Public Involvement
Voting Procedure and Viewpoints
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011 Effective Date
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Incorporating Viewpoints of Those Benefited. At a minimum, the viewpoints of the benefited property owners and residents (as to whether they support or oppose the measure) will be a consideration by ALDOT in determining the reasonableness of noise abatement measures. When ALDOT has determined the barrier is otherwise reasonable for the project based on the other requirements of reasonableness, ALDOT will meet the benefited property owners and residents and present information as available for the design of the proposed barrier. ALDOT will then solicit the views and opinions of the benefited property owners and residents. A 70% majority will constitute a majority viewpoint (as to whether an option is desired or not).
Date of Noise Policy: April, 2011 Submittal to FHWA
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Views of the property owners and residents (federal mandatory criterion) that benefit from noise abatement measures. To determine the desires of benefited households and property owners, DOT&PF will contact all benefited households and property owners to determine the level of interest for a noise abatement measure. This contact could be in the form of a mail out questionnaire, phone call survey, or door to door interviews whichever is most practical and cost effective for the size of the proposed project. At least 60 percent of households and property owners surveyed* must want the noise abatement measure. The term "household" is used instead of residents because a single dwelling unit could have more or less inhabitants than another. The idea is not to give a dwelling unit with multiple inhabitants more consideration than one with fewer inhabitants. Also, property owners are also included as the dwelling units might be rentals. The property owner should have a say in whether noise abatement is provided to their property.
LANGUAGE IN FEASIBILITY/REASONABLENESS WORKSHEET
Views of Benefited Residents and Property Owners. Do at least 60 percent of the impacted residents and property owners surveyed desire noise abatement?
*Clarifying email from T. Horne, 9-8-15: "DOT&PF considers the policy to require 60 percent of respondents."
Date of Noise Policy: ADOT NAP Rev 2011-07-13
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints or Preferences of Property Owners and Residents. The preferences of the property owners and residents of the benefited receptors of a noise barrier will be taken into account when determining whether the barrier is considered reasonable. Noise barriers that are otherwise feasible and reasonable will automatically be considered to be desired unless the public involvement aspect of the NEPA process indicates that a substantial portion of benefited receptors are opposed to the barriers. In that case, ADOT will make a good faith effort to determine the preferences of the property owners and/or legal occupants of each benefited receptor location through a survey process. If less than a 50% response rate of property owner and residents is achieved and a substantial portion of the received responses are opposed to the recommended abatement measures, then further outreach will be attempted through the use of public meetings until either a 50% response rate is achieved or it becomes apparent that such a level of response is not possible due to situational concerns. ADOT will make a decision as to the reasonableness of the recommended mitigation based on the results of this process.
Date of Noise Policy: Date of Issuance: April 15, 2011; Effective Date: June 5, 2013
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Three reasonableness factors must all be met, at a minimum, for a noise abatement measure to be considered reasonable.
1) Viewpoints of the property owners and residents of the benefited receptors, where the majority of benefited residents want a noise abatement measure. The input of the benefited property owners and residents will generally be received at planning, NEPA or design public hearings or public meetings. Input received at these hearings or meetings may be supplemented, as necessary, with formal survey methods on a case-by-case basis. At least 51% of the benefited property owners and residents must support the construction of the noise barrier in making a determination as to whether the community desires a noise barrier.
[Follow-up with B. Price of AHTD, 4/17/2015:
Date of Noise Policy: May 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of Benefited Receptors. To evaluate the viewpoints of benefited receptors, letters are sent by registered mail to all property owners and non-owner occupants of benefited receptors asking them to provide a position either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed noise abatement by a specified deadline.
If more than 50% of the votes from responding benefited receptors oppose the abatement, the abatement will not be considered reasonable. Votes from property owners and non-owner occupants of benefited receptors will be surveyed. For owner-occupied dwelling units, the property owner gets one vote. For non-owner-occupied dwelling units, the renter gets 10% of one vote and the owner gets 90% of one vote.
Polling of benefited receptors should be completed prior to circulation of the draft environmental document. The results of the polling and the final reasonableness determination must be included in the CE, FONSI, or ROD.
Reasonableness. The noise abatement recommendation is subject to revision after public and environmental review of the project. As part of this, the viewpoints of benefited receptors must be evaluated and documented. To do this, letters are sent via registered mail to all property owners and non-owner occupants of benefited receptors asking them to provide a position either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed noise abatement by a specified deadline.
If more than 50% of the votes from responding benefited receptors oppose the abatement, the abatement will not be considered reasonable. Votes from property owners and non-owner occupants of benefited receptors will be surveyed. For owner-occupied dwelling units, the property owner gets one vote. For non-owner-occupied dwelling units, the renter gets 10% of one vote and the owner gets 90% of one vote.
For noise abatement to be located on private property, 100% of owners of property upon which the abatement is to be placed must support the proposed abatement. In the case of proposed noise abatement on private property, no response from a property owner, after a reasonable number of attempts, is considered a no vote.
The results of the polling and the final reasonableness determination must be included in the CE.
Date of Noise Policy: January 15, 2015
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Benefited Receptor Preference Survey
Once final design of the project and the re-evaluated abatement analyses are completed, a public involvement process shall be utilized to solicit the views of current residential occupants' and property owners' on whether to build noise abatement or not. This final design public involvement process shall be devised by CDOT Construction or Project Management and the CDOT noise specialist responsible for the re-evaluation analyses of the final abatement design. At a minimum, one attempt to contact each identified benefited receptor site (both property owner and resident, see Appendix A [of the CDOT policy, not included in this report]) must be made and documented - utilizing the US Postal Service or commercial mailing services, door-to-door contact, or other defensible, targeted means. Written and spoken communications will be in English and in the dominant secondary language of the community, if applicable. The benefited receptor preference survey process must be thoroughly documented and attached to the Form 1209 for that abatement measure. A vote of equal standing will be provided one resident and one owner per benefited dwelling unit as described above.
The noise barrier preference survey is normally based on residential areas; however, mitigation for commercial and special-use areas would be based on a survey of the business operators and property management/owners and/or the officials with jurisdiction.
Whichever preference option (for or against the abatement action) that receives the most votes will become the stated preference of the affected persons and determine whether or not the abatement measure is built. An example of a preference survey is included in Appendix D [of the CDOT policy, not included in this report]. If the preference survey results in a tie vote, it is understood that no majority has been reached, and therefore, no abatement action would be built.
Survey Results Example
As an example of the voting process, suppose an Environmental Assessment recommends sound walls at 2 different locations within the project area. The noise specialist identified 60 dwelling units benefited from Noise Wall #1 and 25 benefited dwelling units from Noise Wall #2. A Benefited Receptor Preference Survey was conducted after the final design noise analytical evaluation was completed. The survey resulted in 35 votes (25 affirmative, 10 negative) from benefited owners/residents received for Noise Wall #1 and only 5 affirmative and 11 negative votes received for Noise Wall #2.
The decisions would be as follows:
These decisions would be documented and attached to the appropriate CDOT Form 1209 in the project file and NEPA administrative archive.
Date of Noise Policy: July 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of the benefited property owners and residents shall be solicited. For the abatement to be considered, two-thirds of the solicited viewpoints must be in favor of the noise abatement.
Date of Noise Policy: July 5, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
1. Viewpoints of Property Owners and Residents
One of the factors that must be considered is the viewpoints of the property owners and residents that are either impacted or non-impacted "benefited receptors" (those receptors that will receive a reduction of at least 9 dB(A)) of the proposed noise barrier. The viewpoints of the "benefitted receptors" are quite important as many may find the placement of the noise barrier as being more detrimental to their property than the noise impacts themselves. In soliciting receptor opinions regarding the placement of noise barriers, DelDOT will attempt to describe the nature and extent of the barrier, in order that the individuals may best visualize how the barrier will appear to them, once constructed. Depending on the individual circumstance, DelDOT may also include an option for consideration of a vegetation/privacy fence placement, as opposed to a noise barrier.
In soliciting the viewpoints of identified "benefitted receptors", DelDOT will attempt to contact the owners (and residents, if separate) of each of the properties by mail. The mail package will contain information to allow the owner/resident to be able to develop an informed viewpoint regarding the potential construction of the noise barrier. The mail package will also request a response regarding the desirability of having the noise barrier constructed. A similar package will be delivered to any appropriate local government official and to any appropriate community group. The package will provide contact information for DelDOT representatives who can discuss noise barrier issues.
In order to assure that the viewpoints of the "benefitted receptors" are considered, DelDOT will compute the total number of owners and residents in the "benefitted receptor" category, and will not make a decision on reasonableness unless at least 60 (sixty) percent of the total have replied in some manner. In considering the receptor viewpoint, only an explicit "no" to noise barrier construction will be considered as opposing the construction of a noise barrier. If more than 50 (fifty) percent of the total number of responding "benefitting receptors" oppose the construction of the noise barrier, then construction of the barrier will not be considered reasonable. If a reply rate of 60 (sixty) percent is not initially achieved, an additional round of public involvement will be implemented.
The views and opinions of groups and individuals other than "benefitted receptors" will be documented as to opinions on noise barrier construction; however, such opinions will not have an effect on the determination of reasonableness within this policy.
Date of Noise Policy: April 5, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of the benefited receptors:
The FHWA highway traffic noise regulation requires DDOT to consider the viewpoints of the benefited receptors in determining the reasonableness of noise abatement. A final survey and determination shall occur after the approved final design noise analysis; however, comments will be considered throughout the entire design process. DDOT shall solicit the viewpoints of all benefited receptors through certified mailings and obtain enough responses to document a decision as to whether or not there is a desire for the proposed noise abatement measure. Fifty percent (50%) or more of the respondents shall be required to favor the noise abatement measure in determining reasonableness.
Date of Noise Policy: April 5, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
17-6.2.1 Viewpoint of the Benefited Receptors
Prior to the PD&E phase, the public will have an opportunity to raise concerns about traffic noise impacts through the Efficient Transportation Decision-Making (ETDM) process. During the PD&E phase of the project, the viewpoints of potentially benefited receptors will be gathered during workshops, via the website established for the project (if one is used), and the Public Hearing for the project. A more detailed process to obtain the viewpoint of the benefited receptors is invoked during the design phase of the project. Each F.
