HomeMy WebLinkAboutAirport Site Selection/Master Plan StudyPUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
CONSOLIDATED REPORT
AIRPORT SITE SELECTION /MASTER PLAN STUDY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
February 25, 1986
7: 30 P.M.
Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Justice Raymond W. Edwards
Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh
Councilman James A. Schondebare
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
Councilman George L. Penny IV
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker
Technical Advisory Committee
em ers resent:
FAA representative, DOT
representative, Supervisor
Murphy, and:
David Spohn, North Fork Aviation
Association
Ruth Oliva, North For Environ-
mental Council
Also Edwin Reeves, Yankee Airways
Present: Paul S. Puckli, Environmental, Science 6 Engineering, Inc.
Ken Kroll, Federal Aviation Administration
Henry Young, P.R.C. Speas
Jim Kuzloski, New York State Department of Transportation
C. Zoffer, New York State Department of Transportation
Lorrin Bird, New York State Aviation Bureau
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It appears this is going to be a long evening. I want to
apologize that we don't have enough seats in here. There's nothing much more we
could do.' Our other hall down in Peconic is out of service right now and it probably
will be for a little while longer, but bear with us. I'll read the notice of what is
going on here tonight. "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town
of Southold will hold a Public Informational Meeting at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, February
25, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, at which time there will be a presentation to the
Southold Town Board of the "Consolidated Report", Phases I and II, Airport Site
Selection/Master Plan Study for the Town of Southold, by Paul S. Puckli, Environ-
mental Science and Engineering, Inc., a representative of the Federal Aviation
Administration, and a representative of the New York State Department of Trans-
portation. The public is invited to attend and comment at the conclusion of the
presentation." And I say, comments, at the conclusion of Mr. Puckli's and the FAA
and New York State DOT's comments and answering questions from the Town Board.
We'll try to keep it as short as possible and cover the complete course of the study
that was made. So at this time I would like to ask Mr. Paul Pucki, who did the study,
to please make his presentation to the Town Board. Thank you, Paul.
PAUL S. PUCKLI, Senior Aviation Consultant, Environmental, Science S Engineering,
Inc.: Good evening members of the Town Board. First I'd like to introduce myself
for anybody who doesn't know me. My name's Paul Puckli. I'm with Environmental
Science E Engineering. Project Manager on the Southold Airport Feasibility Study.
I've been involved in the project since 1980. As far as my background. I was born
and raised on Long Island. I worked for PRC Engineering on Long Island for ten
years. Two years ago they closed our office here and I went with another company
Page 2 - Airport presentation
down in Florida and I've still been involved with the project. I went to school on
Long Island. 1 got my doctors degree in Aeronautics at Dowling College. I lived
in Suffolk County and I have become very familiar with not only Suffolk County, but
Southold through my endeavors on the project and being involved with it for the last
five years. As I say, I'm the project manager on the project. I've been working
very closely with the Advisory Committee. We are right now at a point that it's been
felt that we needed a decision or some input from the Town Board on a way to proceed,
and so that's why we're here tonight. The reason we're making this presentation to
the Town Board is we're looking for some input from the Town Board on how to proceed
with the study. We're not asking the Town Board to make a recommendation or a
decision on the outcome of the airport, whether we build an airport or not, bec-use
on continuing the study with Phase III and Phase IV of the study the environmental
and financial portions of that. So what I'd like to do is go through the handout that
I gave you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Paul, would you introduce the other members, the FAA,
the New York State DOT reps, and the members of the Advisory Committee, for the
Town Board, so they know and members of the audience.
MR. PUCKLI: Why don't we have each person introduce themselves and make it
easier.
Ruth Oliva, North Fork Environmental Council.
David Spohn, North Fork Aviation Association.
Lorrin Bird, New York State Adviation Bureau, Albany.
Henry Young, Planning Research Corporation.
Charles Zoffer, New York State Department of Transportation.
Ken Kroll, Federal Aviation Administration, New York District Office.
Jim Kuzloski, New York State Department of Transportation.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I am also a member of that same Committee, and Ray Dean
also is a member of the Committee and we had the presentation made to us this
afternoon. Bill Mullen and Ed Reeves also is a member of the Committee, and was
here. Bill Mullen was not, as Jay Wickham, who is also a member of a Committee
that was appointed originally by Supervisor Bill Pell. Paul, go ahead.
