### BY PERSONAL DELIVERY Office ofthe Chief Counsel May 20,2015

Attention: FAA Part 16 (Airport Proceedings Docket) AGC-610 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

# c NBRR 

# RECEIVED MAY 202015 PART 16 DOCKETS

Re: Part 16 Complaint: 

### National Business Aviation Association, Inc., Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Connecticut); PlaneSense, Inc.; Fly the Whale, Inc.; Eastern Air Express, Inc.; FL Aviation Corporation; Tuckaire, Inc.; Autonomic Controls, Inc.; Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Massachusetts); Wes Rae Contracting Corporation; Eagle Air, Inc.; andJET AS, Inc. 

## v. Town ofEastHampton, New York Dear Sirs: Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 16.23, the National Business Aviation Association, Inc. ("NBAA"), on behalf of its members generally and as the specifically authorized representative of eleven members
- Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Connecticut); PlaneSense, Inc.; Fly the Whale, Inc.; Eastern Air Express, Inc.; FL Aviation Corporation; Tuckaire, Inc.; Autonomic Controls, Inc.; Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Massachusetts); Wes Rae Contracting Corporation; Eagle Air, Inc.; and JETAS, Inc.
- (together, "Complainants") files this complaint against the Town of East Hampton, New York ("the Town" or "East Hampton"), as the owner, operator and sponsor of East Hampton Airport ("the Airport" or "HTO"). All communications with respect to this complaint should be addressed to: Steve Brown, Chief Operating Officer, NBAA, 1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, sbrown@nbaa.org, (202) 783-9000. This complaint centers on resolutions adopted by the Town on April 16, 2015, which amend 

## § 75.38 of the Town Code to impose: (1) an 11pm-7am curfew on operations at HTO, (2) an extended 8pm-9am curfew for aircraft deemed to be "noisy," 1 

### and (3) a prohibition on aircraft deemed to be "noisy" from conducting more than one take-off and one landing per week during the summer. See Exhibits 1-3. There are multiple reasons why the adoption of these resolutions by the Town is impermissible. 2

1Generally defined by the Town as an aircraft for which the FAA has published an Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater. The Town has published what purports to be a list of such aircraft, see Exhibit 4, but it does not appear to be accurate. For example, it includes the Bombardier Challenger 604, even though according to FAA Advisory Circular 36-1H (November 15, 2011) that aircraft has an AP level of 90.3 EPNdB. The Town's list also includes a multitude ofaircraft highly unlikely to operate at HTO, ranging from the Airbus A380 to the Sud Caravelle. 2 Although not within the scope of 14 C.F.R. Part 16, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, 49 U.S.C 

### § 47521 et seq. ("ANCA"), also appears to prohibit the Town's actions, absent the completion by the Town of a study pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 161, because the "noisy" aircraft include Stage 2 and (continued

.. .)

SAFETY &AIRCRAFT OPERATl ONS LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY ADVOCACV tJETWOAI<ING &COMMERCE EOUCATlON & CAREER DEVElOPMENT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT RESOURCES National Business Aviation Association 1200 GStreet NW, Suite 1'r1JO Washington. DC 20005 (202) 783-9000 www.nbaa.org

### This complaint specifically requests a ruling by the FAA that the extended curfew and take-off/landing restrictions are forbidden based on the prohibitions on "exclusive rights" that appear in 49 U.S.C. 

### § 40103(e) and grant assurance #23, 3 

### as well as that the Town's declared intent to fund its defense of the restrictions with airport revenue is incompatible with grant assurance #25. Complainants 

### 1. NBAA is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws ofthe District of Columbia and headquartered at 1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005. NBAA represents over 10,000 member companies which own and operate over 11,000 general aviation aircraft to facilitate the conduct of their businesses orwhich are otherwise involved with business aviation. NBAA members comprise a substantial segment of the general aviation community. NBAA acts as a spokesperson for business aviation before government agencies and the U.S. Congress and, in selected cases of importance, such as this one, represents its members' interests by initiating or participating in court actions and/or proceedings before regulatory agencies such as the FAA. 2. At least three NBAA members utilize the Airport as their home base. Additionally, NBAA members throughout the nation operate aircraft to and from the Airport and would be directly and substantially affected by the resolutions adopted by the Town. NBAA represents those affected members in this matter, both in general and specifically on behalf of those members named below, consistent with FAA precedent. See, e.g., Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. City of Santa Monica, no. 16-03- 11, Director's Determination, at 1 n.1 and 22 (January 3, 2004) (permitting NBAA to serve as the representative of its members in a Part 16 proceeding).
Stage 3 aircraft (and for the latter, affirmative FAA approval ofthe study also is required). While a letter apparently was sent by the FAA to a then-member of Congress in 2012 informally asserting that ANCA was not applicable to HTO after December 31, 2014, that letter is of no general authority
- and the asserted position is clearly contrary to City of Naples Airport Authority v. FAA, 409 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2005), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated that 

### § 47524(c)'s "requirement of FAA approval is not tied to grants; grants or not, no airport operator can impose a Stage 3 restriction unless the FAA gives its approval." ld. at 434. Likewise, although this complaint invokes only the statutory and grant-based prohibitions on exclusive rights, as a general principle of law, any local restrictions- even if not preempted by the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme for aviation- must be reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory, or they will be vulnerable to a court challenge. See, e.g., British Airways Board v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 558 F.2d 75, 84 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd, as modified, 564 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1977) and Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 43802, 43816 (July 14, 2000). 3 Although an April 2005 settlement agreement between the FAA and a third party purports to waive the enforcement of certain grant assurances at HTO (including #22(a) and #22(h)) after December 31, 2014, see Exhibit 4, the Town most recently accepted an Airport Improvement Program ("AlP") grant in 2001, which means that the remainder of its grant-based obligations should be effective through 2021. Moreover, the prohibition on exclusive rights remains effective so long as an airport continues to be operated. See. e.g., FAA Order 5190.6B, 

### § 4.6(h)(1).



### 2

### 3. Shoreline Aviation, Inc., (Connecticut) a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in Bridgeport, Connecticut that conducted approximately 700 operations at HTO in 2014, and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" a.t HTO, such as the Gulfstream G-Ill. 4. PlaneSense, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a fractional aircraft company based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire that conducted approximately 250 operations at HTO in 2014. 5. Fly the Whale, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in White Plains, New York, with one or more aircraft based at HTO, that conducted approximately 200 operations at HTO in 2014. 6. Eastern Air Express, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida that conducted approximately 40 operations at HTO in 2014. 7. FL Aviation Corporation, a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in Morristown, New Jerseythat conducted approximately 30 operations at HTO in 2014, and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" at HTO, such as the Dassault Falcon 2000, the Gulfstream G-IV, and the Gulfstream G-V. 8. Tuckaire, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in Trenton, New Jersey that conducted approximately 30 operations at HTO in 2014, and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" at HTO, such asthe Bombardier Challenger 601. 9. Autonomic Controls, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a technology company based in Armonk, New York that conducted approximately 30 operations at HTO in 2014. 10. Shoreline Aviation, Inc. (Massachusetts), a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in Marshfield, Massachusetts that conducted approximately 25 operations at HTO in 2014, and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" at HTO, such as the Cessna Citation 560. 11. Wes Rae Contracting Corporation, a member of NBAA, is a construction company based in Hauppauge, New York, with one or more aircraft based at HTO, that conducted approximately 25 operations at HTO in 2014. 12. Eagle Air, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in Danbury Connecticutthat conducted approximately 15 operations at HTO in 2014. 13. JETAS, Inc., a member of NBAA, is a charter management company based in White Plains, New York that conducted approximately 10 operations at HTO in 2014, and operates aircraft now deemed "noisy" at HTO, such as the Dassault Falcon 2000. 14. As Airport tenants, users, and/or a representative oftenants and users, each of the Complainants is "directly and substantially affected" by the Town's actions, as that phrase is used in 14 C.F.R. 

## § 16.23(a).



### 3

### Subject ofthe Complaint 

### 15. The Airport is owned, operated, and sponsored by the Town. 16. The pertinent names and addresses for the responsible persons at the Town of East Hampton are: Larry Cantwell, Supervisor, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY 19937, lcantwell@ehamptonny.gov; Elizabeth Vail, Town Attorney, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY 19937, evail@ehamptonny.gov; Jemille Charlton, Airport Manager, 200 Daniels Hole Rd, Wainscott, NY 11975, jcharlton@ehamptonny.gov. 17. As set forth below in greater detail, the newly-adopted restrictions. on "noisy" aircraft violate the prohibitions on "exclusive rights" that appear in 49 U.S.C. 

## § 40103(e) and grant assurance #23 (which is based on 49 U.S.C. 

## § 47107(a)(4)). 18. In addition, the recent declaration by the Town that it will use airport revenue to fund its legal defense to challenges to the resolutions implicates its compliance with grant assurance #25 (which is based on 49 U.S.C. 

### § 47107(b)). Facts 

### 19. The Airport is a public-use facility at which approximately 100 general aviation aircraft are based and approximately 25,000 operations are conducted each year. The Airport has received substantial federal funding, including $1.4 million in federal AlP assistance in FY2001 for terminal apron rehabilitation. 20. In April 2005, the FAA entered into a settlement agreement to conclude litigation with a third party that was related to the Airport; the agreement purported to waive enforcement ofcertain grant assurances after December 31, 2014. See Exhibit 5. 21. The settlement agreement did not purport to modify any of the Town's other grant-based obligations, or statutory obligations. The FAA generally understands that most grant-based obligations endure for 20 years; moreover, the prohibitions on exclusive rights remain effective so long as an airport continues to be operated. See,

**~.FAA** 

### Order 5190.68, 

### § 4.6(h)(1). 22. For at least several years, the Town has been planning to impose restrictions on certain types of aeronautical activities at HTO, predicated on an assumption (which Complainants believe is in error) that such restrictions would be allowable subsequent to December 31, 2014, based on the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Exhibit 6. 23. On March 12, 2015, the Town held a hearing at which it solicited public comments on four proposals (which had been publicly announced on February 10, 2015) to restrict certain types of aeronautical activities at HTO. 24. On April 16, 2015, the Town adopted resolutions implementing three of those proposals. In particular, they impose: (1) 

### an 11pm-7am curfew on operations at HTO, (2) an extended 8pm-9am curfew for aircraft deemed to be "noisy," and (3) a prohibition



### 4

### on aircraft deemed to be "noisy" from conducting more than one take-off and one landing per week during the summer. See Exhibits 1-3. 25. The Complainants understand that the resolutions became effective upon their filing with the New York Secretary ofState, which occurred on April29, 2015. 26. The Town adopted an additional resolution on May 7, 2015 which clarified the penalties and effective date of the restrictions, but which did not affect their substance. See Exhibit 7. This resolution does not appear to yet have been filed with the NewYork Secretary ofState. 27. On May 18, 2015, a hearing was held on pending litigation in federal court that also challenges the validity of the restrictions, but on different grounds.4 

### Judge Joanna Seybert indicated that she would rule on a pending injunction request by June 8, 2015, and in the meantime the Town agreed notto enforce the restrictions. Efforts at Pre-Complaint Resolution 

### 28. NBAA and other parties actively have opposed the Town's proposals

.. For example, on February 2, 2015, NBAA
- along with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ("AOPA") and the National AirTransportation Association ("NATA")- sent a letter to the Town, expressing concerns about anticipated restrictions and seeking a meeting with Town representatives. See Exhibit 8. 29. Representatives of NBAA, AOPA, and NATA subsequently met with Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez on February 27, 2015, to discuss their concerns and ask that the Town refrain from imposing restrictions. 30. In advance of the Town's hearing on March 12,2015, NBAA, AOPA, and NATA sent a further letter to the Town, expressing additional concerns about the proposed restrictions, as well as revenue diversion. See Exhibit 9. 31. A representative of NBAA also appeared at the hearing, and was one of many speakers to express concern about the proposed restrictions. See http://75.1tveh.org:2000/cablecastapi/embed?show id=2325 (including the remarks of Jeff Gilley, NBAA's Director ofAirports and Ground Infrastructure, at 3:12-3:14). 32. The FAA has recognized that similarly-positioned complainants are not required by 14 C.F.R. 

### § 16.21(b) to engage in further one-sided efforts to resolve a dispute with officials who have "for all practical purposes enacted the ordinance" that the complainants had opposed. See Bombardier, no. 16-03-11, at 23.

4 See E.D.N.Y. no. 15-CV-2246. An additional case also seeks to resolve the validity of the waivers that appeared in the April2005 settlement agreement See E.D.N.Y. no. 15-CV-0441.



### 5

### Applicable Law- Exclusive Rights 33. The FAA long has understood the prohibition on economic discrimination that appears in grant assurance #22(a) to be the "mirror image" of the prohibition on exclusive rights that appears in 49 U.S.C. 

## §401 03(e) and grant assurance #23. 34. As a result, if an airport imposes restrictions on one type of aeronautical activity that it does not impose on others, those discriminatory rules amount to the constructive grant of an impermissible exclusive right to the unrestricted operations. 35. That is exactly what has occurred in this case; i.e., non-"noisy" aircraft5 

### now have an exclusive right to conduct operations between 7-9am and 8-11pm, and to conduct more than one take-offand landing per week between May and September. 36. This is not a novel issue. For decades, FAA guidance has recognized that the concepts of economic discrimination and exclusive rights overlap. See. e.g.,.Exclusive Rights at Airports, 30 Fed. Reg. 13661, 13662 (October 27, 1965) ("[t]he application of any unreasonable requirement or standard

... or any requirement or standard which is applied in a discriminatory manner, shall be considered to be a constructive grant ofan exclusive right" ). 37. The principle that economic discrimination and exclusive rights are mirror images recently was restated in the FAA's revised airport compliance handbook: An exclusive right may be conferred either by express agreement, by imposition of unreasonable standards or requirements or by another means. Such a right conferred on one or more parties, but excluding others from enjoying or exercising a similar right or right, would be an exclusive right. Airport Compliance Manual, FAA Order 5190.68, 

### § 8.2 (September 30, 2009). 38. Likewise, in prior Part 16 proceedings the FAA specifically has found that the imposition of restrictions on a specific type of aeronautical activities amounts to an exclusive right and is prohibited. See. e.g., Bardin v. County of Sacramento. California, no. 16-00-11, Director's Determination, at 12 (August 9, 2001) ("the County's [ultralight] ban creates an unlawful exclusive right at Franklin Field. As a result of the ban, other aeronautical uses have been granted a special privilege in the use of the public use airport facilities while ultralight activities do not enjoy those rights"). 6

5 Non-noisy aircraft may include aircraft with an AP level of 91 EPNdB or greater but that are not within the scope of 14 C.F.R. Part 36 or for which there otherwise is no "published" data. 6 See also SelfServe Pumps, Inc. v. Chicago Executive Airport, no. 16-07-02, Director's Determination, at 19, n.16 (March 17, 2008) ("the Director declines to re-analyze the allegation of a constructive granting of an exclusive right after having analyzed the allegation under its component parts of unreasonable denial ofaccess and/or unjust economic discrimination, since the analysis is identical").



### 6

### 39. The FAA recently confirmed that its standards have not changed. See Hinshaw v. State of Hawaii, no, 16-12-04, Director's Preliminary Determination, at 46 (August 18, 2014) ("[t]he Respondent has granted an exclusive right for one aeronautical activity (commercial helicopter operations) to take place in the absence of State-approved operating rules and standards, while denying another aeronautical activity (commercial skydiving operations) the same privilege"). 7 

### 40. Accordingly, the terms of the recently passed resolutions that establish a selective, extended curfew for and limit operations by "noisy" aircraft on their face are incompatible with the Town's federal obligation not to grant exclusive rights at HTO, which
- irrespective of the FAA's purported waiver of the enforcement of other grant assurances - unquestionably remains in effect so long as HTO is operated as an airport (which is an obligation that itself endures until at least 2021). Applicable Law- Revenue Diversion 

### 41. Additionally, in response to pending litigation in federal court, the Town and its counsel have asserted that as a consequence they are being required "to spend scarce airportfunds to defend these restrictions." See Exhibit 10. 42. FAA guidance establishes that airport revenue may be used for "attorney fees to the extent these fees are for services in support of

### airport capital or operating costs that are otherwise allowable." 

### FAA Order 5190.6B, §15.9(d) (emphasis added). East Hampton has asserted that it will use airport revenue to support an unallowable 

### purpose

- i.e., imposing restrictions at HTO that are contrary to federal law. 43. Likewise, if the Town were to use airport revenue to procure legal services to respond to this complaint, it would be using airport revenue for an unallowable purpose. 44. The Town is obligated to draw upon general funds and its tax base- and not airport funds- if it is to pursue an anti-airport agenda. Federal law should not and does not allow the costs of restricting access to an airport to be borne by airport users. See, g,g,_, 

### In the Matter of Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City of Chicago, Illinois, docket no. 16-04-09, Notice of Investigation, at 2 (October 1, 2004) ("costs related to the deactivation of Meigs as an airport

. . . were not incurred for airport purposes and are not capital or operating costs of an airport").8

7 See also 41 North 73 West Inc. v. County of Westchester, New York, no. 16-07-13, Final Agency Decision, at 37 (September 18, 2009), aff'd 408 Fed. Appx. 393 (2d Cir. 2010) ("FAA has taken the position that the application of any unreasonable requirement or any standard that is applied in an unjustly discriminatory manner may constitute the constructive grant ofan exclusive right"). 8 See also Boca Airport,.lnc. d/b/a Boca AViation v. Boca Raton Airport Authority. docket no. 16-00-10, Director's Determination, at 42 (April 26, 2001) ("[a] payment of airport revenue to a private firm can be considered unlawful revenue diversion if it is not for an airport purpose (i.e. for general economic development)"). The FAA subsequently took the same position in its Final Agency Decision and Order (March 20, 2003). An unrelated section ofthat decision was affirmed at 389 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2004).



### 7

### 45. Accordingly, the FAA 

### should both investigate the Town's current compliance with the prohibition on revenue diversion that is embodied in grant assurance #25 -given its public declaration that in pending litigation it will use airport revenue for an unallowable purpose- and further warn the Town of its obligation not to engage in revenue diversion in connection with the pending litigation, this complaint, or any other matter that does not advance the interests ofthe Airport.9 

### ReliefSought 

### 46. As an initial matter, Complainants request that the FAA 

### on an expedited basis enter an interim cease-and-desist order to maintain the status quo at the Airport. The restrictions that the Town has adopted, by its own calculations, would prohibit a significant share of all airport operations (up to 23% of operations at HTO according to a study performed for the Town, see Exhibit 11), and are likely to permanently cripple the airport
- i.e., by driving existing tenants out of business and undercutting the airport budget. Absent such an order, there is a significant risk that an ultimate ruling by the FAA 

### in favor ofthe Complainants regarding exclusive rights would be a pyrrhicvictory. Although a federal injunction of the enforcement of the restrictions has been requested in litigation, the matter has not yet been ruled upon and it is premised on different grounds than those raised in this complaint. 47. Complainants further request that the FAA 

### issue an order: finding that the resolutions adopted by the Town are incompatible with the exclusive rights-related statute and grant assurance (#23) applicable to the Town; finding that the Town's proposal to use airport revenue to support the resolutions in legal proceedings is incompatible with the grant assurance (#25) applicable to the Town; and directing the Town to take corrective action subject to the suspension offurther AlP grants and other appropriate enforcement measures; and granting all other relief that is necessary and proper. Respectfully submitted,

Steve Brown Chief Operating Officer, NBAA

9 lt is well established that the FAA, in a Part 16 proceeding, may address not only current compliance issues but current practices that are likely to result in future violations. See, e.g., JetAway Aviation LLC v. Board of Commissioners Montrose County, Colorado, docket no. 16-06-01, Director's Determination, at 34 (November 6, 2006); Town of Fairview, Texas v. City of McKinney, Texas, docket no. 16-99-04, Director's Determination, at 17 (July 26, 2000).



### 8

### Certificate of Service 

### I hereby certify that I have this day I caused the foregoing complaintto be served on the following persons at the following addresses by first class mail, postage prepaid, with courtesy copies by electronic mail:
• Larry Cantwell, Supervisor, 

### 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY 

### 19937, lcahtwell@ehamptonny.gov;

• Elizabeth Vail, Town Attorney, 

### 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY 

### 19937, evail@ehamptonny.gov; and
• Jemille Charlton, Airport Manager, 200 Daniels Hole Rd, Wainscott, NY 

### 11975, jcharlton@ehamptonny.gov. Dated this 20th day of May 2015.

Steve Brown



### 9

### Section 16.13(e) and Section 16.211bl Certification I hereby certify, pursuant to 14 C.F.R 

### § 16.13(e), that this filing is based on my knowledge and information and belief; that this filing is consistent with 14 C.F.R. Part 16; that the Complaint is warranted by existing law; thatthis filing is not imposed for any improper purpose such as to harass or delay. I also herby certify, pursuant to 14 C.F.R 

## § 16.21(b), that substantial and reasonable good faith efforts were made to resolve the disputed matter informally priorto this filing (as discussed in the. body thereof) and there appears to be no reasonable prospectfor timely resolution ofthe dispute. Dated this 20th day of May 2015.

