HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 2013-01 Exhibits presented by Attorney Kim Rezanka.pdf�,N
a
Susan ChaDman
From:
Kim Rezanka'KRezanka@deannleadzom/
Sent
Tuesday, June Il,2OI35:OOPK4
To;
Susan Chapman; Angela Apperson; Kim McIntire; Mia Goforth; Betty Walsh; Bob Hoog;
Buzz Petsos; John Bond; Rocky Randels; David Greene; Barry Brown; Todd Morley; Dunn,
Donald P fkZ; Russell, Lamar P&Z; Pearson, Harry - P 8/Z ; Nicholas, Leo; Hamilton,
Joyce; Rick Neale (rneale@floridatoday.com); Glenn Pereno; Anthony Garganese; Kate
La1orre; Price, John P fkZ Board Member; Friedman, Ronald P /kZ ; Collins, Bruce P
& Z Member; Tom Hermanssen;Porter, John; 8aughe[Bob; Mark Grainger;
BK4ays@caUoneon|ine.com
Cc:
1erry.hume@dnewsI3.com';b|ake.beanb|ossono@standupdzonn
Subject:
RE: Proposed Helicopter Tour Business Comments Received from Citizens and
Business Owners
Attachments:
June 11, 2013 Heliport Report byDr. 8aUanj Qarke/(VOI96750).pd[ Ballard M. Barker
Resume(V8I9658O).pdf
Attached please find the report and resume ofDr. Ballard Barker, on behalf nf84l0Astronaut Blvd_LLC,
submitted ioopposition tothe proposed development request.
Kimberly Bonder Rezanka
_—z 1ka(o)deanrnea1,co,n
Dean Mead
8240 Devereux Drive, Suite 100
Viera, Florida 32940
321-259-8900, Fax 321-254-4479
Orlando I Fort Pierce I Viera I Gainesville
This onnail is interided solely for Ilte use of the individual to whorn if is addressed and n-tay comain inforrw:flion 11 -ml is
pnv/moou.00mm^ma/mormww,ecxempf/mmu/wunomc'urmmapn|mamelaw. nthe, reader m[his emoi|/onot mo/menuourecipient orthe amp|oycemagent
responsible for delivering the rricssago to the, niondod tc"cipic"nL You are, hereby notified that any dissoinnation, distribution, or copying of this communication is
stiiotly piohibitcd, If you have received this cornmunicialion in crior. plrasc,, &-floic thisemail, destroy any hard copiesihorcol. and r-iotify Lis in-micdiately by
telephone. Thank YOU.
:xumooirauuyunmdStates Treoovrynooumn no.plemmueawamthumisrommunicatio^tsmuintendeun,wmten^vmn
nenu*/to be used, and it cannot b0 USod, by any rccipic,,nt lot flic,, purpose, of (1) avoiding pon,,Ifles that may be Imposed on the teq.-kint widcr Unted States
poxem|Tax Laws, or (2) pton-ioling, marketing or rcconwnending to arrolhei party any plan or artat-igomerit addressed 1-terciin.
Think Green! Please consider our environment before printing thi5e-rnail.
From: Susan Chapman
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Angela Apperson; Kim McIntire; Mia Goforth; Betty Walsh; Bob Hnog; Buzz PeLsos; John Bond; Rocky Rande|s; David
Greene; Barry Brown; Todd Morley; Dunn, Donald P &Z; Russell, Lamar - P8Z; Pearson, Harry - P & Z ; Nicholas Leo;
Hamilton, Joyce; Rick Neale / ; Glenn Pcneno; AnthonyGarganese; Kate La1one; Price,]ohn-P
&Z Board Member; Friedman, Ronald - P & Z ; Collins, Bruce - P 8^Z Member; Tom Hernnanssan; Porter, John; Kim
Rezanka;Baughar,Bob; Mark Grainger;
Subject: Proposed Helicopter Tour Business - Comments Received from Citizens and Business Owners
Good Morning Everyone,
To: 'Susan Chapman'; Angela Apperson; Kim McIntire (K.N1q1.-ntig�(�City gapecanaveral.gr�g.); Mia Goforth
-f , --
Subject: FW: Proposed Helicopter Tour Business - Comments Received from Citizens and Business Owners
Attached are the documents provided to P&Z at the 6/12/13 Meeting. Please include this with the agenda
packet that is sent to the City Council.
Also, can you provide me with a copy of the power point presentation submitted by Mark Grainger?
Thank you,
Kim Rezanka
From: Susan Chapman LmdLQ.S ha d) -c gp g�Li -, J yg,E 2g_g
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Angela Apperson; Kim McIntire; Mia Goforth; Betty Walsh; Bob Hoag; Buzz Petsos; John Bond; Rocky Randels; David
Greene; Barry Brown; Todd Morley; Dunn, Donald - P & Z; Russell, Lamar - P&Z; Pearson, Harry - P & Z ; Nicholas, Leo;
Hamilton, Joyce; Rick Neale (meale(&floriclatoday
,-&pM); Glenn Pereno; Anthony Garganese; Kate Latorre; Price, John - P
& Z Board Member; Friedman, Ronald - P & Z ; Collins, Bruce - P & Z Member; Tom Hermanssen; Porter, John; Kim
Rezanka; Baugher, Bob; Mark Grainger; of cgT "calloneonline.CWI "
Subject: Proposed Helicopter Tour Business - Comments Received from Citizens and Business Owners
Good Morning Everyone,
Attached are comments that Staffhas received froi-n citizens and business owner -s regarding the
proposed helicopter tour business request that will 1.)e considered tomorrow evening by the
f1anning & Zoning Board.
ff you have any questions, please contact Barry Brown, Manning & Zoning Dir-ector at
(321)868-1222 ext, 1.1. or Emaik B.,brownf
q�djyLfL cqp eEaor
_g.
Thank you,
Susan
El
'Skrzao, t . ahapvKao'
Administrative Assistant/Secretary to the Board
Community and Economic Development
7510 N. Atlantic Avenue * P.O. Box 326
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326
Email: S.ch�pjj �n@g
Phone: (321)868-1205 * Fax: (321)868-1247
wv �ofca e�canave�ral.or�
(1,11 1,'B RA, TEIV61 "57) Fli l?'%, (1,
, 3, 00", 1 0, 1)
AABefore you print this enud] or 1t&1C1V)7C1-)h5, C0.nSidC1- t110 0,0141-017172ent.
City of Cape Canaveral, Florida
Planning & Zoning Board
Regular Meeting of June 12, 2013
11NnXnjof��WFA
WIN Wffe]
In opposition to Planned Development Zoning and Land Use Plan
Proposed by Florida Biplanes & Helicopters
KIMBERLY BONDER REZANKA, ESQ.
DEAN MEAD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 100
8240 DEVEREUX DRIVE
VIERA, FL 32940
Subpart A - GENERAL ORDINANCES
Chapter 34 - ENVIRONMENT
ARTICLE V. - NOISE
ARTICLE V. - NOISE M
Sec. 34-151. - Declaration of policy to prohibit noise.
It is declared to be the policy of the city to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises from
all sources subject to its police powers. The need or noise regulations is a matter of legislative
determination and public policy, and this article is adopted in pursuance of and for the purpose of
securing and promoting the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare, peace and quiet of the
city and the people residing therein.
(Code 1981, § 711.01)
Sec. 34-152. - Reserved.
Editor's note
Ord. No. 06-2007, § 3, adopted Oct. 16, 2007, deleted § 34-152 which pertained to penalties and
derived from Code 1981, § 711.25.
Sec. 34-153. - Enumeration of prohibited noises.
It is unlawful for any person within the city to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any
loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which either annoys,_.disturbs or endangers the comfort, repose,
health, peace or safety of others, and the following acts, among others, are declared to be loud,
disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of this section, but the enumeration shall not be deemed to
be exclusive:
(1) The sounding of any horn or other signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle or other
motor vehicle on any street or in any public place within the city, except as a danger warning;
the creation by means of such signaling device of any unreasonably loud or harsh sound and
the sounding of any such device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time; the use
of any horn or other signaling device operated by the engine exhaust of any motor vehicle and
the use of any such horn or other signaling device when traffic is for any reason held up.
(2) The playing, using or operating or permitting to be played, operated or used any radio receiving
set, musical instrument, television set, phonograph or other machine or device for the producing
or reproducing of sound in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of the
neighboring residents at any time with louder volume than is necessary for the convenient
hearing of the person who is in the room, vehicle or immediate area in which such machine or
device is being operated and who is a voluntary listener thereto. The operation of any such
radio receiving set, musical instrument, television set, phonograph or other machine or device
for producing or reproducing sound between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a
manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet from the building, structure or vehicle
in which it is located, shall be deemed prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.
(3) The playing, using or operating or permitting to be played, used or operated any radio receiving
set, musical instrument, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier or other machine or device .
for the producing or reproducing of sound which is cast upon the public streets for the purpose
of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any building or structure;
provided, however, within the com- mercial zoned district, the city manager may issue a permit
Cape Canaveral, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 1
l�J
.Noise Comparisons
Noise Sources and Their Effects
Page 1 of 2
Noise Source
Decibel
comment
Level
Jet take -off (at 25 meters)
150
Eardrum, rupture
Aircraft carrier deck
140
Military jet aircraft take -off from aircraft carrier
130
with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB).
Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121
120
Painful. 32 times as
dB).
loud as 70 dB.
Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter.' Turbo -fan
110
Average human
aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB).
pain threshold. 16
Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music
times as loud as 70
(108 - 114 dB).
dB.
Jet take -off (at 305 meters), use of outboard
100
8 times as loud as
motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm
70 dB. Serious
tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck. Boeing
damage possible in
707 or DC -8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080
8 hr exposure
ft) before landing (106 dB); jet flyover at 1000
feet (103 dB); Bell J -2A helicopter at 100 ft
(100 dB).
Boeing 737 or DC -9 aircraft at one nautical
90
4 times as loud as
mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power
70 dB. Likely
mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB).
damage 8 hr exp
Newspaper press (97 dB).
Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average
80
2 times as loud as
factory, freight train (at 15 meters). Car wash
70 dB. Possible
at 20 ft (89 dB); propeller plane flyover at 1000
damage in 8 h
ft (88 dB); diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft (84 dB);
exposure.
diesel train at 45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB). Food
blender (88 dB); milling machine (85 dB);
garbage disposal (80 dB).
Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB);
70
Arbitrary base of
freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 10 a.m.
comparison. Upper
(76 dB). Living room music (76 dB); radio or
70s are annoyingly
TV -audio, vacuum cleaner (70 dB).
loud to some
people.
Conversation in restaurant, office, background
60
Half as loud as 70
music, Air conditioning unit at 100 ft
dB. Fairly quiet
Quiet suburb, conversation at home. Large
50
One-fourth as loud
electrical transformers at 100 ft
as 70 dB.
Library, bird calls (44 dB); lowest limit of urban
40
One-eighth as loud
httn-//www.r:hem mirrinP Prin/rhemcafPfv/Trainina/PPF..Train/rl}�1P'.�rPlc htm 7/�7/�llt Z
jvuisu uu upa.nsuns
Page 2 of 2
ambient sound
las 70 dB.
Quiet rural area
30
One -sixteenth as
loud as 70 dB. Very
Quiet
Whisper, rustling leaves
20
Breathing
10 113arely
audible
[modified from http:llwww.wenetnetl-hpbldblevels.htmi] on 212000. SOURCES: Temple University Department of CMIfEi
Engineering (www.temple.edu/departments/CETP/enVironl O.htmo, and Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise An
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (August 1992). Source of the information is attributed to Outdoor Noise and the Mel
Environment. M.C. Branch et al.. Deoartment of City Plannina. Citv of Los Anoeles. 1970.
ivironmental
Ilysis Issues,
ropofrtan
http://www.chem.perdue.edu/chemsafety/Traininw?PETrain/dblevels.htn 2/27/7011
This space for Cirdng
Printed on : 6/8/2013 12:43:43 PM
National TraWsportation �fyfety Board
NTSB ID: ERA13LA127
Most Critical Injury: Minor
PRELIMiNARk-=REPORT
Occurrence Date: 02/06/2013
Investigated By: NTSB
AA oION
YB
Occurrence Type: Accident
Location/Time
Nearest City/Place
State
Zip Code
Local Time
Time Zone
Merritt Island
FL
32952
1810
EST
Aircraft Information
Registration Number
Aircraft Manufacturer
Model/Series Number
N5072R
HILLER
UH -12B
Type of Aircraft: Helicopter
Amateur Built Aircraft? No
Injury Summary:
Fatal
serious
Minor 1
None 2
Revenue Sightseeing Flight: No Air Medical Transport Flight: No
Narrative
Brief narrative statement of facts, conditions and circumstances pertinent to the accidentfincident:
*** Note: NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data
provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report. ***
On February 6, 2013, about 1810 eastern standard time, a Hiller UH -12B, N5072R, impacted a taxiway
after the helicopter experienced a total loss of engine power after takeoff from the Merritt Island
Airport (COI), Merritt Island, Florida. One passenger sustained minor injuries, and the commercial
pilot and another passenger were not injured. The helicopter was owned by a corporation and
operated by Florida Biplanes under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a sightseeing
flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the local
flight.
According to witnesses, the helicopter took off and climbed about 70 feet above ground level where
the helicopter lost engine power. According to the pilot, he heard a "pop" noise just prior to the
loss of engine power. He performed an autorotation and the helicopter impacted a taxiway.
Initial examination by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the helicopter
incurred substantial damage to the tail rotor and tail boom.
The engine was retained for further examination.
Updated on Feb 19 2013 3:34PM
PRELIMINARY INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 1
Page I of I
Dana Blickley, CFA
Brevard County Property Appraiser - MAP SEARCH
htt-os://www.bc-oao.us/scri-ots/esrima,p.dll?name=Brevardl &id=2013 06081249295 312&Parc... 6/8/2013
AirNav: KCOI - Merritt Island Airport
KCOI Merritt Island Airport
Merritt Island, Florida, USA
F' Reserve a Rent a
I,
GOING TO MERRITT Hotel Room IBECar
ISLAND? OEM PM
Reserve Online
FAA INFORMATION EFFECTIVE 02 MAY 2013
Page 1 of 3
F.esorvp Qnlin:
Location
jIq
FAA Identifier: COI
Lat/Long: 28-20-29.8000N / 080-41-07.7000W
28-20.496667N / 080-41.128333W
28.3416111 / -80.6854722
(estimated)
Elevation: 6 ft. / 1.8 m (surveyed)
Variation: 05W (2000)
Time zone: UTC -4 (UTC -5 during Standard Time)
Zip code: 32952
Airport Operations
Airport use: Open to the public
Activation date: 06/1952
Sectional chart: JACKSONVILLE
Control tower: no
ARTCC: JACKSONVILLE CENTER
FSS: SAINT PETERSBURG FLIGHT SERVICE STATION
NOTAMs facility: PIE (NOTAM-D service available)
Attendance: 0800-2000
Wind indicator: lighted
Segmented circle: yes
Lights: ACTVT MIRL RY 11/29 - CTAF.
Beacon: white -green (lighted land airport)
ACTVT ROTG BCN - CTAF.
International operations: customs landing rights airport
Airport Communications
CTAF/UNICOM:
WX AWOS-3:
ORLANDO APPROACH:
ORLANDO DEPARTURE:
WX ASOS at MLB (14 nm S):
WX AWOS-3 at X21 (19 nm NW):
122.975
119.025 (321-986-8864)
134.95 134.95
134.95 134.95
PHONE 321-723-7403
119.725 (321-385-0383)
da V, 85
http://www.aimay.com/airporUKCOI 6/8/2013
AirNav: KCOI - Merritt Island Airport
Nearby radio navigation aids
VOR radial/distance
VOR name
Freq
Var
MLBr356/14.4
MELBOURNE VOR/DME
110.00
07W
ORLr109/36.3
ORLANDO VORTAC
112.20
OOE
NDB name
Hdg/Dist Freq
MERRITT ISLAND
at field
247
SATELLITE
006/14.6
257
GEIGER LAKE
160/16.6
375
SANFORD
137/39.6
408
KISSIMMEE
090/39.7
329
Airport Services
Fuel available: 100LL JET -A
Parking: tiedowns
Airframe service: MAJOR
Powerplant service: MAJOR
Bottled oxygen: NONE
Bulk oxygen: NONE
Runway Information
Runway 11/29
Var
ID
05W
COI ---
03W
SQT-
05W
GGL--. --. .-..