During the design phase of the project, the FDOT will use either a noise abatement workshop and/or a public survey to determine the wishes of the benefited receptors. The survey effort may include a mailing of information related to the abatement measure along with a survey form to be signed and returned to the FDOT. It is the desire of the FDOT to obtain a response for or against the noise barrier from a majority of the benefited receptors (owners and residents) that respond to the survey. Multiple techniques to solicit input may be used, including multiple mailings, door-to-door follow up, and even telephone solicitation (as needed) to provide adequate information to allow the FDOT to make an informed decision on whether abatement is desired or not.* If a majority of the benefited residents and property owners responding to the survey do not favor construction of a noise barrier, the FDOT will not provide the noise barrier. It is important to note that the viewpoints of the property owner will be considered as having the greatest weight in the decision as to whether the FDOT will provide noise abatement or not. While the viewpoint of the non-owner resident will be considered, their viewpoint will carry less weight, consistent with the formula shown in below:
Property Type |
Owner Occupied Weighting Factor |
Owner (non-occupied Weighting Factor |
Renter Occupied Weighting Factor |
|---|---|---|---|
Single Family |
100% |
90% |
10% |
Multi-family (duplex, apartments) |
100% |
90% |
10% |
Condominium |
100% |
90% |
10% |
Mobile Home Park (single owner) |
NA |
80% |
20% |
Offices, Businesses |
100% |
80% |
20% |
For example, if a renter of a single family home wishes to have noise abatement but the owner does not, the opinion of the home owner would prevail. If the owner of the home did not respond for or against the noise abatement measure, then the renter's opinion would be used to be the equivalent of 10% of the vote of a home owner. This means that 10 renters in favor of the noise abatement would equal the vote of 1 owner occupied home.
17-7.2 Community Coordination in Final Design
When noise abatement is anticipated in the final design phase, community coordination will include a survey of benefited property owners and residents to determine their viewpoints regarding abatement. This can be done using any number or combination of techniques (e.g., door-to-door contact, telephone polls, mailed survey form, public workshop, etc.).
The viewpoint of the impacted and benefited receptors related to abatement should be analyzed in the decision-making process. Discussions at public meetings may also include a presentation of material options, physical dimensions, obtainable levels of reduction, and cost factors so the public can aid the FDOT in making a reasonable decision.
In the event that some benefited property owners or residents' desire noise abatement and others do not, further assessment may be necessary in order to determine what impact, if any, this will have on the feasibility and reasonable cost issues as well as the social consequences. Consultation with FHWA (if appropriate) is recommended. When noise abatement measures are being developed during final design, such measures will not be approved without documentation (letters in the file, public hearing transcripts, survey results, etc.) that the benefited property owners or residents have been provided the opportunity to provide input into the final design. The benefited property owners or residents consist of those individuals directly affected by the project-related noise as well the abatement measure.
When noise barriers are proposed, primary emphasis is to be given to the input of the benefited property owners immediately adjacent to the noise barrier(s). If the majority of those responding to the survey do not favor abatement, the FDOT will not provide the proposed abatement measure.
* Clarified in email from M. Berrios, 4-20-15: FDOT does not have any guidance on what size of a response rate is needed from all benefited receptors for the survey to be valid. FDOT usually keeps trying until it seems that it is getting as many responses as possible.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
1. Property Owners and Residents: The decision to provide abatement will be made in collaboration with the property owner and tenants of a benefited receptor. The outreach strategy will be customized for maximum effectiveness on each project. The minimum outreach method shall be a certified letter survey provided to both property owners and tenants whose facility or home is identified as a benefited receptor. A noise barrier will only be constructed if at a minimum 50% plus one of the respondents vote in favor of noise abatement. Both property owners and dwellers get a vote and their vote must be returned within 30 days to receive consideration. Property owners will receive one vote per unit owned and an additional vote if they reside in the unit, and tenants will receive one vote for the benefited unit they occupy. For some projects, individual meetings, community meetings or other outreach efforts may also be utilized to determine a majority consensus.
The final noise abatement measures cannot be determined until the design plans have sufficiently progressed to a point where the barrier analysis can be conducted; after which, the outreach above can be completed. GDOT will strive for a decision on abatement as soon as possible after this information is available, but no later than the final environmental document that is required for construction authorization.
Date of Noise Policy: April 25, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
(i) Consideration of the viewpoints of the property owners and residents of the benefited receptors. The HDOT shall solicit the viewpoints of all of the benefited receptors and obtain enough responses to document a decision on either desiring or not desiring the noise abatement measure. A noise abatement measure shall be constructed or implemented only if at least two thirds of the land owners and residents of impacted receptor units approve of the measure. This percentage will be determined from the responses received from a mail-back or telephone questionnaire survey. The survey results to determine approval or disapproval shall be deemed reliable if at least one quarter of the deployed surveys were completed.
Date of Noise Policy: May 4, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Clarification from M. Fikel, 8/25/15:
Re single family residential: "We poll all (renters and owners) and are looking for a majority vote…The non-resident owner gets one vote and the renter gets 1 vote. An owner-occupant gets only 1 vote."
For multi-unit land uses like apartments or mobile home parks, "the renters have to show 75 percent majority, otherwise it defaults to the owner's vote." "We need to receive a 75% response (yes or no) of all the benefited receptors (not just 75 percent of the number of responses we receive). However…it's not so easy to get a response from tenants (for whatever reason)...If we have 100 units and the tenants are at 70 no's then, by default the decision lies with the landowner. In the past, we've conducted meetings for tenants, send out post cards (a follow-up mailing for those that have not responded), and if necessary follow-up phone calls. We show that a good-faith effort is being made to elicit comments from tenants." "Some renters are not so mobile. For example, mobile home parks. These residents are not truly mobile, long term, and own their unit. We were trying to give all an equal opportunity but recognizing the owner vote carries more weight."
Date of Noise Policy: Assumed to be July 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
C. Benefited Receptor Viewpoints. The third component of reasonableness is obtaining the viewpoints of benefited receptors.
The viewpoints of benefited receptors shall be solicited for noise abatement measures (e.g., noise barriers) determined to be feasible, cost-effective and achieving the noise reduction design goal. The viewpoints of benefited receptors shall be solicited to determine the desire for implementation of the noise abatement measure. A benefited receptor includes property owners (including non-residential properties) and renters/leasers residing on the benefited property.
The goal is to obtain responses from at least one-third of the benefited receptors for each noise abatement measure (i.e., for each noise barrier being considered). If responses from one-third of the benefited receptors are not received after the first attempt, a second attempt shall be made. The desire for the proposed noise abatement can be determined after viewpoints from at least one-third of the responses have been received or after two attempts have been made to obtain the responses.
Once the responses have been collected, the viewpoints must be tallied. In order for a proposed noise abatement measure to be implemented, greater than 50% of the benefited receptors responding must be in favor of the proposed abatement measures. Viewpoints will be tallied for each individual abatement measure (i.e. for each noise barrier being considered). A response from first row benefited receptors (receptors sharing a property line with the highway right-of-way) will be counted and weighted as two responses. Benefited receptors not in the first row will count as one vote. In the case of rental properties, the tenant shall count as one response and the owner shall count as one response per benefited unit.* See the IDOT Highway Traffic Noise Assessment Manual for further guidance and an example viewpoint evaluation. [See below from Manual.]
The proposed abatement measures will be presented as likely to be implemented (provided they are deemed feasible and reasonable for noise reduction and cost-effectiveness) as part of the public involvement process. Below is a letter template that Districts may use as the first attempt to obtain the viewpoints from benefited receptors. [See the Policy for the template letter.]
During the NEPA environmental studies, likely abatement measures should be discussed at public meetings and hearings. Information to be presented shall include the preliminary form of barrier, location, height, length, cost, and predicted noise reduction. Published notices advertising these meetings will identify that noise abatement measures are being investigated for potential installation and that the viewpoints of benefited receptors will be solicited as a part of the proposed project. Further details concerning the proposed noise barrier may be made available for review and comment during final design.
ADDITIONAL VIEWPOINT LANGUAGE WITHIN IDOT'S HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ASSESSMENT MANUAL (JUNE 2011):
The following is an example of the process. A more detailed example is provided in Appendix C [of the IDOT manual, not included in this report]
As an example, there were 10 benefited receptors used in the cost-effective evaluation example. The goal would be to obtain responses from at least 4 benefited receptors (10 x 33% = 3.3 rounded to 4). Of those four (4) responses received, three (3) of the responses would need to be in favor of the proposed noise abatement measure in order for it to be considered for implementation on the project. If two (2) were in favor of the noise abatement and 2 were opposed, the noise abatement measure would not be recommended for implementation as there was no majority in favor of the noise abatement measure.
This assumes that all responses were received from the same row where each vote was weighted equally. Using the same example, assume there were five (5) responses received, with two (2) from the front row (shared property line with the ROW) and three (3) from the second row. If the two (2) front row receptors were opposed to the wall and the three second row receptors were in favor of the wall, the noise wall would not be implemented as the two first row votes each carry the weight of two "no" votes (for a total of 4 "no" votes) and the three second row "yes" votes only count as three "yes" votes. The majority vote is therefore carried by the 4 "no" votes.
The noise abatement evaluation for impacted Activity Category D land use facilities based on the interior NAC should first be evaluated using noise barriers. Noise insulation will only be considered for Activity Category D if noise barriers are determined to be not feasible or not reasonable and there is a noise impact based on an interior evaluation. If the only reason the noise barrier is not considered reasonable is due to the outcome of the solicitation of benefited receptor viewpoints, the consideration of noise insulation should be discussed with the IDOT Noise Specialist and FHWA.
As an example, if a noise barrier is determined to be feasible, and achieves the reasonableness criteria of the noise reduction design goal and the cost-effective evaluation, the desire of the benefited receptors will be solicited. If the overall viewpoint indicates a desire for the noise barrier, the noise barrier will be recommended for implementation. However, if the receptor viewpoints indicate an overall lack of desire for the noise barrier, sound insulation will only be considered as a possible noise abatement measure on a case-by-case basis. Noise insulation measures should be discussed with IDOT and FHWA during project development or at coordination meetings.
* Clarified in email from K. Runkle, 4/17/15 that a rental property would receive twice as many votes as an owner-occupied unit.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Consideration and Obtaining Views of Residents and Property Owners
All communication with the public regarding the potential for noise abatement must be coordinated with INDOT's Office of Communication. If a public hearing is required per the INDOT Public Involvement Manual, the following steps will be taken:
A survey will be mailed to each benefited resident. If the property owner is different from the current resident, both the resident and the property owners are surveyed. The concerns and opinions of the property owner and the unit occupants will be balanced with other considerations in determining whether a barrier is appropriate for a given location.
