New Airport Lawsuit, More Runway Delays

For the third time in as many months, the East Hampton Town Board is the target of an airport-related lawsuit.

This one, filed in State Supreme Court last Thursday by Pat Trunzo 3d on behalf of individuals and associations opposed to the runway reconstruction, seeks to prevent the town from moving forward with any runway work and demands that the 1994 updated airport layout plan be declared null and void.

The suit comes only weeks after Town Supervisor Cathy Lester appointed a "blue- ribbon" committee to look into the runway project and make recommendations on the future of the airport. Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration is holding a $2.7 million grant for the runway work, until March.

Abolish Committee?

"The impact of the lawsuit could well be that we lose this grant," Councilman Job Potter said yesterday, following a meeting of the committee.

While the suit echoes some of Ms. Lester's own criticisms of the runway project, it has Republicans on the Town Board up in arms.

Councilwoman Pat Mansir and Councilman Len Bernard have called for the abolition of the airport committee. Mr. Trunzo is himself a member, as is one of the petitioners in the lawsuit, David Gruber.

Another member, Kathy Faraone, is an employee of the Village Preservation Society, which is also a plaintiff in the suit.

Demand Resignations

The other plaintiffs are Edward Gorman, Pat Trunzo Jr., William Henderson, Charlot Taylor, Sanford Oxenhorn, Camilla Gleason, Vincent Thomas, Thomas Dillon, Stephen Grossman, Laura Anker-Grossman, the Dune Alpin Farm Property Owners Association, and the directors of the Georgica Estates Property Owners Association.

The president of the East Hampton Aviation Association, Thomas Lavinio, and Sherry Wolfe, the director of the East Hampton Business Alliance, both members of the airport committee, have asked that Ms. Faraone, Mr. Gruber, and Mr. Trunzo resign.

They say the three cannot possibly make objective decisions about the airport's future while involved in a suit which takes a partisan position.

Mr. Trunzo said Monday that neither he nor Mr. Gruber planned to resign from the panel. "I'm not being paid, so I have no financial interest in this lawsuit," he said, adding that his interest in the matter was a "personal and a citizenship one."

Ms. Faraone does secretarial work for the Preservation Society, but is not a member of it and has no connection to the lawsuit. She plans to remain on the committee unless Councilman Potter, its chairman, asks her to step down.

"I'm not there as a representative of the society," she told The Star Tuesday, adding that she had been "relieved of any responsibility to report back to them in any way."

When she agreed to serve on the committee, in fact, she said the society's chairman told her, " 'You're on your own there.' "

Airport Committee

"I really do have an honest interest in finding a middle road here . . . I'm not anti-airport in the least," said Ms. Faraone.

Others on the committee include pilots, the airport manager, Councilwoman Mansir, East Hampton Village Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr., and a representative of the Sag Harbor Mayor's office.

"Everybody on the task force has an interest," Mr. Trunzo said, "and, frankly, some of those are financial." The lawyer pointed in particular to Mr. Lavinio, who holds leases to hangar space at the airport.

Vested Interest?

The panel was meant to include people who have a position on the issue, Mr. Trunzo believes. "Myself, David Gruber, we're all committed to try and make the task force do its job . . . we will put forward the information we think is relevant."

Mr. Bernard and Ms. Mansir disagree.

"When we suggested that the airport fixed-base operators be part of the committee, Supervisor Lester said that no person with a financial or vested interest [should] be part of [it]," they wrote in a press release this week.

"Pat Trunzo [3d] certainly has a vested interest, and his father is one of the petitioners," Mr. Bernard said Tuesday.

Question "Impartiality"

Referring to Mr. Gruber and Mr. Trunzo, the release states that "these individuals' participation in this suit against the town raises serious questions about the impartiality of the 'blue ribbon' committee and what the underlying purpose for establishing the committee actually was."

Mr. Trunzo had been hinting at a lawsuit since September, when the Town Board Republicans first determined the runway project did not need further environmental review, and chose a contractor to do the work.

The contractor beat the environmental objectors to the punch. He sued the town and the Supervisor on Nov. 17, demanding that she be ordered to sign the September contract.

Unsigned Contract

Ms. Lester had refused to sign it on the grounds that the runway project had not received stringent enough environmental or public scrutiny as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

A State Supreme Court justice eventually directed her to sign the contract, but she is appealing the decision.

If the Supervisor signs the contract before March, the Federal money will be there to pay for the work. But, with this latest lawsuit in the picture, it is hard to say which issue will be resolved first and whether the money will still be there then.

Combined Impact

The new lawsuit alleges, as did the Supervisor, that the environmental review on the runway reconstruction violates SEQRA.

It alleges that other work associated with the project, such as grading (which the F.A.A. would require along with the reconstruction), was deliberately separated from it, so that the combined environmental impact would not be studied while the runway project was on the table.

"It's like putting blinders on these people," Mr. Trunzo said Monday. He claims the grading alone would include 200 feet on either side of the runway and could disturb nearly 40 acres. "This has been concealed from the start," he maintained.

Challenge 1994 Update

The suit also repeats an allegation heard often at Town Hall and in The Star's letters pages, that the 1994 airport layout plan update, which set a course for the runway work and other projects yet to be done, was never lawfully adopted and should be declared invalid.

"This was not a textbook example of open, participatory democracy," Mr. Trunzo said of the process behind the runway project. "Policy debates - that's what government is about."

Supervisor Lester believes debate of that sort is what will make the airport committee work.

"I expected controversy on this commission," she said Tuesday. "I didn't expect people with varying degrees of opinion would sit down at a table and be friends."

Challenge Objective

Can the opposing groups come together and find a solution, given the internal conflicts that are likely to plague the airport committee meetings?

Mr. Bernard and Ms. Mansir say no.

"We believe that any conclusions or recommendations reached will be tainted and perceived as biased," they wrote. "We would support a committee that has as its true objective an evenhanded and fair evaluation of the long-terms plans for the airport, and not the rejection of the runway 10-28 resurfacing project . . . ."

Supervisor's Support

Abolishing the committee "would be a poor choice at this point," the Supervisor said. "That would set this project back even further."

She suggested it would also reflect poorly on the town to have the Federal Aviation Administration holding up its grant for the runway work and no one working to resolve the "outstanding issues."

She still feels that the only way the project should go forward is if the committee can find ways to mitigate its impacts and "come up with a solution that everybody can live with."