"Recreational Use"at 114 Swampscott Road
I would like to remind this Honorable Board that a similar plan was proposed ears ago and
a few y
er met with neighbors.At that time,the board granted permission to install a
withdrawn after the petition
large Treadwells ice cream sign.Essentially,we now have an ice cream store and miniature rant approval.
one rezoned parcel.It is my understanding severalboat�be done missions needed to also g
Was that ever carried out. I believe not Why?
Originally,the petitioner was granted a variance to the BPD zone.This was further stretched to
Orig
aceommOrigodate second variance retail ice cream sales to the public as opposed to an ancillary use for
miniature golf customers as stated in the first varianceNow they are asking for go-carts What s next
batting cages? Pilch and Put? A sandwich shop? A deportment store? Please review all permits and
variances from other boards to insure compliance
The petitioner at one time stated k was an economic hardship to develop parking in the area now
proposed for a go-cart raceway.I am puzzled.If that area can now be developed,why not accommodate
the already existing businesses and parking deficiency?
will
I believe if this creeping zoning application is granted,the loud echoing noise from hemmmers and
result in interference of the quiet enjoyment of my property.Sitting on my deck in the spring,
fall would be eliminated. Open windows would be become a thing of the Past Is there a member of this
e a power lawn mower running under their bedroom windon�ghten�rtoc'
gMmn
board that would welcomwould
hours a day, seven days a week? The property values of my condominium and my
plummet immediately. dy
due
A few years ago,an outdoor Karoke attraction at Salem Willows was unan Parldngdwascuot an
solely to the noise factor,The noise generated was surely less than ou
a g the oe bog's rights
issue Residents were further away from the noise origin than this plan.In that case Y,Ir
were preserved. _
I further submit the development of the parcel was, and aminiature
mcg a o�course blain the center.
Willows on Swampscott Road,over a period of time by constructing
cream retail shop,Third,adding on undeveloped area for
parking or agradin
Secondly,adding an Ice traffic on
other revenue producing attraction.Why is parking not provided?
Swampscott Road with no sidewalks is surely a recipe for disaster.
October 17, 1999
• Page 2
The entrance and egress currently located at the bend in the road coupled with the topography is
at best dangerous Additional traffic would be irresPonsib►e. It exhibits the lack of concern on the
i
petitioner's part
I further believe the petitioner recently divided the property to avoid notifying the very neighbors
i
who opposed the previous.pehhon The unusual and odd division shows the petitioner's true character an•
his attorneys'value for the sprit of the law.
This is the third representative for the petitioner. Attorney_Craney and Mr. William Luster
P Mr.Kielty,Please let the out-of-town developers and their out-of-town attorneys know they can
not use end run tactics It is either a good honest Plan or not We should not be asked to sacrifice our
personal recreational time or the value of our homes for their economic ventures.
on the surface,it would appear that recreational use is less intense use than industrial.However,
keep in mind that most industrial vehicular traffic occurs between 6:00 am. and 5:00 P.m., Monday
through Friday,not including holidays Ail work is done inside the building and does not contribute to any
activity proposed will only add to the automobile traffic
noise pollution.The additional outside recreational
and noise now generated at the miniature golf course and ice cream stand. Seven days a week, early
morning to late evening,, now hear voices, revving motors, and squealing breaks Can you imagine
rbate a bad situation?The petitioner has not proposed any
several go-carts racing around a track not exace
buffer zone.Could it be that he knows nothing will work as the noise will travel up and echo.
The petition states " Enforcement of said zoning by-laws and building code would involve
hip.. By dividing the lot the,petktiouer has created his own
practical difficulty or unnecessary hards
hardship,which is not a legal hardship. Isn't this similar to a child murdering his parents and asking the
tout for mercy because he is an orphan?
The same would hold true for the request for a variance to parrdng. In addition,using parking
already designated for another facility near by would be a duplicate use of Parking spaces. The city tried
this approach at the Norman Street Condominiums and Riley Plaza, Essex Condominiums, and the
Parking garage, and the Pickering Wharf area Situations change, Problems arise, conditions become
unenforceable and in short,parking on unowned property does not worn
j I further challenge the submitted plan as to legitimate legal parking spaces Please confirm the
width of each space the width of the entire driveway area, and the radius required, allowing vehicles to .
> j
turn.Is the drawing to scale?Is it properly stamped?
By granting this petition you only allow the petitioner to fine his pockets and create traffic
.,, hazards,remove the ability of my neighbors and me to the quiet enjoyment of our property,and decrease
1 spend tax payer's money to improve the area and clean up
after the petitioner?Sidewalks,and traffic control devices are not inexpensive
Property values Is the city of Salem going to
J3
'i9
i
• Page 3, October 17, 1999
111
Granting this petition will not substantially increase the taxes paid on the property or add any
quality jobs.,
Denying the potion will;
1)_ Put a stop to creeping zoning and or spot zoning.
2) Allow the BPD zone to add quality jobs and industry to our city
3) Preserve the integrity of zoning ordinance
4) Remind developers of their obligation to do what they say and tell the complete truth.
5) Protect residents so we are safe and protected by the zoning requirements and its intent
6) The currant use and proposed use draws customers from all communities has many no
benefit for Salem residents. The relief requested can not be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
7) The proposed plan will not promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
As a consumer,I would recommend the petitioner,add additional parking where the proposed go-
cart track is proposed to accommodate his present customers and concentrate on operating the very best
golf course on the North Shore.At this present time,I take my granddaughter to Vic's in Danvers,where
parking is always guaranteed.
Compromise will not work in this situation.Limiting the hours of operation or the number of go-
carts in use,or the use of mufflers,is not an option.Please take a pro-active stand for the residents of this
community.
