. ' 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Mark P. Ryan, Vice Chairman 

Kevin J. Shaughnessy, Clerk 

May 8, 2015 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION 

Hylie Hutchens 

Leslie W. LeBlanc 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Martin E. Odstrchel 

Paul V. Shaughnessy, Jr. 

Michael Sheehan 

RE: Part 16 Complaint: Boston Executive Helicopters v. Town of Norwood, 

Massachusetts and Norwood Airport Commission; Docket No. 16-15-05 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Pursuant to 14 C.F .R. Part 161

, please accept this correspondence as the Answer by the 

Respondents, Town ofNorwood, Massachusetts ("Town" or "Town of Norwood") and Norwood 

Airport Commission ("NAC" or "Airport Commission") to the Part 16 Complaint (also referred 

to as the "Complaint") filed by the Complainant, Boston Executive Helicopters ("BEH"). For 

the reasons discussed below, the Town and NAC (collectively, "Respondents") respectfully 

request that the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"): (1) dismiss the Complaint; (2) decline 

to investigate the Complaint; (3) determine that the Respondents have complied with the FAA's 

Grant Assurances; and (4) take no further action in the above-referenced matter.2 

1 BEH claims in its 14 C.F.R. § 16.21 Certification that "substantial and good faith efforts to 

resolve this matter informally were made prior to filing this Complaint, and that there is no 

reasonable prospect for timely resolution." However, as explained herein, BEH has not 

submitted the required financial information or scheduled a mandatory final inspection of its 

fueling facility by the Norwood Fire Department, and therefore BEH's claims are premature as 

BEH has not demonstrated compliance with mandatory conditions to operate as a full-scale 

fixed-based operator. Additionally, as described herein, BEH voluntarily withdrew its Part 13 

Complaint in November 2014---even though Part 13 is recognized as a mechanism for satisfying 

the 14 C.F.R. § 16.21. See Alca, the Cylinder Shop/Wayman Aviation, Suncoast Aviation, and 

National Aviation, v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, FAA Docket No. 16-08-05, Director's 

Determination (Aug. 31 , 201 0). 2 In the interests of convenience, the exhibits referenced below are contained in the enclosed 

DVD and identified in Appendix A. Please let us know if we should provide a hard copy of 

these exhibits. 

125 Access Road, Norwood, MA 02062 

849320v2 PH: (781) 255-5616 FAX: (781) 255-5617 
2 

-------·-------- ---~--- --~---------~----·--------------------, 

SUMMARY 

Since May 12, 2010, when BEH President Christopher Donovan ("Mr. Donovan") first 

went before the NAC in connection with his company's initial commercial permit application, 

the NAC has placed BEH on its monthly meeting agenda approximately thirty (30) times, 

usually to accommodate one (1) or more requests by BEH to meet with the NAC. These BEH 

appearances have been scheduled by the NAC for a number of reasons, and have primarily 

included, but not been limited to: 

1. Allowing BEH to communicate and/or coordinate its sublease interests on a 

parcel of land (Lot F) located on the Boston Metropolitan Airport, Inc. ("BMA") 

long-term leasehold; 

2. Updating the Airport Commission on BEH's construction involving a hangar and 

fuel storage/dispensing facility; 

3. Working with BEH toward its interest in a full-service fixed based operator 

("FBO") commercial permit; and/or 

4. Discussing leasehold opportunities on the Norwood Memorial Airport's 

("'Norwood Airport" or "Airport") West Apron. 

These meetings do not include all of the separate meetings that members ofthe Airport 

Commission and Norwood Airport management3 have had with Mr. Donovan, either at the NAC 

offices or out at BEH's sublease on Lot F of the Norwood Airport. Nor do these meetings 

include the countless telephone and email conversations that the NAC and Norwood Airport 

management had with the FAA on behalfofBEH, as well as a meeting with the FAA's New 

England Regional Office. 

In addition to these meetings, Norwood Airport management provided direct support for 

BEH as BEH has proceeded through its various construction phases. This support has included, 

but not been limited to, several time-sensitive repairs to Security Gate 3 adjacent to Lot F, as 

well as coordination with other municipal departments in the Town-all designed to help BEH 

maintain the critical path in its construction schedule. 

It cannot be underscored enough that, from the outset, the Airport Commission and 

Norwood Airport management have been very supportive of Mr. Donovan and BEH's plans, as 

has the Town, which is a very pro-business community. By that same token, the Airport 

Commission and Norwood Airport management have insisted that BEH comply with all 

applicable requirements, to ensure that requirements are imposed consistently, uniformly, and for 

the benefit and protection of the public.4 

3 "Airport management" refers to the Airport Commission and/or Airport Manager. 

4 BEH attempts to refer to settlement discussions with various Town officials between August 

2014 and October 2014-even though the Airport Commission is the permitting and leasing 

authority for the Airport under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90. While these settlement 

R49320v2 
3 

In the aforementioned bulleted list, encompassing four ( 4) major areas where BEH 

needed support, support was provided by the Airport Commission and Norwood Airport 

management. This support from the Airport Commission and Norwood Airport management has 

not wavered, even as BEH' s business interests have broadened in the face oflimitations imposed 

by: federal standards; land area constraints on the sublease lot where BEH has property rights 

(i.e., Norwood Airport Lot F); and the property rights of an abutting lot (i.e., Norwood Airport 

Lot G) not under BEH's control. The Airport Commission's efforts have even included working 

with the FAA and the Massachusetts Department ofTransportation ("MassDOT") several years 

ago to construct helipads on Norwood Airport's northeast quadrant-as well as implementing a 

provisional helicopter operating area adjacent to FlightLevel Aviation a/kla FlightLevel 

Norwood, LLC's ("FlightLevel") maintenance hangar-all to support BEH's burgeoning 

helicopter business interests. 

Since 2010, acting on behalf of his company, BEH, Mr. Donovan has made a number of 

broad and unfounded allegations against the NAC-all ofwhich were devoid of factual and/or 

legal merit. For example, Mr. Donovan has stated that he believes he is being discriminated 

against, claiming that the Airport Commission has applied federal standards only against him and 

his company, while ignoring other businesses at the Norwood Airport. This supposition could 

not be farther from the truth. 

In countless communications and public meetings-some of which have included legal 

representation by both sides-the NAC and/or the Norwood Airport Manager have tried to 

explain what the Town's obligations are, whether the issue at hand was tied to a federal standard, 

a local regulation, land use and leasehold constraints, on-airport best management practices, 

safety concerns, and/or other appropriate considerations. With the passage of time, we have 

determined Mr. Donovan to be less receptive to working with Airport management and 

complying with applicable requirements-and more oppositional, accusatory and litigious in his 

company's posture. 

What follows is a comprehensive document responding to the unmeritorious allegations 

in BEH's Complaint, along with the supporting documentation necessary to fully explain our 

efforts-and our challenges-with respect to BEH. While we have streamlined our response, 

please let us know ifthere is additional information or documentation that would assist your 

office in its review of the Part 16 Complaint. 

discussions should be considered private and inadmissible, the BEH has failed to include the 

October 30, 2014 correspondence from Norwood General Manager, which is cross-referenced in 

Exhibit 38 to BEH's Part 16 Complaint. In any event, the Town discontinued further 

discussions because of the excessive nature ofBEH's proposed "term sheet"; for example, the 

"term sheet" conflicted with the TOFA restrictions imposed by the FAA. 

849320v2 
4 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

By way ofbackground, in the spring of2010, Mr. Donovan approached Norwood Airport 

Manager, Russ Maguire ("Mr. Maguire"). Mr. Donovan sought Mr. Maguire's assistance, as 

well as the Airport Commission's support, to realize his interest in starting a commercial 

business on the Norwood Airport. Mr. Donovan also expressed to Mr. Maguire his interest in 

"turning over a new leaf," or words to that effect. 

At the time, Mr. Maguire's understanding of Mr. Donovan's statement was that it was in 

reference to multiple controversies at the Norwood Airport that had directly involved Mr. 

Donovan either: (1) prior to his departure from the Norwood Airport in March 2008, to pursue 

other career interests; or (2) after Mr. Donovan had already left his employment at the Norwood 

Airport. 

The first ofthese controversies was documented by a November 21,2007 Norwood 

Police Department report filed by then FBO Manager, Leonard Carroll ("Mr. Carroll"), Eastern 

Air Center, Inc.'s ("Eastern Air Center") facility manager. This report alleged an assault and 

battery by Mr. Donovan, and included a record of the event generated and filed by Mr. Carroll. 

See Exhibit 1. At that time, Eastern Air Center was the only full-service FBO operating at the 

Norwood Airport, and was the predecessor to FlightLevel, which is the current full-service 

service FBO at the Norwood Airport. Mr. Maguire became aware of this incident because Mr. 

Carroll spoke to him after reporting it to the Norwood Police Department. 

In the second of these controversies, an administrative complaint was filed against Mr. 

Donovan's former employer, Helicopters, Inc. (United States Department of Labor, Office of 

Administrative Law Judges Docket No. 2010-AIR-00004, Scott Shactman v. Helicopters, Inc.). 

This administrative complaint involved a claim for whistleblower protection by Scott Shactman 

("Mr. Shactman") under the employee protection provisions of Section 519 of the Wendell H. 

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, 49 U.S.C. § 42121. Mr. 

Donovan participated in this administrative matter against Helicopters, Inc., a business that 

continues to operate on the Norwood Airport to this day. Mr. Donovan's participation in the 

legal complaint is documented in the hearing transcript. See Exhibit 2. 

Relative to this administrative hearing, by 2008, Mr. Donovan had already left his 

Helicopters Inc. employment at the Norwood Airport, to pursue other piloting interests with 

Boston Med Flight. However, as noted in Exhibit 2, Mr. Donovan was still influencing the 

business environment at Norwood Airport, and in fact, according to Administrative Law Judge 

Colleen Geraghty ("Judge Geraghty"), Mr. Donovan had helped to incite the problems between 

Scott Shactman and Mr. Donovan's former employer, Helicopters, Inc. even though Mr. 

Donovan was no longer employed at the Norwood Airport by that time. (Judge Geraghty's 

decision was not published until April 12, 2011, after BEH had already received its first 

commercial permit to operate at the Norwood Airport.) 

Of particular note in Judge Geraghty's Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint are the 

references to Mr. Donovan, as appearing on the following pages of Exhibit 2: page 10, paragraph 

2; page 11, paragraph 4; page 14, final paragraph; pages 18 and 19; page 20, footnote 16; page 

849320v2 
5 

34, paragraphs 2 and 4; page 43, paragraph 2 and footnote 30. Regarding the last reference from 

this Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint (page 43, footnote 30), Judge Geraghty states: 

Donovan's demeanor at hearing was sarcastic, arrogant and combative. His 

responses to questions regarding whether or not Shactman provided him copies of 

the two e-mail complaints, as well as the FAA complaint for comment prior to 

sending them to Helicopters and the FAA, and whether he was communicating 

with the [sic] Shactman about the events both before and after the two conference 

calls Helicopters held in an effort to respond to the Shactman' s complaints, were 

equivocal. Finally, it is undisputed that Donovan is hostile to Helicopters. For 

these reasons, I do not find him a persuasive witness. 

See Exhibit 2. As noted in Judge Geraghty's decision, Mr. Donovan's actions, even though he 

was no longer employed at the Norwood Airport, helped to provoke the controversy leading to 

the Shactman v. Helicopters, Inc. matter. 

By the spring of2010, when Mr. Donovan approached Mr. Maguire with an interest in 

"turning over a new leaf' at the Norwood Airport, Mr. Donovan was also communicating his 

interest in pursuing his own commercial business. Shortly after asking for Mr. Maguire's 

assistance, Mr. Donovan put his commercial business interest in writing on April 8, 2010, 

seeking an "initial Airport Commercial Operators permit." See Exhibit 3. Mr. Donovan was 

then placed on the agenda for the Airport Commission's May 12, 2010 meeting. 

Relative to the May 12, 2010 meeting, Exhibit 4 shows Mr. Donovan's introductory letter 

to the Airport Commission, as well as a packet of information that he submitted to the Airport 

Commission as required by the Norwood Airport Minimum Standards. In his letter (Exhibit 4, 

Paragraph 1 ), Mr. Donovan states: "Our ultimate goal is to become an Executive Helicopter on 

demand charter operation here at Norwood Airport." (Emphasis added). This representation 

directly contradicts BEH's assertion in its Part 16 Complaint of a longstanding interest in 

becoming a full-service FBO-as Mr. Donovan clearly explained that he sought permission for 

BEH to provide limited services at the Norwood Airport. 

stated: 

849320v2 

Similarly, in the section ofBEH's business plan marked "Introduction," Mr. Donovan 

Boston Executive Helicopters LLC was formed as a private company offering 

executive Helicopter charter services to Boston and New England. Our mission is 

to provide safe reliable helicopter charter services to the public. We will 

concentrate on the Executive who values safety and needs prompt reliable 

transportation. 

We will also provide helicopter services under FAR Part 91 as well as FAR Part 

13 5. We will provide helicopter sightseeing tours of Boston and New England as 

well as other requested services. We will repair our own Helicopters and provide 

limited Helicopter maintenance services to the Helicopter community. 
See Exhibit 4. Mr. Donovan added, in the section ofBEH's business plan entitled "The 

Company," that BEH would "operate ... in concert with Flight Level Aviation Services to meet 

the needs of our clients." See id. (emphasis added). 

In the section marked Financial Considerations (line 5 on page 3 of Exhibit 4), Mr. 

Donovan stated: 

6 

We believe our partnership with [FBO] Flight Level Aviation will enhance our operations 

and look forward to utilizing Flight Level Aviation services for our fuel needs. 

(Emphasis added). 

On May 12,2010, based on BEH's letter of interest and submitted documents, BEH's 

presentation before the Airport Commission, and BEH's commercial permit application (Exhibit 

5), the Airport Commission issued BEH its first commercial permit, for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Exhibit 5, page 3).5 The level of effort by Mr. Maguire to assist Mr. Donovan in beginning his 

commercial venture is captured in a May 12, 2010 email from Mr. Donovan to Mr. Maguire, 

following the Airport Commission meeting, in which Mr. Donovan states: "Russ, Thank you for 

all your help," followed by Mr. Maguire's response. See Exhibit 10. 

Also supporting BEH's commercial permit application was Peter Eichleay ("Mr. 

Eichleay"), the President ofFlightLevel, Norwood Airport's full-service FBO. See Exhibit 11. 

Mr. Eichleay specifically stated that he was serving as a business reference for BEH, and 

referred to the business that FlightLevel had with Mr. Donovan for years. See id. Mr. Eichleay 

also inquired whether there was anything that FlightLevel could do to assist with BEH's 

commercial permitting process. See id. 

Yet only four ( 4) months into its first commercial permit to operate executive helicopter 

services under Part 91 and Part 135, BEH began a pattern of communications with the Airport 

Manager and Airport Commission, which contradicted or obfuscated the commercial interests 

that BEH made clear in its initial business plan submitted to the Airport Commission in May 

2010. To illustrate: 

• On September 24, 2010, Mr. Donovan sent an email to Mr. Maguire asking to add 

flight instruction and rental to BEH's commercial permit. See Exhibit 12. 

• Three days later, on September 27, 2010, Mr. Donovan asked to be placed on the 

Airport Commission's next meeting agenda to discuss the availability of the DC-3 

ramp/apron ("DC-3 Apron") lease. See Exhibit 13. 

• Seven (7) minutes later on the same day, September 27, 2010, Mr. Donovan sent a 

second email to Mr. Maguire, this time asking for FlightLevel' s fuel flowage 

information for the preceding forty-eight ( 48) months, as well as a copy of the 

5 For the ensuing five (5) years and continuing to date, has held a commercial permit from the 

Airport Commission. See Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9. 

849320v2 
Airport Commission's hangar feasibility study and any hangar plans or studies 

from the past five (5) to ten (10) years. See Exhibit 14. 

• In an October 14,2010 email to Mr. Maguire, Mr. Donovan wrote, in part: "My 

desire down the road is to become a full service FBO here at Norwood Airport 

" See Exhibit 15, Paragraph 5. This email runs counter to BEH's claim that 

it wished to be an FBO at Norwood Airport from the outset, an aspiration that 

furthermore is entirely separate and fails to address consider BEH's suitability 

and preparedness to operate an FBO, in compliance with the Norwood Airport 

Minimum Standards, nor the Airport Commission's interest in a second FBO, 

based on the fact that the Airport Commission had never advertised for a second 

FBO, nor was BEH qualified as an FBO at the time. 

Only two (2) months later, on December 21, 2010, Mr. Maguire received a forwarded 

email from FAA New England Region Compliance Officer/ Airports Program Specialist, Donna 

R. Witte ("Ms. Witte"), which itself contained emails forwarded from FAA Headquarters in 

Washington, D.C. and Mr. Donovan, both dated December 20,2010. See Exhibit 16. The 

underlying December 20, 2010 email from Mr. Donovan suggested a formal Part 16 complaint 

was sent by Mr. Donovan to Deandra Brooks at the FAA Headquarters. See id. 

7 

In the foregoing December 20, 2010 email, Mr. Donovan alleges "restrictive and 

discriminatory rules changes which would single out 'helicopter' operations .... " Mr. Donovan 

concluded his email by stating: "I feel that members of the Airport Commission, the Airport 

Manager and the Monopoly FBO [i.e., FlightLevel] are conspiring to discriminate against 

helicopters and our operation here at Norwood Airport." See id. Also of note in this December 

20, 2010 email from Mr. Donovan to FAA Headquarters are the following words from Mr. 

Donovan: "Norwood has had a part 16 complaint with a negative finding by the FAA in Town 

Of Norwood V. Boston Air Charter. The Town has been found in violation of several grant 

assurances." See id. 

