Declaration of Jemille R. Charlton 




Exhibit 01 

Excerpts from 2013 Environmental Assessment on the 

Seasonal ATCT 
PREPARED FOR: Town of East Hampton

East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

prepared by

june 7, 2013

VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C.

East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents i June 7,2013 

Table of Contents 

1. Purpose and Need .................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Organization of Chapters ...................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Background ...................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Description of the Proposed Action ......................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 1-5

1.6 Required Approvals ............................................................................................ 1-6

2. Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................ 2-2

2.2 Alternatives Screening Process ............................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Alternatives Screening and Results .......................................................................... 2-4

2.3.1 Level 1 Screening .................................................................................. 2-4

2.3.2 Level 2 Screening .................................................................................. 2-7

2.3.3 Level 3 Screening – Specific Location Screening ............................................ 2-12

2.4 Alternatives Considered in this EA ......................................................................... 2-12

2.4.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................... 2-12

2.4.2 Alternative Area 3 (Preferred Alternative) .................................................. 2-13

3. Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Study Area ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Resource Categories Not Applicable ........................................................................ 3-2

3.2.1 Coastal Resources .................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.2 Department of Transportation Section 303/4(f) Lands / Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Section 6(f) Lands ........................................................................... 3-2

3.2.3 Prime and Unique Farmlands ..................................................................... 3-3

3.2.4 Floodplains .......................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.5 Geology and Paleontology (Soils and Topography) ........................................... 3-4

3.2.6 Socioeconomic Conditions, Environmental Justice Communities, and Children's 

Environmental Health and Safety Risk .......................................................... 3-4

3.2.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................ 3-4

3.3 Resources Present .............................................................................................. 3-5

3.3.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.2 Compatible Land Use .............................................................................. 3-7

3.3.3 Biological Resources (Fish, Wildlife and Plants) .............................................. 3-7

3.3.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste ......................................................... 3-11

3.3.5 Historic, Architectural and Cultural Resources ............................................. 3-12

3.3.6 Light Emissions and Visual Environment ...................................................... 3-14

3.3.7 Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design ............................... 3-14

3.3.8 Noise ............................................................................................... 3-14
East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents ii June 7,2013 

3.3.9 Water Quality ..................................................................................... 3-15

3.3.10 Wetlands .......................................................................................... 3-16

4. Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Emissions Inventory Results ...................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Emission Reduction Measures .................................................................... 4-4

4.2 Compatible Land Use .......................................................................................... 4-4

4.3 Biological Resources (Fish, Wildlife and Plants) ........................................................... 4-5

4.4 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste ....................................................................... 4-5

4.5 Historic, Architectural and Cultural Resources ............................................................ 4-5

4.6 Light Emissions and Visual Environment .................................................................... 4-5

4.7 Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design ............................................. 4-6

4.8 Noise ............................................................................................................. 4-6

4.9 Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4-7

4.10 Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 4-8

4.11 Secondary Induced Impacts ................................................................................... 4-8

4.12 Construction Overview and Impacts ......................................................................... 4-8

4.13 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-8

4.14 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided if the Preferred Alternative is Implemented .............. 4-9

4.15 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 4-9

5. Public Involvement .................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Public Outreach ................................................................................................ 5-1

6. Preparers .............................................................................................................. 6-1

References ................................................................................................................... R-1

Appendices ................................................................................................................... A-1 

Appendix A: Report Figures 

Appendix B: Mobile ATCT 2012 CATEX and ROD 

Appendix C: Town of East Hampton Resolutions 

Appendix D: Biological Data 

Appendix E: Agency Coordination 

Appendix F: Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Report 

Appendix G: Noise Analysis 

Appendix H: HTO Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) 

Appendix I: Public Notifications 

Appendix J: Response to Comments on the EA 
East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need 1-1 June 7, 2013 

1. Purpose and 

Need 

The following chapter provides an introduction and describes East Hampton Airport, the purpose and need for 

the proposed project, and the required approvals for its implementation. 

1.1 Introduction 

The Town of East Hampton (Airport Sponsor) is proposing the permanent installation of an Airport Traffic 

Control Tower (ATCT) that will be operational on a seasonal basis at East Hampton Airport (HTO). The Airport 

is located in the Town of East Hampton in Suffolk County, New York. 

In 2012, the Airport received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to install and operate a 

mobile ATCT for the Summer Season of 2012. As part of the installation of the mobile ATCT, selected tree 

removal was performed to clear the viewshed for the approach to Runway 34, southeast of the proposed ATCT 

site. The FAA completed a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) to comply with National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) requirements (Appendix B). The Summer Season of 2012 ended on October 31, 2012, as defined 

in the documentation submitted by the Airport Sponsor in support of the mobile ATCT project. The Airport 

Sponsor removed the mobile ATCT following the conclusion of the Summer Season of 2012. Using information 

gained from the operation of the mobile ATCT, the Airport Sponsor has proposed the installation of a 

permanent ATCT to be operated on a seasonal basis. 

The Federal action for this project is the unconditional approval by the FAA of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 

revised to show the proposed installation of the ATCT, and therefore is subject to NEPA. The installation of the 

seasonal ATCT would be funded by the Airport Sponsor without Federal assistance. As a requirement of NEPA, 

Federal agencies must analyze and disclose the environmental impacts associated with a project, including any 

mitigation measures, which will be reviewed and considered by the appropriate regulatory agencies and 

interested parties. 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to describe and assess the consequences to the human 

and natural environment that may result from installing the ATCT. This document discloses the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts that would result from this proposed action. This analysis is conducted in compliance 

with NEPA requirements, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1500 and 1508, and FAA Orders 5050.4B NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions

and 1050.1E, Change 1 Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Whereas a mobile ATCT qualifies for the 
East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need 1-2 June 7, 2013 

preparation of a CATEX under FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraph 309e, a permanent ATCT facility does not. FAA 

Order 1050.1E, paragraph 401g requires the preparation of an EA for this proposal. 

Under NEPA, the environmental impact analysis for each reasonable alternative is considered to the degree 

commensurate with the nature of the proposed action and agency experience with the environmental issues 

involved. 

1.2 Organization of Chapters 

The EA is organized as follows: 

 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis 

 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences 

 Chapter 5 – Public Involvement 

 Chapter 6 – List of Preparers 

 References 

 Appendices 

1.3 Background 

HTO is a public-use, General Aviation airport located in the Town of East Hampton, in Suffolk County, New York 

(Figure 1-1), approximately 104 miles east of New York City. The Airport is publicly-owned and operated by the 

Town. It encompasses approximately 610 acres of land (Figure 1-2).1 Access to the Airport is primarily from 

Daniels Hole Road on its northeast side. A secondary access is via Wainscott Northwest Road on the south side of 

the Airport. There are two fixed-base operators (FBOs) providing aircraft fueling and other related aviation 

services. There is also a helicopter flight service company providing non-scheduled, on-demand flight services. 

The Airport has two active runways: Runway (RW) 10-28 and RW 16-34. RW 10-28 is 4,255 feet long and 

100 feet wide and is the primary-use runway. RW 16-34 is a cross-wind runway that is 2,060 feet long and 

75 feet wide.2 The runway is designated as a crosswind runway because it is not aligned with the prevailing 

wind direction that occurs on the Airport. A crosswind runway is generally used on days when winds do not 

favor the use of the primary runway (i.e., when wind conditions preclude the use of the primary runway). The 

third runway (RW 4-22) is presently closed. The Airport does not currently have a permanent ATCT in 

1 East Hampton Airport. Airport Layout Plan. Approved September 6, 2011. FAA Eastern Region. 

2 East Hampton Airport. Airport Layout Plan. Approved September 6, 2011. FAA Eastern Region. 
East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need 1-3 June 7, 2013 

operation. Presently, pilots operating at HTO use a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) to broadcast 

their aircraft’s position and their intentions. 

1.4 Description of the Proposed Action 

This project consists of the permanent installation of a seasonal ATCT at HTO. The proposed ATCT would be 

used on a “seasonal” basis. The “season” is generally defined as the month of May to the month of September 

each year. 

The ATCT would be staffed for approximately 16 hours each day3 over the course of the season. FAA certified 

air traffic personnel provided by a private company, and employed by the Town of East Hampton, would staff 

the tower. The tower communicates with aircraft that enter the Class D4 airspace that surrounds the Airport. For 

those aircraft operating at the Airport, the tower will provide landing and takeoff clearance, weather 

information, and traffic advisories. The proposed ATCT would be comprised of four primary components: the 

footings, the support structure, the cab, and associated utilities/communications (Figure 1-3). 

 Footings: Four footings would support the structure and each is constructed of wood beams mounted 

between two steel plates, each measuring 4 feet square. Each footing is designed to be secured to the ground 

by four steel anchors driven into the earth to a depth of approximately 17 feet. The footings would be bolted 

to the anchors. 

 Support Structure: The purpose of the support structure is to provide a frame upon which the cab is 

mounted. The support structure would consist of four horizontal steel beams and four vertical steel posts. 

The steel posts are mounted to the footings and the steel beams are mounted to the steel posts. For added 

structural stability, lateral supports and cross-members would be installed between the beams and posts. 

The design shows that the support structure would measure 15 feet 6 inches in length and 9 feet 6 inches in 

width. The installed height of the structure as mounted on the footings, without the cab height added, 

would be 9 feet 4 inches above grade. 

 Cab: The cab is an enclosed structure from which air traffic controllers observe operations and provide 

guidance to aircraft operating on and around the airport. The cab is glass-enclosed and provides a 360-

degree view of the airport and the traffic pattern. It requires a temperature control system (air conditioner). 

Very high frequency (VHF) radios will be used to communicate with operating aircraft, which require the 

installation of four antennas mounted on the roof of the cab. The cab would also be equipped with a 

landline telephone to facilitate communications with emergency services. For safety purposes, an FAAdesigned obstruction light would also be mounted to the cab roof. This would be an FAA-approved L-810 

obstruction light with a red lens and a steady burning bulb of approximately 116 Watts. For lightning 

protection, there is a lightning rod installed that is approximately 12 inches higher than the highest point of 

3 It is anticipated that the ATCT will operate from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm local time on a daily basis. 

4 Class D Airspace is the FAA designation for the airspace that applies to HTO. The cylindrical-shaped space has an approximate 10-mile diameter centered 

over the Airport and extends to an altitude of 2,500 feet above the Airport’s surface. 
East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need 1-4 June 7, 2013 

the cab. The lightning rod is connected to a grounding system that is buried around the perimeter of the 

ATCT. 

 Communications and Utilities: Electrical and communications utilities are needed to provide power for the 

communications equipment, obstruction light, and air conditioner. The telephone line is used for a landline 

telephone. The utilities must be installed in two separate conduits (one for electrical and one for telephone) 

and placed in an underground trench, at least 18 inches below grade, that would run from the ATCT site to 

each source. 

The entire ATCT height including the footings, structure, cab, antennas and lightning rod would be 

approximately 26 feet 4 inches. 

The ATCT needs to be sited in an area that allows for an unobstructed view of the airfield and the airport’s 

traffic pattern. Visibility from the cab must not be obstructed by trees or other man-made structures. The ATCT 

should be located in a manner that glare from the sun is minimized while controllers are observing the traffic 

pattern. The site must also be in close proximity to a paved area to allow ATCT staff unencumbered access 

during all-weather conditions to the ATCT and to allow for vehicle parking.5 

An operational ATCT would not change the nature and use of HTO by aircraft or airport users, as it would 

remain a destination airport with the majority of its operations occuring during the peak season (summertime). 

In addition, the Airport has no foreseeable plans to enhance or change any of the runway capabilities or airport 

facilities that would alter the Airport’s current use. Finally, as demonstrated during the use of the mobile ATCT 

in the Summer Season of 2012, the volume of operations, flight track changes, and the type of aircraft using the 

airport would not change due to the presence of an ATCT.6 A check of HTO’s monitoring system data7 for 

summertime activity during 2011 (when no ATCT in operation) and 2012 (when the mobile ATCT was 

operating) showed no qualitative differences in fixed-wing traffic patterns, flight corridors or identifiable 

differences in fleet mix, and only one difference in helicopter traffic – the presence of operations on the 

Northwest Creek Route, which was a voluntary helicopter route used initially as a departure route when 

implemented in 2006, then as an arrival route until it was discontinued in 2012 because it proved to be 

unsuccessful in reducing noise effects.8 The helicopter routes established at HTO are all voluntary initiatives 

developed by the Airport Sponsor in collaboration with the Eastern Region Helicopter Council (EHRC) and 

interested parties. 

5 Federal Aviation Administration. Order 6480.4A, Airport Traffic Control Tower Siting Process. April 10, 2006. 

6 HMMH. Noise Analysis for the Environmental Assessment of a Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower at East Hampton Airport. HMMH Report No. 305332. 

Appended to this EA. May 2013. 

7 The Airport has invested substantially in data collection systems including an Airscene operations monitoring system and a Vector camera system, which 

when integrated, capture the movement of aircraft and identify them by aircraft type, runway used, time of operation, and whether they are landing or taking 

off. 

8 A detailed discussion of the rationale behind the development and eventual discontinuation of the Northwest Creek Helicopter Route and the factors that led 

to this decision by the Town of East Hampton and the Eastern Regional Helicopter Council is provided in Appendix G, Section 2.3. 
East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need 1-5 June 7, 2013 

1.5 Project Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed action is to improve safety and efficiency of aircraft operations at HTO through the 

implementation of services associated with a seasonal ATCT. The ATCT and the services of air traffic controllers 

would aid in the monitoring of aircraft and conformance with FAA safety regulations and standards, and 

would improve safety and efficiency during peak months of operation. 

The proposed action is needed because: 

 HTO is primarily a destination airport for summer residents and visitors to the Hamptons, including 

individuals that use privately-owned or corporate jets and helicopters. Aircraft operations volume greatly 

increases during the summer season, from the months of May through September. Based on an analysis of 

landing and takeoff records, approximately 70 percent of the Airport’s annual operations occur during the 

summer season. During the off-season, the Airport experiences approximately 30 operations per day. 

During the peak season, the Airport experiences approximately 110 operations per day.9 

 A separate analysis of two years of monitoring system data conducted as part of the noise analysis for the 

proposed action indicates that average daily traffic during the summer months of June, July and August is 

more than 31⁄2 times heavier than an average day during the remaining nine months. This is a direct result of 

the Airport’s location at the eastern end of Long Island and the summer attractions found there. Daily jet 

operations during those same three summer months are on the order of six times more frequent than during 

the remaining months, and helicopters are approximately three times more frequent.10 

 The complexity of aircraft operations during the peak summer season creates challenging conditions for 

airport users. The Airport serves a wide-variety of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. The approximate 

breakdown of aircraft operating at the Airport includes: 

 Single-engine Propeller – 44 percent 

 Twin-engine Propeller – 13 percent 

 Helicopter – 28 percent 

 Jet – 15 percent 

This breakdown is known as the fleet mix. Although this fleet mix is not unusual for a General Aviation airport, 

these aircraft have different operational characteristics. For example, the single and twin-engine propeller 

driven aircraft have similar approach speeds and can follow a standard airport traffic pattern around the 

Airport11 when landing on the runways. Jet aircraft have higher approach speeds and typically cannot fly the 

standard traffic pattern. Jet aircraft typically take a straight-in approach to the runways. Similarly, helicopter 

9 Estimates derived from operations data collected by the Airport during 2011 and 2012. 

10 HMMH. Noise Analysis for the Environmental Assessment of a Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower at East Hampton Airport. HMMH Report No. 305332. 