This survey will include a pre-stamped, self-addressed return postcard, a brief project description of the project and barrier locations under consideration. It will also include a pamphlet on the basics of traffic noise. The decision making process (described below) and pertinent information on the upcoming public hearing will be provided. The survey can be returned via mail or returned in person at the public hearing. All responses expressing opinions for or against barriers must be expressed in writing to INDOT, by letter, email or the response postcard. Extra surveys will be available at the hearing if any are lost or misplaced.
If a public hearing is not required per the INDOT Public Involvement Manual, a survey will be mailed as described above. It will include a set deadline for return of the survey. If the total respondents to the survey do not total a majority (more than 50%) of the benefited receptors and affected property owners, then a second survey will be mailed out to solicit the views of those who did not respond. If a majority of benefited receptors still do not respond, no third survey is required.*
Consideration of noise barriers can cause conflicts in mixed-use developments, as barriers to protect residences may block line of sight to adjacent businesses. If a barrier is proposed directly adjacent to the property line of a business, the business will be solicited for input to determine whether they have any concerns about line of sight. If a mutually satisfactory compromise cannot be reached between business(es) and residences, barriers may be terminated at the property line dividing the two areas. These conflicts can be minimized by noise-compatible planning (see coordination with local government officials).
The viewpoints of the benefited residents and property owners are a major consideration in determining the reasonableness of highway traffic noise abatement measures for proposed highway construction projects. These viewpoints have been determined and addressed during the environmental phase of project development. The will and desires of the public are an important factor in dealing with the overall problems of highway traffic noise. INDOT will incorporate highway traffic noise consideration in on-going activities for public involvement in the highway program, i.e., and will reexamine the residents' and property owners' views on the desirability and acceptability of abatement during project development.
*Clarified in email from R. Bales, 4/21/15, that a majority of respondents need to be in favor. If INDOT do not get a 50% response rate, then it is a project management decision. For example if 48% responded to the survey and of the 48% a large majority was in favor of the barrier, INDOT may continue outreach to secure the number, i.e. contact property owners by phone or visit to home.
Date of Noise Policy: Assumed July 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
The opinions of the property owners and residents of all benefited receptors as determined by application of Iowa DOT's public involvement policy (PPM 510.02 - Project Development Public Involvement Plan). The Department will solicit the viewpoints of all benefited receptors and will work to obtain as many responses from property owners and residents as is practicable.
A clear majority (more than half) of responses from benefited receptors or property owners will be needed to indicate the public's desiring or not desiring noise abatement measures.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Public Approval
The presence of a noise barrier may present certain concerns such as excessive shading, constricting air-flow, safety risks for exterior activities, and creating a tunnel-like environment for benefited receptors. Therefore, in order to move forward with construction of a noise barrier, viewpoints are solicited in the form of ballots. One ballot is assigned to each property with the following weighted points.
Non-responding benefited receptors are not counted. Support for or opposition of a noise barrier is based from responses received even if responses are low. A noise barrier shall be permitted when 70% or more of the points indicate approval of the barrier.
[Follow-up with M. Fletcher of KDOT, 4/17/2015: Rental property receives 2 points, owner-occupant property receives 2 points.]
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Desires of Benefitted Receptors: The views of the benefitted receptors and property owners will be considered in determining the reasonableness of noise barriers. Input from the benefitted receptors and property owners shall be gathered as outlined in this section. When the majority of benefitted receptors and property owners, engaged through the public involvement process, are opposed to construction of a noise barrier, KYTC will give great deference to these opinions in making a final determination regarding the reasonableness of the measure regardless of whether the proposal satisfies all other criteria for consideration. Similarly, where the majority of the benefitted receptors and property owners involved in the public involvement process are in support of noise barrier construction, and the proposal satisfies all other criteria for consideration outlined in this policy, KYTC shall incorporate the abatement measures into the project. It should be noted that if the benefitted receptors reject a noise barrier and then later change their opinion, the project would be considered a Type II project by FHWA. Since KYTC does not have a Type II program, noise abatement would only be considered as described in the Traffic Noise Abatement Considerations for State Funded Retrofit Projects section of this policy.
The public and local officials will be advised through the NEPA public involvement process if traffic noise impacts are expected to occur. A Noise Abatement Public Meeting will be held with benefitted receptors at each location where noise barriers were identified in the final environmental document as feasible, cost effective, and "likely to be constructed." Benefitted receptors shall be identified and notified of the meeting and their opportunity for input into the determination for inclusion of noise mitigation measures into the project. This public meeting will include:
Ballots shall be made available at the public meeting for completion by benefitted owners and/or benefitted residents who may attend. Benefitted receptors who do not provide ballot input at the meeting shall be surveyed to determine their preference. Properties with special use such as churches, schools, playgrounds etc. shall be weighted in a manner similar to that described under the Cost Effectiveness paragraphs of this section. The voting member shall be identified as the leader or head of the organization such as the school superintendent, park superintendent, etc. For each such property, both a resident and owner ballot shall be solicited, weighted to account for equivalent residences and, if appropriate, further weighted in accordance with the respect to paragraph 5 of this section.
All benefited residents and property owners shall have a period of thirty (30) days following the Noise Abatement Public Meeting to cast their votes. Barrier walls shall include access doors and/or provisions for fire hydrant hookups spaced as specified after meeting with local fire officials to discuss site specific needs. Barrier walls will only be constructed when a simple majority of affirmative ballots, after appropriate weighting, indicate a preference for the abatement.
NOTE: The KYTC Traffic Noise Abatement Calculation Guide provides examples of the tabulation of ballots for several scenarios.
Date of Noise Policy: July 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
(a) Consideration of Viewpoints: As part of the NEPA public involvement process, viewpoints from the community, including benefited receptors, will be solicited for all aspects of the project, including noise impacts and abatement. Public Involvement will be tailored to the project. If no relevant objections to the proposed noise abatement are made at this level of public involvement, this criterion is deemed met and abatement considered reasonable from the viewpoint of benefited receptors. If relevant objections are identified, a follow-up solicitation will occur with property owners and residents of the benefited receptors. The abatement measure will be considered reasonable from the viewpoint of benefitting receptors if 50% or more of the responses received are positive. Follow-up coordination with benefited receptors may occur during the design stage when more detail information is available regarding barrier design.
Follow-up Coordination with Benefited Receptors during Final Design
For noise barriers, the most common type of abatement, the Department will contact benefited receptors when the barrier design changes substantially from what was presented in the NEPA document. The abatement measure will be considered reasonable from the viewpoint of benefitting receptors if 50% or more of the responses received are positive.
To ascertain desires, property owners and residents may be invited to attend a meeting specifically to discuss the proposed barrier, or they may be asked to complete a survey (paper, electronic, phone, etc.). Contact may be made through a variety of means such as in person, letters, flyers left at the receptor site, public notices, web sites, phone calls, emails or other reliable means or combination of means. Names and/or addresses may be obtained from the tax assessor's roll, clerk of court records, neighborhood associations, local government databases, reliable internet sources, or other reliable sources or combination of sources. Those who do not respond as requested will be deemed as not interested in the barrier. DOTD will give more weight to the desire of the property owner than to the desire of the lessee. (When conflicting responses are received, DOTD will consider the property owner's response over that of the lessee's.)
A contractor may be given the option of using any barrier system on the Qualified Products List (QPL) for construction. The QPL includes both reflective and absorptive systems. Therefore, the contract may choose either an absorptive or a reflective system as long as the system is on the QPL. Using an absorptive barrier when a reflective barrier was assumed for modeling purposes is not considered a substantial change in design for the purposes of soliciting viewpoints of benefited receptors.
Date of Noise Policy: February 1, 2014
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
C. Residents' Desires
A noise barrier will not be considered reasonable if fewer than 75% of the benefitted receptors approve of the construction of a noise barrier. In the case of rental or leased properties, the views of both the owner and the residents will be solicited to determine reasonableness. Maine DOT will establish the approval rate of a noise barrier for benefitted receptors by conducting a survey through certified or registered mail and a self-addressed stamped envelope.*
* Clarified in an email from N. Howard, 4/22/15, that the 75% is based on all benefited receptors regardless if they respond, and that a rental DU gets two votes and an owner-occupied DU gets 1 vote.
Date of Noise Policy: August 19, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
> Viewpoints of Benefited Property Owners & Residents
The viewpoints of benefited property owners and residents will be solicited during the environmental clearance phase of project development. The SHA will evaluate benefited property owner viewpoints, for individual Noise Sensitive Areas (NSA), during the Public Hearing commenting period of the environmental clearance phase. In the event that SHA receives opposing viewpoints from at least 25% of benefited residents within a NSA, a voting process will be administered. The voting process will require that more than 50% of benefited residents in the NSA be opposed to the noise abatement measure for the abatement to be deemed not reasonable.*
VIEWPOINT LANGUAGE WITHIN JULY 13, 2011 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES:
* Clarified in email from K. Polcak, 4-10-15, that it is 50% of all possible votes (not just those responding). The "negative" approach (i.e. more than 50% opposed) places the burden on the opposition to demonstrate and specifically register their objection. If there does appear to be a strong split in the community, SHA will endeavor to get as many returns as possible, so there is as much "registered" opinion as possible. This is the approach for Type I projects. The feeling is that this is an easier criterion to meet. Unless there is opposition and that is made known somewhere in the planning process, an actual vote can in some cases be avoided. If there is opposition expressed than generally the full voting process will take place. Type II projects require a 75% APPROVAL before preliminary engineering is initiated. Since the program is voluntary, SHA requires that the community clearly demonstrate substantial majority support for pursuit of a noise barrier project.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
7.3 Viewpoints of Property Owners and Residents
A major factor in determining the reasonableness of proposed noise barriers in noise-affected residential areas is the viewpoints of the property owners and of the residents of the benefited receptors. MassDOT will provide noise barriers if at least two-thirds (67 percent) of the weighted total number of residential votes are in favor of it. In the case of rental properties, FHWA requires MassDOT to consider both the views of the owners of the benefited receptors and the views of the renters.