It is clear from this December 20, 2010 email that Mr. Donovan was attempting to bolster 

a discrimination plea that lacked merit by invoking a Part 16 complaint that had already been 

resolved vis-a-vis the Airport Commission's Corrective Action Plan approved by the FAA on 

January 27,2010, in FAA Docket Number 16-07-03, Boston Air Charter v. Norwood Airport 

Commission. See Exhibit 17. However, as the FAA recognized, "the Town has taken the 

necessary and appropriate steps to comply with the FAA Order [in FAA Docket Number 16-07-

03]." See id. Among other findings, the FAA determined that the Airport "[ e ]nd[ ed] the 

practice of awarding long-term leases of federally funded ramps that have the effect of granting 

one party control over the majority ofthe ramps on the Airport; and [e]stablish[e]d a short-term 

ramp leasing permit policy for the Airport to assert more control of the federally funded ramps." 

--

See id. 

Mr. Donovan's December 20,2010 email to FAA Headquarters was a result of several 

admonitions from the Airport Manager, which took place soon after BEH received its first 

commercial permit from the Airport Commission on May 12,2010. These admonitions occurred 

directly as a result of Mr. Donovan's pilotage, which involved unauthorized helicopter 

849320v2 
operations on the Norwood Airport. Specifically, rather than use the authorized heli-pads 

available to him and sanctioned by the Norwood Airport General Regulations-as well as a 

provisionally designated area adjacent to his hangared aircraft (see below)-Mr. Donovan had 

begun to use the Norwood Airport's taxi-lanes for passenger pick-ups and drop-offs. Through 

the years, for safety reasons, other helicopter pilots and businesses were similarly and 

consistently prohibited from such operations by the Norwood Airport Manager. 

8 

Mr. Donovan's discrimination plea is curious, in and of itself. This is so because, prior to 

becoming the president of BEH, Mr. Donovan had been employed for a number of years at the 

Norwood Airport by both Wiggins Airways and Helicopters, Inc. For both of these companies, 

Mr. Donovan served as a helicopter pilot, flying routinely in and out of the Norwood Airport. 

Accordingly, Mr. Donovan was fully aware of the helicopter operations at Norwood 

Airport, to include where helicopters were authorized to take off and land, and where they were 

prohibited from taking off and landing. Mr. Donovan complained about discrimination in his 

December 20, 2010 email, even though Norwood Airport's other helicopter operators were 

required to follow the same regulations and the same procedures that Mr. Donovan had followed 

prior to being given a commercial permit for his own company (BEH). In effect, now that he 

was a commercial permit holder, Mr. Donovan took it upon himself to begin challenging the 

regulations, seeking special exception from what was expected and required of all helicopter 

operators at the Norwood Airport. When the regulations and procedures Mr. Donovan was 

intimately familiar with were enforced-as they had been against others-he claimed 

discrimination. 

It is equally ironic that, at the time of Mr. Donovan's December 20,2010 email to FAA 

Headquarters, the Airport Commission and Airport Manager were considering the amendment of 

an existing set ofNorwood Airport General Regulations. This proposed amendment would have 

more permanently supported helicopter operations on an apron where these operations, up to that 

point, were only being authorized provisionally. By means of background for this proposed 

amendment, due to the increase in based helicopter operators on the Norwood Airport's north 

quadrant-to include BEH-the FlightLevel FBO had agreed to allow the provisional use of its 

maintenance hangar apron for helicopter take-offs and landings. This provisional use, sanctioned 

by the Airport Commission and Airport Manager, actually supported BEH' s operations and that 

of a helicopter flight school, which also hangared its aircraft on the Norwood Airport's north 

quadrant. See Exhibit 17a. 

Therefore, patently false is Mr. Donovan's assertion that: "The Manager has 'offered' 

helicopter circles as our only alternative for helicopter operations." BEH was already operating 

to and from the provisionally approved FlightLevel apron. 

As stated, at the time of Mr. Donovan's December 20, 2010 email, a revision ofthe 

Norwood Airport General Regulations was being considered. This would have changed the 

status ofFlightLevel's apron, from a provisionally authorized helicopter operating area, to full 

authorization as recognized in the Norwood Airport General Regulations. Full authorization was 

seen by Norwood Airport management as a measure of support for the growing helicopter 

presence on the Norwood Airport's north quadrant, which was exactly where BEH needed a 

849320v2 
dedicated and authorized helicopter operating area closer to its hangar, as Mr. Donovan makes 

clear in his December 20, 2010 email. See Exhibit 16. 

The intent by Airport management to more permanently support helicopter operations is 

captured in a January 7, 2011 email from Mr. Maguire to Ms. Witte at the FAA New England 

Region Office, which Ms. Witte then forwarded to her incoming replacement in the FAA 

Airports Division, Barry J. Hammer, P.E. ("Mr. Hammer"). See Exhibit 18. That email 

followed a January 6, 2011 meeting, convened by Mr. Maguire and several members of the 

Airport Commission, for the benefit of the Norwood Airport's helicopter operators. In fact, Mr. 

Donovan attended that meeting, as noted in the January 7, 2011 email from Mr. Maguire. In his 

January 7, 2011 email, Mr. Maguire specifically states: 

On behalf of the Norwood Airport Commission, I reiterated the one and only 

intent of our proposed procedures, which is to incorporate into our regulations a 

helicopter operating area that-as of right now-is only provisionally ok'd for 

helo operations. 

--

See id. at 2. 

On March 2, 2011, Mr. Maguire emailed Mr. Hammer and advised him that Airport 

management was, by that time, mobilizing an effort to alter a planned project in order to 

construct a number of helicopter parking/operating pads on the Norwood Airport's north 

quadrant adjacent to the north/south taxi-lane. So when, in the several months prior Mr. 

Donovan contacted FAA Headquarters to complain about purported discrimination, his claims 

were an unsupported overreaction to alleged Norwood Airport authority actions that had been 

designed to support, ironically, the based helicopter operators on the Airport's north quadrant. 

In spite of Mr. Donovan's baseless claims of discrimination, this goodwill by Airport 

management continued, as evidenced by the level of effort and diligence on the part of the Town 

as noted in Exhibit 18 (e.g., reflecting support from the Norwood Conservation Commission and 

Airport Commission) and the Airport's engineering firm, DuBois & King, Inc. ("DuBois & 

King") to build heli-pads expressly for north quadrant operators such as BEH. Just as 

importantly, only seven (7) months into his company's presence on the Norwood Airport, Mr. 

Donovan had already begun a campaign of baseless discrimination claims against Airport 

management. 

9 

These unfounded discrimination claims by Mr. Donovan continued in a more direct 

manner in June 2011, when Attorney Joshua M. Fox ("Attorney Fox"), representing BEH, made 

the same claims against Airport management after Mr. Donovan had once again been notified 

not to use the Norwood Airport's taxi-lanes for helicopter take-offs and landings, given the 

paramount safety concerns. See Exhibit 19. Attorney Fox attempted to raise the specter of grant 

assurance compliance and defamation. 

However, Norwood Town Counsel responded to, and denied in full, BEH's allegations, 

noting that Airport management had acted consistent with the safe and efficient operation of the 

Airport-indeed, as expressly recognized by FAA Grant Assurance 22.h and the General 

849320v2 
10 

Regulations of the Airport, which had been previously approved by the former Massachusetts 

Aeronautics Commission. See Exhibit 20. It is significant that these legally-charged allegations 

from BEH were being levied concurrent with the Airport Commission's efforts to accommodate 

BEH through the re-design and building ofheli-pads that were to support BEH, as noted in 

Exhibit 18. 

It should also be noted that Mr. Maguire, the Airport Manager, has been managing 

Norwood Airport since December 1995. Mr. Maguire is a fully Accredited Airport Executive 

through the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE). Mr. Maguire also holds a 

Master's Degree in Aviation/Aerospace Management and is a licensed commercial pilot. While 

serving in the United States Army for thirteen (13) years, Mr. Maguire flew helicopters as a 

Chief Warrant Officer. In May 1996, Mr. Maguire received a certificate of appointment to act as 

an FAA Aviation Safety Counselor, through the FAA's then-program manager, Gary Lopez. 

Mr. Maguire continues in this capacity as a member ofthe FAA Safety Team ("FAAST"). 

Finally, Mr. Maguire has attended many AAAE safety conferences, as well as the United States 

Army's Aviation Safety Officer's Course. So for many years now, based on this background and 

training, Mr. Maguire has been very experienced in risk management and safety-of-flight issues, 

and he has drawn upon this experience in managing the Norwood Airport. 

More recently, in spite of the additional heli-pads available to BEH, Mr. Donovan only 

continues to challenge his perceived right to operate BEH's helicopter to and from areas of the 

Norwood Airport that are not authorized for this use. Exhibit 21 is a letter sent by the Airport 

Manager to BEH on March 21, 2014, after BEH continued to defy Airport procedures and 

regulations. For example, the March 21, 2014letter references video stills showing that BEH 

operated its aircraft on March 1, 2014 in close proximity to an electrical transformer, picnic 

tables, an Airport business's office, and t-hangars. See Exhibit 21. 

Approximately four (4) months later, BEH's helicopter operations continued to present 

problems for other tenant operators and Airport management. Exhibit 21 a is a copy of the 

Airport Commission's August 13,2014 meeting minutes. On page 3 of Exhibit 21a, the meeting 

minutes noted that FlightLevel received a complaint from Boston Air Charter ("BAC"), an 

Airport business, regarding helicopter operations on the north ramp. When Airport 

Commissioner Michael Sheehan asked who the complaint was against, Mr. Eichleay, FlightLevel 

President, stated that the helicopter number was assigned to BEH. See Exhibit 21 a at 3. 

Over the years, Airport management has similarly enforced the authorized helicopter 

procedures and operating areas for operators other than BEH. See, e.g. Exhibits 21 b, 21 c. Thus, 

Airport management has not singled out BEH for enforcement and BEH's suggestion to the 

contrary is unfounded. 

Time has shown that Mr. Donovan seeks to challenge and defy the Norwood Airport's 

regulations and procedures-all of which he was intimately familiar with while operating as a 

line pilot for both Wiggins Airways and Helicopters, Inc. at Norwood Airport, in addition to his 

involvement with BEH. Indeed, early in his tenure as a commercial permit holder at the Airport, 

Mr. Donovan sent the Airport Manager an email in which he underscored his safety concerns 

about another tenant business. See Exhibit 22. To that end, Exhibit 22 contains a September 24, 

849320v2 
2010 email to the Airport Manager, in which Mr. Donovan referenced the March 17,2010 

unauthorized departure of two (2) Citation jet aircraft, operated by BAC, while the Airport was 

closed to fixed-wing aircraft due to flooding. Mr. Donovan writes: 

As a member of the General Public I have serious concerns about my safety as 

well as the safety of the public users of Norwood Municipal Airport. 

11 

Along with his questionable assertions of purported concerns, in this September 24, 2010 

email, Mr. Donovan was additionally making inquiries and a formal public records request 

regarding the actions taken by the FAA, and details about the FAA investigation relative to 

BAC. See id. Aside from showing a contradictory attitude toward safety, this September 24, 

2010 email by Mr. Donovan is also an early indication of his interest in undermining another 

tenant business on the Norwood Airport. See id. 

BEHSUBLEASEINTEREST 

In February 2011, the hangar of a Norwood Airport sublease tenant, Swift Aviation, Inc. 

("Swift"), collapsed during an ice storm. This tenancy was situated on Lot Fat the Airport, 

which is part of the long-term leasehold between the Town and BMA. See Exhibit 23. Swift 

was a sub-lessee to BMA, the latter of which was the sub-lessee to the Town. 

After the hangar collapse, Mr. Donovan began negotiations with BMA, as he expressed 

an interest in having BEH assume the remaining sublease interest for Lot F and extending that 

sublease for an additional term. BEH and BMA crafted an Assignment, Assumption and 

Amendment of Lot F, seeking the approval of the Airport Commission. See Exhibit 31. 

However, page 2 of the Town ofNorwood/BMA Lease Agreement ("Master Lease") states as 

follows: 

(b) The subleases of said parcel or portions thereof shall be reviewed prior to 

the execution by the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission [now MassDOT] 

and the Federal Aviation Administration, or the successor agencies, and approved, 

in writing, by the Norwood Airport Commission .... 

See Exhibit 23. 

As required in this Master Lease, the Airport Commission directed BEH to send its draft 

document to both FAA and MassDOT for review, not approva1. 6 Neither the Airport 

6 It should be noted that on the Town of Norwood/BMA long-term leasehold, a similar lease 

term extension is being sought by FlightLevel for another part of the Airport. Consistent with 

the Master Lease, however, the Airport Commission has directed FlightLevel to pursue the same 

course of action: obtain F AA/MassDOT sublease review. 

849320v2 
12 

Commission nor the Airport Manager attempted to delay the FAA review of the proposed BMABEH Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of Lot F. 

In the process of reviewing the proposed BMA-BEH Assignment, Assumption and 

Amendment of Lot F, the FAA began to question the length of the proposed sublease term, citing 

the FAA's Compliance Manual as a supporting basis. See Exhibit 24. The Airport Commission 

was especially sensitive to this concern, given the federal grant assurance violations cited by the 

FAA in 2008 in FAA Docket Number 16-07-03 (Boston Air Charter v. Norwood Airport 

Commission), as a result of the original eighty (80) year maximum term Master Lease between 

the Town of Norwood and BMA commencing in 1967. 

Mr. Hammer, acting on behalf of the FAA, reviewed the proposed BMA-BEH 

Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of Lot F-and did not indicate that the FAA policy 

was not to review such leases. See id. Indeed, Mr. Hammer stated that the review was 

"performed as a courtesy" and that the FAA attempted "to identify potential compliance issues," 

albeit subject to any compliance violations that could result from the terms of a lease. See id. 

Notably, Mr. Hammer stated that "[ w ]hile I don't see any glaring problems with most of 

the terms and conditions of the lease ... the justification for the 39 year term is not sufficient." 

See id. Mr. Hammer observed that "justification for a 39-year term would require an 

amortization schedule with reasonable rates and payments." See id. 

Accordingly, the Airport Commission tried to mediate a solution that was satisfactory to 

the FAA, while remaining supportive ofBEH and its interests. To that end, based on the FAA's 

input, the Airport Commission requested that BEH obtain an amortization schedule, to justify the 

long-term sublease it sought. In response, BEH provided correspondence from its accountant, 

suggesting the need to amortize construction costs over thirty-nine (39) years, as well as an 

amortization schedule based on financing. See Exhibit 25. 

A reflection of the Airport management's support is shown in the August 2012 email 

exchange between Mr. Donovan and the FAA New England Region Office. See Exhibit 26. In 

an August 15, 2012 email to Ms. Witte, Mr. Donovan stated: 

The town is working diligently with us and understandably trying to comply with 

the FAA guidance and order and insure we have a workable lease. We will be 

seeking formal FAA approval through the Town and Norwood Airport 

Commission prior to execution. . . . The Norwood Airport Commission, Airport 

Manager and Town Attorney have been extremely supportive .... 

See id. at 3 (emphasis added). Moreover, in an August 20, 2012 email in response, Mr. Hammer 

advised Mr. Donovan "to continue the conversation you're having with the airport as it appears 

by your email that everyone is working in good faith." See id. at I. 

However, only five (5) months later, on January 8, 2013, the Airport Manager received a 

disturbing phone call from Mary T. Walsh ("Ms. Walsh"), FAA Divisions Manager of the 

Airports Division for the New England Region. Exhibit 27 contains a copy of the Airport 

849320v2 
13 

Manager's File Memo following his discussion with Ms. Walsh. Ms. Walsh specifically warned 

Mr. Maguire about the actions and "bizarre behavior" of Mr. Donovan, following a January 2, 

2013 email by Mr. Hammer concerning the FAA's recommendations and caution about the 

proposed Lot F sublease for BEH. See Exhibit 27. Ms. Walsh indicated that she had "never 

seen anything like this" and noted, among other concerns, a string of telephone calls and emai1s 

(approximately twenty-five (25) emails over an estimated twelve (12) hour) period. See id. 

According to the Airport Manager, following FAA's decision to alert its Security Division, Ms. 

Walsh was still open to a meeting with both the Airport Commission and BEH. See id. 

However, because Ms. Walsh felt compelled to report Mr. Donovan's behavior, the NAC did not 

consider a productive meeting possible. 

Ultimately, on January 30, 2013, the Airport Commission and Airport Manager met with 

the FAA's New England Region office to resolve the proposed Lot F sublease and BEH's related 

interest in it. On February 12, 2013, a thank you letter was sent on behalf of the Airport 

Commission to the FAA, attention Mr. Hammer, who served as Compliance Officer. See 

Exhibit 28. 

The February 12,2013 letter is more proof of the Airport Commission's commitment to 

BEH-in spite of Mr. Donovan's actions-as discussion points were raised to support BEH's 

sublease term interests. See id. This letter made specific reference to the FAA Compliance 

Manual, which states: "Most tenant ground leases of 30 to 35 years are sufficient to retire a 

tenant's initial financing and provide a reasonable return for the tenant's development of major 

facilities." See id. In response to Mr. Hammer's prior suggestion that a thirty (30) to thirty-five 

(35) year term of the proposed Lot F sublease would not be considered excessive, Airport 

management reached out to BMA to obtain information about BMA's existing subleases. See id. 

The February 12, 2013 letter provided Mr. Hammer with information about five (5) separate 

BMA lease lots that Airport management obtained from BMA, and the Airport Manager noted 

that the BEH sublease for Lot F, if approved would be the shortest term on the BMA leasehold, 

thereby suggesting that such a lease term had in fact been supported by precedent. See id. 

The Airport Manager also provided Mr. Hammer with a copy of an existing thirty-five 

(3 5) year lease at Westfield Barnes Airport for a company that provided a level of service similar 

to what BEH proposed, justified by that tenant's need to finance its hangar(s) and fuel farm 

investments. See id. This Westfield Barnes Airport was used by the Airport Commission to 

demonstrate another example of precedent for the longer lease term sought by BEH. See id. As 

the Airport Manager explained in his February 12, 2013 letter, the Airport Commission 

requested that the FAA consider BEH's proposed thirty-one (31) year sublease of Lot F "to be 

fair and acceptable, and not excessive." See id. 