Steve Brown



### 10

### East Hampton Town Board 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2015-411 Meeting: 04/16/15 06:30PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Local Law Prepared By: Elizabeth Vail Initiator: Elizabeth Vail Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez DOC ID: 15229 B 

## Adopt Local Law- Amending Chapter 75 (Airport) ofthe Town Code Regulating Nighttime Operation ofAircraft at East Hampton Airport WHEREAS, the Town of East Hampton is an established resort community that is renowned for its peaceful, quiet beaches and outdoor areas; and WHEREAS, the economy of the Town of East Hampton is tied intrinsically to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world-renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets; and WHEREAS, residents and visitors are attracted to the Town and the East End of Long Island to enjoy the area's unique scenic beauty, its outdoor spaces, and the peaceful and restful atmosphere they provide; and WHEREAS, peace, quiet, repose, outdoor recreation, sea, air, and a beautiful and unique natural environment are the essential characteristics that make East Hampton and the East End, as a whole, such an attractive and desirable area; and WHEREAS, the Town and its residents have invested heavily in preserving the rural, quiet pace of life by preserving land and adopting land use policies that are designed to protect the unique quality of life in East Hampton; and WHEREAS, in the busy season of May
- September, residents and visitors spend a significant portion of time outdoors engaged in recreational activities, entertaining, dining with family and friends, and otherwise enjoying the peaceful, restful atmosphere of the area; and WHEREAS, the unique quality of life in the Town and entire East End means that residents are particularly susceptible to disturbances to their pastoral lifestyle, especially when those disturbances interfere with the qualities which make this Town a highly desirable place to live and visit; and WHEREAS, the area surrounding the East Hampton Airport is notably quiet because of the lack of industrial noises, relatively low population density and rural roadway network, which, taken together, accentuates the perception of noise, both in terms of peak levels and also in terms of the duration ofthe noise events themselves; and WHEREAS, in the past three decades, noise from aircraft overflights has disrupted outdoor activities and diminished the quality of life in the Town and the entire ofthe East End; and WHEREAS, the aircraft noise problem has increased dramatically in recent years, as overall operations increased by 23 percent from 2013 to 2014 and helicopter operations alone increased by 47 percent from 2013 to 2014; and WHEREAS, noise from loud aircraft and helicopters is particularly disruptive because it interrupts conversations and other ordinary activities and makes it very difficult to enjoy
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 1 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015

outdoor activities; and WHEREAS, the sheer frequency of overflights also poses a significant problem because there are extended periods of repeated loud noise events that make it very difficult to enjoy outdoor activities and that destroy the peaceful quiet of this rural area; and WHEREAS, aircraft noise has been a major source of controversy and community strife for many years, with increasingly strong demands by the public that the Town take action to reduce the disruptive and harmful effects of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, the controversy has resulted in a number of lawsuits, and additional threatened lawsuits, aimed at compelling the Town or the federal government to take action to address the problem of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, in its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, aircraft noise is not merely annoying and disturbing but threatens the economic vitality of the Town and its brand as a place where people can escape the noise and stresses of urban life in favor of tranquility and rural quiet; and WHEREAS, that threat could result in lower rates of visitation, reduction in property values, and, more generally, a loss in the attractiveness of the Town; and WHEREAS, in addition to formal noise complaints, residents and visitors have expressed their anger and frustration about aircraft noise at numerous public meetings, Town Board meetings, in letters to local papers, and in communications with Town officials; and WHEREAS, the problem of aircraft noise was a major topic of discussion and debate in the recent Town election; and WHEREAS, the Town has received numerous communications from residents and officials of neighboring and nearby jurisdictions demanding that the Town take action to reduce the effect of noise from aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southampton, the Town Shelter Island, the Town of Southold, the Village of North Haven, the Village of East Hampton, and the Village of Sag Harbor all have adopted resolutions requesting that the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton adopt a comprehensive aircraft noise limitation policy; and WHEREAS these other towns and villages, and all residents and visitors to the East End, depend upon the Town to address the aircraft noise problem since the Town operates the East Hampton Airport, which is the destination of many ofthe noisy aircraft flights; and WHEREAS, for over two decades, the Town has diligently identified and promoted voluntary measures, including helicopter noise abatement procedures and a nighttime curfew, in order to secure relief from the disturbance of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the New York Congressional delegation, to discuss this issue in the hope of finding a federal legislative solution to the problem of aircraft noise; and
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 2 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials at the local, regional and headquarters level and with the FAA's Air Traffic Organization, to discuss proposed measures and use restrictions, including the use of voluntary measures; and WHEREAS, the Town worked with the New York Congressional delegation and all levels of the FAA in the implementation of a mandatory North Shore Helicopter Route, which was initially implemented in August 2012 and recently extended through August 2016; and WHEREAS, the Town has repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the FAA to adopt a mandatory helicopter route along the south shore of Long Island or to adopt mandatory transition routes for helicopters transitioning from the mandatory routes to the East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town has spent the last several summer seasons studying various voluntary measures or measures in cooperation with the FAA to address the noise problem but the level of resident concern has actually increased over that time; and WHEREAS, the Town's past several years of efforts to address the problem of aircraft noise through voluntary measures promoted by the Town combined with mandatory flight tracks for helicopters imposed by FAA have provided some limited relief in certain neighborhoods, but those measures alone have not reduced to an acceptable level the overall intensity of community disturbance from noise associated with aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town's ability to address the problem of aircraft noise has been constrained legally by obligations under certain of its federal grants that the FAA has stated will no longer be enforced after December 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Town first announced its intent to pursue use restrictions on operations at East Hampton Airport to address the problem of aircraft noise by the adoption of Resolution 2012-832 on August 2, 2012; and WHEREAS, Town officials and staff have met repeatedly with airport stakeholders, including Eastern Region Helicopter Council, Friends of the East Hampton Airport, the National Business Aviation Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Air Transportation Association, and other informal local groups of users and service providers to discuss their respective concerns; and WHEREAS, the Town held a special public meeting on August 27, 2014, provide the public an opportunity to comment on the problem of aircraft noise and to share views on potential solutions and the meeting was attended by almost 400 people, including 22 elected officials, all of whom expressed support for finding a solution to the noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town announced its commitment to finding a solution to disturbance resulting from noise associated with Airport operations; announced its intent to adopt lawful measures to ensure the peace, quiet, tranquility and health of communities affected by Airport noise; resolved to consider the most serious disturbances, the causes of the disturbances, and reasonable and practical solutions tailored to address the source of those disturbances before making a decision; and announced its intent to identify and adopt Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 3 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

regulations to address noise and disturbance from Operations at East Hampton Airport before the 2015 season by the adoption of Resolution 2014-1180 on September 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, FAA's traditional Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric has proved, after considerable study, not to be a useful tool for measuring the impact of noise from operations at East Hampton Airport because it averages noise data over 24 hours, and does not capture the demonstrated community annoyance and disruption from individual aircraft noise events (especially noise events associated with helicopters); and WHEREAS, beginning in 2014, the Town commissioned a series of comprehensive analyses of the noise and related complaints, including the following:

• Henry Young of Young Environmental Sciences and Les Blomberg of Noise Pollution Clearinghouse: (1) analyzed 2013 operational data collected by the AirScene system, (2) converted that data for use in the Integrated Noise Model (INM), (3) used the INM to develop Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours for 2013 operations (for total annual operations, annual helicopter operations, busiest day total operations, and busiest day helicopter operations), (4) used the INM to calculate the maximum sound level (Lmax) for each modeled flight in 2013 at each property parcel in a 10-mile radius from the airport, (5) applied the Town Code noise standards to determine the number of "exceedances" (i.e., the number of times each parcel experienced a noise impact above the Town's limits) by aircraft type and type of operation; and

• Peter Wadsworth analyzed 2014 complaint data collected by the PlaneNoise system; and

• Ted Baldwin of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) led HMMH analyses of November 1, 2013
- October 31, 2014 data, including: (1) analysis of PlaneNoise complaint data to identify temporal and geographic complaint patterns for different aircraft types (e.g., jet, turboprop, piston prop, seaplane, and helicopter), (2) analysis of Vector operations data to identify patterns of activity by day of year, day of week, hour of day (for each day of the week and for the average annual day), and season; (3) correlated PlaneNoise complaint data and Vector operations data to identify patterns; (4) used the independent and correlated data analyses to develop a refined problem definition and promising alternatives for addressing that definition; (5) analyzed the effect of those alternatives in terms of the historical operations that each would have affected and of the associated noise complaints; and (6) identified and reviewed technical studies in the literature that have attempted to identify the most effective noise metric for understanding response to helicopter noise, whether the metric should include a special "adjustment" for helicopters, and otherwise provide useful information on the best means of assessing helicopter noise and predicting human response; and WHEREAS, the Town also commissioned several advisory groups to assist in identifying the Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 4 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015

noise problem with specificity and identifying meaningful, practical and carefully tailored measures that the Town could adopt which would help reduce or eliminate the noise problem; and WHEREAS, these advisory groups have held many, many public meetings, discussions and debates about how best to address the Town's noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town held meetings on October 30, 2014; December 2, 2014; and February 4, 2015; to review the findings of each phase ofthe recent noise analyses; and WHEREAS, the Town Board announced four proposed use restrictions for East Hampton Airport on February 10, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Town Board held public hearings on March 12, 2015, to consider the following four local laws amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code: (1) a local law to regulate nighttime operation of aircraft; (2) a local law to regulate nighttime and early morning operation of noisy aircraft; (3) a local law to regulate the operation of helicopters; and (4) a local law to regulate the operation of noisy aircraft; and WHEREAS, the Town has been soliciting public comment through encouraging comments at Town Board meetings, and emailed comments through a dedicated email address; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed all of those comments plus written comments and comments appearing in several local newspapers over the course of the last year; and WHEREAS, there is no single or simple measure which is certain to solve the Town's noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town is committed to testing measures for their practical, real-world effectiveness but needs to have at least one summer season to collect adequate data on real world effects; and WHEREAS, the Town is committed to collecting data during the summer 2015 season and to assessing all noise control measures in October 2015 for their effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the Town will modify any restrictions to improve their effectiveness based upon the results of these restrictions during the summer 2015 season; and WHEREAS, the Town encourages residents, visitors, airport stakeholders, users and all other interested parties to provide the Town with input on the effectiveness of particular measures in addressing, mitigating or eliminating the noise problem; and WHEREAS, after considering the history of noise disturbance caused by operations at the Airport, reviewing the data provided by the Town's consultants and the comments of the public, and after holding public hearings, the Town Board believes that the enactment of a local law to implement a nighttime curfew at the East Hampton Airport is in the best interests of the Town of East Hampton for the following reasons:
• Disturbance by all types of aircraft is most significant in the evening, nighttime, and early morning hours; and
Updated: 4/17/201511:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 5 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

• Professional studies confirm that nighttime aircraft noise is highly disturbing, that it can disrupt normal sleep patterns, and that it has a particularly serious adverse effect on people's lives; and

• The Town's voluntary curfew has not proven to be sufficiently effective at reducing nighttime noise from aircraft and nighttime operations still generate a significant number of complaints; and WHEREAS, the proposed local law is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 128 of the Town Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has prepared and considered an Environmental Assessment Form which evaluates the potential environmental impacts ofthe proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the adoption of this Local Law will not have a significant negative impact upon the environment; and now, therefore be it NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a negative declaration is hereby made pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and RESOLVED, that said local law is hereby adopted to read as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 3 OF 2015 INTRODUCTORY NO. 2 OF 2015 A Local Law providing for the amendment of Chapter 75 ("AIRPORT") of the East Hampton Town Code to read as follows: BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton as follows:
SECTION 1. Legislative Intent In the past three decades, the residents of the Town of East Hampton have experienced a significant increase in noisy aircraft traffic at the East Hampton Airport. By its extensive complaints to the Town Board and to other governmental entities, the public has made clear, and this Town Board recognizes, the negative impact that this aircraft noise has made to the health and welfare of its citizenry, to wildlife and their habitat, as well as to the peace, quiet, and repose ofthe region. Aircraft noise has substantially diminished the quiet enjoyment of homes and properties and compromised the pleasures of the woodlands, beaches, fields, and preserved lands that define our community and sense of place. East Hampton is an established resort community whose entire economy is intrinsically tied to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets. Visitors and residents alike enjoy East Hampton's unique scenic beauty and the Town has made significant efforts to preserve the natural environs of the Town, spending a total of $229,431,502 of Community Preservation Funds to preserve approximately 1,924 acres since 1998.
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 6 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

The Town's Comprehensive Plan has outlined the vital connection between preserving the natural scenic beauty and enjoyment of its community and the Town's economy, stating in its vision statement the goal to "[t]ake forceful measures to protect and restore the environment, particularly groundwater. Reduce the impacts of human habitation on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, dunes biodiversity, ecosystems, scenic resources, air quality, the night sky, noise and energy consumption." The 2007 Airport Master Plan Report that then became the basis for the adopted 2010 Airport Master Plan states, at Il-73: "The East Hampton Airport is owned, maintained and operated for the benefit ofthe 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 [sic] 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." "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." In an effort to address the impacts of aircraft noise, the Town Board undertook an extensive analysis of the citizenry's complaints, and ofthe aircraft traffic itself, by the Town's aviation consultants and noise engineers, the results of which have only confirmed the seriousness of the community's noise disturbance. Of 24,000 airport noise complaints logged last year, the latest noise analysis discloses that they are overwhelmingly attributable to helicopters and jets, the noisiest types. Noise complaints at East Hampton Airport far exceed the level of complaints at major airports around the country. This is surely due, not least, to the incongruity ofjet and helicopter noise in what is otherwise a very quiet, exurban and rural environment. Specifically, noise from aircraft operating at the East Hampton Airport disturbs many
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 7 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015

residents of the East End of Long Island. Disturbance by all types of aircraft is most significant in the evening, nighttime, and early morning hours. Myriad professional studies from airports throughout the world have confirmed what the residents of East Hampton know from personal experience: nighttime aircraft noise is more disturbing, more annoying, can disrupt normal sleep patterns, and, generally, has a particularly seriously adverse effect on people's lives. In its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a public policy responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise. It has developed a set of restrictions on the use of East Hampton Airport that are reasonable, nonarbitrary, and non-discriminatory. These restrictions address the problems of aircraft noise that are unique to the Town and neighboring communities while preserving for the community the benefits of aviation. The Town Board recognizes the value ofthe East Hampton Airport to the community and does not want to impose any greater restriction than is necessary to achieve the Town's objectives. To that end, the Town Board recognizes the importance of addressing nighttime noise problems, during sleeping hours when there is a heightened expectation of quiet, by imposing a curfew for nighttime hours. The legislation is intended to restrict aircraft operations during the most sensitive times ofthe day. By enacting this legislation, the Town Board seeks to achieve immediate, substantial nighttime noise relief for residents and visitors, maintain the intended and traditional use of the East Hampton Airport by recreational aircraft, and continue sufficient air traffic to maintain a financially self-sustaining Airport. The Town Board is committed to balancing the need to address the impact of the aircraft noise on the Town's environment with the equally important need to maintain an economically viable and safe airport for East Hampton. The proposed legislation expressly excludes from its application aircraft operated by any federal, state or local government, any emergency services, evacuation services, public or private, and any operation by an aircraft in an emergency. The airport will remain open to such operations at all times without restriction or charge. These restrictions are adopted on an interim basis. The effects of the legislation on the operations at the Airport for the period May 1 to October 31, 2015 shall be evaluated to determine whether the restrictions should be made permanent or modified. The Town Board will seek public comment throughout the Season and immediately following the Season to determine the success and/or failure of the use restrictions and whether they function the way they were intended or need to be adjusted. SECTION 2. Amendment The Code of the Town of East Hampton is hereby amended by adding the following new section to Chapter 75 (Airport). 

### § 75-38 AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS:

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 8 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015

A. Definitions. (1)
- (2)
- 

### Reserved (3) "Individual Aircraft" shall mean an aircraft, ofwhatever type, with a distinct registration number ("N number" if such registration is issued by the United States Government). 

### (4)- (5)- Reserved (6) "Use of the Airport" shall mean either one arrival (landing) at, or one departure (takeoff) from, the Airport, shall not include any repositioning of any aircraft on the Airport or any aborted takeoff or landing, but shall include touch-andgo operations that result in use of an Airport runway. B. Nighttime Operations. Use ofthe Airport is prohibited between the hours of 11:00 pm and 7:00am (local time). C. 

### [Reserved] 

### D. [Reserved] E. Exemptions. The restrictions ofthis section 75-38 shall not apply to any aircraft operational emergency, any medical emergency operation, whether by public or private aircraft, or to any operation by a government-owned aircraft, including, without limitation, police, emergency services, and military operations. In the case of an aircraft emergency or medical emergency operation, the operator shall submit a sworn statement to the Airport Manager within 24 hours of such operation attesting to the nature of the emergency and reason for the operation. 

### § 75-39 PENAL TIES: A. Section 75-34 shall not apply to violations of Section 75-38 and this Section 75-39 shall apply for all violations of Section 75-38. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon courts and judicial officers in general, violations of Section 75-38 shall be deemed misdemeanors, and, for such purpose only, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to such violations. B. Any Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall be punishable by a fine assessed against any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in such aircraft, as follows: (1) For the first violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $1,000. (2) For the second violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $4,000.
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 9 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

(3) For the third violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $10,000. (4) For the fourth violation by an Individual Aircraft, a prohibition on any Use of the Airport by the Individual Aircraft involved in such violation for a period of not more than two years. C. Each Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall constitute a separate offense. D. In addition, any entity convicted hereunder of not complying with the requirements of Section 75-38 may be subject to a fine of not less than the amount of the actual costs incurred and owed to the Town and not more than an amount equal to twice said actual costs. Should any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity be found in violation of the provisions of Section 75-38 within five years of a previous violation of this chapter, the minimum additional fine shall be not less than $2000. E. In addition to the above penalties, the Town may also maintain an action or proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation Section 75-38 by any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in the Individual Aircraft. (1) Ifa finding is made by a court of competentjurisdiction that the defendants or any of them has caused, permitted or allowed a violation of Section 75-38, a penalty to be jointly and severally included in the judgment may be awarded at the discretion of the court in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 for each violation that the defendants or any one ofthem individually caused, permitted or allowed the violation. SECTION 3. AuthoritY The Town Board is authorized to establish and promulgate rules and regulations regarding use of the East Hampton Airport pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(ii)(a)(11) and (12) and Town Law §130 and pursuant to its powers as the proprietor of East Hampton Airport under federal statutory and case law and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. SECTION 4. Severability Ifany section or subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase of this law shall be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by any order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, or pursuant to any order of any administrative agency having jurisdiction, whether such judgment or order is temporary or permanent, such judgment or order shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 10 Exhibit 1Resolution 2015-411 Meeting of April 16, 2015

provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. Effective Date This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.

Dated: April 16, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON CAROLE BRENNAN, TOWN CLERK**·~-----------------~·----------·------··** 

## I RESULT: 

### I MOVER: 

## ISE
.. CONDER: 

# L

AYES: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] Kathee BurkecGonzalez, Councilwoman Peter VanScoyoc, Councilman Burke-Gonzalez, Van Scoyoc, Overby, Overton, Cantwell

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:28 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 11 Exhibit 1East Hampton Town Board 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2015-412 Meeting: 04/16/15 06:30PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Local Law Prepared By: Elizabeth Vail Initiator: Elizabeth Vail Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez DOC ID: 15230 B 