05W
SFB ... .. -- ----
...05W
05W
ISM .. ... --
Dimensions: 3601 x 75 ft. / 1098 x 23 m
Surface: asphalt, in fair condition
Weight bearing capacity: Single wheel: 22.0
Runway edge lights: medium intensity
RUNWAY 11
Latitude: 2 8 -2 0.5 9441 ON
Longitude: 080-41.44594OW
Elevation: 5.9 ft.
Gradient: 0.1 %
Traffic pattern: left
Runway heading: 114 magnetic, 109 true
Markings: nonprecision, in good condition
Visual slope indicator: 2 -light PAPI on left (3.00 degrees glide path)
Touchdown point: yes, no lights
Obstructions: 45 ft. tree, 1364 ft. from runway, 75 ft. right of
centerline, 25:1 slope to clear
25 FT BLDG 218 FT L OF CNTRLN 20 FT
FROM EOR.
Page 2 of 3
►A
RUNWAY 29
28-20.39754ON
080-40.812175W
2.9 ft.
0.1%
left
294 magnetic, 289 true
nonprecision, in good
condition
2 -light PAPI on left (3.00
degrees glide path)
yes, no lights
none
Airport Ownership and Management from official FAA records
http://www.aimay.com/airport/KCOI 6/8/2013
AirNav: KCOI - Merritt Island Airport
Ownership: Publicly -owned
Owner: TITUSVILLE-COCOA AIRPORT DISTRICT
355 GOLDEN KNIGHTS BLVD
TITUSVILLE, FL 32780
Phone 321-267-8780
CONTACT PERSON: MICHAEL POWELL C.M, ACE
Manager: MICHAEL POWELL C.M., ACE
355 GOLDEN KNIGHTS BLVD
TITUSVILLE, FL 32780
Phone 321-267-8780
ARPT PHONE 321-453-2222.
Airport Operational Statistics
Aircraft based on the field:
Single engine airplanes:
Multi engine airplanes:
Helicopters:
Additional Remarks
153 Aircraft operations: avg 311/day
128 56% local general aviation
19 42% transient general aviation
6 1 % air taxi
* for 12 -month period ending 18 November 2010
Page 3 of 3
http://www.aimav:com/airport/KCOI 6/8/2013
Titusville -Cocoa Airport Authority
M11
n
Space Coast Aviation
Baer Air Charter
Fire Station
Page I of I
:n
m
http://Nvww.flair.port.com/printmerritad.litm 6/8/2013
Report on Observations and Potential Issues Associated with Proposed Private Heliport
at 8880 Astronaut Blvd, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Prepared by
Ballard M. Barker, Ph.D., A.A.E.
Aviation Technical Associates
Satellite Beach, FL 32937
June 11, 2013
1. Purpose.
This brief study was commissioned to analyze the appropriateness of the proposed helipad at
8880 Astronaut Blvd, Cape Canaveral, including noise and safety issues.
2. Noise Background and Issues.
Local and national governments around the world, especially in Europe and North America, have
struggled with public policy and regulatory aspects of aircraft noise, especially in the vicinity of
landing sites, since the 1960s. There is also a long and well documented history of aircraft noise
issues and studies in the lay, professional, and academic bodies of literature. Most of the
research and public policy has been focused on noise generated by arriving and departing
airplanes at airports; because airports have traditionally been the largest, most intense, and
visible of the aviation noise problems. In recent decades, however, the rapid growth of
helicopter use in a wide array of private, governmental, military, and business activities has
raised a new category of aviation noise issues.
The helicopter presents three categorical differences from most airplane traffic for purposes
relevant to this report: (1) helicopters, by virtue of their operational characteristics, with which
anyone watching television is familiar, can operate from a multitude of diverse and dispersed
locations—their operations are not necessarily centralized at long-established and generally
accepted airports—they can operate "anywhere"; (2) the acoustical signatures of helicopters are
substantially different from those of airplanes of all sizes and propulsion types; and (3) while
airplane noise is concentrated in an elongated area centered on the flight path, and largely
behind the airplane, helicopter noise is propagated in a distorted spherical pattern. These three
differences mean that public officials must pay special attention to helicopter operations when
deliberating public policy and regulations.
Sound is not measured in absolute linear units, but rather on a logarithmic scale in units called
"decibels" that measure "acoustic energy," not "loudness." Acoustic energy is a physical
property and is directly measureable, whereas "loudness" is a perception based upon a complex
mix of intensity and frequency of sound, and characteristics of the receptor. For example,
sound with a given acoustic energy will be "louder" for a person with normal hearing than for a
1
hearing impaired person. Different persons and animals also have different aural sensitivities
that will affect their perceived loudness of the same sound. Sound metrics are not easily or
intuitively understood by the average person, but for purposes of this report it is important to
remember that the decibel metric is not linear, but logarithmic. Therefore every 3dB increase in
sound level represents a doubling of sound energy, but it takes about a 10clB increase in sound
level to double the loudness perceived by the typical healthy human ear. Sound energy can be
reflected from, and refracted around hard surfaces such as pavement and buildings. Outdoor
sound can also be attenuated via absorption by plowed soil or dense vegetation, for example.
Sound energy also dissipates with distance as it radiates spherically, such that every doubling of
distance reduces the sound energy by about 6 dB.
It is also important to stress the difference between calculated 24-hour average weighted sound
metrics and "spot" measurements of particular noise events at specific locations such as were
taken at the R-44 demonstration. Both are valid metrics, but each has a different place in noise
discussions. The former are not actual sound energy levels, but are engineering constructs
generated from computer models and cannot be physically measured; and they are properly
used for large area planning purposes. One cannot directly measure a 65 DNL, for example. A
65 DNL noise metric might be modeled from several hours of very low intensity events (e.g. 35-
45 dBA) interspersed with a number of very high intensity noise event (e.g. 90-110 dBA).
There is a long-standing international, and generally, accepted body of knowledge regarding
noise and sound measurement at airports; and acceptable limits of aircraft noise on the
surrounding communities. The US leads the way in this regard, and both the FAA and the
Environmental Protection Agency, have developed various metrics and acceptable average noise
levels for various community environments, or land uses. Those metrics and standards tend to
focus on "yearly day -night "averages" of noise predominantly generated by airplanes flying fixed
routes to an airport, and an airport that is probably already located within a noise -compatible
land -use zone (FAA AC 150/5050-6, 1977; Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise
Analysis Issues, 1992). Examples of metrics most commonly used for those purposes are Day -
Night Average Sound Level (variously symbolized as "DNL" or "LDN") and Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL). Those various average metrics are computer generated, cannot be
directly measured by sound meters, and do not correlate to spot noise meter samples. The
emerging problem is, as is the case of this application to Cape Canaveral, how to deal with
frequent helicopter operations into and from dispersed locations within a community; and with
the substantially different acoustic signatures of the helicopter vis-a-vis the airplane. Noise
measurements and standards that may be appropriate for 24-hour per day airplane operations
into airports are NOT appropriate for helicopter operations concentrated in certain portions of
the day in diverse sites within a community (ANSI cited in FICON, 19921. The appropriate metric
for measuring individual flight events would be Maximum Fast A -Weighted (LMAX) sound level.)
or Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL). The Perceived Noise Level (PNL) metric was
developed specifically to measure aircraft noise levels as sensed by persons on the ground, and
Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) is a calculation that approximates human annoyance
PA
responses to complex aircraft noise, and is used by the FAA for noise certification of helicopters
(FICON, 1992).
The applicant, Florida Biplanes, has submitted two noise documents in support of its application.
The first is the FAA approved sound level (SEL) of 80.9 dBA for a single event flyover at 492 feet
above ground level (AGL) (R-44 POH, 2002). That physical measurement can be assumed to be
correct for the sample conditions, but SEL does not measure human response and annoyance by
sound—those more appropriate concerns for this case are best represented by PNEL, which the
Volpe Center's National Park Service study (discussed later in this report) determined to be 93.0-
95.6 dBA at a point 200 feet horizontally from a flight path 500 feet above the receptor
(coincidentally, the same distance as the AJT primary building from the proposed
helipad)(Volpe, 2010). The second document is a Robinson Helicopter Company letter dated
October 21, 2003. There are at least three problems with this letter in the context of the
application to the City of Cape Canaveral. First, the CNEL metric was developed in California as
an alternative metric to the very similar DNL more widely used in the USA and globally. Second,
CNEL and DNL and other similar 24-hour, day -night weighted averages are large area, long term
planning tools—they are NOT the appropriate metric for localized noise impacts such as might
occur if the heliport proposal is approved. The CNEL grossly underestimates the noise impacts
of concentrated events on a relatively small area such as 8880 Astronaut Blvd and it's immediate
neighbors. Third, the calculation example offered is for a tiny fraction of the number of flights
the applicant would like to have at the proposed site.
It is well documented that the acoustic signatures of all helicopters are substantially different
from those of airplanes. Helicopter noise signatures often contain more "noise" in the lower
frequencies of the sound spectrum, and they usually have very different dynamic characteristics.
While airplanes present a fairly steady arriving and departing volume and tonal quality in
accordance with the "Doppler Effect," helicopters have a noise dynamic that is typically
described as "impulsive noise" that is usually associated with rotation of the main rotor blades
and a phenomenon known as "blade slap." That is the iconic sound of the UH -1 "Huey"
helicopters of Vietnam War fame—the "whop -whop -whop" sound that almost anyone of age
recognizes. Although the intensity of the "blade slap" varies from one helicopter to another, it
always exists; and it always aggravates the perceptible noise problem, as reported and
documented in numerous studies such as the FAA's "Nonmilitary Helicopter Urban Noise Study"
Report to Congress (2004). A number of studies have shown helicopter noise to be 7 to 15 dBA
more annoying to persons on the ground than airplane noise. That is to say, helicopter noise of
50 dBA would be as annoying as airplane noise of 57-65 dBA. Alternatively, if local zoning
allowed "airplane" noise levels of 65 Ldn, the perceived noise levels of helicopters operating in
the same environment might be 80 dBA—well beyond what many people might find reasonable
or acceptable. It has also been found that helicopter noise generates secondary "noise" by way
of vibrations in structures impacted by helicopter primary noise. Certain low frequencies in the
helicopter noise spectrum cause structures and items within structures to generate annoying
vibrations, whether or not consciously perceived (FAA, 2004). One study documents that this
3
vibration, or "rattle effect," may add the equivalent of 10-20 dB to measured sound levels with
respect to building occupant annoyance.
The "noise" literature also documents the "psychoacoustic" aspects of helicopter flights into a
locality. A number of studies have shown that there is a subjective, non-measureable (in
physical terms), but very real human response that finds helicopter noise up to 15 dBA more
annoying than equivalent measured airplane noise levels. This psychoacoustic effect is thought
to result from a complex mix of startle effect, psychological space intrusion, disturbance of
ambient mood, disturbance of quietude, privacy issues, and general annoyance. It is also
strongly shaped by the public's perceived importance of the helicopter flights making the noise.
For example, police and medical flight operations into a given heliport have lower
psychoacoustic penalties than do "less essential" flight operations such as private transportation
and sightseeing (DEFRA, 2008; FAA, 2004).
3. FAA Study of R-44 Noise in Aerial Tour Operations.
Aerial tour operations at scenic locations and national parks generate a great deal of public
controversy and have been the subject of years of public -government policy discussions. In
2000, the US Congress passed the National Parks Air Tours Act which directed the FAA and
National Parks Service to study the problem and develop air tour management plans. The FAA
commissioned a comprehensive two-year study that was conducted by the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, and published in 2010. It focused on the noise profiles of six
aircraft in the full range of aerial tour operating profiles, to include the Robinson R-44 "Raven."
The instrumented study measured noise at several distances and for each directional quadrant
for every reasonable phase of flight for the subject helicopters, to include: hovering in and out
of ground effect; take -off, acceleration and climb; tour cruise at various speeds; and descent,
deceleration, and landing. One of the sound metrics was "Effective Perceived Noise Levels,"
variously symbolized as LEPN, EPNL, or EPNdB in different conventions. The level of effective
perceived noise, or LEPN, is a measure of complex aircraft flyover noise that approximates
human annoyance responses; and is used by the FAA as an appropriate metric for helicopters.
The Volpe Center testing yielded the following LEPN range of values for the R-44 in different
quadrants around the flight path. All data are presented for (a) 200, (b) 400, (c) 1000, and (d)
2000 foot slant distances from the helicopter flight path, respectively:
■ Level cruise at 500 feet AGL: (a) 93.0-95.6 (b) 86.2-88.8 (c) 76.5-79.0 (d) 68.3-70.7
■ Takeoff departure @ 39 kts: (a) 96.0-99.8 (b) 89.2-93.0 (c) 84.5-88.3 (d) 71.3-75.1
■ Departure climb @ 42 kts: (a) 95.8-98.3 (b) 89.0-91.4 (c) 79.2-81.7 (d) 71.1-73.5
■ Landing approach descent @ -6 degrees & 67 kts: (a) 94.1-95.5 (b) 87.4-88.7
(c) 77.5-79.1 (d) 69.1-71.0
4. Noise Demonstration Conditions at Proposed Heliport Site.
Public demonstrations of R-44 operations from the proposed heliport site were conducted May
14, 2013 between approximately 2:20-2:40 PM. Public officials, members of the community,
4
news media, and other interested parties were invited to attend. This consultant used a
handheld sound meter to measure ambient and flight demonstration noise at and near the
proposed heliport site and at the adjacent property, and a member of Cape Canaveral's
municipal government used a simpler handheld meter to sample demonstrated sound at the
site and at various points along the proposed aerial tour route. It must be emphasized that
while such spot samples taken in uncontrolled conditions have some anecdotal value, they are
no substitute for properly designed and instrumented noise studies. It must also be understood
that spot samples in dBA such as were collected on May 14 by both parties cannot be equated
to the computer-generated 24-hour average weighted values indicated by DNL/LDN or CNEL.
The instrument and demonstration site conditions on May 14 are described below:
■ A "Center 322 Sound Level Meter/Data Recorder", SN -050903832, conforming to IEC651
Type2 and ANSI 51.4 Type 2 standards for noise measurements
■ Frequency range: 31.5 Hz -8 KHz, with selective "A" or "C" frequency weighting.
■ Four digit display with 0.1dB resolution and 0.5 second update
■ Time weighting: Fast -125 ms, Slow -1.0 sec
■ Accuracy: +/-1.5 dB (ref conditions @ 94 dB and 1 KHz)
■ For this demonstration sampling, all measurements were in the "dBA-Fast" mode.
■ Ambient weather: Temperature -79F, Relative Humidity -41%, Wind -NNE, 12 kts
■ The proposed heliport site is located on a rectangular parcel of land with a width and
length of approximately 210 feet and 485 feet, respectively. The narrow side faces on
Astronaut Blvd. (Highway AIA), and the long axis is oriented in a NE -SW direction parallel
to Imperial Blvd. About 20% of the parcel is covered with derelict pavement, and the
remainder is covered with fairly dense weeds, shrubs, and tree -like vegetation growing as
high as 10-15 feet along the northeastern and northwestern property lines.
■ The dense vegetation along two sides of the demonstration site parcel attenuated
measured sound levels at adjacent properties during the demonstration, and once the
parcel is cleared and leveled per city requirements, the sound levels at adjacent
properties will definitely be 2-3 dBA higher.
R-44 Demonstration Sound Observations.
■ 1:05PM: Southeast side of primary AJT building, meter panning 220-180 degrees (SW -S),
looking in an arc from the Race Trac station to the proposed helipad site. Measured
range: mid -50s dBA without significant peaking.