MR. PUCKLI: Okay, thank you, Frank. On the second page of the handout there
is a page called "Study Milestones". I'd like to briefly just go down that and tell
you where we've been, where we're at and then were we're going. October 22nd,
1980. The Town of Southold under the signature of Bill Pell, former Supervisor,
sent a grant application to the Federal Aviation Administration requesting funds to
do an airport feasibility study. In 1983, October of 1983, the FAA gave a grant
offer to the Town of Southold, offering them money to do the study and that same
month, October 1983, a contract was executed with the consultant, PRC Engineering
to conduct that study. On October 27th, 1983 we had a kick-off meeting to initiate
the study, introduce the consultant, and also other Advisory Committee members,
and we proceeded with the work on the study. June 1984 we issued our first report
of Phase I report, which had an inventory of existing conditions in Southold Town
and other surrounding towns and a forecast of potential aviation demand, and a demand
capacity and facility requirements, Section 4 of the proposed airport. September 18,
1984 we had a meeting on that Phase I report to discuss the information included in
it and answer any questions or comments from the Advisory Committee and the public.
Then in November 1984 we submitted a Site Selection Report which detailed our
analysis on the evaluation of twelve sites in town of potential airport development.
On December 6, 1984 we had a meeting to discuss that report and to present our
recommendations of that Site Selection analysis. Then in June 1985 a Consolidated
Page 3 - Airport presentation
Report, which each of you should have, was submitted, which took the Phase
portion and the Site Selection portion and included that in one report and revised
and corrected anything in the report --the previous reports that had been commented
on by FAA and State of New York. And tonight, February 25th, we are here having
a public informational meeting. This is to present the information that has been done
so far in the study, to also listen to public comment on what has been done so far,
and then to make a decision on where to proceed from here. The purpose of present-
ing this to the Town Board at this point, as I had said, is to offer some guidance
on a recommendation on where to proceed in the study, looking at environmental and
financial considerations. We're not asking the Town Board to make a decision on the
outcome of the airport, if we build the airport or not. It's too early in the study
process to do that. We need to look at environmental and financial factors before we
get involved in deciding on the outcome of the airport. So that's where we're at now.
On the next page of the handout it's entitled, "Purpose and Scope of the Study", and
if you'll indulge with me, I'd like to read a little bit of it, because it was included in
the Town's grant application to the FAA, and I think it's important to present it here.
"The Airport Site Selection/Master Plan Study will identify the most feasible site
for locating the proposed airport and will also provide guidelines for the development
of the facility. This development program will satisfy aviation needs within the context
of community goals and environmental considerations. It will provide a forecast of
aviation demand for short, intermediate, and long-range periods and planned develop-
ment of airport facilities for this activity within the constraints identified during the
study effort. " And I must reiterate that this was included in the Town's grant
application to the FAA, so this was the Town's position in 1980 on a new airport in
Southold Town.
I'm reading once again ... "The Town of Southold is in need of an Airport Site
Selection/Master Plan Study at this time for the following reasons:
"The Town of Southold proper does not have a publicly owned, unrestricted -use
airport. Mattituck Airport and Rose Field are both under private ownership with
restrictions placed upon their use (the Town owns and operates Elizabeth Field on
Fishers Island) . Without a publicly owned airport, the Town is lacking in adequate
aviation facilities to serve potential corporate, air taxi, commuter, and general aviation
users..." (outburst from the audience)
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Would you please give the man the respect. Thank you.
MR. PUCKLI: ..."thus, these operators are taking their business elsewhere. However,
the Town would like to be in a position to attract a portion of these potential' users.
In order to do this, it is felt that an airport equipped with runway lighting and
navigational aids is necessary."
Point number two... "To ensure proper placement of the Town -owned airport, a
comprehensive evaluation of alternative sites must be undertaken to catalog economic,
environmental, and operational considerations."
Number three..."The environmental impacts of developing the new airport must
be evaluated in view of the current environmental requirements set forth by federal,
state, and local governmental agencies."
Point number five... "To apprise the local community, through conferences,
public meetings, and publication of the study report itself, of present and future
needs of the new airport and the effects devleopment will have on the local area."
And I will continue to read from that grant application that was signed by Bill
Pell in 1980..."The main objective of this study is to determine the feasibility of
developing a publicly owned airport on the North Fork of Long Island. The next
step in the process is the preparation of an airport master plan to determine the
extent, type, and schedule of development needed to accommodate future aviation
demand in the Town of Southold. The recommended development should satisfy
aviation demand and be compatible with the environment, community development,
and other transportation modes. Above all else, the plan must be technically sound
Page 4 - Airport presentation
and economically feasible. The following objectives shall also serve as a guide in
the preparation of the study:
"To provide an effective graphic presentation of the ultimate development of
the proposed airport;
"To establish a schedule of priorities and phasing for the various improvements
proposed in the plan;
"To present the pertinent back-up information and data which were essential
to the development of the Site Selection/Master Plan;
'To describe the various concepts and alternatives which were considered in
the establishment of the proposed plan;
"To provide a concise and descriptive report so that the impact and logic of
its recommendations can be clearly understood by the community and by those
authorities and public agencies which are charged with the approval, promotion,
and funding of the improvements proposed in the study;
"To ensure that the airport thoroughly complements and supports the develop-
ment envisioned for Southold Town;
"To assess future environmental impacts on land surrounding the proposed
airport and provide recommendations to discourage incompatible development; and
"To ensure the reliability and safety of airport operations."
