Settle Airport Dispute?

Litigants in the East Hampton Airport controversy expressed hope Tuesday that an agreement will be worked in the next few days allowing the main runway repaving project to proceed, in return for a change in town law guaranteeing public scrutiny of any airport projects from now on.

East Hampton Town Supervisor Cathy Lester and other town officials met yesterday morning with Richard Cahn of Melville, their attorney in various airport-related lawsuits filed against the town.

Mr. Cahn, before going into the meeting with Ms. Lester, Councilwoman Pat Mansir, Cynthia Shea, the town attorney, and Pat Ryan, the airport manager, said he was "hopeful we can reach an agreement . . . that will satisfy everyone that the Town Board is being fair."

"We're working very hard to resolve the differences among the parties," said the Supervisor.

Stipulation

The meeting, according to Mr. Ryan, was called to review "a proposed stipulation of agreement sent to the town by Pat Trunzo's group."

Mr. Trunzo 3d, an attorney, represents a dozen or so individuals and two associations who sued on Jan. 22 to prevent the runway work, on the grounds that the Town Board had violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act in issuing the contract.

The suit also contends that the airport layout plan was never properly adopted and demands it be declared null and void.

"A True Compromise"

Mr. Trunzo said Tuesday that the two sides were working on a settlement that would be "a true compromise. We'd be given things we want, and the town would be able to keep the [Federal Aviation Administration] grant to repave the runway." The repaving is to be paid for in large part through $2.7 million in F.A.A. funds.

Last fall, in the days leading up to the town election, Ms. Lester refused to sign the project's contract, and on Jan. 7, the F.A.A. gave the town 60 days to fish or cut bait. That deadline is fast approaching

Should an agreement be signed, Mr. Trunzo said, "our lawsuit would be withdrawn, and the town would call off its appeal and would sign the contract."

A suit filed in November by the project contractor, Hendrickson Brothers of Farmingdale, would presumably be dropped as well.

Ms. Lester, who has maintained the runway project did not receive stringent enough environmental review or public scrutiny, said the town had taken the initiative in resolving the controversy.

She added that "the F.A.A. has said that as long as we're working toward a settlement, it will keep the grant money there."

"I'm confident everything will be resolved amicably," said the Supervisor.

Safety Or Expansion

The airport has been a flashpoint here for years, igniting periodically the tempers of fixed-base operators, pilots, and the increasing number of residents who have come to live near it. It has been the subject of half-a-dozen master plans.

It was a proposal in the latest one, to repave and widen runway 10-28 to its original width of 100 feet, that sparked the present controversy.

Proponents argued that the runway was unsafe as it now stands. Opponents maintained that the work would in fact constitute not a "reconstruction" but an expansion of the airport, fostered, they say, by an expansion-minded F.A.A.

Ordered To Sign

The project's contract was awarded before Election Day by the then Republican-controlled Town Board to Hendrickson Brothers. Two weeks after Ms. Lester was re-elected and refused to sign it, Hendrickson sued.

Over Christmas week, Supreme Court Justice Donald Kitson ordered Ms. Lester, who had previously signed off on environmental checklists, to sign the contract.

But the incoming Town Board, now controlled by Democrats, agreed to appeal the decision and created a "blue-ribbon" panel to review the runway project and others in the plan, which is a 1994 update of a 1989 layout.

The appeal would be called off, Mr. Trunzo said, as part of any settlement.

Airport Users

Last week, the East Hampton Airport Property Owners Association, a group of airport users who want the project to proceed, hired its own attorney and intervened in the Trunzo suit on the side of the town in order to make sure the project's proponents were heard.

Mary O'Connor, an officer of the association, said yesterday that for the town to accede to the demands of "a small amount of people" would be tantamount to blackmail.

Ms. Lester maintained this week that "there probably wouldn't have been a citizens' complaint had there been public hearings and public review of this project in the first place. There were no public hearings. Even though I asked in August or September for a public hearing, the board disagreed."

The present board was agreed, she said, that "there should be open scrutiny of projects like this that affect so many people."

Lawyers Meet

Mr. Ryan, the airport manager, was asked if he thought an agreement were imminent.

"I see the ball bouncing back and forth," he said. "I get the impression that a lot of things they're asking for we couldn't accommodate, like raising the non-based aircraft fees 500 percent, or things we have no power over."

"The next step is for Mr. Cahn to meet with Pat Trunzo" (a meeting that was to have been held yesterday). "Things are moving pretty quickly."

"It's not Iraq," said Ms. Lester, "but the airport issue is probably as close to war as we'll get in this town."

A $29.5 million Federal civil rights suit filed in November by one of the fixed-base operators, alleging political favoritism by the former board in assigning a hangar lease to the other fixed-base operator, is not expected to be affected by any settlement.