PUBLICATION: Asheville Citizen-Times (Asheville, NC)
DATE: November 21, 1998
SECTION: Local; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Wilt Browning
DATELINE: Asheville, North Carolina
The Asheville Citizen-Times reports there are two efforts to build a racetrack in the Asheville, North Carolina, area. In response to one of the plans, Henderson County commissioners have imposed a 90-day moratorium on racetrack building while they work on a noise ordinance.
According to the article, the race is on to build a new speedway in the Asheville area. Columbia, SC, commercial real-estate developer John Huffman said this week that he "absolutely" plans to build a track, hopefully within 15 miles of downtown Asheville, and be ready for competition by late next summer. "I'm building a speedway in Asheville. That's going to happen," Huffman said Thursday. "Asheville's going to have a new speedway - maybe two. If that happens, one of us will be in trouble." Early this month, Danny Jones also announced plans to build a speedway, on 71 acres of farmland near Fletcher. But that project has been placed on hold for 90 days while Henderson County commissioners develop a noise ordinance. Jones, meanwhile, said he has hired Asheville lawyer Craig Justice to represent his interests and plans for a new raceway, to be called Carolina Motor Park, have not been altered. "All of this is part of what we anticipated," Jones said of resistance to his plans in the Henderson County area. "We were warned that we would face things like this by other track owners. I even got a call this week from someone at Atlanta (International Raceway) telling me to keep my chin up."
The article reports the two movements to build a racetrack in the area are in response to a void caused by the recent sale of Asheville Motor Speedway to a nonprofit group, which then gave it to the city. The speedway is slated to become a riverside park. Jones and Huffman have been leaders of efforts to replace Asheville Motor Speedway since it was purchased in October by RiverLink. According to a deed restriction, the property is to be converted to a greenway and can no longer be used for any form of automobile racing, though exceptions for the 1999 season are being investigated in the wake of the controversy that has surrounded the deal. Huffman said Thursday that he has asked the city to lease Asheville Motor Speedway to him for the 1999 season if the deed restriction can be overcome for a year. He asked for a response from the city by Dec. 1, though it could take the city longer to make a decision, Huffman said.
The article states Huffman does not have a site yet, but is actively searching. The businessman says he has considered 15 so far and has two, which he declined to identify, at the top of his list. He has made purchase offers on the two top sites. Reacting to Huffman's vow to build a speedway in the Asheville area, Jones said, "all I know is what our plans are. It's easy for John Huffman to live in South Carolina and say what he's going to do here. But this is my back yard. We're trying to overcome the legal issues that have arisen and no matter where he tries to build, he's going to face the same hurdles we have. That's the nature of what we're trying to do." Jones said engineers are at the site in Naples every day, and core samples have been taken. "We haven't stopped even for one minute since all this came up. We're still planning to build." Huffman said that Jones' announcement that a speedway would be built along Old Asheville Road in the Naples area of east Henderson County "might have been premature. I've been trying to build a speedway in Columbia for 18 months, and I've learned that these things take time," Huffman said. "We've looked at nine different sites and some of the neighbors were thrilled that we might build near them, and at other sites some were not very thrilled. It's the old not-in-my-back yard thing. To say we're plodding along in Asheville is a good description because we intend to do this right. When we choose a site, it will take us a week to 10 days to put our engineers in there to make sure it is a suitable site. Then we'll check on all the zoning and permits and make sure we can build something that really is a neighborfriendly environment. After that step, we actually would spend a week to 10 days talking to the neighbors, finding out how they feel. It's important to me to be welcomed into a community, and I think that will happen."
PUBLICATION: The Indianapolis News
DATE: November 21, 1998
SECTION: Metro West; Pg. W01
BYLINE: Bruce C. Smith
DATELINE: Plainfield, Indiana
The Indianapolis News reports the Federal Aviation Administration has approved a new plan to reduce the impact of airplane noise from Indianapolis International Airport on homeowners in Plainfield, Indiana.
According to the article, depending on location, airport officials will buy homes damaged by noise, or offer to install sound-reducing insulation or subsidize part of the sale price. "The goal of this program in the best of all worlds is to help people stay in their homes and to preserve neighborhoods when possible," said Dennis L. Rosebrough, spokesman for airport manager BAA Indianapolis. In the past 10 years, the airport board has bought about 1,000 homes, mostly in Marion and Hendricks counties. Every five years, airport officials review the policies and details of airplane operations that affect noise. After a study and public hearings by local airport officials in the past year, the FAA approved the newest five-year plan to reduce the effects of plane noise.
The article reports the latest effort begins an ambitious plan primarily aimed at Plainfield and the area between it and Mooresville. Rosebrough said that under the new plan, about 369 homes will be eligible for sound insulation or purchase. If a homeowner decides to sell to the airport, the house is then insulated to reduce noise inside, the home is then placed back on the market. Sycamore Estates and nearby homes are in one of the first areas chosen for that treatment, probably beginning early in 1999, he said. Rosebrough said because all of those homes can't be repaired or purchased at once, the airport board conducted a lottery on Oct. 27 with a Sycamore representative present . Letters went out soon afterwards to residents whose homes are to be considered for insulation or purchase. The first wave includes 50 homes. In some neighborhoods that are less affected by noise, in a program called sales assistance, the airport offers to pay 10 percent of the selling price of homes where the owners claim noise has damaged their property values. Last week, the airport board awarded a contract to Boston-based Jones Payne Architects and Planners Inc. for $728,000 to design and manage the customized sound insulation for each house. The board also awarded a $127,000 contract to W.D. Schock Co. to help relocate residents who choose to sell. Additionally, in one operational change under the new noise mitigation plan, airplanes on takeoff will wait until they are 6.5 miles from the runway before making a turn to change directions.
PUBLICATION: The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
DATE: November 21, 1998
SECTION: Local; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Courtney Perkes
DATELINE: Colton, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pete Colunga, resident; Nancy Feldman, air quality district prosecutor; Theodore Rodriguez, resident
The Press-Enterprise reports a California U.S. District Court upheld a ruling forbidding trains from idling and spreading noise and fumes in a west Colton neighborhood.
According to the article, residents of the west Colton neighborhood said Friday they are grateful for a federal judge's ruling which will preserve their restful nights of sleep and enjoyment of their yards. A ruling by U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder upholds an air quality order forbidding Union Pacific Railroad trains from parking on a siding and emitting diesel exhaust into the neighborhood and creating noise. "I'm glad the little guy finally got a victory here," said resident Theodore Rodriguez. A track paralleling Jackson Street near Olive and C streets was used to park trains while others passed on the main line. Residents have complained of locomotives idling for as long as three days at a time, producing soot and creating noise. Until July, when the South Coast Air Quality Management's hearing board ordered the railroad to stop parking idling trains near the neighborhood, residents couldn't open windows because of choking fumes from the locomotives. The judge's decision will keep the ban in place. "We're enjoying our peace," said Pete Colunga, a Jackson Street resident. "We get to sit outside in our yards and barbecue. I was really scared about the kids' health. They were having a lot of headaches and breathing problems. They don't even complain about headaches anymore."
The article reports the railroad says the AQMD order has disrupted train operations. Union Pacific spokesman Mike Furtney said the company still maintains that only the federal government can regulate the railroad. After the July order by the AQMD, the railroad filed a lawsuit arguing that the hearing board did not have the authority to issue and enforce the order, which was later modified to allow use of the siding in emergencies. "We are still confident that in the long run we will win on the legal points," Furtney said. "It makes our operations less efficient than we would be otherwise." In addition to the lawsuit the railroad sought a preliminary injunction to stop the AQMD from enforcing the hearing board's order to ban idling at the siding. But the judge denied the request, although noting that the railroad "has raised serious questions regarding the validity of the abatement order" which will be considered in later proceedings. Furtney said the company has not decided yet whether it will appeal. Nancy Feldman, an air quality district prosecutor, acknowledged the battle with the railroad is not over because of the pending lawsuit.
PUBLICATION: Sarasota Herald-Tribune
DATE: November 21, 1998
SECTION: Local/State, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Laura Higgins
DATELINE: Longboat Key, Florida
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Hal Lenobel, Longboat mayor
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority has moved another step closer to using a new flight path that would shift jet aircraft noise to the center of Longboat Key, Florida.
According to the article, the Federal Aviation Administration this week issued a "finding of no significant impact" - meaning the agency's review found no serious environmental effects associated with the new departure path. The FAA will hold an informational meeting on Dec. 16 to answer questions about the route, known as the 270-degree turn. It involves a harder left turn for aircraft taking off to the north-northwest. About half of the 30 to 35 daily jet aircraft departures will take that path. Next, air traffic control personnel must be trained in the new procedure and a flight check conducted. Fred Piccolo, executive director of Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, estimated the new departure path could be in effect 90 days after the public meeting.
The article reports the airport has been trying to get the new takeoff path approved for more than three years, since airport officials believe it will reduce aircraft noise for residents of the mainland and the north end of Longboat Key. Airport officials admit that some residents of the midsection of Longboat Key will experience more jet noise than they do now. But those officials also say, and the FAA agrees, that a greater number of people on the island and the mainland will get relief from current takeoff noise.
The article states the town of Longboat Key has fought the change, and as of April this year, had spent $66,000 on legal fees. "The flight path does environmentally affect us," said Longboat Mayor Hal Lenobel. "How the town might proceed has not been determined," he said. "We have taken it up at many meetings and we will continue to do so in order to get them to alter their plans."
PUBLICATION: The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News (Stuart, FL)
DATE: November 21, 1998
SECTION: A Section; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Eric Alan Barton
DATELINE: Stuart, Florida
The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News reports golfers in Stuart, Florida, won the first court fight Friday against the pig farmers they say are disrupting them with blaring music the farmers say calm their animals.
According to the article, a judge Friday issued a temporary injunction ordering a couple raising pigs at their home to refrain from playing music that can be heard beyond the boundaries of their property. Officials at the Florida Club, a golf course across the street from two pig farms sued in April for playing loud music, called the ruling a victory for people trying to enjoy their land without disturbance from loud neighbors. "This music was being played to disturb the golfers on our course, and now they'll be able to enjoy a game without blaring music," said Bill Bowler, the club's vice president. The Florida Club and neighbor Alice Krenz claim in the suit that the music is a public nuisance intended to disturb golfers. They filed separate suits against the Rossanos and neighbor Paul Thompson, who live across from the club's fourth hole. The farmers claim the music calms the pigs.
The article states the pig farmers contends the ruling infringes on their rights. Faith Ann and Thomas Rossano, who were ordered to stop playing the music loud, said they will ask their attorneys how loud the tunes can be. "How would you play music outside, either to enjoy it or for the animals, and not have it pass your line of property?" said Faith Ann Rossano, who keeps 20 pigs for her family's consumption. The Rossanos' attorney, Rosemarie Richard, said she will consider appealing the ruling while awaiting a decision from a jury. "I don't know if anybody can comply with this order. Any time you play music in an open place, you take the chance that you can hear it off the property," Richard said. The ruling is more restrictive than a Martin County noise ordinance approved by commissioners in October, Richard said. That law measures disturbing noises from the home of the complainant, not the border of the property producing the noise.
