Roanoke Regional Airport Noise

Roanoke Regional Airport 2005 Noise Contour

YELLOW Means Non-Compatible Land Use

RED Line Is Widened RPZ

"-----" is Current RPZ Boundary

The Runway 6 Noise Contour study completed in 2005 shrank the non-compatible dwellings slightly from the study completed in 2000. Unbeknown to me in 2000 I was living in the 65 DNL (Day Night Level) noise contour when I purchased my home in 1999. The City or Roanoke does not require disclosure of an "Airport in Vicinity" to unsuspecting home buyers - see an example of such disclosures adopted by other localities to protect their citizens below. I have mentioned the disclosure protection at City Council several times and received no indication by any of the Council members that they cared if current citizens or new Roanoke arrivals are duped.

For the study on Boeing's website submitted by Ms. Schuck, Director of ROA, click HERE - Note: Runway 6/24 arrivals and departures are noise sensitive. The Countryside Neighborhood and the Countryside Golf Course are located at the end of Runway 6 and are noise sensitive to takeoffs and departures.

Virginia Cities are permitted by Chapter 509 § 15.2-2295 of the Code of Virginia to enact zoning requlations around airports (CLICK anywhere in the text for the full section):

In establishing the regulations, the locality may adopt one or more noise overlay zones as an amendment to its zoning map and may establish different measures to be provided or installed within each zone, taking into account the severity of the impact of aircraft noise upon buildings and structures within each zone. Any such regulations or amendments to a zoning map shall provide a process for reasonable notice to affected property owners. Any regulations or amendments to a zoning map shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter. A statement shall be placed on all recorded surveys, subdivision plats and all final site plans approved after January 1, 2003, giving notice that a parcel of real property either partially or wholly lies within an airport noise overlay zone. No existing use of property which is affected by the adoption of such regulations or amendments to a zoning map shall be considered a nonconforming use solely because of the regulations or amendments. The provisions of this section shall not affect any local aircraft noise attenuation regulations or ordinances adopted prior to the effective date of this act, and such regulations and ordinances may be amended provided the amendments shall not alter building materials, construction methods, plan submission requirements or inspection practices specified in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.

In January, 2006, I invited the airport staff to address the Countryside Neighborhood Alliance at our monthly meeting. Mr. Gonzalez, Deputy Executive Director, accepted the invitation. Mr. Brian Townsend also attended. At that time we were unaware of the land swap that had been agreed to by the City Manager, Ms. Burcham, and the Director of ROA, Ms. Schuck. The presentation by Mr. Gonzalez did not inform us of the widening of the RPZ nor was it mentioned by the then Planning Director, Brian Townsend. However, a confusing drawing showed a widening of the noise contour into a more "cone" shape. This drawing has been mysteriously absent from further discussions.

As best as I can draw on the current 2005 noise contour above I have made the "cone" shape that I recall. I know others at the meeting remember that the cone shape would change and seemed to include residences that were previously not in the 65 DNL noise area that the FAA does not recommend for residential housing.

As most of you are aware there was a cutoff date to receive Federal AIP (Airport ImProvement moneys earmarked for noise mitigation) funding for the noise abatement program that some of the Ranch Road residents received as well as those in the Miller Court neighborhood. I missed receiving funding by about 6 months.

However, this does not mean that residents do not have any recourse should circumstances change such as the adjustment to a Runway Protection Zone as we see here. It is my understanding in reading the Noise Abatement Funding program that the cutoff date is not applicable should conditions change. For example, the Airport is enlarged or a runway extended, or flight paths changed (as could be the case here).

AN EXAMPLE OF DISCLOSURE IN A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION

"NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY”

This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.

I'll also include a quote here by attorney, Maryellen Goodlatte, regarding Virginia State Law and zoning:

.

Such considerations are limited by state law, which provides that zoning regulations must "promote the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public," according to Roanoke land use attorney Maryellen Goodlatte. They also must not "destroy all economic use of the property."

Parental Disappointment

This evening as usual I watched the Andy Griffith show. A pleasant repose from the reality of a tough work day.

