Neighbors catch Planning Commission’s ear on changes to Dulles decibel-level impact areas

By Laura Longley

If you live in the Birchwood community of Brambleton, last March it’s likely you received a surprise missive in the mail: a notification from Loudoun County about pending changes in the areas around Dulles International Airport and their designations for decibel levels. 

These areas were approved by a previous Board of Supervisors. They established a one-mile buffer zone, an area with the least airplane noise. Louder is the 60-65 decibel neighborhood. The loudest is designated 65+.

Most of the 65+ area lays to the north of the airport in a largely undeveloped tract. It’s the residents and businesses of the areas to the airport’s west, south, and southwest—”Suburban Neighborhood Place Type” and “Suburban Mixed Use Place Type”—that will feel the pain of changed designations. Many homes would move from the 60 band to the undesirable 65+.

While Loudoun County does not govern the airport in any way or participate in plans for its expansion, the County does play an important role in that middle ground between the Federal Aviation Administration, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and the lives of Loudouners. At this juncture, if the Loudoun County Planning Commission, followed by the Board of Supervisors, were preparing to sign off on the FAA’s recommended decibel-level contours, the County would directly impact the value of properties.

That is, until more than 45 people turned up at the County government building on June 28 to be heard on the issue.

Representative voices included:

• a spokesman for a neighborhood asking the County to join them in lobbying the FAA 
• a resident of Brambleton’s Birchwood development
• an attorney representing developers and large commercial interests
• a real estate broker

The Neighborhood Spokesman: “One of our requests is to help us go to the FAA to require the aircraft to fly a minimum of five miles straight out. Yes, that’s not necessarily convenient for them. Tough noogies. We’re in the area where our house is greatly impacted. Right now we have no recourse. 

“You live your entire life indoors behind acoustic windows. We paid extra for an outdoor living space that we can’t use; if you do, you just sit there. I don’t know sign language, my fault. This noise should not be accepted by this group or anyone supporting the constituents of this County. 

“I also flatly reject the notion that you have no power over the FAA. You may not in your current position, but you do with us. So, join us. And let’s go change this.”

The Birchwood Resident: “It’s heartbreaking to realize that myself and all the residents from Birchwood today, and nearly 1,800 total future households, have purchased their homes most likely with the intent to make this their permanent retirement residence. 

“In terms of disclosure, I will share with you that at the time of our sale no
development, builder, or governing party disclosed any information on the current 60 LDN (day-night average sound level) or the one-mile buffer zone. 

“As part of the development agreement with the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, there was no area map illustrating our community’s proximity to runway 30, which is the busiest outbound runway at Dulles with 76 percent of all outbound flights. None of that was disclosed to us. Residents signed a document that was circulated among a pile of other closing documents that acknowledged we lived within 20 miles of Dulles Airport and would be impacted by airport noise. So, yes, we did sign this document. 

“There has been no enforcement of the agreed-upon transparency to buyers regarding potential plane noise. There was no follow up at the sales office to check on protocol at all. In general, we feel very bamboozled about what has happened with our property.”

A Land Use and Zoning Attorney: “The proposed changes to the airport noise contours would not only affect the stakeholders that have applications processing through the County, but they will result in the creation of 600 non-conforming homes where the new noise contours are overlaid onto existing neighborhoods.” This non-conforming classification, he explained, will negatively affect the marketability and sale of these homes. “And for what purpose?” he asked. 

“Currently, there is no compelling need to change the noise contours … In fact, the proposed noise contours … are not based on a noise study or demand analysis.” They are based on a capacity projection that goes out 80 to 90 years in the future, he said. “If a true noise study was conducted based on existing noise levels, the existing noise contours would shrink considerably. 

“I encourage the Planning Commission to take your time in thoroughly reviewing this item.” He advised that an exception for a fifth runway area be added back into the item. “This exception area would solve the problems created by this item for existing homeowners, as well as for stakeholders attempting to create vibrant communities.”

A Real Estate Broker: “When I bought the home 18 years ago, there was no disclaimer or no notification associated with all the documents that we had at closing … I echo the concerns of every other speaker tonight and respectfully request that you don’t move forward with this application without giving it a little bit more time and more study to make sure that it is going to be for the good of all the homeowners and the lives that will be impacted.”

Planning Commission Chairman Forest Hayes heard the speakers loud and clear. “I don’t think there’s been enough direct outreach and public engagement up to this point,” he said. 

“Because if there were, there wouldn’t have been 45 people speaking. They would have gotten their engagement in other venues and wouldn’t have felt compelled to come here. There are other open items and unsettled issues like grandfathering existing applications that are moving through the system. 

“I can’t live with that on this one,” he went on. “Too many citizens came out. There’s too much unreadiness out there. And we’ve heard from businesses; it’s not just the citizens. [It’s] their organizations … There are a lot of stakeholders represented that either don’t understand, or you just have clear cut unreadiness about this and we have to work it out. And the thing that I see, or it appears to me—maybe I’m wrong—is it seems like we’re just trying to figure out a way to cooperate with the FAA. I’m less concerned with cooperating with FAA than I am cooperating with my neighbors. But I do believe that there is a way. It doesn’t have to be either/or.”

To find a way, Hayes called for a vote to move the Dulles issue to a future Planning Commission work session. The motion was approved, with staff work and deliberations to go forward.