Study Group Meetings

NCSG MEETING #6

Final Meeting Notes

NCSG Meeting #6A

Date: June 13, 2002

Location: Fourth Presbyterian Church, Louisville, KY

Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group meeting:

J. Michael Brown, Chairman, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Dorn Crawford, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Bob Slattery, Noise Officer, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Rande Swann, Public Relations Director, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

John Sistarenik, Study Group Chair

Don Conrad, Relocation Committee

Ted Chillton, Sensitive Facilities Committee

Rob Holtzmann, Public Information Committee

Nadine van der Merwe, Mo’ Better Marketing

Discussion Synopsis – Study Group Meeting #6

The meeting was called to order by John Sistarenik, Study Group Chair, at 6:35 PM. Motions to adopt the meeting agenda and notes from Study Group Meeting #6 were approved. Sistarenik gave an overview of the Noise Study Group’s project status and explained that this meeting was a response to the information presented at Study Group Meeting # 6. He explained that each committee was going to present its recommendations regarding the abatement and mitigation programs; he then handed over to Dorn Crawford to present the Navigation Committee’s recommendations.

Crawford presented thecommittee’s Noise Abatement program and explained that its recommendations derived from a compilation of measures, which included control, operational, procedural, management, and evaluation measures. He explained that control measures referred to steps that could be taken to guide aircraft into the airport. Crawford then presented the Navigational Committee’s recommendations for control measures, which included:

• Offset path for approach to 17R and departure from 35L.

• Extended approach fixes and departure turn points for higher maneuvering altitudes, thus reducing the noise over the community.

• Optimized flight corridors following the river and major highways.

• Waypoints to guide traffic in corridors, rather than radar vectors.

• Navigational standards for fleet.

• Navaids as required to define waypoints.

• Runway extension for higher north departure on 35L; displaced south arrival on 17R. (This option is being held pending further cost/benefit analysis)

Crawford explained that operational measures had to do with the actual operation of the airport’s facilities. He then moved on to the committee’s recommendations and explained the term "preferred." This means that the airport would follow the recommended runway use when possible, but that it would use the other runways as needed to accommodate factors such as poor weather, runway conditions, and traffic loads during peak operation of the airport – which might require the use of both runways.

The Navigation Committee’s recommendations included:

• Preferred south flow, except as provided below.

• Preferred north flow between 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM.

• For operations north of the airfield, preferred use of runway 17R with offset for arrivals, and 35L with offset for departures.

• Retaining current operations south of the airfield. No runway preferences were made as they made no significant noise reductions.

• Retaining and enhancing the contraflow program.

• Minimizing exceptions to contraflow.

Crawford went through the committee’s recommendations for procedural measures. These measures would serve as guidelines to pilots, and included:

• Publish standardized arrival and departure procedures.

• Provide for uniform descents at a safe slope (3degrees); discontinue current altitude exceptions.

• Grant visual approach clearances only after aircraft pass final approach fixes.

• Publish preferred noise-abatement procedures in approach and departure plates, :

• Preferred close-in-abatement procedures for operations north of the airfield.

• Preferred distant abatement procedures for operations south of the airfield.

• Continue current run-up restrictions, which only allow for maintenance run-ups during the day.

Crawford then explained the management measures as recommended by the Navigation Committee, and stressed that they would assist in the actual implementation of the abatement program. These management measures included:

• The establishment of a noise office – already in place with Bob Slattery as the noise officer.

• A community noise forum to succeed the Study Group; this would ensure continuous effort.

• Maintaining the Web site and information center to keep the community posted.

• Reinforcing communications and liaison links with staff, carriers, controllers, government agencies, media, and public.

• Equipping noise office with hardware and software for effective monitoring and evaluation – this is important for determining the success of the program.

• Develop real-time runway use decision aids, with common access for management, ATC, carries, and community.

Crawford stated the recommended evaluation measures. These included:

• Establishing flight-track monitoring systems.

• Providing sample noise monitoring.