There was a competition for the youth of Mayberry to participate in a 50 meter dash to win a coveted metal. Deputy Fife practicing his “starting gun” expertise had just shot a hole in the office ceiling - again - thereby relinquishing his gun to Sheriff Taylor for the umpteenth time.

Opey came into the office and took his turn with other young boys to sign up for the race. Opey was all excited and determined to give it his best. Barney chimed in as usual with his youthful experience in winning the same race and then expounding on how he did not remove the medal he had won for a year. Barney then offered to train Opey for the race guaranteeing him that he could not lose if he followed Barney’s training regiment. Opey of course believed this with his heart and soul.

The day of the race came and Opey comes in dead last. Opey leaves the track immediately not congratulating the winner with the other boys.

Andy arrives home to find Opey pouting on the sofa. Andy sits down with Opey explaining that sometimes you win but how important it is to be a good loser. Opey does not understand and says he’d rather be “a good winner” refusing to give his father evidence that he understood the lesson.

Andy not getting anywhere finally utters the fatherly magic words “Opey, I am very disappointed in you, very disappointed”. Opey shortly after came to his father and said, “ I don’t want you to be disappointed in me, Pa!”

This is a story for those who attended the August 20th City Council Meeting.

Hot Day at Countryside Golf Course

These hardy souls at 2:30 PM Saturday afternoon in 104 degrees in the shade according to my temperature gauge. The trees are giving up their leaves to conserve what little moisture they can reach. The groundhog searches for water and food. The grass is so dry it feels like you are walking on needles with bare feet. This did not deter the golfers from their appointed rounds. Their clubs kicking up dust ... how do they do it ... WHY do they do it?

Commentary to SaveCountryside Mailbox

Former Johnson & Johnson Building on Frontage Road

.

The below email came into the SaveCountryside mailbox and I believe it is noteworthy to publish. The empty building that once housed Johnson & Johnson is an example of subsidizing a business that ends up costing the taxpayers. Maybe Trane could lease part of this building sitting idle. Delta Dental bought the J&J building in March, 2007, for $7 mil as an investment. This was half of its assessed value of $14 mil.

.

TO: SaveCountryside

August 23, 2007

.

"The fact that the city has control of land and can pretty much do as big business wants is one of the most common forms of exploitation....big money interests. What I believe is of no concern of City Council if the future costs associated with heeding to the will of big business interests: they have to supplement the cost of providing basic infrastructure (sewer, water, street and sidewalk easement) which is not directly funded by the business interest they're accommodating. Its funded by taxes, fees and bonds. Being that the current income stream won't suffice, increase is the only option. Now, if the census (last 20 yrs) indicates a decrease in population and Roanoke's GNP hasn't increase and the cost of maintaining the current infrastructure has increased, then we're only digging a deeper financial hole. If one finds themselves going further down a hole, the resolve is to stop digging...not dig faster. We need another perspective of how Roanoke will function economically and socially in the future. My philosophical belief is to have, promote and practice policies of ensuring a stable economy and to enact progressive social policies that allow people to adapt and participate in local economic opportunities. This is a belief system the City of Roanoke should adopt."

From State Senator John Edwards Aide

I wanted to let you know that Senator Edwards telephoned the Mayor's office on Monday to express his support of Countryside remaining a golf course and asked that this message be transmitted also to the other members of City Council.

My favorite quote below is my comment.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

Fairways On Property Owned by Roanoke Regional Airport Commission

RED line shows widening of the Runway Protection Zone

PINK area is airport land swap to Roanoke City

CLICK TO ENLARGE
.

There is a 40 year lease of property owned by Roanoke Regional Airport which is the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) or clear zone where no structures can be built. The original owners and subsequent owners of the golf course (now the City of Roanoke) lease the property where many of the golf course fairways reside. This 40 year lease has remained essentially unchanged and ends in November 2008. To continue the golf course operation, it will be necessary to have the Airport Commission grant another lease of this property. Most of us have known that the lease renewal would have been rejected for the previous owner, then Meadowbrook.

.