■ 1:10PM: Stop sign at AJT driveway and Highway AIA, meter pointed SW, looking at the
Race Trac gasoline station. Measured range: mid -60s dBA, with 74-76 dBA peaks at
about 1 -minute intervals caused by passing heavy trucks or motorcycles.
■ 2:15-2:20PM: Northeast corner of heliport parcel adjacent to intersection of AJT and
Florida Beer Company property line fences, and about 15 feet from the AJT secondary
building. Meter pointed 220 degrees MH (SW) (toward spot used for demonstration
helipad). R-44 helicopter parked on pad with engine shut down. Measured range: 49-52
dBA, with no significant peaking.
■ 2:22PM: Same location and meter orientation, as above. R-44 engine running at ground
idle on proposed helipad. Measured range: 52-53 dBA steady.
■ 2:23PM: R-44 lift-off from pad and take -off climb on MH of @ 040-050 degrees (NE).
Meter oriented toward, and following, the moving helicopter. Measured sound levels
rose to low 70s dBA as R-44 lifted from pad, and quickly rose to 88.3 dBA as the
helicopter crossed the property line at an estimated lateral distance of 80 feet, and
estimated altitude of 60 feet.
■ 2:29PM: R-44 landing approach to SW. Measured sound levels were in mid -50s dBA
when the R-44 was visually spotted at an estimated distance of one-half mile to the NE,
rose steadily to 89.3 dBA over the property line (location described above), and steadily
dropped to 78 dBA as the R-44 descended to a landing on the demonstration pad.
■ 2:31PM: R-44 take -off to the NE. Measured sound level of 89.3 dBA over the property
line.
■ 2:33PM: R-44 landing approach to the SW. Measured sound level of 89.8 over the
property line.
■ 2:35PM: R-44 take -off to the NE. Measured sound level of 86.2 dBA over the property
line.
■ 2:36PM: R-44 landing approach to the SW. Measured sound level of 87.2 dBA over the
property line.
■ 2:42PM: R-44 hovering in ground effect on pad site in preparation for take -off, at 100
foot distance to the SW. Measured sound level range of 89.3-90.0 dBA as the R-44
rotated over the pad.
5. Noise Findings.
■ Ambient noise measurements at the AJT building and at the NE end of the AJT parcel were
in the low -to -mid 50s dBA which, on commonly use descriptive scales, equates to a "small
town/quiet suburban to low density urban" sound environment. When ground idling on the
helipad, the R-44 noise was masked within the ambient noise levels; but in both the takeoff
and landing approach sequences, the sound increased from the mid-70s dBA when the R-44
was over the helipad, and increased to the high 80 dBA range when overhead the AJT and
Florida Beer Company property lines. Therefore, actual noise energy increased four -fold (20
dBA) at lift-off and eight -fold (30 dBA) at property lines north and east of the demonstration
helipad site. Those noise levels, if occurring on a continuous basis would be characteristic of
the noise experienced under the flight path of a major airport one-half to a mile from
runway ends (FICON, 1992). As intermittent noise events, the R-44 operations at the
extreme are the equivalent to a USAF C-130, Boeing 767, or a Learjet taking off at full thrust
at a distance of 1,000 feet (FICON, 1992). According to the Federal Interagency Committee
on Noise, "...some degree of indoor speech interference would be expected whenever
exterior noise levels exceed 75 dB to 85 dB..."(FICON, 1992). If the applicant conducts just
four aerial tours per hour, that would be eight noise events (4 X landings and takeoffs) per
hour that would be loud enough to interfere with speech in AJT buildings. If the AJT parcel
owner decided to improve his property by the construction of another three-story office
6
building at the rear of his parcel, there would be significantly greater negative effects from
the aerial tour operations. The R-44 takeoff and departure path would be just 100-120 feet
distant, and virtually at eye level for third floor occupants. It would not only be visually
distracting, but increase LEPN levels to about 102-106 dB abeam the building. Those levels
are sufficient to substantially degrade interior speech discrimination.
■ FAA approved flight testing for aircraft certification established that the R-44 has an SEL 80.9
dBA noise signature in level cruise flight at 492 feet above ground level (AC & R-44 POH).
That is the same altitude as is proposed for the helicopter aerial tours, therefore each
passage of the tour helicopter would produce periodic sound events about 15-20 dBA
higher, and 2-3 times louder than ambient noise along any residential or lightly urbanized
portions of the flight path.
■ A review of the FAA Volpe Center's landmark study data on national park aerial tours is even
more relevant because it documents the "effective perceived noise levels" (dB-LEPN) of R-
44 operations in an aerial tour context (Volpe, 2010). The Volpe data reveals that the R-44
produces a distinctly high level of annoying noise in virtually every phase of aerial tour
operations, with all values being in the mid -to -high 90 dB range for every flight profile
(Paragraph 4, above).
6. Site Suitability, Safety, and Licensing Issues.
The proposed heliport site may well be good from the marketing and customer convenience
standpoint, but there are problematical issues with the utility and safety of the site, and
therefore with state licensing. The FAA does NOT license or in any way regulate private general
aviation heliports, or even airports, for that matter. The FAA does, however, have three distinct
involvements: (a) publish a large number of design and operational safety standards for public
airports and heliports that receive federal assistance or are certificated as commercial use
airports (such as FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2C); (b) conduct airspace analyses of proposed
new heliport sites to ascertain if the proposed site has airspace obstructions in the locality, and
to determine if operations from the proposed site would interfere with any preexisting airspace
uses, such as airport traffic patterns or approach paths; and (c) to garner information necessary
to update the broad array of aviation data bases and publications. Licensure of general aviation
airports and heliports is a state prerogative, and in Florida it is exercised by the MOT in
accordance with Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 14-60, "Airport Licensing, Registration, and
Airspace Protection."
FAC 14-60 addresses site approval, design standards, and airspace protection in a way that
essentially mirror or incorporate FAA standards. Both the FAA and FDOT requirements are
designed to not only provide for safe operating conditions at a site, but to protect persons and
Property around the landing site. FDOT and FAA standards specify minimum dimensions of
landing areas, and dimensions and slopes of imaginary approach and transitional surfaces in
airspace around the heliport, among other things. The site proposed by the applicant has
adequate space for the primary landing surface, but it has serious airspace issues.
For a private -use (CFR 14 Part 91) visual flight rules (VFR)(clear weather conditions) heliport, the
floor of the approach surface starts at the "final approach and takeoff area" (FATO) surface and
extends upward and outward 4,000 feet, and to a width of 500 feet on a 8:1 slope. Airspace
above the approach slope must be clear of hazards and obstructions to flight. The applicant's
proposal for 8880 Astronaut Blvd. shows the heliport centered on the parcel and having both NE
and SW approach/departure paths (Allen Engr. Site Plan). At that, and any other feasible
location on the parcel, both the SW and NE approach/departure paths approach slope floors are
violated. The NW approach has utility lines along Astronaut Blvd/AIA penetrating
approximately 10 feet into the approach slope. On the SW approach (NE takeoff), which the
applicant says will be the primary approach/departure path, the approach slope is violated by 55
feet by an unlighted and unmarked, 164 foot tall, Verizon cellular tower centered on the
approach path. A cluster of Australian pines about 550-600 feet NE of the primary surface may
also penetrate the approach surface. The Florida Beer Company building structure lies just 10-
12 feet beneath the approach slope floor. If the AJT parcel owner were to decide to exercise his
property rights and build an additional 3 -story office building at the approximate location of the
present secondary building, that building would be right at the edge of the approach slope. FAC
14-60.007 (5)(k) states that an "airport" proponent must provide written confirmation that
safety considerations, as necessary, to "...help ensure the general public health, safety, and
welfare of persons on or about the airport..." are taken. That would presumably include such
items as "public protection" fencing and signage around the helicopter operating area (the
property line length along Imperial Blvd and the width of Astronaut Blvd frontage) and rotor -
wash protection to prevent waiting passengers or spectators from getting rotor -blown sand into
eyes or damaging parked automobiles. Any such public protection fencing and any other
structures on the parcel must also lie below the floors of any approach or transitional surfaces
as defined in FAC 14-60 and FAA AC 150/5390-2C. If any fueling of any kind is ever anticipated
at the site, then it would be expected that all 28 provisions of National Fire Protection Code 407,
"Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing," would be enforced by the Cape Canaveral Fire Marshall,
or other authorized public safety official.
As a highly experienced Army aviator, helicopter pilot, heliport operator, airport planner, and
aviation safety instructor, this Consultant has other public safety concerns and questions. While
it is true that the R-44 and other helicopters "can technically" operate from such a site,
especially in emergency, law enforcement, or military situations; that does NOT mean that it is a
good site for an established heliport regularly serving a large number of tourist flights daily. Just
because it might be feasible does not mean it is "smart" from a public safety point of view.
(1) Where could the R-44 safely autorotate in the event of power failure on takeoff or final
approach in either direction? The site is surrounded by utility lines on three sides and
building structures on two sides. The nearby streets and parking lots are usually fairly
congested with vehicles and landscaping. The undeveloped areas are, for the most part,
covered with sizable trees and have undesirable surface characteristics for safe
autorotational landings. If an aerial tour R-44 operating from this proposed site were to
have an engine power loss such as was experienced by the applicant's (Florida Biplanes)
8
Hiller U-12 helicopter (US Army designation: OH -23) in which the helicopter was
substantially damaged and one passenger was injured while autorotating from an altitude of
70 feet onto the smooth surface of the Merritt Island Airport on February 6, 2013; the result
would likely be a much more serious "crash landing" onto adjacent, and largely inhospitable,
property (National Transportation Safety Board Preliminary Report).
(2) If the applicant only uses the NE departure/SW landing path, as he has suggested, then the
helicopter will often be making "downwind" landings or takeoffs in the commonly strong
breezes of this beachside community. Downwind takeoffs and landings are not preferred,
because they reduce the angle of takeoff climb and power safety margin on landings. In
other words, when on takeoff departure climb to the NE in SW winds of 10 knots, the
vertical clearance over structures such as the Florida Beer Factory is reduced. The stronger
the wind, the lower the vertical clearance of takeoff obstructions.
(3) Section 5, "Performance," of the FAA approved Pilot's Operating Handbook for the R-44 has
a height -velocity chart illustrating combinations of airspeed and altitude "that should be
avoided." Operation in the "avoid area" is dangerous because in the event of a power or
transmission failure, the likelihood of a safe landing is remote to nil. The R-44 "Avoid
Operations" area (known in military slang as the "Dead -Man's Curve" or "Coffin Corner")
for a sea level takeoff includes flight more than 10 feet above ground level (AGL) over a
smooth, hard surface until the helicopter reaches an airspeed of about 30 knots, and above
25 feet AGL until it reaches 50 knots airspeed. This consultant observed the demonstration
flights on May 12, 2013, and believes that the R-44 was operated outside of the approved
operating envelope on that occasion, and would likely risk the same marginal takeoff profile
when loaded with aerial tour customers, even if the entire parcel was cleared of all
vegetation and debris. To reiterate, while such takeoffs are feasible, it begs the question of
public safety (R-44 POH, 2002).
7. Noise and Property Values.
Aircraft noise has long been acknowledged as lowering the quality of life and lowering real
estate property values in areas around airports and military airfields. That is one reason the FAA
allocates millions of dollars a year for commercial service airports to purchase noise impacted
properties in neighboring communities (FAA NPIAS). No studies of heliport effects on real estate
values are known to this consultant, but there are numerous studies relating to airport vicinities,
both in the US and Europe. One study in the Seattle -Tacoma Airport area found that property
values increased approximately 3.4% for each quarter -mile more distant a home was from flight
paths (Lane, 1998). Another larger and more comprehensive study of 33 airports took a
different approach, and described what has been termed the "Cumulative Noise Discount," or
CDI. The CDI near US airports that were studied averaged 0.58% per decibel (Nelson, 2004). As
a consequence, a $200,000 residence in a 55 dB sound exposure area, would be worth at least
than $20,000 less if the area's sound exposure increased to 75 db. If the proposed heliport and
aerial tour operation is ultimately approved for this site, the primary AJT office building will be
just 200 feet distant from as many as four R-44 takeoff and landing cycles (8 events) per hour
during office working hours, each subjecting the property to in excess of 75 dB of sound for
01
perhaps 2-3 minutes per cycle—easily a doubling of "loudness" at the AJT property. The
secondary building, or any subsequent multi -story structure on the site, would be just 100-120
feet distant and be subjected to a quadrupling of loudness.
8. Summary of Consultant's Findings and Conclusions.
(1) The establishment of an aerial tour business operating an R-44 helicopter during daylight
hours and along the applicant's proposed route would only modestly increase the DNL or CNEL
noise ratings for the Cape Canaveral area if the R-44 noise profiles were included in the
computational database. However, the DNL and CNEL are not actual sound levels, and are NOT
representative of individual, or a steady series of actual sound events such as would be
experienced by persons and property near the proposed heliport site and its
approach/departure paths. The applicant supplied the aircraft manufacturer's CNEL noise
letter, apparently to demonstrate a benign noise level for the R-44 at low altitudes. Not only is
CNEL an inappropriate metric for the proposal presently under consideration, but the flight
frequencies used in the calculation were incredibly low. The FAA Volpe Center's study of aerial
tour noise impacts on national parks properly used Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) as a
metric, and clearly documented EPNL levels for the R-44 in all flight profiles the applicant
would use to be well above what most people would find to be reasonable.
(2) Actual measured noise levels LMAX (dB) and Effective Perceived Noise Levels (EPNL) in the
heliport vicinity will definitely cause some level of speech interference, and certainly human
annoyance, even inside building structures within 400 feet of the heliport and its
approach/departure paths.
(3) The proposed heliport site and design do NOT meet the full range of operational safety
design standards as delineated in FAC 14-60 or FAA AC 5390-2C. The applicant, states an
intention to fully comply with those standards, but such compliance may not be feasible.
Although the applicant will be operating his aerial tours under the provisions of FAR Part 91, and
will have less vigorous inspections than certificated air carriers and airports, he should be
required to meet and document FDOT and FAA standards. Aerial tour passengers should expect
and be afforded the same level of operational safety as is provided to other commercial
passengers.
(4) Operation of frequent hourly/daily tourist flights from such a marginal site would present a
significant public safety hazard to tour passengers and persons and property on the ground in
the heliport vicinity in the event of a loss of significant engine power during the takeoff or
approach to landing phases of the tour flights.
References:
(1) FAA Advisory Circular 150/5050-6, Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning, 1977.
(2) Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), Federal Agency Review of Selected Noise
Analysis Issues, 1992.
(3) USDOT J. A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Aircraft Source Noise Measurement
Studies: Summary of Measurements, Data and Analyses, 2010.
(4) FAA Report to Congress, Non -Military Helicopter Urban Noise Study, 2004.
10
(5) UK Government Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Research into the
Importance of the Management of Helicopter Noise, University of Salford, UK, 2008.
(6) FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design, 2006.
(7) FAA FAR Part 77, Surfaces and Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, 2007.
(8) FAA FAR Part 157, Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports,
1991.
(9) FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, 1993.
(10) Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 14-60, Airport Licensing, Registration, and Airspace
Protection.
11
RESUME
BALLARD M. BARKER, Ph.D., A.A.E.
Director, Center for Airport Management and Development
Director, International Programs, College of Aeronautics
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA
EDUCATION
• Ph.D. in Geography (Land -Use Analysis), University of Oklahoma, 1976.
• M.A. in Geography (Regional Studies), University of Oklahoma, 1972.
• B.S. in General Engineering, U.S. Military Academy, 1965.
• M.B.A. Studies, University of Mississippi, 1987-89.
• U.S. Air Force Air War College, 1983.
• U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1977.
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Over 40 years of experience in increasingly responsible technical, leadership, and management positions in
aviation operations, airport management and development, aviation training and education, and
consultation. Airport experience encompasses master planning, facility design and expansion, airport
system studies, organizational development, business development, operational safety and security, and
airport maintenance at commercial service, general aviation, and military airports.