The article goes on to say Friday's ruling by Circuit Judge Larry Schack will apply until a jury trial tentatively scheduled for January. The ruling says the Rossanos have "created a nuisance due to the volume level of the music" and have "annoyed and disturbed" nearby golfers. Louis Lozeau, the Stuart attorney representing the golf club, said he probably will seek a similar injunction in the sister lawsuit against Thompson. "I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how the judge can require anybody to go beyond the law by restricting their music," said Thompson, a Martin County native who raises 200 pigs on his property. "The fight ain't over. This is just getting started."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
DATE: November 21, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 1B
BYLINE: Steve Liewer
DATELINE: Boynton Beach, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports a federal policy limiting home construction near highways is threatening to stop a controversial housing project west of Boynton Beach, Florida.
According to the article, four years ago, the U.S. Department of Transportation's inspector general issued a report criticizing the Federal Highway Administration for allowing subdivisions too close to highways, leaving homes exposed to noise and transportation officials the target of complaints. As a result, FHA warned state and local officials to stop allowing unprotected new developments so close to highways, or risk losing federal funds for building new sound walls. "Broward County continues to have this problem, but Palm Beach County has even more potential because the population is exploding so fast," said Ken Campbell, district noise specialist for the Florida Department of Transportation. "Unfortunately, once a house is built, it's rather hard to move."
The article reports Palm Beach County, fearing the loss of $25 million for construction of sound walls along Interstate 95, has limited subdivisions along the county's other major expressway, Florida's Turnpike. One project that could be denied is a small development proposed on a half-mile-long by 200-foot-wide strip of land between the Aberdeen community and the turnpike. Developer K. Hovnanian wants to build 19 houses there, but more than 100 Aberdeen residents protested the plan at a Zoning Commission meeting earlier this month. At that meeting, attorney Alan Ciklin, who represents the developer, said a zoning requirement that K. Hovnanian build a sound wall might kill the project. He said it would cost about $400,000 to $500,000, adding more than $20,000 to the cost of each house. Ken Rogers, the county's land development coordinator, said the same provision has been enforced against at least four other developments along the turnpike. In three cases, the developer changed the site plan so the nearest houses were far enough from the highway that a wall wasn't required, he said. The fourth developer hasn't yet submitted plans. "I would say so far it has not been a problem," Rogers said. "Since DOT has notified us of this issue, we've been trying to work with them to minimize the (noise) impact." However, Kevin Ratterree, a planner with the West Palm Beach design firm Kilday & Associates, said he would rather use softer noise buffers such as trees and shrubbery to separate houses from highways. Setbacks and walls, he said, force architects to create smaller lots or a 20-foot concrete wall. "I think people buying a home next to the turnpike know what they're getting," Ratterree said. "I haven't seen these projects along the turnpike turn into slums. ... Those houses are for sale. They get gobbled up just like all the others."
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star
DATE: November 21, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Liz Neely
DATELINE: Oxnard, California
The Ventura County Star reports California's Oxnard and Camarillo Airport Authorities plan to create a position and a program to deal with complaints about noisy airplanes.
According to the article, the two agencies tentatively agreed Thursday to create a noise abatement/ community relations manager position who will focus on community outreach and education. Rod Murphy, director of the Ventura County Department of Airports, said he receives an average of six noise complaints each month. The new manager will oversee the noise monitoring stations at both airports and will set up portable stations in areas with the highest number of complaints. Additionally, the department's three operations officers will also serve as noise officers. They will be "trained to handle noise issues and deal with the community," Murphy said. The new manager also will meet with pilots who violate the policy and will create an education program.
The article reports Oxnard Councilman Bedford Pinkard, a member of the Airport Authority, said the new program could help lessen the noise complaints. "It's more education, I think, more than anything else," Pinkard said. "We felt a good education program would bring good results." As part of the new program, noise monitors could also be installed within a year to 18 months, Murphy said. The department will present the matter to the Airport Land Use Commission, and Murphy said he expects final approval by the Airport Authorities in December or January.
PUBLICATION: The Capital (Annapolis, MD)
DATE: November 20, 1998
SECTION: Front; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Nicole Gaudiano
DATELINE: Annapolis, Maryland
The Capital reports officials in Annapolis, Maryland, are revising their noise laws to make them easier for police to enforce.
According to the article, when a car alarm shattered Eastport resident John Lang's peace and quiet, he called police. Of the continuous and blaring noise, Lang said, "It was very bothersome. It just gnaws at you, tears at your gut." But Mr. Lang said he received a disappointing response from the police: There is nothing officers can do to stop the noise other than trying to contact the car owner. Across town, Jacob M. Hammer said he got a similar response when he reported a car alarm that prevented him from working at his home office in September. "It was just plain ordinary annoyance," he said. "I couldn't think." Once again, the honking continued for several hours. City police Lt. Robert Beans said he was not familiar with either case, but found it hard to believe an officer would leave a honking vehicle in a community. Police may tow cars when the alarm becomes a nuisance and the owner can't be found, he said. "We exhaust every attempt to locate the owner," said Lt. Beans, Neighborhood Watch coordinator. "If that fails, we have to remove that vehicle to an impound lot at the expense of the owner. So far, we haven't had to do that, because the alarms usually reset themselves." Still, noise complaints create a collective headache for Annapolis city officials, stuck between residents who can't tolerate the noise and officers who say the noise ordinance is hard to enforce.
The article reports in response to the situation, Mayor Dean Johnson and Alderman Louise Hammond are drafting a new ordinance. "I get complaints all the time about it," Mrs. Hammond said. Residents tell Hammond they report loud music to police, but as soon as the officers leave, "party houses" crank up the volume again. "Now I'm being told the excuse is (police) believe the code isn't something they can work with. If that's the problem, we'll write a new one." Mayor Johnson said city police officers can't enforce the law without a complaint from the public. Johnson said he wants to change the law to make it easier for officers to initiate enforcement. Even if police issue the authorized $50 fine, City Attorney Paul Goetzke said, that doesn't help residents whose neighbors' security alarm can't be turned off because they're out of town. "A fine doesn't end the problem," he said. Hammond said she plans to work with Mr. Johnson to develop a new ordinance that she hopes will cover all types of disturbances, including car alarms. "If the mayor now feels the way to handle this is to reword the ordinance and include other types of noise, then I'm going to try it," she said.
PUBLICATION: The Fresno Bee
DATE: November 20, 1998
SECTION: Business, Pg. C1
BYLINE: Sanford Nax
DATELINE: Fresno, California
The Fresno Bee reports plans are underway to construct a new, more effective "hush house" at California's Fresno Yosemite International Airport.
According to the article, the city is seeking a consultant to design a new metal hush house to replace the current hay hush house which consists of bales piled about 15 feet high, shaped like a "U" and covered by a blue tarp. A hush house reduces the noise when . airplanes rev up their engines as part of routine maintenance. The hay hush house dates to WestAir Airlines, which erected it in the 1980s. The hay hush house was made for the turboprop aircraft that WestAir operated and not for regional jets that Fresno officials are trying to attract to the airport. "A jet can't get up in there. On a jet, the engines are on the back and stick out the back end," said Mike Gibson, vice president of maintenance at SkyWest Airlines. A house made of hay is not as good as one made of metal, city and airline officials say. "Hay deteriorates, and you have to maintain it. It also is a potential fire hazard," Gibson said. It also doesn't muffle sound as well as city officials would like. The airport currently hosts one metal hush house. The Air National Guard has a fully enclosed hush house made of metal for its F16s. Doug Mooradian, the airport's operations manager, said it works so well "you can carry on a conversation outside while they are running up the engines inside."
The article reports Fresno City Manager Jeffrey Reid said $2 million in federal funds have been allocated to design and construct a facility. The hush house would be owned by the city but could be used by any carrier that has maintenance operations at the airport, Mooradian said. The grant has to be used for noise reduction, Reid said, noting that the city has received complaints about the noise. Reid said: "We want to do a better job muffling the sound, and we want to increase service to the additional jet carriers."
PUBLICATION: The Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: November 20, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Celeste Katz
DATELINE: Johnston, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Albert Coutu, resident and member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Humans
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports the noise from late-night paving in Johnston, Rhode Island, has turned into a legal issue.
According to the article, Johnston's attempt to prevent the Granite Asphalt plant from running late at night was unsuccessful Wednesday in Superior Court. The Irons Avenue plant has working this week to complete a state paving project as part of the statewide resurfacing program. Work is being done at night to ease commuter-traffic burdens, John B. Webster, the lawyer for Granite Asphalt, said yesterday. The late-night noise from the plant and from trucks moving on and off the property this week angered residents, who complained to the town and to police, said resident Albert Coutu. Apparently a letter Town Solicitor Milan T. Azar wrote to Granite Asphalt on Tuesday led to Wednesday's court action. The letter was based on a town regulation, which states that businesses cannot conduct commercial operations between 1 and 6 a.m. Said Azar: "I sent them a letter saying, 'We understand you're doing business that violates that section of the (town) code. We're going to send the police down, and if we find out that you are (doing business), we're . . . going to stop the trucks from going in and going out.'" When Granite Asphalt received the letter, plant officials went to Superior Court.
The article reports Webster said he based the plant's case on the Rhode Island Constitution's Article 13, "Home Rule for Cities and Towns." Webster said, "We challenged the (town) on (the grounds) that municipalities don't have the right to regulate intrastate commerce," he said. "What the courts have consistently held is that the municipalities are not allowed to get involved in the licensing or regulation of businesses." The asphalt plant received a temporary restraining order, which prevents the town from interfering with its "manufacture, transportation and installation of bituminous concrete pending further order of this court." Both sides are scheduled to return to court this month. "The judge ruled initially that cities and towns can only do what the state legislature gives them power to do. And he's saying the state legislature has never given that power to the cities and towns," Azar said. "I'm trying to argue that . . . the cities and towns have to have some control over the quality of life in individual neighborhoods." Webster said Granite Asphalt will probably complete its work on the paving job in about three days.
The article states the court's restraining order wasn't welcomed by Coutu. "Right now, I'm very tired," he said yesterday. "I haven't slept on and off all night because the plant has been starting (work) at 8 at night, and this morning they quit (at) quarter after five." Joined by some of his neighbors, Coutu belongs to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Humans. The group has worked to get the plant moved. When the plant is running, he said, "It's a noise that's like a jet plane that's flying low over your house and never leaves." On top of that noise, Coutu said, is the sound of trucks rumbling over potholes left from recent sewer work on the street. "There isn't anybody on Irons Avenue that needs an alarm clock, let me tell you," he said. "You can't sleep." And as indicated by Azar and Webster yesterday, both the town and Granite Asphalt are still interested in having the plant move elsewhere. But after a potential deal to move the plant to property near the state Central Landfill got buried in money matters, neither side has announced any major steps. Granite Asphalt received a building permit in 1994, and the plant opened in the Irons Avenue neighborhood in the summer of 1996. It's been a nuisance to residents ever since. After the plant went into business, Johnston went to Superior Court and unsuccessfully attempted to stop operation. The town's appeal of the Superior Court decision is now in Supreme Court.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: November 20, 1998
SECTION: Metro, Pg. C3
DATELINE: St. Charles, Missouri
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports Missouri's St. Charles County Council decided Thursday evening to sue St. Louis over expansion plans at Lambert Field Airport, claiming the city's expansion plan is flawed and will dramatically increase noise levels.