• Maintaining fleet lists such as:

• Exceptions to the noise-abatement program (i.e., light aircraft).

• Navigational performance capability.

• Development of tabulated data sets for various metrics.

• Conducting in-house noise modeling.

• Documentation and evaluation of emerging technologies and the measurement of their potential applications.

Finally, Crawford touched on the assessment of the abatement program and stated that analysis of airfield capacity and delay, air traffic control issues, aircraft operational and economic issues, cost analysis, and financial feasibility must be applied to the entire package.

John Sistarenik asked if anyone had any questions or objections regarding the abatement recommendations of the Navigational Committee. A motion to adopt the recommendations as the preferred abatement program was approved. Sistarenik stated the next step would be to submit these recommendations to the RAA so they can start working on the finalization of the cost figures and the benefits analysis so that the program could be submitted to the FAA.

Sistarenik introduced Don Conrad, chairman of the Relocation Committee, to present the committee’s recommendations, which included:

• The completion of the current relocation-acquisition program by June 2005 – that would be the relocation of all people currently affected by the noise and who are interested in taking advantage of the relocation program.

• Purchasing in "fee simple" or through innovative housing programs south of the airport.

• Assisting with soundproofing and sales assistance north of the airport.

• Smooth transition of programs in conjunction with the current voluntary relocation working group will result in a significant decrease in the amount of people affected by the noise.

Conrad opened the floor for questions. One participant wanted an explanation of soundproofing and sales assistance. Conrad answered that qualified individuals would have the opportunity to soundproof their homes if they signed an easement that would stay with the property. Sistarenik added that preference would be given to residential properties in DNL 65, and that the soundproofing should result in a significant reduction in their noise levels indoors. Slattery explained that they used insulation in doors, windows, ceilings, and gaps to soundproof homes.

A participant expressed her concerns about soundproofing and easements. She stated that Indianapolis was willing to buy homeowners out if residents weren’t satisfied with the soundproofing; thus, they didn’t have to sign any easements. She added that some of the older people in the community might not be completely aware of the consequences of signing an easement.

Another participant wanted to know about mitigation in trailer parks and why those residents haven’t been offered relocation. He also expressed his concerns about moving businesses in the area, yet not doing anything about the trailer parks. One of the participants answered that the trailer park owners didn’t want to sell their land, and suggested that the participant should go and speak to his landlord for more information.

One participant stated that he had two questions. First he wanted to confirm that Conrad mentioned Preston Park for mitigation instead of Prestonia. He then inquired about soundproofing to the east and north of the airport; he also stated in those parts the noise levels weren’t consistent and that they varied dramatically depending on the time of day and weekends. He expressed his concerns and stated that some of those areas did encounter a 65 DNL occasionally and he wanted to know if there could be mitigation in those areas. Sistarenik explained that the DNL were calculated as a day-and-night average, and that the main objective of the abatement and mitigation plans is to reduce the overall amount of people affected by the noise in the community. It is very difficult to accommodate each individual case. Slattery stated that the AirportMonitor could be used to identify those aircraft that made noise. Conrad added that the current program doesn’t allow for any soundproofing, as it is a very expensive measure. Sistarenik reassured the participant that the new plan would be a great improvement. The participant expressed his concerns about the political process involved in the approval and execution of the proposed plan.

Another participant was concerned about the flight paths and how the airport was going to regulate aircraft to keep to the proposed paths. Sistarenik answered that there were measures and procedures in place in the new abatement program to ensure that aircraft kept to the proposed paths, such as navigational measures. He added that with measures like the AirportMonitor the community would be able to monitor and identify specific aircraft that don’t comply with the new paths, and that further steps could be taken from there. The participant inquired about people who lived in frame homes, as they got more noise that brick homes. The participant stated that there should be some sort of procedure in place, such as fines to deal with aircraft operating out of compliance with the FAA operating procedures. The participant also suggested that the money generated by fines could be use as mitigation funding for things such as additional soundproofing. Sistarenik stated that there were no procedures in place to enforce such fines but he reassured him that in most cases aircraft respect such guidelines. They were hopeful that aircraft and companies would comply with the new flight paths.