Appended to this EA. May 2013. 

11 As defined in U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Regulations 2013 Aeronautical Information Manual, Section 4-3-3, a Standard Airport 

Traffic Pattern describes the traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from an airport. A standard traffic pattern describes 

aircraft making all turns to the left. 
East Hampton Airport 

Seasonal Airport Traffic Control Tower 

Final Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need 1-6 June 7, 2013 

operations typically have a standard straight-in approach to a designated helipad on the airport. The 

combination of these aircraft types in addition to the level of operations in the summer months contributes to 

the complexity of air traffic operations at HTO. 

The CTAF presently in place at HTO allows a pilot to broadcast his or her intentions over a common frequency 

that all pilots operating at the Airport are required to monitor. In this way, individual pilots are responsible for 

maintaining separation from each other’s aircraft. Although the CTAF procedure is used at most General 

Aviation airports in the United States, having an ATCT provides a greater measure of safety in maintaining 

separation of the complex variety of aircraft operating at HTO, particularly during the summer season. 

Due to the wide variety of operational aircraft types coupled with the increased operations during the peak 

season, an ATCT would enhance safety at HTO. Therefore, the purpose and need of the project is as follows: 

The purpose of the project is to construct and operate an ATCT that would assist in the guidance of aircraft approaches and 

departures, would contribute to enhanced safety for aircraft operations and would provide improved traffic separation 

during summer months when peak aircraft operations occur. 

1.6 Required Approvals 

The Airport must obtain FAA approvals to implement the proposed action. The project would require a change 

to the Airport’s ALP to incorporate the location of the permanent ATCT, as approved by the FAA. The specific 

Federal actions for the FAA include: 

 Unconditional approval of the ALP revised to show the proposed installation of the ATCT. 

 Determination of the effects of the proposed ATCT upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace 

pursuant to 14 CFR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The FAA must determine if the proposed 

ATCT is consistent with the existing airspace utilization and procedures. 
Exhibit 02 

2014 Landing Fees 
Town of East Hampton Airport 

Landing Fees 

Effective June 6, 2014 

Fixed Wing 

 

Light Single Eng Prop $ 11.00 

Light Multi-Eng Prop $ 27.50 

Single Eng Turbine $ 92.40 

Multi-Eng Turbine $ 137.50 

Multi-Eng Turbine +12,500lbs $ 275.00 

Multi-Eng Turbine +25,000lbs $ 412.50 

Multi-Eng Turbine +50,000lbs $ 660.00 

Helicopter___________ 

R44, R22, H12T $ 27.50 

B06, AS50, AS55, EC20, B06T $ 176.00 

MD60, H269, EN48 $ 176.00 

B407 $ 187.00 

EC30, EC35, EC45, H500, EXP $ 192.50 

A109, A119, BK17, B427, B429 $ 203.50 

B430, UH1 $ 220.00 

AS65, EC55, S76, $ 264.00 

A139, B412 $ 275.00 

AS32, EC25 $ 440.00 

EH10, S92 $ 550.00 

Night Landing Fee (11pm to 7am): 25% surcharge 

Billing Information: 

Vector Airport Solutions 

(Telephone) 1-888-588-0028 

(Website) www.Vector-us.com
Exhibit 03 

Sound Aircraft Lease 
'rrTlrÍCt ÀCII¿trFMEIIT AND Ll{AgE AIRPORT OPERjLTING ÀG'R.EEI{E}N

BÀgT IIAIIPTON TOIVIT ÀTRPORT

I

'REeffÃIJS

S¡IEREAS ' 

and

benefit, of bhe n Ai

io wãL"*cott, "t

and.,

Rírport; and

WIIEREAS, Lhe ToftN' in recogrnif ios.,-oj the f oregotng' desíres to

nake Ël"t'**;"Ëãs-ã;iit"bie' aË tbe Aùqporei a¡d

![EEREilg, on AugitrEt 4, 199?',. tll:- Town eonducued a pubJ-tc

hearing Uo solici' cõrr"r,an'ï on Uf,is egreernenC in aicordance With

Ehe provisi.iJlï d;;.i-ltt"Ï"ipal LJw' S'ection 352¡ and'

.FO|L OOOO50
Not{, IIHER.EFOjR'8, f-n considera

!o Generäf ¡¿unigipql IJar¡¡ 'Sect'íon

Board, 'the Part'íee hereEo

agents,'succeÉsorg, Iegal

2,. TERM.

' srrall coflfitense on AuguÊts 15 ' 1995 and

Êh'âl L4, 2000' Thís lgreemenE Tay b-e renewed

for (5i year .term upon Ehe m:utuat writEen

cons

3-. PRE¡ITSES T,EASED.

A. Ço¡turn¡r¡Eef-,RÊ¡rB,arid liírçf.AtfJ,arklng Area'

l.Anareacornpflsfpg,22,400squarefeeEof,paived aProÊ aiea.- tq $erire. as a colrrnuE?r. ramP'1 às

deeígnaeedon.Etclxíbitlattached.hereEoag

s.eät-ions 28, 2C and 2D o'f aamP' S2 '

2. sgu4rP feeü. of Paved'

- ' s' an äÍrcrafE Pgking

^,*..i,trj 

'-n' ExhÍbit L attached.

,r' ,, 

,.. 

, Bamp #1.

1 PURBOSE.

l, l{nr

3 An area corirprísing 29 ,2OO Equare feet of paveû

2

FO|L OOOO5I

^ ,. "n 'A\'n
B

.t,Íe-d.own space to serue aE an alrcraf'tr parkl'ng

area, as'-designrated on Exhibit, 2 aEtached

hereto. this area Íg t'be formeri EasE llaÍ¡pton

Aire raÍrp, ãÍrd it shatl be leased on a month

t,o monu-h básis , . eubj ect 

- 

to the ¡m¡Eual

ag'reernenE of the Operator and the Town.

OPERÀrING RIGHTS AND OBLIGÀTIONS.

A. Requira¡l ,S,e.n¡iee$ , ReguLred señrùces are selr¡íces

tträt the oþerator agreee to prornlde, or cause to be

provfded,:every day of the yeaq if tþe operator

èrecÈ8 to profide ttre authorized sefvice of fuel

a¡rd line Eeñ¡íge, seÈ ' Eort'h ín SecEion' 4,8.7 ,

below. In such case tbe operauor ie hereby granued.

the non-excLusíve rights Eo provide, or cau8e Èo be

Brovided., Ehe fol1ówùng Eixed baee operatíons

sel¡rices:

L. T{ea án obser¡¡er cerÈified

by Sslviee and aPProved

b)a 135 opçratLonsi 

- 

saíd

$¡e+ be uraöe ¿Yai.-l aJcle- to

ar¡y rsþing s.eme, and saÍd weabher

obs )q adVa¡ced Þo t'he' FAå. íf a

cont,rol zone is ímplemented át ffre Aiçport,.

2. Handl.ing of any air carrier that has an

operatíñg agreerñenE wiÞh' Ehe Torirn, wíEh çaid

hãnd.líng.agreement between the operator apd an

air cafrier E,o be subject t,o 'thê writt,en

approval of Ehe Town'

B. AuthQrlz,ed Sen¡lcee. In addiË1on t'o Ehe sen¡ices

iequired, to be províded þy the OperluoT pqrsuant t'o

eafagqaph e. ab-ove, OperaEor fs authorízed., but not

regurred. to provide-on a non-exclusive'basíe the

. f oÍlowing ser+íceE' ac't,ivit,ies and no othçrs;

nfrcrAft, engine arid airframe repair and

mai-nt,enance, rebuii,ding, sales, PtoPeL1er rêBair and overhaul..

.uvíonÍcs senrícíng, overhaul, repair, and

sales.

&

1

2

3

FO|L OOOO52
3

4

5

6

1

,j

SE,orage of aircraf E.

sale of new and used aircrafE,

AuÈ,omobÍIe reriÈal,

Aircrafu refrË,ald and/or piloe fnstrucllon,

and serr¡i-ces.

B

c opeqating stan4Êrds . In providi-:lg any of 

. 

the

requirêd- or authorlzed producÈs or selrtíces

specífied a.bove, the OperaÈor shall- operate for the

usç ,and benefíÈ of the prrbltc a¡td shall neeÈ or

exceed. Èhe fol.Lowing Bþandards:

1. Fhe'operator ehatl f,urnlsh its s.*ic"s fn a

prompþ, good manner adequate._to meet' all the

{er.nands lor ius señ¡íee's at'.the À'lrporE.

2,. operato! shatL fully'qorrÞly wLc,h Èhe Town's

uinimu¡n Standards ior Alrporb ^ßeronaut,i-cal Servlcee. "and. any other requírement,s 'promulgat,gd by Ehe Town applicable uo each of

the Operat,ors activít,ies .

3

4.' The Oþeiator shali provf d.e, ôt íts sole

4

FO|L OOOO53
5

e)q)ense, a E to provide in a er

tFre sen¡lceE is

Àgreement,,

close Buperrrlslon over ics emplayees [o assure

a high standard of een¡ice to custoners of È'he

ÖperaÈor.

6

5

D Charcee. Prices and tr'ees

1

The operaE,or shaLl

the

the

furnish productrs and Een¡ícee on a fair,

reasona-bld, and non-díscrínr:inaÈory basig to all

ueers of the AírporÈ. trÌre operator sha1l charge fair, reasonàble and non-d.iscrlminat,ory prices. for

each uniÈ or eale bf se!ïÍces, þrovided, however,

Ehat Ehe OpçraËor shall be allowed Eo make

reasonabLe and non-d.iscrÍrninaËory dj-seounts, rebateÉj or oÈ,hei slmilar cypeË of pni.ce reduct'ions

Lo vol"ume'purchasers.

Rtr,ÀTT FEES AT{D O:nHER PAYI4ENTS.

RenÈt Rent for each of the. two tlpes of space

Iístçd: in Paragra.ph 3 Èo

oÞeråboù und,er 't¡iis A aE,

foltowing. rates for Ehe

For Ehe. Berlod of täe le4sehold commencing

wi-uh chíg Agreement and continuing Ehrough

oècernber 31., L997 

- , ¡¡,.¡ . =

. r ,í..

'i " 5 

t.,,

A

FO|L OOOO54
(a) For grogs f'Ioor Bpace wíthin E,be Generat Àviat,ion Termínal: Thírt,een dolLars

( $ x3 .'0 o.) per square . f oot .

(b) For paved apron area: thírteen sents

($o . t3 ) per sçfuare f oot .

F'or ttre period of the leasehoLd corunencing on

'faf¡uar:f 1, L998 and conËinuing through ÀugusE 44, 2000

(a) For gross fj.oor space withín Ëhe Generai. Avlatíon Ternulnal¡ Fourteen dollars and fifty cents ($14.50) per square foot.

(b) For paved apron area: fourÇeen centE ($0.14) per Equare foqt,.

B 'fiavcc rc A¡l¡li {'{ nneJ Panl- .A,J.l taxes, íncluding real

properEy Èaxes, wtrlch may be imposed upon -the premises

during È,he trerm oE thís A,greenent are t,o be paid by the

Operator when due, Such t,æKeÊ ehalL be deemed addít,ional

rent, und.er E,he Agreement and OperaLor ehal-L be ln defaulE in the e\rentr of nonpayment, of same.

e, zuçJ-.F'Iqw FÊe. Tfie Operat,or shaLl pay bo bhe Town

a .fuel. . flow. fÊe f qI eaqh ga1lon, of avíat,ion fuel

delivered. to E'he Operatorfrom the Town's fueL fãr¡n. The

f,uel- flow fee shall be :esEqÞl.ished by rebolution of Èhe

Tov¡ri'Boârd and, fr'oni tÍme È.o t,imer-Ehe ToimrBoard by

resolutiirn may amend the fuel {Iow f ee.

D. Autgmobil.e RentaL .E'ee. The Operat,or shall pay an

a¡nount, to Ëhe. To¡rn which equals. E,en percenÈ (10+) of Ehe

gross ' revenue thaL the Operat,or ; feceÍves fr'om the

, automobile renÈaI corr1pany for automobile rental Feh¡íce

t,o passengers ar¡d other uÊere at the Aírport I

E. P.al4rìenus.

1. RenE,. The renE,al pal¡nents spècif,ied i.n Sect,ion 5.À. .a.bove are arrnual rent,e peË sqüare foot.

T,he Eot,a1 arrnuaL rental, of all space leased

shal,I be ôivlded, into Lwetvd equal þayrnent,s to ' .be paid, mirnthly in advar¡ce of lfre iLiet' (1ÊÈ)

day of each month, except, that, Ehe first, and IaËt paymente shall be piorated i{íEh the fírst,

payment, being.duç oir or þefore the fift,eenth (15th). dqy in 4uçJust, 1995.

2. Tíme of PaynenE. fhe feeg specifíed in

SecEion S.C and Sectíon 5.Ð above shall be

2

6

FO|L OOOO55
þ.

paid Eo Ëhe Totrn on or before the twent,ieLh (20trh) day foltowing the end of each monrh such fees are coll,êcted or owed.

3. Place of paymenË. ¡,11 paymentê due Ehe Town from Ehe Operat,or shaLl be. ÉeLlvered t,o È,he Air^port, ltanager or mailed to Èhe addresg set forth in SecE,íon

REPORTS, RECORD .è¡[D AUDTT.

À RFeoEd.e.. WÍEh reFpect, to aLl businees activíEiee conducted by the Operator ünder the terms of t,hiE .Ègrreement for which a fee is owed to Ehe Town pursuanE E,o SeoËion S. , eperator shaLl keep E,rue and accurate records coverlng arl transacE,ioäs arrd shall maintain anö keep sucÌi records foi a period of three (3) years ffom the daE,e the recórd is

eained accor<iíhg prínciples and

as to permie È,he

acy of payments made'under

I4oqç,þty ReþprÊÊ. on or before the twenríeth (2OEh)

day fol.IowÍng the end bf each rnontþ, Operator shaLl

çgpgrq.ts{e fo.Ilowing Í:rf.ormaUion ín wr-íting, cerri- fied by' an of,fåcer of' the Operat,or aJ to the

accuracy, Èo È.he Aírportr tr6anager:

1. Gçoss reveriueg received by the Opefator from Ehe aut,omobile rental company, for aut,omobíle rental acÉivíry dgrÍug thd pr'ecediug monËh.

AFnuêL sta!,êment. v[íEhin nineuy (g0) days fol_Lowing Èhe 'end of each caLendar y.ear during ïhe uerm oÉ tlre ,Agreement,, Operator shal1 suÞffÍt -Eo Ehe Town a

'ï 

*d',fff ":rffåi"1ff u 

- f äiT to 'Ehe Town'and. shaLl be enÈ cerEífied public by OperaEor's paymenB

paymenÈ made duríng

and payment due for

dei,erminíng the accì,tracy

Euant t,o Section S. , the

upon reasoäable notÍce Eo pertaínÍng Eo reLevanE

1;"r:u"J, iTl': ""3rï"Li:

, 

.,.: .