## Adopt Local Law- Amending Chapter 75 (Airport) ofthe Town Code Regulating Evening, Nighttime and Early Morning Operation of Noisy Aircraft at East Hampton Airport WHEREAS, the Town of East Hampton is an established resort community that is renowned for its peaceful, quiet beaches and outdoor areas; and WHEREAS, the economy of the Town of East Hampton is tied intrinsically to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world-renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets; and WHEREAS, residents and visitors are attracted to the Town and the East End of Long Island to enjoy the area's unique scenic beauty, its outdoor spaces, and the peaceful and restful atmosphere they provide; and WHEREAS, peace, quiet, repose, outdoor recreation, sea, air, and a beautiful and unique natural environment are the essential characteristics that make East Hampton and the East End, as a whole, such an attractive and desirable area; and WHEREAS, the Town and its residents have invested heavily in preserving the rural, quiet pace of life by preserving land and adopting land use policies that are designed to protect the unique quality of life in East Hampton; and WHEREAS, in the busy season of May
- September, residents and visitors spend a significant portion of time outdoors engaged in recreational activities, entertaining, dining with family and friends, and otherwise enjoying the peaceful, restful atmosphere of the area; and WHEREAS, the unique quality of life in the Town and entire East End means that residents are particularly susceptible to disturbances to their pastoral lifestyle, especially when those disturbances interfere with the qualities which make this Town a highly desirable place to live and visit; and WHEREAS, the area surrounding the East Hampton Airport is notably quiet because of the lack of industrial noises, relatively low population density and rural roadway network, which, taken together, accentuates the perception of noise, both in terms of peak levels and also in terms of the duration of the noise events themselves; and WHEREAS, in the past three decades, noise from aircraft overflights has disrupted outdoor activities and diminished the quality of life in the Town and the entire of the East End; and WHEREAS, the aircraft noise problem has increased dramatically in recent years, as overall operations increased by 23 percent from 2013 to 2014 and helicopter operations alone increased by 47 percent from 2013 to 2014; and WHEREAS, noise from loud aircraft and helicopters is particularly disruptive because it interrupts conversations and other ordinary activities and makes it very difficult to enjoy
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 1 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

outdoor activities; and WHEREAS, the sheer frequency of overflights also poses a significant problem because there are extended periods of repeated loud noise events that make it very difficult to enjoy outdoor activities and that destroy the peaceful quiet of this rural area; and WHEREAS, aircraft noise has been a major source of controversy and community strife for many years, with increasingly strong demands by the public that the Town take action to reduce the disruptive and harmful effects of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, the controversy has resulted in a number of lawsuits, and additional threatened lawsuits, aimed at compelling the Town or the federal government to take action to address the problem of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, in its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, aircraft noise is not merely annoying and disturbing but threatens the economic vitality of the Town and its brand as a place where people can escape the noise and stresses of urban life in favor oftranquility and rural quiet; and WHEREAS, that threat could result in lower rates of visitation, reduction in property values, and, more generally, a loss in the attractiveness of the Town; and WHEREAS, in addition to formal noise complaints, residents and visitors have expressed their anger and frustration about aircraft noise at numerous public meetings, Town Board meetings, in letters to local papers, and in communications with Town officials; and WHEREAS, the problem of aircraft noise was a major topic of discussion and debate in the recent Town election; and WHEREAS, the Town has received numerous communications from residents and officials of neighboring and nearby jurisdictions demanding that the Town take action to reduce the effect of noise from aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southampton, the Town Shelter Island, the Town of Southold, the Village of North Haven, the Village of East Hampton, and the Village of Sag Harbor all have adopted resolutions requesting that the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton adopt a comprehensive aircraft noise limitation policy; and WHEREAS these other towns and villages, and all residents and visitors to the East End, depend upon the Town to address the aircraft noise problem since the Town operates the East Hampton Airport, which is the destination of many ofthe noisy aircraft flights; and WHEREAS, for over two decades, the Town has diligently identified and promoted voluntary measures, including helicopter noise abatement procedures and a nighttime curfew, in order to secure relief from the disturbance of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the New York Congressional delegation, to discuss this issue in the hope of finding a federal legislative solution to the problem of aircraft noise; and
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 2 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials at the local, regional and headquarters level and with the FAA's Air Traffic Organization, to discuss proposed measures and use restrictions, including the use of voluntary measures; and WHEREAS, the Town worked with the New York Congressional delegation and all levels of the FAA in the implementation of a mandatory North Shore Helicopter Route, which was initially implemented in August 2012 and recently extended through August 2016; and WHEREAS, the Town has repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the FAA to adopt a mandatory helicopter route along the south shore of Long Island or to adopt mandatory transition routes for helicopters transitioning from the mandatory routes to the East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town has spent the last several summer seasons studying various voluntary measures or measures in cooperation with the FAA to address the noise problem but the level of resident concern has actually increased over that time; and WHEREAS, the Town's past several years of efforts to address the problem of aircraft noise through voluntary measures promoted by the Town combined with mandatory flight tracks for helicopters imposed by FAA have provided some limited relief in certain neighborhoods, but those measures alone have not reduced to an acceptable level the overall intensity of community disturbance from noise associated with aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town's ability to address the problem of aircraft noise has been constrained legally by obligations under certain of its federal grants that the FAA has stated will no longer be enforced after December 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Town first announced its intent to pursue use restrictions on operations at East Hampton Airport to address the problem of aircraft noise by the adoption of Resolution 2012-832 on August 2, 2012; and WHEREAS, Town officials and staff have met repeatedly with airport stakeholders, including Eastern Region Helicopter Council, Friends of the East Hampton Airport, the National Business Aviation Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Air Transportation Association, and other informal local groups of users and service providers to discuss their respective concerns; and WHEREAS, the Town held a special public meeting on August 27, 2014, provide the public an opportunity to comment on the problem of aircraft noise and to share views on potential solutions and the meeting was attended by almost 400 people, including 22 elected officials, all of whom expressed support for finding a solution to the noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town announced its commitment to finding a solution to disturbance resulting from noise associated with Airport operations; announced its intent to adopt lawful measures to ensure the peace, quiet, tranquility and health of communities affected by Airport noise; resolved to consider the most serious disturbances, the causes of the disturbances, and reasonable and practical solutions tailored to address the source of those disturbances before making a decision; and announced its intent to identify and adopt
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 3 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

regulations to address noise and disturbance from Operations at East Hampton Airport before the 2015 season by the adoption of Resolution 2014-1180 on September 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, FAA's traditional Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric has proved, after considerable study, not to be a useful tool for measuring the impact of noise from operations at East Hampton Airport because it averages noise data over 24 hours, and does not capture the demonstrated community annoyance and disruption from individual aircraft noise events (especially noise events associated with helicopters); and WHEREAS, beginning in 2014, the Town commissioned a series of comprehensive analyses of the noise and related complaints, including the following:

• Henry Young of Young Environmental Sciences and Les Blomberg of Noise Pollution Clearinghouse: (1) analyzed 2013 operational data collected by the AirScene system, (2) converted that data for use in the Integrated Noise Model (INM), (3) used the INM to develop Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours for 2013 operations (for total annual operations, annual helicopter operations, busiest day total operations, and busiest day helicopter operations), (4) used the INM to calculate the maximum sound level (Lmax) for each modeled flight in 2013 at each property parcel in a 10-mile radius from the airport, (5) applied the Town Code noise standards to determine the number of "exceedances" (i.e., the number of times each parcel experienced a noise impact above the Town's limits) by aircraft type and type of operation; and

• Peter Wadsworth analyzed 2014 complaint data collected by the PlaneNoise system; and

• Ted Baldwin of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) led HMMH analyses of November 1, 2013
- October 31, 2014 data, including: (1) analysis of PlaneNoise complaint data to identify temporal and geographic complaint patterns for different aircraft types (e.g., jet, turboprop, piston prop, seaplane, and helicopter), (2) analysis of Vector operations data to identify patterns of activity by day of year, day of week, hour of day (for each day of the week and for the average annual day), and season; (3) correlated PlaneNoise complaint data and Vector operations data to identify patterns; (4) used the independent and correlated data analyses to develop a refined problem definition and promising alternatives for addressing that definition; (5) analyzed the effect of those alternatives in terms of the historical operations that each would have affected and of the associated noise complaints; and (6) identified and reviewed technical studies in the literature that have attempted to identify the most effective noise metric for understanding response to helicopter noise, whether the metric should include a special "adjustment" for helicopters, and otherwise provide useful information on the best means of assessing helicopter noise and predicting human response; and WHEREAS, the Town also commissioned several advisory groups to assist in identifying the Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 4 Exhibi12Resolution 2015-412 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

noise problem with specificity and identifying meaningful, practical and carefully tailored measures that the Town could adopt which would help reduce or eliminate the noise problem; and WHEREAS, these advisory groups have held many, many public meetings, discussions and debates about how best to address the Town's noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town held meetings on October 30, 2014; December 2, 2014; and February 4, 2015; to review the findings of each phase of the recent noise analyses; and WHEREAS, the Town Board announced four proposed use restrictions for East Hampton Airport on February 10, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Town Board held public hearings on March 12, 2015, to consider the following four local laws amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code: (1) a local law to regulate nighttime operation of aircraft; (2) a local law to regulate nighttime and early morning operation of noisy aircraft; (3) a local law to regulate the operation of helicopters; and (4) a local law to regulate the operation of noisy aircraft; and WHEREAS, the Town has been soliciting public comment through encouraging comments at Town Board meetings, and emailed comments through a dedicated email address; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed all of those comments plus written comments and comments appearing in several local newspapers over the course of the last year; and WHEREAS, there is no single or simple measure which is certain to solve the Town's noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town is committed to testing measures for their practical, real-world effectiveness but needs to have at least one summer season to collect adequate data on real world effects; and WHEREAS, the Town is committed to collecting data during the summer 2015 season and to assessing all noise control measures in October 2015 for their effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the Town will modify any restrictions to improve their effectiveness based upon the results of these restrictions during the summer 2015 season; and WHEREAS, the Town encourages residents, visitors, airport stakeholders, users and all other interested parties to provide the Town with input on the effectiveness of particular measures in addressing, mitigating or eliminating the noise problem; and WHEREAS, after considering the history of noise disturbance caused by operations at the Airport, reviewing the data provided by the Town's consultants and the comments of the public, and after holding public hearings, the Town Board believes that the enactment of a local law to regulate evening, nighttime and early morning operation of noisy aircraft at the East Hampton Airport is in the best interests of the Town of East Hampton for the following reasons:
• Of the 24,000 airport noise complaints logged last year, the latest noise analysis
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 5 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

discloses that they are overwhelmingly attributable to helicopters and jets, the noisiest types of aircraft; and

• Disturbance by all types of aircraft is most significant in the evening, nighttime, and early morning hours; and

• During those hours, noisy aircraft are the most annoying; and

• While all aircraft operations during the nighttime hours are disturbing, noisy aircraft can be especially intrusive during the "shoulder" times of the evening and early morning hours, which are times of the day when residents and visitors typically engage in outdoor activities and are therefore are highly sensitive to disruption by loud aircraft; and
WHEREAS, the proposed local law is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 128 of the Town Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has prepared and considered an Environmental Assessment Form which evaluates the potential environmental impacts ofthe proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the adoption of this Local Law will not have a significant negative impact upon the environment; and now, therefore be it NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a negative declaration is hereby made pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and RESOLVED, that said local law is hereby adopted to read as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 4 OF 2015 INTRODUCTORY NO. 3 OF 2015 A Local Law providing for the amendment of Chapter 75 ("AIRPORT") of the East Hampton Town Code to read as follows: BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton as follows:
SECTION 1. Legislative Intent In the past three decades, the residents of the Town of East Hampton have experienced a significant increase in noisy aircraft traffic at the East Hampton Airport, chiefly helicopters, jets, and seaplanes. By its extensive complaints to the Town Board and to other governmental entities, the public has made clear, and this Town Board recognizes, the negative impact that this aircraft noise has made to the health and welfare of its citizenry, Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 6 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

to wildlife and their habitat, as well as to the peace, quiet, and repose ofthe region. Aircraft noise has substantially diminished the quiet enjoyment of homes and properties and compromised the pleasures of the woodlands, beaches, fields, and preserved lands that define our community and sense of place. East Hampton is an established resort community whose entire economy is intrinsically tied to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets. Visitors and residents alike enjoy East Hampton's unique scenic beauty and the Town has made significant efforts to preserve the natural environs of the Town, spending a total of $229,431,502 of Community Preservation Funds to preserve approximately 1,924 acres since 1998. The Town's Comprehensive Plan has outlined the vital connection between preserving the natural scenic beauty and enjoyment of its community and the Town's economy, stating in its vision statement the goal to "[t]ake forceful measures to protect and restore the environment, particularly groundwater. Reduce the impacts of human habitation on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, dunes biodiversity, ecosystems, scenic resources, air quality, the night sky, noise and energy consumption." The 2007 Airport Master Plan Report that then became the basis for the adopted 2010 Airport Master Plan states, at Il-73: "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 [sic] 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 ofthe airport takes into consideration the needs of East Hampton and Southampton residents for protection from excessive noise disturbance and adverse environmental impacts." "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."
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 7 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015

In an effort to address the impacts of aircraft noise, the Town Board undertook an extensive analysis of the citizenry's complaints, and of the aircraft traffic itself, by the Town's aviation consultants and noise engineers, the results of which have only confirmed the seriousness of the community's noise disturbance. Of 24,000 airport noise complaints logged last year, the latest noise analysis discloses that they are overwhelmingly attributable to helicopters and jets, the noisiest types. Noise complaints at East Hampton Airport far exceed the level of complaints at major airports around the country. This is surely due, not least, to the incongruity ofjet and helicopter noise in what is otherwise a very quiet, exurban and rural environment. Specifically, noise from aircraft operating at the East Hampton Airport disturbs many residents of the East End of Long Island. Disturbance by all types of aircraft is most significant in the evening, nighttime, and early morning hours. During those hours, noisy aircraft are the most disturbing. While all aircraft operations during the nighttime hours are disturbing, noisy aircraft can be especially intrusive during the 'shoulder' times of the evening and early morning hours, when people are doing daily activities around their homes, and there is a need to address the particular impacts of these noisy aircraft during these times of the day. In its capacity as proprietor ofthe East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a public policy responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise. It has developed a set of restrictions on the use of East Hampton Airport that are reasonable, nonarbitrary, and non-discriminatory. These restrictions address the problems of aircraft noise that are unique to the Town and neighboring communities while preserving for the community the benefits of aviation. The Town Board recognizes the value of the East Hampton Airport to the community and does not want to impose any greater restriction than is necessary to achieve the Town's objectives. To that end, the Town Board recognizes the importance of addressing the impacts of noisy aircraft operations during non-working hours of evenings and early mornings when there is a heightened expectation of quiet, by imposing shorter operating hours for these noisy types of aircraft. The legislation is intended to recognize that noisier aircraft need to be subject to greater restrictions because of the seriousness of their noise contribution to the community disturbance
- that is, each aircraft's individual noise generation and the frequency and timing of its airport landings and takeoffs. By enacting this legislation, the Town Board seeks to achieve immediate, substantial evening and morning noise relief for residents and visitors, maintain the intended and traditional use ofthe East Hampton Airport by recreational aircraft, and continue sufficient air traffic to maintain a financially self-sustaining Airport. The Town Board is committed to balancing the need to address the impact of the aircraft noise on the Town's environment with the equally important need to maintain an economically viable and safe airport for East Hampton. The proposed legislation expressly excludes from its application aircraft operated by any federal, state or local government, any emergency services, evacuation services, public or private, and any operation by an aircraft in an emergency. The airport will remain open to Updated: 4/17/201511:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 8 Exhibit2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015

such operations at all times without restriction or charge. These restrictions are adopted on an interim basis. The effects of the legislation on the operations at the Airport for the period May 1 to October 31, 2015 shall be evaluated to determine whether the restrictions should be made permanent or modified. The Town Board will seek public comment throughout the Season and immediately following the Season to determine the success and/or failure ofthe use restrictions and whether they function the way they were intended or need to be adjusted. SECTION 2. Amendment The Code of the Town of East Hampton is hereby amended by adding the following new section to Chapter 75 (Airport). 

### § 75-38 AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS: A. Definitions. (1)
- (2)
- Reserved (3) "Individual Aircraft" shall mean an aircraft, of whatever type, with a distinct registration number (''N number" if such registration is issued by the United States Government). (4) "Noisy Aircraft" shall mean any airplane or rotorcraft type classified as a Noisy Aircraft type pursuant to this Section. (a) The Airport Director is directed to maintain on the Town website a current list of aircraft based upon the noise characteristics published by the Federal Aviation Administration, or (if data is not available from that agency), the European Aviation Safety Agency. Noisy Aircraft shall be defined as any airplane or rotorcraft for which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater (b) In lieu of being subject to the definition of "Noisy Aircraft" pursuant to subsection (a) on the basis of the Town's list of types of Noisy Aircraft, the owner of an Individual Aircraft may elect to have the noise classification of such Individual Aircraft determined by the sound levels on the basis ofthe EPNdB level that is published in the airplane or rotorcraft flight manual for such Individual Aircraft pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 36.1581(a). To obtain a noise classification of an Individual Aircraft, the owner of such aircraft shall provide the Airport Director with a true copy ofthe relevant pages from such manual showing the noise level data. In the event of a conflict between the Town's list of classifications of Noisy Aircraft types and classification based on the data set forth in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, the data in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual shall prevail. Once the owner of an Individual Aircraft has provided the Airport Director with
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 9 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

such data from the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, and the Airport Director has determined the authenticity thereof, the Airport Director shall keep such data on file so that the owner need not resubmit the data for each Use of the Airport, and compliance by such Individual Aircraft with this Section shall be determined based on such data. 

### (5) (Reserved) (6) "Use of the Airport" shall mean either one arrival (landing) at, or one departure (takeoff) from, the Airport, shall not include any repositioning of any aircraft on the Airport or any aborted takeoff or landing, but shall include touch-andgo operations that result in use of an Airport runway. 

### B. [Reserved] 

### C. Noisy Aircraft Operations. Use of the Airport by Noisy Aircraft is prohibited as follows: (1) Between the hours of 8:00pm and 9:00am (local time). D. [Reserved] E. Exemptions. The restrictions ofthis section 75-38 shall not apply to any aircraft operational emergency, any medical emergency operation, whether by public or private aircraft, or to any operation by a government-owned aircraft, including, without limitation, police, emergency services, and military operations. In the case of an aircraft emergency or medical emergency operation, the operator shall submit a sworn statement to the Airport Manager within 24 hours of such operation attesting to the nature of the emergency and reason for the operation. 

### § 75-39 PENAL TIES: A. Section 75-34 shall not apply to violations of Section 75-38 and this Section 75-39 shall apply for all violations of Section 75-38. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon courts and judicial officers in general, violations of Section 75-38 shall be deemed misdemeanors, and, for such purpose only, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to such violations. B. Any Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall be punishable by a fine assessed against any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in such aircraft, as follows: (1) For the first violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $1,000. (2) For the second violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $4,000. Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 10 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting of April 16, 2015

(3) For the third violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $10,000. (4) For the fourth violation by an Individual Aircraft, a prohibition on any Use of the Airport by the Individual Aircraft involved in such violation for a period of not more than two years. 

### C. Each Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall constitute a separate offense. D. In addition, any entity convicted hereunder of not complying with the requirements of Section 75-38 may be subject to a fine of not less than the amount of the actual costs incurred and owed to the Town and not more than an amount equal to twice said actual costs. Should any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity be found in violation of the provisions of Section 75-38 within five years of a previous violation of this chapter, the minimum additional fine shall be not less than $2000. E. In addition to the above penalties, the Town may also maintain an action or proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation Section 75-38 by any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in the Individual Aircraft. (1) 

### Ifa finding is made by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendants or any of them has caused, permitted or allowed a violation of Section 75-38, a penalty to be jointly and severally included in the judgment may be awarded at the discretion of the court in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 for each violation that the defendants or any one of them individually caused, permitted or allowed the violation. SECTION 3. Authority The Town Board is authorized to establish and promulgate rules and regulations regarding use of the East Hampton Airport pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(ii)(a)(11) and (12) and Town Law §130 and pursuant to its powers as the proprietor of East Hampton Airport under federal statutory and case law and regulations ofthe Federal Aviation Administration. SECTION 4. Severability Ifany section or subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase ofthis law shall be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by any order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, or pursuant to any order of any administrative agency having jurisdiction, whether such judgment or order is temporary or permanent, such judgment or order shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 11 Exhibit 2Resolution 2015-412 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. Effective Date This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.

Dated: April 16, 2015

.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman SECONDER: Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilman BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON CAROLE BRENNAN, TOWN CLERK

AYES:

. Burke-Gonzalez, VanScoyoc, Overby, Overton, Cantwell

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:29 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 12 Exhibit 2East Hampton Town Board 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2015-413 Meeting: 04/16/15 06:30PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Local Law Prepared By: Elizabeth Vail Initiator: Elizabeth Vail Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez DOC ID: 15231 B 

## Adopt Local Law- Amending Chapter 75 (Airport) ofthe Town Code Regulating Operation of NoisyAircraft at East Hampton Airport WHEREAS, the Town of East Hampton is an established resort community that is renowned for its peaceful, quiet beaches and outdoor areas; and WHEREAS, the economy of the Town of East Hampton is tied intrinsically to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world-renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets; and WHEREAS, residents and visitors are attracted to the Town and the East End of Long Island to enjoy the area's unique scenic beauty, its outdoor spaces, and the peaceful and restful atmosphere they provide; and WHEREAS, peace, quiet, repose, outdoor recreation, sea, air, and a beautiful and unique natural environment are the essential characteristics that make East Hampton and the East End, as a whole, such an attractive and desirable area; and WHEREAS, the Town and its residents have invested heavily in preserving the rural, quiet pace of life by preserving land and adopting land use policies that are designed to protect the unique quality of life in East Hampton; and WHEREAS, in the busy season of May
- September, residents and visitors spend a significant portion of time outdoors engaged in recreational activities, entertaining, dining with family and friends, and otherwise enjoying the peaceful, restful atmosphere of the area; and WHEREAS, the unique quality of life in the Town and entire East End means that residents are particularly susceptible to disturbances to their pastoral lifestyle, especially when those disturbances interfere with the qualities which make this Town a highly desirable place to live and visit; and WHEREAS, the area surrounding the East Hampton Airport is notably quiet because of the lack of industrial noises, relatively low population density and rural roadway network, which, taken together, accentuates the perception of noise, both in terms of peak levels and also in terms ofthe duration of the noise events themselves; and WHEREAS, in the past three decades, noise from aircraft overflights has disrupted outdoor activities and diminished the quality of life in the Town and the entire of the East End; and WHEREAS, the aircraft noise problem has increased dramatically in recent years, as overall operations increased by 23 percent from 2013 to 2014 and helicopter operations alone increased by 47 percent from 2013 to 2014; and WHEREAS, noise from loud aircraft and helicopters is particularly disruptive because it interrupts conversations and other ordinary activities and makes it very difficult to enjoy
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 1 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015

outdoor activities; and WHEREAS, the sheer frequency of overflights also poses a significant problem because there are extended periods of repeated loud noise events that make it very difficult to enjoy outdoor activities and that destroy the peaceful quiet ofthis rural area; and WHEREAS, aircraft noise has been a major source of controversy and community strife for many years, with increasingly strong demands by the public that the Town take action to reduce the disruptive and harmful effects of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, the controversy has resulted in a number of lawsuits, and additional threatened lawsuits, aimed at compelling the Town or the federal government to take action to address the problem of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, in its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, aircraft noise is not merely annoying and disturbing but threatens the economic vitality of the Town and its brand as a place where people can escape the noise and stresses of urban life in favor of tranquility and rural quiet; and WHEREAS, that threat could result in lower rates of visitation, reduction in property values, and, more generally, a loss in the attractiveness of the Town; and WHEREAS, in addition to formal noise complaints, residents and visitors have expressed their anger and frustration about aircraft noise at numerous public meetings, Town Board meetings, in letters to local papers, and in communications with Town officials; and WHEREAS, the problem of aircraft noise was a major topic of discussion and debate in the recent Town election; and WHEREAS, the Town has received numerous communications from residents and officials of neighboring and nearby jurisdictions demanding that the Town take action to reduce the effect of noise from aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southampton, the Town Shelter Island, the Town of Southold, the Village of North Haven, the Village of East Hampton, and the Village of Sag Harbor all have adopted resolutions requesting that the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton adopt a comprehensive aircraft noise limitation policy; and WHEREAS these other towns and villages, and all residents and visitors to the East End, depend upon the Town to address the aircraft noise problem since the Town operates the East Hampton Airport, which is the destination of many of the noisy aircraft flights; and WHEREAS, for over two decades, the Town has diligently identified and promoted voluntary measures, including helicopter noise abatement procedures and a nighttime curfew, in order to secure relief from the disturbance of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the New York Congressional delegation, to discuss this issue in the hope of finding a federal legislative solution to the problem of aircraft noise; and Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 2 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