Now, as I said, this appeared in the Town's grant application to the FAA,
and this was their position in 1980. The Consolidated Report which we have issued
essentially includes Phase I and Phase II, and inventory of existing conditions of
facilities, forecasts of potential aviation demand, assessment of needed airport
facilities, and then finally a site selection for a proposed airport. In that study
we had a "Findings and Conclusions" section, whcih was Section 2, and I'd like to
briefly go down those findings. The first three we think are significant. We
conducted two surveys as part of that study. One was a survey of registered
aircraft owners and pilots in Southold Town and adjacent towns, to determine the
potential use or utilization of the airport by active aircraft pilots. Eighty percent
of those aircraft owners responded and said that they would use it, and that number
that we surveyed was 62, so 80% of that said that they would utilize the airport.
Also a number of 33 said they would actually base their aircraft at the airport if
the airport was actually built and operational. Some of those would relocate from
Mattituck Airport, some from other airports in other towns. We also conducted a
survey of 44 local businesses and the intent of that survey was to identify a need
fo the business community to have an airport, a publicly owned airport with adequate
aviation facilities in town, in the daily operation of their business. Of the 44 businesses
surveyed, 25 responded and all 25 who responded supported the airport and said that
it would actually help in their daily conduct of business, and that they would use
the airport. One very important fact that we think is number 3 in the findings and
conclusions. Based on our study by the Polytechnic Institute of New York, by the
year 1990, the tourist industry of Long Island will exceed $10.0 billion. They also
project that in that $10.0 billion the east end of Long Island will account for 40 per-
cent, or $4.0 billion. We feel as if the Town of Southold, to be able to capture a
part of that $4.0 billion dollar in tourist trade, an airport is essential and we feel
that then the need for aviation is evident and that for it to prosper and exist the
conditions are present. We conducted a survey of the airports in towns surrounding
the Town of Southold and there are 13 other general aviation airports and 874 based
aircraft at those airports. Some of these based aircraft actually belong to people
who live in the Town of Southold. There are 28 based aircraft in Southold at the
three airports, which only represents three percent of that total 874. Point number
5 in the findings and conclusions we forsaw a potential of 33% initially and rising
to approximately 67 based aircraft in a twenty year timeframe. All of these based
aircraft are small single engine and small twin engine aircraft. As far as general
Page 5 - Airport presentation
aviation operations, which is a landing or a takeoff, we projected nearly 17,000 in
the year 1988, and a comparision to, or put it into perspective with other airports
on Long Island ---Brookhaven Airport last year had 180,000 operations, so that
Brookhaven was approximately 10 times busier than the airport we're proposing.
And we project the operations to rise to about 31,000 operations in the year 2003,
so the 20 year timeframe is still one-sixth the size, or one-sixth as busy as Brook-
haven Airport. We also projected air taxi operations of 9800 movements in 1988 and
rising to 20,000 in the year 2003, which gives us a total operational level of 51,000
in the year 2003, which is still one-third of what --or even almost one-quarter of what
Brookhaven is handling right now. So as you can see we're not proposing a large
active airport, we're proposing an airport to support the business community and
the general aviation pilots and users in Southold Town. Point number 7 we projected
instrument approaches, which is an approach during inclement weather conditions.
The projection was 930 in :1988, rising to 1,800 in the year 2003. And we propose
putting in facilities to accomodate those instrument weather operations. As far as
peak -hour activity at the new airport we projected 7 operations per hour as being the
peak -hour in the base here, and 13 in the year 2003, so as you can see we're not
proposing a very active airport. As far as popential commuter and air taxi activity,
during the peak summer months is when we thought the airport would be used most.
We projected 46 movements per day in the base here by air taxi operators bringing
in tourists to spend their dollars and then 95 movements per day during the summer
months in the year 2003. And all these operations are with single engine and small
twin engine type aircraft. It is further recommended that the airport be constructed
to the standards of a --ultimately constructed to the standards of a General Utility -
Stage 11 Airport per FAA criteria, which is defined as serving all small aircraft, and
that precision approach operations are not usually anticipated. And essentially it's
a small airport. Initially we are proposing a basic utility airport, Stage II Airport,
which would mean that the runway length we're proposing is 3,000 feet initially, and
3,600 feet ultimately in the 20 year time period. Assuming a single runway configuration,
the airfield capacity would be 183,000 operations, which means that there would be
no problems with airfield capacity since we're proposing only 51,000 operations in the
20 year timeframe.
