Runway Controversy: Still No Agreement
"When you get involved in a gunfight at the O.K. Corral, the most dangerous spot to be in is the middle," Ron Peckham, the vice president of C & S Engineers, said to a crowded room at the American Legion Hall in Amagansett. His firm designed the proposed reconstruction of East Hampton Airport's main runway at center stage at a heated public meeting on the project Friday.
More than 200 people attended, to question, debate, and testify on the merits and drawbacks of the controversial runway improvements. In the end, those on both sides seem to have stood firm.
Supervisor Cathy Lester maintains that doing the reconstruction before further State Environmental Quality Review is "illegal." Republican Town Board members, who say the proper groundwork has already been done, say that Friday's meeting only underscored the reasons to move forward now with the runway rehab.
Not Over Yet
On Tuesday, Town Board members Thomas Knobel, Len Bernard, and Nancy McCaffrey pushed through a resolution authorizing Mr. Knobel to sign a construction contract with Hendrickson Brothers of Farmingdale for improvements to runway 10-28.
"You can fight it if you want to, but you should have been signing it anyhow," Mr. Knobel said in response to the Supervisor's protests. On Monday, reflecting on Friday's public meeting, he said he had heard people seeking reasons to object to the project, but no actual objections.
To those unfamiliar with the issue, that would seem to be the end of it. But the recent history of East Hampton Airport proves that nothing is over till it's over. Hendrickson Brothers has already brought suit against the town and Ms. Lester asking a judge to compel the Supervisor or another Town Board member to sign its contract.
"The Campaign Is Over"
The Supervisor's defense is that she had legitimate legal concerns about the project that compelled her not to sign the contract. As of yesterday, a determination had not yet been made.
Though the town attorney, Robert Savage, and a deputy attorney, John Jilnicki, said New York State Town Law allows for another board member in towns the size of East Hampton to execute a contract, the Supervisor questioned the legality of Tuesday's resolution and said she would seek an injunction against it.
"There is not a single reason not to do this . . . . The air is cleared as far as the actual project. At some point the campaign is over," Mr. Knobel told The Star Monday, adding "It would be gross misconduct if anybody tries to stop this."
Boisterous Group
In the capacity crowd at the American Legion Hall Friday, only a handful spoke against moving forward with the project. Pilots urged the town to reconstruct the runway before it becomes a more serious hazard. Many in the audience chose not to speak, but heckled or cheered on those who did, making for a boisterous four hours.
Representatives of the Federal Aviation Administration and C & S Engineers detailed the plans and history of the project and answered questions about it at the start of the meeting.
According to C & S, the runway, which is now 75 feet wide with a deteriorated 12-and-a-half-foot shoulder on either side, is proposed to be reconstructed and repaved. The shoulders on either side of it would be strengthened and become part of the runway proper.
New Lights
The 20-year-old runway lights are to be replaced with newer bulbs of the same wattage, but the new wiring will allow for higher intensity bulbs in the future if the town chooses.
Phil Brito, the manager of the F.A.A. regional office, said replacing the lighting isn't mandatory, but, if the town chooses to use precision landing instruments, it will need to be able to install high intensity bulbs. A 100-foot runway is also required for a precision approach, the airport manager, Pat Ryan said. "I expect we will take advantage of [it]," he added.
The revamped runway will not change the type and number of aircraft that could land at East Hampton Airport, nor will it accommodate larger airplanes than are already landing there, said Bruce Clark of C & S, the project manager.
Near The End
While those opposed to moving for ward with the reconstruction have claimed that the load-bearing capacity of the runway would increase from 8,000 pounds to 60,000 pounds, C & S engineers said the runway was originally designed to bear 50,000 pounds over a 20-year life cycle and that the reconstructed runway would bear 60,000 pounds over its 20-year life.
"There is not a single aircraft that will be attracted to East Hampton Airport as a result of the widening, strengthening, and reconstruction of the runway," Mr. Brito told the crowd. Along with the project's engineers and the F.A.A.'s airport engineer, Dan Vornea, Mr. Brito insisted throughout the meeting that the project was about maintenance and safety, not expansion of services.
A repaving project 20 years ago was meant to last just 10 years. Now, Mr. Peckham said, "the runway is near the end of its life."