A public informational meeting is held in the municipality(s) of the proposed noise barrier to present and discuss the noise impacts from the project and to provide an opportunity for local input in the development of the noise barrier project. This meeting occurs during the project development phase as part of the public involvement or public hearing process. MassDOT will notify the property owners in each Activity Category in Table 3 of the public informational meeting and of its intent to install a noise barrier in the noise-affected area.
After presenting the project information to the noise-affected area, a survey of the desires of the property owners and of the residents of the benefited receptors is conducted by mail. Owners of undeveloped lands for which residential development is permitted are also invited to participate in the voting process. While MassDOT will consider commercial and industrial establishments' desire to maintain visibility of their property from the highway, the property owners and renters of these types of land uses are not allocated any votes and, therefore, do not participate in the voting process. Table 4 [5] presents the number of votes allocated to each type of residential benefited receptor in the study zone.
At least 67 percent of the weighted total number of votes in the study zone must be in favor of the proposed noise barrier for the noise barrier to be considered for construction; otherwise a noise barrier will not be built. If this requirement is met, continued community coordination will take place during the final design phase of the project. A second public meeting is held, after the noise barrier design further progresses, to present more specific project information to the affected area. If noise abatement is proposed for Activity Category C land uses or Activity Category D facilities, then each individual property owner (that is, each owner of the Activity Category C land use or Activity Category D facility) must be in favor of it, otherwise, noise abatement would not be considered as a reasonable noise abatement measure.
Land Use |
Occupancy |
Row |
Number of Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
Existing Residential |
Owner |
First |
5 |
Existing Residential |
Owner |
Second, Third, etc. |
3 |
Existing Residential |
Renter |
First, Second, Third, etc. |
1 |
Existing Activity Category C or D |
Owner |
Not Applicable |
1 |
Undeveloped Land Permitted for Development (Residential) |
Owner |
First |
5 |
Undeveloped Land Permitted for Development (Residential) |
Owner |
Second, Third, etc. |
3 |
Although not a requirement for construction of a proposed noise barrier, MassDOT will also solicit a written letter from appropriate city/town officials stating their support of the desires of the property owners and of the residents of the benefited receptors for the noise barrier to be constructed.
When the municipality is opposed to noise abatement that is determined to be feasible and reasonable, MassDOT will coordinate with the city/town officials. The purpose of this coordination is to determine if the local government's reasons for the opposition are justified, such as for safety reasons. Municipalities cannot arbitrarily veto and/or restrict the length or height of the mitigation measure that was determined to be feasible and reasonable based on visual quality concerns or any other unjustified reasons. MassDOT's primary responsibility is to provide abatement for impacted noise-sensitive land uses so as not to jeopardize federal funding for its projects.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
2. PE Phase/Final Design
During the PE Phase, the exact location, abatement types, aesthetic treatments, right-of-way requirements, etc. should be determined and be a part of the final recommendation for highway traffic noise abatement. The viewpoints of property owners and residents will be solicited during this phase on their desire to have the abatement and on the aesthetics.
6.4 Voting Procedures
The method of obtaining votes (i.e., flyers, door-to-door, public meeting, etc.) shall be determined by the MDOT Region Office or TSC on a project-by-project basis and must be recorded in the environmental documentation how each benefiting receptor unit owner or resident voted. The method must be conducted in a manner that definitively assures that all benefiting units have had an opportunity to vote and provide comment on any noise abatement measure. The public meeting notices should include a voting method for those who may not be able to attend a public meeting such as return ballots, web based, or any survey technology that also assures that the voter is a benefiting unit property owner or resident.
6.4.1 Voting on the Construction of the Noise Barrier
A meeting during the PE Phase shall be conducted, as previously stated, so the property owners or residents of benefiting units will have the opportunity to vote on whether they are in favor of the proposed noise barrier. Only the owners and residents of those receptor units that benefit from noise abatement may vote. This is an essential factor in determining reasonableness of the noise abatement. Only one vote per benefited unit will be accepted with the exception of rental dwelling units (See the following note - Rental Unit Owner and Tenant, and Special Use Areas Voting). Of all the votes tallied, 50% or more of the benefiting units must vote in favor of noise abatement. The absence of returned surveys or attendees to public meeting may be considered as an affirmative vote for noise abatement. Final interpretation of the voting results will be made by MDOT and its consultants, considering all the feedback gained during the public involvement process.
NOTE - Voting Against Noise Abatement
The property owners and residents of benefiting units will be informed before the vote that a decision against noise abatement at a specific location means no future noise abatement, including Type II, will be considered or approved for that specific location. Only a Type I scenario will trigger a future noise abatement assessment at that location.
NOTE - Rental Unit Owner and Tenant, and Activity Category C Areas Voting:
The property owner and tenant will receive notice of the public meetings regarding noise abatement. The property owner of a rental benefiting dwelling unit(s) will count as one (1) vote per benefiting unit for or against a noise barrier and/or a barrier's aesthetics. The owner may delegate this authority to an office/property manager if one is available. The tenant of an individual benefiting dwelling unit will count as a one-half (0.5) vote.For Activity Category C areas such as churches, schools, and park/recreational fields, the vote(s) will be accepted only from the governing authority that owns or manages the area in question.
NOTE - Condominium Complexes: Condominium complexes will be viewed the same as any other residential property.
6.4.2 Voting on the Color & Texture of the Noise Barrier. The MDOT Roadside Development Unit will coordinate the CSS process in the stakeholder collaboration for the color, texture, landscaping, etc. In general, all stakeholders will have equal votes and status as to the aesthetics of the noise barrier. In the case of conflicting desires, those affected property units that abut the noise barrier, abut the right-of-way line, or have an unobstructed view of the noise barrier will receive greater consideration than those receivers that have an obstructed view of the barrier. Professional judgment will be required in making this determination. It is recommended that the project team tally the votes and summarize the results on project mapping to facilitate decision making in reconciling conflicting desires. Final interpretation of the voting results will be made by MDOT and its consultants, considering all feedback gained during the public involvement process.
Date of Noise Policy: June 1, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Although the noise analysis must be completed for all reasonable build alternatives under consideration, the solicitation of votes from the benefited receptors shall only be conducted on the preferred alternative. Viewpoints of the property owners and residents of all benefited receptors shall be solicited and considered in reaching a decision on the abatement measures to be provided. Several methods of public interaction are available to solicit viewpoints of benefited receptors including, but not limited to, the following:
Local public meetings and direct mail are more commonly used, however any of these techniques or some combination may be employed, according to the needs and requirements of the specific project as determined by the sponsoring project manager, and with Mn/DOT or FHWA approval. See Appendix E for Guidance on Public Involvement Related to Noise Studies [of the Mn/DOT policy, not included in this report].
The solicitation of viewpoints must include information about the project and provide information regarding proposed noise abatement considerations associated with the project. The input of a benefited receptor must be documented in a manner that ties the input to the benefited receptor's street address (such as on a ballot or sign-in/response sheet). The desires of the benefited property owners and residents regarding the construction of proposed noise abatement will be expressed in a vote that will be weighted as follows:
NOTE: Appendix F [of the Mn/DOT policy, not included in this report] contains a sample letter and example tables that tabulate votes. Data will be reorganized and revised in Appendix G of revised 2014 noise policy, currently under development [not included in this report].
Date of Noise Policy: Assumed July 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
The construction of a noise barrier is not reasonable unless a majority of residents and property owners of the benefited receptors (receptors that receive a noise reduction of 5 dBA or more from the noise barrier) want a noise barrier even if all other criteria indicate that a noise barrier is reasonable. During the environmental phase of a project it will be assumed that the benefited receptors want a noise barrier. During the design phase of the project a public meeting will be held for residents and owners of benefited receptors. Local officials will also be invited and encouraged to attend this public meeting. After the public meeting a survey will be conducted to determine if the residents and owners of the benefited receptors want a noise barrier. Local officials will be encouraged to consider highway traffic noise in the land use planning process.
From Noise Barrier Evaluation Form
Required Factor Related to Viewpoints |
Not Reasonable |
Marginally Reasonable |
Fully Reasonable |
Highly Reasonable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
% of benefited receptors wanting barrier |
<50% |
50-60% |
61-75% |
>75% |
Date of Noise Policy: Assumed July 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of owners and residents of the benefitted receptors will be obtained. These will usually be obtained through mailings or a public forum. The viewpoints of non-owner residents will be evaluated as a portion of an aggregate of 25 percent of the total. The viewpoints of owners will be evaluated as a portion of an aggregate of 75 percent of the total. For noise abatement to be considered reasonable, over 50 percent of the aggregate response must be in favorable.
VIEWPOINT LANGUAGE WITHIN ENGINEERING POLICY GUIDE ARTICLE 127.13:
127.13.10 Noise Wall Public Meeting and Voting
For projects with noise impacts where noise abatement is both reasonable and feasible, a noise wall public meeting is required. If project timing allows, this meeting can be combined with other project public meetings. Required invitees for this meeting are all first-row and benefitted receptors. However, a meeting with non-qualifying impacted area residents is sometimes beneficial. Meeting with different groups of residents can be combined where appropriate.
In most cases, ballots are sent to all first-row and benefitted receptors prior to the public meeting. This practice allows deliberation and the opportunity to ask questions and turn in ballots at the public meeting. A simple majority is required to qualify a noise wall.
OFFICIAL BALLOT
«FirstName» «LastName»may lead to an increase in noise levels in your area. Therefore, as part of the environmental mitigation of the road improvements, your area may qualify for a sound wall. If a majority of benefitted property owners and residents vote in favor of a wall, and all other remaining criteria are met, the environmental mitigation study of the noise indicates your property would benefit from a sound wall.
By simple majority the results of this vote will determine whether owners and residents want a wall or not. The viewpoints of non-owner residents will be evaluated as a portion of an aggregate of 25 percent of the total. The viewpoints of owners will be evaluated as a portion of an aggregate of 75 percent of the total. For noise abatement to be considered reasonable, over 50 percent of the aggregate returned responses must be in favorable. Final commitment for MoDOT to build a wall will come when all noise criteria are met.
The design, location and approximate height of the wall have not yet been determined. You are only voting for whether you want a wall or not. This is your one and only chance to vote. You will not have this opportunity again, so please take the time to vote now. One (1) vote will be counted per residence. If a ballot is not returned, it will not count. In order for your vote to count, please have it post-marked by (date). You are welcome to return the ballot in person at the resident meeting on (date). Ballots post-marked after (date), or ballots not returned at all, will not count in the final decision.