As I have just mentioned, initially we are proposing a 3,000 foot runway length
initially, ,and ultimately a length of 3,600 feet. The runway orientation that was most
desirable was a northeast/southwest, but we found that with the land tracts in town
that a southeast/northwest would better suit that requirement and also that was also
the second -most desired runway alignment for wind coverage. The minimum land
requirement, 100 acres, is also a federal guideline that we used, in fact something
a little bit more than that. We also proposed navigational aids, including a non -
instrument approach using a VOR type radio facility, medium -intensity runway lights
so that the airport could be used at night, additional approach slope indicator systems
as a landing aid for pilots when they're landing, and also runway end identifier lights,
which is also a landing aid to assist pilots.
The initial landside facilities, or facilities that serve the pilots include a small
terminal building, also a small automobile parking lot, a aircraft parking apron, a
based aircraft tiedown area for based aircraft owners to put their aircraft -for storage,
some T -hangar spaces, which are spaces that based aircraft users enclose their
aircraft for storage, and also conventional hangar space for based aircraft users.
Underground fuel tank just for aviation fuel for smaller type aircraft, and finally
some aircraft maintenance facilities for minor maintenance.
We did a preliminary screening of twelve sites in town once we had the size of
the airport that we needed, to identify 12 potential sites, which we'll get into in
just a moment. The two most feasible sites, based on our analysis, was Site 2,
which is located at the northwest corner of Oregon Road and Alvahs Lane, and Site
5 which is located north of County Route 48 and about 1000 feet east of Bridge Lane.
Page 6 - Airport presentation
And based on our analysis we found that Site 5 was the most feasible site for a
number of reasons, and that Site 2 should be the alternate site if Site 5, for what-
ever reason, could not be developed. I'll get into those reasons in just a moment.
On the next page in the handout is a map that shows the 12 potential' sites. It
appeared as Figure 6-1 in the Consolidated Report. The initial' screening of these
sites included a number of considerations, but we had to narrow that down to
potential sites to a managable number and we felt 12 was a managable number. The
criteria that we used to determine these 12 sites was one that should be reasonably
removed from concentrated areas of development --residential development particularly.
That the site itself be undeveloped and also excluded from the Farmland Preservation
Program. That any site that is currently being used as an airport would be included
in the analysis, and any site that was at one time proposed as an airport would also
be included in the analysis, and then finally land that was thought to be available
for purchase was included in the analysis. So all these twelve sites, at the time we
identified them, were thought to be available for purchase, based on our discussions
with a local realtor.
On the next page there is a site plan for Site 2 ..... I'm sorry, there is a plan
for Mattituck Airport for comparison purposes and as you can see from the drawing,
Mattituck is surrounded by residential development. The runway length is 2200 feet
and the aircraft parking apron and the runway make up the entire parcel, which is
18 acres. Far short of what is needed to accomodate the potential demand in Southold
Town. Our feeling was for that reason and for the reason that the current owner of
Mattituck Airport has said that he will not sell it, and we did not want to resort to
condemnation, we decided that we should not study Mattituck Airport any further.
So we looked at other sites. Site 2, which appears on the next page, site plan of
it, is situated on the northwest corner of Oregon Road and Alvahs Lane. Two things
I'd like to point out in the site plan, we show a noise -contour footprint for the 20
year timeframe operations, 51,000 operations. The FAA approved noise calculation
called day -night average sound level was used and as you can see that contour does
not even fall off of airport property. So in other words, the impact from noise from
the proposed airport, will stay on airport property. In addition, the approaches....
(outburst from the audience) .
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Please try to control yourself and let Mr. Puckli give the
report. (further outburst from the audience)
MR. PUCKLI: And also, as you can see, the approaches are clear and they're on
the airport property. We're proposing some relocation of a few residences in that
area if this site was developed. On the next page there is a more detailed drawing
of Site 2, and as you can see there is a relocation of Oregon Road to accomodate
the site. A portion of the overhead power line, LILCO line, is proposed to be
buried. We talked to LILCO, they said it's feasible and have given us a cost for
doing that. You could see an airport access road and extension of Alvahs Lane is
needed, in addition to some residential development. There are five homes which
will need to be relocated, and some utility structures. On the next page is a cost
estimate to develop Site. 2. We talked to each one of the parcel owners and got an
estimate, or an asking price for their parcel, in addition to an estimate from LILCO
for burying the power lines. An estimate for road construction, tree clearing,
extension of Alvahs Lane as an access road, demolishment of the existing structures
that are there, and relocation costs for the five families. The total site-specific
costs for developing Site 2 is nearly $5.6 million, in addition to the airport improve-
ment costs of $2.4 million. The total site development cost is estimated at just over
$8 million dollars. Now I should point out that a good deal of that, under current
legislation 90% of that is fundable under FAA, 712 o under State, private development
hangars --that would be fundable by whatever fixed base operator chose to operate
at the airport. So the Town of Southold would be responsible for about two and a
Page 7 - Airport presentation
half percent of that which can be accomodated through in-kind services or floating
a bond and revenues from the airport itself. Now that's something we have not
looked at yet, as far as the financial package, that is Phase IV of the study, so I
can't give you any answers on financing of it or the operation of the airport itself,
but it's something that I think is important to look at, because I think we can show
that the airport actually can make some revenues and be self-sufficient.