Another participant inquired about sales assistance. Sistarenik explained that the airport would assist individuals who don’t want to take part in the voluntary relocation to sell their homes privately. The participant also expressed his concerns about aircraft not complying with the new flight paths and some aircraft that made more noise than others did. Sistarenik stated that companies like UPS have already agreed to comply with the proposed plan. Slattery added that all aircraft comply with the stage 3 noise classification and that there might be a variation in noise made by these aircraft. Sistarenik explained that it could be compared with someone scoring an "A" on a test, which means a score could vary anywhere from 90% -100%.

One participant stated that he was a realtor and inquired about buy-outs. He wanted to know if all homeowners got offered the same compensation and whether there was a standard. Conrad answered that each case was treated individually. Sistarenik added that there were some standards. Jim DeLong, general manager of the Regional Airport Authority, stated that there were federal laws that buy-outs need to observe; he stated that he needs to be immediately notified if any of these laws has been violated.

Sistarenik introduced Tim Chilton to present the recommend measures of the Sensitive Facilities Committee. Chilton stated that he was standing in for his committee chairman, Donna Lawlor, who was out of town. Chilton explained that sensitive facilities referred to institutions, such as churches, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes.

He stated their first recommendation was to complete current mitigation measures, and suggested a timeframe should be prepared to speed up and complete current mitigation proceedings before new mitigation begins. The suggested order of completion was as follow:

1. Sensitive facilities and residences in the 65 DNL
2A. Residences in the 60 DNL
2B. Sensitive facilities in the 60 DNL

Chilton stated their next recommendation involved planning and zoning. More specifically, the implementation of a requirement through the Planning Commission that, effective after approval of the 150 study, noise reduction would be required in residential and sensitive facilities that might be built in the noise impact area.

Chilton stated the importance of confirmation of noise reduction and added the committee recommended measuring noise levels once the noise mitigation is completed. This is to confirm reduction has been achieved, and levels are in compliance with FAA standards.

Chilton touched on other items that could be explored, which included:

• An illustrative list of noise-sensitive facilities.

• An analysis for possible placement of a noise barrier to provide noise reduction to the residents of Preston Park.

One participant wanted to know how the Study Group was going to monitor the noise levels in the areas completed. Sistarenik stated that some measures have been included in the program and he referred to the AirportMonitor as an additional measure to track specific events. He added that the study would be a continuous process and they were going to continue monitoring the noise and make modifications to improve the program.

Another participant enquired about which alternative was recommended in the abatement program. Crawford and Sistarenik explained the proposed abatement program was a compilation of all the alternatives with some additional modifications, and offered to explain the process to him after the meeting.

Note: Mitchell Payne, Vice President of Finance, requested a note in the meeting minutes; the University of Louisville would submit an additional statement in accordance with, and as a response to, the night’s presentation as Payne was out of town and unable to attend the meeting.

Sistarenik introduced Rob Holtzmann, the ombudsman for the Airport Relocation Project, to present the recommendations of the Public Information Committee. Holtzmann stated the committee’s recommendations, which are:

• Maintaining the information on the RAA Web site and expanding information to other Web sites, including the Board of Realtors and the Jefferson County Planning Commission.

• Publishing information so that it can be send to civic, neighborhood, government, and media organizations.

• Increasing the effectiveness of the communication process by sending official representative to civic, neighborhood, government, and media organizations.

• The development of an information package.

Holtzmann added that the Noise Study information, as it applies to abatement and mitigation, should be simplified and presented in one package, using the same public information tools consistently. He stated that this practice would lessen confusion in the community.

Holtzmann pointed out some of the positive things that have come out of this study so far, such as:

• Established the Innovative Housing Program and the Voluntary Relocation Working Group.

• Web site.

