The struggle over the future of East Hampton Airport intensified on Tuesday with the filing of lawsuits seeking to prevent the town from carrying out its plan to close the airport on Feb. 28 and reopen a new, private-use airport on the site on March 4 with a prior-permission-required framework, under which advance clearance is required before a pilot may use the airport.
On the same day, the town board was briefed on the next step in that plan.
Having regained control of the airport when federal grant assurances expired in September, the board is moving to address years of complaints from residents who say that the explosion in air traffic, particularly that of helicopters and large jets, is destroying their quality of life.
Three entities — Blade Air Mobility, which allows users of its app to book seats on scheduled helicopter and airplane flights; the Coalition to Keep East Hampton Airport Open, and East End Hangars — filed complaints in New York State Supreme Court challenging the plan put in motion last month when the town filed notices with the Federal Aviation Administration to formally close and reopen the airport.
The coalition’s complaint lists 10 individual plaintiffs including Andy Sabin, an Amagansett resident who has been critical of the plan to change the status quo at the airport, and George Dempsey, a pilot and the medical director of East Hampton Family Medicine. Five individuals, all residents of Montauk, are included in East End Hangars’ complaint, among them Tom Bogdan, who has long warned that closure or implementation of restrictions at East Hampton Airport will inevitably divert traffic to that hamlet’s small, privately owned airport. Blade’s complaint also lists seven individual plaintiffs, many of whom live in close proximity to an airport or helipad in East Hampton or Southampton Town.
Subsequent to the board’s actions to close and reopen the airport, a Feb. 2 letter from the F.A.A. warned that “it may take approximately two years to restore the current capability to the airport if it is deactivated” depending on potential environmental analyses. More recently, Global Medical Response, a provider of medical helicopters and fixed-wing air ambulance services, expressed its “extreme concern” about the plan. Their opposition is covered elsewhere in today’s paper.
“In developing its attempted end run around federal controls, the town has chosen to ignore all legal requirements (and substantial corresponding time) necessary to achieve the lawful closing of the public use airport and the reopening of a private facility,” the coalition’s complaint reads. It has disregarded a di rect warning from the F.A.A. that the plan “was not feasible” and could take up to two years, it said. “If allowed to go forward with this misguided plan, it will inextricably damage the community and potentially lead to the inability of emergency personnel to provide lifesaving services in the community.”
The complaint further charges that the town’s own documents and independent studies show that closure of East Hampton Airport will result in diversion to other airports in the area: the Montauk Airport, Gabreski Airport in Westhampton Beach, and the helipad in Southampton Village. “This will result in significant adverse impacts” including noise from diverted flights, and an increase in vehicular traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.
East End Hangars’ complaint also refers to Southampton Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman’s December letter to Peter Van Scoyoc, his counterpart in East Hampton, in which he predicted “unwelcome and serious diversion effects” of closing or enacting restrictions at East Hampton Airport. Jet pilots will land at Gabreski Airport, he said, after which travelers “will either drive on already congested roads to points east, or transfer to a helicopter for the last leg of the trip to the Meadow Lane Helipad in Southampton Village or Montauk Airport. This would create the unintended consequence of more helicopter traffic,” he wrote.
“Montauk doesn’t have to suffer,” Mr. Bogdan told The Star on Tuesday. “We’ve tried and tried to work with them, but they’ve ignored Montauk.” The town has “disrespected us in every way,” he said, and is “dead set on transferring this problem to us. We had to do something, and this is what we did.”
At the town board’s virtual meeting, consultants presented for review a resolution that could be voted on as soon as today to issue a “positive declaration” in connection with long-term operations at a new airport, meaning it could have potentially significant environmental impacts. The town would have to outline the scope of a draft generic environmental impact statement that would be prepared in connection with the changes being contemplated.
Implementing a prior-permission-required program is a discretionary action, the board was told. Discretionary actions with potential environmental impacts are subject to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA, requiring the town to conduct a thorough environmental review and examine alternatives prior to taking action. Operational changes, Dan Ruzow, a consulting attorney, told the board, would require preparation of an environmental impact statement to consider their effects, “primarily diversion effects” should aircraft operations at East Hampton Airport be restricted. The board’s plan “could have potential significant impacts on noise at and surrounding” Montauk Airport, Gabreski Airport, and the Southampton helipad, said Lisa Liquori, a consultant.
Issuance of a draft environmental impact statement scope would open a 30-day public comment period. The town would update and issue a final draft scope based on comments received. It would then prepare a draft generic environmental impact statement, incorporating the observed impacts of a prior-permission-required system during the upcoming summer season. This could happen in the fall, the board was told. More public comment would be received, informing a final generic environmental impact statement that would in turn inform an environmental finding statement, concluding the SEQRA process. That could happen around one year from now. The board would then be in a position to take action on a full and permanent prior-permission-required system.
The process will take time, Mr. Van Scoyoc acknowledged. The board wants to engage the public in developing the new restrictions, he said. “We hope people will be cooperative in going through this process,” including pilots and other members of the aviation industry, “so that we have a clear and transparent discussion about how to move forward constructively and collaboratively in order to have an airport.”
His statement did not stop several callers to the meeting from imploring the board to heed the warnings in the F.A.A.’s Feb. 2 letter and table its plan. Local control is “in your grasp,” said Jeff Smith, vice president of operations for the Eastern Region Helicopter Council. “The only thing that will stop that from happening will be litigation,” which he predicted “will strip away what you have fought for and spent so much money on over the years, and deliver it to the courts. A judge and high-priced lawyers will decide the fate of the airport. You and I will be bystanders.” He asked if the town could “push the pause button until we have all the answers.”
But other callers criticized pilots and aviation interests while applauding the board’s “courage and conviction,” urging it to stay the course.