On the next page, Site 5, is the site plan of that particular site. Once again
you can see the noise footprint stays on airport property, and also the approaches
are clear. The next page shows a more detailed graphic of that site. The one
consideration there is the LILCO power line, the overhead power line. We've talked
to LILCO and they said it's feasible to put that underground and they've given us
the cost estimate to do that. Once that's done then the site would be clear, other
than one barn, which is somewhat deteriorated, which would need to be removed.
The construction of an airport access road. The telephone line and the LILCO power
line out on County Route 48 which can stay as is, they don't pose a problem. And
you can see once again the approaches are clear. On the next page of the handout,
which is the final page, is an estimated development cost for developing Site 5. The
land acquisition cost, as you can see, is $2.3 million. Power line burial, we got a
cost estimate from LILCO of $350,000. Tree clearing, construction of the access road,
demolishment of the one barn. The site specific costs for Site 5 is $2.7 million. Added
to the airport improvement costs, runways, taxi way aprons, brings the total cost for
developing Site 5 to $5.3 million, just short of $5. 3, $5.2 million, which is nearly
$3 million dollars less than Site 2. It's an important consideration of which Site 5
is more feasible than Site 2, just for cost reasons.
1 want to once again reiterate,the purpose of this meeting is to get input from
the Town Board on where to proceed from here. We need to look at environmental
factors. We have not addressed them at all. We need to look at financial factors.
Without those factors being considered 1 don't think that we have all the information
that could or would be available. We're not asking the Town Board to decide on
whether we build an airport now, that's something that would come at the end of the
study, and once that the study is completed and then all the information would be
available for the Town Board to make a well informed and educated decision. I'd like
to thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you tonight and presenting our
report and I appreciate your support.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Don't run away. We might have some questions. Okay.
Jim, do you have anything that you would want to add? Jim Kuzloski, representative
of the New York State Department of Transportation.
JAMES KUZLOSKI, New York State Department of Transportation: Not really, other
than our department has reviewed the report and it seems like a technically sound
report.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. And Ken Kroll, representing the FAA, do you have
anything further?
KENNETH KROLL, Federal Aviation Administration: No, nothing to add. Pretty
much the same as Jim said, we don't find anything unsafe about the site based on
our review.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Ken. All right, does any Town Board member
have any questions of any of the people that are here tonight? Any further questions?
COUNCILMAN PENNY: I just have one concern, Paul, and that is the fact that in
looking at the time between the report submitted and the meetings that are being
held, we went from two and a half months on one, one month on one, to eight months
Page 8 - Airport presentation
on the last one, and I'm just a little bit disillusioned being new on the Town Board
here, as why it took eight months from the time that this report came out to have
this meeting here tonight, because there's been an awful lot of criticism of the Town
Board and the North Fork Aviation Association as to who's tieing up the whole thing
and it seems like, I think, the public has been a little upset about that and I know
that I, as a Town Board member, have not been able to answer that question.
MR. PUCKLI: Well, I think a few fingers can be pointed and I don't really want to
point any, but we were waiting from comments from the FAA and the New York State
DOT on the report and we felt that without those comments it would not be a complete
report. Once we had those comments there were some problems in organizing this
meeting, with notices and with the election and everything, so there are a number of
reasons why it took so long to have this particular meeting. And I should point out
that this meeting is additional to our work -scope. It's not something that we agreed
to in our contract. (outburst from the audience) It also took some contractual
commitments on the Town's part and our part to have the meeting and have me present.
COUNCILMAN PENNY: Well, basically I mean what you're telling me is that there was
no subterfuge on behalf of anybody to hold up the thing for any particular reason.
I mean, it's going along and this would be considered a normal fashion. I don't want
anybody to think that anybody is stalling or delaying. I understand there was some
problems with the DOT. We lost our original representative. I mean, that kind of
stuff..) would just like that clear to the public that...
MR. PUCKLI: Well, let me answer it this way and I don't want to point any fingers.
