Airport Is Hot Topic

A push to further improve the recently rebuilt East Hampton Town Airport has catapulted the $4.5-million project back into the political arena.

In a situation reminiscent of the heated and prolonged battle over the airport's expansion that began in 1989, town officials, political candidates, airport users, and those who live under its flight paths are once again choosing sides.

During an impassioned East Hampton Town Board meeting on Tuesday, the widening of the main runway, runway 10-28, was thoroughly debated. The Republican majority made it clear it intended to move the project forward.

Its members, Councilmen Thomas Knobel and Len Bernard and Councilwoman Nancy McCaffrey, said the town would risk losing $3 million from the Federal Aviation Administration if the work were aborted or delayed. They also claimed the runway was not safe as is.

A Mistake

The minority board members, Democratic Supervisor Cathy Lester and Councilman Peter Hammerle, however, raised questions about whether a widening project would be legal without a new environmental study and a public hearing.

The 1989 airport master plan had earmarked the runway's widening for a complete environmental study before construction could start. Town planners, however, had advised six months ago that it was a simple maintenance project that did not need further environmental review.

This week, Lisa Liquori, the planning director, and Marguerite Wolffsohn, the assistant director, said the complete proposal had not been made clear to them at the time.

"It was a mistake," said Ms. Wolffsohn.

"An expensive mistake," snapped Councilwoman McCaffrey.

Councilman Knobel said he meant for construction to start next month; a full environmental review could delay it for more than a year.

Procedural Questions

Supervisor Lester and Councilman Hammerle admitted the entire Town Board had made errors by moving ahead with certain already completed projects included in a 1989 master plan which was never formally adopted.

That plan was signed by former Supervisor Tony Bullock and sent on to the F.A.A., "and I have been following it ever after," protested Mr. Knobel.

"Someone has to explain to the Feds why we've been signing off on all these projects over the years. I don't think it's a necessary requirement to have a public hearing on every project," he added.

Supervisor Lester, who said the board could not continue to "modify" the 1989 plan piecemeal, but should commission another plan, accused him of trying to "ram this through," which Mr. Knobel angrily denied.

Category At Issue

"I understand how you got here, but people made mistakes along the way. I made mistakes too . . . but now that I have the proper information I cannot continue to move forward," said Councilman Hammerle.

He and Supervisor Lester said that if the Republicans continued on their present course, the airport would be irrevocably classified a "basic transport" facility, "which opens us up to a whole bunch of uncontrollable uses" under F.A.A. rules. They said it should remain as is, a "utility" airport.

A 1994 document identifies the airport as the larger of the two. "Maybe that's why the F.A.A. wants a wider runway and more lights," added Ms. Lester.

Called Dangerous

Runway 10-28 is 75 feet wide with roughly 12-foot-wide margins on either side. The pavement in the margins, left over from years ago when the runway was 100 feet wide, is cracked and has grass growing through it. The proposal is to repave the entire runway with a thicker overlay, making it 100 feet wide again, and to install brighter runway lights.

Pat Ryan, the airport manager, said the runway had not been repaved in nearly 20 years and could be dangerous for any plane that did not land dead center.

In 1979, he said, the town opted to save money by repaving only 75 feet of the runway. Returning it to 100 feet would "jibe with the type of airport we have. It would only better accommodate the planes that are using the airport now."

Accusations Fly

Mr. Ryan added that the widening would not allow the runway to accommodate larger planes; only lengthening the runway, which is not in the plans, would do that, he said.

Bids on the project have come in at about $2.7 million. The F.A.A. has paid roughly 90 percent of the $4.5 million spent on rebuilding the airport so far, and has agreed to bankroll certain future improvements to a similar extent.

Councilman Bernard dismissed the Democrats' claim that there are many opponents of further improvements. He even accused Councilman Hammerle of fabricating reports of concerned constituents.

Mr. Hammerle, in turn, accused Mr. Bernard of orchestrating "a concerted letter-writing campaign" that nonetheless did not constitute "a proper public hearing forum."

New Capital Plan?

Mr. Knobel also is pushing ahead with a revised airport capital plan, a wish list of 16 items to be implemented over five years. With the exception of widening the main runway, the completion of recent work - a new terminal building, access road, parking lot, and apron, where planes take on and disembark passengers - fulfilled the goals of previous plan.

The Republicans voted last month to spend $147,000 on the first legal step toward adopting a new capital plan, an environmental assessment of whether each of the 16 projects presented a potential environmental hazard, needed further review, or could proceed.

The two Democrats, pushing this week for a full environmental study of the runway's widening, voted against a similar assessment of a proposed new capital plan, saying they wanted all expansion efforts to end.

Letters Come In

According to Councilman Knobel, the assessment is required by the F.A.A. and by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. It would take in all activities at the airport, and look at the possible impact of the 16 items on noise, terrain, groundwater quality, noise and visual pollution, garbage, and so on.

As in the conflict in 1989, a barrage of letters to The Star over the last month has expressed support and opposition to further improvements, with the opponents slightly ahead. This week's Star, for example, includes a letter from Donald Petrie, a longtime Georgica Association resident, who had written his share of letters several years ago.

Mr. Petrie observes the passing of a six-year period of bipartisan "restraint" concerning the airport and says the upcoming election would "constitute a referendum by the voters as to whether they want further expansion."

As for political issues, Councilman Knobel predicted that closing the town's two landfills, which could end up costing more than $50 million, "will be bigger." And, like the airport, he noted the process for reviewing the options there had only just begun.