The FAA, in a February 20,2013 email from Mr. Hammer, recognized that "the 

information [the Norwood Airport Manager] recently provided further documents the due 

diligence the commission is practicing in making its final decision on the assignment of the 

sublease." See Exhibit 29. Subsequently, the NAC approved BEH's Assignment, Assumption 

and Amendment of Lease for Lot F. Exhibit 30 contains a February 22,2013 letter from Mr. 

Maguire to BEH, noting the Airport Commission's approval of the BEH Assignment, 

849320v2 
14 

Assumption and Amendment of Lease for Lot Fat its February 13,2013 meeting. Exhibit 31 is 

an executed copy of the BEH Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of Lease. 7 

BEH attempts to contest the flowage fee under the Assignment, Assumption and 

Amendment of Lease for Lot F. Yet, BEH's flowage fee for the Town is the same ($.06/gallon) 

as the flowage fee that FlightLevel is paying to the Town.8 

Yet, interestingly, after the Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of Lease for Lot F 

was executed, BEH changed its position and alleged that it no longer needed financing for 

construction on Lot F. Such a subsequent reversal is inconsistent with the necessary justification 

for the long-term, thirty-one (31) year sublease required at the outset under the foregoing FAA 

guidance. Compare Exhibits 24, 25. 

BEH BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS 

When BEH chose to build on its sublease for Lot F, the NAC was similarly cooperative 

and supportive. Exhibit 32 is a copy of the December 12, 2012 Airport Commission meeting 

minutes. Mr. Donovan presented a detailed plan drawing for a new building, fuel tank, and 

grounds construction. In response, the Airport Commission voted unanimously to send a letter to 

the Board of Selectmen to approve the current design in its entirety, contingent upon a building 

permit, Fire Department approval, a Conservation Commission Order of Conditions, fuel permit 

approval from the Board of Selectmen, a review ofthe fuel cabinet, discussion ofthe gate valve 

on drainage, and incorporation of engineering comments by me (as I also serve as Norwood 

Town Engineer). See Exhibit 32. 

Exhibit 33 is a December 14, 2012 letter from the Airport Commission to the Board of 

Selectmen. This December 14, 2012 letter notes the Airport Commission's conditional approval 

ofBEH's design for its hangar and fuel storage/dispensing system. The NAC did have concerns 

about the proposed location of BEH's fuel farm, in particular, with respect to the Security Gate 3 

taxi-lane object-free area ("TOFA"). Therefore, Section 2 of the letter specifically states that 

BEH must: 

2. Comply with all taxi-lane object-free area [i.e., TOFA] restrictions that 

apply to the siting of BEH's fueling equipment; per the airport's design 

standards, and clarifying guidance from the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

7 This Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of Lease for Lot F included the language that 

the FAA required for future leases, as contained in the Corrective Action Plan for FAA Docket 

Number 16-07-03 (Boston Air Charter v. Norwood Airport Commission). See Exhibit 31. 

8 BEH separately and voluntarily agreed to the flowage fee that it is paying to BMA, which also 

charges a flowage fee to FlightLevel. 

849320v2 
See Exhibit 33 (emphasis added). The NAC did not attempt to have the Norwood Fire 

Department ("NFD") insert TOF A restrictions in the fueling permit, and instead, this was 

initiated by the NFD directly. 

15 

In short, the Security Gate 3 TOF A considerations were expressly identified, 

communicated to BEH, and memorialized many months prior to BEH beginning its construction 

adjacent to Security Gate 3. See id. As a result ofthe TOFA discussion, the Airport 

Commission tasked its engineer, Jeffrey Adler, P.E. ("Mr. Adler") of DuBois & King, to speak 

with FAA about this concern, specifically, BEH's proposed fueling cabinet. Exhibit 34 is a copy 

of Mr. Adler's December 20, 2012 e-mail to the Airport Manager. Specifically, Mr. Adler 

stated: 

I spoke with FAA (both CliffVacirca and Lisa Lesperance) regarding the BEH 

request to place a fuel dispensing cabinet within the Gate 3 Taxi lane OF A. Their 

initial response was that it is current FAA policy to not allow any new 

obstructions to be placed (sic) within any OF A areas regardless of any existing 

obstructions. That being stated there are special circumstances when an exception 

may be permitted. In this case if the issue was the (BEH) hangar only, it may be 

allowed by FAA due to the existing obstructions and being in the shadow ofthose 

obstructions. However, the concern from FAA is the use ofthe current taxilane 

(size and type of aircraft) and how that would change by allowing possible larger 

itinerant aircraft operating on this taxilane late at night looking for fuel. Although 

there may not be any documented incidents along this taxiway, that could change 

with itinerant aircraft operating in this area where the current taxilane does not 

meet OF A standards. 

See Exhibit 34 (emphasis added). This FAA concern was communicated to BEH. 

Exhibit 35 is a copy of a cover memorandum, reference sheet, guidelines sheet, and 

contact information for the FAA and MassDOT, all ofwhich the Airport Manager sent to Mr. 

Donovan on January 28, 2013, to assist him in the process for on-Airport construction filings. 

Additionally, in 2013, with the support ofthe Airport Commission, BEH was issued a license by 

the Norwood Board of Selectmen (i.e., the licensing authority) ("Board of Selectmen"), to pursue 

construction and, ultimately, storage and operation of an aircraft fueling facility on the Norwood 

Airport. (Currently, Norwood Airport has only one fuel provider, FlightLevel.) Notably, the 

Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of Lease, which allowed BEH to sublease Lot F and 

was approved by the Airport Commission, amended the Lot F sublease to expressly allows BEH 

to store, use and sell fuel, and uses incidental and ancillary thereto, subject to the terms and 

conditions stated therein (including, but not limited to acquiring and maintaining applicable 

licenses, permits, approvals and other authorizations). See Exhibit 31. 

With the support of the Airport Commission, Mr. Donovan's company, BEH, 

subsequently constructed a hangar on Lot F. This hangar, along with the fuel farm, was part of a 

plan that was evolving into BEH's goal of attaining a full-service (FBO) commercial permit from 

the NAC. However, it should be noted that BEH spent many months insisting to the Airport 

Commission-commencing with BEH's arrival at Norwood Airport in May 2010 and continuing 

849320v2 
16 

through much of the Lot F development-that its plan was to build a fueling facility to service its 

own aircraft only. 

Under the Norwood Airport Minimum Standards, for a prospective FBO permit 

applicant, one ( 1) of the mandatory conditions is for the applicant to have fuel service capability. 

See Exhibit 36 at 31 (Definitions). Similarly, under the Norwood Airport General Regulations, 

"[a ]ircraft fueling operations must be fully sanctioned by the [Airport] Commission, the 

Norwood Board of Selectmen, the Norwood Fire Department and the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts Fire Marshal's office." See Exhibit I 04 at 23. 

More recently, subject to the oversight from the NFD, BEH constructed a fuel 

storage/dispensing facility. However, to date, BEH has not, as required, notified the NFD of its 

interest to undergo a final inspection of the fuel facility. This was recently confirmed again by 

the Town of Norwood Fire Chief, Anthony Greeley, and this outstanding issue has been brought 

to Mr. Donovan's attention in the past by the Airport Commission. 

Because the mandatory inspection by the NFD has not been requested (or completed), the 

Volatile Inflammable Fluids ("VIF") license that BEH requires for its fuel storage/dispensing 

facility has not been issued. To date, the VIF license remains in the hands of the Board of 

Selectmen, the local licensing authority. As a matter of procedure, the VIF license will not be 

released to BEH until the final inspection occurs and approval is granted by the Norwood Fire 

Prevention Bureau, along with a confirmatory written communication to the Board of Selectmen. 

The unpreparedness on Mr. Donovan's part runs counter to his statements before the 

Airport Commission, in which he attests to the readiness ofBEH's fuel farm to undergo 

inspection: 

849320v2 

• Exhibit 3 7 contains the May 14, 2014 meeting minutes for the Airport 

Commission. On page 1 of Exhibit 3 7, Mr. Donovan reported that the fuel tanks 

should be finished by June I, 2014, and he thought BEH would be operational 

within forty-five (45) days. 

• Exhibit 3 8 contains the June 11, 2014 meeting minutes for the Airport 

Commission. This meeting was convened ten (10) days after Mr. Donovan's 

prior estimated completion date (i.e., June 1, 2014). On page 1 of Exhibit 38, Mr. 

Donovan stated that BEH would be operational within twenty-one (21) to thirty 

(30) days. The minutes also stated: "Once all is complete, BEH will need final 

inspection and approval from the Norwood Fire Department." See Exhibit 38 at 

I. 

• Exhibit 39 contains the July 30, 2014 meeting minutes for the Airport 

Commission. This meeting was convened almost two (2) months after Mr. 

Donovan stated, at the May 14, 2014 meeting, that the fuel tanks should be 

finished by June 1, 2014. At this July 30, 2014 meeting, Mr. Donovan reported 

that the fuel tanks were complete and were waiting for final piping and approval 

from the NFD. See Exhibit 39 at I. Mr. Donovan also reported that, contingent 
17 

on NFD approval, the Board of Selectmen had already granted approval, and that 

final inspections were expected to be completed by August 9, 2014. See id. 

To date, the required final inspection by NFD, ofBEH's fuel farm, has not taken place. 

This remains the case approximately one (1) year since BEH first represented that the fuel tanks 

would be completed, and several months after BEH represented that the final inspection would 

be completed. 

TAXI-LANE OBJECT-FREE AREA (TOFA) --~--~~--------------

In its Part 16 Complaint, BEH charges that the TOFA issue has unduly been applied to 

BEH. As with BEH's other arguments, this allegation is entirely baseless. 

Exhibit 40 is a copied excerpt showing the FAA airport design standard relative to 

TOF As. On the Norwood Airport, which is a Category II-B airport, the TOF A width is 115 feet, 

or 57.5 feet from the taxi-lane centerline. This design standard applies to the Norwood Airport's 

north/south taxi-lane, the Security Gate 2 taxi-lane, and the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane. The 

Airport Commission has consulted with its airport engineering firm, DuBois & King, on this 

matter to ensure that that the TOF A standard is being understood fully, and properly applied on 

the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane since, in this particular case, the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane TOF A 

directly affects BEH. 

Accordingly, in the New England Region, FAA Engineer CliffVacirca made clear to 

DuBois & King that the TOF A standard applies to all new construction, regardless of nonstandard, existing construction. This, in tum, was communicated to BEH on multiple occasions, 

both in writing and at NAC public meetings. 

The Security Gate 3 taxi-lane allows for the movement of aircraft and vehicles to and 

from the aprons to the Norwood Airport taxiways. Prior to 2006, this was simply a gate lane 

without object-free area standards. 9 In 2006, prior to construction of the Security Gate 3 taxilane, which ultimately received federal, state and local funding, all three (3) of these levels of 

government performed an engineering design review that included existing conditions (i.e., 

hangars, fire hydrants, bollards, designated vehicle parking spaces, etc.). All three (3) levels of 

engineering signed off on the work, and the taxi-lane was constructed. As we understand it, the 

Airport Commission was required to remove objects (hangars, fire hydrants, etc.) already in 

existence when this taxi-lane--formerly a gate lane--was created. With construction, the area 

became a taxi-lane object-free area. 

While the Norwood Airport's TOF As for both Security Gate 2 and 3 have been deemed 

non-standard, the NAC and Norwood Airport management have routinely communicated to 

9 BEH's Exhibit 93 is a letter dated three (3) years prior to the construction of the Security Gate 

3 taxi-lane, with the resulting TOFA. However, with Airport management's involvement, BAC 

did begin to tow its aircraft for start-up on the Eastern Air Center, Inc. (now F1ightLevel) 

maintenance apron. That practice continues to this day. 

849320v2 
18 

Airport tenants about the need to keep aircraft and ground vehicles out of the object-free areas 

("OF A") as much as possible. This, admittedly, has been a day-to-day challenge. Exacerbating 

this issue is the tight real estate at Norwood Airport (see stand-alone aerial photo, Security Gate 

3 taxi-lane marked in red). As we have realized mature development on the non-movement 

areas, and environmental constraints continue to impede further development, space on the 

Norwood Airport has become quite limited. 

BEH complains about the marking of the taxi-lane in front ofBEH's hangar near Security 

Gate 3. Yet, marking a taxi-lane is a design engineering standard, and this followed the Airport 

Improvement Program ("AlP") construction project, as a federal standard. Contrary to BEH's 

assertion, this taxi-lane goes to Security Gate 3, not to "nowhere," as BEH suggests. Security 

Gate 3 is also used as an emergency access way for Airport fire/rescue equipment and personnel 

responding to an on-Airport emergency from the NFD. 

BEH is able to use its apron north of the hangar to move aircraft in and out of its hangar. 

However, the TOF A does apply to BEH and all other operators. Airport management has 

attempted to enforce these object-free standards, while fully aware of the tight real estate and the 

fact that many of the hangars are just adjacent to the Security Gate 2 and Security Gate 3 

TOFAs. 

Today, Norwood Airport is the home base to ten (1 0) commercial businesses, along with 

many corporate flight departments. Norwood Airport contains one (1) ofthe highest based 

aircraft counts in the MassDOT inventory of airports. Accordingly, Norwood Airport is 

effectively land-poor-with a burgeoning aircraft/tenant population. 

As noted in the accompanying stand-alone aerial photo, eight (8) hangars are situated just 

abeam OF As for the Security Gate 2 and 3 taxi-lanes. Certain hangars are actually in the 57.5 

foot TOF A set-back, so that aircraft ground-handled from these hangars move directly into the 

TOFAs. Similarly, when the aircraft hangars need to be "stacked or re-stacked," the hangar 

keepers often have no choice but to use the taxi-lane as a staging area while aircraft are moved 

into and out of the hangars. 

Given the challenges of tight real estate, and the juxtaposition of both hangars and 

aircraft parking aprons just off the TOF As, as much as possible the Airport Commission and 

Norwood Airport management have tried to use common sense and fairness in observance of the 

TOF As. This includes urging Airport tenants to minimize the amount of time aircraft are 

allowed to park, unattended, in the TOF A. Whenever possible, we have also moved objects out 

of the TOFAs (e.g., vehicle parking, dumpsters). 

Finally, the Airport Commission has filed an update, which is carried in the FAA's 

Airport/Facility Directory, noting aircraft wingspan restrictions for both the Security Gate 2 and 

3 taxi-lanes. See Exhibit 42. The actions of the Airport Commission and Norwood Airport 

management are consistent with FAA standards, including TOF As, which recognize that these 

are "area[ s] on the ground that [are] to remain free of objects not needed for air navigation or 

aircraft ground maneuvering purposes." Platinum Aviation and Platinum Jet Center BMI v. 

849320v2 
Bloomington-Normal Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-06-09, Final Decision and Order 

(Nov. 28, 2007). 

19 

As noted in its Part 16 Complaint, BEH charges that the TOF A issue has unduly been 

applied to BEH. Yet the greatest TOF A impacts have not been experienced by BEH. Exhibit 43 

is an excerpt from the 2007 Norwood Airport Master Plan Update Final -Phase II ("2007 Master 

Plan Update"). 10 The creation of this AlP-funded document was the result of a combined 

financial/planning interest by the FAA, MassDOT and the Town of Norwood. The work was 

overseen and reviewed by all three (3) of these levels of government. In this 2007 Master Plan 

Update, pages 3-10 through 3-11 discuss the Norwood Airport's Taxiway B (now designated as 

the north/south taxi-lane) OF A. This Taxiway B OFA involves the same federal standards now 

being applied to the Norwood Airport's Gate 3 taxi-lane, adjacent to the location ofBEH's 

hangar and fuel farm. 

BEH incorrectly challenges the change of designation for Taxiway B. The decision to 

change the designation from "taxiway" to taxi-lane" was made by the FAA. The decision to 

change the northernmost section of the north/south taxi-lane (formerly Taxiway B) to ramp was 

requested by the NAC and approved by the FAA---and this was done to create a helicopter 

operating area to support BEH. 

Thus far, the most profoundly felt TOF A impacts are, ironically, being felt by the Town 

of Norwood and FlightLevel, not BEH. As the 2007 Master Plan Update excerpt states, adjacent 

to the north/south taxi-lane, "[t]he Airport lost about 47,500 SF [square feet] ofbased aircraft 

parking apron area with the potential to accommodate up to 79 aircraft. The economic loss from 

these 79 spaces represents $8,690 per month in tie-down fees, or $105,000 per year in income 

(FY05 rates)." See Exhibit 43 at 3-11. Therefore, observance ofthese federal standards has 

equated to a loss of potentially tens of thousands of dollars in income each year-likely even 

more so because the 2007 Master Plan Update used Fiscal Year 2005 rates. These are direct or 

indirect losses either to the Town of Norwood, or, to FlightLevel, another airport business, which 

holds the abutting leaseholds affected by these OFA federal standards. So Mr. Donovan's 

claim-that the federal OF A standards similarly applied on the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane 

discriminate against Mr. Donovan's company, BEH-are inaccurate. 

BEH's allegations of discrimination relative to the TOFA include accusations that others 

are able to park in the Security Gate 3 TOFA. BEH's complaints include FlightLevel, which has 

vehicle parking spaces just north of its condo hangar complex. This facility is right at the 

southern edge of the Security Gate 3 TOFA. Exhibit 44 shows FlightLevel's condo hangar lease 

10 BEH's Exhibit 61 refers to a State mandate mentioned in an excerpt from the Airport Master 

Plan Update- Phase I. This scenario is a hypothetical, based on that 2004 Norwood Airport 

Master Plan, Phase I, and references a Massachusetts airport security regulation that had been put 

in place approximately two (2) years prior in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist 

attacks. This hypothetical in question was a what-if scenario that, in fact, never came to pass. 

