Shadows and shouts from skydivers overhead are among the complaints a disgruntled neighbor of the Stroudsburg-Pocono Airport testified to on Tuesday at a zoning board hearing.
"It's the activity. It's like a three-ring circus. There's always activity around," Debra Eppley told the Smithfield Township zoning board.
For two years, the board has been trying to decide if Sky's the Limit skydiving school, based at the airport, should be shut down. In April 2007, Smithfield's interim zoning officer, Drew Wagner, issued zoning violations to the airport and skydiving school.
The violations said the sale of skydiving lessons and helicopters make the airport a retail operation and retail is not allowed in a manufacturing zone. Neither is camping. Pilots sometimes throw a tarp over a wing and camp under it. The airport also has campers that are sometimes used as shelter by airport patrons.
The airport and Sky's the Limit were told to correct or remove the zoning violation within 30 days, which would have put Sky's the Limit out of business. The disagreement between the businesses and Smithfield moved from the Smithfield zoning board to court, where it remained undecided. The judge sent it back to the zoning board and required them to accept more evidence.
Tuesday was a continuation of the second zoning board hearing.
Smithfield Solicitor John Hiscott questioned Debra Eppley about life next to the airport.
"We hear yelling back and forth and sometimes profanities," she testified.
She also told the zoning board that the campers sometimes have bonfires. "We see people going in and out of there and we question who is going in and out of there," she said.
Debra Eppley is married to Dan Eppley, who, in 2007, sat on the Smithfield Township planning commission at the time the violation was issued. John Schoonover, a relative of the Eppleys, is on Smithfield's zoning board. His house neighbors the Eppley home, and is adjacent to the airport. Schoonover has recused himself from voting on the airport matter.
Debra Eppley told the zoning board that jumpers go on her property to retrieve parachutes from the trees. When a jumper's main chute works improperly, it is discarded in mid-air and the backup chute deploys.
She testified that the Eppleys used to escort jumpers onto the property, but fearing a liability lawsuit in case someone got hurt while retrieving a chute, they ended the practice. The Eppleys no longer allow jumpers to retrieve their parachutes.
Often referring to her notes, Eppley recalled about four instances through the years when the parachutes landed on her land, once with two jumpers attached. She said there were many more instances, but could not recall them.
Eppley said she and her husband purchased the house from her father in 1997. She has lived near the airport most of her life.
"The bigger, louder planes are more than what I was used to in past years," she said. The noise makes it unpleasant to have family reunions and picnics. "If I didn't have central air, I couldn't hear my TV," she testified.
Sky's the Limit has been in operation since 2005, two years before the zoning complaint. Airport owner Robert Strenz, who also testified Tuesday, said he had only received complaints from Eppley and someone in Stroud Township about noise from Sky's the Limit. The Stroud complaint is documented by a letter from Stroud Township Supervisor Daryl Eppley, Dan Eppley's cousin. "You could be cited for disturbing the peace," the letter said. It also warned that Sky's the Limit could be fined $1,000 a day if there is a noise violation.
Strenz was questioned at length about the number of campers and trailers that have moved on and off the airport property since he owned the airport.
Thats about as stoopid as me complaining about the noise of the F-16's taking off with full afterburner. When I moved into the appartment I was well aware that it was, not only next to an Air Force base (for my convienence), but I also accepted that the complex was very close to the end of an active runway.
She testified that the Eppleys used to escort jumpers onto the property, but fearing a liability lawsuit in case someone got hurt while retrieving a chute, they ended the practice. The Eppleys no longer allow jumpers to retrieve their parachutes.
Id like to see her try and stop me getting my main from her property
I wish whuffos could see/feel what we do when we jump. Maybe they would better understand.
Good luck, STL.
Give her a free tandem. LOL.
When I was a kid on a ranch in Oregon, there was a tiny little airport and skydivers would land on our property every Saturday. Didn't bother us one bit. My brother and I would RUN to go talk to them and ask them what it was like. Of course it wasn't a full on airport, it was really just another ranch and the owner cleared a runway and had a couple of planes. My dad gave them rides back every once in a while.
