State Supreme Court To Hear Highlands Airport Appeal On Airspace Case

By The Continuous News Desk

Published: July 19, 2008

BY TIMOTHY CAMA
BRISTOL HERALD COURIER

ABINGDON, Va. – A fight over an easement on air space has representatives from the Virginia Highlands Airport Authority and Singleton Auto Parts preparing for an appearance before the state’s highest court.

The Supreme Court of Virginia granted the authority an appeal last month based on errors the authority believes were made in their condemnation suit against Singleton Auto Parts.

Last August, a Washington County Circuit Court jury ruled that the airport had to pay the business $130,000 for an easement on air space between 48 and 100 feet above the business’ service center at 1255 W. Main St.

The space would serve as a buffer for plane approaches and departures.

“It’s a case about safety,” said Jim Elliott, the authority’s attorney.

But to Margaret Singleton, who owns the auto repair and service business along with her father and sisters, it’s really about the negative effects the airport’s easement will have on the future of her property and business.

The airport authority needs the easement because of its recent switch to a non-precision instrument landing system, Elliott said. The system allows pilots to land aircraft more safely at the airport.

Although the town of Abingdon and Washington County enacted ordinances to prevent anyone from building or growing obstructions above a certain altitude, any obstructions already existing were grandfathered. The air space in question starts 200 feet past the airport’s runway and continues to rise at a rate of 34:1 for a distance of 10,000 feet.

Although obstructions in the flight path were grandfathered, the authority still had to obtain easements from those property owners, allowing them to clear the obstructions. The Federal Aviation Administration requires it, Elliott said.

He estimated that 90 percent of the more than 40 property owners from whom the authority sought easements agreed to the terms. The authority offered to pay Singleton $1,200 for removing trees at the back of her property, but Singleton refused, and the airport authority filed a lawsuit.

“They’ll tell you it’s about the trees,” said Singleton. “It’s not just about the trees.”

To Singleton, the noise and vibrations caused by airplanes flying directly over her property, combined with the negative impact the airport’s easement would have on the value of her property, entitles her to more money.

She called the offer of $1,200 “an insult.”

Because of eminent domain laws, Singleton cannot prevent the airport from taking the easement, but she can contest the amount of money offered.

The authority increased its offer to $1,600 shortly before the trial, but it still wasn’t enough for Singleton.

Elliott contends that Singleton’s testimony about the disturbances airplanes cause, as well as her testimony about decreased property value, should not have been allowed during the August trial.

He made a motion at the trial to dismiss the testimony, but the court denied the motion. Elliott called the evidence “speculative,” and argued in his appeal petition that such evidence cannot be presented in court.

“Nobody knows the future,” Singleton countered. “What if a radio station wants to buy my property?”

Because of the easement, which will be permanently attached to the property, a radio tower or any structure above 48 feet tall would be prohibited.

Singleton presented that example in court as well, and Elliott asked if she had ever received an offer from a radio station. She had not, she said.

The Abingdon ordinance would prohibit the radio station anyway, Elliott said in an interview. It prohibits any new obstructions within the affected zone.

In fact, Elliott says, the ordinance is identical to the easement, save for the fact that the easement seeks to remove existing obstructions. Singleton disagrees, saying the easement is permanent, while the ordinance isn’t.

The circuit court jury found the easement to be worth $80,000, while future damages caused by the easement are worth $30,000.

The Supreme Court of Virginia may hear the case this fall, according to Elliott. But the court may wish to hear it later, possibly into the winter.

The authority’s project to attain the easements is funded by a grant from the FAA, according to Mickey Hines, the airport’s manager.

The airport authority has spent about $322,670 on legal and administrative fees to get the 37 easements they have obtained so far, said Hines, and they’re still working a few of them out, including the Singleton easement.

Hines refused to disclose the amount of money spent so far on the Singleton case, saying the information is protected under the attorney-client privilege exemption of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. When the case is over, however, the authority will likely release that information, he said.

TIMOTHY CAMA is an intern with the Herald Courier and can be reached at or (276) 669-2181.