AVIATION EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
• Accredited Airport Executive — distinguished designation of American Association of Airport
Executives/International Association of Airport Executives
• Ten years experience as manager of military and civil airports, to include four years experience as
executive director of FAR Part 139 certificated commercial service airport and associated industrial
park.
• Experienced in planning and construction supervision of multi-million dollar civil and military airport
development projects involving terminals, hangars, aprons, runways, taxiways, and other airport
facilities.
• Six years experience as chief executive of large flying organizations in Asia and Latin America.
• FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate and US Army Master Aviator aeronautical rating with over 5,500
flight hours in 25 types of airplanes, helicopters, and gliders.
• Twenty-three years of experience as aviation educator and consultant. Regularly teach undergraduate
and graduate courses in airport planning, design, development, operations, safety, security, and
management. Develop and direct research and consultation activities, and facilitate governmental and
industry partnerships. Head of graduate program in airport management and development.
• Active general aviation pilot and airplane owner.
RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION
• Director, Center for Airport Management and Development, 1996 -present. Conduct consultation,
research, and technology transfers for domestic and foreign governments and private firms. Regularly
conduct professional development courses and seminars on airport planning, management, and
airspace planning for the FAA, airports, and aviation consulting firms.
• International Civil Aviation Organization airports consultant pool member.
• Project Manager, Academia Latinoamerica de Aviacion Superior (ALAS), Republic of Panama,
development and operation of ab-initio pilot training program for Latin American airlines, 2010 -
present.
• Co-Proj ect Manager, Sierra Leone National Airports Authority Management Restructuring Study,
2010.
• Airport Management Advisor to Brevard County, Florida (four airports), 2006-2010.
• Project Manager, Valkaria Airport (Florida) Airport Master Plan study, 2005-2007.
• Director, Panama Aviation Educational Partnership (Airport, airline, and collegiate aviation education
and training program for Latin America), 2001 -present.
• Project Manager, Boeing -Chinese Civil Aviation Flying College Support Program -Phase lI and Phase -
III, senior manager development, organizational development, and safety and flight operations training
program (proprietary), 1999-2008.
• Principal Airport Consultant to UN Office of the High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina for
post-war civil airport reconstruction, financial feasibility, and management, June 1999-2000.
• Project Manager, Boeing -Chinese Civil Aviation Flying College Support Program, major aviation
management training, educational technology, and operations training program (proprietary), 1995-
1998. Awarded Boeing outstanding achievement award for success and timeliness of three-year
proj ect.
• Project Manager and Researcher, Three -Dimensional Airspace Analysis Process Evaluation, contract
for FAA and Florida Department of Transportation, 1997.
• Project Manager and Researcher, Study Design for Automation of FAA Airport Protection Criteria for
Navigational Aids, contract with Florida Department of Transportation (FAA funds), 1995-1996.
• Study Project Leader/Co-investigator, Florida Recreational Airport System Feasibility Study, contract
with Florida Department of Transportation 1995-1996.
• Consultant, Brazilian Airport System Development Project, International Civil Aviation Organization,
Rio de Janiero, 1994.
PUBLICATIONS
• Authored over 50 proprietary technical and management reports in support of contracts and research
grants performed on behalf of Florida Institute of Technology.
• William R. Graves and Ballard M. Barker, "Chapter 27: Airport Planning and Design," Handbook of
Transportation Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.
• Ballard M. Barker, "The Evolving Airport Management Environment," Airport Technology
International, April 2001.
• Ballard M. Barker, Final Study Report on Mostar International Airport, BiH, Aviation Technical
Associates for OHR-BiH, August 1999.
• Ballard M. Barker, Co-author and editor, Three -Dimensional Airspace Analysis Process Users
Manual, Florida Department of Transportation, 1997.
• Ballard M. Barker, Editor, Collegiate Aviation Review, University Aviation Association, Auburn, AL.
(Volumes 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996).
• Ballard M. Barker and Richard J. Adams, Visitor's Guide to Florida Airports, Tallahassee, FL.,
Florida Department of Transportation, 1996.
• Ballard M. Barker and Richard J. Adams, Florida Recreational Airport Feasibility Study: Final
Report, Florida DOT Contract B-9122, April 1996.
• Alan L. Devereaux and Ballard M. Barker, Airport System Planning Final Report, Brazil Ministry of
Aeronautics, Sponsored by International Civil Aviation Organization, Project BRA/92/006. 1994.
• Ballard M. Barker, Professional Airport Management, Melbourne, FL: Florida Institute of Technology,
1994. Text for capstone course in airport administration and management programs.
• Ballard M. Barker and William C. Jameson, Platt National Park: Environment and Ecology, Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1975.
• Ballard M. Barker, "A Land Use Regionalization of South Korea Using ERTS-1 Imagery,"
Proceedings, 1976 Meeting of the Middle State Division, Association of American Geographers.
• Ballard M. Barker, "Hand -Held Aerial Photograhy-A Forgotten Tool?," Aviation Digest, January 1977.
• John B. Garver, Jr., and Ballard M. Barker, eds., Proceedings, Middle State Division, Association of
American Geographers, 1973-1975.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
• Program manager and seminar leader, annual Senior Management Development Program for the Civil
Aviation Administration of China, 2008 -present.
• Instructor, OMA -ADP Senior Airport Management Development Seminar (Northern Mexico airports),
Monterrey, Mexico, September 2006.
• Instructor, Aeroports du Paris (ADP) Senior Airport Managers Development Program (French national
airport authority and international airport attendees), St. Tropez, France, November 2003.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (North African
airport administrators, Carthage, Tunisia, March 2002, Topic: International Airport Business
Environments ---Contracts and Risk Management.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (Tunisian and
Moroccan airport managers), Tunis, Tunisia, March 2001.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (Tunisian and
Moroccan airport managers), Tunis, Tunisia, March 2001.
• Instructor, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (French and African
airport managers), Toulouse, France, 2000. Topic: International Airport Management Alternatives.
• Invited lecturer, aviation management and engineering program, Ecole Nationale de L'Aviation Civile,
Toulouse, France, March 9, 2000. Topic: Global Airport Management, Environments, and Patterns
• Lecturer and participant, Aeroports du Paris (ADP) Senior Management Development Program, Ecole
Nationale de L'Aviation Civile, Toulouse, France, 1999. Case study on foreign airport management
modes and privatization issues.
• Lecturer, airport management and engineering program, Ecole Nationale de L'Aviation Civile,
Toulouse, France, 1999.
• Consultant, on aviation educational credential and experience evaluation, Educational Assessment, Inc.
• Vice -President, Council on Aviation Accreditation, 1996-1998
• Trustee, Council on Aviation Accreditation, 1993-2001.
• Editor, Collegiate Aviation Review (refereed journal) , 1993-1996.
• Editorial Board and Reviewer, Collegiate Aviation Review, 1996 to 2011.
• Editorial Board, Journal of Air Transportation Worldwide, 1996 to 2008.
• President and officer, Mississippi Airports Association, 1987-89.
• Member, regular attendee, and frequent invited speaker on airport management, planning, and facility
development at professional meetings and conferences of the following organizations: University
Aviation Association, Council on Aviation Accreditation, American Association of Airport
Executives, and Florida Airport Managers Association.
Municode Page 1 of 2
Sec. 110-587. - Applicability.
(1) The Al Economic Opportunity Overlay District (EOOD) is an approximately one -mile
commercial corridor, generally recognized as extending from the entrance to the City of
Cape Canaveral on the north to the Canaveral River area on the south. This approximately
one -mile corridor is intersected by Central Boulevard which generally runs east -west.
(2) The area of the district along Al is intended to serve as the main gateway into the City of
Cape Canaveral. The area of the district along Central Boulevard is intended to serve as the
main street to the City of Cape Canaveral's Town Center and as a transition between the
land use, circulation, and streetscape along Al and the Town Center. This District is
intended to have the most intense commercial and residential uses. The EOOD is meant to
provide a lively and attractive interface between the proposed Town Center and the adjacent
residential communities, while maintaining a primarily commercial street frontage along AM
and Central Boulevard.
(3) The streets will have a retail/commercial service atmosphere with small or large
neighborhood stores at street level and apartments or offices on upper floors. The retail
composition of the district shall include stores, personal services, hotels, cultural facilities,
hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, convenience stores with gas, high tech manufacturing,
entertainment, and eating establishments including rooftop restaurants that serve the EOOD
as well as stores, eating establishments, and business services (printing, accounting, etc.)
that serve the other businesses and office users in the area. Residential uses shall be limited
to upper floors along Al and Central Boulevard within the Economic Opportunity Overlay
District.
(4) The main street component of the district is intended to provide a mixed-use, pedestrian -
oriented focus for the proposed Town Center, with land uses serving Town Center residents
and visitors. This district provides the City of Cape Canaveral with a small-town style
_walkable center that is convenient, useful, safe and attractive for pedestrians and lively, yet
relaxed. Small-scale retail and other commercial uses shall occupy as much of the ground
floor frontages along Central Boulevard as the market will bear. Upper floors shall be office
or residential along these two main streets. This district also shall provide the potential for
continuum -of -care developments such as independent, assisted living and skilled care
facilities.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-588. - Purpose.
The purpose of these design guidelines and standards are to provide flexibility in the uses
and design requirements for the Al EOOD, while setting minimum design standards to facilitate
quality development. These standards will guide future development and redevelopment within the
City of Cape Canaveral so that it creates more vital commercial cores and corridors protects
adjacent residential neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial centers, promotes the use of
quality building materials, enhances the streetscape on all public streets, and continues to improve
the image and pride in the city.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-589. - Goals.
httn://librarv.municode. com/nrint.asnx?h=&clientID=12642&HTMReQuest=http%3 a%2f%... 6/6/2013
Municode
Page 2 of 2
The All Economic Opportunity Overlay District (EOOD) provides design guidelines and
standards which are intended to promote and enhance the identity of the district. Specifically, the
goals of the EOOD are:
(1) To create attractive, functional, and lasting buildings and places.
(2) To encourage the design, construction and operation of buildings and places that are
environmentally responsible, sustainable and healthy places to live, work, and play.
(3) To promote development and redevelopment that preserves and enhances the
physical appearance of the corridor and contributes to the district's unique sense of
place.
(4) To encourage the use of quality materials in development and redevelopment.
(5) To encourage development that adds to a pedestrian friendly retail environment and
contributes to the safety and comfort of both pedestrian and automobile traffic.
(6) To provide direction in site planning and to ensure a high degree of design quality in
development within the Al EOOD through the use of Design Guidelines and
Standards.
(7) To enhance and protect the commercial corridors and primary entrances into the City
of Cape Canaveral.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-590. - Objectives.
(1) The design guidelines and standards are intended to address the built environment within
the City of Cape Canaveral and to recognize aesthetic design as an integral part of the
planning and development process.
(2) The guidelines and standards are intended to ensure that the appearance of new
development, infill development, and redevelopment is representative of the City of Cape
Canaveral's Community Vision.
(3) The guidelines and standards will enable development to occur in a manner that is not only
beneficial and worthwhile for the developers and property owners, but the development will
also have a positive impact on the surrounding properties, neighborhoods, citizens, and the
entire city.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
httn://librarv. municode. com/nrint. aspx?h=&clientID=12642&HTMReQuest=httD%3 a%2f %... 6/6/2013
Municode Page 1 of 1
Sec. 110-591. - Design principles.
The AM Economic Opportunity Overlay District (EOOD) is based upon a set of design
principles. These principles are:
(1) Consistency: The Al A Commercial corridor features a mixture of development types
including office buildings, hotels and convention facilities, strip -commercial centers,
neighborhood -serving retail, nighttime entertainment uses, attractions, and
restaurants. Design of these structures has been influenced by use, age, and site
dimensions. Within the context of these constraints, developments can achieve the
principle of consistency through selection of colors, exterior surface materials, scale,
rhythm, proportions, landscaping and sign programs.
(2) Activity. Active street life, which can be enhanced by design considerations, is a major
component of thriving pedestrian commercial districts. There are many opportunities
to insert options for increased street -level pedestrian activity along Al A. Through
building orientation, circulation, storefront design and landscaping, development can
further promote the principle of safe pedestrian activity.
(3) Pedestrian orientation: Pedestrian orientation can be achieved through storefront
ornamentation, reduction of blank surfaces, building articulation, proportion, rhythm,
color, and texture. Guidelines and Standards based upon this principle address wall
surfaces, windows, awnings, signage, and architectural treatments.
(4) Safety, Public safety is critical to the success of a commercial district. Public safety in
this case refers not only to safety from criminal activity, but also creating an
environment in which pedestrian and automobile traffic can safely coexist. The design
and development of commercial centers and the public open space adjacent to them
shall include considerations of public safety. Public safety issues can be addressed
through site planning considerations such as the location of parking lots, lighting,
signage and landscaping.
(5) Simplicity. Design Guidelines and Standards for the Al Economic Opportunity
Overlay District shall provide for public convenience by clearly identifying the nature of
the business and communicating points of ingress and egress for pedestrian and
automobile traffic. These issues can be addressed through architectural treatments as
well as through site planning considerations such as the location of parking lots,
lighting, signage and landscaping.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exl7. A), 7-17-12)
httD://librarv.municode.com/nrint.asnx?h=&clientlD=12642&HTMReauest=httn%3 a%2f... 6/12/2013
Municode
Sec. 110-683. - Intent.
Page 1 of 3
Through the use of a variety of vegetation such as trees, shrubs, ground cover, perennials
and annuals, as well as other materials such as rocks, water, sculpture or paving materials,
landscaping unifies streetscape and provides a positive visual experience. Landscaping also can
emphasize sidewalk activity by separating vehicle and pedestrian traffic, provide shade, define
spaces, accentuate architecture, create inviting spaces and screen unattractive areas. Also, since
water resources are limited and water restrictions are commonplace in East Central Florida,
especially in the coastal areas, the city is incorporating water -efficient landscape standards as a
means to help conserve water use for landscaping.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-684. - Commercial site plan review.
(1) All development and redevelopment of real property, including all structures, whether
temporary or permanent, within the district shall comply with the provisions of this section.
a• Construction requiring site plan review shall not be permitted until a landscape plan
consistent with this section has been submitted to and approved by the community
development department.
b• Landscape plans for all projects shall be prepared, signed and sealed by a registered
landscape architect.
C. The landscape plans shall be drawn to a scale between one inch equals ten feet, and
one inch equals 40 feet.
(2) The landscape plan shall include notations of all elements required by this section or the
information shall be attached to specify compliance with this section, and at a minimum, shall
include the following.
a• The 'limit of work" line for the subject project to include any adjacent property trees
located up to ten feet beyond the property line;
b• All overhead utility lines, transformers, easements, and underground utilities,
sidewalks located within the project, and ground or pole signs as defined in chapter 94
of this Code;
C. All existing and proposed light poles, fire hydrants, and backflow prevention devices;
d• Building finished floor elevation(s) and building overhang(s);
e• Proposed site grading, including spot elevations, and contour lines at one -foot
intervals;
Healthy and viable existing on-site trees and shrubs of a Code -acceptable size,
species and location that are intended to be preserved and applied toward the
requirements of this section. Details of the protective barriers and/or other protective
measures to be used for said preservation shall be provided;
9• Notes indicating that all existing invasive exotic plants, as listed in the Florida Exotic
Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC) Invasive Plant Species List (2011), shall be removed
(any disturbance of a wetland area requires compliance with chapter 106 of this
Code.);
h• A plant schedule which describes all proposed landscape materials, including
specifications as to the species, size, spacing, opacity, and quantity of plant material;
httn://librarv.municode.comIDrint.asnx?h=&clientID=12642&HTMRequest=httD%3 a%2P/o... 6/6/2013
Municode
Page 2 of 3
i. In no case shall a landscape plan incorporate the use of prohibited invasive exotic
plant species as described in F.S. § 581.091, as may be amended;
j• Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit or be enforced to prohibit any
property owner from implementing city -approved low impact development techniques
for stormwater management and capture or Florida Friendly Landscaping on their
land; and
k. In all cases, a certification from the landscape architect stating that the landscape plan
is designed in accordance with this section.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-687. - Project perimeter.