There was no follow-up regulation preventing vehicles from entering the Airport, which would 

have required Airport management to at least consider outside-the-fence vehicle parking in 

support of patrons doing business on the Airport's north quadrant. 

849320v2 
20 

(entitled the "Office Agreement"). This condo hangar lease was executed on June 15, 1996, 

some ten (10) years prior to the construction of the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane and the resulting 

establishment ofthe Security Gate 3 TOFA. Page 2, Section 3 of the condo hangar lease, under 

Common Areas, specifically states: "The LESSEE (Including without limitation its employees 

and invitees), shall have the right of use of the exterior common areas and facilities at the 

Property in common with others entitled thereto (including, without limitation, parking spaces 

.... )" See Exhibit 44 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the parking spaces were in effect 

established and thereby protected from TOFA enforcement prior to the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane 

construction in 2006 and establishment of the resulting Security Gate 3 TOF A. 

Over the years, Airport management has routinely spoken to users of the Airport about 

the parking of vehicles or aircraft for extended periods of time in either the Security Gate 2 or 3 

TOF As or the north/south taxi-lane TOF A. In the past, a verbal request was all that was 

required, without the need for record-keeping to demonstrate the TOF A enforcement. However, 

the Assistant Airport Manager, Mark Raymond ("Mr. Raymond"), did make a notation in a work 

journal in 2008, after speaking with another company, HAC-specifically, BAC employees Stu 

Piasecki and John DiMaggio-about the need to keep BAC's parked aircraft out of the nonmovement Taxiway B (now north/south taxi-lane) TOFA. See Exhibit 45. 

Swift was not subject to the TOF A for much of its tenure on the Norwood Airport 

because the Security Gate 3 TOF A did not come into being until 2006, when the taxi-lane was 

constructed. By 2011, Swift was no longer a viable business on the Norwood Airport. Parking 

and fueling in the TOF A, whether it be the Security Gate 2 TOF A, Security Gate 3 TOF A, or 

north/south taxi-lane TOF A, was enforceable, and enforced, once the object-free area movement 

surface was constructed. 

While Airport management has consistently, and without prejudice, tried to keep the 

Security Gates 2 and 3 and the north/south taxi-lane TOF As clear, it has done so sometimes 

informally or one-on-one, while at other times, through reminders that have been sent out in 

general distribution. See Exhibit 46. However, it has been reported to Airport management that 

BEH, ironically, has attempted to draw FlightLevel employees and their fueling operations into 

the TOFA. See Exhibits 47-49. Airport management believes that BEH may be doing this in 

order to have FlightLevel cited for TOFA violations, or, to show Airport management's 

inconsistent enforcement of TOF A standards. 

BEH apparently contests an order by Mr. Raymond to order BEH employee Robert Silva 

("Mr. Silva") to remove the BEH fuel truck parked in the Security Gate 3 TOF A. This argument 

is based on the faulty suggestion by BEH that it is the only entity on the Norwood Airport ever 

approached by Airport management to remove a vehicle or aircraft left for an extended period in 

the TOF A. This is untrue. Airport management has similarly approached FlightLevel, Bach 

Aviation, East Coast Aero Club, BAC, and any number of individual pilots, even a former 

airport commissioner. 

BEH also makes a claim of multiple vehicles similarly parked in the TOF A, but not 

approached by Airport management. The vehicles in BEH's Exhibit 104 are parked on spaces 

849320v2 
21 

authorized for parking per a lease (attached Respondents' Exhibit 44) already in existence prior 

to the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane and subsequent TOF A. 

In its Exhibit 94, BEH includes photos that misrepresent the actual object-free areas at 

the Norwood Airport. First, Security Gate 1 has no corresponding TOFA. In 1997, as part of an 

AlP-funded apron project (AlP# 3-25-0037-14), the Security Gate 1 threshold was paved. There 

was never a taxi-lane centered on, or leading to or from Security Gate 1. For this reason, taxilane OF A set-backs were never applied. As for the TOF As applicable to Security Gate 2 and 

Security Gate 3 taxi-lanes, there were existing encroachments (e.g., hangars, fire hydrant, 

authorized parking spaces, security camera pole, etc.) at the time that both of these taxi-lanes 

were constructed. 

According to the FAA, the TOF A standard applies to all new construction, regardless of 

non-standard, existing construction. This is a point that BEH has determined to be the basis for 

discrimination. Furthermore, what the BEH photos fail to demonstrate are the number of times 

that BEH has parked its own aircraft for fueling, or, its personal vehicles, within the Security 

Gate 3 TOF A. Exhibit I 05 contains photographs demonstrating BEH parking its own aircraft for 

fueling or its personal vehicles within the Security Gate 3 TOFA. With respect to the Security 

Gate 2 TOFA, Flight Level's fuel box was, and is, an attempt to help keep the object-free area 

clear of fuel trucks and the aircraft being fueled. 

BEH LAND CONSTRAINTS/AIRPORT COMMISSION CONCERNS11 

Lot F is approximately 30,000 square feet in size. On this leasehold, BEH chose to 

develop, with its hangar and fuel farm comprising approximately 21,875 square feet in size. 

Much of the remaining lot is constrained by wetlands (to the south), and National Fire Protection 

Association ("NFP A") 407 fueling setbacks, by which all airport hangar keepers must abide. 

BEH is additionally constrained by a culvert (to the west), and the Security Gate 3 TOF A 

(to the north). To the east, BEH's Lot F leasehold abuts Lot G. It should be noted that, when 

questioned previously about its fueling/land use plan, BEH asserted that it had operating rights to 

Lot G, which, it turns out, was not the case-FlightLevel has asserted rights as the controlling 

sublessee of Lot G. See Exhibit 50. In short, while BEH was expanding its business interests, 

BEH did not in advance properly assess its own land constraints. 

Exhibit 51 is a June 17,2013 memorandum from the Norwood Airport Manager to the 

Airport Commission, expressing concerns about "the availability of space for BEH to establish 

and conduct fueling operations at, or beyond, the [NFP A] aircraft fueling setbacks, while also 

remaining outside the gate 3 TOFA." For reference, Exhibit 51 a is the applicable NFPA 407 

Standard for Aircraft Aviation Fuel Servicing (2007 Edition)-Section 5.1 0.2 recommends a 

minimum twenty-five (25) foot setback between aircraft fuel system vents or fuel tank openings 

11 BEH's Exhibit 63 refers to the purchase of land in the Runway 10 RPZ. This has been on the 

Airport Commission's capital improvement plan for some time. However, the master plan itself 

is a planning document only. 

849320v2 
22 

to any terminal building, hangar, service building, or enclosed passenger concourse other than a 

loading walkway. 

Mr. Maguire makes the following observation clear in his June 17, 2013 memorandum: 

"[T]here's not enough real estate available to currently comply with both standards," and he 

encouraged the NAC to consider applicable lease opportunities. See Exhibit 51. Also, as noted 

earlier in this same June 17, 2013 memorandum, the NAC's airport engineer, Mr. Adler, had 

approached FAA to consider a TOF A modification to standard-similar to what the NAC had 

pursued on the northeast quadrant of the north/south taxi-lane 12 -which might have given BEH 

the room needed to fuel aircraft but would not have violated TOF A standards. See id. In this 

particular case, the FAA was reluctant to consider a modification to standard because it involved 

a fueling station, and the possibility of itinerant aircraft, perhaps not familiar with obstructions 

adjacent to the non-standard Security Gate 3 TOF A, taxiing down that taxi-lane at night looking 

for fuel. See Exhibits 34, 51. 

Exhibit 52 is a June 24, 2013 letter from the Norwood Airport Manager's office to Mr. 

Donovan, following the Airport Commission's June 2013 meeting during which the Airport 

Commission expressed concern regarding the still unresolved Gate 3 taxi-lane TOF A issue and 

BEH's proposed fuel farm within the OFA. This June 24,2013 letter again referenced the 

FAA's response, which had been shared with Mr. Donovan in December 2012, that current FAA 

policy does not allow new obstructions to be placed within any OF A areas regardless of existing 

obstructions. See Exhibit 52. 

To help resolve this issue, the Norwood Airport Manager coordinated a meeting that was 

held on June 27, 2013, with representatives from the FAA New England Region (Lisa 

Lesperance and CliffVacirca), MassDOT (Aeronautics Division Administrator Christopher 

Willenborg and Drew Mihaly), the Norwood Fire Department, the Airport Commission, 

Norwood Airport engineer Jeffrey Adler, BEH, and BEH's lawyers. See id. As noted in the 

final paragraph of that June 24,2013 letter, given the close proximity ofBEH's proposed fuel 

farm to the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane, the Airport Commission wanted to ensure that aircraft 

fueling and fuel delivery operations-pending a satisfactory review by the FAA-would not 

impede or obstruct the public way, or violate federal standards. The NAC therefore asked for 

BEH's fueling plan. Norwood Airport management already had on file FlightLevel's fueling 

plan. In fact, Norwood Airport management has worked for many years supervising 

FlightLevel's fueling operation through monthly inspections, spill prevention training, and 

oversight. 

12 In BEH's Part 16 Complaint, BEH apparently argues for access to the apron adjacent to its 

hangar for parking and fueling aircraft. BEH additionally indicates that a similar taxi-lane near 

FlightLevel's hangar was eliminated at FlightLevel's request. Neither of these allegations is 

accurate. The request to the FAA actually came from the NAC, in response to concerns from 

BEH and other helicopter operators on the Airport's north quadrant, requesting more space. The 

NAC made this request, which the FAA ultimately supported, in order to convert that portion of 

the north/south taxi-lane to apron, thus allowing for the construction of four (4) he1i-pads without 

OFA concerns-again, an accommodation made for the benefit ofBEH. 

849320v2 
23 

Exhibit 53 is a July 12, 2013 memorandum from the Norwood Airport Manager's office 

to Mr. Donovan, notifying him of an upcoming NAC meeting and reiterating the need for BEH 

to submit a fueling plan. The Airport Manager indicated that the Airport Commission still 

needed to know at that point in time, per the BEH fueling plan, about BEH's fuel 

loading/unloading procedures, proposed fueling location(s), etc., noting that some of these issues 

were discussed at the on-site June 27, 2013 meeting that was attended by, among others, the 

FAA's Lisa Lesperance ("Ms. Lesperance"). See Exhibit 53 at 2. It was at this June 27,2013 

meeting that Mr. Donovan agreed to perform fuel loading/dispensing procedures outside the 

Security Gate 3 taxi-lane OF A. 

Moreover, the Airport Manager noted that BEH should provide reasonable specificity in 

its fueling plan to address the Airport Commission's concern that BEH fueling would be 

conducted in a manner consistent with regulations, standards and best management practices, 

with minimal impact to other Airport tenants and users. See id. Airport management also sought 

to clarify BEH's interest in commercial fueling, as opposed to self-fueling, along with a 

proposed start date for commercial fueling operations, pending approval by the Airport 

Commission and NFD. See id. Airport management also requested that BEH provide a 

statement indicating how much apron space BEH would be seeking, if any, under a land lease 

with the NAC, ifBEH intended to operate a commercial fueling business. See id. 

Exhibit 54 contains a copy ofthe July 17,2013 email from Ms. Lesperance to the Airport 

Manager, reiterating what BEH had agreed to at the June 27, 2013 on-site meeting, namely: 

[BEH f]uel trucks will park outside ofthe OFA (along the hangar side, somewhat 

between the 2 hangars) .... Given this information, it is FAA's understanding 

that no trucks or aircraft will be in the OF A, therefore the [FAA] determination 

was a 'no objection' to this activity. 

See Exhibit 54. 

In observance of federal TOFA and NFPA fueling set-backs, BEH's plan was to 

load/dispense fuel just east ofBEH's hangar, while remaining on BEH's sublease property (Lot 

F). Exhibit 54a is a copy of the BEH fuel truck loading/unloading schematic provided by Mr. 

Donovan. However, Mr. Donovan furthermore contended that BEH had certain rights to fuel on 

an abutting and separate leasehold (Lot G). The use of abutting Lot G was part of the discussion 

at the Airport Commission's July 17, 2013 meeting. See Exhibit 55a. As it turns out, BEH's 

fuel plan shows aircraft tie-down spots marked east of BEH's facility, which is a 

misrepresentation of a now-disputed property. 

Exhibit 55 is a copy of the Norwood Airport Manager's July 19, 2013 letter to BEH. 

This letter reiterates actions taken at the July 17, 2013 Airport Commission meeting, specifically 

that with Mr. Donovan and BEH's attorney, Attorney Fox, present at the meeting, Mr. Donovan: 

849320v2 

agreed to an aircraft fueling restriction east of its leasehold since this involves 

abutting leaseholds [i.e., Lot G]; and this restriction will remain in place until 
such time that BEH can demonstrate to the Airport Commission that the property 

rights of others will not be violated. 

24 

See Exhibit 55. Based upon BEH's presentation at that July 17, 2013 meeting, the Airport 

Commission approved the continuation of BEH' s hangar construction and fuel farm installation. 

See id. at 1. However, the Airport Commission noted that BEH still needed to submit additional 

documents and plans, which BEH had agreed to provide. See id. at 1-2. 

Exhibit 56 contains a letter from BEH's counsel, Attorney Fox, attempting to raise a 

dispute concerning the use ofthe westerly portion of Lot G for BEH's business operations. In 

contrast to BEH's position is a letter from FlightLevel's General Counsel, Nicholas Burlingham, 

disputing BEH's right to use this portion of Lot G. See Exhibit 50. In short, and based upon the 

underlying real estate instruments, FlightLevel argued that with respect to its property rights on 

Lot G, which abuts BEH's Lot F, "BEH has no legal right to use the westerly portion of Lot G" 

in connection with BEH's operation on Lot F. See id. Despite apparent attempts by BEH and 

FlightLevel to bring the Airport Commission into the Lot G dispute, the Airport Commission has 

declined to do so, because this is a private party dispute. See, e.g. Exhibit 57. The Airport 

Commission is aware that there is a lawsuit between BEH and FlightLevel concerning Lot G, 

which is pending in Norfolk Superior Court. 

AIRPORT COMMISSION LEASE OFFERS ~' ~~~·- ---------·----.. ~~ .. ·---------

In light of the property rights now being contested by both BEH and FlightLevel, to 

provide BEH with some remedy, at its February 12, 2014 meeting, the NAC voted in executive 

session to authorize the Norwood Airport Manager to send a letter to BEH that "the Norwood 

Airport Commission is willing to offer space on the west apron for fueling, provided BEH is able 

to secure the proper permits." See Exhibit 57. This condition included a successful final 

inspection ofBEH's fuel farm by the Norwood Fire Department, an inspection which BEH has 

yet to schedule. Also, at this February 12, 2014 meeting, the NAC "noted that BEH still needs to 

deliver a business plan." See id. 

Five (5) days before the NAC lease offer, at the NAC's March 12, 2014 meeting, BEH's 

counsel, Attorney Fox, requested all or part of the West Apron. See Exhibit 58. However, the 

NAC's lease offer was thus consistent with BEH's request, particularly in light of the fact that 

BEH has not commenced operations as a full service FBO and therefore has not demonstrated a 

need for the entire West Apron. Indeed, as noted herein and as discussed below, BEH is seeking 

to utilize one of the few remaining available parcels at the land-restricted Airport, even as 

another potential competitor-not FlightLevel-has similarly demonstrated an interest. 

On March 17, 2014, the NAC offered such a lease to BEH, with square footage actually 

exceeding the area BEH asserted it had available on FlightLevel's Lot G (prior to FlightLevel's 

challenge to the attempted use of Lot G by BEH). See Exhibit 59. This lease offer encompassed 

approximately 6,889 square feet on the northeast comer of the Norwood Airport's West Apron. 

--

See id. 

X49320v2 
25 

At the NAC's April 9, 2014 meeting, BEH refused the West Apron lease offer-contrary 

to BEH's assertion, this offer was not withdrawn by the Airport Commission. See Exhibit 60. 

BEH stated instead it wanted the entire West Apron, even though BEH had not provided a 

business plan (which the NAC had requested). See id. NAC Commissioner Kevin Shaughnessy 

offered BEH sound advice to accept the present offer and, if things worked out and BEH needed 

additional area, explained that the NAC would consider offering more area to BEH. However, 

BEH declined that offer and reiterated its desire for the entire West Apron. 

The NAC was reluctant to lease the entire West Apron for a number of reasons, which 

included: 

1. BEH had not demonstrated to the Airport Commission enough business to 

warrant leasing out the entire West Apron to BEH; 

2. BEH had yet to submit a business plan, and when that business plan was 

submitted, the Airport Commission informed BEH that it would explore the 

possibility of allocating more space on the Airport; 

3. The NAC's March 2014 lease offer actually included more square footage than 

BEH had claimed it had fueling rights to on Lot G; and 

4. Notwithstanding viable BEH business growth projections and an identified need, 

leasing the entire West Apron to BEH would have required the NAC to terminate 

approximately seventeen (17) existing leases between the Airport Commission 

and individual aircraft owners. 

The Airport Commission, however, did take BEH's lease request under consideration. 

See id. Moreover, the Airport Commission explained to BEH that it would weigh this option 

once it had time to evaluate an updated BEH business plan and financials, which the Airport 

Commission and Airport Management had been requesting for several months. See id. 

In Advisory Circular 150/5190-7, the FAA highly recommends that airport sponsors 

adopt minimum standards for commercial aeronautical activities. These standards "ensure a 

safe, efficient and adequate level of operation and services is offered to the public." Advisory 

Circular 150/5190-7 § 1.1. 

An airport sponsor is entitled to deference in applying its minimum standards. See Boca 

Airport, Inc. v. Boca Raton Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-00-10, Final Decision and 

Order (Mar. 20, 2003). Here, the Norwood Airport Minimum Standards specifically and 

expressly require an applicant to submit a business plan. See Exhibit 36. In applying these 

Norwood Airport Minimum Standards, the NAC has repeatedly requested that BEH provide 

detailed financial records and a detailed business plan, both of which BEH had failed to provide 

for some time. 