• Noise Compatibility Officer, Bob Slattery.

• The Study Report.

• The oversight structure.

Holtzmann encouraged the Study Group to continue with these efforts. He then stated the goals of the Public Information Committee, which included:

• Establishing better relations with the media, including press releases and individually contacting news stations.

• Producing a brochure explaining noise mitigation and abatement to the citizens being affected by airport noise.

One participant added that the Public Information Committee’s goal should be to eliminate community confusion and not just lessen it. Holtzmann agreed and added that they believed a single voice/source of information would address these issues.

Sistarenik presented the recommendations for the Airport Noise Mitigation Program. He started by giving a overview of the measures and then gave the recommendations that follow:

Remedial measures:

• Focus to the south:

• Voluntary relocation – homeowners agree to sell their homes to the airport.

• Innovative housing program – homeowners have their homes exchanged for others.

• Renaissance Zone redevelopment program – business development in the noise-sensitive areas.

• Focus to the north of the airport:

• Residential soundproofing.

• Institutional soundproofing.

• Residential sales assistance – assist homeowners in selling their homes by providing services such as marketing.

• Priorities of remedial measures will run from 65 to 60 DNL.

• Noise barriers for Beechmont and Preston Park are considerations.

Compensatory measures:

• Easement purchases in conjunction with preventive measures; for example, homeowners would be provided with insulation to ensure the DNL decreases within their homes, in turn the homeowner would have to sign an easement agreement, thereby giving up a legal right to sue the airport for further noise.

Preventive measures:

• Comprehensive planning.

• Compatible land-use zoning.

• Overlay zoning.

• Subdivision regulations.

• Building code provisions.

• Disclosure ordinances.

• Public information programs

• Electronic and hard-copy information collections.

• Community outreach.

• Media relations.

Sistarenik commented that the program was still in a sketchy format and it would be a continuous effort, involving political goodwill, financial issues, and community pressure. He agreed that this would not be an easy task.

Assessments

• Cost analysis.
• Financial feasibility.

Sistarenik said that they still have to validate the final program. He then asked if the measures could be submitted to the RAA at the next RAA meeting.

A motion to approve the mitigation program was adopted. Sistarenik explained the proposed program would be submitted to the RAA and Leigh Fisher and Associates for their review, additional calculations, and improvements. After Meeting # 7 the program would be completed and submitted to the RAA, who would call a public meeting, and then submit it to the FAA for their review and approval.

Sistarenik then gave the floor to Slattery, who gave a brief presentation on altitudes and current flight paths over the community. Slattery stated that a large portion of complaints were about the altitudes of the aircraft. He hoped that this presentation would bring some clarification on these issues. Slattery referred to maps that illustrated flight paths during night- and daytime. He explained that the new plan would force the aircraft traffic to operate in a more clearly defined corridor. He then demonstrated the current altitudes of aircraft arrivals and added that those were average flight tracks and could vary. Slattery encouraged the participants to use the AirportMonitor as a source of information about these paths and to ask questions.

A frustrated participant stated that she felt the Study Group wasn’t really answering the questions of the community and that they deflected questions by talking in highly technical terms. She stated that there were still a lot of aircraft that kept her up at night. Slattery answered that she should use measures like the AirportMonitor to identify the specific airplanes. He further explained how to use the AirportMonitor and referred them to the Web site, www.louintlairport.com.

Another participant enquired about the noise levels of the aircraft. Slattery explained all large aircraft, excluding military aircraft, did comply with the regulations regarding the noise levels.

One participant wanted to know whether the committee was just moving noise from the East to the West end of the city as a form of abatement for the East end. Sistarenik explained that the abatement program truly benefited the center of the city and the community at large. To illustrate, Sistarenik added that he lived in the city and weren’t personally going to receive direct benefits for the mitigation program.

Another participant wanted to know what the altitudes were of the aircraft flying over the Fourth Presbyterian Church. Slattery estimated the altitude between 400-600 feet.

