Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rebuts Town of Middleton 'recreational airport' label and questions noise-study methods
Summary
Middleton commissioners disputed a Town of Middleton cover letter that called the airport a 'recreational airport,' raised safety concerns about a proposed right‑hand traffic pattern, and criticized the town-commissioned noise study’s sampling and methodology.
Commissioners on March 6 strongly criticized language in a letter from the Town of Middleton’s chairwoman and questioned the methods and conclusions of a town‑commissioned noise study.
"Words matter," Commissioner David Schwartz said, calling the town chairwoman’s repeated description of the airport as a "recreational airport" false and misleading. Schwartz and other commissioners argued that the Federal Aviation Administration authorizes and oversees airport operations and that the term has no standing with FAA or state aviation authorities.
Commissioner Jack (surname not specified in the transcript) and others examined the study’s underlying data, arguing it did not support the alarm in the cover letter. Jack noted the study recorded only a small number of high‑decibel events ("There were only 4 events that were greater than 80 decibels") and that many detected events were attributable to transient aircraft or non‑aircraft noise. He said the report’s own text indicates pilots generally follow the airport’s voluntary noise‑abatement procedures.
Staff and commissioners warned that operational changes such as adopting a right‑hand traffic pattern on Runway 28 could create safety conflicts. The airport manager and operations staff explained that FAA guidance and the Airport Noise Capacity Act limit local authority over noise policy and that turbine aircraft and instrument approaches introduce further constraints. "The FAA and the state... look at right hand traffic patterns as a means to mitigate a dangerous situation, not for noise abatement," an operations speaker said.
Commissioners discussed communication options to respond to the town’s letter, including preparing a concise synopsis of the commission’s review for the recipients of the original cover letter and updating the airport FAQ on the city website. David Schwartz suggested producing a short factual outline or summary of the commission’s discussion to share with those who received the town letter.
What’s next: Commissioners did not adopt any operational change; they expressed support for maintaining current procedures and for using authoritative FAA studies (Part 150/master plan) when considering noise policy changes.