Please return this ballot to: «Address1» If you have any questions, please email.
**If this is no longer the current owner of this property, please cross out the name below and print the new owner's name.
«FirstName» «LastName», «Address1», «City», «State» «PostalCode»
Yes, I want a sound wall in my area No, I do not want a sound wall in my area
Owner Signature__________________________________
Date of Noise Policy: July 1, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
6.5.3. Public Support of Benefited Receptors
The viewpoints of benefited residents and property owners are considered in the decision to provide noise abatement, especially a visual obstruction such as a barrier or berm. A benefited receptor is one that receives a noise reduction from the abatement measure of at least 5 dB(A), whether or not that receptor has been found to be impacted. To simplify the discussion, viewpoints are counted as votes, with more weight given to property owners and renters of first-row receptors, as illustrated below.
If one property has multiple dwelling units, the owner(s) of the multi-unit dwelling get one vote for the property (not one for each dwelling unit), and the tenants/renters of each unit get one vote each.
MDT will make every effort to solicit responses from affected residents, through neighborhood meetings, mailings and individual follow-up. In order to carry abatement forward, MDT requires approval of over half (51%) of the benefitted receptors. Non-responding benefited receptors will not be counted. Support of noise abatement will be based on the responses received, even if that response rate is very low.
If more than half of the respondents are opposed to the abatement, the abatement proposal will be dropped from consideration, and the area will not be eligible for future Type II noise abatement (23 CFR 772.15(b)(3)), if MDT ever considers a Type II program. This is an important point to make with residents when they are considering their preference for abatement.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
1. Viewpoints of the property owners and residents of the benefited receptors: When it is determined that it would be feasible to provide noise abatement for a site, and a preliminary determination has been made that abatement would be reasonable, a noise abatement public informational meeting will be held as part of the process for a final determination of whether abatement would be reasonable. The benefited property owners and residents will be given an opportunity to vote in the form of a ballot vote (example ballot on pg. 18). NDOR defines a benefited receptor as achieving at least a 5 dB(A) reduction. The benefited property owners and residents will receive a ballot and information packet (map showing the project area and where the proposed noise wall is, a description of the project, anticipated season and year for start of construction, and an example of a completed ballot with how many points the voters ballot will be worth) through certified mail 15 days prior to the public meeting for noise abatement. Ballots are due 15 days after the meeting date and can be mailed back or returned in person. If property owners or residents have not returned a ballot by 15 days after the public meeting date, a second ballot will be mailed. If the second ballot is not returned within 15 days after it is received, the property owner or resident will not have a vote (NDOR will account for delivery time). Ballots will also be available at the public information meeting.
This public outreach (letters and informational meeting) will be conducted in compliance with the most current, approved version of the NDOR Public Involvement Plan. In addition, early in the NEPA process, protected populations within the environmental study area were identified. If protected populations occur within your study area, the project proponent must be able to demonstrate due diligence to engage these populations. For local governments, coordinate with your Local Project Division Project Coordinator who will consult with a Civil Rights Coordinator for guidance on conducting public outreach in protected populations. NDOR employees conducting public outreach in protected population areas will contact the NDOR Civil Rights Coordinator for guidance.
Noise abatement will be provided only if at least 75% of points from returned ballots are in favor of the proposed noise barrier as a strong majority has historically worked well in Nebraska. If the benefited property owners and residents reject the construction of a noise abatement device, their area will not be reconsidered for future noise abatement unless another Type I project is proposed for the area or if there is a re-evaluation on the current project.
Voting: Consideration of the viewpoints of all the benefited receptors shall be solicited, with weighted voting applied to the first-row owners who live in the residence. Each benefited resident will get one point per ballot. Each owner of a benefited dwelling will also get one point per ballot. Owners who live in a benefited dwelling will receive 1 point per ballot. Owners who live in a benefited first-row dwelling will receive 1 point per ballot. The most points per unit possible are 4. If a unit is un-occupied then this unit will only receive one point by the owner of the unit regardless of where the property is located. See pg 19 of this policy for a visual aid of the voting process. [See diagram on next page.]
All residences/dwellings/units
Front row residences/dwellings/units only
NOTE: Example score sheet is provided in the Policy.
Nebraska Department of Roads, page 19:
Date of Noise Policy: September 26, 2012
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Noise barriers will be constructed as modeled and designed unless the benefitted receptors are opposed to their construction. As part of the public involvement process, NDOT will solicit input from all the benefitted receptors. To be considered, responses from benefitted receptors shall be in writing and clearly identify the respondent's status with the property and validate their standing to participate. The responses received shall be evaluated according to the following.
The preferences of benefitted receptors will be weighted as follows:
If opposing views over the traffic noise abatement measure develops between the property owner of a benefitted property and its legal occupant(s), the preference of the property owner will take precedence.
To alter the proposed traffic noise abatement measure, two criteria must be met. First, to initiate reconsideration of the proposed measure, a qualifying response from a majority (50%, plus one [1]) of all the valid identified benefitted receptors must be received. If a response is not received from a valid benefitted receptor, it will be recorded as being in agreement with and supporting the proposed traffic noise abatement measure. Second, using the scoring system above, the tallied results must support any change to the proposed traffic noise abatement measure.
Date of Noise Policy: Dated April 2011; Approved by FHWA July 6, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
2. Views of the Benefited Receptors
As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public involvement requirements, viewpoints from the entire project community, including benefited receptors, will be solicited for all aspects of the project, including noise impacts and abatement. If no objections to the proposed noise abatement are found at this level of public involvement, then the noise barrier will be deemed reasonable. If objections are identified, a second, more detailed solicitation will occur with the benefited receptors to determine reasonableness.
Support will be determined by obtaining one vote from each of the benefited receptors. Points will then be applied to each vote to make the final reasonableness determination. One owner and one occupancy point will be given for each receptor. (For example; a single family, owner-occupied receptor, will be given two points, one for ownership and one for occupancy. For a single family rental property, one point will be given to the owner and one point will be given to the rental unit. For a multifamily dwelling, one point will be given to each rental unit and one point per rental unit will be given to the owner.)
At least 51% of the total possible points must be in support of an abatement alternative for it to be considered reasonable.
Date of Noise Policy: July 1, 2011
VIEWPOINT LANGUAGE WITHIN PART A- POLICY:
Noise barriers will be built where they are desired by the community and meet the benefit and cost effectiveness criteria set forth in PART-B "NOISE WALL DESIGN GUIDELINES".
VIEWPOINT LANGUAGE WITHIN PART B- NOISE WALL DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The Department will survey owners and residents of properties benefited by the noise barrier to determine the community support for the noise barrier in their area. The determination of the community support will be based by simple majority of the responses received by the Department. The Department will not construct any barrier without the support of the local community based on this poll. In the case of schools, parks, recreation areas and other land uses listed in Category "C" of Table 1, it will be based on the approval of the owners and operators of the facility. In either case if there is no clear consensus, the barrier(s) will not be built.
The Department will then inform the local elected officials of the survey results and request a resolution of support for the abatement proposal based on this survey in order to further document public support for the noise mitigation.
Date of Noise Policy: April 25, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
(a) The viewpoints of the property owners and residents of the benefited receptors of proposed noise abatement measures shall be actively solicited and considered. The Department will meet with the benefitted property owners and residents and present a brief program on highway traffic noise to explain and demonstrate the characteristics of highway traffic noise, the effects of noise barriers in attenuating traffic noise, and the types of barriers that may be considered. As available, specific details of noise barriers being studied will be presented in addition to a discussion of alternatives to barrier construction. After completion of design the Department will meet again with the property owners and benefitted residents to present final details and to solicit the residents' final views and opinions. The decision on whether the noise abatement measure is desired or not desired will be based on the preference provided by 51 percent or more of the benefited property owners and residents that respond to the solicitation. The Department will then make a final determination on the noise abatement and advise the property owners and residents of that decision.
Date of Noise Policy: July 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Although the viewpoints shall be determined and addressed during the preliminary design phase of project development, the property owner and resident viewpoints on the desirability and acceptability of abatement need to be reexamined periodically during the final design phase prior to PS&E approval.
Table 2 provides an example feasibility and reasonableness worksheet.
PIN: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
Abatement Measure: |
|||
Yes |
No |
||
Feasibility |
|||
Engineering Considerations |
Can the measure be built? |
||
Noise Reduction (Acoustic Feasibility) |
Does the proposed measure provide a reduction of at least 5 dB(A) to a majority of the impacted receptors? |
||
Reasonableness |
|||
Viewpoints of Benefited Property Owners and Residents |
Were responses obtained from at least half of the benefited property owners and residents? |
||
Do a majority of the responses favor the measure? |
|||
Cost Index |
If a berm: Is the total estimated cost of the proposed berm less than $80,000 per benefited receptor? |
||
If a barrier: Is the proposed barrier less than 2,000 square feet per benefited receptor? |
|||
Noise Reduction Design Goal |
Do a majority of the benefited receptors achieve the Noise Reduction Design Goal of 7 dB(A)? |
||
If all the questions can be answered "Yes," then the measure is considered reasonable and feasible. |
|||
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of the property owners and residents of all benefited receptors shall be solicited. One owner ballot and one resident ballot shall be solicited for each benefited receptor. Points per ballot shall be distributed in the following weighted manner:
Consideration of the noise abatement measure will continue unless a simple majority of all distributed points are returned that indicates the balloted voters do not want the abatement measure.
ADDITIONAL VIEWPOINT LANGUAGE WITHIN AUGUST 22, 2011 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS AND ABATEMENT MANUAL:
Noise Abatement Measure Voting Process
The viewpoints of the benefited receptors shall be solicited after completion of Design Noise Reports. Each benefited resident will get one vote. Each benefited owner will also get one vote (i.e., an owner who resides at a predicted benefited property will be able to cast two votes). Owners of predicted first-row benefits will receive an additional two votes.
All noise mitigation measures recommended in the Design Noise Report shall be constructed unless a simple majority of opposing votes are received in a timely manner. All benefited residents and property owners shall have a period of fifteen (15) to thirty (30) days to cast their votes to NCDOT.
Consideration of the noise abatement measure will continue unless a simple majority of all distributed points are returned that indicates the balloted voters do not want the abatement measure.