Sistarenik thanked all the participants for coming to the meeting and encouraged them to stay involved. He reminded the participants of the upcoming meeting, Meeting #7. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.


				STUDY GROUP Meeting Notes
BACK to Meetings Notes				NCSG MEETING #6 Final Meeting Notes NCSG Meeting #6A Date: June 13, 2002 Location: Fourth Presbyterian Church, Louisville, KY Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group meeting: J. Michael Brown, Chairman, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Dorn Crawford, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Bob Slattery, Noise Officer, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Rande Swann, Public Relations Director, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County John Sistarenik, Study Group Chair Don Conrad, Relocation Committee Ted Chillton, Sensitive Facilities Committee Rob Holtzmann, Public Information Committee Nadine van der Merwe, Mo’ Better Marketing Discussion Synopsis – Study Group Meeting #6 The meeting was called to order by John Sistarenik, Study Group Chair, at 6:35 PM. Motions to adopt the meeting agenda and notes from Study Group Meeting #6 were approved. Sistarenik gave an overview of the Noise Study Group’s project status and explained that this meeting was a response to the information presented at Study Group Meeting # 6. He explained that each committee was going to present its recommendations regarding the abatement and mitigation programs; he then handed over to Dorn Crawford to present the Navigation Committee’s recommendations. Crawford presented thecommittee’s Noise Abatement program and explained that its recommendations derived from a compilation of measures, which included control, operational, procedural, management, and evaluation measures. He explained that control measures referred to steps that could be taken to guide aircraft into the airport. Crawford then presented the Navigational Committee’s recommendations for control measures, which included: • Offset path for approach to 17R and departure from 35L. • Extended approach fixes and departure turn points for higher maneuvering altitudes, thus reducing the noise over the community. • Optimized flight corridors following the river and major highways. • Waypoints to guide traffic in corridors, rather than radar vectors. • Navigational standards for fleet. • Navaids as required to define waypoints. • Runway extension for higher north departure on 35L; displaced south arrival on 17R. (This option is being held pending further cost/benefit analysis) Crawford explained that operational measures had to do with the actual operation of the airport’s facilities. He then moved on to the committee’s recommendations and explained the term "preferred." This means that the airport would follow the recommended runway use when possible, but that it would use the other runways as needed to accommodate factors such as poor weather, runway conditions, and traffic loads during peak operation of the airport – which might require the use of both runways. The Navigation Committee’s recommendations included: • Preferred south flow, except as provided below. • Preferred north flow between 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM. • For operations north of the airfield, preferred use of runway 17R with offset for arrivals, and 35L with offset for departures. • Retaining current operations south of the airfield. No runway preferences were made as they made no significant noise reductions. • Retaining and enhancing the contraflow program. • Minimizing exceptions to contraflow. Crawford went through the committee’s recommendations for procedural measures. These measures would serve as guidelines to pilots, and included: • Publish standardized arrival and departure procedures. • Provide for uniform descents at a safe slope (3degrees); discontinue current altitude exceptions. • Grant visual approach clearances only after aircraft pass final approach fixes. • Publish preferred noise-abatement procedures in approach and departure plates, : • Preferred close-in-abatement procedures for operations north of the airfield. • Preferred distant abatement procedures for operations south of the airfield. • Continue current run-up restrictions, which only allow for maintenance run-ups during the day. Crawford then explained the management measures as recommended by the Navigation Committee, and stressed that they would assist in the actual implementation of the abatement program. These management measures included: • The establishment of a noise office – already in place with Bob Slattery as the noise officer. • A community noise forum to succeed the Study Group; this would ensure continuous effort. • Maintaining the Web site and information center to keep the community posted. • Reinforcing communications and liaison links with staff, carriers, controllers, government agencies, media, and public. • Equipping noise office with hardware and software for effective monitoring and evaluation – this is important for determining the success of the program. • Develop real-time runway use decision aids, with common access for management, ATC, carries, and community. Crawford stated the recommended evaluation measures. These