WHEREAS, Town officials have met repeatedly with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials at the local, regional and headquarters level and with the FAA's Air Traffic Organization, to discuss proposed measures and use restrictions, including the use of voluntary measures; and WHEREAS, the Town worked with the New York Congressional delegation and all levels of the FAA in the implementation of a mandatory North Shore Helicopter Route, which was initially implemented in August 2012 and recently extended through August 2016; and WHEREAS, the Town has repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the FAA to adopt a mandatory helicopter route along the south shore of Long Island or to adopt mandatory transition routes for helicopters transitioning from the mandatory routes to the East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town has spent the last several summer seasons studying various voluntary measures or measures in cooperation with the FAA to address the noise problem but the level of resident concern has actually increased over that time; and WHEREAS, the Town's past several years of efforts to address the problem of aircraft noise through voluntary measures promoted by the Town combined with mandatory flight tracks for helicopters imposed by FAA have provided some limited relief in certain neighborhoods, but those measures alone have not reduced to an acceptable level the overall intensity of community disturbance from noise associated with aircraft flying to and from East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the Town's ability to address the problem of aircraft noise has been constrained legally by obligations under certain of its federal grants that the FAA has stated will no longer be enforced after December 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Town first announced its intent to pursue use restrictions on operations at East Hampton Airport to address the problem of aircraft noise by the adoption of Resolution 2012-832 on August 2, 2012; and WHEREAS, Town officials and staff have met repeatedly with airport stakeholders, including Eastern Region Helicopter Council, Friends of the East Hampton Airport, the National Business Aviation Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National Air Transportation Association, and other informal local groups of users and service providers to discuss their respective concerns; and WHEREAS, the Town held a special public meeting on August 27, 2014, provide the public an opportunity to comment on the problem of aircraft noise and to share views on potential solutions and the meeting was attended by almost 400 people, including 22 elected officials, all of whom expressed support for finding a solution to the noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town announced its commitment to finding a solution to disturbance resulting from noise associated with Airport operations; announced its intent to adopt lawful measures to ensure the peace, quiet, tranquility and health of communities affected by Airport noise; resolved to consider the most serious disturbances, the causes of the disturbances, and reasonable and practical solutions tailored to address the source of those disturbances before making a decision; and announced its intent to identify and adopt
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 3 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

regulations to address noise and disturbance from Operations at East Hampton Airport before the 2015 season by the adoption of Resolution 2014-1180 on September 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, FAA's traditional Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric has proved, after considerable study, not to be a useful tool for measuring the impact of noise from operations at East Hampton Airport because it averages noise data over 24 hours, and does not capture the demonstrated community annoyance and disruption from individual aircraft noise events (especially noise events associated with helicopters); and WHEREAS, beginning in 2014, the Town commissioned a series of comprehensive analyses of the noise and related complaints, including the following:
• Henry Young of Young Environmental Sciences and Les Blomberg of Noise Pollution Clearinghouse: (1) analyzed 2013 operational data collected by the AirScene system, (2) converted that data for use in the Integrated Noise Model (INM), (3) used the INM to develop Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours for 2013 operations (for total annual operations, annual helicopter operations, busiest day total operations, and busiest day helicopter operations), (4) used the INM to calculate the maximum sound level (Lmax) for each modeled flight in 2013 at each property parcel in a 10-mile radius from the airport, (5) applied the Town Code noise standards to determine the number of "exceedances" (i.e., the number of times each parcel experienced a noise impact above the Town's limits) by aircraft type and type of operation; and

• Peter Wadsworth analyzed 2014 complaint data collected by the PlaneNoise system; and

• Ted Baldwin of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) led HMMH analyses of November 1, 2013
- October 31, 2014 data, including: (1) analysis of PlaneNoise complaint data to identify temporal and geographic complaint patterns for different aircraft types (e.g., jet, turboprop, piston prop, seaplane, and helicopter), (2) analysis of Vector operations data to identify patterns of activity by day of year, day of week, hour of day (for each day of the week and for the average annual day), and season; (3) correlated PlaneNoise complaint data and Vector operations data to identify patterns; (4) used the independent and correlated data analyses to develop a refined problem definition and promising alternatives for addressing that definition; (5) analyzed the effect of those alternatives in terms of the historical operations that each would have affected and of the associated noise complaints; and (6) identified and reviewed technical studies in the literature that have attempted to identify the most effective noise metric for understanding response to helicopter noise, whether the metric should include a special "adjustment" for helicopters, and otherwise provide useful information on the best means of assessing helicopter noise and predicting human response; and WHEREAS, the Town also commissioned several advisory groups to assist in identifying the Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 4 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015

noise problem with specificity and identifying meaningful, practical and carefully tailored measures that the Town could adopt which would help reduce or eliminate the noise problem; and WHEREAS, these advisory groups have held many, many public meetings, discussions and debates about how best to address the Town's noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town held meetings on October 30, 2014; December 2, 2014; and February 4, 2015; to review the findings of each phase of the recent noise analyses; and WHEREAS, the Town Board announced four proposed use restrictions for East Hampton Airport on February 10, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Town Board held public hearings on March 12, 2015, to consider the following four local laws amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code: (1) a local law to regulate nighttime operation of aircraft; (2) a local law to regulate nighttime and early morning operation of noisy aircraft; (3) a local law to regulate the operation of helicopters; and (4) a local law to regulate the operation of noisy aircraft; and WHEREAS, the Town has been soliciting public comment through encouraging comments at Town Board meetings, and emailed comments through a dedicated email address; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed all of those comments plus written comments and comments appearing in several local newspapers over the course of the last year; and WHEREAS, there is no single or simple measure which is certain to solve the Town's noise problem; and WHEREAS, the Town is committed to testing measures for their practical, real-world effectiveness but needs to have at least one summer season to collect adequate data on real world effects; and WHEREAS, the Town is committed to collecting data during the summer 2015 season and to assessing all noise control measures in October 2015 for their effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the Town will modify any restrictions to improve their effectiveness based upon the results of these restrictions during the summer 2015 season; and WHEREAS, the Town encourages residents, visitors, airport stakeholders, users and all other interested parties to provide the Town with input on the effectiveness of particular measures in addressing, mitigating or eliminating the noise problem; and WHEREAS, after considering the history of noise disturbance caused by operations at the Airport, reviewing the data provided by the Town's consultants and the comments of the public, and after holding public hearings, the Town Board believes that the enactment of a local law to limit the number of operations of noisy aircraft at the East Hampton Airport is in the best interests of the Town of East Hampton for the following reasons:
• Noise from the noisiest aircraft operating at the East Hampton Airport is particularly disruptive of the peace and tranquility in and around the Town because their high
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 5 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

noise levels contrast with the general peace and quiet of the East End to a much greater degree than quieter aircraft; and

• The relatively high volume of operations by the noisiest aircraft has caused widespread community disturbance due to the particularly disruptive effect of those aircraft; and
• The proposed restriction would affect 3,443, or 13.4 percent of the total operations but would address roughly 37.6 of the reported complaints; and
• Limiting the noisiest aircraft is the most important during the summer season when residents and visitors have a heightened expectation that they can enjoy the outdoor environment in peace; and WHEREAS, the proposed local law is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 128 of the Town Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has prepared and considered an Environmental Assessment Form which evaluates the potential environmental impacts ofthe proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the adoption of this Local Law will not have a significant negative impact upon the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a negative declaration is hereby made pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and RESOLVED, that said local law is hereby adopted to read as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 5 OF 2015 INTRODUCTORY NO. 5 OF 2015 A Local Law providing for the amendment of Chapter 75 ("AIRPORT") of the East Hampton Town Code to read as follows: BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board ofthe Town of East Hampton as follows: SECTION 

### 1. Legislative Intent. In the past three decades, the residents of the Town of East Hampton have experienced a significant increase in noisy aircraft traffic at the East Hampton Airport, chiefly helicopters, jets, and seaplanes. By its extensive complaints to the Town Board and to other governmental entities, the public has made clear, and this Town Board recognizes, the negative impact that this aircraft noise has made to the health and welfare of its citizenry, to wildlife and their habitat, as well as to the peace, quiet, and repose of the region. Aircraft noise has substantially diminished the quiet enjoyment of homes and properties and compromised the pleasures of the woodlands, beaches, fields, and preserved lands that define our community and sense of place. East Hampton is an established resort community whose entire economy is intrinsically tied
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 6 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015

to the use and enjoyment of its natural and scenic environment, including its world renowned ocean beaches, wetlands, shorelines, harbors, bays, woodlands, and historic hamlets. Visitors and residents alike enjoy East Hampton's unique scenic beauty and the Town has made significant efforts to preserve the natural environs of the Town, spending a total of $229,431,502 of Community Preservation Funds to preserve approximately 1,924 acres since 1998. The Town's Comprehensive Plan has outlined the vital connection between preserving the natural scenic beauty and enjoyment of its community and the Town's economy, stating in its vision statement the goal to "[t]ake forceful measures to protect and restore the environment, particularly groundwater. Reduce the impacts of human habitation on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, dunes biodiversity, ecosystems, scenic resources, air quality, the night sky, noise and energy consumption." The 2007 Airport Master Plan Report that then became the basis for the adopted 2010 Airport Master Plan states, at Il-73: "The East Hampton Airport is owned, maintained and operated for the benefit ofthe 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 [sic] 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 ofthe airport takes into consideration the needs of East Hampton and Southampton residents for protection from excessive noise disturbance and adverse environmental impacts." "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." In an effort to address the impacts of aircraft noise, the Town Board undertook an extensive analysis ofthe citizenry's complaints, and of the aircraft traffic itself, by the Town's aviation consultants and noise engineers, the results of which have only confirmed the seriousness of the community's noise disturbance. Of 24,000 airport noise complaints logged last year, the latest noise analysis discloses that they are overwhelmingly attributable to helicopters
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 7 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

and jets, the noisiest types. Noise complaints at East Hampton Airport far exceed the level of complaints at major airports around the country. This is surely due, not least, to the incongruity ofjet and helicopter noise in what is otherwise a very quiet, exurban and rural environment. Specifically, noise from aircraft operating at the East Hampton Airport disturbs many residents of the East End of Long Island. Disturbance by the noisiest aircraft is most significant when aircraft operations are most frequent. The Town examined how best to limit the constant onslaught of air traffic and has determined that an overall limit on operations by the noisiest aircraft is essential to the quality of life to which residents and visitors are entitled. In its capacity as proprietor of the East Hampton Airport, the Town Board has a public policy responsibility to protect residents from the adverse effects of aircraft noise. It has developed a set of restrictions on the use of East Hampton Airport that are reasonable, nonarbitrary, and non-discriminatory. These restrictions address the problems of aircraft noise that are unique to the Town and neighboring communities while preserving for the community the benefits of aviation. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recognized in the National Helicopter case -- that residents have a justified, heightened expectation of quiet during non-working hours, evenings, nights, and weekends
-- both year-round and seasonal residents of East Hampton and the East End have a justified, heightened expectation of quiet, yet suffer greater exposure to disturbance from aircraft noise, during the very periods when the East End is sought as a destination for repose and relief from urban ills. That is the reason why the huge influx of seasonal residents and visitors come to East Hampton. It is the reason why year-round residents struggle to stay in East Hampton despite the difficulty of earning a living in a limited economy on the end of a long, narrow peninsula on the tip of a long island. Peace, quiet, repose, outdoor recreation, sea, air, a beautiful and unique natural environment, these are the primary social and economic goods that East Hampton and the East End as a whole have to offer. The Town Board recognizes the value of the East Hampton Airport to the community and does not want to impose any greater restriction than is necessary to achieve the Town's objectives. To that end, the Town Board recognizes that limiting the volume and frequency of airport use by noisy aircraft types during the summer season is essential to restoring the peace and quiet that East Hampton residents and visitors have come to expect in this community. The legislation is intended to restrict aircraft according to the seriousness of their noise contribution to the community disturbance -that is, each aircraft's individual noise generation and the frequency and timing of its airport landings and takeoffs. The proposed restrictions are seasonally based, imposing greater limits during the period May 1 to September 30 each year when residents and visitors have a heightened expectation that they can enjoy our magnificent outdoor environment in peace. By enacting this legislation, the Town Board seeks to achieve immediate, substantial noise relief for residents and visitors during the summertime, provide an incentive for airport users with noisy types of aircraft to transition to quieter types of aircraft, maintain the intended and traditional use of the East Hampton Airport by recreational aircraft, and
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 8 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015

continue sufficient air traffic to maintain a financially self-sustaining Airport. The Town Board is committed to balancing the need to address the impact of the aircraft noise on the Town's environment with the equally important need to maintain an economically viable and safe airport for East Hampton. The proposed legislation expressly excludes from its application aircraft operated by any federal, state or local government, any emergency services, evacuation services, public or private, and any operation by an aircraft in an emergency. The airport will remain open to such operations at all times without restriction or charge. These restrictions are adopted on an interim basis. The effects of the legislation on the operations at the Airport for the period May 1 to October 31, 2015 shall be evaluated to determine whether the restrictions should be made permanent or modified. The Town Board will seek public comment throughout the Season and immediately following the Season to determine the success and/or failure ofthe use restrictions and whether they function the way they were intended or need to be adjusted. SECTION 2. Amendment Section 75-38, Airport Use Restrictions, of the Code ofthe Town of East Hampton is hereby amended by adding the following provisions: CHAPTER 75. AIRPORT. § 75-38 AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS: A. Definitions. (1) "Calendar Week" shall mean the period beginning at 12:00:00 am on Sunday and ending at 11:59:59 pm on the following Saturday. 

### (2)

- Reserved (3) "Individual Aircraft" shall mean an aircraft, of whatever type, with a distinct registration number ("N number" if such registration is issued by the United States Government). (4) "Noisy Aircraft" shall mean any airplane or rotorcraft type classified as a Noisy Aircraft type pursuant to this Section. (a) The Airport Director is directed to maintain on the Town website a current list of aircraft based upon the noise characteristics published by the Federal Aviation Administration, or (if data is not available from that agency), the European Aviation Safety Agency. Noisy Aircraft shall be defined as any airplane or rotorcraft for which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater (b) In lieu of being subject to the definition of "Noisy Aircraft" pursuant to
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 9 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting ofApril 16, 2015

subsection (a) on the basis of the Town's list of types of Noisy Aircraft, the owner of an Individual Aircraft may elect to have the noise classification of such Individual Aircraft determined by the sound levels on the basis of the EPNdB level that is published in the airplane or rotorcraft flight manual for such Individual Aircraft pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 36.1581(a). To obtain a noise classification of an Individual Aircraft, the owner ofsuch airc raft shall provide the Airport Director with a true copy of the relevant pages from such manual showing the noise level data. In the event of a conflict between the Town's list of classifications of Noisy Aircraft types and classification based on the data set forth in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, the data in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual shall prevail. Once the owner of an Individual Aircraft has provided the Airport Director with such data from the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, and the Airport Director has determined the authenticity thereof, the Airport Director shall keep such data on file so that the owner need not resubmit the data for each Use of the Airport, and compliance by such Individual Aircraft with this Section shall be determined based on such data. (6) "Use ofthe Airport" shall mean either one arrival (landing) at, or one departure (takeoff) from, the Airport, shall not include any repositioning of any aircraft on the Airport or any aborted takeoff or landing, but shall include touch-andgo operations that result in use of an Airport runway. 

### B. [Reserved] C. Noisy Aircraft Operations. Use of the Airport by Noisy Aircraft is prohibited as follows: (1) [Reserved] (2) More than two Uses of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft during a Calendar Week, or portion of a Calendar Week, that falls within the Season. 

### D. [Reserved] E. Exemptions. The restrictions of this section 75-38 shall not apply to any aircraft operational emergency, any medical emergency operation, whether by public or private aircraft, or to any operation by a government-owned aircraft, including, without limitation, police, emergency services, and military operations. In the case of an aircraft emergency or medical emergency operation, the operator shall submit a sworn statement to the Airport Manager within 24 hours of such operation attesting to the nature of the emergency and reason for the operation.

§ 75-39 PENAL TIES:
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 10 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015

A. Section 75-34 shall not apply to violations of Section 75-38 and this Section 75-39 shall apply for all violations of Section 75-38. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon courts and judicial officers in general, violations of Section 75-38 shall be deemed misdemeanors, and, for such purpose only, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to such violations. B. Any Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall be punishable by a fine assessed against any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in such aircraft, as follows: (1) For the first violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $1,000. (2) For the second violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $4,000. (3) For the third violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $10,000. (4) For the fourth violation by an Individual Aircraft, a prohibition on any Use of the Airport by the Individual Aircraft involved in such violation for a period of not more than two years. C. Each Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall constitute a separate offense. D. In addition, any entity convicted hereunder of not complying with the requirements of Section 75-38 may be subject to a fine of not less than the amount of the actual costs incurred and owed to the Town and not more than an amount equal to twice said actual costs. Should any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity be found in violation ofthe provisions of Section 75-38 within five years of a previous violation of this chapter, the minimum additional fine shall be not less than $2000. E. In addition to the above penalties, the Town may also maintain an action or proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation Section 75-38 any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in the Individual Aircraft. (1) 

### Ifa finding is made by a court of competentjurisdiction that the defendants or any of them has caused, permitted or allowed a violation of Section 75-38, a penalty to be jointly and severally included in the judgment may be awarded at the discretion ofthe court in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 for each violation that the defendants or any one ofthem individually caused, permitted or allowed the violation.
SECTION 3. Authority
Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 11 Exhibit 3Resolution 2015-413 Meeting of April 16, 2015

The Town Board is authorized to establish and promulgate rules and regulations regarding use ofthe East Hampton Airport pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(ii)(a)(ll) and (12) and Town Law §130 and pursuant to its powers as the proprietor of East Hampton Airport under federal statutory and case law and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. SECTION 4. Severability. If any section or subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase of this law shall be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by any order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, or pursuant to any order of any administrative agency having jurisdiction, whether such judgment or order is temporary or permanent, such judgment or order shall not affect the validity ofthis law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION S. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.