Date of Noise Policy: March 2012
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of Property Owners and Residents of the Benefited Receptors
The benefited receptors of a proposed noise barrier design are required to be notified by certified mail. The notification should include dimensions and location of the proposed noise barrier, and a survey, questionnaire or ballot as appropriate. The notification shall also indicate that after construction of a noise barrier, NDDOT will not consider perceived damages or loss of visibility to properties.
The presence of a noise barrier may present certain concerns such as excessive shading, constricting air-flow, safety risks for exterior activities, and creating a tunnel-like environment for benefited receptors. Therefore, in order to move forward with construction of a noise barrier, viewpoints are solicited in the form of ballots. One ballot is assigned to each property with the following weighted points.
Non-responding benefited receptors are not counted. Support for or opposition of a noise barrier is based from responses received even if responses are low. A noise barrier shall be reasonable when 80% of the front row of benefited receptors respond indicating approval of the barrier.
In some cases, receptors cannot be represented as a residence; therefore the descriptions for different types of frequent human use as described within the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria are defined with representative locations. Other circumstances with different interpretations for equivalent receptors must be within the spirit of FHWA regulations and intent, and the reasons shall be fully documented in the report. In all cases, the corresponding Activity Category Leq(h), applies. The following equivalent receptors table provides these definitions.
Date of Noise Policy: February 2015
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Concerns of local officials will be considered in the noise abatement design, but will not be a determining factor regarding noise barrier construction.
The ODOT communicates with the property owners and residents of the benefited receptors when noise barriers are offered as noise abatement and provides the opportunity for them to indicate whether or not they want noise abatement. If noise abatement is feasible and reasonable, the affected receptors may also choose the aesthetic appearance of the receptor side of the noise barrier. For Type I projects, it is the responsibility of the ODOT to solicit the viewpoints of all of the benefited receptors and obtain enough responses to document a decision on either desiring or not desiring the noise abatement measure. Mailed surveys should include enough information for receptors to determine whether or not they desire a noise barrier, to select from various aesthetic (color and texture) options, and to select vegetation if a noise barrier is not desired. A mailed survey augments data collected from a public meeting and may be used in lieu of a public meeting in some cases. The survey must include information about the project and provide information regarding noise abatement considerations associated with the project. This survey must be pre-stamped and self-addressed for return. Respondents shall be given the opportunity to indicate whether or not they want a noise barrier or if they prefer a vegetative screening. Respondents to surveys must be identified by name and address. As an option to asking receptors to make a selection from various aesthetic color and texture options, ODOT can elect to decide the color and/or texture of the noise barrier for the community and solicit any comments with the choice made by ODOT.
In lieu of an open house noise public meeting, an effective strategy ODOT encourages for noise public involvement is going door-to-door to the benefited receptors (canvassing) and providing them with the mailers and even giving them the option to sign a petition for a noise wall if they choose to. Another effective strategy for noise public involvement is to meet with the community leaders and/or attend scheduled neighborhood association meetings. Other tools include phone call canvassing and email responses. A conference call or meeting between the noise public involvement consultant and ODOT should be held to discuss the proposed noise public involvement strategy, expectations, and deliverables, prior to conducting noise public involvement.
Noise abatement is offered at locations where design year build noise impacts are predicted to occur and noise abatement is determined feasible and reasonable. Consideration for whether or not noise abatement will be constructed is left to the benefited property owners and residences of the receptors. The ODOT does not require installation of noise abatement. Noise abatement is offered to the benefited receptors. For owner-occupied dwellings, one ballot shall be solicited per benefited receptor. Relative to benefited rental properties, one owner ballot and individual resident ballot shall be solicited. The owner will have the same number of votes as there are number of dwelling units and each rental unit will have one vote per unit. An owner-occupied residence of an apartment complex will receive one owner vote (equaling the same number of votes as there are number of dwelling units) plus one additional vote as an occupant. An unoccupied rental that is livable receives 1 vote/tally from the owner. There is no tally for the occupant.
For abatement to be designed and constructed, a minimum of 50% of the benefited property owners and residents should respond in favor of the abatement.* If the first noise public involvement survey does not result in a minimum of 50% of the benefited property owners and residents responding in favor of the noise abatement, a resurvey should be conducted.
A Noise Public Involvement Summary (NPIS) must be prepared which discusses the results and shows them in a tabular fashion and includes aerial mapping showing the benefited receptors that responded and what their response was relative to desire and aesthetics as well as the benefited receptors that didn't respond. NPIS graphics must also show the proposed noise wall and, if applicable, benefited receptors being taken by the project, foreclosures, and/or vacancies. The results of the noise public involvement must be reviewed and approved by ODOT and written recommendations made by the project team on whether or not to construct the noise wall(s), prior to beginning any noise abatement design activity.
After the decision has been made as to whether or not a noise wall will be constructed, a notification should be mailed to the benefited receptors informing them of the decision.
Pre noise wall construction noise public involvement should be conducted to inform the benefited receptors of the upcoming noise wall construction project.
* Clarification, email from N. Alcala, 8/21/15: 50% of ALL of the benefited property owners and residents; not only those who respond.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
The property owners' and residents' desire for mitigation. Benefitted receptors viewpoints shall receive priority consideration. Details on how the Department will receive the viewpoints of the benefitted property owners and residents are provided in F. Public Involvement.
The viewpoints of the property owners and residents of the benefitted receptors of proposed noise abatement measures shall be actively solicited and considered. The primary method for notices will be by US mail. Flyers or personal contact may be used in the event that mailings are unsuccessful in engaging property owners and /or residents in the public involvement process.
ODOT will hold meetings with the benefitted property owners and residents and present a brief program on highway traffic noise to explain and demonstrate the characteristics of highway traffic noise, the effects of noise barriers in attenuating traffic noise, and the types of barriers that may be considered. As available, specific details of noise barriers being studied will be presented in addition to a discussion of alternatives to barrier construction.
After completion of barrier design, ODOT will meet again with the property owners and benefitted residents to present final details and to solicit the residents' final views and opinions. The decision on whether the noise abatement measure is desired or not desired will be based on the preference provided by 51 percent or more of the benefitted property owners and residents that respond to the solicitation. One owner ballot and one resident ballot shall be solicited for each benefitted receptor. Points per ballot shall be distributed in the following weighted manner:
For Category C impacted properties, the property owner/official of jurisdiction only will be balloted regarding desire for abatement.
Consideration of the noise abatement measure will continue unless a simple majority of all distributed points are returned that indicates the balloted voters do not want the abatement measure. The final determination on the noise abatement will be shared with the property owners and residents by letter.
Date of Noise Policy: June 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of the Property Owners and Residents
Noise abatement survey letters to the benefited residents and property owners must be sent out to determine the viewpoints of the affected noise receptors. A simple majority (51 percent of all responding benefited residents and property owners) is needed to build noise abatement. A log should be kept to indicate the percentage of total responses. The polling should occur during the preparation of the revised EA (REA) (or prior to a FONSI if an REA is not issued) or FEIS but could occur while preparing the EA or EIS or just prior to final design for CE projects. The Region Environmental Project Manager (EPM), the Region Environmental Coordinator (REC), or the Region Environmental Unit Manager should ensure that the noise abatement survey letters are sent out and returned via a preaddressed, postage-paid envelope.
The noise abatement survey letter briefly explains the project and the noise impacts and provides a graphic or explanation of where the abatement will be located. The abatement survey letter must also explain the likelihood of abatement (see "Statement of Likelihood", section 7.7). The residents are then polled to see if they want abatement. If less than 50 percent of the benefited residents and property owners respond to the survey, a second survey will be sent out to the benefited receivers who did not respond to the first survey. The result of the second survey, combined with the results of the first survey, will be considered the opinion of the benefited receivers, even if less than a 50 percent response is obtained. Percent yes is calculated as follows:
Votes from those responding to the noise abatement survey will be counted according to the following manner:
Percent yes = (total yes votes) / (total of yes and no votes returned) x 100
1. COMMUNITY SUPPORT (See Section 7.4.1 of the Noise Manual, Viewpoints of the Property Owners and Residents) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
Renters |
Owners |
||
Total Number of Votes from returned surveys |
|||
Total Number of Actual No Votes |
|||
Total Number of Actual Yes Votes: |
% Yes Vote (b): |
||
Community Support for Abatement (% yes or no must be greater than 50%) |
Yes |
No |
|
a) Percent yes calculation:
Percent yes = (total yes votes) / (total of yes and no votes returned) x 100
Date of Noise Policy: December 12, 2013
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
3.3.3.3 Consideration of Viewpoints
As related to the viewpoints of property owners and residences, the viewpoints of all benefited receptors shall be solicited in order to obtain enough responses to document a decision on either desiring or not desiring a noise abatement measure. Although the public may express opinions regarding the desire for or against particular noise abatement measures at any point in the development of a project, the solicitation of viewpoints does not formally occur until information contained within the draft version of the Final Design Noise Analysis Report has been approved for circulation to the public by PennDOT and FHWA. This process assures the public has access to the results of noise analyses prior to making any decision related to the desire for or available choices associated with noise abatement measures. More information is provided in Step 6.
6.3 Affected Receptors
When construction of a noise barrier is being considered in the Final Design Phase, such measures will not be approved without documentation that the affected community has had the opportunity to provide input into the development process. A good community relation effort can often prove to be the most effective highway traffic noise mitigation component. PennDOT Publication No. 295 "Public Involvement Handbook" should be referenced for all projects involving highway traffic noise issues.
Coordination with all receptor unit owners and residents directly affected by highway traffic noise is a very important part of the Final Design Phase. At any time during this process, the impacted community or individual receptor unit owner(s) may express viewpoints related to noise abatement. However, the official viewpoint regarding the desires for or against a noise abatement device will not be accepted by PennDOT until the community has had the opportunity to gain knowledge of the implications of a barrier/no barrier decision based on the information developed at the conclusion of the Final Design noise analysis process.
This allows the community the opportunity to provide input based on the proposed location, type, height, and length of the noise abatement feature. The abatement design is further refined to include the community's comments and to optimize the abatement feature. Subsequent community meetings allow for a refinement of the abatement design, keeping in mind the acoustic, engineering, and safety considerations until agreement is reached.
6.4 Voting Procedures
As long as it is documented in the Final Design Highway Traffic Noise Report how benefited receptor unit owners/residents voted (desire for a barrier, location, and color/), the method of obtaining votes (i.e., flyers, door-to-door, public meeting, etc.) shall be determined by the Engineering Districts on project-by-project bases.