included: • Establishing flight-track monitoring systems. • Providing sample noise monitoring. • Maintaining fleet lists such as: • Exceptions to the noise-abatement program (i.e., light aircraft). • Navigational performance capability. • Development of tabulated data sets for various metrics. • Conducting in-house noise modeling. • Documentation and evaluation of emerging technologies and the measurement of their potential applications. Finally, Crawford touched on the assessment of the abatement program and stated that analysis of airfield capacity and delay, air traffic control issues, aircraft operational and economic issues, cost analysis, and financial feasibility must be applied to the entire package. John Sistarenik asked if anyone had any questions or objections regarding the abatement recommendations of the Navigational Committee. A motion to adopt the recommendations as the preferred abatement program was approved. Sistarenik stated the next step would be to submit these recommendations to the RAA so they can start working on the finalization of the cost figures and the benefits analysis so that the program could be submitted to the FAA. Sistarenik introduced Don Conrad, chairman of the Relocation Committee, to present the committee’s recommendations, which included: • The completion of the current relocation-acquisition program by June 2005 – that would be the relocation of all people currently affected by the noise and who are interested in taking advantage of the relocation program. • Purchasing in "fee simple" or through innovative housing programs south of the airport. • Assisting with soundproofing and sales assistance north of the airport. • Smooth transition of programs in conjunction with the current voluntary relocation working group will result in a significant decrease in the amount of people affected by the noise. Conrad opened the floor for questions. One participant wanted an explanation of soundproofing and sales assistance. Conrad answered that qualified individuals would have the opportunity to soundproof their homes if they signed an easement that would stay with the property. Sistarenik added that preference would be given to residential properties in DNL 65, and that the soundproofing should result in a significant reduction in their noise levels indoors. Slattery explained that they used insulation in doors, windows, ceilings, and gaps to soundproof homes. A participant expressed her concerns about soundproofing and easements. She stated that Indianapolis was willing to buy homeowners out if residents weren’t satisfied with the soundproofing; thus, they didn’t have to sign any easements. She added that some of the older people in the community might not be completely aware of the consequences of signing an easement. Another participant wanted to know about mitigation in trailer parks and why those residents haven’t been offered relocation. He also expressed his concerns about moving businesses in the area, yet not doing anything about the trailer parks. One of the participants answered that the trailer park owners didn’t want to sell their land, and suggested that the participant should go and speak to his landlord for more information. One participant stated that he had two questions. First he wanted to confirm that Conrad mentioned Preston Park for mitigation instead of Prestonia. He then inquired about soundproofing to the east and north of the airport; he also stated in those parts the noise levels weren’t consistent and that they varied dramatically depending on the time of day and weekends. He expressed his concerns and stated that some of those areas did encounter a 65 DNL occasionally and he wanted to know if there could be mitigation in those areas. Sistarenik explained that the DNL were calculated as a day-and-night average, and that the main objective of the abatement and mitigation plans is to reduce the overall amount of people affected by the noise in the community. It is very difficult to accommodate each individual case. Slattery stated that the AirportMonitor could be used to identify those aircraft that made noise. Conrad added that the current program doesn’t allow for any soundproofing, as it is a very expensive measure. Sistarenik reassured the participant that the new plan would be a great improvement. The participant expressed his concerns about the political process involved in the approval and execution of the proposed plan. Another participant was concerned about the flight paths and how the airport was going to regulate aircraft to keep to the proposed paths. Sistarenik answered that there were measures and procedures in place in the new abatement program to ensure that aircraft kept to the proposed paths, such as navigational measures. He added that with measures like the AirportMonitor the community would be able to monitor and identify specific aircraft that don’t comply with the new paths, and that further steps could be taken from there. The participant inquired about people who lived in frame homes, as they got more noise that brick homes. The participant stated that there should be some sort of procedure in place, such as fines to deal with aircraft operating out of compliance with the FAA operating procedures. The participant