A New York State Supreme Court justice has prohibited East Hampton Town from closing and reopening East Hampton Airport as a private facility with restrictions on aircraft operations in place pending an environmental review, dealing another blow to the town board's plan to address what many residents complain is a ruined quality of life.
Justice Paul Baisley, who in May implemented a temporary restraining order enjoining the board's plan to close the airport and reopen it 33 hours later under a prior-permission-required framework — a victory for the plaintiffs Blade Air Mobility, East End Hangars, and the Coalition to Keep East Hampton Airport Open, along with several individuals — ruled on Wednesday that the town, by planning to conduct an environmental impact statement after the airport's closure and reopening, "has acted both beyond its legal abilities and in an arbitrary and capricious manner" and is therefore prohibited from closing it.
"In moving forward with the airport closure plan the town has indicated that it will close the airport and impose significant restrictions on flights at the new airport, and thereafter, complete its environmental impact statement," Justice Baisley wrote. "However, the purpose of SEQRA [the State Environmental Quality Review Act] is for government agencies to consider the environmental impacts of its actions at the earliest possible time." Environmental impact statements, he wrote, "rely on forward-looking predictive models for traffic, noise, and various other environmental impacts."
Justice Baisley also sided with the plaintiffs' argument that the town was not in compliance with the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act's procedural requirements for adopting noise and access restrictions affecting certain aircraft.
Responding to a question from a Noyac resident who is a persistent critic of the airport, Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said at today's meeting of the town board that "we initially had proposed doing our SEQRA review to assess [prior-permission-required] regulations in real time so we could have actual data instead of hypothetical data. Apparently, the court wants us to go forward with hypothetical data. We will be doing that as part of SEQRA review, instead of actual, real-life results."
There could be no impact, the supervisor argued, until the prior-permission-required framework was implemented. "We never got an opportunity to do that" owing to Justice Baisley's imposition of the temporary restraining order, he said, but the board will work with its outside counsel "to provide the community the relief the community deserves."
Residents "should be hearing more from us very soon," Mr. Van Scoyoc said. "Of course, we're very disappointed with the decision," which he said failed to acknowledge the years of work the town had devoted to adhering to federal procedures while crafting "common sense" regulations to address residents' quality of life. "We will continue the fight."
A statement from the East Hampton Community Alliance, which advocates the airport's continued operation, said the group "is hopeful that the recent court ruling will encourage all parties to use this as an opportunity to develop a balanced solution to keep East Hampton Airport open to continue to serve the economic and life-saving interests of the community."
Steven Dunaif, board president of East End Hangars, called Justice Baisley's ruling "a step in the right direction" in a statement issued on Wednesday. "We never wanted to file a lawsuit, but the town continually disregarded our concerns over privatizing the airport, making litigation our only option," he said. "We are hopeful that town leaders can bring our community together and reach a legal solution that benefits all of East Hampton."