I've been doing business as an aviation consultant for twelve years now and it takes
time to review these reports. They're understaffed and they're under -budget. A lot
of reasons, but when they get a report on their desk there's other reports that they
have to go through and comment on and it does take them some time, and so that's
the big reason why the FAA too quite some time to report the report. It has to go
through certain channels and airspace review. All sorts of reviews on their'agency
and they're understaffed. So I've had delays even longer than this one on studies
that I've been invovled in.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: George, this was partially concerns that were raised --questions
in the report that the FAA and New York State DOT wanted answered, and it was just
the time in answering those questions and then reviewing them. There was no real
delay on DOT's or FAA's part. It was more of answering questions that were raised
in the original report. Any other questions?
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Paul, how did you arrive at the value of the
properties?
MR. PUCKLI: We talked to the property owners.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: They seemed so much out of line.
MR. PUCKLI: We had a realtor go to each property owner and ask them what they
would take for their parcel on the open market. So it wasn't a guess, it was the
actual asking price.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Were all the property owners willing to sell the
property?
MR. PUCKLI: On Site 2 and Site 5, yes.
Page 9 - Airport presentation
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: They are willing sellers?
MR. PUCKLI: Last that we knew. That's the best I can say. I mean that was
back in June that this report was put together.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: You had actually hired somebody to go out?
MR. PUCKLI: We didn't hire anybody, they volunteered to do it for us. (outburst
from the audience)
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: In other words you took a realtors figure on these
things? $3,600 an acre is kind of high.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: All right, does anyone else have any comments? Any member
of the Town Board have any other questions? Any of the members of the FAA or the
DOT staff here that you have concerns on? (No response.) Paul, thank you. At
this time I would like to publicly thank the representatives of the FAA and New York
State DOT and the consultant's organization for their patience, understanding and
help and support and really coming out here tonight. This is above and beyond to
brief us. They have homes. They have other lives, and they volunteered to come
out to try to help the Town Board make what hopefully will be the best decision for
the people of Southold Town. Now, being that we are very crowded and I'm sure a
lot of people have some concerns, I would like to now start taking some comments from
the people in the audience. We're going to have to have some control. I would ask
anyone to get up to please limit their statements so that as many people can make a
statement to the Town Board if possible and if it's not too lengthy we could get some
questions answered now. Other questions will be answered in writing by the consultant
if need by and if/or the DOT and the FAA will give the Town Board and we could pass
the information on to anyone. I don't know what questions there will be and -concerns,
but anything in a technical matter you will get an answer back. We really don't have
the time to answer and debate with everybody here in the Town Hall, we'd never
accomplish a thing. I think the consultant, Paul Puckli, the representatives of the
various departments and the Town Board is interested in hearing from as many people
as possible on what your feelings are, and with some reason for it. Not just, I don't
want, or I want an airport. We would like constructive criticism or suggestions on
your reasons. AgainI would ask,please limit it so as many people could talk. I think
what we'll do is take five people for the airport, five people opposed to the airport,
five people for and that way and I'll move around the room, try to control it, and
please give everybody the courtesy and the right to speak what they feel. All right,
let's take those who are opposed to an airport as first and please to make some
comments. There was a lady in the rear who had her hand up first. Please use the
mike and give your name.
MARYANN FERRERI: I'm a resident of Cutchogue and I'm an English teacher. My
major concern here tonight is in the wording of this report. When I hear expressions
like "just over 3 million", okay? Or this will cost "only $350,00011 1 am concerned.
When you're talking of the name of LILCO responsible for condemnation proceedings,
this is the same LILCO responsible for Shoreham. We have one albatross, do we need
another? And when you word a report as you have here and you speak in terms of
1180$11, 80% of 62. does not make for a large number who are proposing or in favor of
something. And when you look at 25 businesses, identify them. And when you talk
about corporate holdings, are we going to have a Trump Tower? Think about it.
That's all I have to say.
Page 10 - Airport presentation
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
ALICE WOHLFORT: I live in Southold and my concern is for our ecology here.
We live in a finite planet and the resources that we are wasting and spoiling today
will not be recovered. The most attractive thing about Southold is the pure air,
the good water, both for drinking and for swimming and for our fish. We owe
Southold that protection. We don't need an airport here. We have railroad tracks
that stretch all the way from New York City out here to the end of the Island and
why haven't we put some pressure on the State or the Department of Transportation
to increase the number of trains to improve public transportation. They're not going
to pollute any more. It will cut down on automobile traffic and it will' facilitate
tourists getting out here. The Sunrise Bus Company has certainly proved that there's
a need for additional public transportation, but an airport, why? And you brush off,
"we'll just demolish a few houses". Those are people's homes and people's lives you're
talking about. But most of all I'm concerned about our environment and how it would
be spoiled by an airport polluting the air and causing all kinds of traffic problems
and congestion in a lovely beautiful area.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I would like to comment that what the decision that's facing
the Town Board is to continue on with Phase III and IV if it's necessary. Phase III
and IV is exactly to discuss the items this lady just mentioned, the environmental
impact of an airport, if there was an airport there, and the actual cost of it. As
Paul questioned the value of some land. The consultant was just using figures the
best he could. These two studies would continue on with that to give the Town Board
a better picture of the whole theory of having or not having an airport, and if it
does work in. These are the considerations. These are the next two phases in the
report. Jeanne, would you like to comment?