6.4.1 Voting on the Construction of the Noise Barrier
The viewpoints of residents and property owners will be solicited as part of the public involvement process. Both property owners and renters of the receptor units that are benefited by highway traffic noise may vote on whether they are in favor of the proposed noise wall. The owner of each benefited receptor unit shall receive one vote of equal value for each benefited receptor unit owned. The renter shall receive one vote for the unit in which they reside. In the case of conflicting desires, it is recommended that the project team tally the votes and summarize the results on project mapping. Final interpretation of the voting results will be made by PennDOT and its consultants, considering all feedback gained during the public involvement process.
Of all the votes tallied, 50% or greater must be in favor of the proposed noise barrier in order for the noise barrier to be considered reasonable. When assessing those votes that are not in favor of the proposed noise wall, the Engineering District needs to assess the number and location of these opposing votes on a noise barrier by noise barrier basis. This may result in partial highway traffic noise abatement or the inability of satisfying the request of the opposing votes.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
1. Viewpoint of affected residents and property owners
The viewpoint of benefitted residents constitutes an element of the reasonableness criteria. In order to obtain their viewpoints, an interview with them will be conducted. A noise abatement barrier will be constructed, only if a majority or more of the benefitted residents approve such measure, otherwise it will not be constructed. The agency will maintain on its project files, records of such decisions.
Date of Noise Policy: June 2, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
(1) Viewpoints of Affected Residents and Property Owners
Before the Department proceeds with the final design of a noise barrier, viewpoints will be solicited from all property owners and residents of the benefited receptors. At least 75% of all property owners and residents of benefited receptors must state their point of view on the proposed barrier. If less than 75% respond, the barrier will not be considered. RIDOT will provide letters notifying the public of the process and its requirements. Return forms will be self-addressed and stamped. Viewpoints shall be in the form of a written, signed response sent via U.S. Mail and postmarked within 30 days of the date of RIDOT's written request. At least 67% of the property owners and residents of benefited receptors must be in favor of the proposed noise barrier for it to be considered. For multiple-unit dwellings, property owner's viewpoints will be weighted by permitting them to submit one written viewpoint for each dwelling unit they own. For special land use sites, the property owner must be in favor of the barrier for it to be considered. This should be determined as early as possible, in order to avoid designing barriers that are not favored.
When the governing body of the affected community (Town. Council, City Council, etc.) is opposed to noise abatement that is determined feasible and reasonable, RIDOT will coordinate with the town/city officials. The purpose for coordination is to determine if the local government's reasons for opposition are justified. RIDOT will make every effort to work with the community to gain governing body support for noise abatement that is deemed feasible and reasonable.
Date of Noise Policy: September 1, 2014
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of the property owners and residents of the benefited receptors. SCDOT shall solicit the viewpoints of all of the benefited receptors and document a decision on either desiring or not desiring the noise abatement measure. The viewpoints will be solicited as part of the public involvement process through a voting procedure. The method of obtaining the votes shall be determined on a project-by-project basis, but may include flyers, door-to-door surveys, a public meeting, or a mailing. The voting ballot will explain that the noise abatement shall be constructed unless a majority (greater than 50% of the benefited receptors) of votes not desiring noise abatement is received.
For non-owner occupied benefited receptors, both the property owner and the renter may vote on whether the noise abatement is desired. One owner ballot and one resident ballot shall be solicited for each benefited receptor.
Home owner associations or local governments cannot be given authority over the desirability for abatement. The viewpoints of the abatement must be solicited from the property owners and tenants.
The viewpoints of the benefited residents and property owners should be a major consideration in determining the reasonableness of highway traffic noise abatement measures for proposed highway construction projects. These viewpoints should be determined and addressed during the environmental phase of project development. The will and desires of the public should be an important factor in dealing with the overall problems of highway traffic noise. SCDOT will make every effort to incorporate highway traffic noise consideration in our on-going activities for public involvement in the highway program.
Once a preferred alternative is recommended, a detailed noise analysis must be completed for any noise abatement that was determined feasible and reasonable during the preliminary noise analysis. The elements of the detailed noise are explained in Section 3.6. If applicable, a public involvement meeting will be held for the benefited receptors to solicit viewpoints. The detailed noise analysis must be completed in order for FHWA to approve the Categorical Exclusion or to provide a Finding of No Significant Impact or a Record of Decision.
Date of Noise Policy: June 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of the Property Owners and Residents of all Benefited Receptors (Activity Category B Land Uses)
When it is determined that it would be feasible to provide noise abatement for a site, and a preliminary determination has been made that abatement would be reasonable, a public informational meeting will be held as part of the process for a final determination of whether abatement would be reasonable. Benefited property owners and residents will be given an opportunity to vote on noise abatement by ballot. An information packet and a ballot will be sent by certified mail to all benefited property owners and residents, at least 14 days before the date of noise abatement meeting.
The votes will be weighed in the following manner:
Consideration of the noise abatement measure will continue unless more than 50% of all distributed points are returned* that indicate the balloted voters do not wan14113t the abatement measure. If the benefited property owners and residents vote to reject construction of a noise barrier, their area will not be reconsidered for future noise abatement unless another Type I project is proposed for the area.
For Activity Categories A, C, D and E, the views of the property owner or authority having jurisdiction over the property will be considered.
* Clarification, email on 8/24/15 from A. Whitebird, SDDOT: % based on only those that respond.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
2.3.2.4 Viewpoints of Benefited Property Owners and Residents
The input of the benefited property owners and residents will generally be received at planning, NEPA or design public hearings or public meetings. Input received at these hearings or meetings may be supplemented, as necessary, with formal survey methods on a case-by-case basis as discussed in the TEPM [Tennessee Environmental Procedures Manual]. TDOT will conclude that a community desires the construction of a noise barrier unless a majority (at least 51%) of the benefited property owners and residents indicate that they do not want the proposed noise barrier.
5.3.4.6.9 Views of Benefited Property Owners and Residents
Per TDOT's Noise Policy, the views of benefited property owners and residents will be considered in making final noise abatement decisions. This input will generally be received at planning, NEPA, or design public hearings or public meetings.
If a noise barrier has been determined to be both feasible and reasonable, TDOT will include a note in the public hearing or meeting advertisement indicating that noise barriers are proposed and that public comments will be solicited and received at the meeting or hearing. TDOT will also include a discussion of the noise barrier(s) in the presentation and provide a dedicated space on the comment card for noise barrier comments.
Experience on past projects has indicated that the vast majority of residents have supported TDOT's proposed noise barriers. However, there may be instances where benefited residents or property owners oppose the construction of noise barriers for various reasons including blockage of views, the loss of sunlight due to the shadow created by a noise barrier, and isolation effects.
If significant opposition exists and there is not clear support for the construction of the proposed noise barrier(s), TDOT will conduct a certified mail survey to solicit the views of the benefited residents and/or property owners that would be protected by the barrier(s). If a majority of benefited residents/property owners oppose the construction of a noise barrier, then the barrier will not be included as a "likely" noise abatement measure. Benefited residents and/or property owners that do not respond will be contacted a second time. A final determination will be made based upon the total responses received after the second survey.
Responses from residents or owners of properties that are predicted to be impacted as well as benefited will be counted as two responses. Responses from residents or owners of properties that are predicted to be benefited but not impacted will be counted as one response.*
TDOT will conclude that a community desires the construction of a noise barrier unless a majority (at least 51%) of the impacted [and benefited] property owners and residents indicate that they do not want the proposed noise barrier.
*Clarification from D. Reiter, a consultant specialist at TDOT: The two votes for a rental would be split with one for the owner and one for the renter if impacted, and 0.5 votes each if not impacted. The use of impacted and benefited voters on the decision NOT to build prevents non-impacted (and benefited) residents from deciding that a wall would not be built.
Date of Noise Policy: April 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
a. Views of Benefitted Receptors
If noise abatement is determined to be feasible and cost effective, then benefitted property owners and residents will be surveyed to determine whether or not they desire noise abatement. This survey/ballot will preferably be by prestamped/preaddressed return envelope, and will include a package of material that describes the noise barrier under consideration and the noise effects with and without the barrier. It will also describe the decision making process that TxDOT will follow to assess the survey/ballot results and make a decision on whether to build the barrier. A noise workshop after a public hearing shall be conducted where noise impacts and abatement are discussed.
Ballots cast by residents will be obtained for viewpoints, but only ballots cast by property owners will count towards determining whether a noise barrier will be constructed or not. If the total respondents to the survey/ballot do not total a majority (50% + 1) of the benefitted receptors, then a second attempt will be made to solicit the views of those who did not respond. No third attempt is required if a majority (50% + 1) did not respond.* A majority (50% + 1) of the total benefitted receptors must indicate on the survey/ballot that they want a barrier constructed for it to be considered reasonable.
All survey/ballots must be returned to TxDOT, by a due date. If a majority (50%+1) of the total benefitted receptors do not respond by the due date or do not respond after the second attempt, then TxDOT will base their decision on the survey responses they received even though a majority of responses were not received.
Generally, residential property owners prefer traffic noise barriers, while commercial property owners prefer to maintain visibility for their business from adjacent roadways. This can cause conflicts in mixed-use developments, as noise barriers may block line of sight to adjacent businesses. When a mutually satisfactory compromise cannot be reached between businesses and residences, noise barriers may be terminated at property line dividing the two areas.
* Clarification in an email from R. Umscheid, 4/21/15: TxDOT may solicit responses a third time if there is a response rate of less than 50%+ 1.
Date of Noise Policy: February 13, 2014
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Viewpoints of Property Owners and Residents - Viewpoints of property owners and residents (non-owners) must be solicited to determine if noise abatement is desired.
1) Balloting -The Department needs to establish whether property owners and residents are in favor of noise abatement measures as part of the final design phase of projects. This process involves sending ballots to the following groups so they can indicate their preference for or against noise abatement measures:
a) All benefited receptors (property owners and residents). A benefited receptor is one that would receive a reduction of 8 dBA or more as a result of noise abatement.
b) Receptors that border and are directly adjacent to the end of a proposed noise wall that are not, by definition, benefited by the wall.