When BEH finally attempted to provide financial information on April 8, 2014, it did so 

via email, in a cursory manner, identifying three (3) numerical line items for aircraft, equipment 

849320v2 
26 

and supplies, and hangar, and a total for these assets, and stating that there were zero liabilities. 

See Exhibit 61. However, BEH's financial information from this April 8, 2014 email conflicted 

with BEH's justification to the Airport Commission three (3) years earlier, in 2011-which 

involved the Airport Commission's subsequent support ofBEH, to the FAA-that BEH needed 

a thirty-nine (39) year sublease term on Lot F. Such financial information was used in response 

to the concerns that had been raised by the FAA at that time about justifying a long-term lease. 

See Exhibit 24. In that regard, as noted above, in 2011 BEH provided correspondence from its 

accountant to address such concerns, thereby suggesting the need to amortize construction costs 

over thirty-nine (39) years, as well as an amortization schedule based on financing. See Exhibit 

25. Thus, the April 8, 2014 financial information from BEH contradicted entirely the argument 

that BEH communicated to both the NAC and to the FAA three years prior, which the NAC 

itself had supported in its own communications to the FAA. See Exhibit 28. 

To assist Mr. Donovan in understanding what specifically the Airport Commission was 

looking for regarding BEH's business plan and financial information, on April30, 2014, the 

Airport Manager sent Mr. Donovan an email detailing the Airport Commission's request for 

information. See Exhibit 62. 13 The Airport Manager specifically requested, at a minimum, that 

BEH provide: (1) a balance sheet from BEH's most recent quarter, to include BEH's detailed 

assets, liabilities, and net worth; (2) an income statement that includes all BEH income and 

expense accounts for the prior two (2) years; and (3) a cash flow analysis. 14 See id. 

At the May 14, 2014 NAC meeting, BEH reconsidered its position on the West Apron 

lease offer, stating that it would now accept the 6,889 square foot of West Apron space offered 

by the NAC back in March 2014. See Exhibit 64. However, because BEH had unequivocally 

turned down the West Apron lease offer at the April 9, 2014 NAC meeting, there was no lease 

offer for BEH to accept. See id. 

Since BEH's rejection of the lease offer, another Norwood Airport business, BAC, came 

forward to express an interest in the West Apron. See Exhibit 63. Notably, the expression of 

interest from BAC was dated April 9, 2014, and coincided with the date ofthe Airport 

Commission meeting at which BEH refused the West Apron offer. See id. Significantly, BAC 

13 The Airport Commission's request for detailed financial information and a proper business 

plan is consistent with the recognition by the FAA that "[ c ]ertainly, the airport sponsor has 

discretion in what sort of financial information it deems necessary to review. In addition, airport 

sponsors customarily require business plans and audited financial statements when considering 

FBO applicants." James Vernon Ricks, Jr. v. Millington Municipal Airport Authority, FAA 

Docket No. 16-98-19, Director's Determination (July 1, 1999) (emphasis added). 

14 At the May 14, 2014 NAC meeting, BEH, through Attorney Fox, objected to providing 

financial information on the basis that it was "personal and proprietary and not considered public 

record .... " See Exhibit 64. Attorney Fox indicated that there was a balance sheet, but this 

would not include an income statement. See id. However, the Airport Commission is subject to 

the Massachusetts Public Records Law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 66, Section 10, 

and its exemptions, which are contained in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4, Section 

7(26). These exemptions are restrictively and stringently interpreted. See Attorney General v. 

Assistant Commission ofthe Real Property Department of Boston, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). 

849320v2 
27 

expressly represented that, like BEH, it "remains interested in receiving any [requests for 

proposals] for the addition of a second FBO at the Norwood Airport" and "has demonstrated 

interest in the past and anticipates the Norwood Airport Commission will issue a RFP in the 

same manner in which the DC-3 Ramp was leased." See id. BAC was the complainant in FAA 

Docket Number 16-07-03, which resulted in a Corrective Action Plan. 

BEH's outstanding lease issue was considered in executive session at the Airport 

Commission's May 14, 2014 meeting. See Exhibit 64. During that executive session, in 

consideration of a competing interest from BAC regarding the West Apron, the NAC voted to 

withhold making a decision to reoffer a lease to BEH ( 6,889 square feet of West Apron space) 

until a scoping plan and comprehensive master plan for the development of the West Apron was 

completed and reviewed by the NAC. See id. The NAC subsequently tasked its engineer, 

DuBois & King, to prepare a scoping fee for a West Apron feasibility study, to research the 

land's best use, as well as a comprehensive master plan for the development of the West Apron 

and DC-3 Apron. See id. This was a paramount concern to the Airport Commission given the 

limited available space at Norwood Airport, which must be used in a manner compliant with the 

NAC's obligations as an airport sponsor under the FAA Grant Assurances. It was expected that 

this work, as a precursor to a request for proposals ("RFP"), would make available for lease the 

West Apron and potentially the DC-3 Apron-to one (1) or several Norwood Airport tenants. 

With regard to its interest in an FBO permit, BEH was subsequently informed that the 

financial information and business plan were deemed insufficient and irrelevant by the Airport 

Commission. A revised business plan was finally submitted on Thursday, July 3, 2014, 

subsequent to the filing ofBEH's Part 13 Complaint. See Exhibit 65. Upon receipt, BEH's 

revised business plan was circulated to all NAC Commissioners for review. 

The NAC sought to receive meaningful financial information from BEH for some time. 

This revised financial information, along with the revised business plan, were needed to 

intelligently assess----consistent with the Norwood Airport Minimum Standards: 

• BEH's financial health; 

• BEH's record of performance; and 

• BEH's business growth projections 

See Exhibit 36. To date, as explained herein, the NAC still has not received such meaningful 

financial information from BEH. 

On July 10,2014, the Airport Commission filed its response to BEH's Part 13 Complaint. 

At this point in time, the Airport Commission continued to table BEH's FBO and lease interests 

pending the outcome ofBEH's Part 13 Complaint. The Airport Commission did not want to 

make a decision that might contradict final disposition of BEH' s Part 13 Complaint. While 

awaiting the outcome, the Airport Commission continued to receive briefings from BEH on the 

progress of its facility and fuel farm. These updates were heard at the Airport Commission's 

monthly meetings. The Airport Commission also continued to provisionally approve the 

extension ofBEH's FY 2014 permit to operate and provide previously approved commercial 

services (e.g., Part 135 operations). 

849320v2 
28 

The decision by the Airport Commission to table BEH's FBO and lease interests was 

consistent with FAA guidance. As the FAA has recognized, a complainant has a "right to pursue 

complaints and protect their interest (however) it is the Respondent's right to protect itself from 

the possibility of future costly and frivolous litigation." See Kent J. Ashton and Jacquelin R. 

Ashton v. City of Concord, FAA Docket No. 16-02-01, Director's Determination (August 22, 

2003), Final Agency Decision (February 27, 2004) (emphasis added). Additionally, an airport 

sponsor is "not obligated to expose itself to future lawsuits by entering into a business agreement 

with" a complainant, and may consider an applicant's history ofF AA complaints and threats of 

future litigation. See id. 

Concurrent with the Airport Commission's spring and summer 2014 meetings, it was 

evident, based on BEH's own representations, that the facility and fuel farm were not completed. 

As noted earlier in Exhibits 37 to 39, during the period from May 14, 2014 through July 30, 

2014, Mr. Donovan reported the following: first, Mr. Donovan estimated that BEH's fuel tanks 

would be finished by June 1, 2014; at the July 30, 2014 meeting, Mr. Donovan stated that the 

fuel tanks were complete and waiting for final piping and approval from the NFD; and Mr. 

Donovan also reported that final inspections were expected to be completed by August 9, 2014. 

To date, the required final inspection by NFD, ofBEH's fuel farm, never took place. 

In November 4, 2014, BEH withdrew its complaint without prejudice. See Exhibit 66. 

BEH did so unilaterally and on its own volition. 

On November 25, 2014, the Airport Commission entered into executive session to 

discuss a new lease offer with BEH. Unfortunately, as noted in the minutes of the December 18, 

2014 Board of Selectmen's meeting, the Airport Commission unexpectedly had to adjourn the 

November 25, 2014 meeting early, after a newly appointed Airport Commissioner, Oulton Hues, 

Jr. ("Mr. Hues")-who had a business relationship with BEH-began screaming at me (as I was 

serving as Acting Chairman of the Airport Commission), and using vulgar language in front of 

everyone in attendance, including the Airport Commission's recording secretary, Deborah 

Reddick ("Ms. Reddick"). See Exhibit 67. 

At one point, Ms. Reddick stood up and leaned over to ask Mr. Hues not to use such 

language in front ofher. As she tried to get Mr. Hues' attention, Ms. Reddick touched Mr. Hues 

on the shoulder. Mr. Hues did not dispute the November 25, 2014 incident. See id. Mr. Hues 

later attempted to file assault charges against Ms. Reddick-similar to the assault charges he had 

also filed against former NAC Chairman Thomas Wynne-before finally being removed as an 

Airport Commissioner by the Board of Selectmen in December 2014. See id. 

In December 2014, the Airport Commission was unable to meet due to the holidays and 

the unavailability of its members. In January 14, 2015, the Airport Commission convened and, 

in executive session, approved a lease offer to BEH for a portion of the West Apron. See Exhibit 

101. Later that afternoon, BEH was notified of the NAC vote by email. 

Following a draft and review process for preparing a draft lease and accompanying plan 

ofthe lease area, at its February 11, 2015 meeting, the Airport Commission voted to 

849320v2 
conditionally offer BEH a lease for a portion of the West Apron (so-called Parcel A). See 

Exhibit 68. On February 12, 2015, the Airport Commission-through Norwood Town 

Counsel-formally offered BEH a lease parcel on the West Apron, this time for nearly double 

the amount of land previously offered in 2014: 11,786 square feet. See id. 

29 

However, this February 12, 2015lease offer was contingent on BEH providing specific 

financial information consistent with its stated intention of operating a commercial FBO business 

(contained in Tab B to the February 12, 2015letter). See id. The Airport Commission felt BEH 

had yet to provide detailed financial information, despite prior requests for such information, and 

therefore identified the information sought in Tab B. See id. 

While BEH apparently contests the information in Tab B to the February 12, 2015 lease 

offer, it is not necessary for specific required financial information to be spelled out in detail in 

an airport sponsor's minimum standards. See James Vernon Ricks, Jr. v. Millington Municipal 

Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-98-19, Director's Determination (July 1, 1999). Thus, in 

Ricks, the Director's Determination rejected the complainant's argument that the minimum 

standards did not specifically mandate the submission of a business plan and audited financial 

statement, because the minimum standards required that an "applicant be 'financially responsible 

and able to provide the facilities and services proposed."' See id. Indeed, in Ricks, the FAA 

recognized that an airport sponsor "has discretion to define what types of information need to be 

submitted. The actual types of financial information need not be actually stated in the standards, 

although it would be helpful if they were to be included." Id. (emphasis added). 

Similarly, here, the Airport Commission sought detailed financial information from BEH 

consistent with the Norwood Airport Minimum Standards: "For the safe and efficient operation 

of Norwood Memorial Airport, its minimum standards are intended to promote fair competition 

and to ensure that those who provide approved services are not exposed to unfair or irresponsible 

competition. For the public interest, the application of minimum standards also discourages substandard, would-be enterprises from operating on the Airport -thereby protecting established 

aeronautical activities and the Airport patrons." See Exhibit 36 at I. The information sought in 

Tab B to the February 12, 2015 lease offer is therefore tethered to the Norwood Airport 

Minimum Standards. 

The Airport Commission has a "right to protect itself from financial and/or litigation 

risk." See Flightline Aviation, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, FAA Docket No. 16-07-05, Director's 

Determination (Mar. 7, 2008) ("simply a way of protecting [the airport sponsor] and the 

aeronautical community operating on the Airport from financial risk"). In fact, the FAA has 

recognized that a new entrant may not be similar to such an established business and therefore 

may be required to provide additional information under the applicable minimum standards. See 

id. This FAA guidance is highly relevant to the Airport Commission's evaluation of BEHs 

requests. The information sought by the Airport Commission-in connection with a proposed 

lease of one of the few remaining available parcels on the Airport-was consistent with 

protecting the Airport Commission and the public with the attendant financial risks from a new 

proposed full-scale FBO by BEH, which had not demonstrated a proven track record of 

experience with an operation of such a nature. 

849320v2 
30 

When the Airport Commission previously received financial information from BEH, it 

was deemed to be insufficient and/or not what the Airport Commission had been requesting for 

many months, through both public meetings and emails. The Airport Commission provided 

BEH with thirty (30) days from accepting the lease officer to provide the detailed financial 

information, and further conditioned the leased offer upon approval by the NAC. See id. 

On March 11,2015, BEH filed its Part 16 Complaint with FAA in the above-referenced 

matter. As required in the February 12, 2015 lease offer, BEH had until March 27, 2015 to 

provide the Airport Commission with the required detailed financial information (i.e., thirty (30) 

days from accepting the lease offer). 

At the Airport Commission's April 15,2015 meeting-well past the submittal deadline 

set forth in the February 12, 2015 lease offer-the Airport Commission voted to extend the lease 

offer to BEH until the May 2015 Airport Commission meeting. BEH agreed to submit the 

financial information required by the Airport Commission in executive session-BEH had yet to 

submit such information, however. 

In its Part 16 Complaint, BEH complains about the lease term for the portion of the West 

Apron offered to it. Yet, BEH was offered the same lease term of five ( 5) years that Papa 

Whisky1, LLC was offered for the DC-3 Apron 15, and which FlightLevel was offered for Lots 

A,B,C. BEH made no capital investment on the West Apron that might have warranted a longer 

lease term. 

The information sought by the Airport Commission is consistent with prior information 

requests for prospective FBOs at Norwood Airport. To that end, in 1988, through the Town of 

Norwood's then-airport management company, BMA, the Airport Commission solicited for a 

second FBO through an RFP. At that time, the Airport Commission required all FBO applicants 

to submit financial information similar to what BEH is now being required to submit. 

Exhibit 69 is the March 15, 1988 cover letter and RFP submittal to BMA President 

Howard E. Pendergast from Eastern Air Charter, Inc. ("Eastern Air Charter") Vice President, 

Allen L. Bishop ("Mr. Bishop"). Aside from the pro forma financial documents, in Appendix F 

of proposal, the cover sheet notes that two (2) documents were submitted: ( 1) a balance sheet; 

and (2) a statement of income and retained earnings. See Exhibit 69. Eastern Air Charter also 

submitted a marketing program, financing/capital plan, and growth plan. See id. 

Six (6) years later, in a July 12, 1994 letter to then-Airport Commission Chairman, 

Lawrence Egan, Mr. Bishop voiced his concern that another airport business was being 

considered for an FBO permit without meeting the same service requirements that Eastern Air 

Charter had met per the earlier RFP process. See Exhibit 70. Of particular note in that letter is 

paragraph 2, in which Bishop stated: 

15 BEH's Exhibit 5 states that Mr. Eichleay is the lessee for the DC-3 Apron. This is incorrect. 

Papa Whisky1, LLC is the lessee for the DC-3 Apron. Similarly, BEH's Exhibit 96 is an aerial 

photo showing "Based Apron 2C," with FlightLevel as the lessee; again, this DC-3 Apron is 

leased to Papa Whisky1, LLC. 

849320v2 
EAC responded to the RFP for a second FBO and was awarded it. Many criteria 

had to be met with respect to the services we were required to provide and, in 

addition, full financial disclosure representing our ability to perform as an FBO. 

It would be discriminatory to just 'give away' services through the (commercial) 

permit process without some kind of qualifying at least equal to the RFP process 

through which EAC had to compete. 

See id. (emphasis added). 

Exhibit 71 is a July 28, 1994 letter from Attorney John Updegraph ("Attorney 

Updegraph"), representing Eastern Air Center, of which Eastern Air Charter was a division. 

(Eastern Air Center and Eastern Air Charter are referred to as "EAC"). In his letter, Attorney 

Updegraph reiterates Mr. Bishop's assertion that, per the RFP process-which had a stated 

purpose of finding a "competent, qualified, and financially stable FBO for the Norwood 

Airport-Eastern Air Charter was required to submit financial information, including a balance 

sheet (along with an operating plan, three (3) year business plan, and growth plan, among other 

submittals). See Exhibit 71. Attorney Updegraph also observed that the applicant evaluation 

criteria included experience with similar business enterprises, overall business strength, and 

quality of the business plan. See id. 

Exhibit 72 is yet another FBO submittal, from Kertzman's of Quincy, Inc. 

31 

("Kertzman' s"), also showing the inclusion of financial information per the 1988 RFP. 

Interestingly, Kertzman's RFP stated that "[i]n any business venture, it is wiser to begin slowly 

with the things that you have and then expand as revenues are generated. The person who begins 

on a large scale by building and incurring high costs is doomed to failure." See Exhibit 72. 

Kertzman's included a growth plan, three (3) year plan, a statement of proposed income and 

costs, and a recent financial statement. Id. 

Finally, more recently, in 1999, the Airport Commission required updated financial 

information from Eastern Air Center owners Sid Fagelman and Anthony Prevett. See Exhibit 

73). Such information was provided by these individuals. See id. 

In effect, the requirement to provide financial information was established on or before 

1988 by the Airport Commission, when a formal RFP was issued for a second FBO at Norwood 

Airport. This contradicts BEH's claims of economic discrimination and exclusive rights. See 

James Vernon Ricks, Jr. v. Millington Municipal Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-98-19, 

Director's Determination (July 1, 1999) ("What matters here is that each applicant was required 

to provide similar information and that the type of information required was reasonable."); see 

also Alca, the Cylinder Shop/Wayman Aviation, Suncoast Aviation, and National Aviation, v. 