(1) To create visual interest and transition on the perimeter between adjacent properties, a
landscaped area shall be provided between the adjacent properties and the public right-of-
way.
a• The landscaped area shall be equal to the full linear length of the property and have a
minimum depth of five feet.
b• At least 50 percent of the required landscaped area shall consist of landscaping
capable of achieving a minimum of 30 inches in height, with one medium or large tree
planted for each 25 feet or fraction thereof of the linear property length, or one small
tree or palm tree planted for each 15 feet or fraction thereof of the linear property
length.
C. The layout of the required landscaped area shall be at the discretion of the owner,
such that the required square footage may be aggregated to provide maximum
aesthetic value. However, each perimeter requiring landscape must have at least 50
percent of the required landscape along that perimeter.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-688. - Building landscaping.
(1) Landscaping is required at the base of buildings to create visual interest and to soften the
contrast of the building and the other vegetated areas.
a• A landscaped area shall be provided around the base of all buildings oriented toward
public rights-of-way or public parking areas. The rear of the building shall not be
included within the landscaped area unless it is oriented to a public right-of-way.
b• This landscaped area shall be equal to 50 percent of the linear length of the building
base oriented toward the rights-of-way or parking areas, with a minimum width of four
feet.
C. At least half of the required landscaped area shall contain landscape material other
than ground cover, with trees provided at a ratio of one tree per 200 square feet of
required landscaped area or fraction thereof. The distribution of the landscaped areas
shall be at the discretion of the owner.
d• Building landscaping may be applied towards meeting the perimeter landscaping
requirement in this section.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-689. - Surface parking lots.
(1)
httn•//lihrarv.miinicode.com/nrint.asnx?h=&clientID=12642&HTMReauest=http%3 a%2f%... 6/6/2013
Municode
Page 3 of 3
Buffer off-street parking adjacent to a public right-of-way or residential buildings with a
landscaped barrier.
a• Interior landscaping for off-street parking shall conform to the requirements of section
110-567 of this Code.
b• Minimum landscape buffer width between the right-of-way and the parking or
vehicular access area along AllA shall be ten feet and five feet along all other streets.
C. A knee wall which is at least 30 inches in height is required when an off-street parking
area is located within 25 feet of the public right-of-way.
d. A continuous landscape berm at an average height of 30 inches from grade may be
permitted in lieu of a required knee wall.
e. A knee wall or berm may be fragmented, staggered, meandering or continuous.
f• A knee wall or berm shall not obstruct any safe sight distance triangle.
9• A knee wall shall be compatible with the architectural design, material, and color of
the principal building of the project.
h• Lighting shall not be used to create an attraction, distraction, or commercial signage
intent to the wall or berm.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 2(Exh. A), 7-17-12)
httn•//lihrsry miinimfie, enm/nrint.aRnx?h=&c1ientTD=12642&HTMReauest=httn%3a%2f%... 6/6/2013
Municode
Page 1 of 4
Cape Canaveral, Florida, Code of Ordinances >> Subpart B - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE >> Chapter
110 - ZONING >> ARTICLE XI. - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS >> DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY >>
DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY
Sec. 110-720. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Applicant means the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent seeking to
develop land as a planned development pursuant to this article.
Common open space means a parcel of land or a combination of land and water within a
planned development designed and intended for the use or enjoyment of the patrons or residents of
the planned development. Common open space shall be integrated throughout the planned
development to provide for a linked recreational/open space system.
Concept plan means a generalized plan illustrating the assessment and possible suitable
development of a site.
Construction means the process, usually requiring the professional services of an architect
and/or engineer, of building, altering, repairing, improving or demolishing any structure or building
or other improvements of any kind to any real property.
Construction schedule means a comprehensive statement demonstrating the type and extent
of development to be completed within the various practicable time limits and the order in which
development is to be undertaken. A construction schedule shall contain an exact description of the
specific buildings, facilities, common open space and other improvements to be developed by the
end of each time period.
Phase means a specified portion of an approved planned development that may be
developed as an independent entity which is delineated in the approved land use and
site/construction plans and specified within the construction schedule.
Land use plan means the plan approved by the city council pursuant to this article and on file
with the city which establishes the planned development zoning designation on the applicant's
property.
Planned development means an area of land developed as a single entity or in approved
phases in conformity with approved land use and site/construction plans by a property owner or a
property owner's authorized agent(s), which is comprehensively planned to provide for a variety of
land uses and common open space.
Site means the actual physical area to be developed as a planned development, including
the natural and man-made characteristics of the area.
httn:lA ibrarv.muni code.com/nrint.asnx?h=&clientID=12642&HTNMeauest=httn%3 a%2f%... 6/6/2013
Municode
Page 2 of 4
Site%onstruction plan means a detailed, dimensional plan at a reproducible scale providing
information and graphic depiction of all physical development relationships to occur within a tract of
a planned development.
Tract means an area of land delineated within a phase, which is separate unto itself having a
specific legal description of its boundaries. A tract delineates all land uses, such as common open
space, recreational area, development areas, and all other applicable areas, except single
residential dwelling unit lots.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 3(Exh. B), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-721. - Purpose and intent.
(a) The intent and purpose of the planned development zoning district are as follows:
(1) To allow for diversification of uses, structures, and open space in a manner that is
compatible with existing and permitted land uses on abutting properties.
(2) To reduce development and energy costs resulting from a more efficient use of the
land design and network of utilities and streets than would be possible through the
application of the conventional zoning districts.
(3) To ensure that development will occur according to limitations of use, design, density,
height, lot coverage, and phasing that is stipulated on an approved land use plan.
(4) To preserve the natural amenities and environmental assets of the land by
_encouraging innovation in design for the preservation and improvement of scenic and
functional open areas.
(5) To provide the maximum opportunity for the application of innovative architectural
design and development concepts in the creation of aesthetically pleasing living,
shopping and working environments on properties of adequate size, shape, and
location.
(6) The planned development district is a flexible zoning district which is intended to
provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to
provide adequate support services and facilities.
(7) To streamline the procedure for obtaining approval of proposed developments through
simultaneous review by the city of land use, site considerations, public needs and
health and safety factors.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 3(Exh. B), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-722. - Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in a planned development zoning district pursuant to
an approved land use plan:
(1) Planned commercial centers. Complementary and compatible residential uses, office
uses and industrial uses may be included if they are compatibly and harmoniously
designed into the commercial center within a planned development zoning district.
(2) Planned attraction and destination uses. Complementary and compatible residential
uses may be included, provided that their design within the planned development
zoning district will produce a reasonable living environment.
(3)
1,++..•//tit+��+�� mi�nirn�a nnm/nrint 6/60M 11
Municode
Sec. 110-724. - Physical review.
Page 4 of 4
The city shall have the right to evaluate the physical layout, architectural characteristics and
amenities of the planned development and to suggest changes or modifications designed to create
compatibility and conformity in the variety of uses within the development to ensure, protect and
promote the health, safety and general welfare of the property owners of the planned development
and the residents of the city.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 3(Exh. 8), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-725. - Building permit.
No building permit for construction within a planned development shall be issued by the city
until the site/construction plan has been approved.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 3(Exh. 8), 7-17-12)
Sec. 110-726. - Revocation.
Failure of an applicant to submit a site/construction plan for the entire development, or any
phase therein, within five years from the date of the city council's approval of a land use plan shall
result in the automatic revocation of an approved land use plan. Revocation of a land use plan
under this section shall result in the subject property reverting to its previous zoning classification
and the official zoning map shall be changed accordingly to reflect such revocation. In the event of
revocation, an applicant shall have no further development rights and any subsequent application
for a planned development shall be subject to the land use plan approval requirements of this
Article.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 3(Exh. 8), 7"'7-12)
Sec. 110-727. - Enforcement.
In addition to any other method of enforcement, the city shall have the power to enforce this
article by an appropriate suit in equity.
(Ord. No. 11-2012, § 3(Exh. 8), 7-17-12)
Secs. 110-728-110-739. - Reserved.
L.+f,.•//1;1++•�,•...+�....;.�...io ..nm/...•;..+ �or�v7l�—Rrr�lian+TTl-17(.d7R�T�TT��rRarn�aet—httr��/ 2ao/Ifo/ F./F./7(11 2
Municode
Page 1 of 3
Cape Canaveral, Florida, Code of Ordinances >> Subpart B - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE >> Chapter
110 - ZONING >> ARTICLE 11. - PROCEDURE; LAND USE DECISIONS >> DIVISION 2. - REZONINGS >>
DIVISION 2. - REZONINGS
Sec. 110-34. - Rezoning applicant obligations.
(a) Any of the following may file an application for rezoning requesting that the sections,
restrictions and boundaries set forth in this chapter be amended, supplemented, changed or
repealed:
(1) Any person or entity.
(2) The city council.
(3) The planning and zoning board.
(4) The city manager.
(b) Rezoning applications shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to the planning and zoning
board meeting at which such application is to be considered.
(Ord. No. 11-2005, § 2, 6-21-05)
Sec. 110-35. - Procedure.
(a) The planning and zoning board shall be required to review all rezoning applications and
make a written recommendation to the city council. Such recommendation shall include the
reasons for the board's recommendation and show the board has considered the applicable
rezoning criteria set forth in this section.
(b) Upon receipt of the planning and zoning board's recommendation, the city council shall make
a final decision on the application. If the city council determines that the planning and zoning
board has not made a recommendation on an application within a reasonable period of time,
the city council may, at its discretion, consider an application without the planning and zoning
board's recommendation.
(c) All rezoning applications shall be reviewed for compliance with the following standards:
(1) The proposed rezoning change is in compliance with all procedural requirements
established by the City Code and law;
(2) The proposed rezoning change is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan
including, but not limited to, the future land use map and the proposed change would
not have an adverse effect on the comprehensive plan;
(3) The proposed rezoning change is consistent with any master plan applicable to the
property;
(4) The proposed rezoning change is not contrary to the land use pattern established by
the city's comprehensive plan;
(5) The proposed rezoning change would not create a spot zone prohibited by law;
(6) The proposed rezoning change would not materially alter the population density
pattern in a manner that would overtax the load on public facilities and services such
as schools, utilities, streets, and other municipal services and infrastructure;
(7)
httn•//lihrnry miinirrnrl(- rnm/nrint Acnv911=RrrliPntTT)=17Fid7.YTNTMRPrniPct=httr�%�a%7fti/� 6/(/0(11 I
Municode Page 2 of 3
The proposed rezoning would not result in existing zoning district boundaries that are
illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property and the surrounding
area and the land use pattern established by the city's comprehensive plan;
(8) Changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning necessary;
(9) The proposed rezoning change will not seriously reduce light or air to adjacent areas;
(10) Should the city be presented with competent substantial evidence indicating that
property values will be adversely affected by the proposed rezoning, the applicant
must demonstrate that the proposed rezoning change will not adversely affect
property values in the surrounding area;
(11) The proposed rezoning will not be a substantial detriment to the future improvement
or development of vacant adjacent property;
(12) The proposed rezoning will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare;
(13) The proposed rezoning change is not out of scale or incompatible with the needs of
the neighborhood or the city;
(14) The proposed rezoning does not violate any applicable land use regulations adopted
by the city.
(d) In approving a change in the zoning classification on a lot or parcel of land, at the request of
or with the concurrence of the owner(s) of said lot or parcel, the city council may approve a
rezoning subject to restrictions provided such restrictions do not confer any special privilege
upon the owner(s) or subject property that would otherwise be denied by the city's land
development regulations in the same zoning district. Such restrictions may include one or
more of the following:
(1) Use restrictions greater than those otherwise specified for that particular district;
(2) Density restrictions greater than those otherwise specified for the particular district;
(3) Setbacks greater than those otherwise specified for the particular district, including
setbacks from lakes and major arterial roadways;
(4) Height limits more restrictive than otherwise permitted in the district;
(5) Minimum lot areas or minimum widths greater than otherwise specified for the
particular district;
(6) Minimum floor area greater than otherwise specified for structures in the particular
district;
(7) Open space requirements greater than otherwise specified for structures in the
particular district;
(8) Parking, loading driveway or traffic requirements more restrictive than otherwise
required for the particular district;
(9) Fencing or screening requirements greater than otherwise required for the particular
district;
(10) Restrictions on any other matters which the city council is authorized to regulate.
Upon approval of such restrictive rezonings, the city shall enter a reference to the restrictions
on the city's official zoning map, and a notice of zoning restrictions shall be recorded in the public
records of Brevard County. Restrictions shall run with the land, without regard to transfer of
ownership or other interests, and may be removed only upon further,amendment to the zoning
classification of the subject property in accordance with the procedures prescribed herein.
(Ord. No. 11-2005, § 2, 6-21-05)
l�t+n•//lihr�rc� mmininnAA nnm/r rint Qo-nv9h=97rrliantTn=17(,d7Rr�TTT��TRani�act=httr�o/Zao/7fb/ A/A/7(11 2
Sec. 110-742. - Land use plan. (Ord. No. 11-2012, § 3(Exh. B), 7-17-12)
(a) Land use plan application. Applicants shall submit a land use plan application for
planned development zoning to the planning official. The application shall include the
required number of copies of plans and exhibits as determined by the planning official and
shall contain the name of the applicant, site planner, surveyor and/or engineer who prepared
the land use plan, topographic data map and the name of the proposed planned
development.
(d) Recommendation to planning and zoning board. Following applicant's resubmittal, if
any, the development review committee shall issue a written recommendation to the
planning and zoning board to approve, approve with conditions, or to deny the land use plan
application. A copy of the recommendation shall be sent to the applicant prior to the planning
and zoning board public hearing. The planning official shall schedule the application for a
public hearing before the planning and zoning board during its next available regular
meeting.
(e) Planning and zoning board review. Upon receipt of the development review
committee's written recommendation, the planning and zoning board shall conduct a public
hearing to review the application and shall issue a written recommendation to the city council
to approve, approve with conditions, or to deny the land use plan application. The planning
and zoning board's recommendation shall be based on consideration of the following criteria:
(1) Degree of departure of proposed planned development from surrounding
areas in terms of character, density, and intensity of use.
(2) Compatibility within the planned development and relationship with
surrounding neighborhoods and other uses.
(3) Prevention of erosion and degrading of surrounding areas.
(4) Provision for future public education (if required), recreation facilities,
transportation, water supply, sewage disposal, surface drainage, flood control and
soil conservation, as shown in the land use plan.
(5) The nature, intent and compatibility of common open space, including the
proposed method for the maintenance and conservation of the common open space.
(6) The feasibility and compatibility of the specified phases contained in the land
use plan to exist as an independent development.
(7) The availability and adequacy of water and sewer service to support the
proposed planned development.
(8) The availability and adequacy of primary streets and thoroughfares to
support traffic to be generated within the proposed planned development.
(9) The benefits within the proposed development and to the general public to
justify the requested departure from the standard land use requirements inherent in a
planned development zoning district.
(10) The conformity and compatibility of the planned development with any
adopted development plan of the city:.
(11) The conformity and compatibility of the proposed common open space and
land uses within the proposed planned development.
RESUME
BALLARD M. BARKER, Ph.D., A.A.E.
Director, Center for Airport Management and Development
Director, International Programs, College of Aeronautics
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA
EDUCATION
• Ph.D. in Geography (Land -Use Analysis), University of Oklahoma, 1976.
• M.A. in Geography (Regional Studies), University of Oklahoma, 1972.
• B.S. in General Engineering, U.S. Military Academy, 1965.
• M.B.A. Studies, University of Mississippi, 1987-89.
• U.S. Air Force Air War College, 1983.
• U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1977.
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Over 40 years of experience in increasingly responsible technical, leadership, and management positions in
aviation operations, airport management and development, aviation training and education, and
consultation. Airport experience encompasses master planning, facility design and expansion, airport
system studies, organizational development, business development, operational safety and security, and
airport maintenance at commercial service, general aviation, and military airports.