Dated: April 16, 2015

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: NAYS: ADOPTED [4 TO 1] Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilman BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON CAROLE BRENNAN, TOWN CLERK

Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Peter VanSCoyoc, Sylvia Overby, Larry Cantwell Fred Overton

Updated: 4/17/2015 11:30 AM by Carole A. Brennan B Page 12 Exhibit 3ICAO Aircraft

Type Code
A109 AW119

A124 A139 A189 A306 A30B A310 A318 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A345 A346 A359 A388 A3ST A400 A748 AN26 AN72 

## List of Noisy Aircraft Types The following list addresses the requirement of Proposed Town Code §75- 38 A.(4)(a) for the Airport Director to maintain on the Town website a current list of "noisy aircraft" defined to be "any airplane or rotorcraft for which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater." 1 The list is presented in terms of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) aircraft type codes and an accompanying commonplace aircraft type description. Commonplace Aircraft Description



### ivQ't_~~;:_~-~bli{6~#-:~~t~to(:~h~'ded-~~~~rqfftXP:~~:}:~t:i~~'e:r~_~~g~---;oi1~}s~:tey~~~~-~h:~t-~~t~,n_ij:'p.S':P$~:t~~:·9i_;p_gf_N~13:

## :·

, :

**Fh'-:-~hol~ :·:·:i:~~!i~I~-?~l:~-~-z~~~ft**  

### from_

**;,p~VWe~~--Pvi>lfsfl,~d:_~-9:~i?:.~!e~e!~{et,;YA(Y£1)9,)J(!~'-~tt,.:~_~Cfi~~~-'?tiCJ~s**

**~(~ ,~;~** 

### ·:___--3

**~~f!.~i:lrJ9_R_~-~~fP'~n-~s!:;f]1il.~if!J.~,V-~p~rcm~o.:~-~i~~~$f,:~t5:-?·~;-:_f~~:~h-~~0:-!YJifs;;p/r,;cPI~:P-~r~t~i!f.Yst'R:'-9vfde_:t,pe_,·;::-:··:** 

### Afi"p_oitp!rrctpr_;yvi_th

**npis~;l~:~el iQf?rrp_d~~P.~:lfWJ:lit~-~:;n..cj_igtd_~~'-~ird~f~~~,8Yl.~t:ni_qiJ_6al;·if!h,e,p~~-er_~:elieves_:tfje** 

1 ---: -:

### :-:---<':-:- - :·:

**:-~ :::'a_ir,~r,(;ff+.iiJ}lU.estip_n_,~~(J_UfrJ-IJot;Q_e:Ct~~~i/i~_d_Ds::O_o,~sy::** 

## :, :--.:-->'_:.:

___,<:-- --.;:_,--·:·:c_-_ Agusta A-109 Agusta AW119 MKII

AntonovAn-124 Agusta AB-139 AgustaWestland AW189 Airbus A300B4-600/A300C4-600 Airbus A300B2/A300B4-100/A300B4-200 Airbus A310-200/A310-300 Airbus A318-100 Airbus A319-100 Airbus A320-100/A320-200/A320-200neo Airbus A321-100/A321-200/A321-200neo Airbus A330-200 Airbus A330-300 Airbus A340-200 Airbus A340-300 Airbus A340-500 Airbus A340-600 Airbus A350-900 Airbus A380-800 Airbus A300-600ST Beluga Airbus A400M

BAe HS748 AntonovAn-26 Antonov An-72, An-74 UpdatedMarch 3, 2015 Exhibit 4Listo(NoisvAircraft Types Page2

ICAO Aircraft

Type Code
AS3B AS50 CommonplaceAircraft Description



### ~ot~;~:_:Ptib1i~~~d,dCJ;~~J **~-:Sha'ti~~--:qipcrO[-{:~YP~-~:i~f:hJ_~e_/a;Q9e~;.v:z~~js-~)~~fif-tii:ar:ei_~~(Jq·-~2f?~_S-:th_f-:9,~_;:o:Ef:~aB_**



### --,:'J~!es.~ptd:"**_.rhe~~:-m~f{:eS-te~~l,~!rOrf.f?Ylf~B!~.:~tt~li~~e~r:nel~~--~gv~l~fO!::Y~~YinifJlr:S'--afr£ebfiqUrgl!~~-~:f~,~P:!-** 

### :.:

**l:i_-<_:_,·aJ,ff~rlCJ~_:~~-JA,~rPlOn_t~rfn_a~if!J.'!r!!:qR,~c{i,tf._r:g<~~;P:~J~;:_~-tC):-,!:~:t:~~9~,:~y~~fi~;~i[;~(q!t:?~~-~Ff-if:!Y~_i,:ft~v,;~l!/h,~­**

**~-Aimc>rtPir~.~w:Vl!ltb-noi~_e;level;ifforfl;-qt{P_of~qrr,5h_e;i':'9i'!lr!Q~!;~irfr:qfr:s,t'l~~t~(1PLJ.aJ,-_ifti;J~-oWner-Qlt/ie~f!s:tiJ~-,-** 

### :.:.:·,:> - ::·:-_-::

**airf-i.t?[t_:j(l;:gpe~tiofr§_~(fQ/lj:fJqi;.:~e::cla~~ifi~YI;:_iJ~-;'!qifY::;** · \::

__:-- · Eurocopter (Aerosp.) AS-532 Cougar Mk2 Eurocopter (Aerosp.) AS-350 Astar/Ecureuii/Squirrel AS55 Eurocopter (Aerosp.) AS-355 Ecureuii2/Twin5tar/Twin5quirrel AS65 Eurocopter (Aerosp.) AS-365/565 Dauphin 2, Panther



# ~STRi· **·•••···•••••·•** '"•••••i····················. >··············•·.••.·



# Gulfstrearrr(i100/IAI,~l.~~.l>.~tr~···· ................................

### < ; ····•••··.•.·•·•········· AT42 ATR 42 AT43 ATR 42 AT44 ATR 42 AT45 ATR42 AT72 ATR 72 AT73 ATR-72-210 AT75 ATR 72 ATP BAe ATP B105 Eurocopter (MBB) B0-105DB B222 Bell222 B230 Bell230 B412 Bell412 B427 Bell427 B429 Bell429 B430 Bell430 B461 BAe 146-100 B462 BAe 146-200 B463 BAe 146-300 B701 Boeing 707-100 B703 Boeing 707-300 B712 Boeing 717-200 B720 Boeing 720-100 B721 Boeing 727-100 B722 Boeing 727-200 B732 Boeing 737-200 B733 Boeing 737-300 B734 Boeing 737-400 Updated March 3, 2015 Exhibit 4ListofNoisyAircraft Types Page 3 Commonplace Aircraft Description ICAO Aircraft

Type Code

### ~**N_~t~;:,::~P!Jbtisbe1**

# :lam**1~~;-sb~_ci-'!(f****:o,Iccrri#:*)tpes~:i1'si~de****,_[anp~~;-ci/~-;ols·e**

# __**:':eYr!s:_~~.h't;~xt~nii_:ri~ro~s;;tl}e~1.h;E_~NiJ_B, ;.:if!f_~~hqlf!._;;'th_e~~-,,~'!gef_:(~su_Iti~?J!(:rrjYUipi~p~R){fh:~#;?·oi:~~-~~tVe#f~~;~qr~ifJ~:9iif'?ftj_C?flJit.{~:rqfiih~'{~~:g,,_** 

### :.:.·-.- :,

### ::~ifflf':'!Dk_PQIN,:~iplCIP-~~~**:~_~firiJ,4':1 ?i)~r:Q~in{!::f~f!/flh** **t~;-;&:;~_J-**

## ,-**~:-~fffi~: :tY:e~~~>~~r~r~t,t::BVrQ**  

## __**~r~ m~st:~tA~~9:f?-** 

# __**th_~;-:**:·- .

### ::Ai,r~q/J-.P{C~~i~'::_V{i[~·-'W;se_}t?:~-el_ir'[~r;mcjti~?Ji~rn::~hJJQ_tpyt~kiJ:_q?rf'r:ag}.'f/f~~-~-:_';!?n_~~~~:-:~~te,teV::~~r;:-~?.~'!e~~s-:t~,~ 

## ?''_:_·::.:/:.:;;>;-:-**:~-:**

# > .,-:-;.;;;>::'.<-"**'~--:**·-':> :**:-::_:aJrc(dft_:·ln:rJ,u,e?tiPh_§h_ql./fd,-_n_qt:;J~,:~Jq~sif_i~!f.::~-s-::r#;!sy:**

### -::-;_:<:.:;;-.::,,**:::--,;:::~_>:,-**..:,:;::_<-::;:,:"<>**~:-** ·.-:-:· , __ 

# sns.··••••·••······· ·

# ~. <.·. ·.·)

# ~<>~i~\i'f~z~sgo·• · · · · · ·······••·••••··•···••···· B736 Boeing 737-600 B737 Boeing 737-700 B738 Boeing 737-800/P-8 Poseidon B739 Boeing 737-900/737-900ER B741 Boeing 747-100 B742 Boeing 747-200 B743 Boeing 747-300 B744 Boeing 747-400 B748 Boeing 747-8 B74R Boeing 747SR B74S Boeing 747SP/SUD B752 Boeing 757-200 B753 Boeing 757-300 B762 Boeing 767-200 B763 Boeing 767-300 B764 Boeing 767-400 B772 Boeing 777-200 B773 Boeing 777-300 B77L Boeing 777-200LR/777-F B788 Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner B789 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner BAll British Aerospace (BAe)- BAC One-Eleven BE40 Raytheon Hawker400 (Beechjet400) BER2 Beriev Be-200ES BK17 Eurocopter (MBB/Kawasaki) BK-117 C130 Lockheed C-130A/B/E/F/H/K/M/N/P/O/R/T/U/L-100-30 Hercules
C25A Cessna 525 CitationJet C27J ALENIA C27J Spartan C295 EADS CASA CN-295/T-21
UpdatedMarch 3, 2015 Exhibit 4ListofNoisvAircraft Tvpes Paqe4

ICAO Aircraft

Type Code
C525 Commonplace Aircraft Description

### ;N~te,::::~up!ls~ed_a~~~~O(~~~~~-ci,~iti;r?ff::tyP~~:/P;ciUQe,,[~hg_¢s_:rit:d0:1~_~;1e,Y~.ti.itf1~-~-:~~e~~--6fr<?§s_:tF~_:_9,_1.:·a,j,EP;~dE3



### ..·**th_f:~!fh_P.~d:;:_:Th.:e_S~..,t~f;g~7-:':_~~u.ltt;rPf[l::rt:U~i;pl~:gllhl~~--eif,:~-pi~~,}~\~~.'$'f¢r:v~-'Y:~n9::aj,~~i:~ft8~nt;g~~qtl~-?!f._:/~;;€i;**



### · __

### ._q;Jtefi_n9p_o~~fR--'(Jn~~::-'!].§,xirn--¥frJ.:-?P-~-r~ti!~~;~~;~b-_f~,:-'_~ff~i:·:,_·tp~-:tb:~~~,_.fY~~~L:-*!;-.C!q~:~~~-~r~:__rii~§~Jfr9PitJ~-:-'f~-~:- .. :**t~irp:or_(bi(g_Ci~r,-~,~tl~_n:g_i~e--!~--~~l_fnf9(Ii]f!t!?hfr_Qp':th,~;i~~fvl~i!Cl;:c!,fr{rPfi}S.~igh_t:~q~~-q(if;Jh_e·-~9,~rie?r:;~e_li~v~~-Jh~_** 

## · -- ;.:<-:-·· ·· ,-··**·:atrcrWi:J.n_:g:lfe~~~p(J.shpfiir:tA9f#-'e}:Jcj~?ifiid:q_~;Q~:fs_y:;:·:{·** 

### · - · · Cessna 525 CitationJet 

# ··<·.......... C56X Cessna 560XL Citation Excel

CL2P Bombardier CL-215

CONC Aerospatiale 

### I BAe Concorde 101 CVLT Convair 580/640 D328 Dornier 328 (Turboprop) DC10 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-10-10/DC-10-30/DC-10-40/MD-10-10/MD-10-30F DC3 Boeing (Douglas) DC-3/Super DC-3S (C-117D) DC85 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-8-50 DC86 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-8-60 DC87 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-8-70 DC91 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-14/DC-9-15 DC92 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-21 DC93 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-30 DC94 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-41 DC95 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) DC-9-51

DH8B DH8C DH8D DHC7 E120 E135
E145 E170 Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 200 Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 300 Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 400 De Havilland DHC-7 Dash 7 Embraer 120 Embraer Legacy Executive (EMB-135BJ)/RJ135ER (EMB-135ER)/RJ135LR (EMB135LR)/RJ140LR (EMB-135KL) Embraer RJ145EP (EMB-145EP)/RJ145LI (EMB-145LI)/RJ145LR (EMB-145LR)/RJ145LU (EMB145LU)/RJ145MP (EMB-145MP)/RJ145RS (EMB-145RS)/RJ145SA (EMB-145SA) Embraer 170 (ERJ 170-100}/175 (ERJ 170-200) Updated March 3, 2015 Exhibit 4ListofNoisyAircraft Types PageS

ICAO Aircraft

Type Code
E190 EC25 EC35 ECSS EC75 EHlO CommonplaceAircraft Description



### ~;·.rydt~:·;,_:~~bliS~~q,_4q_ta.f~:r:;s~~:de4_**~i~~~~~,t{p~~--;hC:i~&~;rpnge;':~r~oi:j:~-~~:yff¥:~ti?:t!;~~t~~5J;a-s/Qis-_th,r:ei.::o;tB~d8';·:;**

·,



### :t~(:~$h,.qlg.::**.!~-~~~-ran,ge,~,;~~~~:~qr?fr!** 

## ..

**rft~ltir;!e, I?:uR)i~fW:r!-**  **~--?tf-~, t~ie.!~!~ry.qtYif1~-;~fr~tqft_:C.?2liflum{iP~!f:** 

**'(~:.'~;-~.** · · ;



### ~if{~(lnil ..



### Pp_~etpl~~-~s~:..



### r:r:~~!'!'!J:'!J**-_~P,~~9tip_g ;~~~~h-~;** **~f!Jf,}::: _fe(ih~_s,i:tYf::s~:~lr~r~J:-:?-:~~e_fs_** 

**;~-~~t ~rQ~~~~:~~e;_** 

**::·~i_ipo[f_p;r~ctPt'~itQ_,_~.o!~fi?:-/~;'!~!:I~!~;matl()b_fr:9irf::~ry~:ilJ:~!vfcJ~_~J;qlr,~~1~t':f-_~;~_ht:h,-in:Y~J~;_if_;th.:~-p.W~~~oif)~f;e,_ve~·fh_e<:·** -. ;>:;:···
__:: :-. . 

### -:<>: · __**-;_l}ifC,~qft)n_.·Qu_e$!iP~:_S~(j~f'?J;rj__gf:;b~;:C{CJ¥iff€d:~,S_p(?iS}I;;,;;:i;''-·'** 

### . .. - Embraer 190LR (ERJ 190-100LR)/(ERJ 190-200) Eurocopter EC-225 Eurocopter EC-135 Eurocopter EC-155 Eurocopter EC-175

Agusta EH-101 EN28 Enstrom 280/F28 

# Iexytl•· > ...•.. · .. 

### >....•.•... ·



## MbH~Iic~ptgrsiiVJI)QtlQE~plbr¢h< 

# \>

.................·>·······.·············· .....•.....•..•.... F100 Fokker 100 (F28 Mk0100) F27 Fokker F27 Friendship F28 Fokker F28-1000 Fellowship/F28-2000/F28-3000/F28-4000 F2TH Dassault Falcon 2000 FSO Fokker 50 (F27 MkOSO) F900 Dassault Falcon 900/900B/900C/900DX/900EX/900LX FA10 Dassault Falcon 10/100 FA20 Dassault Falcon 20/200 FASO Dassault Falcon 50/SOEX FA7X Dassault Falcon 7X G150 Gulfstream G150 (IAI Gulfstream 150)
GLF2 GLF3 GLF4
H25A H25B H25C HA4T IL62 IL76 IL86 Gulfstream GII/GIIB/GII-SP Gulfstream Gill Gulfstream G300 (Gulfstream G-IV)/G350 (Gulfstream G-IV)/G400 (Gulfstream G-IV)/G450 (Gulfstream GIV-X)/GIV /GIV-SP British Aerospace (BAe)- BAe HS 125- 100/BAe HS 125- 200/BAe HS 125- 300/BAe HS 125- 400/BAe HS 125- 600 British Aerospace (BAe)- BAe HS 125- 700/Raytheon Hawker 800 (BAe HS 125- 800)/850XP Raytheon Hawker 1000 (BAe HS 125- 1000) Hawker 4000 Ilyushin 11-62 Ilyushin 11-76/11-78 Ilyushin 11-86 Updated March 3, 2015 Exhibit 4ListofNoisyAircraft Types Page 6 Commonplace Aircraft Description ICAO Aircraft

Type Code 

### :-



### ':No,i:e:~-**;·:-~~:?liSti~g: :a~t#f~r** **~fJiJ:~eci :q;,~i:G[t_--tYp-:es·:ii:~l~d_"e:;ta,t}~~f-:9YC~f~;e:lfY:~!~-t~--~:f:~ite_n,#** 
**~~i-~?:?if~.~-~9** j



### ~-~~~R~~~:<',

**~:t_~r;~shpld:::_-- !h~s-rr:eng~~_:r~_$}jl~** 

### [r:P?J.

**:'JlU,f~ipfe,P~** 

### __ **fJI!?.hf_~rfo!~~)-~.v~~ff~(: ,~_OfY{iw_** **.~!rttaft:~o_U!!g~-W~i?~~-:f**

**~-,:~:;,**

### ;·>

**:~**



### '·,;::;:_,_:_~i!f7~;fl~:**-P,e·r'-~r~lq~tS:_ ,O?.axirl)ug1-_.0f~rdt~TJil_:r':-~-i~~:~~/~~tc_:J** **:';:-.~~r::tR~$-~:f>!P:-~S)p_l~~r,d(t- ·o_~~~':YJ:fl{~t;frpVi~~}~.~** 

### ·-;:·__· :-

**)Jrpp_r;t::btre.ct()~_**J!t!/th-



### n,oJ~e;te~~l,;f_n[o,_"T!9-tion,**fr~_rO_:·~~t -{h(Ji_~uj_4_of** **.;:-{ffrOf;~'~~light:ih~RH(d~-,- i{ih-_e_.OWht:r--b.~li~~~f_:the;** 

### ..

- .. · · :·,.'-_:::->

- __::-.:::··· .-: __**:_:'-'afrc_rd[t)nHIJ.e'syg_h:~t!ciY(~:~pi);_~_:,{l,f!~ifiei(~_s__ir_~iiv:;-** 

### :· "

- ·· · -· IL96 Ilyushin 11-96 KA27 Kamov Ka-32 L101 Lockheed L-1011-385-1-14 TriStar 100/L-1011-385-3 TriStar 500 L188 Lockheed L-188 Electra L29B Lockheed L-1329 JetStar 731/L-1329 JetStar II



### -•~t4:LO. 

# 'i- :' 

# < , •..,

•.;_,•.••, ••
__••-·,···•-••< .••..•,.-••.-.\_·.,i

.

**~-~t-l<i1'<-l:_.'•'•••** 

## i? 

# 'i

. <);.,••• _.,.......-, ••••-_._,,••-_-.••••.••_,_•·•''•_•.,. i U23 Bombardier Learjet 23 U24 Bombardier Learjet 24 U25 Bombardier Learjet 25/29 U28 Bombardier Learjet 28 U31 Bombardier Learjet 31 U35 Bombardier Learjet 35/36 U45 Bombardier Learjet 40/45 

# • •W?S <·-••,••·--,•--·· .,,•-•'••·•••·••••<} >.•'•.•--•·•--•·-•·•'•·•··•- 

### <.



## s~IT\~~r<Ji~l't:eari~fssi >•,••·-·· < .•••,.,.. 

# > ._••.,.-,.-••,-.,••-.• ••.-_,-_.,_,,\•··•• MOll Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-11 MD81 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-81 (DC-9-81) MD82 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-82 (DC-9-82) MD83 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-83 (DC-9-83) MD87 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-87 (DC-9-87) MD88 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-88 (DC-9-88) MD90 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-90-30 

## f\lloBb· ''.•--.- •.···-····•··•·••"••···•••·-•··-··-'·-•··-··''••------•·-· .-._.-...--•·-• ·



# IVIHsubi~hit\11U-30q



# l?i~niolld**~-•-•--••···.••.••··•**.•••,_·••••--··•-- \ <·--.•,·•-•···-·••• (···-·. PRMl Beechcraft Premier I (Raytheon 390) RJlH Avro 146-RJlOO RJ70 Avro 146-RJ70 RJ85 Avro 146-RJ85 S210 Aerospatiale (Sud) SE210 Caravelle S76 Sikorsky S-76 S92 Sikorsky S-92 

### SllRl. ._.•.•• s":br"'linet.40A



### .(f\ockweii.NA-265;.glA)/~O-(Rqc.:k_;,ell,iN,t\- 265,60}/fis'(Rockwell



### NA-265-6~)
-· ·

•..·-•••••••• -•·•--•··,.·-._ .:.· .•.•- •..-. _; .••.
_ >.· · ·



# ~abreliner/N **rthArueri_<;ah** 'f,3_9.A ·•·•-·•••.• -•-.•.·_·..,·_ -·······-••···-._ ••. ···········-· 

### .x .-·· SBR2 Sabreliner 75A (Rockwell NA-265-80) Updated March 3, 2015 Exhibit 4ListofNoisyAircraft Tvoes Page 7

ICAO Aircraft

Type Code CommonplaceAircraft Description



### ~6:t~:;:-:P~bJi~~-e<I:O_a'tQ:f?_;,-sh~~edbirtwf;:t)iP_~s;Jq·cJ4~:~:ra!lp~f-,Pi~~~$~;i~~~~$-:_rhc1~-:e_x~~-JJit..d~(D~!;:~~he:9~-:;e_~~iV~B:;:



### f~t~sh:9~~---~,_th.e!>~;rC1Qf!.f_~'[~s,~,JtJr;o~_,'!'_~-l_tipJe,:~~H~/{~_h~_<j_.f1fi$~:.;'-e_~e,I;J,q~-~-~-r!)i~_g;f;t~fE~g~F_P?f{~t!-'9~{~?s4~:~i;::'·,.:_­

**;-'-::;iJif!er{q~_:Pp.w~rpi9Dt~;:rpg_~ifflf!·(l)-:f?P~f~-tJog-:-~~~~?:~~i~_~t~_:J:::;f9.f;tr~f-f'tifpe$;_/~Jf~[PJ{-~-Wf;l~_J:~_:'TH$J.'f!f0}/)1~/h~-;::**

**---~~~P~it-Piriict~fJJtith_:oCJi$_~_1e_~~~-!p[~iirJp** 

### __ **~ippifr,<J,m-_th,~.'-~~il~yid,y~l:;tri[Emft)fJ!f6~-:rf'fiP~:ah:4 th~·:q·V:,ned?_eliqyej·_tn:~:** 


### -- .-- -'
- - - -

**H~,~~aft,~~:H~~s-~;gry.-~~P:~tif;TJC?:tp-e,:9;9-~;fi~4;~~:1r!J~A:-':** 

### - - - '

SH33 Shorts 330/360


### •.



# SH~6 •··•i. .i

... • ..•.·.························.•.·.······ 

# .i<}.···••····

.



# ''·'~ . • 

# n }i 

# < 

# ?> • i SU95 Sukhoi SSJ 100-95 T134 Tupolev- Tu-134 T154 Tupolev- Tu-154 T204 Tupolev- Tu-204/Tu-214 VF14 VFW-Fokker 614 W3 PZL W-3 Sokol WW24 IAI 1124Westwind

YK40 Yakovlev Yak-40 YK42 Yakovlev Yak-142/Yak-42


### FOOTNOTE

1 Proposed Town Code§ 75-38 A. (4) states: "Noisy Aircraft" shall mean any airplane or rotorcraft type classified as a Noisy Aircraft type pursuanttothis Section.

