Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65 (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 This chapter summarizes land use policies that prevent or remediate incompatibilities outside of DNL 65, including review of development proposals, zoning, easements, disclo- sure, sound insulation, building performance standards, and property acquisition. PREVENTIVE LAND USE PLANNING More than half of the surveyed airports (57%) reported having land use compatibility measures that apply outside DNL 65. The tools used by airports for land use compatibility planning include zoning, building permits that require sound insulation of residential and noise-sensitive nonresidential land uses, and disclosure to residents. Two airports reported that zoning pro- hibits residential development from DNL 60 to 65, and two airports permit residential development with sound insulation provided at either DNL 55 or 60. Other land use strategies include noise overlay districts, state compatibility plans, air- port influence areas, and disclosure to 1 mile outside DNL 60. Navigation easements are used by 75% of the responding air- ports. Real estate disclosures are used by 65% of the respond- ing airports. Land use compatibility policies are communicated to homeowners and realtors through newsletters or handouts (27%), presentation to real estate boards (32%), and individ- ual homeowner briefings (12%); 17% used other means of communication, such as working with government planning departments, public meetings, and responding to complaints. The airports’ cost to implement land use incompatible poli- cies outside DNL 65 are minimal: five respondents reported that their costs are “minimal” or that they rely on in-house construction, legal, and staff time; one respondent identified total implementation costs of $250,000. Although home- owners and realtors have no identified cost, airports noted other costs included city and county planning agencies and administrative. Respondents indicated that the greatest challenges to implementation are coordinating with local land use officials (32%), coordinating with realtors (21%) and coordinating with homeowners (18%). Respondents also noted “Not all realtors or homeowners are cooperative even though they can be sued for non-compliance,” “Recommendations [are] not always heeded,” and “Sometimes the local officials do not contact the airport on critical land development.” Respondents reported a range of effectiveness: 21% said their efforts were “very effective” in preventing incompatible land uses outside DNL 65, 64% said their efforts were “some- what or moderately effective,” and 16% said their efforts were “not effective at all” (Figure 9). SOUND INSULATION The majority of respondents (58%) do not provide sound insu- lation to homeowners living outside DNL 65; 20% provide sound insulation for homes in contiguous neighborhoods (“block rounding”), and an additional 15% provide sound insu- lation for homes within the DNL 60 dB contour. Funding for sound insulation programs outside DNL 65 comes from the air- port (50%), FAA funding through Passenger Facility Charges or AIP grants (36%), operators (7%), and homeowners (7%). Costs per home were reported between $10,000 and $15,000. Airports use a combination of funding sources for a maximum cost of $3.1 million for the entire program and a minimum cost of $10,000 per home. The FAA contributed 80% funding for contiguous neighborhood sound insulation programs. CHAPTER FIVE LAND USE AND SOUND INSULATION POLICIES

20 FIGURE 9 Effectiveness of land use policies at surveyed airports.