- RELATED ARTICLES
- > State Adds East Hampton Airport Hazardous Waste Site To Superfund List Jun 11, 2019 11:50 AM
- > Helicopter Traffic Continues To Swell As East Hampton Town Seeks Options To Reduce It Feb 5, 2019 4:37 PM
- > East Hampton Helicopter Traffic, Soaring Since Curfews Lifted, Continues To Increase In 2018 Aug 14, 2018 4:35 PM
- > East Hampton Town Town Pleads With Helicopters To Fly South Aug 7, 2018 4:50 PM
- > Helicopters Asked To Split Their Routes To East Hampton Jul 17, 2018 1:20 PM
more
Nov 8, 2016 4:47 PMA federal court has ruled that the curfews imposed at East Hampton Airport over the last two summers must be abandoned—sparking declarations of relief by aviation interests and newly invigorated talks about closing the airport entirely in the near future by those most opposed to the noise the airport creates.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in a ruling issued on Friday, found that East Hampton Town overstepped its authority in imposing two curfews on flights in and out of East Hampton Airport.
The court agreed with the arguments made by attorneys for the Friends of East Hampton Airport—a collection of aviation businesses that rely on the airport and filed suit following the adoption of the curfews in the spring of 2015—that the town had failed to comply with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, which was enacted by Congress to prevent a patchwork of local regulations from interfering with aircraft travel.
Town officials said in a statement on Friday that they had been led to believe, through a letter from the FAA to former U.S. Representative Tim Bishop, that the town would be able to enact “reasonable” restrictions on aircraft at the municipally owned and operated airport.
The curfews halted all flights into and out of the airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. and restricted especially noisy aircraft to between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m.
The appeals court upheld a previous injunction on a third town law that placed limits on the number of times a given aircraft could land or take off at the airport in a given week.
“The East Hampton Aviation Association appreciates the hard work and careful consideration by the court in issuing its ruling,” said Kent Feuerring, president of the Aviation Association, a group that represents pilots and airport interests and has lobbied against the curfews but was not affiliated with the lawsuit. “Aviation has been an integral part of our community for more than 80 years and we hope this ruling will allow that tradition to continue. We look forward to continuing to work with the Town of East Hampton and the community to find reasonable solutions for any airport noise-related concerns.”
The laws, adopted in 2015, were offered by the Town Board as an effort to tamp down the noise effects of the airport on residents living beneath flight paths. In an assessment earlier this year, consultants told the Town Board that the curfews had served to nudge aircraft operators toward quieter aircraft in general, reduced the number of helicopter flights and effectively ended late-night flights into and out of the airport.
This week’s ruling drew immediate criticism from local officials. The town, which owns the airport property and has spent more than $1 million fighting the Friends lawsuit and several others still pending, released a statement saying town officials are “deeply disappointed” at the ruling.
“Although today’s court decision places the solution to the aviation noise problem firmly at the feet of Congress and the FAA, the town will continue to explore every available option so that the residents of the East End won’t continue to be inflicted by an unrelenting din from the skies above,” the statement reads.
State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. also released a statement blasting the court for having expanded federal control and weakened home rule. He also hinted about the possibility of the town someday closing the airport entirely if it cannot find ways to adequately reduce the impacts the facility has on residents.
“The health and safety of its residents must always take precedence over commercial enterprise,” Mr. Thiele said in the statement. “While I have always believed that the responsible operation of an airport in East Hampton is an asset to the town, this court causes all responsible persons to first reconsider whether or not the town should be in the airport business.”
On Tuesday, Supervisor Larry Cantwell said that the Town Board is still exploring its options with its legal counsel and consultants who advise the board about airport management options.
Mr. Cantwell’s and Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez’s election to the Town Board in 2013 started the campaign by the town to upgrade airport facilities and rein in noise impacts on residents. Mr. Cantwell said that will continue to be their overarching goal.
