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!