also suggested that the money generated by fines could be use as mitigation funding for things such as additional soundproofing. Sistarenik stated that there were no procedures in place to enforce such fines but he reassured him that in most cases aircraft respect such guidelines. They were hopeful that aircraft and companies would comply with the new flight paths. Another participant inquired about sales assistance. Sistarenik explained that the airport would assist individuals who don’t want to take part in the voluntary relocation to sell their homes privately. The participant also expressed his concerns about aircraft not complying with the new flight paths and some aircraft that made more noise than others did. Sistarenik stated that companies like UPS have already agreed to comply with the proposed plan. Slattery added that all aircraft comply with the stage 3 noise classification and that there might be a variation in noise made by these aircraft. Sistarenik explained that it could be compared with someone scoring an "A" on a test, which means a score could vary anywhere from 90% -100%. One participant stated that he was a realtor and inquired about buy-outs. He wanted to know if all homeowners got offered the same compensation and whether there was a standard. Conrad answered that each case was treated individually. Sistarenik added that there were some standards. Jim DeLong, general manager of the Regional Airport Authority, stated that there were federal laws that buy-outs need to observe; he stated that he needs to be immediately notified if any of these laws has been violated. Sistarenik introduced Tim Chilton to present the recommend measures of the Sensitive Facilities Committee. Chilton stated that he was standing in for his committee chairman, Donna Lawlor, who was out of town. Chilton explained that sensitive facilities referred to institutions, such as churches, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. He stated their first recommendation was to complete current mitigation measures, and suggested a timeframe should be prepared to speed up and complete current mitigation proceedings before new mitigation begins. The suggested order of completion was as follow: 1. Sensitive facilities and residences in the 65 DNL 2A. Residences in the 60 DNL 2B. Sensitive facilities in the 60 DNL Chilton stated their next recommendation involved planning and zoning. More specifically, the implementation of a requirement through the Planning Commission that, effective after approval of the 150 study, noise reduction would be required in residential and sensitive facilities that might be built in the noise impact area. Chilton stated the importance of confirmation of noise reduction and added the committee recommended measuring noise levels once the noise mitigation is completed. This is to confirm reduction has been achieved, and levels are in compliance with FAA standards. Chilton touched on other items that could be explored, which included: • An illustrative list of noise-sensitive facilities. • An analysis for possible placement of a noise barrier to provide noise reduction to the residents of Preston Park. One participant wanted to know how the Study Group was going to monitor the noise levels in the areas completed. Sistarenik stated that some measures have been included in the program and he referred to the AirportMonitor as an additional measure to track specific events. He added that the study would be a continuous process and they were going to continue monitoring the noise and make modifications to improve the program. Another participant enquired about which alternative was recommended in the abatement program. Crawford and Sistarenik explained the proposed abatement program was a compilation of all the alternatives with some additional modifications, and offered to explain the process to him after the meeting. Note: Mitchell Payne, Vice President of Finance, requested a note in the meeting minutes; the University of Louisville would submit an additional statement in accordance with, and as a response to, the night’s presentation as Payne was out of town and unable to attend the meeting. Sistarenik introduced Rob Holtzmann, the ombudsman for the Airport Relocation Project, to present the recommendations of the Public Information Committee. Holtzmann stated the committee’s recommendations, which are: • Maintaining the information on the RAA Web site and expanding information to other Web sites, including the Board of Realtors and the Jefferson County Planning Commission. • Publishing information so that it can be send to civic, neighborhood, government, and media organizations. • Increasing the effectiveness of the communication process by sending official representative to civic, neighborhood, government, and media organizations. • The development of an information package. Holtzmann added that the Noise Study information, as it applies to abatement and mitigation, should be simplified and presented in one package, using the same public information tools consistently. He stated that this practice would lessen confusion in the community. Holtzmann pointed out some of the positive things that have come out of this study so far, such as: • Established the Innovative Housing Program