I

B

c

D

FO|L 000056
f irm of Índepen4ent, certified prrbríc accounÈ,ants. The cost of such audit, shall_ bè borne by Çhe iown, u¡less Ehe rêgilcs of . such audit, - reveal. å

díscrepancy of more tha¡r tive perceuE (st) Ueiweeñ fe s, anâ Ehe fe iáed Uy Utre au deficlency tn h -r;tã;;Ë

th rÈe of Een percenÈ (lOt) and Ét" Êull cosË, of rhe audùr ghärr be borne bt tù; OperaÈ,or

E. ?iepUL?s. .In the evenL Ehe Operator diepuües the de!ê¡nrínatlon made by tÌre Town*Ín lhe course of the .audit' authorized by Þaragraph D. a-bove, the amount ciaimed due by ri:e rorËr ïhau bè pracea Ín a

segregated, int,erest,-bearíng escrõw account ¡nainEaíned. by bhe Town and. t-he d,ispute sharL be submiE,E,ed Eo a cerEifíed publíe accounÈanE,, agreeabre Ëo both parcies, who srratr deÈermine thå ríghE,s and' oÞttg: Bíons o't the parties hereto in conformfty wibh principles. The paid by Èhe unÊuc

d,etermination iÉ

che fee a .ehalI b

oÞLigaÈéd

Ehe ÊÍna]. fi¡ndg and to' tlie guccesgf

dete J.eil pr.rblic account,ane l_s P-arE h påruy, Ehe funds and, inte çËüeen -the parLies, lvltr, each ortj.on etraC ref Lecú,.s the dqgr Èhe fínal outcome favored eaèh síde

7 . USE OF AIRPORT F'ACILITIES.

The OBerat,oq ehail be authorízed, Eo uge all eiqport

aocorda¡rce with. Eheir comrnon u

part of the Ai'r'pôrt,, including bulu not bui.lding, pár\ing, lot, roads, drívewâfg¡ aircraft aprons, runways. tarcÍvays, navigauio¡ral- aíds and other'Ai¡porc tacitit,iêg Èo 

_-thå

extent reasônable, re_quired or neçessarT¡ Ëor Ehe opérauions aad acti.víties authorizedrob required u¡rder -Eþís ajreemèît.

8.

.'1: I

li:¡. i ¿t+: ' have E,he ri ghE E,o operaEe, pJ.ace, sÈore, subjec

I

FO|L OOOO57

t, to the approval of the
Airport ¡4anager in. the interests of eafety_ and proper Aír1>ort

ope}at,íon, al-I equípmenE neeessary for the eonducts of the

Oþerator' B oPeratl-onB .

9, I,EASEIIOIJD IMPRO\IEI'{EÀIfS.

A

and appropriaEe mãnner.

ercisLlng Et¡Ðctures, Operator will obtaín all

neeessary Towñ, County, SEate or Federal approval-s,

íncJ-udíng Town eLanning goard .siEe plan and./or

special p.frmiu approval where appJ,ícab1e 

'

operaÞor's., E:qléAsä, .4,11 Ímprovements shail be

constructed, aE Operator's eole ercPenEe and at no

cost or ergI)enÊe whatgoever tso the fowr.

B

r0 , urII{rTIES.

' The Operat,or agreeÊ to províde for and to pay for the

foLl.owíng utíIÍLy setr\¡íces which may be rend,ered to the Uenised

premi.ses during -t,he t,errr.r .of this AgreemenE, includíng but noE,

liruLt,ed to: t,elePhone Eerrri-ce.

' 11. RrGIrr oF ENTRY.

The OperaEor' iEs emPl

Afu:port Manager, ToY¡n Fire Ma

of Ñatural Resources) shall

premises occupd.ed by the Opeiator Êor the purpoee of ínspectíng 'b,he prenises.

t2 . RIIT,ES A,¡{D IJA}ÍS.

A. Per.míbp.. The Town represents thaU it has in

effect,, . all nec federal. permiÈ,s

cueE_omary, qsqs a

EhaE. at .anY' þlme

any such. ne

ecö., Ehisl

,OE¡eraE,or, þe cerm 

r,, ,,i

9

FOIL OOOO58
13

B. Çpll\pÌåalge. The Operator shaLl eomply wíCh aL1 applícable provis.J.ons of the' Code of -the Town,, in part,l-cplar ChapÈ.er 3 6 thereof . Î.lre OperaEor shalL comply with the revlsed ¡4inirm¡m SLand.ards for Airport Aeronaútical Senrices adopt,ed by the Town, The Operator shal.l comply wiuh aLL applÍcaþIe F'ederaL, SÈaÈe anö IoèaI lawÉ, nrLes., and, negulatfons. Neverthel ese, it is agreed that j.f aE aly tirne Euch Laws qr amendmenbs thereto preveni Ëþe Operator f,rom reasonably carryínE out an aLrcraft mainE,enance businees, Unen -the OperaEor fiây, ,atr ite option, 'termínaEe this agreemenË.

C. rlqpraçtibiLitt¿. It i.s erçressly agreed that, if aE

any Ujrne.'Che provlsions of the iownns ¡4aeÈer p1an,

any . Environmental Impaet SÈ,at,emenE, any, Iocal reguJ.ations concerning the O.perâEor's businese or

any county, .St,aEe or Federal lawe or regulations make operaÈion by Ehe Operat,or of an -aircraff

maintenance business inpract,ible, chís AgreemenL shall, êt the opÈlon of tfreí operator, terminate.

INÐEMNTFICÀTION & INSUR.ANCE.

A.

In$-ura4ce Pol icíes. 4,11 insurance

Ag.reement shalL be' maintained

i

FO|L OOOO59

B

10

reguired by Ehis wíth Ínsurance
c

D

E

t'

under¡rmÍters authorízed StaE,e of New York. ÀLI pof iËí aB arr addiÈíonaI Ínsured. Ttr sh thê town n¡ith CerEÍffcatreÉ of .Ineurance evidencing

thaE such j"nsurance coverages are in ef f ect.

Pren:lsep .hiablliÞy. The Operator shalL pron¡rÈIy,

af ter eicecutÍon of Èh:i.s egreemenÈ,,. at, ít,s eole ôoEt, and' e6pensê, provlde Ehe Tovrn with premises ti.a-bi-LÍty i¡rsurance in Uhê amount, of oNE MrIrrJroN

($x, 000, 000. 00) Do¡JI¡ARS per oceurrence,

Pre¡luct LiabillFy. If the Operator provides any

eerrríce autborízed pursuanL to Sectíon 4.8.7.,'Ehe

OperaEor shall. prory)tly, ât íE,E sole cost and erq)enÉe, providê the Town with product, liabiltty insurance in the amounÈ of oNE I.IILIJTON

($1, 000, 000.00) DoIJIJARS per oecurrence.

Jiírcra.f.t r,iabíI.lty. [f the OperaEor provídes any

senrice authorízed. pureuanË Þ,o SecEÍon 4.8.5, or

B. ¡ the. operaLor shall prompt,Iy aÈ iÈ.s. sole cost anil e:çpense, provide Ehö Towir wÍth airqfaft, liabllÍUy insurance ín Ehe amounÈ, of THREE HUI$ÐRED

THOUSAÀIÐ- ($300, O0O, OO)' DOI,LèRS per occu,rrence.

q¡rngrar XeeFr' s:-.r,+abiJ itl'. If the Opefator provid,es

arry senrí'cg ar¡t'horized pursuairt,'È,o SecEíon 4.8.1. ,

2, , gr 3., Ehe. Operatror shall prorûptly, aE its sole

cosu and, eçense, provide hangar kdeper's liabiliuy

insu¡îaDoe. in the anrount, of F I\rE EII'¡TDRED TIIOUSAIID

($5q0, 000 . 00) DOLLiARS per occutrrence. Hangar keepbr's liability íns rãnce shall apply wich

respecE to damages, because of fnjury Eo or

dest,¡iuct,íon of aircraf t or 4ircraf E part,s,

incl.udiilg the .loss of uEê of, aircraf È, which are

the' pfoper.Ey of oEhefs a¡¡d are in the cust,ody of

the opêrauor for storâgê, .repaùr or safekeeping fn

or on Ëhe EasÈ Hampton .Ð,lrport. ttle l"imit of Ii abtlåey foç 'any pñe accideht is est,abtlshed as

the total value of all- aírcraft, ln Ehe care and

cust,ody of 1

vary: throug e

Operator ís 1

vah¡e at rlsk and. secur o

iover sucþ loss nocwíchÉtanding the nuinj¡mr¡n limics

Ftipul.aEed in' this 'Agreement or ín the r'owh,s

Uj-nfum¡m St,andards f or Aírport AeronaubícaI

Senrícès.

FOrL 000060

l-J-
FO|L OOOO6I
A .,i

FO|L 000062

L1 ,

Í,n

13

,rn"9Jn:ä"H:
B

19. RES

A.

FO|L 000063

r,.iit.

L&
fr

B

D

No ExcÅusive.Rigb!. IÈ ís. clearly undergEood and

ehal..L. be eonst:î.¡ed,Eo grant, or aughorfze the gra¡Èing of qn exclusivê right, Þo the Operàt,or. ;

the righE to f,urther

area 'of Ehe AÍrport

o.f r,he operaror and, wí*rouEuþ" iïf"t1"å:f"Jt"i;

hLndrance.

EaeilÍtfes. The Town resen¡èg ühè righE, buÈ pha1l. noÈ be obJ-ígaled Eo Ehe Operat,or, to- tráíntain ',and

Lggp in- _rgn_aír Ehe landing- area of the Aírport and all pub1i.cJ.y otfhed facíi-itríes of ' the ÁírÍ¡ort,, ÈogeÈ,her with the right, Lo direct and control a1l act,ivfties of the OperaLor in Uhie regard.

Natipnal- Enrergency. Duríng the tíme of war or nEtionaL ernergency.; the fown shal,l. have the righÈ to.Iease .Ëhe i.andíng area or any part thereo,f -E,o

Ehe Unit.ed Stat,es goverflment, for miiiCary use,. and,, íf 

. 

euch ,Agreemerrt, ís ercecutedr the provisions, of this f¡ease insof,ar aa Ehey are inconsístent wit,h

bhe_ provieions of Èhe Lease' Eo Ehe governmentr, shall be suspended,

Aefia1 Appro?eheg:. The Town resenreg ühe night to

Eakç a.ny act,ion it deeme necessaly t,o protecÈ lhe aerial approaches of: the airpoit. against obstrîuction, È.ogether wíth the right Eo prevent. the

OperaEor from erectíng or permitÈfng to be erected,,

any building or other Ettrrcture on or adj'acent to Ehe .A,iryorE whlch, ln the opínÍ'on of tfre Town, would limiÈ, the usefulaess - of, Ehe AirporÈ or const,Ítute a hazard Eo aírcrafL.

FpderaL Funding. This AgreemenE shall be sr¡bordinate t,o Ehe provisíons of any existing or fuÈure.

Agreerient, beÈween Ehe Town and the ùníÈed St,aEes relat,ive Eö Èhe operaEion or ¡naint.enance of Ehe AirporE, 'ehe execut,io+ of which has been or ..may .be required ?s - 

a conditåon precedent to the *r¡lénd- ígure of federal fi.rnds for the development, of Ehe .[.irport

1ow placement

af, or on .any

E

F

IJ

20.

any

the

;l'.*il

i',tO.t Ê

of,

ri[ .¡. i-'

:,,ìr].,'

FO|L 000064

the enÞrance
r-l \ f.¿r

of ' euih Premises, opFraqo.r maY

enEÍficatíon arrd warr¡iog signs '

2L, EI(ISTENCE OF' A I-¡EASE OR SUBIJEASE OF AIRFORT FROPBRTY '

A. '' . ,It, ig elçressly agfeed

tt. nu'fngent uP91 the oPer*::

belng-a parÉy uo a valtd subleaee or'lease coverLng

propËrùf áu 'Èhe Airporr .aÞ wh_fch thé oÞerator can

" 

orrárr. t," ar, 

- air"raf t -maínl ena¡ce bus íne s g

The Town agreeË

B

Agreement. '

c. corq¡l-íaIrcq.¡ The

Agrêement and Ehe s

r'óx Avíatlon, rnc

Baragraph nrrmbered rr 6

Top¡n and- F;; -Avi.'Eíon, Inc. , dated sepc.enber 16,

. 198s,

PEACEFI'TJ COIüDT]CT OF' BT'gTNESS 

'

t,he

22,

s tha

ss'l

ft¡e Town . agreês ¡ Eubj eçt t,o any rights

beloÇa'Eíon of the ODerauor's iñ secuíon t9 hêreEo,

brrsinesE, and

not .Eo Eake anY forth

t or h:inder Èhe oPerat

L6

regarding

subj ect t,o

re

FO|L 000065

d

or from conducting iEs
t

TOTIN OF EAST HAMPTON

,tô ,

sERV'reEs, rNc '

Tìfita, PfeSident

PI]BIrf'C

.. .. 

ÉÀ

Lg

ili'+'

¡¡ i'

i

FO|L 000066
Exhibit 04 

Myers Lease, Third Amendment 





Exhibit 05 

Fuel Data 2013-2014 
Sound Myers

2013 Jet‐A 100LL Total Jet‐A 100LL Total

January 9494 1246.2 10740.2 1999 0 1999February 14360 722.8 15082.8 2100 0 2100March 25631 2348.5 27979.5 5719 1917.8 7636.8April 26883 1196.6 28079.6 2300 1004.2 3304.2May 53627 2069.7 55696.7 1870 1889.3 3759.3June 81476 3673.6 85149.6 6591 1722.1 8313.1July 147602 4060.1 151662.1 12918 1328.3 14246.3August 158497 5930.3 164427.3 17633 2231.8 19864.8September 58065 3457.8 61522.8 5461 2398 7859October 37735 2171.6 39906.6 4360 963 5323November 18749 907.2 19656.2 2100 2035 4135 All Fuel total thru 30 Nov 738443.9

December 23655 1296.6 24951.6 5250 660 5910Year Total 655774 29081 684855 68301 16149.5 84450.5 All Fuel Total 

2014

January 5814 923.4 6737.4 0 1298 1298February 11614 696.4 12310.4 0 0 0March 22090 784.4 22874.4 1501 2310.4 3811.4April 23851 1188.9 25039.9 995 1254.5 2249.5May 59182 2734.2 61916.2 5199 3142.6 8341.6June 105201 3813.5 109014.5 1237 3760 4997July 150053 6671.1 156724.1 11503 1208.1 12711.1August 186689 5871.9 192560.9 10654 2258.7 12912.7September 76608 1971.5 78579.5 4151 2145.5 6296.5October 37401 2636.9 40037.9 3613 2293.8 5906.8November 23884 2847.6 26731.6 2501 1681.3 4182.3December 12005 560.4 12565.4 0 580.9 580.9Year Total 745092.2 63287.8 All Fuel total (thru 8 Dec) 
Fuel Billing for 2013