Miami-Dade County, Florida, FAA Docket No. 16-08-05, Director's Determination (Aug. 31, 

201 0) (recognizing that businesses that failed to submit sufficient businesses plans, financial 

documentation and/or financial statements had not "demonstrate[ d] they were capable of making 

the long term investments in the development of airport property that would justify lower lease 

rates and long term leases to amortize such investments" and were not similar to other such 

tenants in that regard). 

849320v2 
32 

Moreover, BEH's allegations must be placed in context. The Airport Commission is 

receptive to a second FBO at the Airport-as evidenced by the Airport Commission 

accommodating BEH's requests to be placed on meeting agendas and receiving periodic updates 

from BEH ofits progress at its monthly meetings. However, BEH, as noted above, drastically 

expanded its stated intentions to the Airport Commission from when it first arrived in 2010, as 

BEH first held itself out as a helicopter-on-demand charter operation, then expressed its sole 

interest in wanting to self-fuel its own aircraft, followed by developing the property on Lot F, 

while broadening its commercial interests-from Part 135 and flight training-to a full-service 

FBO business with commercial fuel servicing. 

The Airport Commission never issued an RFP for a second FBO at the Airport, yet it 

accommodated BEH and its stated intentions to become such a second FBO. This is the case 

even as at least one (1) other established Airport business, BAC, expressed its interest in 

becoming an FBO as recently as 2014. The Airport Commission never had an opportunity to put 

together and solicit an RFP for a second FBO-though, as stated above, it is not adverse to such 

a scenano. 

In now evaluating BEH's financial information, the Airport Commission is furthermore 

using some discretion and due diligence because ofBEH's past actions. These were detailed on 

pages 4 and 5 ofthe Airport Commission's July 10,2014 response to the FAA New England 

Region, regarding BEH's since-withdrawn Part 13 Complaint, as excerpted below: 

After the (Swift) hangar collapse, Mr. Donovan began negotiations with BMA, as 

he expressed an interest in having his company assume the sublease interest for 

Lot F. BEH and BMA crafted an Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of 

Lot F, seeking the approval ofthe Airport Commission. However, page 2 ofthe 

Town ofNorwood!BMA Master Lease states: 

"The subleases of said parcel or portions thereof shall be reviewed prior 

to the execution by the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission [now 

MassDOT] and the Federal Aviation Administration, or the successor 

agencies, and approved, in writing, by the Norwood Airport 

Commission ... " 

As required in this Master Lease, the NAC directed BEH to send its draft 

document to both FAA and MassDOT for review. In the process of reviewing the 

BMAIBEH sub-lease, FAA began to question the length of the lease term. The 

Airport Commission was especially sensitive to this concern, given the federal 

grant assurance violations cited by the FAA in 2008, as a result of the original 

eighty (80) year Master Lease entered into in 1967 between the Town of 

Norwood and BMA. 

Accordingly, the Airport Commission tried to mediate a solution that was 

satisfactory to FAA, while being supportive of BEH. To that end, the NAC 

requested that BEH obtain an amortization schedule, to justify the long-term 

849320v2 
sublease it sought. In response, BEH provided correspondence from its 

accountant, suggesting the need to amortize construction costs over thirty-nine 

(39) years, as well as an amortization schedule based on financing. 

The Norwood Airport Manager separately sent a February 12,2013 to the FAA, 

attention Barry Hammer, P.E., Compliance Officer, to expressly support BElfs 

requested long-term sublease of Lot F, including comparable long-term leases at 

other airports. This February 12, 2013 letter made reference to the FAA 

Compliance Manual, which states: "Most tenant ground leases of30 to 35 years 

are sufficient to retire a tenant's initial financing and provide a reasonable return 

for the tenant's development of major facilities." (Emphasis added). 

Interestingly, as noted below with respect to BEH's subsequent attempt to provide 

a business plan, after the Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of Lease for 

Lot F was executed, BEH changed its position and no longer needed financing for 

construction, which was the apparent justification for the long-term sublease at 

the outset. 

33 

See Exhibit 96 at 5-6 (footnote and attachment references omitted; emphasis added). 16 To the 

extent not otherwise discussed herein, the Respondents incorporate in their entirety the facts and 

legal arguments in response to BEH's withdrawn Part 13 Complaint. See generally Exhibit 96. 

The Airport Commission also feels that BEH has an unproven track record in the 

management and operation of an FBO, and this is quite different from FlightLevel's experience. 

In 2007, when FlightLevel first approached the Airport Commission, FlightLevel was interested 

in acquiring an established FBO: Eastern Air Center. FlightLevel in tum provided a business 

plan and financial information, which the Airport Commission at that time deemed satisfactory. 

The Airport Commission previously considered the fact that FlightLevel (unlike BEH) 

was planning to retain much of Eastern Air Center's seasoned management. Thus, through its 

acquisition, FlightLevel would have the continuity of proven senior level FBO managers, 

including FlightLevel's incoming General Manager, Mr. Carroll, who was a longtime FBO 

manager at the Norwood Airport with both Wiggins Airways and Eastern Air Center. Both of 

these FBOs-Wiggins Airways and Eastern Air Center-were successful here at the Norwood 

Airport. 

Additionally, in coming to the Norwood Airport, FlightLevel's management group 

already had years of direct and diversified aviation management experience elsewhere: in FBOs, 

air charters, corporate aviation, airport development and management, and airline management. 

This experience, coupled with FlightLevel's financial assets and projections, satisfied the Airport 

Commission, and the Airport Commission was confident ofFlightLevel's ability to 

professionally serve the aviation public. 

16 It should be noted that on the Town ofNorwood/BMA long-term leasehold, a similar lease 

term extension was sought by FlightLevel. However, the Airport Commission directed 

FlightLevel to pursue the same course of action: an F AA/MassDOT sub-lease review. 

849320v2 
OTHER LAND LEASE OPPORTUNITIES 

In its Part 16 Complaint, BEH makes accusations of a monopoly on the Norwood 

Airport. These accusations similarly lack any merit whatsoever. To date, even though 

FlightLevel is the only commercially permitted FBO on the Norwood Airport, the Airport 

Commission has issued ten (1 0) business permits, with services ranging from Part 135 

operations, to flight schools, to aircraft detailing and aerial photography. 17 

34 

"The fact that a single business or enterprise may provide most or all of the on-airport 

aeronautical services is not, in itself, evidence of an exclusive rights violation." See FAA 

Advisory Circular 150/5190-6 at 2 (January 4, 2007); FAA Airport Compliance Manual Order 

5190.68 at 8.6, 8.9.b (September 30, 2009). "What is an exclusive rights violation is the denial 

by the airport sponsor to afford other qualified parties an opportunity to be an on-airport 

aeronautical service provider." FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-6 at 2 (January 4, 2007) 

(emphasis added); FAA Airport Compliance Manual Order 5190.68 at 8.9.b (September 30, 

2009). 

Exhibit 74 is a spreadsheet showing the Norwood Airport's five (5) land lease lots, and 

the dates when these leases took effect. Four (4) ofthe leases (Lots W,X,Y; Lot 6; Lot 7; and 

Lots A,B,C) were entered into between the NAC and FlightLevel. All four (4) ofthese 

FlightLevelleases were already in effect and thus pre-dated the commencement ofBEH's 

commercial operation on the Norwood Airport in 2010. The fifth lease lot is under agreement to 

PapaWhiskyl, LLC-not FlightLevel-for the DC-3 Apron. This is a short-term lease that was 

executed by the NAC in 2013 and will remain in effect until2018. 

In 2014, a new five (5) year lease was executed by the NAC and FlightLevel for Lots 

A,B,C following a written request for a new lease by FlightLevel on January 22, 2014, 

accompanied by a justification. See Exhibit 75. The NAC was not required to issue an RFP for 

Lots A,B,C. This was not a renewal-it was a new lease. Lots A,B,C are located on the south 

quadrant of the Airport, adjacent to FlightLevel's terminal and transient parking apron-not on 

the north quadrant where BEH is situated. As Exhibit 75 makes clear, FlightLevel supported the 

requested extension through specific identified projects, with related significant investment in the 

Airport and as part of a long-term commitment for capital upgrades. This lease best supported 

FlightLevel' s business and, based on the Airport Commission's experience with FlightLevel 

during the preceding five (5) years, FlightLevel had been a responsible lessee for these lots. 

Ironically, subsequent to the request of Mr. Donovan in 2010 (see Exhibit 15), the 

Airport Commission publicly advertised the availability of the DC-3 Apron for lease (see Exhibit 

76) along with a published addendum adding clarification to the advertisement (see Exhibit 

77)-to encourage competition. The DC-3 Apron is located just west of Runway 17/3 5 and the 

asphalt surface and sub-surface were reconstructed in 2005. See Exhibit 76. The DC-Apron 

includes four (4) aircraft tie-down spaces. See id. The January 3, 2006 DC-Apron as-built 

17 In FY 2015 the commercially permitted businesses are: FlightLevel; BEH; BAC; Aerial 

Productions; Blue Hill Helicopters; Elite Aero Services; Horizon Aviation; East Coast Aero 

Club; Norwood Air Multi-Engine Training; and Kestrel Aviation. 

849320v2 
drawings submitted to the Airport Commission, the FAA, and MassDOT expressly designated 

the DC-3 Apron as being used for an aircraft parking apron only. See Exhibit 78. 

35 

Prior to issuing the RFP for the DC-3 Apron, the Airport Commission determined that the 

most appropriate use was aircraft parking and aircraft ground handling only. The relatively 

limited size of the DC-3 Apron was viewed as restricting its utility as a site for a full-scale FBO 

given paramount safety and efficiency concerns, along with the overarching concerns for the 

future development ofthe Airport property. See FAA Grant Assurance 22(i) (allowing an airport 

sponsor to prohibit or restrict aeronautical use in the interests of safety and efficiency; see also 

Aerodynamics of Reading, Inc. v. Reading Regional Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-00-

03, Director's Determination (Dec. 22, 2000); FAA Order 5190.6B ~~ 8.8.a, 14.1, 14.3. 

The Airport Commission also acted consistent with the FAA's recognition of the 

authority of an airport sponsor to exercise its proprietary rights and powers and to engage in local 

planning to grow and develop an airport. See Monaco Coach Corp. v. Eugene Airport and City 

of Eugene, FAA Docket No. 16-03-17, Director's Determination (July 27, 2004); James Vernon 

Ricks, Jr. v. Greenwood-Leflore Airport/Airport Board, City of Greenwood, Leflore County, 

Mississippi, FAA Docket No. 16-09-04 (Director's Determination, Jan. 24, 2011); Henrihetta 

and Lindsay Tulloch v. City ofHarlingen, Texas, FAA Docket No. 16-05-07, Director's 

Determination (Aug. 21, 2006); Robert Kihlstrom v. Port ofOrcas, Washington State, FAA 

Docket No. 16-02-07, Director's Determination (Sept. 1, 2004). "A sponsor is not required to 

develop any and all parcels ofland in a manner consistent with the wishes of any one party, but 

rather may exercise its proprietary rights and powers to develop and administer the airport's land 

in a manner consistent with the public's interest." See Thermco Aviation, Inc. and A-26 Co. v. 

County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and Los Angeles World 

Airports, FAA Docket No. 16-06-07, Director's Determination (June 21, 2007). 

Thus, the Airport Commission used the DC-Apron procurement to address the anticipated 

loss of aircraft tie-down spaces on the West Apron. See Exhibit 78. The Airport Commission 

also accounted for the prior loss of aircraft tie-down spaces from the reconstruction of the 

north/south taxi-lane. See id. 

BEH argues that the DC-3 Apron had a "new prohibition" on commercial services use. 

Yet, when BAC previously used the DC-3 Apron, consistent with the restrictions under the RFP 

when it issued in 2013, BAC similarly could only park its aircraft on the DC-3 Apron. This also 

was the same restriction that Papa Whisky1, LLC, which received the lease, accepted. The RFP 

did not preclude a commercial business from operating off the DC-3 Apron-in fact, BAC had 

operated its Part 135 charter business there. Per the RFP, the DC-3 Apron could just as well 

have been used by a corporate flight department or aviation business. 

BEH was included in the distribution sent by the Town of Norwood Purchasing Agent, 

Catherine A. Carney ("Ms. Carney"). While BEH was aware of the advertisement, BEH did not 

submit a response. 

Yet after the lease was awarded to Papa Whisky1, LLC, Mr. Donovan accused the 

Airport Commission of discrimination, among other allegations. Ironically, this was at the exact 

849320v2 
36 

same time that the NAC and Airport Manager were working directly with the FAA, in support of 

BEH's interest in a long-term sublease extension for Lot F (see Exhibits 28-30), and one (1) 

month after the FAA Divisions Manager of the Airports Division for the New England Region, 

Ms. Walsh, contacted the Airport Manager (see Exhibit 27) warning both him and the Airport 

Commission about Mr. Donovan. 

Regarding BEH's allegations (including discrimination) relative to the DC-3 Apron 

advertising and award, in response, Norwood Town Counsel-with back-up support from the 

Ms. Carney--drafted a March 14,2013 letter signed by the Airport Commission Chairman and 

sent to BEH refuting Mr. Donovan's accusations. See Exhibit 78. Mr. Donovan did not respond 

to that letter. In the interests of efficiency, the contents of the March 14, 2013 letter are 

incorporated herein in their entirety and demonstrate that the procurement of the lease for the 

DC-3 Apron was consistent with the FAA Grant Assurances. See id. Among other issues, the 

Airport Commission referenced its efforts to assist BEH in establishing a larger presence at the 

Airport, including approving the Assignment, Assumption and Amendment of Sublease for Lot 

F, to enable BEH to be in a position to further compete with FlightLevel (contrary to any 

suggestion of an exclusive right or unjust discrimination). See id. 

Additionally, in BEH's Part 16 Complaint, BEH argues that the NAC has ignored its 

request for a pedestrian gate adjacent to Security Gate 3, which is currently used for motor 

vehicles only. Mr. Donovan states that the Town has denied this request without giving a reason. 

This is not correct. To the contrary, Mr. Donovan has brought this issue before the NAC on 

several occasions. On behalf of the NAC, the Airport Manager has met with Mr. Donovan on 

site, at Lot F, along with me (when I was serving as NAC Vice Chairman). At those times, Mr. 

Donovan expressed his interest and reasons for wanting to have a pedestrian gate installed 

adjacent to Security Gate 3. The NAC has in tum explained to Mr. Donovan that, at present, the 

NAC sees no reason to install a pedestrian gate there. 

Many years ago, at Security Gate 1 on the Norwood Airport's south quadrant, a 

pedestrian gate was installed because that gate was/is located adjacent to the municipal parking 

lot, and is therefore an easy-and safe-walk from the gate to that lot. However, Security Gate 

3, is on the north quadrant and opens directly onto Access Road, where there are no sidewalks 

and no municipal parking lot within an easy, safe walking distance. Both the security fence and 

Security Gate 3 are on the Town's right-of-way. It should be noted that the Norwood Airport's 

Security Gate 2 also has no pedestrian gate; this, for the same reason. 

Further, for many years, the Norwood Airport was home to two (2) FBOs: Wiggins 

Airways and EAC. EAC was located in close proximity to where BEH is now sited, on the 

Norwood Airport's north quadrant. In all of the time that Norwood Airport had two (2) FBOs1ocated generally north and south on our facility---only one (1) pedestrian gate was ever included 

in the Airport's access control system: the one currently in operation by Security Gate 1, on the 

Norwood Airport's south quadrant, adjacent to the municipal lot. 

At its January 14, 2015 meeting, the Airport Commission discussed issuing an RFP for 

the remaining area of the West Apron (i.e., so-called Parcel B). See Exhibit 101. During the 

discussion, the Airport Commission considered precluding FlightLevel or its principals from 

849320v2 
37 

submitting a proposal, in an order to encourage competition. See id. When this RFP is issued, 

BEH, along with any other interested proposer, will have an opportunity to submit a response in 

order to obtain a lease of Parcel B on the West Apron. 

SURPLUS LAND 

In its Part 16 Complaint, BEH makes reference to an existing Airport Commission lease 

of surplus land for non-aeronautical purposes, inferring that this automobile storage land could 

have been used by BEH for aeronautical purposes ("Surplus Land"). This Surplus Land, 

however, is not suitable for aviation use, and Airport management previously engaged the FAA 

in this sublease. The Surplus Land is segregated from the Airport proper by a gas line, perimeter 

security fencing, abutting private interests, and federally protected wetlands. See Exhibit 88. 

Currently, the Surplus Land is used to store Verizon vehicles; Verizon's building is not located 

on the Surplus Land or on the Runway Protection Zone (contrary to the assertion in BEH's 

Exhibits 58 and 71) and instead is situated on private land. 18 

On March 8, 2012, the Airport Commission requested the release of the Surplus Land for 

compatible, non-aeronautical land use. See id. This request referenced a history dating back to 

March 15, 2010, when the Airport Manager had declared the Airport Commission's intent to file 

a release with the FAA and met with Airports Division Manager Laverne Reid ofthe FAA New 

England Region back in 2010, at which time ongoing flooding had highlighted how removed the 

Surplus Land was from Norwood Airport's aeronautical use, "inside the fence" property. See id. 

Exhibits 89 through 92 show the email communications from 2012 to 2014 between the FAA 

(i.e., Mr. Barry Hammer and Ms. Walsh) and the Airport Manager as the Airport sponsor 

attempted to mitigate confusion regarding this request, and seek an FAA decision on the matter. 

On January 9, 2015, nearly three (3) years after the Airport Commission, through the 

Airport Manager, had requested a release of the Surplus Land for non-aeronautical use, the FAA 

responded to the Airport Commission. See Exhibit 93. In its response, FAA stated: 

--

See id. 

Before agreeing to release this parcel of land, the FAA expects the Town of 

Norwood to make every effort to develop this parcel of aeronautical property for 

the benefit of civil aviation, to address the lack of available aircraft ramp space at 

Norwood Memorial Airport. 