and the Voluntary Relocation Working Group. • Web site. • Noise Compatibility Officer, Bob Slattery. • The Study Report. • The oversight structure. Holtzmann encouraged the Study Group to continue with these efforts. He then stated the goals of the Public Information Committee, which included: • Establishing better relations with the media, including press releases and individually contacting news stations. • Producing a brochure explaining noise mitigation and abatement to the citizens being affected by airport noise. One participant added that the Public Information Committee’s goal should be to eliminate community confusion and not just lessen it. Holtzmann agreed and added that they believed a single voice/source of information would address these issues. Sistarenik presented the recommendations for the Airport Noise Mitigation Program. He started by giving a overview of the measures and then gave the recommendations that follow: Remedial measures: • Focus to the south: • Voluntary relocation – homeowners agree to sell their homes to the airport. • Innovative housing program – homeowners have their homes exchanged for others. • Renaissance Zone redevelopment program – business development in the noise-sensitive areas. • Focus to the north of the airport: • Residential soundproofing. • Institutional soundproofing. • Residential sales assistance – assist homeowners in selling their homes by providing services such as marketing. • Priorities of remedial measures will run from 65 to 60 DNL. • Noise barriers for Beechmont and Preston Park are considerations. Compensatory measures: • Easement purchases in conjunction with preventive measures; for example, homeowners would be provided with insulation to ensure the DNL decreases within their homes, in turn the homeowner would have to sign an easement agreement, thereby giving up a legal right to sue the airport for further noise. Preventive measures: • Comprehensive planning. • Compatible land-use zoning. • Overlay zoning. • Subdivision regulations. • Building code provisions. • Disclosure ordinances. • Public information programs • Electronic and hard-copy information collections. • Community outreach. • Media relations. Sistarenik commented that the program was still in a sketchy format and it would be a continuous effort, involving political goodwill, financial issues, and community pressure. He agreed that this would not be an easy task. Assessments • Cost analysis. • Financial feasibility. Sistarenik said that they still have to validate the final program. He then asked if the measures could be submitted to the RAA at the next RAA meeting. A motion to approve the mitigation program was adopted. Sistarenik explained the proposed program would be submitted to the RAA and Leigh Fisher and Associates for their review, additional calculations, and improvements. After Meeting # 7 the program would be completed and submitted to the RAA, who would call a public meeting, and then submit it to the FAA for their review and approval. Sistarenik then gave the floor to Slattery, who gave a brief presentation on altitudes and current flight paths over the community. Slattery stated that a large portion of complaints were about the altitudes of the aircraft. He hoped that this presentation would bring some clarification on these issues. Slattery referred to maps that illustrated flight paths during night- and daytime. He explained that the new plan would force the aircraft traffic to operate in a more clearly defined corridor. He then demonstrated the current altitudes of aircraft arrivals and added that those were average flight tracks and could vary. Slattery encouraged the participants to use the AirportMonitor as a source of information about these paths and to ask questions. A frustrated participant stated that she felt the Study Group wasn’t really answering the questions of the community and that they deflected questions by talking in highly technical terms. She stated that there were still a lot of aircraft that kept her up at night. Slattery answered that she should use measures like the AirportMonitor to identify the specific airplanes. He further explained how to use the AirportMonitor and referred them to the Web site, www.louintlairport.com. Another participant enquired about the noise levels of the aircraft. Slattery explained all large aircraft, excluding military aircraft, did comply with the regulations regarding the noise levels. One participant wanted to know whether the committee was just moving noise from the East to the West end of the city as a form of abatement for the East end. Sistarenik explained that the abatement program truly benefited the center of the city and the community at large. To illustrate, Sistarenik added that he lived in the city and weren’t personally going to receive direct benefits for the mitigation program. Another participant wanted to know what the altitudes were of the aircraft flying over the Fourth Presbyterian Church. Slattery estimated the altitude between 400-600 feet. Sistarenik thanked all the participants for coming to the meeting and encouraged them to stay involved. He reminded the participants of the upcoming meeting, Meeting #7. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.
				back to top