(a) The Airport Director is directed to maintain on the Town website a current list of aircraft based upon the noise characteristics published by the Federal Aviation Administration, or (if data is not available from that agency), the European Aviation Safety Agency. Noisy Aircraft shall be defined as any airplane or rotorcraft for which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels (EPNdB) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater (b) In lieu of being subject to the definition of "Noisy Aircraft" pursuant to subsection (a) on the basis of the Town's list of types of Noisy Aircraft, the owner of an Individual Aircraft may elect to have the noise classification ofsuch Individual Aircraft determined bythe sound levels on the basis ofthe EPNdB level that is publ"lshed in the airplane or rotorcraft flight manual for such Individual Aircraft pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 36.1581(a). To obtain a noise classification of an Individual Aircraft, the owner of such aircraft shall provide the Airport Director with atrue copy ofthe relevant pages from such manual showing the noise level data. In the event of a conflict between the Town's list of classifications of Noisy Aircraft types and classification based on the data set forth in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, the data in the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual shall prevail. Once the owner of an Individual Aircraft has provided the Airport Director with such data from the Individual Aircraft airplane or rotorcraft flight manual, and the Airport Director has determined the authenticity thereat the Airport Director shall keep such data on file so that the owner need not resubmit the data for each Use ofthe Airport, and compliance by such Individual Aircraft with this Section shall be determined based on such data.

UpdatedMarch 3, 2015 Exhibit 4

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERNDISTRICT OFNEWYORK



### - --- - --- --- -- --- -- - -- - -- - - - - - --X COMMITTEETO STOPAIRPORT EXPANSION, eta!., Plaintiffs,

v. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION, eta!., Defendants. 

### -------------------------------X SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Civil Action No. CV-03-2634 (Seybert, J.) (M. Orenstein, M.J.)

SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT WHEREAS, onJanuary I0, 1989,theEastHamptonTownBoardpassed ResolutionNo. 145,whereinit adoptedthe MasterPlanUpdate forEast HamptonAirport ("the 1989MasterPlan") with certain amendments that are set forth intheResolutionNo. 145 (acopy oftheMasterPlan Update as adopted andResolutionNo. 145 are attached hereto as ExhibitA); and WHEREAS, onDecember 15, 1989, theEastHamptonTownBoardpassed ResolutionNo. 2020 wherein it approved anAirport LayoutPlan(the "1989 ALP") for theEast HamptonAirport and authorized PatTrunzo, III, thethenDeputy Supervisor, to signthe 1989 ALP; and WHEREAS, onDecember 19, 1989, PatJ. Trunzo, III signedthe 1989ALP on behalfoftheEastHamptonTownBoard (acopyofthe AirportLayout Plan, as adopted and signed, is attached hereto as ExhibitB); and WHEREAS, byletterdated September5, 1990 from Mr. Phillip Brito to Mr. Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 70

TonyBullock, the FederalAviationAdministration ("FAA'') conditionally approved the 1989 ALP (acopyofwhichletteris attachedhereto as Exhibit

### C); and WHEREAS, in 2001 theFAAdidnothave inits possession a signed copyofthe 1989 ALP and theFAAaskedtheTownto furnish a signed copythereof; and WHEREAS, theEastHamptonTownBoard, on August 3, 2001, adopted ResolutionNo. 1023,wherein it authorizedthe re-signing oftheALP adopted in 1989 andthe submission ofthere-signed ALP (the "2001 ALP") to theFAA; and WHEREAS, inAugust 2001, the Town ofEastHampton submittedthe 2001 ALP
to theFAA (acopyofwhichis attachedhereto as ExhibitD) andrepresentedthat the2001 ALP

was a true copyofthe 1989ALP; and WHEREAS, accordingto publishedreports, inDecemberof2002 orJanuaryof 2003 inresponseto a federal subpoena, theTownofEastHamptonproduced a copyofthe 1989 ALP that included the signature ofPat

### J. Trunzo, lll; and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allegethat a comparison ofthe airport layoutplan producedbythe Towninresponseto the subpoenaandthe 2001 ALP demonstrates that the 2001 ALP isnotinfact a true copyofthe 1989 ALP; and WHEREAS, to thebestofthe knowledge, information, andbeliefoftheFAA, the approval ofanALP bytheEastHampton TownBoardmayonlybe affectedbyresolutionofthe TownBoard; and WHEREAS, to thebestoftheknowledge, information andbeliefofthe FAA, sinceDecember 15, 1989 therehas beenno resolution oftheEastHamptonTownBoard approving anALP for the East HamptonAirport otherthan the 1989 ALP; and WHEREAS, inthis actionPlaintiffs seekreview ofthe determinationbytheFAA

2 Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 12 Page!D 

### #: 71



### in2001 to approvethe 2001 ALP; and WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs submitted severalFreedomofInformationActrequests
to theFAA concerningtheEastHamptonAirportpriorto theinitiationof the above-captioned action; and WHEREAS, theparties desire to resolvethis action and the issuesbetween them without further litigation; ITIS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, byandbetweenPlaintiffs and Defendants ("theparties"), that the above-captioned action shallbe settled andcompromised on the following terms and conditions: 1. Plaintiffs will file aRule 41(a) stipulationofdismissal wherebythe abovecaptioned actionwouldbe dismissed withprejudice, and withoutcosts and fees to anyparty, providedthat Plaintiffs' obligationto file such a stipulation shallnot ariseuntiltheDefendants or theircounsel signthis Agreement. Plaintiffs agreeto file such stipulationwithintenbusiness days ofreceipt ofDefendants' executed signature page. 2. Plaintiffs will submitto the United States District Court for the Districtof ColumbiaaRule4l(a) stipulation ofdismissal, withprejudice and without costs and fees to any party, ofthe actionentitled Committee to StopAirportExpansion, etal. v. UnitedStates Departmentof Transportation, etal., 

### CivilActionNo. 02-0619 (JR) followingreceipt ofthe Court's orderdismissing Civil ActionNo. CV-03-2634 (Seybert, J.) and executionbytheparties ofa stipulationofdismissal ofCivil Action No. 02-0619 (JR). 3. Plaintiffs will submit arequest seeking dismissal, withprejudice and withoutcosts andfees to anyparty, oftheproceeding entitled Committee to StopAirport Expansion v. Town of EastHampton, 

### FAADocketNo. 16-02-04toDefendantFAAwithin ten



### 3 Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 72

days ofreceiptbyPlaintiffs' counsel ofan orderdismissing Civil ActionNo. 03-2634. DefendantFAA agrees thatuponreceipt ofsuchrequest, itwill withdraw the orderofdismissal datedJune 24,2002inFAADocketNo. 16-02-04. 4. DefendantFAA agrees that itwill not assert, agreeorconcludein any subsequentproceeding, including duringits consideration ofarequest for federal financial assistance, thatanymasterplan concerning theEastHamptonAirportotherthan the 1989Master Planas modifiedbythe TownBoardin TownResolutionNo. 145, whichplanand resolution are attached as ExhibitA, is amasterplan approvedbythe Town ofEastHamptonunless Defendant FAAobtains orispresentedwitha certified copyoftheresolution ofthe TownBoard adopted subsequent to the effective date ofthis Agreement approving such masterplan. DefendantFAA also agrees thatitwillnot assert, agree orconclude inanysubsequentproceeding, including during its considerationofarequest for federal financial assistance, that any airportlayoutplan concerningtheEastHamptonAirport, otherthanthe 1989 ALP which is attached as ExhibitB, is

anairport layoutplan approvedbytheTownofEast Hamptonunless DefendantFAAobtains or ispresentedwith a certified copyoftheresolution ofthe TownBoardadopted subsequentto the effective date ofthis Agreement approving such airport layoutplan. DefendantFAAagrees that the 1989 ALP does not, as ofthe datehereof, constitute a "current" airportlayoutplanwithinthe meaning ofapplicable federal law and; therefore, is not a legally acceptablebasis for any federal financial assistance, including airport improvementgrants, issued subsequentto the effective date ofthis Agreement. 5. DefendantFAAwill not awardfederal financial assistance, including grants, to theTown ofEast Hampton for theEast HamptonAirportunless the application for federal financial assistanceisbasedupon an airport layoutplan for theEastHamptonAirport



### 4 Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 73

thatwas adoptedbyresolutionoftheEastHamptonTownBoard and in a mannerconsistentwith applicable law.6. Through and includingDecember 31,2009,DefendantFAAwillrequire that applications for federal financial assistance, including grants, from the TownofEast Hamptonfor theEastHamptonAirportinclude a copyofthe Town BoardResolution approving theairportlayoutplan thatis submittedto theFAA and acertified copyofthe TownBoard Resolution approvingthe submission ofthe applicationitself, exceptthat therequirementto submit a copyoftheTownBoardresolution approvingthe extant airport layoutplanshall not applyto arequest for funding to develop a new orrevised airport layoutplan. 7. DefendantFAAagrees, withrespectto EastHamptonAirport grants issuedpriorto the effective date ofthisAgreement, that the following grant assurances willnot beenforcedbeyondDecember31, 2014:



### • Itwill makethe airport available as an airport forpublic useonreasonable terms andwithoutunjustdiscriminationto alltypes, kinds and classes ofaeronautical activities, includingcommercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport (grantassurance 22.a.).

• The sponsormay establish suchreasonable, andnotunjustlydiscriminatory, conditions to bemetbyall users ofthe airport as maybenecessary for the safe and efficient operationofthe airport (grant assurance 22.h).


### • Itwillkeep up to date at all times an airportlayoutplanofthe airport showing; (1)boundaries ofthe airport and allproposedadditions thereto,togetherwiththe boundaries ofall offsite areas ownedorcontrolledbythe sponsorfor airport purposes and proposed additions thereto; (2) the locationandnature ofall existing andproposed airport facilities and structures (such as runways, taxiways, aprons, terminalbuildings, hangars androads), including allproposed extensions and reductions ofexisting airport facilities; and (3) the locationofall existing and proposednonaviationareas andofallexistingimprovements thereon. Such airport layoutplans and each amendment, revision, ormodificationthereof, shall be subject to the approval ofthe Secretarywhich approval shallbe evidencedby the signature ofa duly authorizedrepresentative ofthe Secretaryontheface of the airport layoutplan. The sponsorwillnotmake orpermit anychanges or alterations in the airportor anyofits facilities whicharenot in conformitywith the airport layoutplan as approvedbythe Secretary and whichmight, in the
5 Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 6 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 74



### opinion ofthe Secretary, adversely affect the safety, utilityorefficiencyofthe airport (grantassurance 29.a.).

• Ifa change oralterationinthe airport orthe facilities is made whichthe Secretary determines adversely affects the safety, utility, orefficiencyofany federally owned, leased, orfunded propertyonoroffthe airport andwhichisnotin conformitywiththe airport layoutplan as approvedbytheSecretary, theowneror operatorwill, ifrequested, bythe Secretary; (1) eliminate such adverse effectina manner approvedbythe Secretary; or(2)bear all costs ofrelocating such property (orreplacement thereof) to a site acceptable to the Secretary and all costs ofrestoring suchproperty (orreplacementthereof) to thelevel ofsafety, utility, efficiency, and costofoperation existingbefore theunapproved changeinthe airport orits facilities (grant assurance 29.b.). Notwithstanding the foregoing, DefendantFAAreserves itsright to take action as provided in grant assurance 29 ifthe Town ofEastHamptontakes an actionorproposes to take an action thatwill adversely affectthe safety ofthe EastHamptonAirport. All othergrantassuranceswith respectto anygrant awardedto the EastHampton Airport, and all grant assurances withrespect
to any grant awarded afterthe effectivedate ofthisAgreement, includinggrant assurances 22.a and 22.h andgrant assurance 29, shallbeenforced infull. 

### 8. a) 

### Plaintiffs will file a requestpursuantto theFreedom ofInformation Act, 

### 5U.S.C. 

### §552, 49 C.F.R. Part 7, inthe form attached as Exhibit E (the "FOIArequest"), withinten (10) business days ofthe executionofthis SettlementAgreement. (b) DefendantFAAwillrespondto theFOIArequest within seventyfive (75) days ofreceiptbythe FAAoftheFOIArequest andwill send theresponseto the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs. DefendantFAA agrees that anyrecordwithinthe scope of theFOIArequestthat is withheldbyDefendantFAAonthe grounds thatit is exempt from disclosurewillbeidentified on a list orlog andthat list orlogwillbeprovidedto Plaintiffs' counselwithin I

### 05 days ofreceipt ofthe FOIArequest. DefendantFAAalso agrees that the FAARegionalCounsel's Office (''FAA counsel") willreview anyrecord so withheld and listed andwillprovidePlaintiffs' counselwith a written statement infoimingPlaintiffs as to whether


### 6 Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 7 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 75



### FAAcounsel agrees that suchrecordis properlywithheld. Theparties agreethatthe records on the listorJog shallbe identified byprovidingthe name ofthe author(s), thename ofthe intended and actual recipients, the date oftherecord, thetype ofrecord andthereason whythe record was withheld. (c) Theparties agreethat Plaintiffsmayappealthe determinationof DefendantFAAby: (I) submitting awritten appeal to the AssistantAdministratorfor Regions and CenterOperations, FAAHeadquarters, 800 

### IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20591; (2) submittingthe appeal within thirty (30) days ofreceiptbyPlaintiffs' counsel ofthe
response ofDefendantFAAto theFOIArequest ortheFAAcounsel'swritten statement, whichever occurs last intime, (3) referencing theFOIA ControlNumber, and including all information and arguments relied uponin support ofthe appeal inthe submissionto theAssistant Administratorfor Regions and Center Operations; (4) indicating that it

### is an appeal from a denial ofarequestundertheFreedom ofInformation Act; and (5) prominentlymarkingthe envelopeinwhichthe appeal is sent as "FOIAAppeal." DefendantFAA agrees that any determinationoftheAssistant Administratorconcerning such appeal will be sentto the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs. (d) Theparties agree that within forty-five (45) 

### days ofreceiptby Plaintiffs' counsel ofadeterminationbytheAssistantAdministrator,Plaintiffsmayrequestthat this Courtdetermine whethertherehas been a failurebyDefendantFAAto complywiththe Freedom ofInformationAct withrespectto theFOIArequest. Theparties agree thattheCourt shall retainjurisdictionto determine anyissues raisedbythe FAAresponseto the FOIA request, ifsuchrequestis filed withthe Courtwithin forty-five (45) days ofreceipt ofthe Assistant Administrator's determinationbyPlaintiffs' counsel. Theparties also agreethatthe Court's

7 Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 8 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 76 Exhibit 5



### review ofthe AssistantAdministrator's determination andthenature ofthereliefavailable shall begovernedbytheFreedom ofInformationAct. (e) Theparties agree thatthisParagraph 8 shallnotbe construed to affordPlaintiffs anyrights beyondthoseprovided inthe Freedom ofInformationAct. 

### 9. Nothingherein, orinthe settlementhereof, shall in anywaybe deemed an admissionorevidence ofwrongdoingorliabilityonthepart oftheDefendants, including agents, officers, assigns, employees andrepresentatives, past andpresent. 10. Plaintiffs andDefendants understand and agreethatthis Agreement containsthe entire agreementbetweentheparties, and no statements,representations, promises, agreements ornegotiations, oral orotherwise, betweentheparties ortheircounselwhich arenot includedherein shallbe ofanyforce oreffect. 

### 11. The effectivedateofthis Agreement shallbethe datethatthe documentis signedbythe partywho signs it lastintime.

COMMITTEETO STOP AIRPORTEXPANSION

Dated: January

# n,2005 By:

# 6rtv.d~ae. Edward Gorman

EDWARD GORMAN
By:

# ~~46 EdwardGorman 68 HuckleberryLane Dated: January¥· 2005 EastHampton, NY 11937

8

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 9 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 77



## .,;., Dated: January

# 4,2005

Dated:

## January~"(~ 2005



# Ar-vvl 24 1

# '26Ds**Dated:~,** 

### 2005

Dated: January

__ , 2005
By: PATTRUNZO,JR

.

EastHampton, NY 11937

PATJ. TRUNZO, III

# ~-1---h,~**[~** ,4J PatJ. Trunzo, III 10 CedarTrail EastHampton,NY 11937

COUNSELFORPLAINTIFFS

# Shcih~~ (AdmittedPro HacVice) AkinGump StraussHauer 

### & Feld LLP 1333 NewHampshireAvenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-1564

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA Roslynn R. 

### Mauskopf United States Attorney EasternDistrictofNewYork Attorneyfor Defendants 610Federal Plaza Central Islip, New York 11722-4454

KevinP. Mulry (KM 3752) AssistantU.S. Attorney



### 9 Exhibit 5

### · · Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 10 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 78



### Dated: January

__ , 2005

Dated: January

__ , 2005

Dated: January

__ , 2005



## /Jf.<IL 

# II Dated: .hmtlary / .., 

### 2005
By: PATTRUNZO, JR. By:_______________ _ PatTrunzo, Jr. 148 Buckskill Road EastHampton,NY 11937

PATJ. 

### TRUNZO, III
By:,:c--:-:::-----:::::--------- Pat J. Trunzo, III 

### I0CedarTrail East Hampton, NY 11937

COUNSEL FORPLAINTIFFS

SheilaD. Jones, Esquire (AdmittedPro Hac Vice) Akin Gump Strauss Hauer 

### & Feld LLP 1333 NewHampshire Avenue,N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-1564

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA Roslynn R. Mauskopf United States Attorney Eastern District ofNewYork Attorney for Defendants 610 Federal Plaza Central Islip, New York 11722-4454



### 9 Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 11 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 79



### ExhibitE

Federal AviationAdministration NationalFreedom ofInformationAct Staff, ARC-40 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591

Dear [Insertname]: This firmrepresents the Committeeto Stop AirportExpansionwithrespectto certain mattersrelatingto the EastHamptonAirport located inthe Town ofEastHampton,New York (airportidentifier: HTO). Pursuantto theFreedomofInformationAct, 

### 5U.S.C.§ 552, and the settlement agreementexecutedbytheparties 

### in Committee to StopAirportExpansion, eta!. v. U.S. Departmentof Transportation, eta!., CivilAction, No. CV-03-2634 (E.D.N.Y.), werequest the following documents andrecords: all records and documentsreferring orrelatingto the EastHampton Airport from January 1, 1988 to December31, 2003, that werereceivedby, issuedbyorcreatedbythe following organizational units oftheFederal Aviation Administration's EasternRegion (and all organizationalunits reportingto suchorganizationalunits); Airports Division(AEA-600), includingwithout limitationtheNewYorkAirports District Office; the AirwayFacilitiesDivision (AEA-400); the NewYorkNAS Implementation Center (ANl-200); the NYFlightProcedures Office (NYFPO); the Flight Standards Division (AEA-200); the AirTrafficDivision (AEA-500); the Office oftheRunwaySafety ProgramManager, and the Office oftheRegional Administrator (AEA-1). In addition, therequester seeks documents andrecordsreferring orrelating to theEastHampton Airport that werereceived, issuedbyorcreatedbythe OfficeoftheAssociate AdministratorforAirports (ARP-1), Office ofAirport Safety and Standards (AAS), and the Office ofAirportPlanning andProgramming (APP), eachofwhich are located at FAANationalHeadquarters, Washington, D.C. Exhibit 5

### Case 2:03-cv-02634-JS-MLO Document 36-2 Filed 04/29/05 Page 12 of 12 PageiD 

### #: 80



### Forthepurposes ofthis request, as defined in the U.S. DepartmentofTransportation's regulation implementingFOIA, 49 C.F.R. Part 7, theterm "record" includes "anywriting, drawing, map, recording, tape, film, photograph, orotherdocumentarymaterialbywhich information ispreserved. Theterm also includes any such documentarymaterial storedby computer." 49 CFR §7.2. Also for thepurposes ofthis request, "record" and "document" mean draftversions, final versions and all attachments orexhibitsto such "records" and "documents." Exhibit 5

# REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL EH2014-105 

# TITLE: NOISE STUDY AT THE EAST HAMPTONAIRPORT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DEFINITION: An RFP defines the situation orobject for which the goods andorservices are required, how theyare expected to be used, and/orproblems that theyare expected to address. Bidders are invited to propose solutions that willresultin the satisfaction ofthe Town's objectives in 

## a mannermostadvantageous to the Town. The proposedsolutions are evaluatedagainst

## a predeterminedset ofcriteria for which price maynotbe the primaryconsideration. RFP DISTRIBUTION-Important Notice-The Town of East Hampton distributes Request for Proposal documentsfrom the East Hampton Town Purchasing Department. Copies of documents obtained from any other source are not considered official copies. Only those proposers who obtain documents from the Purchasing Department office are guaranteed to receive addendum information, if such information is issued. **Interested parties are advised to fax the enclosed Receipt Confirmation Form (Appendix A) immediately upon receipt ofthis RFP to ensure that they receive further information with regard to this RFP. Information offered from sources otherthan the Office of Purchasing is not official and may be inaccurate. Do not contact any other Departments or Agencies involved in the RFP. Closing date for this Request for Proposal is 3:00 p.m., prevailing time, on Thursday May 15, 2014. Send MARKED ORIGINALS AND 10 COPIES ofeach proposal. Please use the RFP number on all correspondence. For further information contact: Jeanne Carroza, CPPB Purchasing Agent Town of East Hampton 631-324-4183 Exhibit 6

# PART A-ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION INTRODUCTION TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON GOVERNMENT OVERVIEW The TownofEastHamptonis a municipalitylocated inthe easternmostpart ofSuffolk County on LongIsland. TheTown is comprised ofsixhamletsEast Hampton, Amagansett,Montauk, Springs, Wainscott and SagHarbor. The Townhas a five memberBoardwith one elected Supervisor and four elected Councilpersons. RFPTERMINOLOGY Generally, throughoutthis RFP the following terminologyis used: -"Mandatory"- arequirement thatmustbemet in a substantiallyunaltered form. The terms "shall", "must", "required", and "will" are also usedto indicate mandatoryrequirements. -"Desirable"- arequirementhas ahigh degree ofimportance to the objectives ofthis RFP. The term "should" also indicates a desirable requirement. -"Optional"- arequirementthat is not considered essential, but for which evaluation credit is given. The terms "may" and "can" also indicate optionrequirements.