Month Sound Myers TotalJanuary 44,988.35 $ $ 7,917.98 $ 52,906.33

February 63,031.87 $ $ 8,488.77 $ 71,520.64March 110,707.73 $ $ 27,888.66 $ 138,596.39April $ 108,434.85 $ 14,270.82 $ 122,705.67May $ 209,216.24 $ 17,292.99 $ 226,509.23June $ 312,118.91 $ 34,199.78 $ 346,318.69July $ 581,224.30 $ 54,964.22 $ 636,188.52August 653,507.75 $ $ 81,376.70 $ 734,884.45September 224,594.87 $ $ 35,800.91 $ 260,395.78October 157,143.28 $ $ 81,795.49 $ 238,938.77November 87,944.47 $ $ 18,629.68 $ 106,574.15

December 97,664.18 $ $ 23,673.30 $ 121,337.48TOTALS 2,650,576.80 $ $ 406,299.30 $ 3,056,876.10Fuel billing for 2014

Month Sound Myers TotalJanuary 27,129.15 $ $ 6,672.71 $ 33,801.86

February 38,737.48 $ $ ‐ $ 38,737.48March 76,571.39 $ $ 18,285.16 $ 94,856.55April $ 96,868.15 $ 10,750.99 $ 107,619.14May $ 237,112.03 $ 37,057.94 $ 274,169.97June $ 421,348.31 $ 18,288.75 $ 439,637.06July $ 645,251.91 $ 38,962.07 $ 684,213.98August 734,468.00 $ $ 55,344.32 $ 789,812.32September 330,286.09 $ $ 28,872.77 $ 359,158.86

October 151,839.30 $ $ 26,340.71 $ 178,180.01November 66,205.76 $ $ 17,474.10 $ 83,679.86December* $ 43,108.62 $ 3,055.31 $ 46,163.93

TOTALS 2,868,926.19 $ $ 261,104.83 $ 3,130,031.02* as of December 8, 2014
Exhibit 06 

Excerpts from 2007 Master Plan Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. Existing Conditions and Facilities ..............................................................................I-1 

 

 A. Description of Existing Facilities and Plan.....................................................I-1 

 1. (a) Runways ..............................................................................................I-1 

 1. (b) Taxiways .............................................................................................I-4 

 2. (a) Aprons .................................................................................................I-5 

 2. (b) Terminals.............................................................................................I-6 

 3. NAVAIDs ...............................................................................................I-17 

 4. Visual Aids..............................................................................................I-18 

 5. Lighting and Signage ..............................................................................I-18 

 6 Roads/Parking Areas...............................................................................I-19 

 7 Emergency, Security, and Fire Equipment ............................................I-19 

 8 Boundaries/Topography..........................................................................I-20 

 9 Vegetation and Adjacent Land/Non-contiguous owned Parcels ............I-20 

 10. Annual Revenue Summary .....................................................................I-21 

 

 B Historic and Existing Airport Uses...............................................................I-22 

 1. Volume and Distribution of Aircraft Traffic and Based Aircraft .............I-22 

 2. Seasonal Traffic Variations.......................................................................I-30 

 i. Peak Hour, Peak Day, Peak Month...................................................I-31 

 3. Airport Traffic Pattern ..............................................................................I-39 

 4. Meteorological Data..................................................................................I-54 

 5. Inventory of Planning Data and Past Proposals........................................I-60 

 6. AIP Grants, Assurances, and Durations....................................................I-60 

 

 
C Off-Airport Environment and Community Setting...................................................I-63 

 1. Socioeconomic Profile............................................................................I-63 

 2. Regulatory Framework ...........................................................................I-64 

 i. Town Ordinances..............................................................................I-64 

 ii. Comprehensive Town Planning Issues .............................................I-66 

 iii. Noise Abatement Recommendations................................................I-67 

 iv. Scoping Recommendations and Complaints ....................................I-71 

II. Background and Long-term Future Planning ......................................................... II-73 

 A. Airport Role ................................................................................................ II-73 

 

 B. Off-Airport Considerations......................................................................... II-75 

 1. Land Use ............................................................................................... II-75 

 2. Ambient Sound ..................................................................................... II-77 

 C. Local Transportation System ...................................................................... II-84 

 1. Relationship to Airport ......................................................................... II-84 

 2. Inter-modal Hub.................................................................................... II-84 

 

 D. Design Aircraft............................................................................................ II-85 

III. Airport Facilities and Planning Evaluation............................................................ III-99 

 

 A. Airspace Vicinity and Use ....................................................................... III-103 

 1. Automated Weather Station............................................................... III-105 

 2. Control Tower.................................................................................... III-109 

 3. Flight Tracks and Potential Adjustments........................................... III-112 

 4. GPS and Alternative Navigational Enhancements ............................ III-123 

 

 
B. Airside Improvements.............................................................................. III-129 

 1. Runway Analysis ............................................................................... III-140 

i. Runway 10-28.............................................................................. III-140 

ii. Runway 4-22................................................................................ III-156 

iii. Runway 16-34.............................................................................. III-163 

 2. Taxiway and Other Improvements..................................................... III-172 

 3. Closure Alternatives........................................................................... III-176 

 

C. Landside Considerations.......................................................................... III-181 

 1. Aprons and Facilities ......................................................................... III-181 

 2. Fuel Farm........................................................................................... III-185 

 3. Hangar Development ......................................................................... III-186 

 4. Auto Parking, Circulation and Access Improvements....................... III-189 

 5. Roadway Relocation .......................................................................... III-192 

 

 D. Non-Aviation Uses................................................................................... III-193 

 1. Conservation/Recreation.................................................................... III-193 

 2. Industrial Use..................................................................................... III-193 

 

 E. Environmental Management.................................................................... III-194 

 1. Preservation of Endangered Species and Habitat Maintenance......... III-194 

 2. Emergency Preparation and Plans ..................................................... III-195 

 3. Ground Water Protection Considerations .......................................... III-196 

 4. Deer Control, Fence Line Openings .................................................. III-199 

 

F. Financial Considerations.......................................................................... III-201 

G. Summary.................................................................................................. III-203 

 

 
IV. Airport Noise and Access Management ..............................................................IV-204 

A. Introduction..............................................................................................IV-204 

B. Noise Measurement .................................................................................IV-205 

1. Single Event Noise.............................................................................IV-205 

2. Single Event Noise Contours.............................................................IV-206 

3. Cumulative Annual Average Noise Contours....................................IV-207 

4. Busy Day Cumulative Noise Contours..............................................IV-222 

C. Noise Abatement Measurements-Fixed Winged Aircraft........................IV-226 

1. Limitations by Noise Level – Part 161 ..............................................IV-226 

2. Limitations by Single Event Noise ....................................................IV-227 

3. Limitations by Weight .......................................................................IV-227 

4. Seasonal Rules ...................................................................................IV-228 

5. Touch and Go Training Operations ...................................................IV-229 

6. Landing Fee Adjustments ..................................................................IV-229 

7. Noise Abatement Measures – Rotary Winged Aircraft .....................IV-230 

8. Voluntary Measures...........................................................................IV-231 

9. Alternative Demand Accommodation ...............................................IV-232 

10. Management Improvements, Staffing and Record Keeping..............IV-232 

V. Alternative Analysis.............................................................................................. V-234 

Part One................................................................................................................ V-236 

A. No Action.................................................................................................. V-236 

B. Alternative 1.............................................................................................. V-241 

C. Alternative 2.............................................................................................. V-247 

D. Alternative 3.............................................................................................. V-252 

Part Two................................................................................................................ V-257 

E. Comparison, Contrast, and Evaluation of Alternatives ............................ V-257 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

II-73 

Chapter II - Background and Long-Term Future Planning 

A. Airport Role 

Airport Role Statement 

The Role Statement for the East Hampton Airport articulates the intended functions, 

values, priorities and governing principles that will apply to the facility. The role 

statement provides a general description of the type and function of the airport without 

specifying the regulations. While non-binding, the role statement provides a 

framework for decision making, helping to define that which is “in bounds” from what 

is “out of bounds.” It can serve as a reminder to both the airport user community and 

the adjacent residential community that there is a reasonable, non discriminatory body 

of principles which are being use to shape public policy now and in the future. 

The East Hampton Airport is owned, maintained and operated for the benefit of the Town 

and its residents. The airport continues to be classified as a General Aviation Airport under 

federal criteria. Its primary role is the accommodation of light aircraft traffic. Aircraft 

operating at greater weights will be accommodated on condition without unjust 

discrimination. The airport is also managed with the objective of providing emergency 

access and facilitation of all other public and community responsibilities. The size and 

operation of the airport takes into consideration the needs of East Hampton and 

Southampton residents for protection from excessive noise disturbance and adverse 

environmental impacts. 

The Town is committed to observing the highest standards of safety, and efficiency and 

observes all appropriate federal and state standards in terms of layout, operation and 

maintenance. The facility shall not be allowed to deteriorate, but instead shall be improved 

and maintained in an exemplary manner to best serve light aircraft. 

East Hampton Airport is located in an environmentally sensitive area overlying the largest 

high quality drinking water resources in the entire town. Several of the largest capacity 

public water well fields are adjacent to the airport. This natural resource merits long term 

protection through restraints on the extent and intensity of airport development and 

utilization. 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

II-74 

Control of noise and adverse environmental impacts at the airport is consistent with current 

Town goals for improved quality of life and land and water conservation. These goals 

recognize that protecting the environment is essential for improving the Town’s seasonal 

and year round economy. These controls are achieved through reasonable, non arbitrary and 

non discriminatory management practices. These may limit the maximum size of aircraft to 

be accommodated, regulate excessive peak demand during the summer season and otherwise 

adjust use patterns such as for helicopter access to minimize community disturbances. 

The Town honors all reasonable obligations to the airport user community through 

customary due process without constraints except those that diminish the health, well being, 

and welfare of the community. The Town may from time to time establish and enforce such 

regulations as are needed to balance these conflicting goals. These actions will be within the 

envelope of existing federal procedures. This will preserve the opportunities for the user 

community to negotiate acceptable solutions and adjust to forthcoming changes in an 

orderly manner without imposing financial hardships. 

The Town endeavors to operate and maintain the airport as economically and efficiently as 

possible with the costs of doing so being fairly allocated among those users who benefit 

from its utility; self sufficiency being the preferred management objective. However, 

recognizing the vast long term benefits associated with environmental conservation of the 

area, a degree of public support may be incumbent upon the Town. Thus, certain public 

resources may be needed to augment the income derived from transportation related fees to 

assure continued protection of the local community residents as well as the land and water 

resources themselves. This shall be a local public responsibility unaltered by the prospective 

availability of federal, state or private resources. The airport shall have a complimentary 

goal of facilitating economic improvement through support of education, commerce and 

industry consistent with the maintenance of the highest standards of long term 

environmental quality and quality of life for existing as well as future citizens. 

 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

III-201 

F. Financial Considerations 

TABLE III-29 

COSTS OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 

No. Project Cost Possible FAA 

Funding 

1 Rehabilitation Airport Beacon $225,000.00 YES 

2 AWOS Installation $185,000.00 NO 

3 Fuel Farm Canopy Improvements $50,000.00 NO 

4 Security Camera Installation $100,000.00 NO 

5 Maintenance Building $350,000.00 YES 

6 Fuel Farm Expansion $250,000.00 YES 

7 Complete Runway 10-28 Parallel 

Taxiway $800,000.00 YES 

8 Taxiway A Extension $540,000.00 NO 

9 Convert Runway 4-22 (north side) to 

Taxiway $1,200,000.00 YES 

10 Convert Runway 4-22 (south side) to 

Vehicle Road $240,000.00 YES 

11 Runway 4-22 Rehabilitation $3,000,000.00 YES 

12 Runway 16-34 Rehabilitation $700,000.00 YES 

13 Runway 10-28 Rehabilitation $400,000.00 YES 

14 Taxiway A Rehabilitation $560,000.00 YES 

15 Taxiway B Rehabilitation $125,000.00 YES 

16 Taxiway C Rehabilitation $125,000.00 YES 

17 Taxiway C Rehabilitation (south side) $50,000.00 YES 

18 Taxiway D Rehabilitation $400,000.00 YES 

19 Taxiway E Rehabilitation $125,000.00 YES 

20 Remove and Replace Airfield 

Lighting and Signage $1,725,000.00 YES 

21 Remove and Replace Runway 28 

Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) $45,000.00 YES 

22 Remove and Replace Precision 

Approach Path Indicators PAPIs $310,000.00 YES 

23 Remove and Replace Lighted Wind 

Cone and Segmented Circle $44,000.00 YES 

24 Construct New Taxiway D-1 $300,000.00 YES 

25 Entrance Road Improvements $100,000.00 YES 

26 Seasonal Control Tower $200,000.00 NO 

27 Terminal Building Second Floor 

Addition $280,000.00 YES 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IV-226 

C. Noise Abatement Measures Fixed Wing Aircraft 

1. Limitations by Noise Level-Part 161 

Federal Aviation Regulations Part 161 is the administrative law that determines 

procedures for regulating jet powered aircraft including helicopters. Jet powered fixed 

wing aircraft are grouped by the FAA into four differing stage classes, Stages 1, 2, 3, and 

4. The oldest and noisiest aircraft are classed as Stage 1. These aircraft are no longer 

present in the general aviation fleet in large numbers. Powered by turbojet engines, these 

were the earliest manufactured and, in addition to being exceptionally noisy, are 

relatively fuel inefficient and have substantial air pollutant emissions. Stage 2 turbine 

powered aircraft are also older fuel inefficient types that have largely been withdrawn 

from service or upgraded via hush kits or re-engining to Stage 3. Stage 3 aircraft are 

relatively modern, powered by turbofan engines and constitute the majority of the civil 

general aviation fleet. Stage 4 was recently instituted, primarily to enable distinction 

between aircraft converted to Stage 3 from those that were originally manufactured to 

Stage 3 standards. Most aircraft in production today meet Stage 4 standards. 

Part 161 is most often considered in the context of eliminating Stage 2 aircraft from 

accessing airports or regulation by time of day or other means to reduce overall noise 

impact. Compliance with this regulation requires the performance of a cost/benefit 

analysis and notifications to potential airport users. While the proportion of Stage 2 fixed 

wing aircraft at East Hampton has diminished to the point where such a compliance effort 

might no longer be justifiable, helicopters are also classed as Stage 2 aircraft. Helicopters 

are a major source of adverse reactions due to their relatively low cruising altitudes, 

distinguishable noise signature and frequent summer use. Limitations on helicopters such 

as by time of day restriction may justify the use of the procedures available under Part 

161. 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IV-227 

2. Limitations by Single Event Noise 

The single most effective means to curtail airport noise impact is by instituting single 

event noise levels, usually measured at the approach and departure measurement points 

specified in Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36. Virtually every aircraft in service has 

an identifiable noise level on approach and departure via measurements made during 

certification, the introduction of the aircraft into production. Only aircraft made prior to 

the institution of FAR Part 36 are exceptions. 

Through the use of portable noise monitors, approach and departure noise levels can be 

systematically measured. Through examination of the specific aircraft types that use the 

airport, review of their certified noise levels and identifying in-service noise levels that 

can be measured through noise monitoring, reasonable specifications for permissible 

noise levels can be made. Over time and with appropriate notification, the performance 

standards could be employed to reduce overall noise impact. 

Single event noise level limits, especially when these can be enforced through noise 

monitoring are the fairest and most reliable way to impose limitations on cumulative 

aircraft noise impact. 

3. Limitations by Weight 

Runway weight limits are common at airports nationwide. Weight limits are used to 

protect the service life of runway, taxiway and apron pavement. 