I am confident the court will uphold an appeal. As by definition,a selfimposed hardship does not
qualify as a legal hardship.
As members or the Board,you have taken an oath to support the law and the spirit or the law. I
urge you to not only to deny the petition but hold this petitioner to previous conditions issued by this,and
all other Boards and commissions.
I urge you to please do the right thing and deny this petition.
J es B.Hacker
J.
Ricci S.Hacker
��` -�
TO: the Salem Board of Appeal
FROM: The residents of Mariner Village, Salem
DATE: October 10, 1999
RE: Go-cart track
We strongly object to the granting of a special permit for the operation of a go-cart track
on Swampscott Road for the following reasons:
1. SAFETY: The condition of Swampscott Road is poor. There is no lighting, there are
no sidewalks, the road curves and there is only limited maintenance of this road by
the city and state. Furthermore,the completion of K-Mart and Home Depot will only
place a greater strain on the use of this road,which is already overburdened with cars
and trucks. The potential danger to drivers and young children walking along this
road can only increase with further development.
2. NOISE: The proposed location is in a valley leaving the increased noise from this
operation to escape up toward us. Already the noise from the iniature golf course
can be heard in some of our homes during the summer e1He eff the
windows closed. To
burden us further with the noise of 8 or more lawn mowers running, simultaneously,
all day every day and evening, is both cruel and unfair. Further noise will also come
from the screaming of the onlookers as they yell at their children using the go-carts.
t 3. POLLUTION: Within the last year, the EPA has identified lawn mowers as one of the
major polluters of the air. Go-carts are nothing more than lawn lowers on wheels and
will be a contributing factor to the quality of air in our area.
4. DECREASE IN VALUE OF HOMES: It is also obvious that any diminution in the
use of our homes will cause a decrease in their value. This, in turn will be reflected in
lower taxes to the city.
We moved here for the quality of life and the benefits to the city of a go-cart operation
pales in comparison to the quiet enjoyment of our homes by over 100 families, the risk to
the environment and the dangers posed by increased traffic on Swampscott Road.
NAME SIGNATUU ADDRESS
AI�1Lfl� TAYLUI� OL �9 I�
:ems ao zr✓��c a
sCk-
2. �x
SICA ZVI.
0 4- A),.
My A�11_ Ali . •� -
FINAP7A. .. �M ICS,
KIN
WrPT// �/� r i
MRIM �a c
MO.mmrf=O.W�KAMNKAlffla��
�TjAWI _PVEN-Irm
'iii. ���►��� .J1� � ► �u
y
r_--._...__.---- --------- - --- it
ACZ(Leli Oq
4 i n1iA C e,r, IYIA
ti40 ulvrtJWVW14 ee
h�
0� 60
_ fo r. -
- - 170
EMMAP✓Uil ZkfA)n XVS�,y WO Ar-o,,, L�.�
y - - - - --- - - - _ - - . - -- - -
// _ - -
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
October 19, 1999
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
To The Honorable Board:
Please accept this letter regarding the Special Permit application for 114 Swampscott
Road which envisions a go-cart business to be located at said property. This proposal
intends a use which is inappropriate for this area, its surroundings and the specific zoning
upon the parcel. Consequently, I am opposed to this proposal and believe it to not be in
the best interest of the City of Salem.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Stanley Usovicz, Jr.
Mayor
SALEM CITY HALL•'93 WASHINGTON STREET•SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3592•978/745-9595•FAX 978/744-9327
Citp of *atem, ,fia!5!9acbu!5ett.5
(Office of the Citp Council
f Citp fall
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE LEONARD F.O'LEARY WARD COUNCILLORS
PRESIDENT
1999 1999
JOHN J.DONAHUE DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW PETER L.PASKOWSKI
THOMAS H.FUREY CITYCLERK REGINA R. FLYNN
KEVIN R. HARVEY JOAN B. LOVELY
SCOTT J. MCLAUGHLIN LEONARD F.O'LEARY
WILLIAM A. KELLEY
SARAH M. HAYES -
MARK E. BLAIR
October 20, 1999
Salem Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Madam Chairperson and members of the Board:
I would like to go on record as being strongly opposed to the petition of Castle Creek Mini-golf for
a special permit to allow a mini go-cart facility on Swampscott Road.
This type of noisy activity would disrupt and degrade the quality of life for the abutting neighbors.
Therefore, I would respectfully ask that the Board reject this request, and not burden the
surrounding neighborhood.
Very tyrully yours,
KEVIN R. HARVEY
COUNCILLOR-AT-LARGE
JOHN R. KEILTY, COUNSELOR AT LAW
40 LOWELL STREET TELEPHONE (978) 531-7900
PEABODY, MA 01960 FACSIMILE (978) 531-2479
September 30, 1999
Board of Appeals
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem,MA 01970
Attn: Sally Murtagh
RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION
114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD, SALEM,MA
Dear Ms. Murtagh:
Please be advised that I represent D&D Realty Trust, Dana DiLisio, Trustee,the petitioner
for a Variance from the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance as it applies to the property at 114
Swampscott Road, Salem,Massachusetts.
Submitted herewith are the following instruments:
1. Check in the amount of$75.00 as application fee;
2. Check in the amount of $ /,,?/ -!�O as advertising fee made payable to the
3. Check in the amount f$10.00 as recording fee made payable to the Registry of
Deeds;
4. Check in the amount of$2.00 as certified copy fee made payable to the City of
Salem;
5. Application for Variance;
6. Plan of Land.
:Kindly schedule this application for hearing at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truly yours,
John R. ell squire
JRK/emb
Enclosures