Jan 25, 2011.
Comments sent to the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commissioners
I am opposed to the CUP for the private Eden Heliport in its current form.
I have had first hand experiences with helicopter safety issues, noise issues, and business issues here in Ogden Valley; and I would like to comment on these three concerns. Please consider the following:
Item #1: Safety Concerns
The Weber County staff report indicates that safety issues remained a concern at the end of the discussion of this CUP last February. The applicants have addressed the safety problems of the fuel truck, but I have a sincere concern about the safety of the location of the landing zone itself.
In 1993, during a flight very similar to those planned in the current CUP, the crash of a Diamond Peaks helicopter near Powder Mountain killed
********************************************************************************
4 people. The pilot was a decorated veteran with extensive experience, and the weather was favorable. (I was the Medical Director of the Weber County Sheriff’s Mountain Rescue group and involved with the rescue attempts.) The US Army rescue helicopter pilot and the FAA examiners told us that there are always risks to helicopter flights in mountain areas, and that to minimize future risks we should maximize the margins for safety, especially with regard to landing zones.
The current staff report states that a county road is only 30 feet away from the proposed landing zone; and the LZ is, of course, very near a hotel and a relatively crowded business area. I think we can be wiser in looking at other areas for this use—e.g. the previously discussed, but apparently not acceptable to the applicants, areas at Powder Mountain.
The staff report said that the FAA needs to complete a “Notice of Landing Area Proposal” to certify the safety of the LZ. Will we wait for the important FAA documentation of “Notice of Landing Area Proposal” to be finished, or will we run the risk to proceed to grant this CUP even before this certification is done?
Item #2: Noise Issues.
Noise is a very important issue. It will be a key issue in the Ogden Valley in the future, and it will not go away as it will affect the residents of the valley every day the heliport is in use. In the staff report, the applicants state the noise will be present “only a few hours a day.” I would submit that 14 takeoffs and landings will create a noise issue that will be a significant problem for many dozens of households and literally hundreds of Ogden Valley residents.
The very processes of zoning and planning are designed to help to balance the good of the community vs the rights of private property owners. . The number of customers for this service will be at a maximum 100 / month. For the benefit of these customers and for the profit of the applicants, many hundreds of Ogden Valley residents, business owners, and visitors will pay the price and will be very negatively affected by the disruptive and intrusive noises every day that the flights take place.
Once the CUP is granted, the county has no authority to regulate the operation of the heliport. There are no state or county noise ordinances. We have just completed over two years of work (involving hundreds of hours of citizen time and frustration and many dozens of hours of county staff time and efforts) to try to mitigate the loud and unexpected industrial fan noises from Wolf Creek. It is very difficult to control noise levels from helicopter flights, and I am sure it will be very time and energy consuming for Weber County staff members in the future as they try to deal with resident complaints when residents perceive that the agreed upon levels are exceeded.
Why not head off these obvious difficulties and use the available Powder Mountain site?
If the CUP must be granted, can it be granted temporarily for only one year?
If the CUP must be granted, can it be granted for a MAXIMUM of 4-5 days a month and a MAXIMUM of 7 round trip flights a day? That way the residents would at least know how much and how long the noises would continue each day.
Will the county authorize enforcement of compliance?
Item #3: Business Planning Issues
The first requirement for an applicant for a CUP is “to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the community.”
Additional conditions for the issuing of a CUP state that the use must not be detrimental to the safety and general welfare of the surrounding community and that it should be complementary to existing uses.
I have heard that this heliport will be good for Ogden Valley businesses—that it will “create jobs”. Having helped establish a small business in the Ogden Valley, I do not think that is accurate.
Several years ago, I was part of a physician group that planned and set up a physician’s office (for Dr. Michael Housley) in the business center in Eden. The proposed heliport is about 200 yards from that building. Had there been a heliport (instead of the existing basketball court) in the proposed location, we would definitely have looked elsewhere to locate.
I don’t believe a heliport in the “back-yard” is a good way to promote the development of businesses into the designated commercial area of Eden. Nor do I think this CUP meets the necessary criteria of contributing to the general well being of the community.
Hopefully not a Futile Attempt
Close friends and Ogden Valley residents have told me that an effort to write this or present these ideas to the commissioners is futile. I hope not.
I think that the heliport CUP has the potential to be very divisive and to pit residents of Ogden Valley against Ogden Valley business. It will be unfortunate if a CUP is granted that so badly affects so many people that those people hope that business will fail. How much better if we could re-locate the LZ—again, what did the applicants do about the suggestion of the Planning Commission last year about locating once again at Powder Mountain? Then the Ogden Valley residents, many of whom would actually be potential customers for heli-skiing, could actually help support and promote that business were it properly sited.
It is very feasible to reject this request for a CUP. Twice recently (once for a used car lot in the old post office site, and second for a gravel quarry) the Planning Commission has turned down CUP requests.
I hope that the very reasons we have zoning could prevail—to balance the rights of private property owners and the greater good of the community.
Lee Schussman
Eden