AVIATION EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
• Accredited Airport Executive — distinguished designation of American Association of Airport
Executives/International Association of Airport Executives
• Ten years experience as manager of military and civil airports, to include four years experience as
executive director of -FAR Part 139 certificated commercial service airport and associated industrial
park.
• Experienced in planning and construction supervision of multi-million dollar civil and military airport
development projects involving terminals, hangars, aprons, runways, taxiways, and other airport
facilities.
• Six years experience as chief executive of large flying organizations in Asia and Latin America.
• FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate and US Army Master Aviator aeronautical rating with over 5,500
flight hours in 25 types of airplanes, helicopters, and gliders.
• Twenty-three years of experience as aviation educator and consultant. Regularly teach undergraduate
and graduate courses in airport planning, design, development, operations, safety, security, and
management. Develop and direct research and consultation activities, and facilitate governmental and
industry partnerships. Head of graduate program in airport management and development.
• Active general aviation pilot and airplane owner.
RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION
• Director, Center for Airport Management and Development, 1996 -present. Conduct consultation,
research, and technology transfers for domestic and foreign governments and private firms. Regularly
conduct professional development courses and seminars on airport planning, management, and
airspace planning for the FAA, airports, and aviation consulting firms.
• International Civil Aviation Organization airports consultant pool member.
• Project Manager, Academia Latinoamerica de Aviacion Superior (ALAS), Republic of Panama,
development and operation of ab-initio pilot training program for Latin American airlines, 2010 -
present.
• Co -Project Manager, Sierra Leone National Airports Authority Management Restructuring Study,
2010.
• Airport Management Advisor to Brevard County, Florida (four airports), 2006-2010.
• Project Manager, Valkaria Airport (Florida) Airport Master Plan study, 2005-2007.
• Director, Panama Aviation Educational Partnership (Airport, airline, and collegiate aviation education
and training program for Latin America), 2001 -present.
• Project Manager, Boeing -Chinese Civil Aviation Flying College Support Program -Phase lI and Phase -
III, senior manager development, organizational development, and safety and flight operations training
program (proprietary), 1999-2008.
• Principal Airport Consultant to UN Office of the High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina for
post-war civil airport reconstruction, financial feasibility, and management, June 1999-2000.
• Project Manager, Boeing -Chinese Civil Aviation Flying College Support Program, major aviation
management training, educational technology, and operations training program (proprietary), 1995-
1998. Awarded Boeing outstanding achievement award for success and timeliness of three-year
project.
• Project Manager and Researcher, Three -Dimensional Airspace Analysis Process Evaluation, contract
for FAA and Florida Department of Transportation, 1997.
• Project Manager and Researcher, Study Design for Automation of FAA Airport Protection Criteria for
Navigational Aids, contract with Florida Department of Transportation (FAA funds), 1995-1996.
• Study Project Leader/Co-investigator, Florida Recreational Airport System Feasibility Study, contract
with Florida Department of Transportation 1995-1996.
• Consultant, Brazilian Airport System Development Project, International Civil Aviation Organization,
Rio de Janiero, 1994.
PUBLICATIONS
• Authored over 50 proprietary technical and management reports in support of contracts and research
grants performed on behalf of Florida Institute of Technology.
• William R Graves and Ballard M. Barker, "Chapter 27: Airport Planning and Design," Handbook of
Transportation Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.
• Ballard M. Barker, "The Evolving Airport Management Environment," Airport Technology
International, April 2001.
• Ballard M. Barker, Final Study Report on Mostar International Airport, BiH, Aviation Technical
Associates for OHR-BiH, August 1999.
• Ballard M. Barker, Co-author and editor, Three -Dimensional Airspace Analysis Process Users
Manual, Florida Department of Transportation, 1997.
• Ballard M. Barker, Editor, Collegiate Aviation Review, University Aviation Association, Auburn, AL.
(Volumes 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996).
• Ballard M. Barker and Richard J. Adams, Visitor's Guide to Florida Airports, Tallahassee, FL.,
Florida Department of Transportation, 1996.
• Ballard M. Barker and Richard J. Adams, Florida Recreational Airport Feasibility Study: Final
Report, Florida DOT Contract B-9122, April 1996.
• Alan L. Devereaux and Ballard M. Barker, Airport System Planning Final Report, Brazil Ministry of
Aeronautics, Sponsored by International Civil Aviation Organization, Project BRA/92/006. 1994.
• Ballard M. Barker, Professional Airport Management, Melbourne, FL: Florida Institute of Technology,
1994. Text for capstone course in airport administration and management programs.
• Ballard M. Barker and William C. Jameson, Platt National Park: Environment and Ecology, Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1975.
• Ballard M. Barker, "A Land Use Regionalization of South Korea Using ERTS-1 Imagery,"
Proceedings, 1976 Meeting of the Middle State Division, Association of American Geographers.
• Ballard M. Barker, "Hand -Held Aerial Photograhy-A Forgotten Tool?," Aviation Digest, January 1977.
• John B. Garver, Jr., and Ballard M. Barker, eds., Proceedings, Middle State Division, Association of
American Geographers, 1973-1975.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
• Program manager and seminar leader, annual Senior Management Development Program for the Civil
Aviation Administration of China, 2008 -present.
• Instructor, OMA -ADP Senior Airport Management Development Seminar (Northern Mexico airports),
Monterrey, Mexico, September 2006.
• Instructor, Aeroports du Paris (ADP) Senior Airport Managers Development Program (French national
airport authority and international airport attendees), St. Tropez, France, November 2003.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (North African
airport administrators, Carthage, Tunisia, March 2002, Topic: International Airport Business
Environments ---Contracts and Risk Management.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (Tunisian and
Moroccan airport managers), Tunis, Tunisia, March 2001.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (Tunisian and
Moroccan airport managers), Tunis, Tunisia, March 2001.
• Instructor, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (French and African
airport managers), Toulouse, France, 2000. Topic: International Airport Management Alternatives.
• Invited lecturer, aviation management and engineering program, Ecole Nationale de L'Aviation Civile,
Toulouse, France, March 9, 2000. Topic: Global Airport Management, Environments, and Patterns
• Lecturer and participant, Aeroports du Paris (ADP) Senior Management Development Program, Ecole
Nationale de L'Aviation Civile, Toulouse, France, 1999. Case study on foreign airport management
modes and privatization issues.
• Lecturer, airport management and engineering program, Ecole Nationale de L'Aviation Civile,
Toulouse, France, 1999.
• Consultant, on aviation educational credential and experience evaluation, Educational Assessment, Inc.
• Vice -President, Council on Aviation Accreditation, 1996-1998
• Trustee, Council on Aviation Accreditation, 1993-2001.
• Editor, Collegiate Aviation Review (refereed journal) , 1993-1996.
• Editorial Board and Reviewer, Collegiate Aviation Review, 1996 to 2011.
• Editorial Board, Journal of Air Transportation Worldwide, 1996 to 2008.
• President and officer, Mississippi Airports Association, 1987-89.
• Member, regular attendee, and frequent invited speaker on airport management, planning, and facility
development at professional meetings and conferences of the following organizations: University
Aviation Association, Council on Aviation Accreditation, American Association of Airport
Executives, and Florida Airport Managers Association.
Report on Observations and Potential Issues Associated with Proposed Private Heliport
at 8880 Astronaut Blvd, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Prepared by
Ballard M. Barker, Ph.D., A.A.E.
Aviation Technical Associates
Satellite Beach, FL 32937
June 11, 2013
1. Purpose.
This brief study was commissioned to analyze the appropriateness of the proposed helipad at
8880 Astronaut Blvd, Cape Canaveral, including noise and safety issues.
2. Noise Background and Issues.
Local and national governments around the world, especially in Europe and North America, have
struggled with public policy and regulatory aspects of aircraft noise, especially in the vicinity of
landing sites, since the 1960s. There is also a long and well documented history of aircraft noise
issues and studies in the lay, professional, and academic bodies of literature. Most of the
research and public policy has been focused on noise generated by arriving and departing
airplanes at airports; because airports have traditionally been the largest, most intense, and
visible of the aviation noise problems. In recent decades, however, the rapid growth of
helicopter use in a wide array of private, governmental, military, and business activities has
raised a new category of aviation noise issues.
The helicopter presents three categorical differences from most airplane traffic for purposes
relevant to this report: (1) helicopters, by virtue of their operational characteristics, with which
anyone watching television is familiar, can operate from a multitude of diverse and dispersed
locations—their operations are not necessarily centralized at long-established and generally
accepted airports—they can operate "anywhere"; (2) the acoustical signatures of helicopters are
substantially different from those of airplanes of all sizes and propulsion types; and (3) while
airplane noise is concentrated in an elongated area centered on the flight path, and largely
behind the airplane, helicopter noise is propagated in a distorted spherical pattern. These three
differences mean that public officials must pay special attention to helicopter operations when
deliberating public policy and regulations.
Sound is not measured in absolute linear units, but rather on a logarithmic scale in units called
"decibels" that measure "acoustic energy," not "loudness." Acoustic energy is a physical
property and is directly measureable, whereas "loudness" is a perception based upon a complex
mix of intensity and frequency of sound, and characteristics of the receptor. For example,
sound with a given acoustic energy will be "louder" for a person with normal hearing than for a
hearing impaired person. Different persons and animals also have different aural sensitivities
that will affect their perceived loudness of the same sound. Sound metrics are not easily or
intuitively understood by the average person, but for purposes of this report it is important to
remember that the decibel metric is not linear, but logarithmic. Therefore every 3dB increase in
sound level represents a doubling of sound energy, but it takes about a 10dB increase in sound
level to double the loudness perceived by the typical healthy human ear. Sound energy can be
reflected from, and refracted around hard surfaces such as pavement and buildings. Outdoor
sound can also be attenuated via absorption by plowed soil or dense vegetation, for example.
Sound energy also dissipates with distance as it radiates spherically, such that every doubling of
distance reduces the sound energy by about 6 dB.
It is also important to stress the difference between calculated 24-hour average weighted sound
metrics and "spot" measurements of particular noise events at specific locations such as were
taken at the R-44 demonstration. Both are valid metrics, but each has a different place in noise
discussions. The former are not actual sound energy levels, but are engineering constructs
generated from computer models and cannot be physically measured; and they are properly
used for large area planning purposes. One cannot directly measure a 65 DNL, for example. A
65 DNL noise metric might be modeled from several hours of very low intensity events (e.g. 35-
45 dBA) interspersed with a number of very high intensity noise event (e.g. 90-110 dBA).
There is a long-standing international, and generally, accepted body of knowledge regarding
noise and sound measurement at airports; and acceptable limits of aircraft noise on the
surrounding communities. The US leads the way in this regard, and both the FAA and the
Environmental Protection Agency, have developed various metrics and acceptable average noise
levels for various community environments, or land uses. Those metrics and standards tend to
focus on "yearly day -night "averages" of noise predominantly generated by airplanes flying fixed
routes to an airport, and an airport that is probably already located within a noise -compatible
land -use zone (FAA AC 150/5050-6, 1977; Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise
Analysis Issues, 1992). Examples of metrics most commonly used for those purposes are Day -
Night Average Sound Level (variously symbolized as "DNL" or "LDN") and Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL). Those various average metrics are computer generated, cannot be
directly measured by sound meters, and do not correlate to spot noise meter samples. The
emerging problem is, as is the case of this application to Cape Canaveral, how to deal with
frequent helicopter operations into and from dispersed locations within a community; and with
the substantially different acoustic signatures of the helicopter vis-a-vis the airplane. Noise
measurements and standards that may be appropriate for 24-hour per day airplane operations
into airports are NOT appropriate for helicopter operations concentrated in certain portions of
the day in diverse sites within a community (ANSI cited in FICON, 19921. The appropriate metric
for measuring individual flight events would be Maximum Fast A -Weighted (LMAX) sound level.)
or Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL). The Perceived Noise Level (PNL) metric was
developed specifically to measure aircraft noise levels as sensed by persons on the ground, and
Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) is a calculation that approximates human annoyance
2
responses to complex aircraft noise, and is used by the FAA for noise certification of helicopters
(FICON, 1992).
The applicant, Florida Biplanes, has submitted two noise documents in support of its application.
The first is the FAA approved sound level (SEL) of 80.9 dBA for a single event flyover at 492 feet
above ground level (AGL) (R-44 POH, 2002). That physical measurement can be assumed to be
correct for the sample conditions, but SEL does not measure human response and annoyance by
sound—those more appropriate concerns for this case are best represented by PNEL, which the
Volpe Center's National Park Service study (discussed later in this report) determined to be 93.0-
95.6 dBA at a point 200 feet horizontally from a flight path 500 feet above the receptor
(coincidentally, the same distance as the AJT primary building from the proposed
helipad)(Volpe, 2010). The second document is a Robinson Helicopter Company letter dated
October 21, 2003. There are at least three problems with this letter in the context of the
application to the City of Cape Canaveral. First, the CNEL metric was developed in California as
an alternative metric to the very similar DNL more widely used in the USA and globally. Second,
CNEL and DNL and other similar 24-hour, day -night weighted averages are large area, long term
planning tools—they are NOT the appropriate metric for localized noise impacts such as might
occur if the heliport proposal is approved. The CNEL grossly underestimates the noise impacts
of concentrated events on a relatively small area such as 8880 Astronaut Blvd and it's immediate
neighbors. Third, the calculation example offered is for a tiny fraction of the number of flights
the applicant would like to have at the proposed site.
It is well documented that the acoustic signatures of all helicopters are substantially different
from those of airplanes. Helicopter noise signatures often contain more "noise" in the lower
frequencies of the sound spectrum, and they usually have very different dynamic characteristics.
While airplanes present a fairly steady arriving and departing volume and tonal quality in
accordance with the "Doppler Effect," helicopters have a noise dynamic that is typically
described as "impulsive noise" that is usually associated with rotation of the main rotor blades
and a phenomenon known as "blade slap." That is the iconic sound of the UH -1 "Huey"
helicopters of Vietnam War fame—the "whop -whop -whop" sound that almost anyone of age
recognizes. Although the intensity of the "blade slap" varies from one helicopter to another, it
always exists; and it always aggravates the perceptible noise problem, as reported and
documented in numerous studies such as the FAA's "Nonmilitary Helicopter Urban Noise Study"
Report to Congress (2004). A number of studies have shown helicopter noise to be 7 to 15 dBA
more annoying to persons on the ground than airplane noise. That is to say, helicopter noise of
50 dBA would be as annoying as airplane noise of 57-65 dBA. Alternatively, if local zoning
allowed "airplane" noise levels of 65 Ldn, the perceived noise levels of helicopters operating in
the same environment might be 80 dBA—well beyond what many people might find reasonable
or acceptable. It has also been found that helicopter noise generates secondary "noise" by way
of vibrations in structures impacted by helicopter primary noise. Certain low frequencies in the
helicopter noise spectrum cause structures and items within structures to generate annoying
vibrations, whether or not consciously perceived (FAA, 2004). One study documents that this
vibration, or "rattle effect," may add the equivalent of 10-20 dB to measured sound levels with
respect to building occupant annoyance.
The "noise" literature also documents the "psychoacoustic" aspects of helicopter flights into a
locality. A number of studies have shown that there is a subjective, non-measureable (in
physical terms), but very real human response that finds helicopter noise up to 15 dBA more
annoying than equivalent measured airplane noise levels. This psychoacoustic effect is thought
to result from a complex mix of startle effect, psychological space intrusion, disturbance of
ambient mood, disturbance of quietude, privacy issues, and general annoyance. It is also
strongly shaped by the public's perceived importance of the helicopter flights making the noise.
For example, police and medical flight operations into a given heliport have lower
psychoacoustic penalties than do "less essential" flight operations such as private transportation
and sightseeing (DEFRA, 2008; FAA, 2004).
3. FAA Study of R-44 Noise in Aerial Tour Operations.
Aerial tour operations at scenic locations and national parks generate a great deal of public
controversy and have been the subject of years of public -government policy discussions. In
2000, the US Congress passed the National Parks Air Tours Act which directed the FAA and
National Parks Service to study the problem and develop air tour management plans. The FAA
commissioned a comprehensive two-year study that was conducted by the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, and published in 2010. It focused on the noise profiles of six
aircraft in the full range of aerial tour operating profiles, to include the Robinson R-44 "Raven."