RECEIPT CONFIRMATIONFORM Uponreceipt, fill outthe attachedReceipt Confirmation Form (AppendixA) and fax ore-mail it to the Town Purchasing Department. All subsequentinformationregarding this RFP will be directed onlyto those who return the form with an indicationthattheyintendto submit aproposal. CLOSINGDATE Complete copies ofeachproposalmustbe received atthe Purchasing DepartmentOffice locatedEast Hampton Town Hall I59 Pantigo RoadEastHampton, NewYork 11937by 3:00pm,prevailing time on ThursdayMay 15,2014. PROPOSALS MUST BE CLEARLYMARKED WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PROPOSERAND THE RFP NUMBERAND NAME ON THE SEALED ENVELOPE AND/OR BOX. Exhibit 6

## TERMS AND CONDITIONS INQUIRIES All inquiries relatedto this Request for Proposal shallbe in writing to the Town utilizingAppendixB

- QuestionForm. Informationobtained from anyother source is not official and maybe inaccurate. Do not contact anyotherperson(s) involved. Inquiries andresponses willberecorded andmaybe distributedto all proposers at the Town's option. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES All recipients ofthis Request for Proposalwho have returnedthe Receipt Confirmation Formwillbe notifiedregarding any changes made to this document. CHANGES TO PROPOSAL WORDING No changes to wording ofthe proposal willbe acceptedafter submission unless requestedbythe Town. OWNERSHIP OF PROPOSALS All responses to theRFP become the propertyofthe Town ofEast Hampton. PROPOSERS EXPENSES Prospective proposers are solelyresponsible for their own expenses in preparinga proposal and subsequentnegotiations with the Town, ifany. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS This RFP shouldnotbe construed as a commitmentbythe Town to proceed withthe proposed leases. The Town is notbound to acceptthehighest leaseprice or anyproposal ofthose submitted. LIABILITY OFERRORS While the Townhas used considerable efforts to ensure an accurate representation ofinformation in 

### this RFP, allprospective proposers are urged to conducttheir owninvestigations into the material facts andthe Town shall notbe held liable or accountable for any error or omission in anypart ofthis RFP. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS All theterms and conditions ofthis RFP are deemedto be acceptablebytheproposers and incorporated in its proposal exceptthose conditions and provisions that are expresslyexcludedbythe proposal. QUOTES FROMTHE MARKETPLACE The Town ofEastHamptonreserves the rightto considerquotes from the marketplaceby suppliers otherthan those invited to respondto this solicitation. FINANCIAL STABILITY The successful frrm mustdemonstrate financial stabilityandthe Town reserves the rightto conduct independentbackground checks to determine the financial strength ofany and all organizations or individuals submittingproposals. Exhibit 6

### NEGOTIATIONDELAY Ifany contract cannot be negotiatedwithin thirty (30) days ofnotificationto the designatedproposer, the Townmayterminate negotiations with that proposer, andnegotiate a lease agreement with another proposer ofits choice. 

### DEFINITION OF CONTRACT The Townmay at its optionnotify aproposerinwritingthat its proposalhas been accepted and such acceptance shall at the Town's option constitute themaking ofa formal contract for the services set out inthe RFP. Alternatively, the subsequent full execution ofa written agreement shall constitutethe making ofa lease, andno proposer shall acquire anylegal orequitable rights orprivileges whatever relative to the proposaluntil the Townhas delivered either a signednotice in writing to the proposer or a fully executed written agreementto the proposer. 

### COMPLIANCEWITHLAWS The contractor shall give all notices and obtain all the licenses andpermits requiredto performthe work. The contractor shall complywith all the laws applicable to the work ortheperformance ofthe contract. The successful Contractor shallnot discriminate against any individual in accordance with applicable federal, state, or local laws. It

### will be the responsibility ofthe Contractorto ensure the appropriate DBEgoals are satisfied onprojects 

### GOVERNINGLAW This RFP and any contract entered into between theproposer andthe Town shallbe governedbyand in accordance withthe laws ofthe CountyofSuffolk, the State ofNewYork, and the United States of America. 

### CONFIDENTIALITY This document, or anyportionthereof, maynotbeused for anypurpose otherthanthe submission of proposals. Contractors shouldbeaware thatpertinent facts relating to theirproposals, excludingtrade secrets or proprietaryinformation, couldpotentiallybereleased as soon as sixty (60) days afterthe selection of the successful firm. The Town ofEast Hampton is subject to New York State'sFreedom ofInformation Law (FOIL). Shouldyour submissionto this RFP contain "tradesecrets", or other informationthatthe disclosure ofwhich could reasonablybe expectedtobeharmfulto business interests,youmustinsure that such information is clearly identified and marked as such. Identificationmustbe specific byitem or paragraph. Marked informationwillbe treated as Confidential Third PartyInformation. Shouldmarked information be the subject ofarequestunderFOIL, youmayberequested eitherto consent to the request, ormake representation explaining whythe information shouldnotbedisclosed. Unpublished informationpertainingtothe Town orits customers obtained bythe proposer as aresult ofparticipation inthis project is confidential and mustnotbedisclosedwithoutwritten authorization from the Town. Exhibit 6

## GENERAL Subsequentto tbe submission ofproposals, interviews and negotiations maybe conducted with some ofthe proposers, butthere shallbeno obligationto receive further information, from any proposer. Any orall proposals shallnotnecessarilybe accepted. The Town shallnotbe obligated in anymanner to anyproposerwhatsoeveruntil a written agreementhas been duly executedrelatingto an approved proposal. The Townreserves tbe rightto modifythe terms ofthe RFP at any time in its sole discretion. Neitheracceptance ofaproposal nor execution ofan agreement shall constitute approval ofany activityor developmentcontemplated in anyproposal that requires anyapproval, permitorlicense pursuantto anyfederal or municipal statute, regulation orby-law.


## PRICING FIRMPRICING Prices quoted in theproposals shallbe firm for aperiod ofatleastforty five (45) days after the submission deadline. 

### CURRENCYAND TAXES Prices are to be inU.S. dollars. The Town is exempt from all sales anduse taxes. Exhibit 6

# PART B- REQUIREMENTS SECTION
Statement ofPurpose and Scope The Town ofEast Hampton is seekingproposals for a preliminary, "screening" studyofaviation noise and noise reductionmeasures related to the operation ofthe EastHampton Airport. After December31, 2014, the Townwillno longerbe subjectto certain FAAGrantAssurances (imposedpursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47107) and will no longerberestrictedbytheAirportNoise and Capacity Act of 1990 ("ANCA") orto the FAAregulations that implementthat statute, 14 C.F.R. Part 161, unless it should decide again to seekFAA funding. At that time, the Town, in its capacity as airportproprietor, willhave increased opportunity and responsibilityto protectEastHampton citizens from aviationnoise impacts. East Hampton is therefore seeking experts in aviationnoise and its effects to assess howbest to fulfill its responsibility as airportproprietor. East Hamptonis a quiet community, a summerresort destination soughtfor its physical beauty and as arefuge from urban stresses, includingnoise. This is speciallythe case in theperiodMaythrough September, referredto as "the season," during which the residentpopulation can increase bytwo to four times. Fromprior study, itis knownthat application ofthe FAA's 65 DNLnoise standard to East Hampton Airportresults inthe conclusionthat there is no significantnoise outside ofthe airport itself. Yet, intrusive and objectionable airportnoise exists in fact andhas been a subject ofcommunal strife and controversy for more than 30 years. It

### is clear, therefore, that, in a location such as EastHampton, application ofthe 65 DNL standard is meaningless. In

### weighingwhetherto adopt measures thatwould significantlyreduce airport-relatednoise, East Hampton seeks to: 1) quantifythe currentnoise in a meaningful anduseful waythateffectively captures the adverse effects experiencedbyresidents and 2) quantifythe reductions in noise that could plausiblybe achievedbyvarious measures, including, butnot limitedto: A) airport access restrictions based on any or all of, a) time ofday, b) day ofthe week, c) season, d) numbers ofairport operations, e) types ofoperations, f) 

### classes and types ofaircraft, g) noisebudgets, andh) single-evennoise limitations, B)route and altitude controls, and C) physical changes atthe airport and/or alternative facilities. As the studywill be used as abasis for preliminaryjudgmentaboutthe relativeutility ofmeasures that can orcannotpracticablybe applied while subjectto FAA GrantAssurances and ANCA, noise control andmitigation measures shouldbe screened solely for theirnoise reduction efficacy. This analysis is intended to beapurelyobjective measure ofphysical possibilities giventhetechnical aviation and noise characteristics ofexisting air traffic. Accordingly, the set ofmeasures evaluated shouldnotbe limitedbyregulatoryor legal considerations, cost/benefit, orotherpolicy considerations. Those matters will be addressed after apreliminary determination, on this basis ofthis study, ofthe measures that East Hampton would like further to evaluate and pursue. EastHamptonhas an existingnoise ordinance, found at: http://ecode360.com/9230783. The noise ordinance, adopted in 1985, contains in Sec. 185-3(A) and (B) objectiveDBA standards for what the communitydoes and does not consider excessively intrusive noise; it determines whatis and is not deemed a noise nuisance inEast Hampton. The study should evaluate airport-related noiseby application ofthe community standard found inthe extantnoise ordinance. Additionally, each Exhibit 6

### scenario examined shouldbe evaluatedbyapplication ofthe standardFAADNLmetric at the 65, 55, and 45 DNLlevels. The studywillnot include fieldwork, but shouldbebased on available data concerningthe levels and types ofoperations atEastHamptonAirport. In previous noise studies, the Town has identifiedthe types ofdatathatwould be essentialto identifyandunderstand specific characteristics ofhelicopter andotheraircraftnoise issues related the airport, includingflight-related data andnoise complaints using the AirScene, VectorAirport Solutions, and PlaneNoise softwareplatforms. Thetown also has dataregarding flights and noise complaints occurringbothbefore and after a seasonal airtraffic controltower began operation, and data collected from seasons duringwhichvarious voluntary flight tracks were adoptedfor use byhelicopter operators. Thetownhas INM modeling for the year 2009. The results of these earlierefforts willbemadeavailableto thesuccessfulproposerandthe town will endeavor to respondpositively to requests for datafor thepurpose of craftingaproposal.

Elements ofthe studywill include: 

### 1. Determination offlight tracks, helicopterroutes, usage rates, and operations for the years 2012 and 2013; 2. Determination offleet mix ofaircraft andhelicopters; 3. Creation ofaprotocol and metric for tally ofevents, byhousehold affected, that exceedthe Lmax standards setbythe Townnoise ordinance; 4. Evaluation ofthe operations data set, including Lmax-eventnoise impacts exceeding the standard setbythe Town noise ordinance andpopulation count ofLmax impacts within contours havingregard to daily, diurnal, seasonal, andpeakvariations; 5. Foreach scenario examined, determination ofthe corresponding 65, 55, and 45 DNL contours 

### in accordance withFAApractice; 6. Determination ofnoise reductionbenefits ofalternative noise control measures and routes based on the tallyofexcess noise events, as described above, and for each such noise controlmeasure, the reductionin noise withinthe 65, 55, and45 DNL contours; 7. Summaryoffindings, presenting any recommendations, including recommendations for further study, and identification ofunaddressed orunresolved issues. It

### is expected thatthere willbe not more than two meetings with town officials andinterested communitymembers for thepurpose ofscopingthe set ofmeasures to be evaluatedinthe study. 

## Term ofContract The agreementwillbefor aperiod notto exceed three months. Exhibit 6

## ProposalDeadline All responses to this Request for Proposal mustbereceivedby 3:00p.m.,prevailingtime, on May 15, 2014. 

## Qualifications and Requirements Allprospectiveproposers shall have sufficient qualifiedpersonnel, sub-consultants, and resources to accomplish all the services describedhereinwithintheprescribedtime. A three-monthtime frame is estimated for completion ofthe studies. Theproposer shallbecapable offurnishing all necessary professional, technical, and expert services as required to complete allthe elements ofthe noise study as described in the scope ofworkbelow. The Townis seeking one ormoreprofessionals for this studywho have extensiveknowledge and experience intwo areas: 1. Noise and its effects, including aviation noise effects; 2. Noise modeling, including aviation noise modeling. 

### In addition, the proposermusthave technical, professional, andprojectmanagementknowledge and expertiseto prepare the noise study that addresses all ofthe required elements in the scope ofwork as outlinedbelow. Specifically, proposermust: • Demonstrate knowledge ofthe research and literature concerning noise effects, including aviation noise effects; • Demonstrate proficiencywith noise modeling software such as INM, CADNA-A, and/or Soundplan; • Demonstrate written communication skills and the ability to make complex information understandable tothe public. 

## Contents ofProposal The contents ofthe proposal shall be completebutconcise. Theproposal shallbe inthe format ofa written submission on 8W' x II" sheets andmade availableboth in hard copyand in electronic PDF format. Once submitted, theproposal, including the composition ofthe consulting team, cannotbe alteredwithoutpriorwritten consent ofthe Town. The proposal should, at a minimum, includethe following sections: a) Transmittal Letter and Title Page: Include a transmittal letter containing abriefstatement ofthe proposer'sunderstanding ofthe workto be done and an indication ofpositive interestin performing this work for the Town. The letter and/or a title page should contain thename ofthe respondent's firm, a street address for correspondence, and aprimary contact forthis proposal. b) Services andWorkPlan: Theproposal should include a workplan describingthe services, approach and methodologyproposed for accomplishing the scope ofwork. Theproposedphasing of the studies shouldbe discussed (especially ifdifferent from the scope ofwork, describedbelow). The proposal shouldbe sufficientin detail to allow an objective analysis ofthe firm's capabilities and envisionedworkplan in comparisonwith competing firms. Exhibit 6

### c) Qualifications andExperience: Theproposal must supplyinformation concerningthe qualifications and experience oftheproposing firm and theproposedprojectteamfor this study. d) Budget: Allproposals must includeproposed costs to completethe tasks described. 

### THE TOWNRESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECTANYAND ALL WRITTEN PROPOSALS, WITH ORWITHOUT CAUSE,AND TO WAIVEANYIRREGULARITIES ORINFORMALITIES IN THE PROPOSALS. THE TOWNFURTHERRESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH INVESTIGATIONSAS IT DEEMS NECESSARYAS TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ANY AND ALL CONSULTANTS SUBMITTINGPROPOSALS. IN THE EVENT THAT ALLPROPOSALS ARE REJECTED, THE TOWN RESERVES THE RIGHT TORE-SOLICIT PROPOSALS. SUBMISSION OFPROPOSAL: Proposals shallbe submitted in a sealed envelope orbox addressedto TownofEastHampton PurchasingDepartmentwiththe front ofthe envelopeplainlymarkedwiththe name and address of the individual or firm submitting theproposal, togetherwith "Noise Study at theEastHampton Airport" or similarwords plainlymarked onthe front ofthe envelope. 

### LATEPROPOSALS SHALL NOTBE ACCEPTED. PROPOSERS SHALL BE SOLELYRESPONSIBLE FORTHE TIMELYDELIVERY OF THEIR PROPOSALS.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/QUESTIONS Anyrequests for additional informationdesiredbythe applicantregardingthe furnishing ofsaid qualifications andproposals shallberequestedinwriting from the Purchasing Department, East HamptonTownHall, 159 Pantigo Road, EastHampton, New York 11937. All requests for information mustbereceivedno laterthan

### Wednesday May 7, 2014. Anyrequests received afterthis date willnot be considered. Anyquestions mustbe submitted in writingto the Purchasing Department @ jcarroza@ehamptonny.govor fax# 631-324-7895 onthe form herein provided (AppendixB).


### EVALUATION OF THEPROPOSALS TheTown will review allproposals and choosetheprofessional whomthe Town deems to bemost capable ofproviding the services soughtherein. TheTownmay consider other factors in addition to the costs for such services, including, butnotlimited to, theprofessional's credentials, experience withinthe Town ofEast Hampton, and the TownBoard's assessment oftheprofessional's ability baseduponthe submissionsmadewith theresponse to this proposal, previous submissions to the various townboards or subsequentinquiries orinterviews.


## The Town reserves the rightto reject any and all Proposals ifdeemed in the bestinterests ofthe Town. Exhibit 6

### PROPOSALDEADLINE Closing date for this Requestfor Proposal is 3:00p.m.,prevailingtime, on ThursdayMay 15,2014. Proposers assume the riskofthe method ofdispatch chosen. The Town assumes no responsibilityfor delays caused byany delivery service. Postmarkingbythe due date shall not substitute for actual proposalreceiptbythe Town. Late proposals shallnotbe acceptednor shall additionaltimebegranted to anypotential Vendor. Proposals maynotbe delivered orally, byfacsimile transmission, orbyother telecommunication or electronic means. Exhibit 6

# APPENDIXA RECEIPT CONFIRMATION FORM
Failure to return this formmayresultin no further communication regarding this RFP. 

### Please complete and return this confirmation form within 5working days to: Jeanne Carroza, CPPB PurchasingAgent Town ofEastHampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, New York 11937 Te1631-324-4183 Fax 631-324-7895 CompanyName:_________________________ _ Address: ___________________________ ___ City:
_____________State:

_____Zip Code:

____ _ Contact Person: ________________________ _ Phone Number: Fax Number: 

### Ihave received a copy ofthe above noted RFP.

____We will be submitting aproposal.

____We will notbe submitting aproposal. I authorize the Town ofEast Hampton to send further correspondence that the Town deems to be ofan urgentnaturebythe following method: Courier Collect:
___________Mail:
____________ _ Signature: ___________________________ _ Title:---------------------------- Exhibit 6

# APPENDIXBQUESTIONFORM ALL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THIS SOLICITATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. (PLEASEUSE THIS FORMAND EMAIL TO JCARROZA@EHAMPTONNY.GOV ORFAX TO (631) 324-7895 TO THE ATTENTION OF JEANNE CARROZA, CPPB PURCHASING AGENT. WE WILLRESPOND AS SOON AS POSSlliLE.) 

# Date: CompanyName: ContactName: FaxNo.: Telephone No.: Exhibit 6

# APPENDIXD

POLICY & 

## PROCEDURES FOROUTSIDE

PROFESSIONALS/SUBCONTRACTORS Exhibit 6

# Procurement 1. 

## All outside professional and subcontractors must be authorized by Town Board Resolution that includes: 

# a. Project scope ofwork- length of project 

## b. Rates of pay for all authorized staff 

# c. Maximum amount ("amount notto exceed") 

## d. Reimbursable expenses (compliance with travel policy and procurement) 

# e. Budget line item to be charged


## 2. Upon adoption, the Town Attorney will process vendor contract with information included in the adopted resolution. 

# a. Standard/Boilerplate Contract will be provided by Town Attorney 

## b. Town Attorney approval required for all contracts 

## 3. An on-going contract with a vendor for consulting services may be approved and executed on an annual basis with hourly billing rates. 