The number of votes is established as follows:
2) Assessing Ballots - Property owners' votes will receive a multiplier factor of 5 compared to residents (non-owners) factor of 1 when the votes are counted. Noise abatement will only be recommended if 75 percent of votes counted, favor noise abatement. The denominator used to calculate this percentage will equal the total number of votes. At least 50 percent of the total number of completed ballots must be returned to adequately assess if noise abatement measures are desired. Noise abatement measures will be deemed not reasonable if less than 50 percent of ballots are returned after balloting efforts are completed. Ballots sent by U.S. Mail are deemed by the Department as "due diligence" in notifying the affected property owners and residents of possible noise mitigation measures in their area. Ballots will be sent by U.S. Mail to each property owner of record and each residing household/resident. Each ballot will include a deadline for return to the Department. A second ballot will be sent by Registered Mail to those who have not returned a ballot for ballots sent but not returned by the deadline. There will not be another opportunity to address noise impacts, once a noise wall is deemed to be unfeasible or unreasonable, until such time that another Type 1 project impacts the same area.
Policy contains a Noise Abatement Recommendation Checklist that contains the following questions related to viewpoints:
10. Does the Public Involvement balloting result in at least 75 percent of benefited and end-of-wall receptors voting in "favor" of the proposed noise abatement measure? Yes or No
If yes, proceed to Question #11. If no, noise abatement measures are not considered reasonable; proceed to decision segment of form.
11. Are there any environmental impacts that need special attention as a result of the implementation of the noise abatement? Yes or No
If yes, outline these impacts and discuss with the Environmental Manager or Region Project Manager.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Date of Noise Policy: July 14, 2014
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
3.10.1 Viewpoints of the benefited receptors.
VDOT shall solicit the viewpoints of all benefited receptors through certified mailings and obtain enough responses to document a decision as to whether or not there is a desire for the proposed noise abatement measure. Fifty percent (50%) or more of the respondents shall be required to favor the noise abatement measure in determining reasonableness.
Note - A second solicitation may be required depending on the results of the first solicitation. See Section 12.4 for more details.
Desires of Those Individuals Impacted by Highway Traffic Noise
During the Final Design Phase, it is extremely important to determine if 50% or more of the owners and residents of benefited receptor units desire the noise barrier. Certified letters should be sent only to the owners and residents of the properties that were determined to be benefited by the proposed barrier. Any receptor unit owner opposed to the proposed noise barrier must submit a signed letter or indicate on the voting survey form his/her opposition to the proposed noise barrier. This will serve as an indication that he/she thoroughly understands that there will be future noise impacts and that, if a noise barrier is declined by the community at this time, a noise barrier will not be built in the future for the area unless another Type I project occurs.
12.4 Voting Procedures
The method of obtaining votes from the owners and residents of benefited receptors (i.e., via certified mailings, public meeting, etc.) shall be determined by the Central Office Noise Abatement Staff on a project-by-project basis. Regardless of method, the vote (whether or not there is a desire for a barrier) of each benefited receptor must be documented. Note - The preferred method of contacting the owners and/or residents for the first time shall be certified mail. Twenty-one (21) calendar days from the anticipated delivery date is required to provide the recipients ample time to review and respond to the survey.
12.4.1 Voting on the Construction of the Noise Barrier
Only the owners and residents of those receptor units that will be benefited by the proposed mitigation may vote on whether the proposed noise barrier should be constructed. The owner/resident of each benefited receptor unit shall be entitled to one weighted vote, regardless of the number of owners of that receptor unit unless they are the owners of a rental facility or the developer of lands. The weighting system is provided in tabular format below (Table 2 below). Votes will be tallied on a noise barrier by noise barrier basis, so it is recommended that the project team tally the votes and summarize the results on a project map showing votes by location. Final interpretation of the voting results will be made by VDOT and its consultants, considering all feedback gained during the public involvement process.
Of the votes tallied, 50% or more must be in favor of a proposed noise barrier in order for that noise barrier to be considered further. The Noise Abatement Staff will assess the number and location of any opposing votes on a noise barrier by noise barrier basis. This may result in partial highway traffic noise abatement or construction of noise barriers despite opposing votes. The receptor unit owner opposing a proposed noise barrier must submit a signed survey form expressing his/her opposition to the proposed noise barrier, and this must be documented.
Note - Partial Highway Traffic Noise Abatement: VDOT is dedicated to providing feasible and reasonable noise abatement. If the opposing votes are located in areas where partial highway traffic noise abatement is feasible and reasonable without compromising or jeopardizing the noise barrier's abatement ability for the remaining impacted and benefiting receptors, every reasonable effort must be made to accommodate the needs and wants of every impacted and benefited receptor, despite their approval of or opposition to the proposed noise barrier.
Note - Homeowners Associations: If the benefited receptors units are a part of a homeowner's association, only those receptor units benefited by the proposed noise barrier will have a vote.
Note - Change of property ownership: If a benefited property changes ownership after the public survey and before construction of the noise barrier only the original owner's vote is considered.Note -If a project is undergoing a written NEPA re-evaluation because it has been inactive for at least 3 years, then the citizens benefited by a previously identified and publicly approved noise barrier should be re-surveyed. However, if a project has been active and steps have been taken to advance the project since the last citizen survey and a re-evaluation is not being conducted because of the passage of time, then the original survey is considered up to date.
Public Opinion Survey Weighting System5 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Impact and benefit category |
Activity Category4 |
Owner and Resident |
Non-Resident Owner |
Renter |
Impacted & Benefited |
A |
See note below |
||
Not Impacted & Benefited |
||||
Impacted & Benefited |
B1 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
Not Impacted & Benefited |
B1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Impacted & Benefited |
C2 |
5 |
||
Not Impacted & Benefited |
C2 |
3 |
||
Impacted & Benefited |
D |
2 |
||
Not Impacted & Benefited |
D |
1 |
||
Impacted & Benefited |
E |
2 |
||
Not Impacted & Benefited |
E |
1 |
||
|
||||
Date of Noise Policy: October 2012
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
Community Polling
Polling should be conducted as early in the design process as possible to verify the opinions of people impacted by the project and benefitting from the proposed barrier. The results of the poll are considered when determining whether a barrier or other practical mitigation is reasonable, and thus implemented.
The presumption is that abatement is desired by the affected community. However, a formal poll of the opinions of eligible property owners and residents shall be conducted if opposition from members of the community within the noise study area is expressed during the public involvement process. Outreach efforts shall clarify that support for the wall is also a waiver of future claims for compensation from any effects to light, view, and air, from the abatement as designed. Noise abatement will not be planned if, after community polling is conducted, it is documented that the majority of the impacted and benefitting receivers within the study area oppose the proposed noise abatement.
Polls, petitions, or surveys of the community's desires will only be considered valid if the following occurs in conjunction with other criteria of this chapter:
Receiver Eligibility and Weighting
The opinions of impacted or benefitted receivers within the noise study area are considered eligible for formal polling. The purpose of abatement is to noticeably reduce noise for those most affected by highway traffic noise. Noise barriers primarily benefit and/or affect those closest to the wall, so weighting of eligible receivers is based on their locations within the noise study area. Specific weighting of polling responses from benefitting receivers is as follows:
Documentation of Public Involvement Process
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
It is state policy that the final determination of reasonableness will be made only after a careful and thorough consideration of a wide range of criteria. However, noise barriers will definitely not be built if a majority of benefited receptors do not want them. During the environmental phase (NEPA) of a project it will be assumed that the benefited receptors will want a noise barrier.
During the design phase of the project after the exact location and design of the project have been determined a public meeting will be held to provide detailed information on the design of the project and possible noise barriers. During the design phase of the project a public meeting will be held for residents and owners of benefited receptors. After the public meeting a survey will be conducted of the benefited receptors to determine if they want a noise barrier. Local officials will also be invited and encouraged to attend this public meeting. After the public meeting a survey will be conducted to determine if the residents and owners of the benefited receptors want a noise barrier. Local officials will be encouraged to consider highway traffic noise in the land use planning process.
The construction of a noise barrier is not reasonable unless a majority of residents and property owners of the benefited receptors (receptors that receive a noise reduction of 5 dBA or more from the noise barrier) want a noise barrier even if all other criteria indicate that a noise barrier is reasonable.
From Noise Barrier Evaluation Form
Reasonableness
Not Marginally Fully Highly
Required Factor
Related to Viewpoints Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable
% of benefited receptors <50% 50-60% 61-75% >75%
wanting barrier
Date of Noise Policy: July 28, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
20.1 Public Information Meeting
The department shall hold one or more public information meetings, in a location convenient to the locality to be affected by the proposed noise barrier, to provide an opportunity for local participation in the selection and development of the noise barrier installation project. The department shall arrange for published notice of each information meeting. The department shall also give direct written notice of each public information meeting to each person owning real property or leasing a residence in the following locations:
Exhibits available at the public information meeting should include:
FDM 23-35 Noise Abatement Measures
20.5 Voting
For a proposed noise barrier project to be considered for construction, the department must receive a vote of support for the project from a simple majority of all votes cast by the owners or residents of the benefitted receptors as follows:
The ballot shall be sent to each eligible voter by registered mail, return receipt requested. A self-addressed, stamped envelope shall also be included with the ballot. The Region Office will determine who is responsible for collecting ballots.
The public meeting notice shall be included in the mailing transmitting the ballot. There should be an explanation included in the cover letter that the ballot can be submitted at the public information meeting or by using the self-addressed stamped envelope. A date for returning the ballot of no less than thirty (30) days after the public information meeting should also be included.
The noise barrier selection process needs to be clearly defined in the cover letter included with the ballot sent to the eligible voters. It is important for voters to understand that the selection of the barrier system to be constructed is the sole responsibility of the contractor awarded the project. Owner and resident input will likely be limited to barrier color and texture.
All reasonable effort should be made to ensure that each eligible voter returns a ballot indicating whether or not they support construction of the noise barrier. Such efforts could include phone calls and personal visits to those owners and tenants not returning a ballot by mail or at the public information meeting.
Documentation of the various methods used to gather votes should be included as part of the administrative record.
Documentation of the final vote tally and decision of whether or not to construct the noise barrier(s) should also be included as part of the administrative record.
Date of Noise Policy: July 13, 2011
Viewpoint Language Within Policy:
1) The viewpoints of the property owners and the residents of benefited receptors shall be considered. Viewpoints of all benefited receptors will be solicited and sufficient response received to estimate the aggregate view of the receptors as to if noise abatement measures are desired or not. 51% of benefited receptors responding must agree to the noise abatement measures.