Four (4) months prior to this January 9, 2015 letter, on August 5, 2014 the Norwood 

Airport underwent a comprehensive land-use compliance inspection by the FAA New England 

18 BEH's Exhibit 58 includes an area marked as "Former Access to Verizon Ramp," although 

this area was never used as such and this has been communicated to BEH on numerous 

occasions. Moreover, regarding the light poles, the lessee for the Surplus Land, David Spiegel, 

filed the appropriate Form 7460 (Notification of Construction or Alteration) with both the FAA 

and MassDOT, and both agencies conducted an airspace study. 

849320v2 
38 

Region's Compliance Officer, Thomas Vick ("Mr. Vick"). Exhibit 94 is a copy of the resulting 

FAA inspection report (dated September 16, 2014 ), which makes no mention of the nonaeronautical use Surplus Land in question, even though, at the time of the inspection, Mr. Vick 

asked to view the Surplus Land, was subsequently driven onto the Surplus Land by the Airport 

Manager, was shown how segregated the Surplus Land was from the Norwood Airport proper, 

and was notified about the environmental constraints and intervening, privately held properties 

that precluded this Surplus Land from aeronautical development. 

As a result ofthe FAA's January 9, 2015letter, the Airport Commission had its engineer, 

DuBois & King, as well as its environmental consulting firm, Epsilon and Associates, conduct an 

environmental study of the Surplus Land (being used as automobile storage property) to 

determine its suitability for aeronautical development. See Exhibit 95. On April 9, 2015, the 

Airport Manager sent the FAA a response to its January 9, 2015 letter, including a copy of the 

study's findings. See id. 

In particular, in his April 9, 2015 letter to the FAA, the Airport Manager states that the 

development of the Surplus Land for additional (aeronautical use) ramp space is not possible 

under applicable environmental regulations. This is because the Surplus Land (i.e., the 

automobile storage lot) cannot be accessed from the existing airport property without filling in 

greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet of wetlands, while avoiding the existing the 

compensatory flood storage area noted in the existing conditions plan. See id. Moreover, the 

Airport Manager noted that "[t]he subject property [i.e., the Surplus Land] is a virtual island 

segregated on all sides." See id. 

Specific to BEH, the Airport Manager's Apri19, 20151etterto FAA, on page 2, states: 

while we understand that our 2007 Norwood Airport master plan cites possible 

development of the subject property for a heli-pad, that development has always 

been conditional to the NAC acquiring [privately held land under two (2) separate 

ownerships-Noreen Michenzie and Access Road Association lots]. Without 

these properties, the master plan recommendations can never be realized. 

It should furthermore be noted that, in recent years, due to burgeoning helicopter 

interests and requests relative to the Norwood Airport's north quadrant, the 

NAC-with FAA support-was able to re-configure the northernmost portion of 

the north/south taxi-lane. We converted this to a helicopter operating area with 

four newly constructed and marked heli-pads. This development now provides the 

Norwood Airport with more than adequate rotary-wing facilities, which, in tum, 

effectively negates the need for yet another heli-pad, either on or adjacent to the 

subject property. 

The April 9, 2015 letter demonstrates that Airport management continued with its past 

efforts of attempting to develop the Surplus Land for the benefit of civil aviation, but is unable to 

do so because of substantial environmental and aviation constraints. Consequently, the Airport 

849320v2 
39 

Manager again requested that the FAA consider releasing the Surplus Land for non-aeronautical 

use "given the prohibitive environmental constraints noted in the [DuBois & King and Epsilon 

and Associates] land development analysis, combined with the disposition of the intervening 

[privately owned] properties, each of which is incompatibly suited to our needs for access." See 

id. 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 

A January 20, 2015 letter from FlightLeve1 President, Peter Eich1eay, to Chairman 

Michael J. Lyons, of the Norwood Board of Selectmen, addresses many ofFlightLevel's 

concerns relative to BEH. See Exhibit 79. These allegations are incorporated herein for 

reference, and identify specific disputes between FlightLevel and BEH. In addition, FlightLevel 

has separately expressed to the Airport Commission its concerns that BEH was encroaching on 

its leasehold, trespassing and undermining its business. See Exhibits 80-84. For example, 

FlightLevel indicated that, following a January 27,2015 blizzard, BEH removed snow from its 

leasehold on Lot F and combined it with the snowfall on FlightLevel's Lots G and H (the latter 

of which is the location ofFlightLevel's fuel farm). See Exhibit 80. This massive snow bank 

blocked access to FlightLevel' s fueling system on Lot H and rendered it impossible for 

FlightLevel-the only business commercially selling fuel at the Airport-to receive fuel 

deliveries at the Airport. See id. As a result, FlightLevel was left to contract a third party to 

remove the snow, to keep its business going and continue to serve Airport users. See id. 

At the current time, we are now dealing with an event which occurred one (1) month 

prior to BEH filing its Part 16 Complaint. On February 13,2015, the Airport Commission was 

notified by FlightLevel that BEH had allegedly knocked over FlightLevel's fluid-filled jersey 

barriers, resulting in the spill of some three hundred thirty (330) gallons of glycol onto the 

Norwood Airport premises. See Exhibits 85, 102. The glycol was apparently part of a 

glycol/water mix used as ballast and weight for the plastic jersey barriers, which FlightLevel 

installed on the airport's Lot G, the lease lot under BMA's Master Lease at the center of the 

aforementioned private party property right dispute between FlightLevel and BEH. See id. 

On February 13,2015, FlightLevel's security video confirmed that two (2) individuals 

with access to BEH's hangar facility were seen entering and exiting the BEH property while in 

the process of dumping the pollutants {i.e., the glycol), by tipping over the jersey barriers. Prior 

to this dumping, FlightLevel had served BEH with a notice of trespass/cease and desist, as noted 

in a February 14, 2015letter from FlightLevel to BEH. See Exhibit 82. Exhibit 83 is a March 6, 

2015 letter from F1ightLevel to the Airport Commission detailing litigation filed by FlightLevel 

against BEH for "BEH's continued assault on FLN [i.e., FlightLevel]." 

Because the Norwood Airport sits in federally protected wetlands, 19 this spill required an 

environmental response. Flight Level notified the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection about the spill. FlightLevel also contacted environmental clean-up professionals, 

19The environmental authorities have deemed Norwood Airport to be sited in an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern, or ACEC. 

849320v2 
even though FlightLevel insists-just as FlightLevel's video seems to support-the fact that 

BEH caused the environmental spill. See Exhibits 84-85. 

40 

The Norwood Police Department filed its own reports on this matter. See Exhibit 85. On 

May 6, 2015, Airport management was notified that criminal complaints were filed against Mr. 

Donovan and Robert Silva ("Mr. Silva"), a BEH employee identified in the Norwood Police 

Department reports, in Dedham District Court. See Exhibit 103. Mr. Donovan and Mr. Silva 

were charged under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266, Section 127, for destruction of 

property over $250.00. See id. 

BMA, as the long-term master lease holder on the parcels ofland where both Lot F and 

Lot G are situated, has weighed in on the Lot F/Lot G property dispute. BMA's President, 

Michael Pendergast, recently filed an affidavit to support FlightLevel's position, which perhaps 

explains why BEH is now claiming in its Part 16 complaint that BMA, with the Airport 

Commission's support, is treating BEH unfairly-as with BEH's other allegations, this is also 

not the case. See Exhibit 86. 

The Lot F/Lot G property dispute between FlightLevel and BEH, which precipitated this 

release of pollutants, resulted in a Massachusetts Superior Court lawsuit. A court order is now in 

place relative to this private dispute, although the Airport Commission understands that this 

lawsuit remains pending. See Exhibit 87. The Respondents are not parties to this lawsuit. 

Although the Airport Commission considers this matter a private dispute between the two (2) 

private parties (i.e. FlightLevel and BEH), the release of pollutants does demonstrate BEH's 

propensity to incite trouble and its pugnacious, reckless behavior on the Norwood Airport. 

Separately, on March 6, 2015, the Airport Commission responded to a Part 13 Complaint 

(see Exhibit 96) filed by Mr. Hues, former Airport Commissioner. Mr. Hues, as noted above, 

had been removed in December 2014 from his position after only serving eight (8) months 

because of the incident at the November 25, 2014 Airport Commission meeting. See Exhibit 67. 

Mr. Hues apparently filed a Part 13 Complaint with the FAA New England Regional Office 

during the fall of2014, while he was still serving on the Airport Commission. See Exhibit 97. 

In a letter from Ms. Walsh dated January 15, 2015, the FAA New England Regional 

Office sought a response to Mr. Hues' Part 13 Complaint from the Airport Commission. See 

Exhibit 97. As Ms. Walsh makes clear in her January 15, 2015letter, "the (Hues) allegations 

appear to be similar in nature to those of the Part 13 complaint filed against the Town of 

Norwood by Mr. Christopher Donovan of Boston Executive Helicopters." See id. (emphasis 

added). In the Airport Commission's response to FAA, as Acting NAC Chairman, I 

acknowledged this, stating: 

849320v2 

Given your observation, it should additionally be noted that for many months 

now, Mr. Donovan and Mr. Hues have had some type of an agreement or 

relationship as evidenced by the fact that Mr. Hues' aircraft was hangared with 

BEH while he served as an Airport Commissioner. In short, Mr. Hues has spent 

significant time with Mr. Donovan while on the Norwood Airport, and though 

Mr. Hues' tenure on the Airport Commission was only about eight months long, 
he took any number of opportunities as an Airport Commissioner to advocate on 

BEH's behalf. Therefore, the Airport Commission respectfully considers the 

potential and motivations by the Complainant, Mr. Hues. 

See Exhibit 96 at 1. 

By means of background, Mr. Donovan and Mr. Hues were employees of Bay State 

Correctional Facility in Massachusetts. Upon information and belief, it is the Airport 

Commission's understanding that Mr. Donovan had provided Mr. Hues with some type of a 

work reference, or support, which was instrumental in Mr. Hues securing employment at this 

correctional facility. 

41 

Nonetheless, from April2014, until he was removed from the Airport Commission by the 

Norwood Board of Selectmen, in December 2014, Mr. Hues worked in support ofBEH while 

simultaneously serving as an Airport Commission. This was first catalogued in a May 23, 2014 

email from Mr. Eichleay, FlightLevel President, to the Airport Manager. See Exhibit 98. Mr. 

Eichleay's email specifically discussed some of Mr. Hues' intimidating behavior and his 

inappropriate use of authority, which also makes clear the complicity of Mr. Donovan. See id. 

Four (4) months later, FlightLevel's line supervisor, Kevin Putnam, memorialized a 

separate episode involving then Airport Commissioner Mr. Hues. See Exhibit 99. It appears 

that-while on BEH's leasehold, and after having towed his aircraft out ofBEH's hangar-Mr. 

Hues was baiting FlightLevelline personnel into fueling his aircraft in the Security Gate 3 

TOF A. See id. Airport management later determined this to be yet another attempt by BEH to 

show inconsistency in the enforcement ofTOFA standards. 

Earlier this year, following Mr. Hues removal from the Airport Commission, as noted in 

Exhibit 68, the Airport tried to negotiate yet another lease offer with BEH. By February 2015, 

the Airport Commission felt confident this could be achieved. But BEH's seemingly 

unreasonable behavior-to the Town of Norwood and to its fellow tenants-persists. 

BEH has repeatedly misrepresented itself to the Town of Norwood and has used the 

media in an attempt to leverage support against the Airport Commission and Airport Manager. 

This has amounted to a smear campaign against the Airport Commission and the Airport 

Manager. As an example, on March 26, 2015, two (2) weeks after filing its Part 16 Complaint 

with the FAA, Mr. Donovan, representing BEH, submitted a letter to the editor with one ofthe 

Town's weekly publications. See Exhibit 100. Mr. Donovan's claims of discrimination were 

unfounded as he once again misrepresented the Town of Norwood. What was also clear in Mr. 

Donovan's letter to the editor was, again, his propensity to incite trouble and to rouse 

controversy through his misrepresentation of facts. See id. 

849320v2 
42 

CONCLUSION 

In summary, the Norwood Airport Commission and Norwood Airport management have 

provided BEH with every opportunity to succeed. As stated, Norwood Town Counsel has been 

involved for the duration ofBEH's tenure, to ensure that we are in full observance of our federal 

and state obligations. Accordingly, we believe BEH's claims to be quite contrived-and, to be 

honest, all too routinely invoked as an attempt to leverage favor. In actuality, over the past five 

(5) years, Airport management has found Mr. Donovan's equivocations, unrealistic and 

ineffective business planning, unprofessional demeanor, propensity to incite unnecessary issues, 

and litigiousness to be the basis for BEH's problems. 

Rather than take responsibility for his own actions, Mr. Donovan has tried to blame the 

Airport Commission with pleas to the FAA of discrimination. At other times, rather than comply 

with existing regulations and procedures of the Norwood Airport, Mr. Donovan has challenged 

authority, again, by making pleas of discrimination. 

BEH' s behavior with FAA is well chronicled. See Exhibit 27. Two (2) years ago, Ms. 

Walsh of the FAA felt compelled enough by Mr. Donovan's actions to apparently contact the 

FAA's security personnel, and then to notify the Airport Manager of her concerns. 

In the last two (2) years, Mr. Donovan has lived up to the FAA's warnings. Mr. Donovan 

willfully has sought to vilify and disparage the Airport Commission and Airport management 

that had supported him. This, unfortunately, has continued not only with the Norwood Airport 

Commission and Airport Manager but with at least one of the Airport's tenants. Mr. Donovan 

has also misrepresented the Airport Commission's actions to other Town officials; he has 

confronted Airport Commission members-as well as our engineer, Mr. Adler-individually; he 

has organized a hostile attitude toward the Airport Manager; and, in at least one (1) public 

meeting, he has slandered our Airport Manager. This behavior is simply an extension of what 

Mr. Donovan showed he was capable of back in 2008, in both the alleged assault of an FBO 

manager (see Exhibit 1), and, his involvement with the Shactman v. Helicopters, Inc. matter (see 

Exhibit 2), in which Judge Geraghty determined Mr. Donovan to be an agent behind much of the 

controversy. 

What the Airport Commission has determined about BEH, since its first commercial 

permit five (5) years ago, is that Mr. Donovan-from the outset-misrepresented his company's 

real interests. In BEH's May 2010 business plan, as part of the company's first commercial 

permit, Mr. Donovan stated: "Our ultimate goal is to become an Executive Helicopter on demand 

charter operation here at Norwood Airport." See Exhibit 4. This was incorrect. 

In only a matter of months after the May 2010 business plan was submitted, BEH had 

become a moving target with its business interests, which seemed to expand exponentially. 

Whenever the Airport Commission questioned Mr. Donovan about his BEH's plans, Mr. 

Donovan tended to equivocate. When Mr. Donovan ultimately approached the Airport 

Commission to build a hangar and fuel farm, the fuel farm was to be strictly for the self-fueling 

ofhis own aircraft, though he admitted to giving some thought to perhaps commercial fueling 

later. Later, when Mr. Donovan developed his facility on Lot F, that development went very 

849320v2 
43 

close to the limits ofBEH's sub-leasehold. In effect, BEH all but ran out ofland to implement a 

fueling operation. Mr. Donovan then misrepresented to the Airport Commission about what is 

now disputed land between BEH and FlightLevel (Lots FIG). And when it became clear that 

FlightLevel would challenge BEH on this, Mr. Donovan approached the Airport Commission for 

more land, this time on the West Apron. 

The Airport Commission has offered two (2) leases to BEH on the West Apron, 

conditional on BEH providing the Airport Commission with an FBO-based business plan and 

financial information. In fact, BEH would have been required to provide the Airport 

Commission with both the FBO plan and financial information had an RFP for a second FBO 

been formally advertised. This "mission creep" by BEH has, intentionally or not, allowed BEH 

to effectively circumvent the formal process of soliciting for a second FBO, which would have 

allowed the Airport Commission to directly control the process to select a qualified second FBO, 

and the ultimate selection. Nonetheless, the Airport Commission has remained willing to 

continue to work with BEH in the furtherance of its now-stated intentions. 

However, Mr. Donovan has, to date, not provided the Airport Commission with the 

financial information the Airport Commission has requested. Nor has BEH notified the NFD of 

its interest in undergoing a final inspection of his fueling facility, as a requirement to receive a 

VIP license by the Board of Selectmen to store and dispense fuel. Instead, what Mr. Donovan 

has done is to spend many months alleging (incorrectly) discrimination against his company. 

In fact, not seven (7) months into his tenure as a commercial operator on the Norwood 

Airport, in December 2010, Mr. Donovan had already begun to explore a Part 16 complaint with 

FAA Headquarters, in Washington, D.C., for "restrictive or discriminatory rule changes which 

would single out 'helicopter' operations .... " These were charges leveled against the Airport 

Commission, which, ironically, was considering a change to Norwood Airport's helicopter 

regulations that would have benefitted BEH. At the exact same time, the Airport Commission 

was trying to work out a long-term sublease extension with the FAA region, again for the benefit 

of BEH. All the while, Mr. Donovan was threatening legal actions whenever the Airport 

Manager sought BEH's compliance on existing helicopter procedures and regulations, equally 

applied to other helicopter operators. 

Therefore, in our dealings with BEH, we have learned to proceed with caution. In a 

larger sense, BEH' s actions thus far have not been a long-term indicator of its ability to serve the 

aviation public with civility and level-headedness, or to be a responsible steward of federally 

protected land, or to be a tenant on the Airport that will encourage a harmonious, albeit 

competitive business atmosphere. Mr. Donovan, through his actions, has shown himself to be 

someone harboring problems with authority. Of the local Airport authority, Mr. Donovan's 

pattern of behavior is to claim discrimination, all the while seeking treatment separate from, and 

more favorable to, the requirements equally applicable to other Airport businesses and pilots. 