Now that Roanoke City will have to continue to operate the golf course it becomes necessary for the term to be extended. I asked this question last night, but it was not answered and I did not press it. However, today I contacted Mr. Townsend and below is his prompt response:

.
...we will be working with the Airport Commission staff regarding a renewal of the lease that ends in 2008...the terms of which have not been fully explored at this time. So I cannot say at this time that the exact same lease arrangement that has been in place for 40 years will be the exact form/content of what we may negotiate for use of the RPZ for the future. We will have to see what the Airport Commission staff desires as to access/maintenance, etc. of the RPZ in concert with continued golf course use and to what length of term they are willing to consider....but I believe the Airport Commission staff is conducive to working with us collaboratively and collegially.

Brian Townsend

Assistant City Manager for Community Development City of Roanoke

The Second Battle For Countryside

The Second Battle For Countryside

Earlier this month at the Countryside Neighborhood Alliance night out celebration, I sensed a hope that had been struggling to flourish over the last few dark months. The city’s development plans had unraveled and the alliance felt that if nothing else, time had been bought. While none of us were under any illusion that we’d won a great victory in our first battle, we did think we had won time.

Time is up. Monday, the city will open another salvo. According to reports filtering out, the city is considering selling a tract of Countryside land to a neighboring business. Such a sale would most likely erase the third hole and second green as well as a chunk of the approach to the second green, although details remain sketchy and under wraps.

Looking at the most likely scenario if the sale goes through, the golf course would be radically changed and the idea of parceling out the course will have been introduced. With only sixteen and a half holes left, the course will have to be reconfigured with at least one more hole added. Where will that hole go? That’s the big question. Other questions pop in to my mind. If that tract can be sold off independently, will the city sell off others? Will Countryside slowly be turned in to an “executive golf course?” Will the neighborhood alliance’s resolve be tested every few months as the city sells off chunks of the property willy-nilly? Why haven’t our civic group leaders been included in any discussions?

Monday night’s meeting is key. City leaders need to understand that the people of Countryside care very deeply about their community. The city needs to see us at the meeting with our bright shirts on and resolve etched on our faces. Let’s hope that the wisdom of the council outstrips their desire to develop the land quickly. In this case, proceeding carefully and thoughtfully with all parties engaged in positive and honest dialog trumps a rush to development. Since the latest development plans fell apart, the city now has a unique opportunity to study the Countryside property in rich detail and figure out how to use it effectively as a recreation facility for all of the city’s residents. We need to make sure council understands that we have a vision for the property that would be a win/win for the community and the city. We need to be at Monday night’s meeting!

Countryside Property Maps Relating to Possible Sale to Trane/Newbern Properties

Developer plan shows RED outlined property

to be sold to Trane/Newbern Properties had

the development plan prevailed.

.

GIS View of the property that shows No. 3 Fairway

would be eliminated in its entirety if sale were to take place.

No.2 Green and half of No. 2 Fairway would be eliminated.

Countryside Drop-Kicked

TURN YOUR SPEAKERS ON!

Late Friday afternoon I get an email saying that Countryside is on the August 20th, 2:00 PM Roanoke City Council Agenda. This is opposite of what they said they would do. What was that you say? They promised to include us. If an email with an agenda item is inclusion then they don't know the meaning of the word... and we were ready to communicate only to get slapped in the face again. This is only a notification of what they have already decided. Councilman Lea has already blessed it.

This is what it says from Mayor Harris to all Council members for agenda item 5a at the 2:00 PM Council meeting:

SUBJECT: Countryside Project

Since our last council meeting and our decision to reject the development proposal for the Countryside project, I have met with the City Manager and staff to determine next steps.

1) Given that the current management contract on the golf course ends on October 31st [we were told Oct. 1st] and requires the contractor to provide all business operational equipment, we believe there is insufficient time to develop a thorough RFP and to secure meaningful responses. Accordingly our first recommendation is to renew the current contract for one additional year and plan to issue a RFP next spring for any additional management services needed.

2) Long-term use of the property [does this mean the Director of ROA said no land-swap, no lease of airport property extension?] requires that the clear zone issue be resolved through the proposed property exchange with the Airport Commission. Therefore, we recommend that we conclude this transaction. [what about the homes at the end of Cheraw Lake that the RPZ will be over?]