According to the article, county officials say they want Lambert officials to prove the noise from low-flying planes using the airport's planned new runway won't blast their neighborhoods with noise. "We wanted to go the path of mitigation vs. litigation, but St. Louis and Congressman Dick Gephardt won't acknowledge there is a noise problem," County Councilman Dan Foust said Thursday. "If they really believe this is the best plan, they would show us that it works." The cities of St. Charles and Bridgeton already have filed lawsuits to block the W-1W plan for expanding Lambert. That plan would add a third runway and require demolition of 2,000 homes and businesses in Bridgeton. Bridgeton charges that St. Louis would violate the city's zoning ordinances. St. Charles argues the added air traffic would generate too much noise.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: November 20, 1998
SECTION: St. Charles County Post, Pg. 1
BYLINE: Ralph Dummit
DATELINE: St. Charles County, Missouri
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports a St. Charles County Councilman believes a lawsuit could have been avoided over noise at Missouri's Lambert Field if St. Louis officials had been more cooperative.
According to the article, it is the opinion of County Councilman Carl Bearden that if St. Louis officials and Lambert Field Director Leonard L. Griggs Jr. had wanted to reach an agreement with St. Charles County to control the noise of overhead aircraft, it could have been accomplished. Bearden said Thursday that a noise agreement could have been achieved "if St. Louis had put as much political pressure on the Federal Aviation Administration as it did to get the ROD," the FAA's record of decision approving the W-1W plan for expanding Lambert. But, Bearden said, the will to reach such an agreement was lacking. Bearden suggested that Griggs and his consultants convinced St. Louis Mayor Clarence Harmon "that it can't be done, that it's not prudent and shouldn't even be talked about." As a result of the rejection, the St. Charles County is expected to join a lawsuit filed Nov. 4 by the city of St. Charles seeking relief from noise that officials say would be generated by a new runway two miles closer to the city limit. Or, the County Council could join a separate suit filed by the city of Bridgeton. That suit contends that Bridgeton's zoning ordinances would be violated when a third runway is built at Lambert and that the premises on which the W-1W plan was approved were flawed.
The article reports Council Chairman Bob Schnur, R-3rd District, said, "Litigation is an avenue that has been forced upon us. I think litigation has to occur. It's just a matter of where and when." A letter last week from Francis G. Slay, president of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, had destroyed any hope by Bearden and Schnur that a noise -control agreement could be reached. Slay's letter made it clear "that federal law pre-empts local control of aircraft flights and noise control measures and penalties except for the federally approved noise abatement programs." Schnur said he was disappointed in St. Louis' position as stated in Slay's letter. "It is absolutely silent on any possibility of working with us or to go to the FAA to pursue the approval of a binding agreement," Schnur said. Slay's letter did state that the city's airport Governance Study Commission "has recommended the addition of a member of the existing Airport Commission from St. Charles County." He called the move a product "of our mutual desire to provide a broader based representation in airport management."
The article states Bearden highlighted that while federal law may forbid an agreement between St. Louis and St. Charles County that would restrict the flight paths of takeoff or landing procedures for aircraft, the FAA itself might have the authority to approve a noise -control agreement, as it has done in other cities. But, Bearden concluded, airport directors avoid such agreements because, for one reason, one city's noise -control agreement only encourages other cities to seek the same relief from noise. "If we were to go through that process," Bearden said, "it would have major impacts across the nation."
PUBLICATION: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)
DATE: November 20, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Jill Rosen
DATELINE: Boca Raton, Florida
The Sun-Sentinel reports a study Florida's Boca Raton Airport must complete before it can further restrict noisy airplanes will not be conducted in the near future, if at all.
According to the article, the Federal Aviation Administration notified airport officials this week that $300,000 for a noise study, called a Part 150, is not included in the FAA's spending plan for the first half of the fiscal year. Furthermore, the FAA says the funding might not come in the second half of the year, either. "Nothing is ever definite," Jennifer Ganley, the FAA's program manager, said on Thursday. "That's a blow we didn't need," responded airport authority member Bruce Benefield. The noise study was to be the next step to satisfy residents bothered by noise in the airport's flight path. To date, the airport has imposed a night curfew and banned repeated takeoffs and landings for practice. But before the airport can impose further restrictions to combat noise, the FAA requires the Part 150 study.
The article reports the Boca Raton Airport Authority plans to encourage city residents to contact their members of Congress to pressure the FAA. "We should pull out all the stops," authority member Frank Kneiser said. While millions of dollars allocated for airport improvements country-wide were ordered frozen during federal budget negotiations, some projects would get their money on schedule, but others would have to wait until the second half of the current fiscal year, after March 31, 1999. Airport Authority members said this week they will appeal to the FAA to get into the first batch of funding, but Ganley said that wasn't likely. The FAA program manager said a noise study is less of a priority to the FAA than requests to subsidize projects that increase safety.
PUBLICATION: Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, MA)
DATE: November 20, 1998
SECTION: Local News; Pg. B4
BYLINE: Karen Nugent
DATELINE: Lancaster, Massachusetts
The Telegram & Gazette reports a cease and desist ordered has been issued against a quarrying operation in Lancaster, Massachusetts, after the company was found in violation of town bylaws governing noise from blasting.
According to the article, the P.J. Keating Co. was ordered to stop its quarrying operation off Route 70 in Lancaster. Building Inspector James J. Ford Sr. said yesterday he issued the order Monday because the company, which makes asphalt and concrete, has been found in violation of town bylaws. "I sent them a certified letter on Monday, and got the return receipt yesterday," Ford said. "The blasting is a noisome use, according to the bylaw ... I understand the Fire Department is not going to give them any more blasting permits, but they still have an earth removal permit. " Ford said if the company, headed by John Keating, continues to blast, fines of $300 a day will be imposed.
The article reports the cease and desist order came after more than a year of legal maneuvers by the town and the company's lawyer, Mark C. Bodanza of Leominster. Ford initially found the company in violation of the noise ordinance in March, after an October 1997 complaint was filed against the company by John Keating's cousin and business rival, Paul J. Keating II of Leominster. At that time, Ford advised John Keating to seek a special blasting permit from the Planning Board. Instead, the company appealed Ford's decision to the Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals, which upheld Ford's decision in June. Since then, the case has gone to two state courts. The company has sued in Worcester Superior Court, while the Zoning Board and the selectmen have filed suit in Land Court, to confirm the validity of the board's decision. In the company's case, Bodanza contends the zoning board broke state and town requirements by not filing its decision within 14 days. Also, Bodanza claims the company is not subject to the noise control law because its operation was a nonconforming use in existence before the law's adoption. Meanwhile, Paul Keating's attempt to build a rival blacktop plant in Lancaster, about a mile from his cousin's plant, was defeated last year by the same noise bylaw.
PUBLICATION: Asheville Citizen-Times (Asheville, NC)
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: State/Regional; Pg. A1
BYLINE: Julie Ball
DATELINE: Hendersonville, North Carolina
The Asheville Citizen-Times reports Henderson County Commissioners on Wednesday considered a first draft of a noise ordinance they will finalize before lifting a moratorium on the construction of any racetracks in the North Carolina county.
According to the article, Henderson County Commissioners Wednesday reviewed the first draft of a noise ordinance that could affect the operation of a racetrack proposed for the Naples area. The proposed ordinance would prohibit "excessive noise created as a result of the racing of automobiles, motorcycles or other motor vehicles that disturbs the peace, quiet and comfort of the neighborhood." At the same time, the ordinance would exempt "noises resulting from the normal operations of any commercial or industrial enterprise." The draft drew some criticism. "That would almost seem inconsistent if your enterprise is a competitive motor sports operation," Henderson Commissioner Grady Hawkins said during the Commission meeting. The ordinance could also create problems for a proposed driving range at the new Justice Academy in Edneyville, Hawkins said. But County Manager David Nicholson stresses the ordinance is merely a draft that could change before it comes back before the board. "It is very early in the discussion," Nicholson said Wednesday.
The article reports several investors want to build a one-half-mile racetrack in the Naples community. The track would replace the now defunct Asheville Motor Speedway. But plans for the new racetrack have been met with opposition from residents concerned about the noise and potential traffic problems the track might create. The current moratorium prevents the construction of any racetracks until Feb. 9, 1999. Nicholson said county staff members plan to ask citizens to review the proposed noise ordinance before taking it back before the board. Commissioners will likely vote on the ordinance sometime after the first of the year.
The article states Nicholson said he is gathering information on the cost of equipment to measure the noise and the cost to train sheriff's department officers, who will have to enforce the ordinance. "This draft is fairly new," he said. Some of the other noises regulated by the draft ordinance are loud stereos late at night, animals that disturb the neighborhood, loud language that disturbs anyone in the vicinity, out-of-repair vehicles that generate "unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling or other noise," the shouting of vendors or excessive noise at a flea market, and discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a residence or business.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports a new runway was approved for the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota International Airport despite protests from citizens criticizing the environmental impact findings of jet noise on their community.
According to the article, a north-south runway that will increase air-traffic capacity by 25 percent at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport received final approval for construction. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board determined that the Metropolitan Airports Commission adequately analyzed the environmental impacts of the 8,000-foot runway near the eastern border of Richfield. The runway is expected to be completed by 2003.
The article reports the board voted unanimously Wednesday to accept the runway's environmental review despite hearing three hours of testimony - most of it from Richfield residents and officials who said that the MAC had done a poor job analyzing the effects of low-frequency jet noise on their community. Sen. Jane Ranum, DFL-Minneapolis, asked the board to reject the environmental impact statement as incomplete. She charged the review had not been open and honest and said the MAC did not address whether the new runway would further competition at the airport or merely solidify "the stranglehold of Northwest Airlines" on Twin Cities air service. However, Airports Commissioner John Himle of Bloomington said he accepted the environmental statement because the airport is nearing capacity, the review was extensive, and the MAC undertook more noise mitigation than any other airport around the country. "Airports are controversial," Himle said. "There are no zero-impact solutions."
PUBLICATION: Bangor Daily News,
DATE: November 19, 1998
BYLINE: Mike Laberge
DATELINE: Fairfield, Maine
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Bryan Michaud, resident; Joe Rowden, resident
The Bangor Daily News reports the Fairfield, Maine, Town Council adopted a moratorium Wednesday on "bulk recycling facilities" in order to address residents' fears of noise, traffic, and safety issues about a proposed tire shredding plant.
According to the article, opposition to a company's plan to shred millions of scrap tires at a plant in the woods prompted the Town Council Wednesday to enact a six-month moratorium on such projects. The temporary suspension, which must be approved by the town's attorney, would prevent companies from placing "bulk recycling facilities" in town until the end of May. If Town Attorney Alton Stevens signs off on the moratorium, town officials would have time to draft local controls. The vote followed lengthy discussion, during which the opponents of the tire-chipping plant voiced fears of noise, traffic, pollution and lower property values. "We strongly, strongly urge a moratorium be put on this project immediately," opponent Bryan Michaud of Fairfield said before the vote. "This is the mechanism our council has to protect us and to buy us time," he said.
The article reports a Massachusetts company, Arthur Schofield Inc., hopes to turn as many as 2 million tires each year into insulating chips for paving and construction projects. When neighbors learned about the project last month, they quickly banded together. Besides lower property values, they worry that storing tens of thousands of scrap tires at a single site could create a potential fire hazard. ASI's proposal calls for up to seven 100-by-100-foot storage cells, with 35-foot buffers. Gathering information from other communities and the Internet, the opponents drafted proposed regulations for this type of recycling facility. They also drafted a proposed site plan review ordinance, which would give the town greater control over such projects. The opponents have hired a lawyer to advise them. Both proposals are awaiting review by the town's attorney, councilors said Wednesday.