Generally, within specific comparable aircraft types using similar propulsion technology, 

greater weight usually means higher noise levels. Thus, instituting a maximum limit on 

aircraft weight may have a collateral consequence of limiting noise both peak and 

cumulative noise levels. 

Historically, the weight limit at East Hampton Airport has been 12,500 pounds. This is a 

sensible specification at general aviation airports generally because this level is a "bright 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IV-228 

line" in the aircraft regulatory environment. Aircraft with a maximum weight above 

12,500 pounds are developed to more stringent standards defined by the FAA. Most, 

although not all, jet powered aircraft weigh more than 12,500 pounds. East Hampton 

Airport had a 12,500 pound weight limit until runway reconstruction increased that figure 

substantially in the 1990's, accounting, in part, for the continuing controversy concerning 

airport affairs. 

While it is generally inappropriate to use runway weight limits to control access and 

cumulative noise levels and establishing a weight limit does not mean that it is 

impermissible to operate a heavier aircraft on such pavement, it tends to curtail use by 

larger aircraft. Further, the establishment of a specific weight limit has a variety of 

consequences including reduced landing fees since these are usually based on vehicle 

weight, lower volumes of fuel sold, increased pavement life and therefore reduced 

maintenance costs, and potentially reduced need for fire fighting equipment. Most 

importantly, the establishment of a weight limit specification, whether a return to 12,500 

pounds or a differing figure, signals to the user community the type of facility the 

proprietor intends to provide. 

4. Seasonal Rules 

Since the annual average noise impact at the East Hampton Airport is relatively modest in 

comparison to the peak summer period, many of the available noise abatement measures 

are most desirable during this period. Further, the busy summer season may necessitate 

air traffic control which in turn makes structuring and directing aircraft traffic more 

feasible. Seasonal controls present a lesser degree of conflict with federal priorities, may 

have lesser overall financial consequences, and maybe easier to implement and 

administer. Thus, it may be helpful to consider such restrictions as limitation by time of 

day, noise level limits, alternative routing procedures, differential landing fees, flipping 

the touch and go pattern or limitations on flight training only during the more sensitive 

summer season. 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IV-229 

5. Touch and Go Training Operations 

For residents situated under the standard traffic pattern for each runway, touch and go 

training operations can be especially annoying despite the fact that most training is 

accomplished with relatively small aircraft with limited noise emissions. In this case, the 

repetitive flyovers and not the cumulative noise impact is driving the annoyance level. 

There are three ways to reduce these impacts. Flipping the touch and go pattern to keep 

aircraft over the airport will reduce annoyance levels in areas around the airport. 

However, since this results in a non standard traffic pattern, its practicality is contingent 

on having a control tower. Second, training operations could be prohibited seasonally and 

presumably conducted at other available airports. This increases training costs and creates 

additional impact elsewhere. Finally, voluntary or mandatory limitations on the frequency 

of training flights or the times of day or days of the week might be partial solutions. For 

example, prohibiting training operations on summer weekends would provide a respite 

for airport neighbors during summer weekends. 

6. Landing Fee Adjustments 

Landing fees are set by the airport proprietor in order to recover costs of staffing and 

maintaining the airport. While significant regulatory concerns may result from the 

establishment of punitively large landing fees, the proprietor may have some discretion in 

establishing a reasonable fee structure to discourage unwanted activity. Higher landing 

fees during the night period, higher landing fees based on aircraft noise level, or other 

differentials may be considered. The disadvantage of this administrative approach is that 

landing fees are typically a small component of total aircraft operating costs. Raising 

landing fees may increase revenue, but unless raised drastically are unlikely to cause 

substantial shifts in total activity levels or totally eliminate, for example, night period 

usage. 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IV-230 

7. Noise Abatement Measures Rotary Winged Aircraft 

Rotary winged aircraft, helicopters, are a disproportionate source of annoyance in airport 

adjacent neighborhoods and under the approach and departure flight tracks or designated 

routes. Raising the minimum cruise level for helicopters to 2,000 feet has already been 

implemented. Designated approach and departure corridors have been established. 

Since East Hampton Airport is surrounded by sensitive land uses, there are limited 

possibilities to reduce impact by rerouting approach/departure paths. In Chapter 3, 

several differing approach paths were studied. With one exception, none were found to 

have significantly lower population exposure. 

One approach and departure corridor was found to be substantially better than the 

existing routes. This approach/departure path would branch off from the offshore 

helicopter route. On approach, helicopters would over-fly Georgica Pond and thence over 

the currently undeveloped land adjacent to the Runway 34 threshold and then land in the 

terminal area. This is the minimum sound track, avoids overflight of areas in 

Southampton, and adds little if any flying distance and flight time. It would, however, 

expose residents in this area of high value real estate to much greater noise levels than 

currently exist. 

Another occasionally used noise abatement technique for helicopters is the spiral decent. 

In essence this procedure calls for an arriving helicopter to remain at cruise altitude until 

over the airport and then initiate a circling descent to land. Extensive modeling of this 

procedure applied to the East Hampton Airport failed to reveal any advantage. The 

circling procedure exposes areas adjacent to the airport to higher levels of noise than 

would otherwise occur with a straight in approach. A larger total number of individuals 

would be adversely affected. Therefore, this noise abatement strategy is not 

recommended. 

Finally, since helicopters do not require a large landing site, one partial strategy for 

reducing noise impact would be the establishment of one or more shoreline heliports. 

While an extensive survey of available candidate sites is beyond the scope of this 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IV-231 

investigation, there may be one or more sites with over the water approaches that could 

be established as alternative landing sites. While this strategy has clear potential for 

reducing overflights of areas around the airport, it would almost certainly be unwanted 

and probably opposed by adjacent shoreline residents. 

8. Voluntary Measures 

For noise abatement measures that involve avoidance of specific areas, specific times of 

the day, or specific aircraft, an alternative administrative approach involves voluntary 

limitations by operators. 

Generally, such voluntary measures are more effective with based aircraft operators than 

with transients. Thus, voluntary measures are, at best, a partial solution. The most 

commonly used voluntary measure, restraints on night period flying would logically not 

create much change in East Hampton since night period activity on average is very low, 

about two percent. However, the night period fraction is greater during the summer 

season and, as can be seen in the busy day noise contours, can be much greater on a 

summer weekend. Thus, voluntary restraint by airport users might substantially reduce 

annoyance levels during busy periods even if only partially effective overall. 

The aircraft using the airport may be candidates for voluntary measures as well. As 

mentioned above, hushkits or re-engining can reduce the noise emission levels of older 

noisier aircraft. Propeller driven aircraft can be fitted with multi-blade propellers 

designed to reduce noise emissions. These measures impose costs which may not appear 

worthwhile to aircraft owners and operators in the absence of encouragement and the 

knowledge that they could ultimately become mandatory requirements. 

Quiet flying procedures for both jet powered aircraft and piston powered aircraft have 

been defined by the National Business Aircraft Association and the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association. These are all voluntary procedures that have been found helpful in 

reducing noise impact. 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IV-232 

Generally, voluntary measures are an initial means of achieving improved noise reduction 

performance and do not involve regulatory conflicts as do mandatory measures. Thus, 

they recommend themselves as the starting point in noise abatement. 

9. Alternative Demand Accommodation 

Restrictions of any type on airport access do nothing to reduce demand levels for 

transportation services. For example, shifting fixed wing passenger traffic to helicopters 

is likely to worsen rather than improve overall noise impact. However, a new series of 

Very Light Jets, small (four to six passenger) single or twin engine aircraft will soon be 

available in significant numbers. All anticipated models are less than 12,500 pounds. 

These provide a realistic alternative for accommodating passenger demand. These aircraft 

will begin entering service over the next several years. Initial information indicates these 

may be among the quietest aircraft available, will easily operate on short runways and are 

relatively inexpensive to acquire and operate. To the extent practicable, adapting and, if 

necessary, expanding facilities to efficiently handle this new class of aircraft may be the 

easiest way of reducing noise impact while continuing to satisfy transportation demand. 

10. Management Improvements, Staffing and Record Keeping 

Generally, annoyance levels from aircraft diminish when there is a shared realization that 

all reasonable means to reduce noise impact have been adopted. Such activities as noise 

monitoring, reporting, responding to complaints and other sensible administrative 

responses to adverse reactions can be expected, over time, to reduce the annoyance 

levels. The perception of accountability is the essential step. 

For this reason, regular reporting of activity levels, periodic reporting of cumulative noise 

levels, regular deployment of noise monitors, and continuation of data acquisition 

through the AirScene system are recommended. This has the further benefit of tracking 

improvement or deterioration in the overall situation, and highlighting problem areas for 

increased attention. These are essential activities despite the fact that they impose 
East Hampton Airport – DRAFT Master Plan 

________________________________________________________________________ 

IV-233 

additional costs. Larger general aviation airports use elaborate and expensive fixed point 

monitoring systems which, in the case of East Hampton, are not warranted at this time. 

However, those airports that do utilize these systems have found them to be helpful in 

improving community relations. 

Thus, regular surveillance combined with reporting of results and, ultimately, 

accountability in the sense of curtailment of specific problems can be expected to achieve 

favorable results. As a generalization, when the local noise exposed population becomes 

convinced that their concerns have been adequately adjudicated and the residual impacts 

minimized, the noise sensitivity of local residents may diminish by as much as 10 

decibels on the DNL scale even if actual cumulative noise levels remain the same. Thus, 

more time, attention and resources devoted to noise abatement generally yield measurable 

benefits in terms of reduced annoyance levels. 
Exhibit 07 

Excerpts from 2010 Final Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Master Plan 
FINAL GENERIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT

Prepared for the 

Town of East Hampton

SAVIK & MURRAY, LLP

Consulting Engineers

YOUNG 

E NVIRONMENTAL 

S CIENCES, INC.

August 2010

In Association with Consultants

DY

EAST HAMPTON 

AIRPORT

Submitted by
 

 

FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT FOR THE TOWN OF EAST

HAMPTON AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 

August 2010 

Proposed Action: Adoption of the East Hampton Town Master Plan Report 

Prepared for the Town of East Hampton April 2007 

Location: Town of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York 

Lead Agency: East Hampton Town Board 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

Contact Person: Fred Overton, Town Clerk 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 11937 

(631) 324-4142 

Prepared by: Young Environmental Sciences 

DY Consultants 

Savik & Murray 

Date of Acceptance by Lead Agency: August 5, 2010

Comment Period Closing Date: August 16, 2010
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - i - August 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................... ..... vii 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 

1.1 Purpose and Need..................................................................... . ..........6 

1.2 Airport Layout Plan and Grant Assurances ..................................... . ............9 

2.0 FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND............................................... ............13 

2.1 Review of Previous Forecast ........................................................ ........... .....13 

2.1.1 Based Aircraft .............................................................................. ..... ...15 

2.1.2 Based Aircraft Indicator .....................................................................19 

2.1.3 Itinerant vs. Local Operations...............................................................20 

2.1.4 Annual Instrument Operations & Forecast ............................................. ...20 

2.1.5 Aircraft Mix ...................................................................................21 

2.1.6 Peaking Characteristics .....................................................................22 

2.2 Market Trends .......................................................................................23 

2.3 2009 FAA Forecast .................................................................................24 

2.4 Reconciliation of Forecast Annual Airport Operations ..................................... ...26 

2.5 Calendar Year 2009 Traffic Levels ...............................................................27 

2.6 Long Term Forecast ................................................................................27 

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................... ........................30 

3.1 Noise .............................................................................................. ...30 

3.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................30 

3.1.1.1 Day Night Average Sound Level Methodology ..................... ......... ......30 

3.1.1.2 Background Noise Levels ........................................................... ...32 

3.1.1.3 High Terrain Areas .................................................. .......... .........33 

3.1.2 Annual Average Noise Contour – 2008 ...................................................32 

3.1.3 Busy Summer Day 2008 ........................................................ ........... ...37 

3.1.4 Historical Comparisons ................................................................. ......41 

3.1.5 2009 Activity Levels .................................................................... ......41 

3.1.6 Helicopter Noise ........................................................... ........... .........42 

3.1.6.1 Comparison Impacts of Differing Helicopters and Routes .................... ......44 

3.1.6.2 Effects of Helicopter Noise on Wildlife ....................................... ....54 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - ii - August 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

3.1.7 Noise Complaints .............................................................................. 56 

3.1.7.1 Noise Complaints 2009 .................................................................. 59 

3.1.8 Voluntary Restraints .................................... ........... ...........................59 

3.2 Land Use and Zoning ......................................................................... ......61 

3.2.1 Community Protection and Risk Assessment ........................................... ...64 

3.3 Air Quality .............................................................................. ............68 

3.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................. ...68 

3.3.2 Ambient Air Quality ............................................................ ........... ...69 

3.3.3 Air Pollutant Sources ......................................................... ........... ......71 

3.4 Water Quality, Water Courses, and Subsurface Water .................................. ......71 

3.5 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ......................... ...73 

3.6 Biotic Communities ............................................................................ ...74 

3.7 Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna ..................................................... ...76 

3.8 Wetlands........................................................................ .....................76 

3.9 Energy Supply and Natural Resources ................................................... ......79 

3.10 Light Emissions ............................................................................ ......79 

3.11 Solid Waste ................................................................................. ......80 

3.12 Other Environmental Concerns ........................................................... ......80 

3.12.1 U.S. Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) ............................. ......80 

3.12.2 Floodplains ........................................................................... .........80 

3.12.3 Coastal Zone Management and Coastal Barriers ................................ .........81 

3.12.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................. .........82 

3.12.5 Prime or Unique Farmland ......................................................... .........82 

3.12.6 Hazardous Materials Disposal ............................................. ........... ......82 

3.12.7 Environmental Justice .................................................................... ...83 

4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .......................................................................84 

4.1 Plan Development ...................................................................... ............84 

4.2 Runway Configuration Alternatives ................................................ ............84 

4.2.1 Terminal Area Alternatives ............................................................. .........88 

4.2.2 Taxiway Pavement to Be Removed ...................................................... ...90 

4.2.3 Runway 4/22 Design/Operational Alternatives .............................. ........... ...90 

4.2.4 Runway 28 Modifications ................................................................. ...92 

4.2.5 Eliminate Displaced Landing Threshold on Runway 28 ..................... ............ 92 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - iii - August 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

4.3 Provide Full Length Taxiway for Runway 10/28 .......................................... ...93 

4.4 Construct Bypass Taxiway on the Runway 28 End ........................................... 93 

4.5 Construct Taxiway on South Side of Runway 10/28 .......................................... 93 

4.6 Seasonal Aircraft Control Tower .......................................................... ......94 

4.7 Automated Weather Observation Station ................................................ ......94 

4.8 FBO Improvements .......................................................................... ......95 

4.9 Terminal Area Improvements ................................................................. ...95 

4.10 Industrial Development Request for Release .............................................. ...96 

4.11 Runway Protection Zone Compliance ......................................................... 97 

4.12 Further Environmental Review ................................................................. 97 

5.0 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................98 

5.1 Noise ............................................................................................. ...98 

5.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................. ...98 

5.1.2 Future Noise Contours Average Day 2013 ........................................... ......98 

5.1.3 Future Noise Contours Average Day 2029 ............................................ ...102 

5.1.4 Busy Day Noise Contours 2013 ......................................................... ...106 

5.1.5 Flight Clearance and Single Event Noise ................................ ........... ......108 

5.2 Air Quality ..................................................................................... ...108 

5.2.1 Air Pollutant Sources .......................................................... ........... ...108 

5.2.2 Aircraft Operations ............................................................ ........... ...109 

5.2.3 Ground Vehicle Operations ................................................... ........... ...109 

5.2.4 Ground Service Vehicles ...................................................... ........... ...110 

5.2.5 Construction Impacts .......................................................... ........... ...110 

5.2.6 Findings and Conclusions ................................................................ ...110 

5.3 Water Related Impacts ..................................................................... ......111 

5.4 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ....................... ...112 

5.5 Energy Supply Impacts ....................................................................... ...112 

5.6 Solid Waste Impacts........................................................................... ...112 

5.7 Biotic Impacts ................................................................................. ...113 

5.8 Impacts to Endangered Species ............................................................ ....113 

5.9 Construction Impacts ......................................................................... ...114 

5.10 Other Environmental Impacts .............................................................. ...115 

5.11 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................... ...116 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - iv - August 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

5.12 Summary ...................................................................................... ...116 

6.0 MITIGATING MEASURES .........................................................................119 

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................119 

6.2 Runway 22 Extension .................................................................. .. ...119 

6.3 Design Measures – Runway System ........................................................122 

6.4 Aircraft Noise abatement Options .................................................... .. ...122 

6.5 Helicopter Routing ...........................................................................125 

6.6 Management Practices .................................................................. .. ...126 

6.7 Construction Practices and Timing ........................................................ 126 

References ...................................................................................................127 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A – Summary of Public Hearing Comments (July 2007) 

Appendix B – Sponsor Assurances 

Appendix C – Understanding of Aircraft Sound and Its Measurement 

Appendix D – Helicopter Operating Instructions and Routes 

Appendix E – Comparison of Single Event Noise Contours for Helicopters at 1,000 Ft. 