“Our ability to locally control the airport based on this decision has been denied, so we have to look at what other options are available to us,” he said. “The Town Board’s goal has always been to maintain a safe airport and to enact local controls that would make it quiet enough to be a good neighbor. What legal remedies we have to do that in the face of this decision, we have to evaluate.”
The supervisor acknowledged that the ruling has only added fuel to the fire of calls to close the airport completely that arose this summer with the formation of a new group, Say No To KHTO, that has demanded the airport’s closure.
“The goal of this board has never been to close the airport,” he said, however. “As disappointed as we are, this is not a moment to jump to conclusions about its future.”
He noted that closing the airport would not even be up for consideration until 2022, when the last of the town’s agreed-to operational guarantees with the FAA from large grants in the past will expire. Even then, Mr. Cantwell said, proposing to close the airport would not be something the town could just do on its own without FAA involvement. But with the understanding that calls for closing the airport altogether are rising, Mr. Cantwell said he is hopeful that aircraft operators will find ways to cooperate with the town voluntarily to trim back the impacts on residents.
“I think the aviation interests have to understand that if this problem continues to get worse,” he said, “there will be growing sentiment to close the airport from parts of this community.”
You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Who could have predicted such a draconian outcome? If only the local airport users had been cooperative (and neighborly) instead of confrontational..
Now the problem shifts to Gabreski Airport and Montauk. You poor ...more b*stards. Good luck!
With this decision, it is time for the town to outline its plan for closing the facility. Perhaps at the next board meeting?
The stubbornness of the aviation community to be good neighbors in terms of noise is coming back to haunt them.
Just desserts?
Fiddle Fiddle Fiddle !!!
This is going to start up many protests. Perhaps if the judges and the FAA lived in our neighborhood ...more they would understand how wrong their decision is.
The writer above is one of those responsible for the out of control growth of the airport brought about by incessant ...more demands by local pilots association over many years--to avoid footing the cost themselves of their little hobby. Is is right that a handful of out of state operators, and ka few part time hobbists (fewer than 50 likely and most not from EH,) should hold hostage thousands of families from NYC to East hampton, because they cry out their "right to fly". Two airport are nearby, and either could be used for their toxic hobby.
Actually, according to the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), airports are closing in this country at the rate of 1.4/mo. Moreover, contrary to your assertion, the only federal hindrance to an airport's closure would if the airport's owners had accepted FAA grants that required its continued operation - - - and the EH town board wisely chose NOT to accept NEW FAA grants. Only unexpired obligations (if any) under the OLD grants could delay the process.
In ...more preparation for closure, one of the first things that the board should do is to determine if any such ongoing obligations exist. If so, knowing their expiration dates will inform beleaguered residents of the minimum period for which they will probably have to continue to bear the aerial assaults.
In any case, it is time for the board to make a beginning.
You are paranoid, localEH, but thanks for confirming my statement that it is only the airport’s possible continuing obligations from previous grants that could empower the federal government to prevent its closure - - - and for notifying us that those grants expire in 2021 (which is, at least, within sight) - - - and for verifying that the FAA has the discretionary authority to excuse the obligations imposed by those grants. Thanks as well for alerting us to the possible ...more existence of a longer-lived AIP grant. In facilitation of the closure process, one of the first things that the town trustees should undertake at their next meeting is to ascertain if there actually is one.
As for heavy legal costs, that is a foregone conclusion. The well-heeled commercial aviation interests will try to extort submission from the town by imposing daunting legal procedural expenses. That's s.o.p. out here for anyone with deep pockets (such as the oceanfront homeowners who are trying to keep the hoi polloi off THEIR beaches.) Nonetheless, for the sake of its residents, the trustees must steel themselves to spend whatever is necessary, and to stay the course for as long as it takes, in order to rid the town of a facility that has become so unendurably baneful.
Don't worry - the lawyers will happily take our money for appeals for the next several years.
It is time to consider alternatives, including charging a significant premium for landing during the evenings and early mornings. This will naturally decrease traffic ...more without exposing us to significant liability (and maybe raise some money to pay the legal bills).