The article states ASI recently withdrew its application for approval from the state Department of Environmental Protection after discovering procedural errors. But the company is expected to resubmit that application. Opponents urged councilors to use the opportunity to adopt local controls, given the state's interest in disposing of the 30 million to 40 million scrap tires in landfills and other sites in Maine. Councilors promised to do what they could to protect the town's interests. "This is of great concern to everyone," said Councilor Franklin Bouchard, who favored the moratorium. "I have no love lost for this tire recycling facility," he said. "I don't think this is the proper location for it." The DEP has proposed a thorough and objective review, and company officials have said the plant would be a good neighbor. At a Nov. 5 informational meeting, they said the chipping machines would run on electricity, generating no more noise than a car traveling along the interstate. They also said the plant would be set well back from the road, would run during normal business hours, and would accept tires from four to 20 trucks per day, with the average closer to six.
According to the article, despite such assurances from the company, strong concerns among residents remain. Resident Joe Rowden told councilors Wednesday the town would gain nothing but a headache from ASI. "This company is obviously going to cost our community money, it's going to cost our community image, and it's going to cost our community, in the long run, business," said Rowden. Council Chairwoman Dawnalysce Clifford said councilors were doing their best to address the issue. "I'm not thrilled about having a huge pile of tires in our town, and I'm working to try to convince the developer to go to another location besides our town," Clifford said. "I see this as a legal issue," she said. "We need to get proper legal advice. We can't act in a hasty manner." Councilors also approved a second measure, instructing the town's code enforcement officer, Cynthia Tuttle, to check the proposed ASI site for evidence of illegal tire dumping.
CORRECTION- November 20, 1998: A story in Thursday's Mid-Maine edition about opposition to a tire-chipping plant proposed in Fairfield misquoted the chairwoman of the Fairfield Town Council. Dawnalysce Clifford said, "I'm working to try to convince the developer to go to another location inside our town."
PUBLICATION: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: News Pg. 3
BYLINE: Dave Daley
DATELINE: Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports officials in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, have requested highway noise barriers to protect outdoor school activities from freeway noise.
According to the article, with increasing noise from U.S. Highway 45, which separates the Wauwatosa West High School and the Whitman Middle School, disrupting student activities such as band practice and soccer games, the Common Council has asked the state to erect noise barriers on both sides of the freeway. The rumble of freeway traffic is troublesome for both schools, and the problem will become worse when new athletic fields north of the middle school are finished, Wauwatosa School District Superintendent Robert Slotterback said Wednesday.
The article reports the barriers would help the high school just west of the freeway and the middle school just east of the freeway, according to Wauwatosa City Engineer Howard Young. With the Wisconsin Department of Transportation scheduled to repave Highway 45 over the next two years, now would be a good time to ask the state to put up the barriers, Young told the council earlier this week. Freeway noise levels around the schools have increased substantially in recent years because of much heavier traffic, especially trucks, Young wrote in letter to the Department of Transportation. Noise levels have become "intolerable" and were "extremely disruptive" to recreational use of athletic and playground areas at the two schools as well as a third school in the area, the letter says. "We are confident that should a study be done, it (Highway 45 near West High School) would rank among the worst in the freeway system. We need these sound barriers now," Young wrote. Young also noted that the Milwaukee-area freeway system includes numerous sound barriers installed in other communities, but that Wauwatosa has only one such barrier.
PUBLICATION: The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA)
DATE: November 17, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 20S
BYLINE: Nina Wasserman
DATELINE: Pembroke, Massachusetts
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Peggy Holthaus, resident
The Patriot Ledger reports a Pembroke, Massachusetts, resident says the noise is escalating from a gun club on her street.
According to the article, Forest Street resident Peggy Holthaus says she can't bear the noise coming from the Old Colony Sportsmen's Association. "It sounds like a war is going on. It sounds like cannons," Peggy Holthaus complained to selectmen last night. Holthaus has lived about a half-mile from the club entrance for 16 years. The club has been in existence on Forest Street for more than 50 years. Holthaus said she had not objected to the sound of gunfire until this year. She charges the noise has been getting worse in recent years, with noise this year the worst. "It's a violation of my right to peace and quiet," Holthaus said.
The article reports selectmen told Holthaus there was little they could do about the situation. Selectman James Balzotti, a member of the club, said selectmen do not have the power to close the club. Selectmen said they would ask the police to inspect it to make sure the club is doing all it can to minimize the noise. The club has built noise suppressers on the skeet-shooting range, and much of the rifle shooting is done indoors, police Lt. Willard Boulter said. "They have done a lot to decrease noise and increase safety," he said. "It's a pretty up-to-date facility. And they have been pretty receptive to the town when residents complained in the past." He said the club could publicize its tournaments to warn residents when there will be more noise than usual.
PUBLICATION: The State Journal Register
DATE: November 17, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. 8
DATELINE: Springfield, Ohio
The State Journal Register reports the Springfield, Ohio, City Council is considering increasing fines for violators of noise law.
According to the article, motorists who blast car stereos and owners of ear-piercing boom boxes could face $250 fines if the Springfield City Council decides tonight that the current $75 fine is not an effective deterrent. "I have heard loud and clear from residents that they want something done," said Alderman Frank McNeil during the council's public works committee meeting Monday. "We want to get the attention of the people doing it, and all they have to do is turn it down." Currently, if the sound generated by a radio or stereo can be heard at a distance greater than 75 feet, that offender can be given a $75 ticket. McNeil and other aldermen said that if the fine is increased, the nuisance might be eliminated. Under the proposal, police would give a violator a $250 ticket for the first offense. A second offense in the same calendar year could result in a $500 fine, minimum.
The article reports some council members questioned if the increased fine will actually silence the noise when many offenders have the charges dropped in court. Aldermen said busy judges often dismiss city ordinance violations, which doesn't give much weight to the law. "If we're not enforcing it now at $75, why is it going to change by jumping the fine?" said Alderman Bruce Strom. To address that concern, aldermen asked city attorney Bob Rogers to investigate whether noise offenders can be prosecuted through an in-house judicial process, similar to the city's parking ticket court.
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: South Fulton Extra; Pg. 01Jk
BYLINE: Elizabeth Sims
DATELINE: College Park, Georgia
The Atlanta Journal reports concerned about airport noise and expansion, members of the College Park City Council will return to Sand Diego in February for the 1999 Airport Noise Symposium.
According to the article, Councilman Thomas Waller said the city has had some success in reducing noise levels by rallying for quieter planes and better flight patterns. But "Anytime we can find anyone who can shed anything new on noise problems it's of interest to College Park," said Waller.
The article reports the February conference is hosted by the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies and the National Center of Excellence in Aviation Operations Research. The keynote speakers, Jane Garvey, administrator with the Federal Aviation Administration, and Gary Evans, professor of design and environmental analysis at Cornell University, will address national and global issues involving airport noise and land use capabilities. Evans is an expert on the human impacts of noise and will discuss recent research on the effects of noise on learning abilities of children. Other speakers will include local officials, representatives from airports and citizens groups, FAA environmental managers and noise consultants. Additional topics will include noise mitigation expectations of local communities, sound insulation programs, measuring and reporting airport noise and airspace redesign. One session will discuss ways airport leaders and land zoning jurisdictions can work together. Experts will also share information about sound insulation programs, acquisition of noise monitoring systems and how to create noise reports.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: Editorial, Pg. N22
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles published an editorial that contends airlines at California's Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport have the responsibility and power to end the dispute with the city of Burbank by showing respect for their host and its community and agreeing to abide by curfews.
According to the editorial, for years the city of Burbank and its residents have fought the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport over plans to build a new, larger terminal at a safer distance from the runways. The fight, taking place in several courts for most of the time, centers on flight curfews. The airport is situated near homes in Burbank, North Hollywood and Sun Valley. "Everyone is aware that jets make a heck of a lot of noise when they take off and land before dawn and late at night. The residents just want a period of peace and quiet without the perpetual roar from jets. It doesn't seem like too much to ask for," the editorial claims.
The editorial reports the Airport Commission repeatedly has pointed out that granting such a curfew is beyond their control. Federal aviation laws control the operations of airports, and they have largely been written for the safety of passengers and the profits of airlines, so the community suffers. Using its leverage, Burbank says no curfew, no new terminal. The airlines say no way, even though they have generally abided by a voluntary 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew. But they refuse to consider putting stricter rules in place because other urban airports across the country would demand the same. There is no requirement at this time for airlines to abide by the curfew, and the only way such a ban can be imposed is for the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct a costly and time-consuming noise study to determine if a curfew is justified.
The editorial contends "the easiest, simplest and best solution to end this drawn-out, knockdown fight for control of the airways above Burbank is for the airlines to agree to penalties for violations of the curfew. And that is as it should be in this day and age. It's high time the airlines became good corporate citizens in Burbank. They've allowed this expansion battle to go on too long. They have allowed the use of an unsafe terminal to go on too long." The airlines must show respect for the communities that are their hosts and patrons. "The airlines, and only the airlines, have the power to solve the problem."
The editorial encourages readers to express their opinions by calling or writing the airlines. Contact them at:
Alaska Airlines, President Bill Ayer, PO Box 68900, Seattle, WA 98168; (206) 433-3200.
American Airlines, Chief Executive Office Dan Carty, MD 5623, PO Box 619616, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas, TX 75261-9616; (817) 967-2000.
AmericaWest Airlines, President Richard Goodmanson, 4000 East Sky Harbor Blvd., Phoenix, AZ, 85034; (602) 693-0800.
Reno Air, Chief Executive Officer Joe O'Gorman, PO Box 30059, Reno, NV, 89520-3059; (702) 954-5000.
Southwest Airlines, President Herb Kelleher, PO Box 3611, Dallas, TX 75261; (214) 792-4000.
United Airlines, President Jim Goodwin, PO Box 66100, O'Hare Airport, Chicago, IL 60666; (847) 700-4000.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Tina Dirmann
DATELINE: Ventura, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Wagner, resident; Mike Barton, resident; Dan Esau, resident
The Los Angeles Times reports residents of Ventura, California, want to close nearby firing range because of incessant noise, but county law enforcement agencies say range provides vital service.
According to the article, Ventura resident Mike Barton's home sits directly below the Ventura Shooting Range. "It's incredible in a residential neighborhood you can have this barrage of gunfire," Barton said. "It gets pretty bad." Tired of listening to the constant crack of gunfire, Barton recently circulated a petition with 70 signatures asking city officials to discontinue its contract with range proprietor Richard Clark. The City Council will decide next month whether to extend its contract with Clark for another three years. City parks and recreation officials are expected to recommend approval. They say the range provides a vital service for the county. Ventura, Oxnard and Santa Paula police departments and some federal law enforcement agencies use the range for practice. Most departments require that officers fire their weapons at a range about every other month. If the range closed, officers might have to travel out of the county to meet their shooting requirement, which would be time consuming and costly in overtime fees, said Ventura Police Lt. Don Arth. Although there are other ranges in the county, none is suitable, Arth said.