JEANNE MARRINER: President of the League of Women Voters of Riverhead -Southold.
The League opposes the siting of a municipally owned general aviation airport in
Southold Town. The League has polled its members and the majority believed the
airport is not in the public interest, that it will benefit only a few residents and
inconvenience many, and that any project of such magnitude will impact on the fragile
North Fork environment. The League questions whether Southold Town pilots, home-
owners and the Town itself will be able to afford insurance coverage in this era when
costs of liability insurance are soaring. The recent increase in small plane crashes
makes it imperative for a Town -owned facility to have such coverage. Where will the
dollars come from for this necessary protection? League members believe that all the
necessary commercial service is readily available in Islip, less than one hour away.
We have the service without the anxiety and disturbances that Islip residents experience
on a regular basis, and as for small aircraft and training, there are more than a
sufficient number of facilities available. Many League members and their families
use air transportation extensively for both local and overseas travel. These Southold
Town residents who log many air miles annually do not feel a need for extended
service on the North Fork. It is the League's understanding that the FAA, whose
purpose is to promote aviation, is looking to expand on Eastern Long Island. We
suggest that the South Fork has a larger land mass and that their time would be
better spent pursuing that area. The North Fork would be overwhelmed by an
airport even one-tenth the size of MacArthur, Islip, and we all know that FAA
funding leads to inevitable expansion and loss of local control. Islip residents
can attest to that. There are many factors addressed in Phase 1 and Phase 11 of
the FAA sponsored feasibility study on siting an airport in Southold Town, however,
the main factor, public need, is not part of these phases of the study. To address
that prime factor the North Fork Environmental Council conducted a valid opinion
poll and the results indicated that a substantial majority of residents do not want
an airport in Southold. The League believes that any Town project of this size
Page 11 - Airport presentation
should begin with and be based on the needs of the majority of the residents.
Until determined otherwise it appears that a Town airport is one of the least
needed projects in Southold Town. We therefore ask the Town Board to discontinue
the airport feasibility study before more taxpayer dollars and time are wasted.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jeanne. Is there anyone over here on the
right would like to speak in opposition to the proposed airport? Anyone in the
middle? John.
JOHN SKABRY: I'm just a --I feel like a chicken in a fox house right now. I'm
a layman. I'm John Skabry. I live less than a mile from the proposed Site 5 up
in Peconic. It's on the border of Cutchogue and Peconic. Well, I got a little
excited before when you said that it would be a limited amount of time because
I've got letters from Congressman Carney, the Governor, Senator LaValle, and
LaRocca, Mr. LaRocca who's the chairman of the Department of Transportation,
New York State saying that I'd have to wait until the informational meeting and
then I can ask my questions. That's now. I'll try to be as brief as I can. As
I said, I don't understand all of the aircraft terms, but I'd like to talk about that
survey also, which was made. It sees as if there were two surveys. One was of
the pilots and the other survey was of the business people. If you have your copy
of the Consolidated Report in ' front of you, that's on page ----
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: John, maybe you'd want to use this mike and you could
use the table.
MR. SKABRY: That sounds like a good idea.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: We know you've been waiting a long time, John, so
make yourself at home and ask the questions.
MR. SKABRY: I find very little humor in it myself because it's been really a lot
of anxiety in my house on account of this airport idea. Anyway, it says on the
study—I'm on page 3-22, there was a general aviation survey. Survey of potential
airport users. That's page 3-22. And the survey was made, blah, blah, blah, of
pilots in the Towns of Southold, Shelter Island and Riverhead, and it says, as Mr.
Puckli said, 62 separate survey forms to registered aircraft owners and pilots in
the abovementioned towns was sent out in 1983, and as a result of that survey we
found out in this study that 24 pilots do own their own aircraft in Southold Town,
Shelter Island and Riverhead, although there are 62 pilots. But let's just get the
aircraft owners down. That's in Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island, 24 aircraft
owners. All well and good. I expect every pilot to be in favor of a new airport.
Then they went on to a business survey, which is a separate survey... I'm on page
3-31 ... and that survey, which was sent out to local businesses and professionals
currently operating in Southold Town, and that was in March of 84, and they sent
out 44 separate survey forms to these various business and professionals. And it's
interesting to note that all of the responses received, which was 25 of them, favored
a Town -owned airport. Well, it says down below, that one of the questions that
they asked these various business and professional people was: do you own at least
one aircraft? Thirteen of them did. So we got a business survey that was sent out
to 44 of the thousands of businesses and professionals living in this town and you
just happened to hit 13 of the 24 aircraft owners in the three towns. I know a little
bit, about surveys. I don't know too much about aviation, but I don't even know what
would come close to the odds of happen to hit a cross-section of business and
professional people and hitting 13 pilots, when there's only 24 in the three towns.