# a. Each project with maximum amount to be authorized by resolution 4. 

## Upon contract execution
- Purchasing will process a Purchase Order consistent with terms ofTBR and contract. 

# NO work is to beperformedpriorto completion o(steps1-4 Anvchanges in the contracttermsormaximumamountsmustbe authorizedbv Town BoardResolution Exhibit 6

# Procedures (or OutsideProfessional/ Subcontractors PaymentProcessing 1. All invoices must include: a. Department Head approval 

## b. Description of work performed
- listing date, staff member, numberof hours and authorized rate of pay 

# c. Copies ofall receipts for reimbursable expenses submitted 

## d. Detailed copies ofall travel expenses requested 

# e. Detailed copies of all meal reimbursement (itemized restaurant receipt), names ofattendees and business purpose of meal


## 2. All claims for these expenditures are subject to pre-audit by the Division of Internal Audit before being scheduled on the Warrant.

a. Be sure to allow additional time for this important step before Warrant deadlines Exhibit 6

# Procedures (Or OutsideProfessional/ Subcontractors
DisallowedExpenses 

## 1. During the pre-audit, in accordance with the terms of the authorizing resolution and contract, Internal Audit will deduct any unauthorized or undocumented items from the Claim Voucher before processing


## 2. Internal Audit will contact the department head to notify of missing information using the VOUCHER REJECTION FORM 

## a. It is the Department's responsible to contact the vendor and obtain all missing documentation. 

## 3. A copy of the VOUCHER REJECTION FORM 

## should accompany the missing documentation when re-submitted for payment. Exhibit 6

## Travel and ReimbursementPolicy for Vendors Expenses will be reimbursed only in those instances where authorized by resolution of the Town Board, and included inthe contract for services. Expenses for Federal and State Funded Programs will bereimbursed according to the rates set forth in the program guidelines. MEALS 

### No reimbursements will be made without proper documentation. Meal receipts must be itemized (credit card receipts are not sufficient), and include a summary ofthe business purpose ofthe meal to be reimbursed andthe names ofindividuals inattendance. Maximummeal allowances shallbe as follows: Breakfast

- $10.00 Lunch -$18.00 Dinner- $30.00 Reimbursement shall notbemade for alcoholic beverages. Reimbursement shallnotbemade for snacks. LODGING 

### Hotel bills must show room rates (i.e. single, double, all-inclusive); receipts must be originals. No receipts should be altered, highlighted, or blacked out. Maximum RoomRate allowanceperroom shall be as follows: Oct 15- May 15- $150 pernight May 15- June 30 and Sept 1- Oct 14- $200 pernight July andAugust

- $250 pernight July and August (Hamptons)- $350 pernight AIRFARE/TRAIN TRAVEL 

### Airfare or Travel by Rail will be reimbursed at the Coach or Lowest available rate, with proper documentation Airport shuttles to hotels will be allowed with proper documentation. Limousine service will not be reimbursed. No valetparking charges will be accepted. OTHER TRAVEL 

### Rental cars will bereimbursed for the lowest available economyrental rate. Auto travel will be reimbursed at the currentIRS Standard Mileage Rate. Tolls andparking willbereimbursed with submittedreceipts. OTHEREXPENSES 

### Expenses for supplies, printing, postage or any other out-ofpocket expenses provided in the contract willbereimbursedwithproper documentation. Exhibit 6East Hampton Town Board 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2015-569 Meeting: 05/07/15 06:30PM Department: Town Attorney Category: Local Law Prepared By: Elizabeth Vail Initiator: Elizabeth Vail Sponsors: Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez DOC ID: 15329 A 

## Adopt Local Law Amending Chapter 75 (Airport) ofthe Town

Code Clarifying Penalties Provisions and Definitions in the

Law and Providing for Evaluation ofthe Effectiveness of Restrictions WHEREAS, the East Hampton Town Board has considered several local laws to address restrictions on the use of the East Hampton Airport; and WHEREAS, the proposed local laws have been modified in response to further analysis and public comment; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the previously proposed laws inadvertently omitted a definition of the term "season" because the definition appeared only in a proposal for which the Town Board has decided to defer consideration; and WHEREAS, it is important that the proposed local laws be enforced effectively but that the penalties not be excessive or disproportionate to the offense; and WHEREAS, the penalties for violation of Section 75-38 should be only as severe as prudent to discourage violations; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for penalties for violations to be "violations" under New York law rather than "misdemeanors" and also be subject to civil action as appropriate; and WHEREAS, the entire study, analysis and public outreach process has demonstrated that there exists considerable reliable data on the impacts of the Airport on residents and visitors but the Town can only predict how people will change their behavior in response to the proposed restrictions; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the restrictions remain effective and no more restrictive than necessary to address community noise concerns, it is important for the Town to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe restrictions following the summer 2015 season; and WHEREAS that evaluation should reveal valuable information about people's behavior and reaction to the proposed restriction; and WHEREAS, the Town will consider modifications to the restrictions if warranted based upon the data about the results ofthe restrictions during the 2015 summer season; and WHEREAS, The Town Board of the Town of East Hampton held a public hearing on May 7, 2015 to consider a local law amending Chapter 75 (Airport) of the Town Code clarifying penalties provisions and definitions of the law and providing for evaluation of the effectiveness of restrictions; and

Updated: 5/8/2015 10:17 AM by Carole A. Brennan A Page 1Resolution 2015-569 Meeting of May 7, 2015

WHEREAS, after considering the matter, the comments of the public at the time of the hearing, the Town Board believes that the establishment ofthe subject restrictions are in the best interests ofthe Town; and WHEREAS, the proposed local law is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 and Chapter 128 of the Town Code; now therefore, be it RESOLVED, said Local Law is hereby adopted to read as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. 7 OF 2015 Intro. #7 Of 2015 A LOCAL LAW amending Chapter 75 (Airport) ofthe Town Code clarifying penalties provisions and definitions ofthe law and providing for evaluation of the effectiveness of restrictions. BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton as follows: SECTION 1. Amendment Sections 75-38, Airport Use Restrictions, and 75-39, Penalties, ofthe Code of the Town of East Hampton are hereby amended to state as follows: § 7S-38 AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS: A. Definitions.

(5) "Season" shall be the months of May, June, July, August and September. § 7S-39 PENAL TIES: A. Section 75-34 shall not apply to violations of Section 75-38 and this Section 75-39 shall apply for all violations of Section 75-38. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon courts and judicial officers in general, violations of Section 75-38 shall be deemed violations, and, for such purpose only, all provisions of law relating to violations shall apply to such violations. B. Any Use ofthe Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall be punishable by a fine assessed against any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in such aircraft, as follows: (1) For the first violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $1,000.

Updated: 5/8/2015 10:17 AM by Carole A. Brennan A Page 2 .-

_ _ 5·.··.'.'."

..·.•.·•.

__it···7·····.-l 4.F.1



# I

.

JiaC:ket Pg. 2:!1 ·Resolution 2015-569 Meeting of May 7, 2015

(2) For the second violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $4,000. (3) For the third violation by an Individual Aircraft, a fine of not more than $10,000. (4) For the fourth violation by an Individual Aircraft, a prohibition on any Use of the Airport by the Individual Aircraft involved in such violation for a period of not more than two years. 

### C. Each Use of the Airport by an Individual Aircraft in violation of Section 75-38 shall constitute a separate violation. D. In addition, any entity convicted hereunder of not complying with the requirements of Section 75-38 may be subject to a fine of not less than the amount of the actual costs incurred and owed to the Town and not more than an amount equal to twice said actual costs. Should any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity be found in violation of the provisions of Section 75-38 within five years of a previous violation of this chapter, the minimum additional fine shall be not less than $2000. E. In addition to the 

### above penalties, the Town may also maintain a civil action or proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation Section 75-38 by any person, organization, corporation, group or other entity which holds an ownership interest in the Individual Aircraft. (1) Ifa finding is made by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendants or any of them has caused, permitted or allowed a violation of Section 75-38, a penalty to be jointly and severally included in the judgment may be awarded at the discretion of the court in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 for each violation that the defendants or any one ofthem individually caused, permitted or allowed the violation.
SECTION 2. Authority The Town Board is authorized to establish and promulgate rules and regulations regarding use of the East Hampton Airport pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(ii)(a)(11) and (12) and Town Law §130 and pursuant to its powers as the proprietor of East Hampton Airport under federal statutory and case law and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section or subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase of this law shall be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by any order orjudgment of a court of competent
Updated: 5/8/2015 10:17 AM by Carole A. Brennan A Page 3 

## I Packet Pg. 232Resolution 2015-569 Meeting of May 7, 2015

jurisdiction, or pursuant to any order of any administrative agency having jurisdiction, whether such judgment or order is temporary or permanent, such judgment or order shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. Interim Evaluation The Town shall evaluate the effectiveness of all airport use restrictions set forth in Section 75-38, Airport Use Restrictions, as soon as practical after September 30, 2015. The evaluation shall include assessment of whether the restrictions have been effective in reducing community disturbance and annoyance and ofthe financial consequences of the restrictions. The results of the evaluation shall be made available to the public and shall be the subject of a public meeting convened by the Town Board. After such public meeting, the Town Board shall consider what modifications, if any, to the restrictions set forth in Section 75-38 are warranted. SECTION S. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Dated: May 7, 2014

RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK CAROLE BRENNAN, TOWN CLERK

ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilman Burke-Gonzalez, VanScoyoc, Overby, Overton, Cantwell

Updated: 5/8/2015 10:17 AM by Carole A. Brennan A Page 4

# :=_· NBRR

February 2, 2015 Larry Cantwell, Supervisor Town of East Hampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 lcantwell@ehamptonny.gov
RE: East Hampton Airport 

### Dear Mr. Cantwell: We are contacting you on behalf of three trade associations
- the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA). As you may be aware, our associations represent the interests of numerous companies and individuals who are involved in aviationmany of which are located at, use, and/or have an interest in ensuring the continued accessibility and viability of East Hampton Airport (HTO). Our associations support the continued availability of East Hampton Airport to all types of aeronautical operations, and would like to have an opportunity to express and explain our concerns to you and the other members of the town board. Accordingly we would like to request a meeting- preferably in early February- which we believe could be beneficial for all parties interested in the airport. In particular, we would like to outline why it is important that HTO remain open and accessible, both for economic and practical reasons; the airport's benefits are notjust local but also are an essential part of the national airspace system. We would also like to better understand the specific restrictions that may be under consideration, and whether there could be some common ground or other flexibility that would benefit from an in-person exchange between town and association officials. Finally, the often-cited 2005 settlement agreement -which suggests that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will waive the enforcement of certain federal grant-based obligations applicable to East Hampton Airport -leaves numerous obligations in effect, and we believe that it would helpful to discuss the grant-based as well as statutory requirements that will continue to be applicable to HTO irrespective ofthe terms ofthe settlement agreement.



### 1 Exhibit 8

### Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters and we look forward to meeting with you and other appropriate town officials. Sincerely,

Steve Brown NBAA, Chief Operating Officer

Coon AOPA, Senior Vice President GovernmentAffairs

William R. Deere NATA, Senior Vice President for Government and External Affairs

CC: PeterVanScoyoc, Deputy Supervisor, pvanscoyoc@ehamptonny.gov Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman, kburke-gonzalez@ehamptonny.gov Sylvia Overby, Councilwoman, soverby@ehamptonny.gov Fred Overton, Councilman, foverton@ehamptonny.gov Jemille Charlton, Airport Manager, jcharlton@ehamptonny.gov



### 2 Exhibit 8

### March 12, 2015 Mr. Larry Cantwell Supervisor Town of East Hampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 

# ;:=-. 

# NBRR



# -

RE: March 5, 2015 Town Board Meeting to Consider Restrictions on the Use of East Hampton Airport Dear Supervisor Cantwell: The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) appreciated the opportunity to meet last week with Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez and you to discuss the Town of East Hampton's proposal to restrict operations at East Hampton Airport (HTO), and its related airport infrastructure plan. As the Council deliberates on these important issues, our associations
- which represent aviation businesses, pilots and company flight departments and other entities
- caution that these proposals could undermine the longterm utility ofthe airport and will likely result in years of costly litigation. We understand the concerns that have led to the development of these proposals, and the general aviation (GA) community shares the town's desire to maintain a clean and quiet community of beaches and surrounding protected lands. We also appreciated your acknowledgement last week of the efforts ofthe GA community to work with the town toward that common goal. While the development ofthe HTO proposals under consideration might seem justified, given that they are based on GA traffic growth from 2013 to 2014, a deeper analysis suggests the comparison of traffic between the two years may be a less-than-ideal basis for the proposals under review. Exhibit 9

### We understand that operations in and out of HTO in 2013 were not representative, due to the 2013 season's adverse weather conditions. Should comparisons of 2014 traffic levels with figures from other years not demonstrate a dramatic rate of growth; continued work with the GA community could lead to additional, effective noise mitigation initiatives. Furthermore, we understand that town leaders want to be responsive to a reported 25,000 noise complaints from 633 households, but as with the traffic data set, we think these numbers also may deserve a closer look, given that the comments submitted may represent a mix of genuine complaints, and an effort by a concerted minority to drive town leaders toward a radical and unnecessary over-reaction. We also appreciate the town Board's acknowledgment of the airport's long list of deferred maintenance, and its long-term commitment to the airport's health, as evidenced by its efforts to develop a financial plan to invest in the airport. However, the recent acknowledgment by the town's Budget and Financial Advisory Committee, noting that East Hampton cannot currently reach consensus on the sustainability of HTO if the proposed operational restrictions are imposed, should serve as an important wake-up call. Indeed, the imposition and structure of the proposed restrictions and investment plan will have a detrimental impact on HTO-based aviation businesses resulting in reduced revenues, investment and job loss. Aviation jobs are good-paying jobs that will not be easily replaced in the community; and while we appreciate your commitment to reviewing and reassessing the restrictions after October 31st, the damage from enactment of one or more of the proposals will have already been done. It 

### is critical that the Town of East Hampton reconsider its action in order to encourage general aviation at the airport, including maintaining healthy businesses at the field. From a broader perspective, we emphasize that the proposals before the town Board raise significant legal questions. Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has stated that it will waive the enforcement of certain "grant assurances" at HTO, the agency's ability to waive enforcement is in dispute. In addition, other grant assurances and federal statutes remain in effect. These requirements likely prohibit any 

### noise-based restrictions at HTO
- and even if they allow some "proprietor's" discretion, the pending proposals (such as to prohibit operations by an entire class of aircraft on certain days) likely would be deemed impermissible. East Hampton also should be alert to the FAA's prohibitions on revenue diversion, which may require any legal costs incurred in defense of restrictions at HTO to be paid out of municipal accounts (i.e., by the East Hampton taxpayer), and would not allow those costs to be assessed to HTO accounts. Exhibit 9

### Simply put, East Hampton Airport is part of a national system of airports, and operational restrictions like those under consideration present a threat to the national air transportation system that transcends local communities. This is the primary reason why the FAA requires airports that have received federal funds to adhere to grant assurances requiring, among other things, access to all airports on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination. This is a critical element in the survival of our nation's system of airports and one the town can expect will be vigorously defended. Thank you for your ongoing consideration of our views and we welcome the opportunity for further discussions. Sincerely,

Steve Brown NBAA, Chief Operating Officer

Jim Coon AOPA, Senior Vice President Government Affairs

William R. Deere NATA, Senior Vice President for Government and External Affairs
CC: Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, Councilwoman Exhibit 9

# TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON 159 Pantigo Road EastHampton, New York 11937

PRESS STATEMENT 

### RE: LawsuitAgainstTown ofEastHampton CONTACT: 

### PeterKirsch Kaplan Kirsch & 

### Rockwell LLP 1675 Broadway#2300 Denver, CO 80202 pkirsch@kaplankirsch.com Office: (303) 825-7000 April21, 2015

The Town ofEast Hampton was served with a lawsuit in Federal Court this morning by the Friends ofthe EastHamptonAirport organization (along with several corporations). Stripped of its rhetoric, the 34-page complaint is entirely predictable and contains no surprises. The plaintiffs assertthatthe Town's three newrestrictions on aircraft are unreasonable and violatethe U.S. Constitution. (Friends of the EastHampton Airport et al. v. Town of EastHampton, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York, filed April21, 2015) The complaint cites several federal laws and provisions of the U.S. Constitution, but conveniently forgets whatmakes theserestrictions unique:

• Plaintiffs ignore the years ofstudies, analyses, publicmeetings, consultations with airport users, and deliberative process and Town Board deliberations that led to the three restrictions. • Plaintiffs forget that the Town has patiently waited for federal contractual obligations to expirebefore takingthis action. • Plaintiffs don't mention that the AirportNoise and Capacity Act no longer applies to this airport. • Plaintiffs conveniently ignore the many, many steps that led to the Town Board decision that these restrictions are necessary - steps that included federally mandated flight paths for helicopters, voluntary flight paths for all aircraft, voluntary curfews, voluntary altitude requirements and othermeasures. All ofthese efforts provedineffective. • Plaintiffs don't admit that the restrictions are narrowly targeted to address the operations ofmostconcernthat generatethemostdisturbance- and thattherestrictions will not affect almost 80 percent ofthe operations at the Airport. We have, with surgical precision, defined precise restrictions that limit only the most disturbing operations at EastHamptonAirport. The Town has committedto an incremental approach- and to reevaluationoftherestrictions afterthe endofthe 2015 seasonto make surethat theyhavebeen only as restrictive as necessary. Exhibit 10

### The Town is fully prepared for this litigation and will vigorously defend its legal and constitutional right to impose reasonable, non-arbitrary, and carefully balanced restrictions. Plaintiffs raise issues that we are fully prepared to defend. The issues that plaintiffs raise have been litigated over and over again in lawsuits throughout the nation and airport proprietors have consistentlywon. While we anticipated this lawsuit, it is sad that these airport users are now going to force the Town to spend scarce airport fuuds to defend these restrictions rather than working to make this airportthe best it can be. Exhibit 10**~** 15 **~** Problem Statement Noise from aircraft operating

at East Hampton Airport disturbs many residents
of the East End of Long Island. Residents find helicopters more disturbing than any category
of fixed-wing aircraft. Disturbance caused by all types of aircraft

is most significant when operations are (1) most frequent and (2) in evening, night, and early morning hours.

2**~** :0 **~Four** Restrictions Considered 1. Prohibit all aircraft operations **year~round**

11 pm

- 7 am 2. Prohibit noisy aircraft year-round during

8 pm

- 9 am evening, night, and early morning hours (extends curfew into "shoulder hours") 3. Prohibit helicopter operations
on weekends and holidays during the summer season (May

1 - Sept. 30) 4. Prohibit noisy aircraft from conducting more than one take-off and one landing
in any calendar week during the summer season

3**~** :0 **~** Three Restrictions Proposed 1. Prohibit all aircraft operations year

.. round 11 pm - 7 am 2. Prohibit noisy aircraft year-round during

8 pm - 9 am evening, night, and early morning hours (extends curfew into "shoulder hours") 3. Prohibit noisy aircraft from conducting more than one take

.. off and one landing
in any calendar week during the summer season Collectively affect only 23% of all operations, but address 60% of all complaints Restrict types of aircraft-

at the times of the day, week, and yearthat are associated with the greatest number
of complaints

4**~** Restrictions require defining: "season", "weekend", **~** "holiday", "shoulder hours", and "noisy aircraft" • Season .. May 1 - September

30 11111 Weekend II Thursday noon

- Monday noon • Holidays II Memorial Day, Independence
Day and Labor Day .. Also include the days before and after the holidays • Shoulder hours {for extended curfew) .. 8 - 11 p.m. and 7 - 9 a.m.

5**~** :E **~** Defining "noisy" aircraft • FAA and international regulators use a number
of noise metrics
to certify aircraft designs **~~** Jets, heavy props, and heavy helicopters are rated
in terms of Effective Perceived Noise Level decibels (EPNdB) .. Light helicopters are rated
in terms of either EPNdB or Sound Exposure Level (SEL) **~~** Light props are rated
in terms of maximum A-weighted decibels (Lmax) Noisy aircraft are defined as follows: If EPNdB ratings are published
by U.S. or international regulatory bodies, noisy aircraft are those with approach levels > 91.0 EPNdB

6-------------------IncrementaloutcomesofRestrictions(1)11pm-7amcurfewonallaircraft,(2)8pm-9amcurfewonallnoisyaircraft,and(3)limiteachnoisyaircrafttowtwooperations(onetakeoffandonelanding)perweekinseasonIncrementaloutcomesofrestrictions1,2,and41\Jote:Mavl.-May1.·..w.e.•..ek.endan.dh....ohday.w··.··k··.·...d··.··.··..d·.·H·..·.·I·d.·.Tota1Mayb-Sept.301it..1.A...·.·1.0..t·•....·•·•••.••.·.•·.••.eeenan·•.o1.ay·····..·····.·.·•..······oa.·nnua.·uc;omesoutc;omes•.6u1:cor1les•{see.note).·Outcomes•..f.+---..-"""·'-'····+····"""··..,-··'"·"""..··+·"""·1...•.·.1·..All.thelasttobeq.lt;WmgA•rcraft---------ProposedRestrictionEstimatedOperationsEffected1)11pm-7amcurfewonallI148I263I411I175I323I498I199I382I581aircraftoperations2)8pm-9amcurfewonallI631I171I802I838I229I1,067I973I27011,243noisyaircraftoperations3)NoisyaircraftlimitedtotwoIoperationsperweekinseason2,596I159I2,755I3,715I28313,998I3,715I28313,998ProposedRestrictionIEstimatedAssociatedComplaintsIIIII1)11pm-7amcurfewonallI552I264I816I702I335I1,037I747I36211,109aircraftoperations2)8pm-9amcurfewonallI2,225I301I2,526I2,847I369I3,216I2,997I378I3,376noisyaircraftoperations4)NoisyaircraftlimitedtotwoIoperationsperweekinseason6,066I195I6,261I8,681I348I9,029I8,681I348I9,029:: Combined outcomes

of Restrictions

(1) 11 pm - 7 am curfew on all aircraft, **~** (2) 8 pm

- 9 am curfew on all noisy aircraft, and (3) limit each noisy aircraft
to w two operations (one takeoff and one landing) per week in season Total outcomes
of restrictions

1, 2, and
4 Note: **.I\II~Y1.,..~ept.30**

·.
..

> ..
· .•...

· ..

.
>
>

.• ·.··•.·····

• ..•. !1\feekend ard!loliqay

·.· **~ayt**

... **~ep~~~f-~**

**Q TqtCIJMayl~$ept.** 

30. ·. **outcom.e~** assl.l.ll'l(;! operat

0 rs. eee.n

..... an ... o.

1 ay Outc()mes **~'retainl/**

0 r **11 pJ?te~t"**  111feekenc1. **O.Litcorne~** ($ee note)

·

· · **OP(;!rati?~~·.t()~he.m~~lll'lull'l.**

+..-.-

.. -'-'.-"' .. " ... s-

.. **---+---+---+2~____:_,-+____:_____:_____:_---r-~~~____:_~____:_"-4---'--____:_---r-+---r-____:_____:_r---____:_~ feasibleex,tent;i.~.,**  **~!)~yare**

• Helh

·
·. **Eix;e~~>**

·· .. the lastt
0 :pe !=Lito copter Wing Ail'cl'aft

··· **cOp~ei:**

**J)ter** Estimated operations affected

I 3,375 593 3,968

1 4,128 835 5,563

1 4,887 935 5,822 Total existing operations

in category
4,525

I 10,863

I 15,388

I 5,855

I 14,004

I 19,859

I 7,044

I 18,670

I 25,714 %total operations associated with Restrictions

1, 2, and
4 Estimated associated complaints Total existing complaints

in category %total. complaints associated with Restrictions

1, 2, and 4 74.6%

I 5.5%

I 25.8%

I 80.8% 6.0%

I 28.0%

I 69.4%

I 5.0%

I 22.6% 8,843

I 761

I 9,604

I 12,230 1,051

1 13,282

1 12,425

1 1,088

1 13,513 12,126

1 4,943

1 17,069

1 14,935 5,999

I 20,934

I 16,152

I 6,316

I 22,468 72.9%

I 15.4%

I 56.3%

I 81.9% 17.5%

I 63.4%

I 76.9%

I 17.2%

I 60.1%