Appendix F – Plots of Helicopter Noise Events (September 2008) – Jessup’s Neck and 

Barcelona’s Neck 

Appendix G – Sample Noise Report (July 4, 2008) 

Appendix H – East Hampton Master Plan Decision Making Model 

Appendix I – Response to Comments 

Appendix J – East Hampton Town Comments to FAA Regarding Helicopter Route 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1: Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2)....................................... .... ...............5 

Figure 1-2: Proposed Airport Layout Plan..................................................... ............10 

Figure 3-1: Elevation Surrounding Airport Property........................................ ............34 

Figure 3-2: Average Day (2008) Noise Contours.................................................... ....38 

Figure 3-3: Busy Day (2008) Noise Contours...................................................... .... ...39 

Figure 3-4: S-76 Helicopter Approach Single Event Peak Noise Levels at 1,000 Ft............... .45 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - v - August 2010 

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) 

Figure 3-5: S-76 Helicopter Approach Single Event Peak Noise Levels at 2,500 Ft. ............ ....45 

Figure 3-6: Helicopter S-76 Georgica Pond Route Noise Contours................................. ....46 

Figure 3-7: Helicopter S-76 Jessup’s Neck Route Noise Contours................................. ....47 

Figure 3-8: Helicopter S-76 NW Creek Route Noise Contours.................................. .. ....48 

Figure 3-9: Helicopter EC-130 Georgica Pond Route Noise Contours................................49 

Figure 3-10: Helicopter EC-130 Jessup’s Neck Route Noise Contours............................. ...50 

Figure 3-11: Helicopter EC-130 NW Creek Route Noise Contours................................. ...51 

Figure 3-12: Aerial Photograph of East Hampton Airport and Surrounding Area............... ....62 

Figure 3-13: Zoning Map................................................................................ ...63 

Figure 3-14: Surrounding Land Use.................................................................... .. .65 

Figure 3-15: Airport Land Use.......................................................................... .. .66 

Figure 3-16: Groundwater Protection Areas............................................................. .72 

Figure 3-17: Biotic Communities....................................................................... .. .75 

Figure 3-18: Freshwater Wetlands......................................................................... .76 

Figure 4-1: Retain Runway 16/34 (Alternative 1)................................................ .... ...84 

Figure 4-2: Retain Runway 16/34 and 4/22 (Alternative 3).................................... .... ....85 

Figure 4-3: Alternative Development Concept..................................................... ......88 

Figure 5-1: Average Day (2013) Noise Contours.................................................... ....99 

Figure 5-2: Average Day (2029) Noise Contours.................................................... ...103 

Figure 5-3: Busy Day (2013) Noise Contours................................................... .... ...107 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1: Description of Proposed Projects...............................................................3 

Table 2-1: 2007 Master Plan Report Based Aircraft Forecast..........................................14 

Table 2-2: 2007 Master Plan Report Aircraft Operations................................................15 

Table 2-3: Based Aircraft....................................................................................16 

Table 2-4: Trend Analysis: Based Aircraft...............................................................17 

Table 2-5: Based Aircraft Forecast.........................................................................17 

Table 2-6: FAA TAF........................................................................................ 18 

Table 2-7: Based Aircraft Forecast Synopsis............................................................ 19 

Table 2-8: Annual Airport Operation Forecasting Using Ratio....................................... 19 

Table 2-9: Annual Aircraft Operations Forecast........................................................ 20 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - vi - August 2010 

LIST OF TABLES (continued) 

Table 2-10: Annual Instrument Operations & Approach Forecast....................................21 

Table 2-11: 2008 Aircraft Mix..............................................................................21 

Table 2-12: 2009-2013 Aircraft Mix Forecast............................................................22 

Table 2-13: 2008 AirScene Peaking Characteristics................................................ ....22 

Table 2-14: Peaking Characteristics Forecast............................................................23 

Table 2-15: FAA Forecast Growth Rates............................................................... ..24 

Table 2-16: East Hampton Airport Data from AirScene (2004-2008)................................25 

Table 2-17: Five-Year Forecast for East Hampton Airport Using FAA Forecast Table 27........26 

Table 2-18: Five Year Forecast for East Hampton Airport Using FAA Forecast Table 28........26 

Table 2-19: Comparison of Growth Rates for 2008 and 2009..........................................28 

Table 2-20: Twenty Year Forecast for East Hampton Airport Using FAA Forecast Table........28 

Table 3-1: East Hampton Base Case 2008 – Annual Average Volume............................... 35 

Table 3-2: East Hampton Base Case 2008 – Average Daily Volume................................. 36 

Table 3-3: East Hampton Busy Day Volume By Type (2008).........................................40 

Table 3-4: Comparative Noise Contour Areas at East Hampton Airport.............................41 

Table 3-5: Noise Complaint Summary – East Hampton Airport 2008................................42 

Table 3-6: Noise Complaint Summary – East Hampton Airport 2007................................53 

Table 3-7: East Hampton Airport Energy and Natural Resource Consumption (2008)............53 

Table 3-8: Noise Complaint Summary – East Hampton Airport 2007................................56 

Table 3-9: Noise Complaint Summary – East Hampton Airport 2008................................57 

Table 3-10: Noise Complaint Summary – East Hampton Airport 2009..............................60 

Table 3-11: East Hampton Airport Energy and Natural Resource Consumption (2008)...........79 

Table 5-1: East Hampton Airport Future Case Forecast (2013) – Annual Volumes by Type....100 

Table 5-2: East Hampton Airport Future Case Forecast (2013) – Daily Volumes by Type...... 101 

Table 5-3: Comparison of 2008 and 2013 Annual Average Noise Contours.......................102 

Table 5-4: East Hampton Airport Future Case Forecast (2029), Annual Traffic By Type ......104 

Table 5-5: East Hampton Airport Future Case Forecast (2029), Daily Volume by Type ........105 

Table 5-6: Comparison of 2008 and 2010 Busy Day Noise Contours; Noise Contour Areas and 

Population.................................................................................. ........... 106 

Table 5-7: Flight Clearance and Noise Levels..........................................................108 

Table 5-8: Summary of Impacts.................................................................... ...... .117 

Table 6-1: Comparison of Peak Noise Levels – Closest House in Wainscott and 

Southampton......................................................................... .................. 121 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - vii - August 2010 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) has been prepared in accordance with 

New York State’s Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) to address environmental effects of proposed development at the East 

Hampton Airport. 

The proposed projects comprise a consensus plan for airport improvement tailored to support 

essential activities. It is based on a planning study conducted between 2004 and 2007 that 

evaluated several alternative plans. The GEIS completes the review and decision-making 

process and allows for continued citizen input. A Draft GEIS was prepared in July 2009 and 

made available to the public. A public hearing was held on September 17, 2009. In addition to 

oral comments, numerous written comments were submitted. A complete response to comments 

is included as Appendix I and, as necessary, text was revised or sections added in this Final 

GEIS. This GEIS may be supplemented as required after finalization of the Airport Layout Plan. 

A total of 14 proposed projects at East Hampton Airport are analyzed in this GEIS. They reflect 

a modest plan that concentrated on improved safety, efficiency and compliance with current 

design standards. None of these projects were found to have a significant impact on the 

environment based on State and Federal requirements. 

Purpose and Need – The purpose of this Proposed Action is to improve the safety, efficiency, 

and economic viability of the East Hampton Airport. The proposed projects minimize alterations 

to the existing airfield and achieve compliance with FAA design standards. 

Alternatives Analysis – The East Hampton Airport Master Plan Report considered various 

alternatives for each of the proposed projects, including the No Action alternative. Three 

potential runway configuration alternatives were considered, 1) retain Runway 16/34, 2) close 

Runway 16/34 and rehabilitate Runway 4/22, or 3) retain both runways. It was determined that 

rehabilitating Runway 4/22 and converting existing Runway 16/34 to a taxiway was less 

disruptive, more consistent with the layout and function of the airport and more cost effective. 

Forecasts of Aviation Demand – The methodology employed for this study takes the most 

recent based aircraft data set (2008) and applies the FAA growth rates anticipated for the 

industry to each individual category, which are then combined to arrive at the Airport’s total 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - viii - August 2010 

forecast of annual operations through the year 2029 (see table below). In general, there is limited 

growth forecasted over the next five years, with a greater increase over the 20 year period, 

particularly for jet and helicopter traffic. 

 

Twenty Year Forecast for East Hampton Airport Using FAA Forecast Table

2009

Actual

2010 2014 2019 2024 2029

Single Engine GA 14,296 13,753 14,311 15,071 15,997 16,980

Multi Engine GA 2,182 2,134 1,980 1,891 1,872 1,853

Helicopters 5,859 6,011 6,746 7,897 9,066 10,408

Jets 2,693 2,917 3,684 5,477 7,364 9,901

Total 25,030 24,815 26,721 30,335 34,299 39,143

Source: YES, Inc.; FAA Terminal Area Forecast Table 28 (2009-2030) 

Environmental Impacts – None of the proposed projects is expected to cause significant 

environmental impacts. This GEIS analyzed existing conditions and expected environmental 

impacts for all required impact categories, including air quality, water quality, wetlands, 

endangered species of flora and fauna, and historic and cultural resources. 

Noise impacts are a major concern at East Hampton; therefore, an extensive analysis of existing 

and expected future impacts was performed. For both the average day and the busy day in the 

forecast year 2013, all areas at the annual average DNL 65 level and above are entirely on 

airport. The same is true for the average day in the forecast year 2029, with the exception of a 

small area on the western border of the Airport. No structures are expected to be enclosed by the 

contour. 

Mitigating Measures – The proposed development is deliberately limited in scope, avoids 

growth inducing measures, avoids wetland areas and avoids the need for extensive mitigation 

actions. This concept is consistent with a variety of Town practices, policies and procedures 

which form the administrative context for the Airport. 

Design measures in the airfield design will mitigate air pollutant emissions by reducing taxiing 

distances and potential delays to arriving and departing aircraft. Airport management practices 

will prevent contamination of the groundwater and allow for bird and wildlife sustenance during 

breeding seasons. Construction practices and timing will reduce erosion and sedimentation and 

incorporate appropriate stormwater management. 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - 1 - August 2010 

EAST HAMPTON AIRPORT

FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.0 Introduction 

East Hampton Airport has been working to develop a Master Plan that is acceptable to the Town 

and surrounding community for nearly two decades. Issues with noise and concern for 

environmental resources require detailed analysis of the impacts from any proposed 

development. 

A planning study conducted between 2004 and 2007 pointed to several alternative plans and 

management schemes culminating in a consensus plan for airport improvement tailored to 

support essential activities without triggering unwanted and uncontrollable growth. At the time 

of submission, the consensus recommendation from the planning team was the reactivation and 

repaving of Runway 4/22, with Runway 10/28 continuing in approximately its current 

configuration, and the closure of Runway 16/34 and its conversion to a taxiway. See Appendix A 

for summary of comments from a public hearing in July 2007. In order to fully consider 

environmental impacts associated with all proposed developments and opportunities on the 

Airport, an environmental impact statement is required, in accordance with New York State’s 

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). This will provide the Town additional 

information for further vetting of the desired objective. 

Thus, a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) has been prepared. This document can 

then be used to complete review and decision-making within the Town, allow for continued 

citizen input, and resolve land use issues and environmental issues on airport. It may then be 

readily supplemented as required after finalization of the Airport Layout Plan. This GEIS 

summarizes environmental concerns to date, discusses and resolves remaining on airport land 

use issues, resolves the integration of portions of the airport tract into conservation land, and 

provides for a final public review and airing of concerns. 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - 2 - August 2010 

The following proposed projects at East Hampton Airport are analyzed in this GEIS (see Table 

1-1 and Figure 1-1): 

• Rehabilitate Runway 4/22 and reactivate (currently closed) 

o Shorten by 126 feet at Runway 22 end and institute displaced land threshold of 60 feet to 

comply with FAA standards 

o Trim any trees that penetrate the approach surface at the Runway 22 end, per FAR Part 

77 

• Convert Runway 16/34 to taxiway; remove pavement at both ends 

• Relocate Daniel’s Hole Road at Runway 28 to comply with FAA safety standards and allow 

full use of Runway 10/28 

• Improve taxiway system 

o Add bypass taxiway at the Runway 28 end 

o Extend Taxiway G to Runway 28 end 

o Complete parallel taxiway north of Runway 10/28 through midfield 

• Construct additional Fuel Farm near Taxiway G to serve southern Fixed Base Operator 

(12,000 gallon above ground storage tank for Jet A fuel) 

• Modify Vehicle Parking near Terminal Building; add paved parking spots for rental cars and 

employees 

• Construct Maintenance Building south of Terminal Building 

• Install Automated Weather Observation Station (AWOS) in midfield 

• Install Seasonal Control Tower in north or south corner of Runways 4/22 and 10/28 

intersection (a trailer with full surround windows); construct Access Road from Daniel’s 

Hole Road 

• Acquire or control land use through easement in Runway Protection Zones (4 ends, total of 

0.71 acres) 

• Release sites along Industrial Road in southern portion of site for non-aeronautical 

development 

• Reserve site off of Daniel’s Hole Road in northern portion of Airport as future Industrial Site 
 

 

East Hampton Airport Final GEIS - 95 - August 2010 

The No Action alternative would have no AWOS installation, increasing the potential for aircraft 

approaching the Airport in low visibility conditions when landings are not feasible resulting in 

additional noise events and prevent the potential reclassification of the airspace environment.