3) An existing business [Jess Newbern Properties - Trane] adjacent to the golf course desires to expand immediately. I recommend that staff be authorized to determine if such expansion can be accommodated without undue interference with the current golf course operation [hello! it is the 2nd and 3rd greens at least] and negotiate the sale of this limited area of the property, and,

4) Not seek formal proposals [formal meaning if someone comes to them?] for the balance of the property's development for at least a year to allow time to assess the current housing market conditions.

Unless there are objections, [we object!!!]I would suggest council instruct staff to proceed as outlined above.

Sincerely,
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor

State of the City Address - 2007

Neighborhood Services pays the fee for presidents of Neighborhood Organizations to attend the yearly State of The City address by our Mayor. This event is sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. If I had to pay it would have cost almost $30 for breakfast. I thank Neighborhood Services and the City for sponsoring our attendance as we are the only common folk that get invitations. Of Course, I wore a SAVE COUNTRYSIDE tag at the event.

At any rate I sat with other Neighborhood Organization Presidents and did get to mingle before heading to work.

I will not repeat what will be reported in the media about the contents of this years State of the City. However, I would like to point out that the table where I was seated all commented on the Mayor’s initiative to move “experienced” teachers to under performing schools. Almost in unison we said “that is a good way to lose experienced teachers”.

I attended last years State of the City address and listened as the purchase of the Countryside property was touted as increasing the housing stock in Roanoke City - the 4.1 million dollar purchase and Roanoke City’s first entry into the real estate business.

Now imagine if the State of the City address was required to reference the State of the City address from the prior year. What happened to the City’s purchase of the Countryside Property? How much of our tax money was flushed into that great “sewage treatment plant in the sky”. Yes, we are all still making that mortgage payment on the property with our tax dollars while the operator of the golf course pockets all the revenue. Interest only is fast approaching ½ million dollars. Let us now plan the proper use of this property and fulfill the long overdue promise of parks and recreation for our area. Great lead in to the next State of the City topic ….

Parks and Recreation Master Plan touted - Many of the Countryside Neighborhood folks attended the Parks and Recreation workshops. We made the case for Parks and Recreation to take over operating the Countryside golf course at every workshop and forum we attended. Mr. Boucher, Parks and Recreation Director, said all the city had to do is hand it to them and they could operate it with no problem. I imagine though they would need some expertise in “turf” (greens keeper) and an experienced golf course manager.

Did the Mayor speak of Countryside you eagerly ask? Well, no mention of that boondoggle. No mention of its future. NO PRESS CONFERNCES for us – which is a whole other sore spot for me. We will be vigilant and watch for “WHO SPEAKS FOR US?”

Can a previously annexed portion of the City that gets ZERO attention revolt and become “unannexed”?

NO ANNEXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

That sure would have made a great sign to hold up at the State of the City address. Would bet I’d never get another invitation to that function.

Gary Stephenson, The Architect

CLICK TO ENLARGE

.

Not once since this November 21, 2006, release of the development team's name has the Gary Stephenson designed golf course been mentioned or any plans revealed as portrayed. Did it ever exist? I know it does not matter now but perhaps the design that was completed according to Mr. Foti would be nice to see if it ever did exist. On November 21, 2006, Mr. Foti told me as well as Joe Dashiell of Ch. 7 that no golf course - no project. As you can see there is no golf course in the plan above. "Something is fishy here."

" Developers who are making plans for the Countryside property in Roanoke say a golf course will remain the centerpiece of the project. They have hired a leading golf course architect to design the links.

.
Roanoke owns the property. City Council has granted an extension until March so the development team can have more time to complete its plans. Elements of the mixed use development would include an 18-hole executive golf course with par four and par three holes. The course length would be under four thousand yards.

.
The development group has hired Gary Stephenson, a golf course architect associated with PGA star Phil Mickelson. Victor Foti says the group will not move forward unless the golf course is part of the project."

.

In addition note the plans include the Countryside Apartments that the owners refused to sell.

A Story about a City and a Golf Course

Bob's Restaurant, Vinton, Golf Tournament August 4th

I recently heard a story about a city that purchased a golf course. The story went something like this:

Once upon a time a city purchased a golf course to develop densely packed housing, retail and commercial dwellings. This was the first time that this city had gone into the real estate business. The city had gotten the housing boom bug.