As to the specific FAA Grant Assurances identified by BEH, the Respondents 

respectfully submit that there has been no violation thereof: 

849320v2 
849320v2 

44 

• Grant Assurance 5 (Rights and Powers): 

o BEH cites the BMA Master Lease as a violation of the FAA Corrective 

Action Plan in FAA Docket No. 16-07-03. However, as the FAA previously 

determined on January 27, 2010, the Airport Commission is in compliance 

with the Corrective Action Plan. See Exhibit 17. In FAA Docket No. 16-07-

03, the FAA did not require the Respondents to invalidate the eighty (80) year 

Master Lease to BMA. 

o The Airport Commission has ended the practice of awarding long-term leases 

and has continued to include the required standard provisions in its leases as 

set forth in the Correction Action Plan in FAA Docket No. 16-07-03. 

o The Airport Commission previously requested that the FAA authorize the 

release of the Surplus Land for a compatible, non-aeronautical land use. Most 

recently, on April 9, 2015, following studies earlier this year by its engineer 

and environmental consulting firm, the Airport again requested that the FAA 

consider releasing the Surplus Land for non-aeronautical use because of 

environmental constraints and the disposition of intervening privately owned 

properties that are incompatibly suited to the Airport's needs for access. 

o The Airport Commission awarded the DC-3 Apron following a competitive 

RFP process-in which BEH chose not to apply. The DC-3 Apron lease is 

consistent with the historical and size restrictions on that parcel, as well as 

developing the Airport in the most appropriate manner. 

o While the Airport Commission intends to issue an RFP for Parcel B on the 

West Apron (and preclude FlightLevel from submitting a proposal to foster 

competition), the Airport Commission, without an RFP process, made BEH a 

conditional lease offer for Parcel A on the West Apron. This conditional lease 

offer is consistent with the limited financial information that BEH has 

provided to date. BEH may submit a proposal for Parcel B on the West Apron 

when an RFP is issued. 

o For the foregoing reasons, the Airport Commission has complied with its 

obligations to provide reasonable access to the Airport under Grant Assurance 

5. 

• Grant Assurance 22 (Denial of Reasonable Access): 

o At the outset, BEH only applied to the Airport Commission to provide ondemand helicopter services. 

o The Airport Commission never issued an RFP for a second FBO. 

Nonetheless, the Airport Commission has continued to work with BEH to 

accommodate its interest in constructing a fuel farm and hangar, to become an 
849320v2 

FBO. While BEH rejected the initial West Apron lease offer, the Airport 

Commission subsequently made a contingent lease offer for Parcel A on the 

West Apron, notwithstanding the insufficiency of BEH' s financial 

information and the unique position of BEH in establishing a new FBO 

enterprise with a track record of experience in that level of service. The 

Airport Commission has insisted upon detailed financial information 

consistent with the Norwood Airport Minimum Standards. 

45 

o While BEH did not submit a proposal in response to the DC-3 Apron RFP, the 

limitations on use for parcel were consistent with the historical use and size 

restrictions, and to offset the prior and anticipated loss of tie-down spaces. 

The DC-3 Apron RFP did not prohibit commercial services. 

o The restrictions on the taxi-lane designation are consistent with those required 

following the construction of the Security Gate 3 taxi-lane in 2006 and with 

applicable requirements. The Airport Commission has uniformly enforced the 

TOFA. 

o For the foregoing reasons, the Airport Commission has complied with its 

obligations to provide reasonable access to conduct an aeronautical business at 

Norwood Airport under Grant Assurance 22. 

• Grant Assurance 22 (Economic Nondiscrimination): 

o While BEH attempts to compare itself to FlightLevel, both entities are 

differently situated as FlightLevel essentially assumed the business of a 

preexisting FBO and BEH is attempting to establish a new FBO from the 

ground up. 

o The Airport Commission has not delayed action on BEH's requests. Not only 

did BEH reject the initial lease offer for the West Apron, but BEH was 

dilatory in providing a proper business plan and to date has failed to submit all 

requested financial information for its proposed FBO business. BEH has also 

failed to schedule a required final inspection of its fueling facility by the NFD. 

o The Airport Commission made BEH lease offers consistent with the 

information that it received pertaining to BEH's proposed FBO business, 

given the absence of detailed financial information. 

o The Airport Commission has uniformly enforced the TOF A restrictions, 

consistent with applicable federal, state and local requirements. 

o The DC-3 Apron RFP, while restricted to aircraft tie-downs and ground 

handling, did not prohibit noncommercial use. Rather, the DC-3 Apron RFP 

was consistent with the historical use and size restrictions, and to offset the 
46 

loss of aircraft tie-downs elsewhere on the Airport. BEH chose not to submit 

a proposal for the DC-3 Apron. 

o The Airport Commission has taken multiple actions over the years to support 

BEH, including but not limited to the sublease of Lot F. 

o For the foregoing reasons, the Airport Commission has not unjustly 

discriminated against BEH under Grant Assurance 22. 

• Grant Assurance 23 (Exclusive Rights): 

o The Airport Commission has not granted an exclusive right to FlightLevel, the 

incumbent FBO, as the Airport Commission remains supportive of 

encouraging competition at the Airport. 

o The Airport Commission has support in BEH in its efforts at the Airport, 

which includes, but is not limited to: (a) allowing BEH to communicate and/or 

coordinate its sublease interests on a Lot F; (b) accommodating updates about 

BEH's construction involving a hangar and fuel storage/dispensing facility; 

(c) working with BEH toward its interest in a full-service FBO commercial 

permit; and ~) discussing and providing leasehold opportunities on the West 

Apron. Additionally, Airport management has held meetings with BEH and 

met with the FAA on BEH' s behalf. 

o For the foregoing reasons, the Airport Commission has not created an 

exclusive right for FBO services at the Airport under Grant Assurance 23. 

In closing, we respectfully request that the FAA determine BEH' s Part 16 Complaint to 

be unfounded and: (1) dismiss the Complaint; (2) decline to investigate the Complaint; (3) 

determine that the Respondents have complied with the FAA's Grant Assurances; and (4) take 

no further action in the above-referenced matter. Please let me know if I can provide any further 

information in your review of this matter. 

cc: Timothy 1 McCulloch, Esquire; Norwood Airport Commission; Norwood General 

Manager; Norwood Town Counsel; Massachusetts Department ofTransportationAeronautics Division 

849320v2 
47 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Brandon H. Moss, counsel to the Respondents, Town ofNorwood and Norwood 

Airport Commission in Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC v. Town ofNorwood, Massachuse~ 

and Norwood Airport Commission, FAA Docket No. 16-15-05, hereby certifies that on this 8 

day of May 2015, a copy ofthe foregoing document was served via overnight mail and email as 

follows: 

Complainant, Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC (one copy): 

Timothy I. McCulloch, Esquire 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

TMcCulloch@hinshawlaw .com 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (original and three (3) copies): 

Office ofthe Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

9-A W A-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

849320v2 

~ 
Exhibit 1 

APPENDIX A 

RESPONDENTS' INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

Norwood Police Report by Patrol Officer Daniel J. Kehoe dated November 21,2007 

Exhibit 2 

Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint, Shachtman v. Helicopters, Inc. 

Exhibit 3 

Letter from Christopher Donovan to Russ Maguire dated April 8, 2010 

Exhibit 4 

Letter from Christopher Donovan to Norwood Municipal Airport Commission dated May 12, 

2010 

Exhibit 5 

BEH Commercial Permit Application and Permit, FY 2010 

Exhibit 6 

BEH Commercial Permit Application and Permit, FY 2011 

Exhibit 7 

BEH Commercial Permit Application and Permit, FY 2012 

Exhibit 8 

BEH Commercial Permit Application and Permit, FY 2013 

Exhibit 9 

BEH Commercial Permit Application and Permit, FY 2014 

Exhibit 10 

Email exchange between Christopher Donovan and Russ Maguire dated May 12-13,2010 

849320v2 

48 
Exhibit 11 

Email from Russ Maguire to Peter Eichleay dated May 11,2010 

Exhibit 12 

Email exchange between Christopher Donovan and Russ Maguire dated September 24 and 27, 

2010 

Exhibit 13 

Email exchange between Christopher Donovan and Russ Maguire dated September 27,2010 

Exhibit 14 

Email from Christopher Donovan to Russ Maguire dated September 27,2010 

Exhibit 15 

Email from Christopher Donovan to Russ Maguire dated October 14,2010 

Exhibit 16 

Email from Donna Witte to Russ Maguire dated December 21,2010 

Exhibit 17 

Letter from Randall Fiertz to Russ Maguire dated January 27,2010 

Exhibit 17a 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Peter Eichleay dated November 29,2010 

Exhibit 18 

49 

Email from Russ Maguire to Barry Hammer dated March 2, 2011, with forwarded message from 

Russ Maguire to Donna Witte dated January 7, 2011 

Exhibit 19 

Letter from Joshua Fox to Russ Maguire dated June 13,2011 

Exhibit 20 

Letter from Michael Lehane and Brandon Moss to Joshua Fox dated July 2, 2011 

849320v2 
Exhibit 21 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan dated March 21, 2014 

Exhibit 21a 

Minutes ofNorwood Airport Commission Meeting dated August 13, 2014 

Exhibit 21 b 

Email from Russ Maguire to K. Putnam, Mike DeLaria, Peter Eichleay, and Mark Raymond 

dated April25, 2015 

Exhibit 21c 

Letter from Russ Maguire to William Haney dated November 4, 2010 

Exhibit 22 

Email exchange between Christopher Donovan and Russ Maguire dated September 24 and 27, 

2010 

Exhibit 23 

Lease between Town of Norwood and Boston Metropolitan Airport, Inc. dated December 1967 

Exhibit 24 

Email from Russ Maguire to Barry Hammer dated November 28,2012 

Exhibit 25 

BEH Loan Amortization Schedule, 2013 through 2043 

Exhibit 26 

50 

Email from Christopher Donovan to Russ Maguire dated August 21, 2012, with forwarded email 

exchange from Barry Hammer to Christopher Donovan dated August 20, 2012 

Exhibit 27 

Memo to file by Russ Maguire re 1-8-2013 phone conversation with Mary Walsh dated January 

8,2013 

849320v2 
Exhibit 28 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Barry Hammer dated February 12, 2013 

Exhibit 29 

Email from Barry Hammer to Russ Maguire dated February 20, 2013 

Exhibit 30 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan dated February 22, 2013 

Exhibit 31 

Assignment, Assumption, and Amendment of Lease dated October 19,2012 for Lot F 

Exhibit 32 

Minutes of Norwood Airport Commission Meeting dated December 12, 2012 

Exhibit 33 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Norwood Board of Selectmen dated December 14, 2012 

Exhibit 34 

Email from Jeffrey Adler to Russ Maguire dated December 20, 2012 

Exhibit 35 

Memo from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan dated January 28, 2013 

Exhibit 36 

Norwood Airport Minimum Standards 

Exhibit 37 

Minutes of Norwood Airport Commission Meeting dated May 14,2014 

Exhibit 38 

Minutes ofNorwood Airport Commission Meeting dated June 11, 2014 

849320v2 

51 
52 

Exhibit 39 

Minutes of Norwood Airport Commission Meeting dated July 30, 2014 

Exhibit 40 

FAA Airport Design Document dated January 3, 2008 (AC 150/5300-13 CHG 12) 

Exhibit 42 

Airport/Facility Director, Northeast U.S., effective May 29, 2014 to July 24, 2014 

Exhibit 43 

Norwood Memorial Airport Master Plan Update, Final -Phase II, dated March 2007 

Exhibit 44 

Office Agreement between Eastern Air Center, Inc., and HB Holdings Inc. dated June 15, 1996 

Exhibit 45 

Notes to personal calendar re BAC TOF A issues dated September 25 through October 2, 2008 

Exhibit 46 

Email from Russ Maguire to Airport Businesses, Pilots, A TC re TOF A dated April 11, 2014 

Exhibit 47 

Memo from Mike DeLaria to Line Department Personnel dated April24, 2014 

Exhibit 48 

Note from Jason Tibbetts to all authorities concerned regarding incident occurring September 4, 

2014 

Exhibit 49 

Email from Peter Eichleay to Christopher Donovan dated September 9, 2014 

Exhibit 50 

Letter from Nick Burlingham to Joshua Fox dated December 5, 2013 

849320v2 
Exhibit 51 

Memo from Russ Maguire to Norwood Airport Commission dated June 17, 2013 

Exhibit 5la 

NFP A 407 Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing, 2007 Edition 

Exhibit 52 

Letter from Russ "-1aguire to Christopher Donovan dated June 24, 2013 

Exhibit 53 

Memo from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan dated July 12, 2013 

Exhibit 54 

Email from Lisa Lesperance to Russ Maguire dated July 17, 2013 

Exhibit 54a 

BEH Proposed Hangar Reconstruction and Fuel Facility at Norwood Municipal Airport, dated 

June 27, 2013 

Exhibit 55 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan dated July 19,2013 

Exhibit 56 

Letter from Joshua Fox to Michael DeLaria dated November 19,2013 

Exhibit 57 

Minutes of Norwood Airport Commission Meeting dated February 12, 2014 

Exhibit 58 

Minutes ofNorwood Airport Commission Meeting dated March 12, 2014 

Exhibit 59 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan dated March 1 7, 2014 

849320v2 

53 
Exhibit 60 

Minutes ofNorwood Airport Commission Meeting dated April 9, 2014 

Exhibit 61 

Email from Christopher Donovan to Russ Maguire dated April 8, 2014 

Exhibit 62 

Email from Russ Maguire to Christopher Donovan dated April 30, 2014 

Exhibit 63 

Letter from Matthew Watsky to Norwood Airport Commission dated April 9, 2014 

Exhibit 64 

Minutes ofNorwood Airport Commission Meeting dated May 14, 2014 

Exhibit 65 

Letter from Mary Walsh to Russ Maguire dated June 5, 2014 

Exhibit 66 

Letter from Timothy McCulloch to Thomas Vick dated November 4, 2014 

Exhibit 67 

Minutes from Norwood Board of Selectmen Meeting dated December 18, 2014 

Exhibit 68 

Letter from Brandon Moss to Timothy McCulloch dated February 12,2015 

Exhibit 69 

Letter from Allen Bishop to Howard Pendergast dated March 15, 1988 

Exhibit 70 

Letter from Allen Bishop to Lawrence Egan dated July 12, 1994 

849320v2 

54 
55 

Exhibit 71 

Letter from John Updegraph to Lawrence Egan dated July 28, 1994 

Exhibit 72 

Kertzman Inc.'s FBO Proposal dated March 11, 1988 

Exhibit 73 

Letter from Donald E. Church to Paul Pazniokas dated May 26, 1999 

Exhibit 74 

Lessees of Norwood Airport Land Lease Lots, 1988 through 2013 

Exhibit 75 

Letter from Peter Eichleay to Norwood Airport Commission and Russ Maguire dated January 22, 

2014 

Exhibit 76 

Advertisement for Proposals, Town of Norwood dated December through January 2013 

Exhibit 77 

Addendum to Request for Proposal ofDC-3 Apron dated January 28, 2013 

Exhibit 78 

Letter from Thomas Wynne to Christopher Donovan dated March 14, 2013 

Exhibit 79 

Letter from Peter Eichleay to Michael Lyons dated January 20, 2015 

Exhibit 80 

Letter from Peter Eichleay to Russ Maguire dated January 29,2015 

Exhibit 81 

Letter from Nick Burlingham to Joshua Fox dated July 29, 2014 

849320v2 
Exhibit 82 

Letter from Nick Burlingham to Christopher Donovan dated February 14,2015 

Exhibit 83 

Letter from Peter Eichleay to Norwood Airport Commission dated March 6, 2015 

Exhibit 84 

Letter from Nick Burlingham to Joshua Fox dated July 29, 2014 

Exhibit 85 

Norwood Police Report by Patrol Officer James Payne dated February 16, 2015 

Exhibit 86 

Affidavit of Michael Pendergast dated March 4, 2015 

Exhibit 87 

Superior Court Order in BEH v. FlightLevel dated March 6, 2015 

Exhibit 88 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Barry Hammer dated March 8, 2012 

Exhibit 89 

Email from Barry Hammer to Russ Maguire dated July 26, 2012 

Exhibit 90 

Email from Russ Maguire to Barry Hammer dated July 26, 2012 

Exhibit 91 

Email from Russ Maguire to Mary Walsh dated June 14,2013, with forwarded message from 

Russ Maguire to Barry Hammer dated May 15, 2013 

Exhibit 92 

Email from Russ Maguire to Barry Hammer dated April3, 2014 

849320v2 

56 
Exhibit 93 

Letter from Mary Walsh to Russ Maguire dated January 9, 2015 

Exhibit 94 

Letter from Mary Walsh to Russ Maguire dated September 16, 2014 

Exhibit 95 

Letter from Russ Maguire to Bryon Rakoff dated April 9, 2015 

Exhibit 96 

Letter from Mark Ryan to Mary Walsh dated March 6, 2015 

Exhibit 97 

Letter from Mary Walsh to Russ Maguire dated January 15, 2015 

Exhibit 98 

Letter from Peter Eichleay to Russ Maguire dated May 23, 2014 

Exhibit 99 

Incident report by Kevin Putnam dated November 28, 2014 

Exhibit 100 

Letter to the Editor, Norwood Record, dated March 26,2015 

Exhibit 101 

Minutes of Norwood Airport Commission Meeting dated January 14, 2015 

Exhibit 102 

Miscellaneous Documents related to February 13, 2015 Spill Incident 

Exhibit 103 

Email from Kevin Grasso to Russ Maguire and Mark Raymond dated May 6, 2015 

849320v2 

57 
Exhibit 104 

Norwood Memorial Airport General Regulations (Revised: October 2008) 

Exhibit 105 

May 9, 2014 Photographs ofNorwood Airport Gate 3 Taxi-Lane C, Showing Christopher 

Donovan's Personal Vehicle and BEH Aircraft in the TOFA 

849320v2 

58