She also told the zoning board that the campers sometimes have bonfires. "We see people going in and out of there and we question who is going in and out of there," she said.
Go look, hell, they might offer you a beer.
Quote
Debra Eppley is married to Dan Eppley, who, in 2007, sat on the Smithfield Township planning commission at the time the violation was issued. John Schoonover, a relative of the Eppleys, is on Smithfield's zoning board. His house neighbors the Eppley home, and is adjacent to the airport. Schoonover has recused himself from voting on the airport matter.
Probably because he would have voted to keep the skydiving business and didnt want to piss her off.
Quote
Debra Eppley told the zoning board that jumpers go on her property to retrieve parachutes from the trees. When a jumper's main chute works improperly, it is discarded in mid-air and the backup chute deploys.
Trust me, I'm sure they prefer that the main and freebag land right infront of the rigger shed...
Quote
She testified that the Eppleys used to escort jumpers onto the property, but fearing a liability lawsuit in case someone got hurt while retrieving a chute, they ended the practice. The Eppleys no longer allow jumpers to retrieve their parachutes.
So, make them sign a waiver before they come onto the property.
Quote
Often referring to her notes, Eppley recalled about four instances through the years when the parachutes landed on her land, once with two jumpers attached. She said there were many more instances, but could not recall them.
Nice, shes keeping a logbook of others jumps! Again, not that they WANT to land there.
Quote
"The bigger, louder planes are more than what I was used to in past years," she said. The noise makes it unpleasant to have family reunions and picnics. "If I didn't have central air, I couldn't hear my TV," she testified.
Big, loud planes, at an airport?? You dont say! Guess it makes up for all the BIG OLD LOUD cars back in the day, going away and being replaced by Hondas with sewing machine motors
Quote
Strenz was questioned at length about the number of campers and trailers that have moved on and off the airport property since he owned the airport.
Would you rather someone sleep in their car? A camper is a big truck... whats the problem?
Airports are a Conditional use in the Industrial district. ordinances here
The noise ordinance is very vague and can be interpreted however the enforcement officers desire. Here we have sound levels written into ours. But they are for adjacent properties. Not sure that any municipality ordinance would apply to air to ground noise once off the ground. Taxi take off maybe. But it is listed as a private airport open to the public.
There are no zoning catagories where an Airport is a principle permitted and no other zoning where an airport is a conditional use. So there is no other zoning code for an airport. I would maintain that an airport by definition is a commercial operation. Airport in for here FBO services [url"http://www.airnav.com/airport/N53/A]here If this isn't a commercial operation I don't know what it is.
"Aviation fuel Aircraft parking (ramp or tiedown) Hangar leasing / sales Flight training Aerial tours / aerial sightseeing Aircraft maintenance Avionics sales and service Aircraft interiors Skydiving Restrooms "
Anybody know who has jurisdiction over air to ground noise? Officially? If anyone.
Near where I live is part of the landing pattern for SFO, and lots of neighbors complain about the noise. The city council requested to either FAA or SFO, to change the pattern but it hasn't happened. Wouldn't the FAA be in charge, at least partially, for changing the pattern? It would sure require their help to change the landing beacon.
I'm sorry to see this news. If I recall correctly, Sky's the Limit had to move out of Sussex, NJ (where I did my first tandem and started my AFF) because of very irritable neighbors. So the owners made an even better dz at East Stroudsburg (it really is a fantastic dz). I hope STL wins this dispute. I'd hate to see them forced to close shop again.
>Id like to see her try and stop me getting my main from her property
If you tried, and she (and her husband, and her two sons) "escorted" you to the property line, and broke your arm in the process, she'd be in the right - and you'd be in jail if they decided to press charges.
This is a simple case of neighbors going at each other. She has a right to what happens on her property. If you are foolish enough to put your main parachute in her tree, she does not have to let you come get it.