Years passed as developers interested in the city’s project realized that it was not such a good place to build houses. Things were looking increasingly bleak for this city. They were becoming embarrassed by their decision to spend taxpayers money for what was beginning to look like a “pig in a poke."

To the rescue out of nowhere or “somewhere” came a developer at the last minute. Oh, how pleased the city and its leaders were that finally someone raised their hand and said, “I will rescue the city from the citizen uprising."

Nearly a year went by as the mysterious developer dragged out the time line with this excuse and that excuse. The city accommodated their every wish for fear of losing another developer and getting egg on their face again. The citizens living in the golfing community cried and cried.

One day a gloomy, disheartened citizen was approached and told the golf course was saved and the city would keep it open for another year at least. The citizen leaped with joy - “What?” he cried, “Is this true?” This Paul Revere citizen ran down the street with the news to everyone in the community. “We are saved!” shouted the citizen, “We are saved for another year." All rejoiced and spread the word.

Alas, upon hearing the “word,” media inquired only to get denials from the city that this was indeed not true. "How can this be?" asked the citizen. The source was sworn to secrecy so the citizen was puzzled, and again the citizens fell into despair.

Time dragged on and on as the citizens were again agonizing over the fate of their community.

One day, unexpectedly, the city announced that “We reject these developers." The leaders that had said the city would never keep a golf course suddenly began to say, “Hey, we would like to see it as a municipal golf course." The citizens could not contain themselves. They rejoiced, celebrated, and watched the sunset they thought they had lost.

After a while the citizens had time to reflect on this turn of events. What prompted this decision that the citizens had wanted all along? All this time these citizens were saying the same thing that was now the city’s idea.
.
The citizens said, “Something is fishy here." The media said, “Something is fishy here." Everyone said, “Something is fishy here."

The citizens snooped and discovered that the developer had wanted to drop the project and had communicated this to the city some time ago. This was about the same time the Paul Revere citizen got the information that the golf course was good for another year.

The citizens snooped some more. They found that to help the city save face, the developer agreed to submit such an obnoxious development plan that the city would reject the plan and look like saviors for the citizens. At the same time these snoopy citizens saw with their own eyes the communication from months ago that announced the golf course would be operated for another year.

The city saved face, the developers lost nothing, and the citizens suffered.

“Is this the end - are we safe now?“asked the citizens. "No, we think not," they all agreed.

Maybe we should take a lesson from these citizens’ experience with their city, and we should remain vigilant, too.

Our Petition Continues

Keep the petition going - we are not there yet.

.

When you go downtown to the city market stop and thank Gary Crowder owner of Wertz's Restaurant and Bar for having our petition next to their petition that reads "Please sign this petition to support the amphitheater in Elmwood Park to help the downtown business district." Be sure to support Mr. Crowder and sign his petition.

.

The next post will cover what we expect to see next. Attend the Roanoke City Council Meeting Monday, August 20th at 7:00 PM when we will present the petition.

National Night Out at Countryside

SLIDE SHOW OF PICTURES - turn your speakers on

Countryside Neighborhood Alliance gathered to recognize National Night Out celebration - "America's Night Out Against Crime".

National Night Out is designed to
· heighten crime and drug prevention awareness,
· generate support for and preparation in local anti-crime programs,
· strengthen neighborhood spirit, police-community partnerships,
· send a message to criminals that neighborhoods are organized and fighting back.

We also celebrated the turning of the corner in our struggle to save our treasured asset, Countryside Golf Course.

BREAKING NEWS!!! Council Rejects Developer

Councilman Lea says of the developer's plan "it was horrible ... just horrible".