The article reports many area residents say their quality of life is being compromised. "I can't even go out and enjoy the breeze and the trees without feeling like I'm in the middle of a war zone," said John Wagner, a Lewis Street resident. "It's always boom, boom, boom. This is a residential area, and it's not an appropriate place for that." At a recent Park and Recreation Commission meeting, resident Dan Esau submitted a 90-minute tape recording of the steady drum of gunfire heard from his Carr Drive home on a Sunday afternoon. Residents' demands vary from enclosing the range to moving it somewhere else to shutting it down altogether--options that city officials say are unreasonable and too expensive. Residents note that the range only brings in about $3,000 annually for the city. "That's not an awful lot of money for all that noise, " Wagner said. Last month, city officials, along with representatives from the National Rifle Assn., conducted a noise test to investigate residents' complaints. Ten officers were stationed at the range last month and ordered to fire 175 rounds of ammunition. From Carr Drive, authorities measured noise levels. In decibels, the zipping gunfire ranked no louder than the sound of a passing car or a radio playing from inside a neighbor's home, officials said. But it is not just the level of noise, it's the constancy of it, residents say. "It's like a dripping water faucet in the kitchen," Barton said. "It's always there. But it's not water--it's the crack of gunfire. You don't get used to that."
The article stated range operator Clark said he is willing to make changes to appease his neighbors. Clark plans to align the open area used by law enforcement officers with 10-foot-tall trailers, which can be used as classrooms. Behind the trailers he will stack large storage containers. The combination, he says, should muffle the gunfire by as much as 30%. The range will also reduce its hours slightly. But residents doubt the suggested changes will make much of a difference. "I just get the feeling that you can't build a wall high enough to stop" the noise, Barton said. Clark said he wants to work with his neighbors. "I'm trying to be reasonable," Clark said. "I can't make noise go away, but there are things I can do to make it better for the people down the hill and maintain the quality of the shooting range for residents and law enforcement."
PUBLICATION: The Morning Call (Allentown, PA)
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: Bethlehem, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Tracy Jordan
DATELINE: Nazareth, Pennsylvania
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Vicki Velopolcak, member of Nazareth Area Citizens Advisory Committee
The Morning Call reports a residents' advisory committee to ESSROC Cement Corp discussed on Wednesday noise concerns about the Nazareth, Pennsylvania, manufacturer's proposed 1.7-mile conveyor.
According to the article, members of the Nazareth Area Citizens Advisory Committee recommended the company gather as much information as possible on noise levels related to the conveyor and advised Nazareth councilmen to consider lowering the borough's noise limit of 75 decibels. "Daytime noise levels are more tolerable," said Easton attorney Charles Elliott, chairman of the meeting. "The real question is what is the impact going to be at nighttime." ESSROC officials said the manufacturer of the conveyor would issue a warranty guaranteeing the conveyor can operate at between 52 and 60 decibels, which is considered a conversational level. However, no state or borough regulations enforce the level, unless the borough changes its ordinances or the state Department of Environmental Protection makes it a condition of ESSROC's permit. The company has applied to the DEP to expand its mining permit to include an abandoned railroad grade that would become the conveyor's route. ESSROC wants to build the conveyor to end its reliance on trucks to deliver stone and clinker between its plants and quarries in Upper Nazareth Township and Plant I in Lower Nazareth Township. The DEP has scheduled a public hearing on the application Tuesday in Nazareth.
The article reports ESSROC officials at Wednesday's meeting described nearly $10 million worth of environmental projects the company has undertaken since purchasing the former Lone Star Cement Co. plant in 1994. Theirry Metro, ESSROC's director of manufacturing, also described about $4 million worth of improvements the company plans to make in the next two years. Much of the work completed so far has focused on controlling cement dust, which residents blame for damaging their cars and homes and aggravating their sinuses. In an effort to win residents' confidence, ESSROC redesigned its proposed conveyor system after about 250 people signed a petition recommending the conveyor be built underground throughout the borough of Nazareth. If built as proposed, a 1,000-foot section would be built in a concrete tunnel, then continue in a hut-like structure the remainder of the way to Plant I. Residents wanted the entire section to be below the surface, but company officials said the added cost of at least $1.2 million would make the project unfeasible. ESSROC's manager of Pennsylvania operations, Mario Bracci, explained in a presentation on the conveyor that the section enclosed in the building should alleviate dust, noise and safety concerns. Although the other sections of the conveyor would not be underground or enclosed, the conveyor would have a cover and be secured with a fence on both sides. Bushkill Township Supervisor Vicki Velopolcak, a member of the residents committee, suggested the company also consider fencing for the enclosed portion.
PUBLICATION: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. C-4, East Neighborhoods
DATELINE: Forest Hills, Pennsylvania
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports the town of Forest Hills, Pennsylvania, is on its way to passing its first noise ordinance.
According to the article, the Forest Hills Town Council approved the initial reading of the borough's first-ever noise ordinance. The ordinance was written in response to problems from the Parkway Cabana Club, a party rental establishment in Wilkinsburg that frequently is the source of complaints about noise from Forest Hills residents. In writing its ordinance, the borough consulted the state Crimes Code for noise violations. The council will take a final vote on the noise ordinance Dec. 16.
PUBLICATION: The Vancouver Sun
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: News; Digest; Pg. B1 / Front
DATELINE: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
The Vancouver Sun reports North Vancouver, British Columbia, has requested that Greater Vancouver regional district abide by local noise laws when they complete a number of projects next year beside Cleveland Dam.
According to the article, North Vancouver's motion is in response to $95 million worth of water treatment and dam safety projects the Greater Vancouver regional district will undertake near Cleveland Dam. "Our past experience with the GVRD hasn't been very positive," said Councilor Pat Munroe, who introduced the motion. North Vancouver's motion stipulates that the Greater Vancouver regional district will comply with noise and development bylaws when the projects begin.
PUBLICATION: Ventura County Star (Ventura County, CA)
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. B01
BYLINE: Gregg Mansfield
DATELINE: Ventura County, California
The Ventura County Star reports California's Ventura County's Department of Airports is considering creating a position to deal with noise complaints from residents living near the Camarillo and Oxnard airports.
According to the article, Director of Airports Director Rod Murphy said the proposal comes from an advisory board and the airport authorities. "They wanted more positive relations with the communities in place," Murphy said. "( Noise) will be the major focus. We want to be a good neighbor." The agency wants to create a noise abatement/community relations manager whose job will be to handle the noise complaints. The position would also oversee the noise monitoring stations and set up a portable station in areas where complaints are the highest. Within a year and a half, Murphy hopes to install noise monitors at both airports. Each airport will also have portable monitoring stations.
The article reports Murphy said the noise abatement manager would also meet with pilots who violated the noise policy and create a pilot education program. Airport officials say they receive about 70 complaints a year about airplane noise. Generally most of the complaints are about planes that are flying too low.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Tribune
DATE: November 19, 1998
SECTION: Metro Chicago; Pg. 3; Zone: N; North Shore Watch.
BYLINE: Leann Spencer
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
The Chicago Tribune reports the Chicago Botanic Garden is working on a proposal to build an innovative sound barrier to muffle nearby highway traffic noise.
According to the article, highway noise is an intruder at the Chicago Botanic Garden in Glencoe, where it clashes with the blissful silence of the garden's quiet meditative spaces. Officials at the garden have started a study to measure noise along the garden's western perimeter and are working on a proposal to build an innovative sound barrier. Unlike the unattractive industrial-looking sound walls that can be seen along Chicago expressways, this one would be a natural-looking soil-filled berm planted with a variety of grasses, flowers and trees. Officials are hoping that, in addition to its aesthetic appeal, the proposed sound barrier also would serve as an example showcasing innovative sound control methods that could be used by road builders and developers. "If we go ahead with this, we want it to be model of how a sound wall could be most aesthetically treated," said William Brown, vice president of operations for the Chicago Botanic Garden.
The article states estimates for the cost of the sound wall, Brown said, are about $6 million. It would run for about a mile along the west side of the garden next to the expressway and rise from about 6 feet on the north edge of the garden where the expressway noise is the lowest to about 16 feet on the southern end where it is the loudest. Road noise was measured by installing a number of microphones at various points throughout the garden, and a computer program calculated the necessary height and placement of the wall. The topography would be varied in an effort to make the wall look as if nature sculpted it rather than a bulldozer. There's no timetable yet for construction, Brown said. Feasibility studies are expected to continue into next year.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: November 18, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Bristol, RI
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports the town of Bristol, RI, has agreed to repeal a noise ordinance that was challenged in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties of Rhode Island.
According to the article, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of store owner Paula Scott, who was ordered by town officials to stop playing New Age music through speakers outside the Crystal Enchantment Gift Shop. The lawsuit charged the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was too vague and too broad, according to ACLU volunteer attorney Carolyn Mannis. The ordinance prohibits any noises which are "physically annoying" or "so harsh, so prolonged or unnatural, or unusual in their use, time and place, as to occasion physical discomfort." The town agreed to pay Scott $2,000 in damages, and to pay about $4,000 in attorney fees. The town has also agreed to repeal the ordinance within three months and will not enforce the ordinance until it is repealed. Scott's lawsuit claimed that sales at the gift shop declined since it was forced to stop playing music.
PUBLICATION: Chicago Daily Herald
DATE: November 18, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Jon Davis
DATELINE: Arlington Heights, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Stephen Daday, trustee and chairman of committee
The Chicago Daily Herald reports an advisory committee in Arlington Heights, Illinois, is ready to present their new strategic plan to fight noise from O'Hare International Airport.
According to the article, the committee wants cleaner and quieter airplanes, quieter nighttime skies, but noisier citizens. Those goals highlight one Arlington Heights committee's 1999 resolutions list The village's advisory committee on O'Hare noise all but approved a draft of a new strategic plan Tuesday. Its goals for 1999 include advocating for cleaner and quieter airplanes; protesting increased flight operations; improving the effectiveness of the "Fly Quiet" nighttime noise reduction plan and O'Hare's noise abatement program; and encouraging a more active citizenry against airport-related noise pollution. Committee members will vote on the final draft at their December meeting, said Trustee Stephen Daday, chairman of the committee.
The article reports on Tuesday, committee members debated goals and actions to be taken to meet them. "Should we evaluate whether we believe 'Fly Quiet' is an effective mechanism at this point, from our view here in Arlington Heights?" Daday asked. "I think we should evaluate it ourselves." Others agreed and added an evaluation of the city of Chicago's 6-month-old program to the list. Some ideas, such as exploring opportunities for using new air traffic control technology, were eliminated as too vague. The draft plan also continues opposition to converting military flight slots for commercial use; sets up times for various homeowners' associations to meet with the advisory committee; and asks residents to request seats on newer and quieter airplanes when making travel reservations.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: November 18, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Lee Condon
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports Burbank officials won a round in California Appeal's Court in their attempt to strike a noise deal with Burbank Airport.
According to the article, Burbank city representatives should get a chance to prove in court that projected noise increases at an expanded Burbank Airport would violate state law, the state Court of Appeal decided in a ruling made public on Tuesday. The ruling sends the case back for Los Angeles Superior Court to consider the issue of whether the airport would unlawfully increase noise levels beyond the current limit of 370 acres. Burbank City Manager Bud Ovrom said the appellate court decision might encourage airport officials to make a deal with the city and end protracted legal battles. "We're capable of protracting this legal fight for a long time. It demonstrates that the airport will have to overcome these legal hurdles unless they deal with us," Ovrom said. "We want a new airport, too, but they're not going to jam it down our throats."