A much better situation is that she doesn't mind if you come and get it. The best way to make that happen is to try to be a good neighbor. If loud music bothers her, turn it down. If she doesn't like bonfires near her property, have them somewhere else. If she doesn't like people landing near her property line, land away from it. If her fence gets knocked down by a swooper by accident, buy her a new and better one (and make sure it has a gate!)
Calling her a crazy bitch and then trying to knock her down to get to your parachute will have the opposite effect. So decide if the feel-good you get from looking down on her will make up for the loss of your $2000 parachute if it comes to that.
> If you are foolish enough to put your main parachute in her tree, she does not have to let you come get it.
.
Not so. In every jurisdiction I've encountered, a person can't retain the property of another simply because it ended up on their property.
She doesn't have to let you retrieve it. She could retrieve it herself. In some courts, she could also be held liable for damage to your property if she chooses to remove it herself.
Either way, police should be called to protect yourself
> If you are foolish enough to put your main parachute in her tree, she does not have to let you come get it.
Not so. In every jurisdiction I've encountered, a person can't retain the property of another simply because it ended up on their property.
She doesn't have to let you retrieve it. She could retrieve it herself. In some courts, she could also be held liable for damage to your property if she chooses to remove it herself.
Either way, police should be called to protect yourself
>She doesn't have to let you retrieve it. She could retrieve it herself.
Correct. She could call a friend with a big ladder, retrieve it in a week, hang onto it for another week, then arrange a time with you when you can pick it up. Much easier, IMO, to work with her so that she's willing to let you do it.
She would also be entitled to a "reasonable fee?" for professional removal and may also be entitled to fees for for her personal time and expense. The old adage of catching more flies with honey than vinegar might apply here. Famer McNasty's are usually created and then nurtured by the very people that made them!
I am so glad we dont have any McNastys! I was told we used to have one but not that i know of now. I was just in the mayors office last friday with another jumper. The mayor could not say enough good things about our DZ and how the town valued us being there. We were just trying to give him a free tandem (dont know if he is going to or not just yet) and sat down with him for a while as a couple of fun jumpers. But our DZ in general is very nice to our neighbors!
Edit cause im a dumbass Thanks John Rich
(This post was edited by JohnDeere on May 7, 2009, 8:04 PM)
There are some people who you simply can’t please. It sounds to me like her real complaint is the jump plane, but she couldn’t get anywhere complaining about an airplane flying in and out of an airport. I had a guy a few years ago complaining about my C182. According to him it “drones, and drones, and drones,” and this guy lives a couple of miles away from the airport! He also lives in the flight path of McConnell AFB, and fairly close to a very busy railroad track. I suggested that when he could convince the Federal Government, and Union Pacific to stop making noise, that I would as well. I started the conversation with a very congenial tone, by the end he’d pushed enough of my buttons that I advised him to go fornicate with himself. He never called me again, but as I understand didn’t give up his little campaign until he found something larger to worry about (cancer or something).
Funny thing about this phone call, I was oblivious to what was happening around me. When I put the phone down and looked up, just about everyone in the hanger was staring at me, mouth agape.
Good luck! Martin
(This post was edited by skydived19006 on May 8, 2009, 6:30 AM)
> If you are foolish enough to put your main parachute in her tree, she does not have to let you come get it.
Not so. In every jurisdiction I've encountered, a person can't retain the property of another simply because it ended up on their property.
She doesn't have to let you retrieve it. She could retrieve it herself. In some courts, she could also be held liable for damage to your property if she chooses to remove it herself.
Either way, police should be called to protect yourself
Correct - and sensible.
You've got to be kidding. The first time the police have to show up to facilitate the retrieval of a cut away main they are going to be pissed. The second time they are going to begin making sure there isn't a third time. Guess who's going to lose on that one.
I wish whuffos could see/feel what we do when we jump. Maybe they would better understand. 
1