4.8 FBO Improvements 

The southern FBO area is proposed to be improved with a fuel storage facility to eliminate the 

need for trucking fuel from the existing facility located on the north side of the Terminal Area. 

This reduces fuel consumption by trucks, and speeds fueling operations. It may be advantageous 

to install a second fuel farm area for the northern FBO and eliminate the existing Town operated 

facility. This would eliminate the Town’s role as the “middle man” in operating and financing 

the fuel farm and procuring adequate fuel stocks. Under the No Action alternative, the existing 

northern fuel farm would remain the only fuel facility on the Airport. Fuel trucks would continue 

to serve the southern FBO. 

The northern FBO area includes two older large hangars that are proposed for replacement and 

enlargement, but plans are not shown on Figure 1-1 since the proposal is in the early phase of 

preparation. This proposal is stimulated by the fact that the existing structures are antiquated, and 

insufficient under roof space is available to handle some aircraft already on the Airport. Any 

such proposal will be evaluated under current Town government consensus on avoiding growth 

inducing expansion proposals (see Decision-Making Model in Appendix H). 

4.9 Terminal Area Improvements 

Two projects are proposed for the terminal area and are already underway. A maintenance 

building will be constructed on a site fronting on the terminal ramp south and east of the terminal 

building. The site is cleared and the foundation is already in place. The No Action alternative 

would result in no construction of the maintenance building. 

The parking area that serves the main terminal building is being expanded. The currently turfed 

area along the southern margin is being paved to provide dedicated spaces for rental cars. A 

second turfed area on the north side of the existing parking area is being paved for additional 

employee parking. Alternative locations would require construction of parking outside of the 

current Terminal Area which would be less convenient for airport users. Under the No Action 
Exhibit 08 

FAA ALP Conditional Approval, 2011 




Exhibit 09 

December 1, 2011 Consultant Presentation 
Comprehensive Managem

Plan for East Hampton Ai

[[[

Safety, Noise and Operat

Peter J. Kirsch

December 1, 2011
Today’s Presentation

Review basic principlesExplain Councilman Stanzione and swork on preparing comprehensive management planDiscuss immediate stepsOutline possible elements of a management plan
Basic legal principles

1. Town is currently ‘grant obligated’ to FAA

Most obligations (34) expire in 2021FAA has agreed not to enforce two after 2Three are permanent so long as Airport is 

2. Town’s ability to address noise and safety i

not significantly affected by FAA grants, buaffected by cooperation with FAA

3. There is considerable legal uncertainty abo

would happen in 2021 with no new FAA graresolving that uncertainty would cost millionlitigation
Developing the management pla

Councilman Stanzione, working with consultants, and counsel to draft management plan to address safetyand airport operationsEffective, comprehensive and aggreAdopt best practices at other airportaccept FAA grants

Focus first on next six monthsSome measures require FAA cooperat
Mr. Stanzione’s suggested assumpt1. The Airport must be a good neighbor2. All reasonable measures should be considered3. Examine what can be implemented immediate4. Plan should be comprehensive, dealing with A

management in broad terms, across professiondisciplines, including noise 

5. Measures should each be cost effective 

(reco

the most effective and least costly measures fi

6. Program should be evaluated to determine whe

proceed to next step; use Town-established me

7. Program should be financially sustainable8. No physical expansion of the Airport
Comprehensive managemen

Finances

Noise

Operations

Safety
Current status

This Board has invested 18 months build a solid foundation for the management plan

;ALP submitted and approved;Established cooperative relationship w;Led regional effort to address helicopte

routes

;Approved funding for seasonal control ;Hired engineer to develop plan for tow;Negotiated with FAA over airspace
Proposed immediate relief

1. Continue process for FAA approval of Class D 

(immediate)

2. Finalize contract for control tower (Robinson) (3. Secure FAA funding commitment (30 days)

4. Finalize management program (30 days)5. Formalize protocol and technology for collectin

and safety data (begin within 30 days)

6. Adopt new Town policy on role of Airport (30 d7. Develop strategy and timetable for implementi

helicopter restrictions (60 days)

8. Install temporary seasonal tower (90 days)9. Start formal Part 161 process for a helicopter c

(180 days)
“Stair Step” implementatio

For each future initiative, evaluate•What is the cost?•How easy is it to implement?•How effective is it, using established

metrics?

•Should we take the next step?
Categories of 44 possible meas

Group I – Rules and regulations (12 meaGroup II – Mandatory operational rules (5 measures)Group III – Voluntary measures (11 measGroup IV – Capital improvements and facmodifications (8 measures) – 1 already implementedGroup V – Noise mitigation measures (3 measures)Group VI – Flight tracks and procedures measures)
Group I – Rules and regulatio

1. Adopt revised Town policy on mission o

Airport, and on safety and community imobjectives

2. Conduct inventory of existing rules, regu

and minimum standards

3. Research best practices for similar airpo4. Revise rules and regulations to accord w

best practices

5. Enforce rules and regulations in accord 

best practices
Group I

6. Revise minimum standards as 

appropriate

7. Revise rates and charges as appro8. Assess availability of services at nig9. Adopt ground movement rules10.Evaluate engine run-up rules11. Reassess revenue scheme12. Reevaluate landing fees
Group II – Mandatory operational ru

1. Restrict Stage I aircraft2. Restrict Stage II aircraft and helicop3. Restrict Stage III aircraft4. Adopt mandatory nighttime curfew5. Time of day restrictions
Group III – Voluntary meas

1. Research similar airports’ best prac

voluntary measures, rates and chaoperational rules

2. Evaluate success of voluntary curfe3. Increase hours of curfew4. Develop ‘fly quiet’ good-neighbor p5. Create web-based noise reporting6. Develop communications program 

discourage night operations
Group III

7. Adopt ‘carrot-and-stick’ program ab

night operators

8. Design temporary or permanent no

monitoring systems

9. Enhance noise event reporting10. Implement monetary reward system 

compliant operators

11.Establish oversight or advisory 

committees on management issues (including noise)
Group IV – Capital project

1. Establish permanent air traffic control to2. Work with FAA to permanently (not seas

commit facilities for protected HTO airsp

3. Review facilities that increase Town con

over terminal and ground operations

4. Improve airfield lighting5. Install ILS or similar instrumentation6. Modify airfield geometry7. Install noise barriers8. Establish dedicated helipads
Group V – Noise mitigatio

1. Land acquisition2. Sound attenuation/ insulation3. Prepare FAA-funded Part 150 Nois

Compatibility Program
Group VI – Flight procedu

1. Adopt preferential runway use prog2. Adopt mandatory flight tracks3. Establish noise abatement departu

profile

4. Create, communicate, and enforce 

South Shore helicopter route

5. Establish Class D airspace
Next Steps: Prepare plan

Begin immediate implementationSeek Town Board input on overall p

Priorities in Town’s best interestMeasuresMetrics for evaluating successFunding and cost thresholds

Refine initial list of tactics into an effmanagement programSeek direction on further steps
Questions

Peter J. Kirsch

pkirsch@kaplankirsch.com

www.airportattorneys.com
Exhibit 10 

Resolution 2012-860, Fuel Farm Consent Decree 

Exhibit 11 

Minutes from August 27, 2014 Special Town Meeting 
East Hampton Town Board 159 Pantigo Road

East Hampton, NY 11937

Special Meeting www.ehamptonny.gov

~ Minutes ~ Carole Brennan

Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:30 PM L T V

East Hampton Town Board Page 1 Printed 8/28/2014

I. Call to Order

6:30 PM Meeting called to order on August 27, 2014 at L T V, 75 Industrial Road, Wainscott, 

NY.

Attendee Name Organization Title Status Arrived

Kathee Burke-Gonzalez Town of East Hampton Councilwoman Present

Peter Van Scoyoc Town of East Hampton Councilman Absent

Sylvia Overby Town of East Hampton Councilwoman Present

Fred Overton Town of East Hampton Councilman Present

Larry Cantwell Town of East Hampton Supervisor Present

Carole A. Brennan Town of East Hampton Town Clerk Present

Elizabeth Vail Town of East Hampton Attorney Present

II. Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez's opening statement

Town Hall Meeting Introductory Statement

Good evening and welcome to this town hall meeting. The purpose of tonight's meeting is 

to provide the public an opportunity to comment on a problem that has gotten much worse 

and has gained increasing attention this summer - the problem of aircraft noise. In 

particular, helicopter noise. We hope to hear tonight not only about the problem - as you

experience it - but also your views on potential solutions.

This is a regional issue. So I was hoping to first get an understanding of where the folks 

joining us tonight are from. Please raise your hand if you are from the Town of East 

Hampton. The Town of Southampton. Shelter Island. The North Fork. Thank you.

Before we open up the microphone, I wanted to make a few introductory comments.

First, let me stress how complex this issue is.

Everyone wants a solution to the problem of noise - including the Town Supervisor and my 

colleagues on the East Hampton Town Board. 

While the Town of East Hampton operates the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board does 

not have the authority simply to order a solution to the noise problem. We cannot order 
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 2 Printed 8/28/2014

planes and helicopters to stop flying and we cannot just close our airport. The federal 

government has exclusive control over how and where aircraft - including helicopters - fly.

The Town has no control over aircraft in flight.

Even though air traffic is a federal responsibility, the Town does have some authority over 

who can use our airport and when they can arrive and depart. There is a fine line between 

our power as a Town and the power of the federal government. And I can assure you that 

we intend to exercise our Town authority within the limits of the law. Let me emphasize: the 

East Hampton Town Board is committed to do everything we legally can do to address this 

problem.

Those limits on our authority apply regardless of whether the Town ever again takes federal 

grant funds. Let me briefly address the question of federal grants.

As many of you know, the Town today must comply with the laws that regulate airports that 

have received federal grant funds. Some of those requirements will expire at the end of this 

year unless the Town decides to seek additional federal grants. Some other requirements 

will continue through 2021. We are committed to carefully considering the consequences of 

taking grants on our ability to control the problem of airport noise and on our ability to 

serve the needs of the East End communities. There is no deadline for a Town Board 

decision and we are not going to make a quick decision on this critical topic just for the sake 

of making a decision.

We need to and we will work within the law - which means working with other airports, the 

federal government, airport users and affected homeowners to find a workable solution.

Let me stress that this Town Board will not make promises that the Town can't keep.

Therefore, everyone needs to be realistic. The Town must follow a complex web of laws, 

procedures and requirements before we can take any action to address the noise problem.

The annoyance of airport noise affects many, many residents on both the North and South 

Forks. No one has to tell us that there is a noise problem - we know that. But, before we 

can direct a solution, we have to collect data about where and when the problem is worst, 

and what actions we can take within the limits of the law.

Tonight's meeting is part of that process of collecting information - so we can adopt a 

solution that addresses the problem without inappropriately discriminating against any 

particular user.

But let me be very clear: the Town Board is absolutely committed to addressing the noise

problem and finding a lawful solution. We know that there are many people who demand a 

solution but there are also people who do not want us to succeed. This will be a tough road 
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 3 Printed 8/28/2014

but we will do whatever we legally can do, to address the intolerable situation for many 

neighborhoods.

It will serve no one's interests for the Town Board to act precipitously or irresponsibly. The 

Town Board will listen to residents, businesses and airport users and, with the help of our 

noise experts, lawyers and consultants, will develop a solution that best serves not only 

East Hampton neighborhoods but also residents of neighboring towns who are adversely 

affected by aircraft noise. 

Second, this public meeting is part of an on-going process which started eight months ago 

when I began my tenure on the Town Board. We have already made progress in setting the 

groundwork for addressing - and solving - the problem of noise from the airport and 

ensuring that management of our airport is consistent with the best interests of the greater 

East End community.

Just by way of example, we have already taken a number of steps:

We have appointed three independent advisory committees to address airport 

finances, infrastructure, capital and noise issues. These committees have been working 

diligently and have already been providing useful data and analysis to the Town Board. I 

want to thank these volunteers for their untold hours of hard work which will be critically 

important for our ultimate decisions.

We have hired a noise expert to begin analyzing noise and complaint data so we can 

understand not only the nature of the problem - all of you here tonight are testament to the 

problem - but possible solutions.

We have adjusted airport fees to make sure that the Town has the financial ability to 

operate and maintain a safe airport without federal grant funds, if we decide that that is the 

best course of action.

And we are in the process of hiring an engineering consultant to help us address 

deferred maintenance to ensure that the airport remains safe.

In the coming weeks, we will outline in great detail the process we will use and our 

timetable for adopting appropriate rules to address the noise problem.

When you came in this evening you should have been handed a register for you to provide 

your name, town, neighborhood and basic information about the issues for which you are 

most concerned. Please fill out this sheet so it can become part of the legal record.
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 4 Printed 8/28/2014

Tonight's meeting will be broadcast live on government access television in the Towns of 

East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, and Southold. The Town Board would like to 

thank Joan Gilroy and her team at Cablevision for making this possible. We will also retain a 

video in Town files for reference as the Town Board considers how best to address this 

problem.

Finally, I request that everyone observe basic rules of civility. I know that emotions run 

high whenever we talk about noise issues but it won't help anyone to have cheering, jeering 

and interruptions. We are here to listen so please be respectful and let us hear the 

speakers.

Thank you.

III. Concerns of East End Residents Impacted by Fixed Wing and Helicopter 

Noise

Supervisor Cantwell gave a brief introduction to the meeting. Councilwoman BurkeGonzalez read an opening statement on the reasoning for the meeting. She asked for a 

show of hands from the attendees as to the area in which they live. She states that the 

control of aircraft is with the FAA. We only can limit the time and type of aircraft. She

spoke about Federal Grants and the requirements that come along with taking them.

Tonight's meeting is for collecting information. The board is definitely looking for an answer 

to the noise. It was noted that over 385 people are in attendance and to date 18,404 calls 

for complaints have been logged into the airport system.

Elected Officials:

Fred Thiele, State Assemblyman says he has attended several meetings on this subject. We 

have spent millions to protect our community character. We need to make sure our quality 

of life is protected. The airport has brought revenue into the area but now has grown so 

much that it has become a problem. Thank you for this regional meeting. This process and 

record is very important.

Legislator Krupski, says they also had this same type of meeting in Peconic last week. The 

north fork gets the brunt of the noise. Thank you for taking control of the airport.

Supervisor Scott Russell, thank you for hearing the problems. He read a portion of a 

resolution passed last night by the Southold Town Board. In part it asked East Hampton not 

to accept anymore FAA monies.
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 5 Printed 8/28/2014

Assemblyman Anthony Palumbo is the Assemblyman for the north fork. He lives in New 

Suffolk and at 6 every Monday morning he is also awaken by the noise of the helicopters 

heading back to NYC. He appreciates the Town having this meeting.

Supervisor James Dougherty, Shelter Island came with two of his board members and they 

also passed a resolution asking the town not to renew with the FAA come December 31st.

He also spoke about the routes that the aircraft take. They are very important. They 

definitely are not taking the water route. They have ban landings and takeoffs on Shelter 

Island. They gave up luxury for peace and quiet.

