Town Weighs Limits On Airport Use

Limiting the use of the East Hampton Airport based on the season, day of the week, and time of day would be a reasonable way to address aircraft noise, an environmental consultant told the East Hampton Town Board on Tuesday. The board, in response to a tide of complaints and pleas from local residents and town officials from both the North and South Forks, has vowed to put new rules in place by next summer.

Information compiled about the effects of aircraft noise, including data on the type of aircraft that fly in and out, their patterns of approach and departure, and the complaints themselves, defines the problem, said Ted Baldwin of Harris Miller Miller and Hanson, and points to limiting use during certain days and times as part of the solution.

Other actions, such as limiting the number of takeoffs and landings by time or type of aircraft, or banning certain aircraft such as helicopters, which have been identified as the most disturbing to residents, could also be feasible but would require more study, he said.

Mr. Baldwin was charged with reviewing the results of a phase-one noise study by another firm, presented to the board in October, as well as updating data on airport operations, noise, and complaints, in order to hone a draft statement on the aircraft-noise situation. A “short list of the most promising alternatives” was also created.

The consultant summed up the problem as follows: “Noise from aircraft operating at East Hampton Airport disturbs many residents of the East End of Long Island. Residents find helicopters more disturbing than any category of fixed-wing aircraft. Disturbance caused by all types of aircraft is most significant when operations are (1) most frequent and (2) in evening and night hours.”

In concert with Mr. Baldwin, Catherine van Heuven of Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, the town’s aviation law firm, assessed a list of potential airport use restrictions that were laid out in the noise study’s first phase. She weighed them against the data-driven description of the noise problem to determine how, or if, they might address the issues and also meet the Federal Aviation Administration’s standards for acceptable local regulations.

Although the F.A.A. maintains a degree of authority over airports (and the sole authority over planes in flight), proprietors of local airports such as the townmay enact restrictions if they are nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory, and “narrowly tailored to a local problem” that is clearly defined, Ms. van Heuven said.

The town, for instance, “cannot be overly responsive” to citizens’ complaints about noise, she said, by enacting broad restrictions that are unsupported by facts.

In a recent 12-month period, Mr. Baldwin said Tuesday, 24,000 complaints were received about aircraft noise — “an extraordinary number,” he said, in comparison even to major airports such as Boston’s Logan, where 1,000 to 1,200 noise complaints are received each year.

Of eight alternatives for action presented to the board in the first-phase noise study, four can be disregarded, Ms. van Heuven said. Three may eventually prove viable, but that will “require a little more digging” to ascertain.

But, she said, establishing restrictions on landings and takeoffs based on the season, day of the week, or time of day, such as, for example, an evening, night, and early-morning curfew, would clearly help the town address the noise problem as defined and borne out by the data.

And there is “clear data,” the attorney said, showing that helicopters prompt the most noise complaints. Decibel levels have often been used as the measure for a disturbing noise, she said, but while helicopters may not be as loud as some other aircraft, the tone and pattern of their noise and vibrations has been found to be more disturbing than louder sounds. Should the town target helicopters in potential regulations, a “more sophisticated analysis” could be warranted, she said.

In a recent court case, the F.A.A. successfully used the number of complaints generated by helicopters, rather than their absolute loudness, to support the imposition of a mandated flight route over the water off Long Island’s north shore.

Eliminated as workable alternatives for East Hampton Town, said Ms. van Heuven, were “mitigation” — decreasing noise disturbance by installing sound insulation in houses or buying up affected properties — and instituting fees that would deter specific planes from using the airport, or during peak periods. A fee would “have to be high enough to change behavior,” the lawyer said, but such a fee in East Hampton, where there are numerous wealthy airport users might not be considered “reasonable” under the F.A.A.’s definition.

In the federal agency’s view, she explained, airport fees must be linked to “the burden on the airport . . . not necessarily aggravation to the community.” For instance, she said, a heavier plane might be charged a higher landing fee, as it causes more runway wear and tear.

In addition, she said, setting high fees could have “unintended consequences,” limiting use of the airport by local small-plane pilots, who, it was agreed at the meeting, are not part of the problem.

David Gruber and Pat Trunzo, both of them attorneys who have been vocal in discussions of the airport and aircraft noise, questioned Ms. van Heuven’s depiction of the F.A.A.’s legal stance on fees and asked for further citation.

Taking no action at all was also “not a reasonable alternative,” Ms. van Heuven said. “Your ultimate solution is not going to be just one thing,” she told the board.

The town board continues to seek public comments on the issue; they may be submitted by email to [email protected].

More than a dozen members of the public spoke during Tuesday’s meeting, most of them imploring the board to do something about noise from the skies. But Kathryn Slye, a pilot, said the board had ignored the needs and opinions of local pilots. She said she had been asked not to speak at an aircraft noise hearing in August, where more than 50 members of the public made comments, and that she had signed up to speak on that day, but had not been called. She wondered whether the aviation subcommittee of the town-appointed airport planning committee had been asked to weigh in on potential airport use restrictions.

It had been, said Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, but had not submitted comments.

Ken Lipper, a former New York City deputy mayor, and Peter Wolf, a planner, have mounted a public campaign to ban helicopter and seaplane landings and takeoffs at the airport, among other restrictions. Mr. Lipper reported Tuesday that Cravath, Swaine & Moore, a leading and “conservative” law firm hired by the two men to provide an opinion on whether the regulations they have proposed would be on firm legal footing, had said their proposal “fully comports . . . with existing legal constraints on the ability of localities to regulate airport operations.”

The firm is available for consultation with town officials and the town attorney, Mr. Lipper said.