The article states the ruling was a victory for the city because the lower court earlier refused to consider whether an expansion would violate a state law limiting the area where the airport can affect noise levels. Burbank officials said the decision means the airport must now prove that its expansion and growth plans will not exceed the cap. "We still have to prove at court that they (would be) violating the cap, but we think the facts are very clear on that," said Peter Kirsch, a lawyer for Burbank. A recent study commissioned by the airport projected that the noise-impact area will increase to 500 acres by 2010. But Victor Gill, a spokesman for the airport, said the expansion will not cause increased noise beyond the 370-acre limit. He said the projection for increased noise in homes near the airport was based on computer models that do not adjust for new noise -control measures. For example, he said, the airport will pay to insulate many homes in which noise levels otherwise would rise. "By 2010 we will have insulated hundreds and hundreds of homes," Gill said.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 18, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 5; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports in the Burbank Airport dispute, a state appeals court has ruled the city of Burbank, California, can proceed with one of its court cases against the Airport Authority on the issue of terminal expansion.
According to the article, last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge rejected Burbank's claim that the airport's proposed new terminal would increase aircraft noise in nearby residential areas. But Friday, the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court, allowing Burbank to argue that the terminal project would negatively affect what is known as the "noise -impact area." Under state rules, no more than 370 acres around Burbank Airport can fall within what is described as its "noise footprint." The footprint's area is derived through a mathematical formula that uses aircraft noise level measurements in different neighborhoods to arrive at an abstract depiction of an area most heavily impacted. However, a listener standing just inside or outside the footprint boundary would hear little or no difference in jet roar.
The article states Burbank's special counsel on airport issues, Peter Kirsch, hailed the appeals court decision as one of the most important victories for Burbank in the long-running dispute. "It's not just a lawyer's victory, but a victory for those people most affected by noise at the airport," Kirsch said. "It goes to the airport authority's key defense for why they refused to address the noise problem and their legal obligation to deal with it." But airport lawyer Richard Simon downplayed the ruling, noting Burbank had set out to block the terminal project by trying to shrink the noise-impact area. "It is a defeat for them because the court rejected their claim that the noise footprint must continually shrink," said Simon. "It is a defeat for us because we have to go back and try this case." Simon added that a federal appeals court has already upheld a 1996 federal environmental review approving construction of a larger terminal at Burbank Airport, which in the end may take precedence over whatever is decided in state courts. "The factual question in this case is whether the authority has violated or will violate the ceiling on noise, " Kirsch said of the most recent case. "Now, we have to go back to trial on that very question."
The article reports the state appeals court decision is the latest development in the fight over the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority's plans to expand the existing 14-gate terminal to 19 gates. The larger controversy can be traced back to a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred the city of Burbank from interfering in airport safety and operations. To date, about six cases are pending in state and federal courts over the airport. Burbank city officials have argued that construction of a new terminal would create more noise and traffic to annoy their residents. The airport authority has countered that the existing terminal is too small to accommodate the current annual level of 5 million travelers, and that passenger demand determines the amount of traffic at the airport, not the size of the building or number of gates.
According to the article, since 1996, both sides have waged an expensive court battle over the proposed terminal, with each side scoring various victories. In one of the biggest cases, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West ruled last February that Burbank had relinquished certain powers over the airport expansion by signing the joint powers agreement with the cities of Glendale and Pasadena that established the airport authority. In May, Burbank filed another case in state court, maintaining that land purchased by the airport is zoned for manufacturing and would require a new zoning designation from the city before any airport-related construction could take place.
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: November 18, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 3C
BYLINE: Celeste Tarricone
DATELINE: West Greenwich, Rhode Island
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports a Rhode Island zoning board delayed voting on a gun club permit so that the town can hire a sound expert to study how noise from the club would affect nearby residents.
According to the article, the West Greenwich's Zoning Board of Review last night postponed a vote on the Wincheck Gun Club's proposal to move to 43 acres off New London Turnpike so that the town can hire a sound expert to conduct a noise. Ultimately, whether noise from the gun club is likely to lower nearby property values and disturb residents' quality of life will determine the board's decision, board members said last night. The board has already heard expert testimony from a sound consultant hired by the gun club, but wants to be sure that it has accurately gauged the impact of noise on the area. "I've reviewed all the testimony ... and I don't see where the gun club is going to change the moral issues of the town, or create a traffic problem or a safety issue," said board member Clyde Fish. "To me, the main issue comes down to noise. "
The article reports the board was expected to vote last night on the gun club's request for a special-use permit to operate on 43 acres in the Big River Management Area. Neither faction was happy when it learned there would be at least another month before a ruling is made. "I'd like to apologize to both sides," Fish said. "It seems like we're dragging this out. But in hindsight, the zoning board should have been at the first test." During previous public hearings on the Exeter-based gun club's application, the club's noise expert testified that the club would not have a negative impact on neighboring properties. But while the test was done according to specifications ordered by the town's Planning Board, zoning board members did not attend the first test, and members said they wanted to hear for themselves how well they can hear gunshots from neighboring properties. Also, some members of the Planning Board and several residents who oppose the club's relocation to West Greenwich disputed the results. At the board's meeting last month, one of those residents asked that the board hire an independent noise expert to do another sound test. The zoning board expects to have the sound test conducted in the next two weeks, so members can review the results before the next meeting, scheduled for Dec. 15.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA)
DATE: November 18, 1998
SECTION: Local, Pg. B3
BYLINE: Vandana Sinha
DATELINE: Virginia Beach, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Dennis Borgerding, president of Salem Lakes Civic League
The Virginian-Pilot reports while concerts at the GTE Virginia Beach Amphitheater bring welcome revenue to the town, they also blast unwanted noise to surrounding neighborhoods, making for a mixed review.
The article states officials are trying to solve the problem of concert noise that disrupts nearby neighborhoods. The number of complaints about noise generated by bands at the amphitheater rose to 127 from last year's 79 but still fell below the 169 calls made in 1996. The biggest offender was the Metallica heavy-metal show, which generated 46 complaints. The remaining shows averaged about two calls each. "Before the amphitheater, it was a very quiet neighborhood," said Dennis Borgerding, president of Salem Lakes Civic League. "We want the right to peaceful enjoyment of our property to be restored. And when concerts are going on, we cannot enjoy our property." City officials hope to have a Raleigh, NC, consulting group's final report on ways to resolve the noise problems by next month.
According to the article, in its third season, the GTE Virginia Beach Amphitheater returned 11 percent on the city's $10 million investment, provided a venue for musical heavyweights such as Hanson, Pearl Jam and Janet Jackson to play, and hosted more than 370,000 audience members. The amphitheater's success has gone from "phenomenal" to "smashing" in its first three years, said Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf. Vice Mayor Will Sessoms called it a "good business decision." Preliminary figures show this year's 38 shows brought nearly $1.2 million in taxes and rent to the city. An average of about 9,805 music lovers per show bought $8.3 million in tickets. But along with the revenue intake, the city police and sheriff's departments signed off on 372 arrest warrants and summonses this season, at a rate of about 101 arrests per 100,000 people. The Phish concert, which resulted in 175 arrests and more than doubled the year's arrest rate, prompted Councilman Don Weeks to suggest that the amphitheater close its doors to bands that had been "wreaking havoc all over the country. But it was a soldout show, so the almighty dollar is at work, too," he said.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
DATE: November 17, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Associated Press State & Local Wire reports the Metropolitan Airports Commission says the city of Richfield has been citing an insignificant noise study to try to stop plans for a new runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
According to the article, MAC Chairman Pierson Grieve said Monday that the commission "deeply resents" being accused by Richfield of withholding documents, lying and deceit. "If there has been any of that, it has been on the other side," he said at a commission meeting. In a letter Friday to Gov. Arne Carlson, Richfield Mayor Martin Kirsch claimed that the MAC suppressed a report showing how parts of Richfield, Bloomington, and south Minneapolis may be affected by low-frequency noise from jets on a new runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. "They are hiding documents, lying and stretching ethics, if not breaking them," City Manager Jim Prosser had said of the MAC. Richfield officials have been concerned about low-frequency rumblings and vibrations from the planned north-south runway.
The article reports using the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Richfield forced the MAC to release all of its documents on low-frequency noise. The city discovered that the MAC last year hired a noise consultant who mapped the areas in which residents might notice the noise that jets will make as they land and roll to take off on the new runway, scheduled to open in 2003. The MAC said in a statement Monday that the study "is neither critical nor information and does not raise any significant environmental issues. ... It is simply a criteria that identifies events that may have the potential for producing vibration from low frequency noise." The commission also noted that it has spent $62 million on sound insulation for more than 600 Richfield homes, among other noise mitigation efforts, and alleged that the city of Richfield was no longer acting in good faith. "Therefore, we expect to have to defend the (runway) plan in court," the commission said.
PUBLICATION: City News Service
DATE: November 17, 1998
DATELINE: Burbank, California
City News Service reports a California state appellate court reinstated a lawsuit against Burbank Airport Authority by the city of Burbank, an attorney for the city said today.
According to the article, the lawsuit, one of the first between Burbank and the Airport Authority over noise and land use at the airport, was dismissed by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge more than a year ago. But the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal Friday, Airport Authority spokesman Victor Gill said. The city alleges in the lawsuit that a noise impact area around the airport cannot expand beyond 370 acres surrounding the airstrip. "The court decided that the Airport Authority has a legal obligation to prevent its noise impact from increasing," said Peter Kirsch, Burbank's special airport counsel. "This decision means that, far from being without power as it has previously argued, the Authority is legally required to limit the airport's noise impacts." Sean McCarthy of the Airport Authority disagreed, saying the appellate panel did not necessarily side with the city but ruled that there were triable issues. "Now we are going to try the case on the merits," he said. "There are legal issues that need to be resolved as a matter of law."
The article reports on Nov. 2, the city rejected Burbank airport's proposal to end a dispute with the city over reducing jet noise around the field. The Airport Authority proposed a "global" settlement, offering to guarantee the city a "full partnership" role in a federal study that could result in a mandatory curfew on commercial flights at the airport. In return for the full partnership on the federal study, the Airport Authority wanted the city to allow the airport to build a larger terminal farther away from the runways. But the city has opposed that project, arguing it has authority over land use, namely expansion, at the airport. City officials and nearby residents fear an expanded terminal will mean more flights and more noise.
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: November 17, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Don Stacom
DATELINE: Enfield, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Penny Urbanowicz, resident
The Hartford Courant reports results of a noise study conducted at an Enfield, Connecticut, crematory did not solve a dispute between the funeral home and its neighbors.
According to the article, a noise study last month recorded precise, scientific measurements of the amount of noise emitted by the Leete-Stevens funeral home's crematory. Leete-Stevens' owner says the study by acoustical engineer Bennett Brooks proves that the new crematory meets state regulations on noise. But the funeral home's neighbors contend that the testing showed the crematory does indeed produce measurable noise, despite Leete-Stevens' assurances to the contrary.
The article reports the dispute centers on the long-standing opposition to the crematory by several neighbors. That fundamental opposition has been escalating since Stevens proposed building the crematory half a year ago, and is already the basis of a lawsuit in Hartford Superior Court. Monday night, the town council reviewed Brooks' report, but came to no conclusion about how to proceed. "When this [project] was at the planning and zoning commission, they were told the noise would not be heard beyond 15 feet from the unit," South Road resident Penny Urbanowicz told the council. "But it's being heard from 300 feet and more. Would you want to be in bed and hear a noise associated with bodies being incinerated?" she asked the council. "It's not something I should have to deal with." The sound measurement outside Urbanowicz's home was 44 decibels on the night of Oct. 16, Brooks reported, while the state Department of Environmental Protection sets a limit of 45.