Anna Throne-Holst, Southampton Town Supervisor thanked the board for their help and 

having this meeting. It is wonderful that all the towns have been able to join together on 

this issue. They too passed a resolution asking EH not to accept any more FAA money. We

have a responsibility to govern in a way that reflects our times. Our economy is based on 

our quality of life. We need to work together on this matter to make it work. We have all 

learned that the voluntary way did not work.

Jeff Sander, North Haven Mayor also thanked this Town Board for all their help. No other 

boards were willing to take on the issue. You need to limit the number of flights. They too 

are passing a resolution. The entire region needs to ban together.

Legislator Jay Schneiderman, the areas he represents are all the areas that are affected.

This has been going on for many years and getting worse each year.

Residents:

Patricia Hope, EH thanked the Town Board for having the meeting. Asking people to pick up 

the phone 10 to 15 times to make complaints and speak to a robot is crazy. You need to 

have Congressman Bishop and Chuck Schumer listen to their constituents. Take a good 

look at the helicopters maybe they could land in Montauk.

Kathi Goldman, EH lives in the Northwest area and has been fighting this issue for years 

with no avail. The route needs to be changed; the times of the flights need to be restricted.

Bob Malafronte, Sag Harbor thanked board for meeting. They have had a big problem for 

the last three years. None of the helicopters are on the graphs that he is shown. He 

believes that 40% of the inbounds are not recorded. I am tired of complaining. He spoke 

about the recordings at the airport. We have a serious problem going on at the airport even 

with the help. Please figure it out equitable for all the towns.
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 6 Printed 8/28/2014

Joseph Messing, Shelter Island moved their 26 years ago. Over the last 2 years it has 

become very bad. They are being awakened at 1 and 2 in the morning. It is no longer a 

weekend problem. It is about 6 days a week. What is happening is off the record and flight 

patterns are not being followed.

Jim Mathews, EH representing the Northwest Alliance, this area is a Nature Preserve and is 

being greatly affected. He spoke about the affects of noise on animals. As the flights 

increase the plover have decreased and this year there was zero. It also affects humans.

He gave some particulars.

Jim Colligan, SI he just went to a meeting where no one listened. Thanks to this board for 

listening and caring. Reduce the number of flights coming in and out of the airport. Never 

underestimate your opponents is what they say and the pilots have. They moved to 

Shelter Island for the peace and quiet. There has been a 40% increase in air traffic.

Leni Salz, EH thanked board for trying to get issue under control. She lives near the Village.

There have been 19 to 20 flights in a two hour period. She spoke about pilot error. Why 

not charge members of the airport like golf clubs do. We want peace, quiet and East 

Hampton back.

Ken Pysffer, SI has been working on this problem for 3 years and this is the first board that 

was willing to listen to him. All the trouble is helicopters. He doesn't know what the answer 

is but the helicopter traffic needs to be limited.

Gary Giscombe, Sag Harbor pleased that the board is taking action. He has been in the SH 

Hills area for 35 years. The vibration in the area is horrible. Seaplanes land in the waters 

nearby. Reject FAA money and take control.

Julie Brumeister, BHCAC lives on Ocean Road in Bridgehampton and the helicopters and jets 

are the problems. The often have to stop talking as they go by. Who is going to police the 

situation?

Henry Rossi, SH says his concern is the safety issue. No one ever talks about that. There is 

more traffic than the airport can handle. Please consider safety.

Patricia Currie, SH everyone here has had enough of the noise and pollution components.

She wants to address the pilots that are making our lives hell. Your financial gain is 
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 7 Printed 8/28/2014

affecting us so please fly away. This is not an economic value for us. Thank you to the 

board for this meeting and trying to help the issue.

Steven Levine, SH a letter was read by Patricia Currie. He says that areas west are affected

the most. The pain is beyond imagination. He spoke about the Town previously taking FAA 

monies. The board can correct the mistakes of the past. Restrict the number of flights and 

type of planes. We have the right to peace and quiet.

Frank Dalene, EH started taking noise levels with a meter in 2007. From 2008 to 2009 he 

logged about 400 complaints. He formed Quiet Flights Coalition. He thanks this board for 

all their work in the last 8 months. Please take December very seriously. He spoke about a 

press release in 2009 from Senator Schumer and Congressman Bishop. That was 5 years 

ago. Please stop the torture.

Susan McGraw Kebet, EH thank you to all our board members and the other towns. She 

has lived here for 40 years. She spoke about how the airport noise has stolen life from her.

The opportunists just don?t care. We are being urbanized from the air. They want to arrive 

here fast to enjoy their weekend homes. The economy will not be destroyed. We will turn 

into a Coney Island. The airport should be for recreational flights. Give us back our peace 

and quiet.

David Lich Penster, SI spoke about the routes that the helicopters are taking over Shelter 

Island. He is a clinical analyst and he agrees with the effect of noise on animals and

humans. This is a health issue also.

Peter Wolf, EH appointed member of the town's noise committee and is a professional 

planner and an author of several books. He spoke about some of the plans that he was 

involved in over the years. We must emphasize on safety and noise issues. The only 

projects that should be taken on at the airport are ones that don't add traffic. A time 

restriction should be put in place. Next will be to close the airport. He suggests a few 

solutions; ban helicopters except for emergencies; operate the airport from 9 to 5; limit 

number of flights to 4 per hour; make every aircraft meet noise levels.

Ken Lipper, EH spoke about the direct flight patterns and the noise associated. His group 

sent out a questionnaire and they got back about 400 responses. They all agree that the 

board should not accept FAA money after December 31st. Please protect the public.

Senator LaValle, states that everyone is very united in this matter. He spoke about a letter 

signed in October of 2012 by all local officials asking for the southern route as the 

mandatory route. Much of this is just poor behavior. He lives in Port Jefferson and the 

problem exists there also. This is an economic issue for the east end and he supports the 

board. He is here to listen.
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 8 Printed 8/28/2014

Barry Raebeck, EH lives in Wainscott for 57 years. Thank you to the board for having this 

meeting. His 92 year old father was one of the first to start the environmental pushes in 

the area. Every time the developers were wrong. The natural unspoiled beauty of our 

habitat is why people want to live here. We are being robbed of our piece and beauty of our 

area.

Tom Macniven, EH resident of Wainscott shared a comment from a friend of his from the 

Sagaponack Sag Harbor area. He read a complaint she placed last year and the response 

she got from the Airport staff. Shut it up or shut it down.

Andy Bartle, EH says he smells the jet fumes and can't hear themselves talk. They come all 

hours of the night.

Ellen Cooper, EH she lives within the approach zone. Sometimes the seaplane is at tree top 

level at 2:45 am. We don't need this type of nonsense. She is going to join the parade that 

is getting out. This is important. 40 years ago she served on an airport committee and 

believes the records were lost or destroyed. Fight the FAA and don't let them tell us what 

to do. Other airports have ban helicopters.

James Ding, Noyac says he has spoken about these issues before. He has listened to the 

noise for too long. He thinks that the Supervisor and board can solve the problems. Go 

after the seaplanes and the cowboy pilots that do whatever they want. Close the airport 

and move operations to Montauk. Make our lives noise free and still help the few that want 

to fly. We don't want to have to keep repeating ourselves. Be the hero not the nero.

Tom Maguire, Cutchogue says he quit making the phone calls. Two Friday's ago he made 

42 calls. Every time he picks up the phone he gets angry. Many of his neighbors feel the 

same way.

Joan Osborne, EH says they do get planes over the Village that fly very low. Why would 

anyone else make money off the airport?

Gene Polito, Noyac secretary of the homeowners association. He spoke about noise in his 

area. It is impossible to call in every complaint. He has figured out how to stop the people 

who come over from talking, take them outside. He has been saying the same thing over 

and over again for years. Please do something about this situation. These pilots are like 

party crashers and then they want to sue us. Ban helicopters and keep this area for 

recreational use only.
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 9 Printed 8/28/2014

Amy Greenberg, Mattituck the problem is terrible on the North Fork. She has to wear 

earphones to go outside. Fly over the water and solve the problem. Save money and do 

your noise study at her house. Don't give the problem to someone else. They are going to 

form some type of protest for next summer is something isn't done.

Patricia Wadzinski, EH supports all her friends and neighbors and this is a critical problem.

Please come to a simple conclusion. Some are profiting at the expense of others. Control 

what comes in and out.

Sheryl Gold, EH thank you for this opportunity tonight. Here to support you in your 

decisions. She believes that Senator LaValle is totally wrong. The southern route does not 

work they are not following the route. This is far more that a nuisance, it is also about 

safety.

Barry Holden, Noyac added a couple of comments that other did not. He thinks we are up 

against a few groups that no one is thinking about. You have entities like UBER that are 

making a big killing on these flights. What to do next, the planning should start now and 

maybe we can cut them off at the pass.

Margaret Skabry, Peconic attended a town meeting her way and it was nice to see people 

from here attend that. She stopped making calls and going outside. She showed a picture 

of a helicopter that was just over the top of the tree tops at her home. You can make 

something happen, you need to do it for us. Why do you cater to them? Is their money so 

important? Ban them all. Be the heroes.

Janiculio Rosso, Jamesport thank you for inviting us. She use to live in Noyac. The 

helicopters fly right over the house. Some day one of them will come down in someone's

house. The people who come out here by helicopter are not spending money here. Do not 

take any more money from the FAA.

Teresa McCaski,Mattituck lives by the inlet. She is here to voice her frustration. No matter 

what she does or where she goes she cannot escape the noise. There are too many flights 

over the area. They should not be able to transition over the north shore to get to the 

south shore. They should have to fly at 3000 ft. People do need to continue to call in their 

complaints. Each complaint should be looked at by airport, board and FAA. No flights 

should be allowed over schools. They should fly over least populated areas. Fix the 

problems.

John Skabry, Peconic/Southold says that this is the most beautiful place and he doesn't 

know how the town lost the control. A study was done years ago to put an airport in 

Southold. It was thrown out in a matter of months. This is a federal problem. You have 

the fox watching the chicken coop. Why can't the EPS control noise?
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 10 Printed 8/28/2014

Madelene Meehan, EH Village thanked board for the meeting. When she wrote letters about 

the situation she got hate mail. Close the airport and don't take FAA money. Hopefully now 

someone will listen.

Charlot Taylor, EH she has lived by the airport since a child. She now feels like she lives in 

Vietnam. The noise is defining. Only emergency helicopters should be allowed. Her aunt 

started the airport many years ago. It was just for recreation and pretty soon prop planes 

will be afraid to fly here. Don't take FAA money anymore and take back the airport.

Restrict the flights and ban helicopters. This is a battle worth fighting for.

Linda James, EH thank you for being able to address such a wonderful town board. She 

lives on a beautiful pond in East Hampton. All of this requires an eco system that is being 

challenged. She sees problems happening right in her area.

Richard Prins, EH here to urge the board to enforce its noise ordinance. Make it so they will 

get quite equipment and fly higher. Work with the LIRR to get luxury cars to come out on 

an express route.

Martha respects all that she has heard tonight. She lives in Georgica Estates and they are 

being assaulted by jets, seaplanes and helicopters. We need to dramatically reduce the 

number of flights and the size of the planes and the noise they make. The airport does 

serve Southampton as well as East Hampton. Make the appropriate changes. Make it a 

recreational airport.

Elaine Noyac Civic Council spoke about information that is available at the airport. She is 

told that there is no data on certain helicopters. How can we after 911 not have track of all 

flights. Her group also passed a resolution urging the board not to take any more FAA 

money.

Tony Lambert from Bridgehampton for 35 years. The noise level is bad but does he care, 

no. The helicopters should be moved to Westhampton Airport. How can you make East 

Hampton a little bit better? He believes the board will take money in December.

Mike Bersin said he thought the traffic was only over his house. He spoke about a trip he 

took into the city by helicopter. They had to land in Wall Street because NYC doesn't allow 

helicopters to land in residential districts. My mother gave me a voluntary curfew. How do 

you think that worked? Something is going to happen with the way some of them fly.

Restrict it or close it.
Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2014

East Hampton Town Board Page 11 Printed 8/28/2014

Ken Dorph, Sag Harbor says that he moved from Springs to Sag Harbor 20 years ago and 

lives by the park. The noise is getting worse every year. His son plays ball at the park and 

the helicopter traffic is one after another. We need a transportation plan. Do not take any 

more FAA money. Get rid of commercial aspect at airport. Ban helicopters.

Kathy Cunningham wanted to thank the board for this meeting. The problem has been here 

for so many years. People must make the complaints.
Exhibit 12 

Resolution 2014-1186, Budget Modification – Airport 
East Hampton Town Board Meeting: 10/02/14 06:30 PM

159 Pantigo Road Department: Bookkeeping

East Hampton, NY 11937 Category: Budget

Prepared By: Len Bernard

ADOPTED Initiator: Len Bernard

Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez

RESOLUTION 2014-1186 DOC ID: 14435 

Updated: 9/18/2014 10:20 AM by Len Bernard Page 1

Budget Modification - Airport

Whereas, the Town anticipates revenue for landing fees to be $200,000 to $250,000 above 

what was projected and included in the 2014 operating budget, and

Whereas, as a result the fees paid the company that monitors and bills out landing fees for 

the Town needs to be adjusted accordingly for services rendered in September and 

anticipated by the end of the year, and 

Whereas, the Town also expects a spike in outside professional fees for legal services for 

the remainder of the year that requires more funding for the outside professional line, now 

therefore be it,

Resolved, that the Town Board instructs the Budget Office to make the following 

modifications to the 2014 operating budget for the airport:

Increase projected landing fees (Revenue Line SX0-41771 by $150,000

Increase expense line for outside professional SX5610-54520 by $100,000

Increase expense line for billing services SX5610-54124 by $50,000

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman

SECONDER: Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilman

AYES: Burke-Gonzalez, Van Scoyoc, Overby, Overton, Cantwell

4.A.2

Packet Pg. 15
Exhibit 13 

Resolution 2014-1295, Budget Modification – Airport 
East Hampton Town Board Meeting: 11/06/14 06:30 PM

159 Pantigo Road Department: Bookkeeping

East Hampton, NY 11937 Category: Budget

Prepared By: Charlene G. Kagel

ADOPTED Initiator: Charlene G. Kagel

Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez

RESOLUTION 2014-1295 DOC ID: 14624 B

Updated: 11/6/2014 9:13 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 1

Retain Services and Modification of Budget for Airport

Obstruction Analysis

Whereas, the Airport needs to cover expenses for a proposed Obstruction Study, to be 

funded with excess Airport Landing Fee Revenues collected for 2014; and

Whereas, Quantum Spatial will be contracted to perform the aerial photography and 

photogram metric mapping, at a cost not to exceed $23,000 and

Whereas, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Will be retained to analyze the aerial data of 

obstacle penetrations to the 20:1 OIS (Obstacle Identification Surface) to each end of 

runway 10-28 at a cost not to exceed $12,000 , Now therefore be it

Resolved, that the Town Board directs the Budget Office to make the following budget 

modification:

INCREASE:

Budget Line: SX0000.41771 Airport Landing Fees in the amount of $ 25,900.00

To:

Budget Line: SX5610.54520 Outside Professional in the amount of $ 25,900.00

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Increase airport Budget by $25,900 to be funded through Landing Fee Revenue SX0000 41771

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman

SECONDER: Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilman

AYES: Burke-Gonzalez, Van Scoyoc, Overby, Overton, Cantwell

4.A.15

Packet Pg. 128