Meeting Notes : Sensitive Facilities Committee
Committee notes reflect the views and opinions of the committee members and not necessarily those of the Noise Compatibility Study Group, Coordinating Council, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County, or the Consultant Team.
Pending Committee Approval
The members of the Sensitive Facilities Committee are requesting further research into one of our suggested noise abatement issues. Our goal is to solve existing, long outstanding and future issues, not create new ones. Therefore, we want to obtain factual information as to why Item #6 from our list was not recommended.
Our Item #6 is the same as 7.2 Capacity Limitations in the Leigh Fisher assessment chart:
Put a cap on any airport expansions or developments that create additional noise at or above the 65 ldn level, unless mitigation is completed before the expansion or development.
(A) Description: Your response focuses on 75 ldn. It appears the suggestion may have been misconstrued to benefit the airport not the human race that it adversely effects. Our suggestion specified the 65 ldn level and it is know that 65 ldn warrants relocation and that there is an adverse impact, physically and mentally, on the people located near the airport.
(B) Conformance with Study Goals: Isn’t our goal to reduce the noise impact?
(C) Cost: The economy has already more than benefited from this expansion. How can a dollar value be placed on the adverse impact the people have been subjected to?
(D) Effect on Airport Users: If the existing issues are resolved, then there would not need to be an effect on the users.
(E) Legal Factors: According to Section B150.5, Program Standards-The airport operator shall develop a noise compatibility program that reduces existing, non-compatible uses and prevents or reduces the probability of the establishment of additional non-compatible uses. Performing an audit could clear the issue regarding undue burden on commerce. The issue requiring that it not be unjustly discriminatory could be interpreted that the people living around the airport are being ignored and discriminated against.
We thank you for your effort in clarifying the one issue we strongly recommend in this study.
1/31/00
Our Item #6 is the same as 7.2 Capacity Limitations in the Leigh Fisher assessment chart:
Put a cap on any airport expansions or developments that create additional noise at or above the 65 ldn level, unless mitigation is completed before the expansion or development.
(A) Description: Your response focuses on 75 ldn. It appears the suggestion may have been misconstrued to benefit the airport not the human race that it adversely effects. Our suggestion specified the 65 ldn level and it is know that 65 ldn warrants relocation and that there is an adverse impact, physically and mentally, on the people located near the airport.
(B) Conformance with Study Goals: Isn’t our goal to reduce the noise impact?
(C) Cost: The economy has already more than benefited from this expansion. How can a dollar value be placed on the adverse impact the people have been subjected to?
(D) Effect on Airport Users: If the existing issues are resolved, then there would not need to be an effect on the users.
(E) Legal Factors: According to Section B150.5, Program Standards-The airport operator shall develop a noise compatibility program that reduces existing, non-compatible uses and prevents or reduces the probability of the establishment of additional non-compatible uses. Performing an audit could clear the issue regarding undue burden on commerce. The issue requiring that it not be unjustly discriminatory could be interpreted that the people living around the airport are being ignored and discriminated against.
We thank you for your effort in clarifying the one issue we strongly recommend in this study.
1/31/00