Unsafe Runway
"This has nothing to do with attracting or promoting larger aircraft," Michael Margulies of the East Hampton Aviation Association said. "We are against runway lengthening. If you want, we will put our names to it."
"We do not want expansion," Thomas P. Lavinio, the president of the Aviation Association, said, echoing Mr. Margulies and many other pilots who spoke. What they do want is some assurances about safety. "Runway 10-28 is one of the most unsafe, cracked runways I've experienced in my years of flying," Mr. Lavinio said.
Richard Krause, another pilot and member of the association, said, "I've worked damn hard to get that little Cessna. A propellor costs $2,400, and if I start picking up rocks I'm going to get pretty angry."
Agree On Safety
Irving Paler, a pilot from Wainscott, urged the town to move forward with the improvements with F.A.A. funding, rather than local taxpayer money.
The F.A.A. has pledged a $2.5 million grant for the runway work, but will not fund a runway narrower than 100 feet. Anything less, according to Mr. Brito, does not meet the agency's safety standards for airports serving the type and size of planes that East Hampton's does.
"Actually, our position is largely in agreement with the pilots' association," Henry Clifford, the chairman of the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion, told the crowd. He said his group wants a safer airport, too, but doesn't want an airport capable of serving more planes and larger planes. He asked the Town Board to "re-examine the project, conduct the proper environmental review, and not expand [the runway] to 100 feet."
No Real Option
"If we fund the reconstruction it will be 100 feet wide," Mr. Brito said. He pointed out that when the town first accepted Federal money for the airport it agreed to abide by F.A.A. standards. That means keeping the airport open 24 hours a day and meeting other Federal safety standards for airport improvements.
By that token, the runway will ultimately have to be 100 feet wide whether or not it is paid for by the F.A.A.
"The only option the town has is to not do any reconstruction until the runway deteriorates and the airport has to be closed," Mr. Brito said. After the meeting he added that if, after further study, the town decides to repave at 75 feet, the F.A.A. could take legal action against East Hampton.
Improbable Scenario
Mr. Brito said the town cannot restrict the type of planes using the airport and that the choice to land in East Hampton was the pilot's alone.
"I'm feeling we have no control over who comes into the Town Airport," Councilman Peter Hammerle said at the meeting Friday. "If more pilots decide to come in than now, is the F.A.A. going to . . . invoke new standards, new design categories, new requirements. . . . Can we be a Category C airport for the rest of our existence regardless of what's going to attempt to come into our airport in the future?"
Mr. Brito answered with a flat-out "no." "Category D [larger aircraft than typically use the airport] can come into East Hampton airport with a [runway of] substandard width. If there are 500 operations per year in a given category, the airport should be designed to accommodate that airplane, but that's probably not going to happen."
Larger Picture
The chance that it will is what worries opponents of the project, who fear that this will lead to further changes at the airport, such as lengthening the runway to accommodate larger aircraft.
"We do not see this project in isolation," said Pat Trunzo 3d, an attorney and member of the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion. He and other opponents of the project believe it has to be looked at as part of a larger picture.
"This project is being segmented," Pierce Hance, Mayor of Sag Harbor, said. He would like to see the project undergo a more extensive environmental quality review. "There's no reason to be afraid of the process."
"Take A Hard Look"
"This is being rammed down the throats of the people in the town," Supervisor Lester said Tuesday. If the town has to do what the F.A.A. dictates, that's all the more reason to "stop and take a hard look" at this project, she said.
Now, it's the widening of the runway the town won't be able to stop, the Supervisor said. Soon, she worried, it will be the length of the runway, then precision approach instruments, then moving Daniel's Hole Road. The impression people are being given, she feels, is that "they could not stop this runaway freight train."
Mr. Brito said Friday that the town's own master plan for the airport did not advise runway lengthening.
No End In Sight
"We all want basically the same thing - controlled growth of the airport," Tom Hensler, another member of the aviation association, said.
"I wish we could suggest a graceful way for certain town officials to reverse their misinformed actions," Mr. Margulies said. "Further study to reach the same end is a further waste of taxpayer funds."
Though Councilman Knobel has since been authorized to sign the contract that could get the work started before the change of guard on the Town Board, it's still uncertain what will happen in the coming weeks.
The Supervisor and her allies still hope to put the brakes on the runway reconstruction and review the project, a process she said could take six months, but many expect would take well over a year.