The article states council member Alice Egan suggested there should be some "good- faith effort" by Stevens to modify his equipment to reduce noise. But Thomas Fahey, attorney for Leete-Stevens, contended that is unnecessary since Brooks' report shows Leete-Stevens complies with state law. Brooks measured sound from outside several nearby homes during a cremation, and found only one -- Urbanowicz's -- where the crematory noise level even approached the state limit of 45 decibels. "And that's from outside the homes -- nobody can hear it from inside," Fahey said privately to a reporter as the council debated.
PUBLICATION: PR Newswire
DATE: November 17, 1998
SECTION: Financial News
DATELINE: Minneapolis, Minnesota
PR Newswire published the following press release detailing two agreements regarding development at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport reached between the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the City of Minneapolis:
"In a contract signed by MAC and Minneapolis: MAC will not build a third parallel runway. The North/South runway will not be used for departures to the north and arrivals to the south except under limited circumstances. The new runway will be operated to maximize Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport's (MSP) capacity while reducing noise in the City of Minneapolis and equitably distributing noise throughout all communities.
"The City of Minneapolis agrees to support the North/South Runway. If MAC acquires the Bureau of Mines property north of the airport, it would grant a conservation easement to the National Park Service and use the property for open space. MAC will expand the noise monitoring system in the area affected by the existing parallel runways.
"MAC reaffirms its commitment to a fairer distribution of air traffic. The MAC also signed an agreement with the City of Minneapolis allowing MAC to build a temporary extension to the south parallel runway for use in the year 2000 when Runway 4/22 is extended from 11,000 to 12,000 feet. MAC agrees to use the runway extension only during construction on Runway 4/22 and to escrow $100,000 to be used to demolish the extension if MAC uses the extension beyond the agreement.
"In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature concluded a Dual Track Airport Planning Process which studied alternatives for expansion at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and options for building a new airport to accommodate air travel needs through the year 2010. The legislature mandated that Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport be expanded at its present site, and that a fourth runway be developed to meet capacity demands. The Legislature also required that the MAC enter into contracts with communities that would be affected by a third parallel runway, specifying that MAC would not construct such a runway without the approval of the affected communities. In June 1998, the Commission approved a tentative agreement with the City of Minneapolis. If the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board approves the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Wednesday, November 18, 1998, construction on the new runway could begin immediately with completion by 2003. Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission. Contact:: Wendy Burt, 612-726-5335 or Jennifer Bagdade, 612-726-8170, both of the Metropolitan Airports Commission."
PUBLICATION: Press Association Newsfile
DATE: November 17, 1998
SECTION: Home News
BYLINE: Peter Woodman
DATELINE: London, England
Press Association Newsfile reports the British Government today declined to ban night-time flying at Britain's two busiest airports, but continue to consider proposals to reduce noise levels at Heathrow and Gatwick airports.
According to the article, considerations to reduce noise between 11.30pm and 6am were made by Aviation Minister Glenda Jackson. Comments from airlines, residents and others are now being solicited on night flying restrictions for the period from October 1999 until summer 2004. "A ban on night flights is not considered practicable, but further steps are proposed to restrict operations by the noisiest types of aircraft and to encourage the use of quieter ones," said Ms Jackson. Residents' groups, such as the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, would ideally like to see a ban on all night flying. But they are likely to welcome any reduction in aircraft noise during sleeping hours.
The article reports at Stansted airport in Essex, one option is that the noise quota - the maximum permitted amount of noise from all aircraft taking off in any one season in the night period - actually increases from winter 1999-2000 onwards. Other options are that the noise quotas at all three main London airports stay the same or are lowered for Heathrow and Gatwick. Further options include possible alterations in the take off and landing arrangements for flights at Heathrow to create less noise. Ms Jackson added: "Our aim is to put in place arrangements which, over time, will bring about improvements in the noise climate during the night quota period (11.30pm-6am) around Gatwick and further improvements around Heathrow. "We also wish to provide for the planned development of Stansted ... while maintaining and strengthening the incentive for airlines to use quieter aircraft." The deadline for responses to the proposals is February 12, 1999.
PUBLICATION: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
DATE: November 17, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 3B
BYLINE: Laurie Blake
DATELINE: Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Star Tribune reports the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the city of Richfield, Minnesota, are at an impasse over reports on low-frequency noise from jets on a proposed north-south runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
According to the article, Metropolitan Airports Commission Chairman Pierson Grieve said Monday that the commission "deeply resents" being accused by the city of Richfield of withholding documents, lying and deceit. "If there has been any of that, it has been on the other side," he said at a commission meeting at the airport. In a news release, the agency demanded an apology from Richfield for accusing the MAC of "hiding documents, lying and stretching ethics." However, Dawn Weitzel, an assistant to the Richfield city manager, said Monday: "The city of Richfield has nothing to apologize for. The MAC withheld information, and the documents speak for themselves. We are at a standoff here."
The article states Richfield said the MAC should have released consultant's reports on low-frequency noise from jets on a planned north-south runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Richfield contends the MAC has a civic duty to release any information on the subject because the city is concerned about the effect of jet noise on the east side of Richfield. The MAC says "the low-frequency noise study Richfield cited . . . is neither critical nor new information and does not raise any significant environmental issues." The study applies criteria collected at the San Francisco International Airport to the proposed new runway here, the agency said, adding that Richfield's noise consultant was aware of the study in January 1996.
The article reports the real issue, according to the MAC, is that Richfield has twice reneged on an agreement between the city, the MAC and the Metropolitan Council on ways to mitigate the noise. The MAC stated that the city is no longer negotiating in good faith.
PUBLICATION: The Herald (Rock Hill, SC)
DATE: November 16, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 1A
BYLINE: Kenneth A. Gailliard
DATELINE: Rock Hill, South Carolina
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Charles Plyler, resident
The Herald reports a Rock Hill, South Carolina, police firing range has drawn several noise complaints from neighbors, but the owners promise more quiet.
According to the article, residents near the Rock Hill Police Gun Club regularly contend with noise from police gunfire, but things are about to quiet down. The gun club is planning to build dirt mounds around the range to make it safer and quieter, said Rock Hill Police Lt. Leonard "Lash" LeRoux. "We are responding to the complaints from citizens about the noise, " said LeRoux, who's the club president. Resident Charles Plyler, who led an effort more than a year ago to get police to reduce the noise, said he's pleased about the changes. "The police are working with us to cut down the noise, " he said. Plyler, who lives about a quarter of a mile from the firing range, said he gathered more than 100 signatures on a petition last year from his neighbors who were bothered by the noise. "I just wanted to show the police what kind of impact it was having," Plyler said. "There were people who live a mile away who called me up and said they also would have signed the petition. It affects a lot of people out here." To date, the noise level hasn't changed, Plyler said, but the shooting is less frequent. LeRoux said he's hopeful the improvements at the range will cut the noise level in half. The project is expected to be completed by early next year.
The article reports the shooting range is outside city limits. And while such ranges are not specifically prohibited by York County's noise ordinance, they're not exempted either. Still, LeRoux said he's not aware that anyone at the range has ever been cited for violating the ordinance. Cabaniss said complaints about the range have increased because the area around it has become more densely populated in recent years. "We take every opportunity to make the shooting range safer and more neighborhood friendly," Cabaniss said.
PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: November 16, 1998
SECTION: St. Charles County Post, Pg. 14
BYLINE: Sarah Gerry
DATELINE: Warren County, Missouri
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Michael McCulloch, resident; Connie Cady, resident
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports the Warren County, Missouri, Commission overturned a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission Friday and voted to allow a company to expand its quarrying operation. Nearby residents object to the expansion saying it will bring increased noise and decreased property values.
According to the article, "We got sold down the river," resident Connie Cady said of the vote to allow expanded quarrying operations. On Thursday, the commission granted Lafarge and D & D Properties Partnership a permit to expand Lafarge's operations to a 193-acre site north of quarry road. Lafarge already owns about 207 acres south of the site, and it is leasing the new property from D & D. The quarry is about six miles south of Warrenton, two to three miles east of Highway 47. After the commissioners made their ruling, they spent discussed restrictions to impose on Lafarge's operation. They decided that a 38-inch high wire fence would be erected around the property with barbed wire and that blasting would be limited daily to six hours, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. No blasting can take place on Saturday, Sunday or legal holidays. Early in the discussion, the commissioners agreed that quarrying operations would not be permitted within 800 feet of the property's western boundary and that 700 of those feet would be covered with evergreen trees.
The article reports after more than three hours of discussion, the commission revised some of the restrictions. This time, it reduced the setback to 300 feet. At the same time, it compromised with residents by reducing the maximum ground vibration to 1.5 inches per second from 2 inches per second and the maximum noise at the structure nearest to the quarry to 60 decibels from 61 decibels. The commission also increased the size of the berm surrounding the property to 20 feet from 10 feet and reduced the maximum intensity of airblasts.
But some residents said the restrictions are not enough; reducing the size of the setback will move the quarry closer to their back yards, add to the noise and further reduce the value of their homes. Resident Michael McCulloch said, "I don't see how they're going to be able to control the noise. I've worked 25 years to get my home . . . and they take it away without the slightest hesitation." On Friday, McCulloch speculated that the county had granted the permit and reduced the size of the setback because Lafarge threatened it with legal action. Not true, Presiding Commissioner Walt Schirr said. He said the new quarrying operation would be in the best interests of the county. Only 40 of Warren County's 309 roads, he said, are paved. The county spends about $200,000 on stone each year, he said, and if they needed to buy it from anywhere else, the rock would be more expensive. "We were trying to reach a solution that was down the middle of the road, that would give both sides something," he said. "I don't know why they would say there was pressure from Lafarge."
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA)
DATE: November 16, 1998
SECTION: Front, Pg. A1
BYLINE: Louis Hansen,
DATELINE: Virginia Beach, Virginia
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: John Shick, chairman of Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise (CCAJN)
The Virginian-Pilot reports a lawsuit filed against relocation of Navy Jets to an Air Force Base in Virginia Beach uncovered an unreleased Naval report estimating the high costs of noise-proofing local homes and schools.
According to the article, an internal Navy report released only recently estimates that it will cost local homeowners $1.5 billion and school officials $28.5 million to quell expected increases in jet noise. The eight-page report was uncovered recently as part of a lawsuit filed against the Navy by a grass-roots organization, CCAJN, over the relocation of 156 Florida-based F/A-18s to Oceana Naval Air Station. Virginia Beach city and school officials said they were unaware of the Navy's estimates until copies of the report were sent to them last week by The Virginian-Pilot. The internal report was not included in the Navy's three-volume final findings document issued in May.
The article reports the Navy's recently released memo contains information that Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise (CCAJN) had requested from the Navy before the decision was made in May to bring the jets to Oceana, said CCAJN Chairman John Shick, who is a retired Navy captain. CCAJN, whose membership includes other retired Navy officers, sued the Navy in July in Federal District Court in Norfolk. The suit seeks to stop the Navy from transferring the planes to Oceana until a supplemental study is done to determine the jets' impact on the region. Shick said the new report shows that the Navy knew it would be expensive to the community to bring the planes to Oceana. "The total cost was never disclosed," he said. Members of CCAJN contend the report should have influenced the Navy's decision to relocate the jets from Jacksonville, Florida, to Virginia Beach. "The costs are much more significant than ever intimated by the city or the Navy, " said Shick. "It quantifies the noise problem."