The instrumented study measured noise at several distances and for each directional quadrant
for every reasonable phase of flight for the subject helicopters, to include: hovering in and out
of ground effect; take -off, acceleration and climb; tour cruise at various speeds; and descent,
deceleration, and landing. One of the sound metrics was "Effective Perceived Noise Levels,"
variously symbolized as LEPN, EPNL, or EPNdB in different conventions. The level of effective
perceived noise, or LEPN, is a measure of complex aircraft flyover noise that approximates
human annoyance responses; and is used by the FAA as an appropriate metric for helicopters.
The Volpe Center testing yielded the following LEPN range of values for the R-44 in different
quadrants around the flight path. All data are presented for (a) 200, (b) 400, (c) 1000, and (d)
2000 foot slant distances from the helicopter flight path, respectively:
■ Level cruise at 500 feet AGL: (a) 93.0-95.6 (b) 86.2-88.8 (c) 76.5-79.0 (d) 68.3-70.7
■ Takeoff departure @ 39 kts: (a) 96.0-99.8 (b) 89.2-93.0 (c) 84.5-88.3 (d) 71.3-75.1
■ Departure climb @ 42 kts: (a) 95.8-98.3 (b) 89.0-91.4 (c) 79.2-81.7 (d) 71.1-73.5
■ Landing approach descent @ -6 degrees & 67 kts: (a) 94.1-95.5 (b) 87.4-88.7
(c) 77.5-79.1 (d) 69.1-71.0
4. Noise Demonstration Conditions at Proposed Heliport Site.
Public demonstrations of R-44 operations from the proposed heliport site were conducted May
14, 2013 between approximately 2:20-2:40 PM. Public officials, members of the community,
4
news media, and other interested parties were invited to attend. This consultant used a
handheld sound meter to measure ambient and flight demonstration noise at and near the
proposed heliport site and at the adjacent property, and a member of Cape Canaveral's
municipal government used a simpler handheld meter to sample demonstrated sound at the
site and at various points along the proposed aerial tour route. It must be emphasized that
while such spot samples taken in uncontrolled conditions have some anecdotal value, they are
no substitute for properly designed and instrumented noise studies. It must also be understood
that spot samples in dBA such as were collected on May 14 by both parties cannot be equated
to the computer-generated 24-hour average weighted values indicated by DNL/LDN or CNEL.
The instrument and demonstration site conditions on May 14 are described below:
■ A "Center 322 Sound Level Meter/Data Recorder", SN -050903832, conforming to IEC651
Type2 and ANSI S1.4 Type 2 standards for noise measurements
■ Frequency range: 31.5 Hz -8 KHz, with selective "A" or "C" frequency weighting.
■ Four digit display with 0.1d13 resolution and 0.5 second update
■ Time weighting: Fast -125 ms, Slow -1.0 sec
■ Accuracy: +/- 1.5 dB (ref conditions @ 94 dB and 1 KHz)
■ For this demonstration sampling, all measurements were in the "dBA-Fast" mode.
■ Ambient weather: Temperature -79F, Relative Humidity -41%, Wind -NNE, 12 kts
■ The proposed heliport site is located on a rectangular parcel of land with a width and
length of approximately 210 feet and 485 feet, respectively. The narrow side faces on
Astronaut Blvd. (Highway A1A), and the long axis is oriented in a NE -SW direction parallel
to Imperial Blvd. About 20% of the parcel is covered with derelict pavement, and the
remainder is covered with fairly dense weeds, shrubs, and tree -like vegetation growing as
high as 10-15 feet along the northeastern and northwestern property lines.
■ The dense vegetation along two sides of the demonstration site parcel attenuated
measured sound levels at adjacent properties during the demonstration, and once the
parcel is cleared and leveled per city requirements, the sound levels at adjacent
properties will definitely be 2-3 dBA higher.
R-44 Demonstration Sound Observations.
■ 1:05PM: Southeast side of primary AJT building, meter panning 220-180 degrees (SW -S),
looking in an arc from the Race Trac station to the proposed helipad site. Measured
range: mid -50s dBA without significant peaking.
■ 1:10PM: Stop sign at AJT driveway and Highway A1A, meter pointed SW, looking at the
Race Trac gasoline station. Measured range: mid -60s dBA, with 74-76 dBA peaks at
about 1 -minute intervals caused by passing heavy trucks or motorcycles.
■ 2:15-2:20PM: Northeast corner of heliport parcel adjacent to intersection of AJT and
Florida Beer Company property line fences, and about 15 feet from the AJT secondary
building. Meter pointed 220 degrees MH (SW) (toward spot used for demonstration
helipad). R-44 helicopter parked on pad with engine shut down. Measured range: 49-52
dBA, with no significant peaking.
■ 2:22PM: Same location and meter orientation, as above. R-44 engine running at ground
idle on proposed helipad. Measured range: 52-53 dBA steady.
■ 2:23PM: R-44 lift-off from pad and take -off climb on MH of @ 040-050 degrees (NE).
Meter oriented toward, and following, the moving helicopter. Measured sound levels
rose to low 70s dBA as R-44 lifted from pad, and quickly rose to 88.3 dBA as the
helicopter crossed the property line at an estimated lateral distance of 80 feet, and
estimated altitude of 60 feet.
■ 2:29PM: R-44 landing approach to SW. Measured sound levels were in mid -50s dBA
when the R-44 was visually spotted at an estimated distance of one-half mile to the NE,
rose steadily to 89.3 dBA over the property line (location described above), and steadily
dropped to 78 dBA as the R-44 descended to a landing on the demonstration pad.
■ 2:31PM: R-44 take -off to the NE. Measured sound level of 89.3 dBA over the property
line.
■ 2:33PM: R-44 landing approach to the SW. Measured sound level of 89.8 over the
property line.
■ 2:35PM: R-44 take -off to the NE. Measured sound level of 86.2 dBA over the property
line.
■ 2:36PM: R-44 landing approach to the SW. Measured sound level of 87.2 dBA over the
property line.
■ 2:42PM: R-44 hovering in ground effect on pad site in preparation for take -off, at 100
foot distance to the SW. Measured sound level range of 89.3-90.0 dBA as the R-44
rotated over the pad.
S. Noise Findings.
■ Ambient noise measurements at the AJT building and at the NE end of the AJT parcel were
in the low -to -mid 50s dBA which, on commonly use descriptive scales, equates to a "small
town/quiet suburban to low density urban" sound environment. When ground idling on the
helipad, the R-44 noise was masked within the ambient noise levels; but in both the takeoff
and landing approach sequences, the sound increased from the mid-70s dBA when the R-44
was over the helipad, and increased to the high 80 dBA range when overhead the AJT and
Florida Beer Company property lines. Therefore, actual noise energy increased four -fold (20
dBA) at lift-off and eight -fold (30 dBA) at property lines north and east of the demonstration
helipad site. Those noise levels, if occurring on a continuous basis would be characteristic of
the noise experienced under the flight path of a major airport one-half to a mile from
runway ends (FICON, 1992). As intermittent noise events, the R-44 operations at the
extreme are the equivalent to a USAF C-130, Boeing 767, or a Learjet taking off at full thrust
at a distance of 1,000 feet (FICON, 1992). According to the Federal Interagency Committee
on Noise, "...some degree of indoor speech interference would be expected whenever
exterior noise levels exceed 75 dB to 85 dB..."(FICON, 1992). If the applicant conducts just
four aerial tours per hour, that would be eight noise events (4 X landings and takeoffs) per
hour that would be loud enough to interfere with speech in AJT buildings. If the AJT parcel
owner decided to improve his property by the construction of another three-story office
T
building at the rear of his parcel, there would be significantly greater negative effects from
the aerial tour operations. The R-44 takeoff and departure path would be just 100-120 feet
distant, and virtually at eye level for third floor occupants. It would not only be visually
distracting, but increase LEPN levels to about 102-106 dB abeam the building. Those levels
are sufficient to substantially degrade interior speech discrimination.
■ FAA approved flight testing for aircraft certification established that the R-44 has an SEL 80.9
dBA noise signature in level cruise flight at 492 feet above ground level (AC & R-44 POH).
That is the same altitude as is proposed for the helicopter aerial tours, therefore each
passage of the tour helicopter would produce periodic sound events about 15-20 dBA
higher, and 2-3 times louder than ambient noise along any residential or lightly urbanized
portions of the flight path.
■ A review of the FAA Volpe Center's landmark study data on national park aerial tours is even
more relevant because it documents the "effective perceived noise levels" (dB-LEPN) of R-
44 operations in an aerial tour context (Volpe, 2010). The Volpe data reveals that the R-44
produces a distinctly high level of annoying noise in virtually every phase of aerial tour
operations, with all values being in the mid -to -high 90 dB range for every flight profile
(Paragraph 4, above).
6. Site Suitability, Safety, and Licensing Issues.
The proposed heliport site may well be good from the marketing and customer convenience
standpoint, but there are problematical issues with the utility and safety of the site, and
therefore with state licensing. The FAA does NOT license or in any way regulate private general
aviation heliports, or even airports, for that matter. The FAA does, however, have three distinct
involvements: (a) publish a large number of design and operational safety standards for public
airports and heliports that receive federal assistance or are certificated as commercial use
airports (such as FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2C); (b) conduct airspace analyses of proposed
new heliport sites to ascertain if the proposed site has airspace obstructions in the locality, and
to determine if operations from the proposed site would interfere with any preexisting airspace
uses, such as airport traffic patterns or approach paths; and (c) to garner information necessary
to update the broad array of aviation data bases and publications. Licensure of general aviation
airports and heliports is a state prerogative, and in Florida it is exercised by the FDOT in
accordance with Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 14-60, "Airport Licensing, Registration, and
Airspace Protection."
FAC 14-60 addresses site approval, design standards, and airspace protection in a way that
essentially mirror or incorporate FAA standards. Both the FAA and MOT requirements are
designed to not only provide for safe operating conditions at a site, but to protect persons and
Property around the landing site. FDOT and FAA standards specify minimum dimensions of
landing areas, and dimensions and slopes of imaginary approach and transitional surfaces in
airspace around the heliport, among other things. The site proposed by the applicant has
adequate space for the primary landing surface, but it has serious airspace issues.
For a private -use (CFR 14 Part 91) visual flight rules (VFR)(clear weather conditions) heliport, the
floor of the approach surface starts at the "final approach and takeoff area" (FATO) surface and
extends upward and outward 4,000 feet, and to a width of 500 feet on a 8:1 slope. Airspace
above the approach slope must be clear of hazards and obstructions to flight. The applicant's
proposal for 8880 Astronaut Blvd. shows the heliport centered on the parcel and having both NE
and SW approach/departure paths (Allen Engr. Site Plan). At that, and any other feasible
location on the parcel, both the SW and NE approach/departure paths approach slope floors are
violated. The NW approach has utility lines along Astronaut Blvd/A1A penetrating
approximately 10 feet into the approach slope. On the SW approach (NE takeoff), which the
applicant says will be the primary approach/departure path, the approach slope is violated by 55
feet by an unlighted and unmarked, 164 foot tall, Verizon cellular tower centered on the
approach path. A cluster of Australian pines about 550-600 feet NE of the primary surface may
also penetrate the approach surface. The Florida Beer Company building structure lies just 10-
12 feet beneath the approach slope floor. If the AJT parcel owner were to decide to exercise his
property rights and build an additional 3 -story office building at the approximate location of the
present secondary building, that building would be right at the edge of the approach slope. FAC
14-60.007 (5)(k) states that an "airport" proponent must provide written confirmation that
safety considerations, as necessary, to "...help ensure the general public health, safety, and
welfare of persons on or about the airport..." are taken. That would presumably include such
items as "public protection" fencing and signage around the helicopter operating area (the
property line length along Imperial Blvd and the width of Astronaut Blvd frontage) and rotor -
wash protection to prevent waiting passengers or spectators from getting rotor -blown sand into
eyes or damaging parked automobiles. Any such public protection fencing and any other
structures on the parcel must also lie below the floors of any approach or transitional surfaces
as defined in FAC 14-60 and FAA AC 150/5390-2C. If any fueling of any kind is ever anticipated
at the site, then it would be expected that all 28 provisions of National Fire Protection Code 407,
"Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing," would be enforced by the Cape Canaveral Fire Marshall,
or other authorized public safety official.
As a highly experienced Army aviator, helicopter pilot, heliport operator, airport planner, and
aviation safety instructor, this Consultant has other public safety concerns and questions. While
it is true that the R-44 and other helicopters "can technically" operate from such a site,
especially in emergency, law enforcement, or military situations; that does NOT mean that it is a
good site for an established heliport regularly serving a large number of tourist flights daily. Just
because it might be feasible does not mean it is "smart" from a public safety point of view.
(1) Where could the R-44 safely autorotate in the event of power failure on takeoff or final
approach in either direction? The site is surrounded by utility lines on three sides and
building structures on two sides. The nearby streets and parking lots are usually fairly
congested with vehicles and landscaping. The undeveloped areas are, for the most part,
covered with sizable trees and have undesirable surface characteristics for safe
autorotational landings. If an aerial tour R-44 operating from this proposed site were to
have an engine power loss such as was experienced by the applicant's (Florida Biplanes)
Hiller U-12 helicopter (US Army designation: OH -23) in which the helicopter was
substantially damaged and one passenger was injured while autorotating from an altitude of
70 feet onto the smooth surface of the Merritt Island Airport on February 6, 2013; the result
would likely be a much more serious "crash landing" onto adjacent, and largely inhospitable,
property (National Transportation Safety Board Preliminary Report).
(2) If the applicant only uses the NE departure/SW landing path, as he has suggested, then the
helicopter will often be making "downwind" landings or takeoffs in the commonly strong
breezes of this beachside community. Downwind takeoffs and landings are not preferred,
because they reduce the angle of takeoff climb and power safety margin on landings. In
other words, when on takeoff departure climb to the NE in SW winds of 10 knots, the
vertical clearance over structures such as the Florida Beer Factory is reduced. The stronger
the wind, the lower the vertical clearance of takeoff obstructions.
(3) Section 5, "Performance," of the FAA approved Pilot's Operating Handbook for the R-44 has
a height -velocity chart illustrating combinations of airspeed and altitude "that should be
avoided." Operation in the "avoid area" is dangerous because in the event of a power or
transmission failure, the likelihood of a safe landing is remote to nil. The R-44 "Avoid
Operations" area (known in military slang as the "Dead -Man's Curve" or "Coffin Corner")
for a sea level takeoff includes flight more than 10 feet above ground level (AGL) over a
smooth, hard surface until the helicopter reaches an airspeed of about 30 knots, and above
25 feet AGL until it reaches 50 knots airspeed. This consultant observed the demonstration
flights on May 12, 2013, and believes that the R-44 was operated outside of the approved
operating envelope on that occasion, and would likely risk the same marginal takeoff profile
when loaded with aerial tour customers, even if the entire parcel was cleared of all
vegetation and debris. To reiterate, while such takeoffs are feasible, it begs the question of
public safety (R-44 POH, 2002).
7. Noise and Property Values.
Aircraft noise has long been acknowledged as lowering the quality of life and lowering real
estate property values in areas around airports and military airfields. That is one reason the FAA
allocates millions of dollars a year for commercial service airports to purchase noise impacted
properties in neighboring communities (FAA NPIAS). No studies of heliport effects on real estate
values are known to this consultant, but there are numerous studies relating to airport vicinities,
both in the US and Europe. One study in the Seattle -Tacoma Airport area found that property
values increased approximately 3.4% for each quarter -mile more distant a home was from flight
paths (Lane, 1998). Another larger and more comprehensive study of 33 airports took a
different approach, and described what has been termed the "Cumulative Noise Discount," or
CDI. The CDI near US airports that were studied averaged 0.58% per decibel (Nelson, 2004). As
a consequence, a $200,000 residence in a 55 dB sound exposure area, would be worth at least
than $20,000 less if the area's sound exposure increased to 75 db. If the proposed heliport and
aerial tour operation is ultimately approved for this site, the primary AJT office building will be
just 200 feet distant from as many as four R-44 takeoff and landing cycles (8 events) per hour
during office working hours, each subjecting the property to in excess of 75 dB of sound for
RESUME
BALLARD M. BARKER, Ph.D., A.A.E.