Listen to the WFIR clip and Councilman Lea's apology to the citizens of Countryside...
CLICK HERE

From the Roanoke Times:

City rejects Countryside Golf Course plan
- The Roanoke Times

Roanoke's government has rejected a development plan for Countryside Golf Course because the latest version, submitted last week, was "totally unacceptable," City Manager Darlene Burcham said today.
.
The city now will discuss what to do with the golf course and will hold a work session for city council members some time soon. One option is continuing to lease the 18-hole course to the current operator.
[Let us hope for an OPEN dialogue concerning the fate of our neighborhood]
.
The developers had altered plans first made public in April by reducing the amount of housing, adding more athletic fields and a adding a big-box commercial development to the project. Neighbors of the course had criticized the plans in May and the city asked the developers for revisions.
.
The six council members present this morning all spoke during the meeting and agreed with the city administration's recommendation to have nothing further to do with this development team.
.
This was the second attempt to find a private-sector partner to develop the 140 acres in Northwest Roanoke, which the city bought for $4.1 million in 2005 with a goal of adding more housing and commercial development. The project was being planned by Triangle Development of Richmond, the Victor Foti Co. and Allegheny Construction of the Roanoke Valley, and Mike Morgan Engineering of Midlothian.
.
Mr. Townsend has the plans to be picked up. I will have the developer's plans as soon as I can make arrangements. According to the Council meeting and Ms. Burcham's comments the Golf Course was eliminated in its entirety and ball fields and the like were in its place ... unacceptable use of the RPZ by the FAA. Also, it was stated that there was a "big box" store location in the plan. If at all possible I will post it here if the Roanoke Times is unable to print it. In any case I WILL have it at National Night Out picnic at the pavilion.

PS: There is other highly promising information I will share Tuesday evening.

Peach Festival - Northwest Child Development Center - Stone Soul Picnic

The Stars of the show - watch them in action below.



Below is Stone Soul Picnic and NW Children's Choir Together

Shine the Light: Open Your Eyes

The Roanoke Times weighed in this morning on the veil of secrecy that has covered the Countryside "Development" fiasco. The Times suggests that the city should lift that veil. That would have been the right thing to do. We feel that when the veil is lifted, City Deciders and the Roanoke Times editorial board need to rethink their support for the destructive development.

You can read the latest from the Roanoke Times right here. Please feel free to disagree with them.

Veiled Position

You can choose to disagree with them in our comment section or on the Roanoke Times Round Table.

Tick ... Tick ... Secrecy and "Closed Doors"

Here's the latest information we have regarding the "Countryside Development." This is the response given to Valerie this morning to a probing email she sent looking for the information on whether or not the developer responded to the city by the August 1 deadline. (FOIA stands for "Freedom of Information Act")


From: <Chris.Chittum@roanokeva.gov>
To: Valerie
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: August 1st Deadline - Countryside Property - FOIA
.
The developer responded with a modified concept plan before the August 1 deadline. The next step is to share the new development concept with City Council this Monday in closed session.
Regarding your request for communication with the development team, we will respond to the FOIA within the time frame* provided by law. [* See "B" below and link to the Virignia Coalition for Open Government. ]

Chris Chittum, AICP, Planning Administrator Planning Building and Economic Development
215 Church Ave., SW, Room 166 Roanoke, VA 24011

Here is what the developer should have responded to:

1) Details of how the land would be conveyed, details of the developer's obligations in terms of providing infrastructure improvements and other amenities, and responsibility for studies such as environmental and traffic studies.

2) Proposed lot layouts and street patterns

3) Proposed land use mix

4) Managing development impacts such as stormwater and screening of nonresidential uses.


* B. A request for public records shall identify the requested records with reasonable specificity. The request need not make reference to this chapter in order to invoke the provisions of this chapter or to impose the time limits for response by a public body. Any public body that is subject to this chapter and that is the custodian of the requested records shall promptly, but in all cases within five working days of receiving a request, provide the requested records to the requester or make one of the following responses in writing:

Tick ... Tick ... Tick ... August 1st Deadline Comes and Goes

No response from my inquiry to the Roanoke City Planning Department today regarding communication with the development team. Today was the deadline for Mike Morgan, Victor Foti, and Triangle Development to respond to comments from the April 3rd presentation. Perhaps tomorrow will yield a response. It is not a hard question ... did they respond or not? Let us hope this is not another Toll Brothers incident. You may recall what we went through waiting for the news that Toll Brothers pulled out of the project long before my Council presentation. The letter was received February 16, 2006. The City Manager knew Toll Brothers pulled out and said nothing at the February 21, 2006, Council meeting. Should time continue to tick away I will go back and analyze and post the email received from Mr. Townsend and Mr. Chittum to ensure I did not misundertsand the firmness of this deadline.