The article states the Navy does not have the legal authority to pay for private or public noise mitigation, while the cost of soundproofing schools is the city's responsibility. The report estimates that 49,000 homes and 19 schools in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake will need soundproofing to protect them from the higher decibel levels created by the jets. While costs vary depending on the affected residents' proximity to the air fields, an average homeowner in a high- noise zone would pay about $30, 000 to block out jet noise, the study says. Virginia Beach school officials have launched their own study of the noise impact on students. The Navy study estimates that it would cost an average of $1.5 million per school to keep jet noise from disrupting classrooms.
According to the article, in a statement, a Navy spokesman said the agency took every opportunity to "underscore the significant noise impacts" the jets would have on their host communities. Capt. John Carman said the report estimates were deemed "unreliable" and "misleading." The internal report "demonstrated the significant difficulty in developing estimates that were not premised on speculation," he said. The Navy memo's purpose was to "provide answers to (the Chief of Naval Operations') questions" regarding the realignment of F/A-18s from Cecil Field. The Navy declined to comment further, citing the pending litigation.
The article reports the added squadrons are expected to make Oceana busier, and thus noisier, than during the Persian Gulf War. About 120,000 people live under Oceana's flight paths in Hampton Roads, and many have grown accustomed to occasional annoyances from aircraft. The measures recommended in the Navy report would cut down on those disturbances. For example, to carry on uninterrupted phone conversations or concentrate on their favorite television shows, homeowners would need multi-paned, energy-efficient windows, solid wood doors and storm doors. They also would need air conditioning, an additional one or two layers of gypsum board on their walls, and a few more inches of insulation in their attics and around air vents. The double-paned windows and solid doors would have to be kept closed. Homeowners in higher- noise zones would need thicker window treatments, vestibule additions and more insulation. Brick homes would need less work. The report says homeowners could expect to pay from $27,550 in lower- noise zones to $42,500 in higher- noise zones for additional sound mitigation. The $1.5 billion estimate does not include commercial buildings. Several contractors said the Navy estimates might be high. But in a similar case involving a commercial airport expansion in Newport, RI, the federal government has paid 450 homeowners near the airport an average of $27,000 each to soundproof their homes since 1992.
The article states Beach officials said prior knowledge of the Navy's estimates would not have affected the city's desire to have the aircraft relocate to Oceana. City Budget Director E. Dean Block said the public benefits far outweigh the city's costs. "These jets are essential to the economic strength of Virginia Beach and Hampton Roads," he said. The move will bring 8,300 Navy and civilian personnel into Hampton Roads and an estimated $280 million annually into the region's economy. City, local and congressional leaders lobbied hard to bring the largest share of the 12 F/A-18 squadrons to Virginia Beach.
PUBLICATION: The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA)
DATE: November 16, 1998
SECTION: Front, Pg. A12
BYLINE: Staff Report
DATELINE: Virginia Beach, Virginia
The Virginian-Pilot reports in the wake of the Navy moving 10 F/A-18 squadrons to Virginia Beach, Virginia, city officials will fund a noise-mitigation study for schools in the high-noise zone.
According to the article, high blood pressure, loss of concentration, and poor test scores are some examples of how airport noise can affect students. Several medical studies have shown that jet noise can seriously affect the health and psychological welfare of people living near airports. In a study to be published in the January edition of Psychological Science, a University of Cornell professor monitored more than 200 third- and fourth- grade students in Germany before and after the opening of a new airport. The study compared children from similar backgrounds, half of whom lived near the airport and half of whom lived in a quieter environment. The study found that children living close to the airport had higher blood pressure and elevated levels of stress hormones. Other studies have linked poor test scores to noisy environments.
The article reports the decision to move the 10 F/A-18 squadrons to Virginia Beach was based, in part, on the Navy's Environmental Impact Statement, which cited several deleterious effects of jet noise. Annoyance is the most common problem, it said, while hearing loss is unlikely. Virginia Beach officials say they are aware that jets can be distracting for schoolchildren. The city will spend $125,000 to study noise-mitigation measures for the fifteen schools in the high-noise zone.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: November 15, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 15; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Dave Golonski and Stacey Murphy, Dave Golonski is Mayor and Stacey Murphy Vice Mayor of the City of Burbank
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times published the following perspective from Dave Golonski and Stacey Murphy, respectively mayor and vice mayor of the City of Burbank. In their opinions, agreement by the city to support expansion at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport in exchange for a willingness to adhere to the results of a FAA noise study is an inequitable exchange, for the results of that study are uncertain and remove all incentive for the Airport Authority to work with the city to maintain quality of life for its residents.
The city of Burbank is being urged to support a major expansion of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport in return for the Airport Authority's willingness to pursue a Federal Aviation Administration Part 161 study, a process by which the FAA would consider and possibly grant Burbank's desired noise mitigation measures such as a mandatory curfew and noise budget.
"The problem with the suggestion lies in the distinction between merely pursuing noise relief for our residents and actually achieving noise relief.
"As members of the Burbank City Council, we are charged with the responsibility of maintaining the quality of life of our residents. We feel that supporting the expansion of the airport based on the authority's willingness to pursue an uncertain process would be reckless at best and would involve a serious breach of those responsibilities. In addition, such an agreement would completely eliminate the motivation for the authority and the FAA to work with the city of Burbank to ensure that an expanded airport will not decimate the quality of life of those who live in the surrounding neighborhoods.
"No serious public agency would ever approve a project of this magnitude not knowing what the impacts would be and what measures would be in place to mitigate those impacts. Everyone intuitively knows that an expanded airport will bring increased noise as well as other impacts.
"The real question concerns the potential magnitude of those impacts. We don't know if there will be planes regularly taking off and landing around the clock, or if there will be a 10% or 100% increase in noise. These are legitimate questions that must be answered with a degree of certainty that the surrounding residents can accept.
"The Airport Authority wants the city of Burbank to agree, in advance, to live with the results of the Part 161 study. While this request is, on its face, unacceptable, we think it is important to put our opposition into context.
"If presented with a major development that needed approval from Caltrans for a new freeway onramp to prevent gridlock, neither the city of Glendale nor the city of Pasadena would ever consider approval of the project based solely on the promise of the developer to seek such approval. Any city would require the proponents of such a project to obtain approval for the necessary mitigation before the project was allowed to proceed, especially when that approval could be uncertain.
"This situation is no different, with the possible exception that the FAA has already indicated an astonishing level of agreement with the Airport Authority that the expanded terminal project will not result in any significant increased noise impact.
"While their position seems to contradict common sense, it does give one a better understanding of our skepticism when we are asked to compromise our requests for concrete enforceable noise limits in return for "good faith" efforts and pursuit of processes with uncertain outcomes.
"One of the complaints often expressed by the authority relates to the amount of time that the Part 161 process takes to complete. What they do not mention is that they voted to initiate a Part 161 study in November 1995 and never took action to begin the study. It's a shame they did not seriously pursue this process in 1995.
"The authority's inaction notwithstanding, we have offered to help fund up to $250,000 of the Part 161 study in exchange for our participation in the process as equal partners in order to expedite the process and to help increase the likelihood of a successful outcome.
"Frankly, the short- and long-term consequences of this issue are far too important to our community for the Burbank City Council to be anything less than diligent in our efforts to guarantee that the necessary mitigation measures are real and meaningful before we can lend our support to an expansion project of this magnitude.
"Our residents would undoubtedly throw us out of office on our ear if we were to cavalierly bargain away their quality-of-life concerns, and they would be completely justified in doing so. We place great value on the quality of life in Burbank, and we believe the price the Airport Authority is asking our residents to pay is unacceptable.
"At the heart of this dispute is that the Airport Authority wants to build a terminal expansion project without concern for its potential effects on the surrounding communities. We believe the dispute will be resolved if and only if the authority gets serious about meeting the legitimate needs of the many areas that will be affected by their expansion ambitions.
"We believe there has been some real progress on that front in recent weeks, and we remain hopeful that the parties to this dispute will be able to work together and come up with a comprehensive package that includes a mandatory curfew and other noise limits along with a new modern terminal for this airport.
"If the Airport Authority is either unable or unwilling to obtain the noise -mitigation measures that will protect the surrounding residents' quality of life, we would suggest they rethink their desires for expansion and seriously consider a relocated replacement terminal similar in size and capacity to the existing 14-gate terminal facility."
PUBLICATION: The Sunday Gazette Mail
DATE: November 15, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. P10a
BYLINE: Raad Cawthon
DATELINE: Chicago, Illinois
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Ernie Ross, resident; Joseph Karaganis, a lawyer for the Suburban O'Hare Commission
The Sunday Gazette Mail reports the only aspects about Chicago's O'Hare International Airport that officials and residents can agree on is it's crowded but it pumps billions of dollars into the economy. On nearly everything else, including expansion, capacity, pollution, and noise, opinions vary and create strange political bedfellows.
According to the article, in Park Ridge, Ill., under the path that as many as 2,500 planes a day fly into Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, Ernie Ross says he washes his car "two, sometimes three times a week to get the gunk off." By "gunk" Ross means the grime from the exhausts of planes descending low over his house on their way to an airport that, with almost 900,000 takeoffs and landings annually, is the world's busiest. "You get one jet engine and it may meet EPA standards," says Joseph Karaganis, a lawyer for the Suburban O'Hare Commission, a group of 13 communities that lie beneath O'Hare's landing planes. "You get 2,500 engines a day in the same airspace and you have major pollution." Residents of some neighborhoods say on windless days, the air tastes of kerosene, a component of jet fuel. "In Elk Grove the joke is that when you wash your house, you have enough kerosene left over to heat it," says Craig Johnson, mayor of Elk Grove Village. But Johnson also says that his town "loves O'Hare" for the tens of thousands of airport-related jobs that sustain its neighbors.
The article states that the fact that O'Hare has created 350,000 jobs, that it contributes billions of dollars a year to the economy, and that the airspace over and around it is extremely crowded seem to be the only things everyone can agree on. Talk about its future elicits strong and diverse opinions. On Friday the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce issued a report warning that the city's economy will lose $10 billion annually if 43-year-old O'Hare is not expanded to meet growing regional demand for international travel. Expansion proposals cause many of the million residents in the surrounding communities to protest about pollution, noise, and safety. Is O'Hare, through which 70 million passengers pass each year, as unsafe as critics claim, or safe enough to absorb still more traffic, as the Federal Aviation Administration contends? In recent weeks malfunctioning software has caused O'Hare air traffic controllers to see airplanes where there were no airplanes. On Wednesday, the entire radar system went down for seven hours.
According to the article, Suburban O'Hare Commission lawyer Karaganis says the FAA and the city are intent on finding ways to force more planes into O'Hare, even if it takes "Rube Goldberg operating procedures" that compromise passenger safety to do it. But the FAA, which oversees the nation's air safety, contends O'Hare is not only safe, but can accommodate the additional capacity it predicts into the next decade. Proponents of expansion see O'Hare's growth as vital to a city competing not just against national rivals but also against regional ones, like Milwaukee and Cincinnati, that are expanding their own airports. The chamber of commerce report last week insisted that such quality-of-life issues as noise, pollution and safety cannot be "allowed to dominate the debate."
The article reports the long-debated issue of whether the real solution to present conditions at O'Hare is a third Chicago-area airport has led two local congressmen-conservative Republican Henry Hyde and liberal Democrat Jesse Jackson Jr. -to forge an unlikely alliance favoring construction of such a facility far from O'Hare. Richard Daley, Chicago's Democratic mayor, was once a third-airport proponent, but now he's fighting the idea.
Previous week: November 8, 1998
Next week: November 22, 1998
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index