Director, Center for Airport Management and Development
Director, International Programs, College of Aeronautics
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA
EDUCATION
• Ph.D. in Geography (Land -Use Analysis), University of Oklahoma, 1976.
• M.A. in Geography (Regional Studies), University of Oklahoma, 1972.
• B.S. in General Engineering, U.S. Military Academy, 1965.
• M.B.A. Studies, University of Mississippi, 1987-89.
• U.S. Air Force Air War College, 1983.
• U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1977.
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Over 40 years of experience in increasingly responsible technical, leadership, and management positions in
aviation operations, airport management and development, aviation training and education, and
consultation. Airport experience encompasses master planning, facility design and expansion, airport
system studies, organizational development, business development, operational safety and security, and
airport maintenance at commercial service, general aviation, and military airports.
AVIATION EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
• Accredited Airport Executive — distinguished designation of American Association of Airport
Executives/International Association of Airport Executives
• Ten years experience as manager of military and civil airports, to include four years experience as
executive director ofFAR Part 139 certificated commercial service airport and associated industrial
park.
• Experienced in planning and construction supervision of multi-million dollar civil and military airport
development projects involving terminals, hangars, aprons, runways, taxiways, and other airport
facilities.
• Six years experience as chief executive of large flying organizations in Asia and Latin America.
• FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate and US Army Master Aviator aeronautical rating with over 5,500
flight hours in 25 types of airplanes, helicopters, and gliders.
• Twenty --three years of experience as aviation educator and consultant. Regularly teach undergraduate
and graduate courses in airport planning, design, development, operations, safety, security, and
management. Develop and direct research and consultation activities, and facilitate governmental and
industry partnerships. Head of graduate program in airport management and development.
• Active general aviation pilot and airplane owner.
RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION
• Director, Center for Airport Management and Development, 1996 -present. Conduct consultation,
research, and technology transfers for domestic and foreign governments and private firms. Regularly
conduct professional development courses and seminars on airport planning, management, and
airspace planning for the FAA, airports, and aviation consulting firms.
• International Civil Aviation Organization airports consultant pool member.
• Project Manager, Academia Latinoamerica de Aviacion Superior (ALAS), Republic of Panama,
development and operation bf ab-initio pilot training program for Latin American airlines, 2010 -
present.
• Co -Project Manager, Sierra Leone National Airports Authority Management Restructuring Study,
2010.
• Airport Management Advisor to Brevard County, Florida (four airports), 2006-2010.
• Project Manager, Valkaria Airport (Florida) Airport Master Plan study, 2005-2007.
• Director, Panama Aviation Educational Partnership (Airport, airline, and collegiate aviation education
and training program for Latin America), 2001 -present.
• Project Manager, Boeing -Chinese Civil Aviation Flying College Support Program -Phase lI and Phase -
III, senior manager development, organizational development, and safety and flight operations training
program (proprietary), 1999-2008.
• Principal Airport Consultant to UN Office of the High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina for
post-war civil airport reconstruction, financial feasibility, and management, June 1999-2000.
• Project Manager, Boeing -Chinese Civil Aviation Flying College Support Program, major aviation
management training, educational technology, and operations training program (proprietary), 1995-
1998. Awarded Boeing outstanding achievement award for success and timeliness of three-year
project.
• Project Manager and Researcher, Three -Dimensional Airspace Analysis Process Evaluation, contract
for FAA and Florida Department of Transportation, 1997.
• Project Manager and Researcher, Study Design for Automation of FAA Airport Protection Criteria for
Navigational Aids, contract with Florida Department of Transportation (FAA funds), 1995-1996.
• Study Project Leader/Co-investigator, Florida Recreational Airport System Feasibility Study, contract
with Florida Department of Transportation 1995-1996.
• Consultant, Brazilian Airport System Development Project, International Civil Aviation Organization,
Rio de Janiero, 1994.
PUBLICATIONS
• Authored over 50 proprietary technical and management reports in support of contracts and research
grants performed on behalf of Florida Institute of Technology.
• William R. Graves and Ballard M. Barker, "Chapter 27: Airport Planning and Design," Handbook of
Transportation Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.
• Ballard M. Barker, "The Evolving Airport Management Environment," Airport Technology
International, April 2001.
• Ballard M. Barker, Final Study Report on Mostar International Airport, BiH, Aviation Technical
Associates for OHR-BiH, August 1999.
• Ballard M. Barker, Co-author and editor, Three -Dimensional Airspace Analysis Process Users
Manual, Florida Department of Transportation, 1997.
• Ballard M. Barker, Editor, Collegiate Aviation Review, University Aviation Association, Auburn, AL.
(Volumes 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996).
• Ballard M. Barker and Richard J. Adams, Visitor's Guide to Florida Airports, Tallahassee, FL.,
Florida Department of Transportation, 1996.
• Ballard M. Barker and Richard J. Adams, Florida Recreational Airport Feasibility Study: Final
Report, Florida DOT Contract B-9122, April 1996.
• Alan L. Devereaux and Ballard M. Barker, Airport System Planning Final Report, Brazil Ministry of
Aeronautics, Sponsored by International Civil Aviation Organization, Project BRA/92/006. 1994.
• Ballard M. Barker, Professional Airport Management, Melbourne, FL: Florida Institute of Technology,
1994. Text for capstone course in airport administration and management programs.
• Ballard M. Barker and William C. Jameson, Platt National Park: Environment and Ecology, Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1975.
• Ballard M. Barker, "A Land Use Regionalization of South Korea Using ERTS-1 Imagery,"
Proceedings, 1976 Meeting of the Middle State Division, Association of American Geographers.
• Ballard M. Barker, "Hand -Held Aerial Photograhy-A Forgotten Tool?," Aviation Digest, January 1977.
• John B. Garver, Jr., and Ballard M. Barker, eds., Proceedings, Middle State Division, Association of
American Geographers, 1973-1975.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
• Program manager and seminar leader, annual Senior Management Development Program for the Civil
Aviation Administration of China, 2008 -present
• Instructor, OMA -ADP Senior Airport Management Development Seminar (Northern Mexico airports),
Monterrey, Mexico, September 2006.
• Instructor, Aeroports du Paris (ADP) Senior Airport Managers Development Program (French national
airport authority and international airport attendees), St. Tropez, France, November 2003.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (North African
airport administrators, Carthage, Tunisia, March 2002, Topic: International Airport Business
Environments ---Contracts and Risk Management.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (Tunisian and
Moroccan airport managers), Tunis, Tunisia, March 2001.
• Invited lecturer, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (Tunisian and
Moroccan airport managers), Tunis, Tunisia, March 2001.
• Instructor, Aeroports du Paris Senior Airport Managers Development Program (French and African
airport managers), Toulouse, France, 2000. Topic: International Airport Management Alternatives.
• Invited lecturer, aviation management and engineering program, Ecole Nationale de L'Aviation Civile,
Toulouse, France, March 9, 2000. Topic: Global Airport Management, Environments, and Patterns
• Lecturer and participant, Aeroports du Paris (ADP) Senior Management Development Program, Ecole
Nationale de L'Aviation Civile, Toulouse, France, 1999. Case study on foreign airport management
modes and privatization issues.
• Lecturer, airport management and engineering program, Ecole Nationale de L'Aviation Civile,
Toulouse, France, 1999.
• Consultant, on aviation educational credential and experience evaluation, Educational Assessment, Inc.
• Vice -President, Council on Aviation Accreditation, 1996-1998
• Trustee, Council on Aviation Accreditation, 1993-2001.
• Editor, Collegiate Aviation Review (refereed journal) , 1993-1996.
• Editorial Board and Reviewer, Collegiate Aviation Review, 1996 to 2011.
• Editorial Board, Journal of Air Transportation Worldwide, 1996 to 2008.
• President and officer, Mississippi Airports Association, 1987-89.
• Member, regular attendee, and frequent invited speaker on airport management, planning, and facility
development at professional meetings and conferences of the following organizations: University
Aviation Association, Council on Aviation Accreditation, American Association of Airport
Executives, and Florida Airport Managers Association.
Assignment:
Research U.S. Cities that are similar to the City of Cape Canaveral (area, population, coastal
element) to determine what economic development programs they have that the City of Cape
Canaveral doesn't have but could benefit from. Make recommendations based on research.
Provide written explanation of the programs and how/why the programs will benefit the City of
Cape Canaveral.
The City of Cape Canaveral currently has the following Economic Development programs:
• AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District,
• Business and Economic Development Board,
• Cape Canaveral Community Redevelopment Agency,
• Cape Canaveral Economic Enhancement District (Brownfield Area designation),
• AIA Economic Opportunity Overlay District,
• Foreclosed Property Registration Program, and an
• Ad -Valorem Tax Exemption Program
Current Program Objectives include:
• Developing Architectural Design Standards,
• Community Redevelopment Agency Grant Programs,
• Mixed Use Land Use and Zoning Districts,
• Development -friendly Sewer Impact Fee Revisions
JOHN A. PEKAR, P.E., LLC
Civil Engineering/Consulting
102 Columbia Drive
Suite 207
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
Office Phone! 321-613-2959
Coll Phone: 321-233-1040
joftnpekarpeCq_)gmai1.corn
`�4e?. Roni Flowe ioni 1] owe(q),grxiail. coin
Office Manager CeflPhoyie: 321-403-9899
HELIPORT PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
June 12, 2013
The City of Cape Canaveral's P&Z Board met at 7:00 p.m. on June 12, 2013. A large, standing
room only, public crowd attended.
Barry Brown reviewed the previous P&Z meeting on February 21, 2013 on this issue in which
the zoning use and land use plan was tabled for additional information.
Barry Brown then reviewed the May 14, 2013 test flights at the site to evaluate noise levels and
updated the client's latest project data.
Finally, Mr. Brown reviewed the P&Z checklist to be considered for any projects approval or
denial.
Mr. Brown noted that the Development Review Committee had recommended approval with the
following conditions:
• Hours of operation — Monday tl-n-u Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to dusk or 7:00 (whichever comes
first).
• Operation of business in conformance to submit plan.
• Connect to City of Cocoa Water and City of Cape Canaveral's sewer system in 12
months.
• All FAA & FDOT approvals.
• Monument signage.
Mark Grainger then presented his heliport plan and addressed many of the citizens concerns with
a powerpoint presentation. These concerns included; noise, safety, clear zones and fly routes.
The presentation was factual and included helicopter operations in Orlando.
Kim Razenka, an attorney for AJT, then spoke concerning her client's concerns over noise and
safety issues and recommended denial. This was followed by several citizens who opposed the
plan due to noise and safety issues, and the impact on the economy and environment.
It was interesting to note that Mark Grainger had several favorable comments from the City's
local businesses and citizens at Friday Nights festival.
Page 2
June 12, 2013
Helipad P&Z Mtg.
Project #13-0006
The first P&Z motion to recommend approval to the City Council (with stated conditions) ended
in a tie vote.
A second P&Z motion (which deferred action on the project to the City Council) was voted on
by the P&Z Board and passed.
The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Sincerely,
John A. Pekar, P.E.
JAP:rrnf
Susan Chapman
From: Barry Brown
Sent Monday, June I7'2OI3II:09AM
To: Kim Rezanka;Susan Chapman; Angela Apperson;Kim McIntire; Mia Goforth
Cc: Kate Latorve; Mark Grainger (mark@f|oridabip|anes.com)
Subject: RE: Proposed Helicopter Tour Business Comments Received from Citizens and
Business Owners
Kim,
We have not yet received a copy from Mr. Grainger, but will forward a copy as soon as it is available. Itismy
understanding that heisout oftown this week.
Barry Brown
Planning and Zoning Director
City mfCape Canaveral, FL
321868-2206
From: Kim RezankaFnlaiko:KRezanka@deanmeod.00ml
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:01 AM
To: Susan Chapman; Angela Aop8rson; Kim McIntire; Mia Goforth
Cc: Barry Brown; KateLatorne
Subject: RE: Proposed Helicopter Tour Business Comments Received from Citizens and Business Owners
Can you tell rne if you the City has the power point (fMork Grainger? IFnot, Iwill gotohim
directly to get it.
Thank you,
Kim Rezanka
Kimberly Bonder Rezanka
Dean Mead
8240 Devereux Drive, Suite 100
Viera, Florida 32940
321-259-8900 - Fax 321-254-4479
Orlando I Fort Pierce I Viera I Gainesville
a� I,LE - G ' ED "' INFORMATION DISCLAIMER: -1 his email is intended solely for the use of the individual to \vlhorn it is addressed and n')ay contain information that is
pfivileged, confocntial or o1herwiso excn,# from disclosure r.inder appljcablclaw. If the reader of this ernr,"itl is not the intemded rccipicnt orlhe omployocoi agent
iesponsible for dolivering the mcssage to the inicridcd recipiont. you ale hemby r1c.,)[iliod that any dissorninaflon, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly piohibiled. If you have reccived this cornmrmic�,"�flon in (.,,fror pleaso deleto this emnil, destroy arry hard copics 1hcroof, and nofify us irnmodiate�y by
teiephone. I hank you.
Rl::.GUI-.AIORY DISCLAI l As required by L)nitcd 1,,iatcs Tmrisuiy Regulstions, please, be awarc that [his cornmunication is /olmk.,ndedmwmen bymc
sender o==used, and .w,.m'oeused, ovany recipient m,mspu�^wmn/*vnmmw[hat recipient under United State's
�eoem|Tux|ops.o,(z)pmm�ino.mamso^go,�oommonu/nomanumerpanxany plan u/ana^oemamauuremeuxomin.
Think Green.! Please consider our envizOoozentbefOr� this e-mail.
�
From: Kim R8zanka
Sent: Thursday, June 13,ZO132:5SPM
Susan Chapman
From:
Barry Brown
Sent:
Friday, June 14, 2013 2:36 PM
To:
Mark Grainger (mark@floridabiplanes.com)
Cc:
Susan Chapman
Subject:
Items for Public Hearing Record
Mark,
Please provide, as part of the Public Hearing Record, the following items that were displayed or referred to at the P&Z
Meeting on Wednesday night:
1. PowerPoint presentation.
2. AJT tenant statements supporting the request.
3. Petition from Friday Fest.
Thanks,
Barry Brown
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will
be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want
your email address released in response to a public -records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing.
Susan Chaeman
From: Barry Brown
Sent Friday, June 14,JOl39:3IAM
To: David Greene; Todd Morley; Angela Apperazn;Susan Chapman
Subject: FW: P&ZBoard Member action
----- Original Message ---
From: [
Sent: Friday, June 14,2O138:29AK4
To: Barry Brown
Subject: P&Z Board Member action
Barry,
This isacopy ofmyemail sent tVCouncil members.
Lamar
Dear Council Members,
During the June 12 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, Donald Dunn left the meeting before it was over. It left us
without a full vote at the end. As you now know, the vote failed because it was a tie. The board was unable to do what it
was appointed to do. There was no need for this to happen. Mr. Dunn declared that he had to leave in order to rest for
an early work time the next day. Mr. Dunn has refused the notion of starting the meetings earlier because it would
interfere with his dinner. These behaviors indicate that he is inflexible and unwilling to do what it takes to perform the
duties of his appointment. When he took the job he knew that meetings occasionally run late. We all suffer the same.
The remainder ofthe board stayed and performed its duty. Mr. Dunn'saction was breach offaith and dereliction of
duty. The citizens trust us to perform their business. Is Mr. Dunn's action the type of behavior that is valued by the
Council?
Mr. Dunn should be asked to resign, or action should be taken to relieve him of his appointment.
Lamar Russell
Chairman, Planning and Zoning Board
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of
Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless
otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response toa public -records request, do not send electronic email 1Vthis entity. Instead, contact our office
byphone orinwriting.