I'm not going to belay that issue. I don't know how many people, by the way..l'm
getting a little ahead of myself here. So my question is: do you haven,list of the
Page 12 - Airport presentation
various businesses and professional people, the 44 that were sent out? Mr. Puckli?
MR. PUCKLI: I have a list back in my office.
MR. SKABRY: Where? In Florida?
MR. PUCKLI: Yes.
MR. SKABRY: Okay. We'd like to see a list and how you came up with that list.
The other thing, I turn to page 3-5 in the report and the report refers to something
called the Spellman Report. In 1960 Malcolm S. Spellman Associates, they lived in
Rockville Centre, had their business their, prepared the Comprehensive Plan and
Development Program for Airports and Air Terminals in Suffolk County, and this
study recommended that the Town of Southold maintain its three aviation facilities
and implement some modest improvements, and that funds were made available for
improving the town's airports, but they weren't accepted by the town. Does anybody
in this 'group of DOT, FAA, Mr. Puckli and the FAA, did you ever read the Malcolm
Spellman Report?
MR. DAVID SPOHN: I'd like to object for the moment. You're supposed to be
making comments to the Town Board. You're not supposed to be ..(outburst from
the audience) ......
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Dave, let me take it. John, would you please, out of
courtesy to everybody else here, please make your comments for us. All right?
MR. SKABRY: Okay. What I'm saying is.....
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: You certainly may write a letter to Mr. Puckli and 1 believe
Mr. Puckli will be able to answer any questions.
MR. SPOHN: If he wants.
MR. SKABRY: With all due respect, Mr. Supervisor, I sent a copy of all of these
questions and more questions through the Town Liaison to Mr. Puckli, Dave Spohn,
and I gave a bound copy of those to the Town Board over a year ago and I have
not received one answer. The answer was that you'll have your questions answered
(outburst from the audience) .....you'll have your questions answered at this meeting.
Which is why I'm here. Now, it says in 1961, this is on file in the Town Hall, this
Malcolm Spellman report, in 1961 they predicted --just like this Consolidated Report
does --all kinds of great expectations for Suffolk County and aviation. For instance,
one of these modest improvements that Mr. Puckli's report says is a modest improvement
was some improvements in Mattituck Airport. It has a 2200 foot strip. They wanted
to add an additional 4000 foot strip and then another additional 4000 foot strip, and
they wanted this airport to be bounded by the Long Island Railroad, the Main Road,
Elijah's Lane and Alvah's Lane. That's a modest improvement. They wanted it to go
from an existing 70 acres to 470 acres. That was a modest improvement. They
predicted that this would all be used by people. As a matter of fact they state in
this Spellman Report that by 1975 there would be 250 aircraft based at Mattituck.
That's what the Spellman Report says. The Consolidated Report, which is pretty
accurate, as far as the figures in some areas, tells us that there are only 23 aircraft
in Mattituck now. Yet they predicted in 1961 that there'd be 250. In Orient they
predicted 190 aircraft would be based there in 1975. Here we are ten years later
and there's only three there. And we're relying on information, Mr. Supervisor,
given to us by aviation experts. My contention is that it's their job and they're
doing it as well as they can, but they've failed us. That the information they're
giving us is not correct and not accurate. That as a matter of fact much of it is
Page 13 - Airport presentation
untruths. Page 3-4 talks about other forms of transportation. Bus transportation.
It says here that the major bus companies do not operate to the east end of the
Island. Greyhound Bus --this is dated 1985 --Greyhound Bus goes to Riverhead.
They've got a loop system that goes all the way around the North to the South
Fork. There's been no screening of residents in any of this. None whatsoever.
The tables which are on the list of tables is on --I call the page 4. It really
doesn't have a number. It's 4i from the beginning if you have your copy. There's
a list of 43 tables from which we can draw figures and specifications. Airport sizes,
population. They're protracting what the aviation use will be and so forth and so
on. Constant market share. Forecast of commuter air taxi operations. All this in
order to promulgate the airport and the usability of it. Of those 43 tables the source
of information for them is the author of the Consolidated Report, PRC -ESE. So, in
other words, we're depending on the author of this report to give us the statistics
to base the report. Of the 43, 30 are from PRC -ESE and only 13 are from what I
consider reliable sources, Polytechnic Institute, as Mr. Puckli talked about, Suffolk
County Tourism. Talk about the maps. You can't miss a map. Page 6-23 has a map
of Site 5 which was recommended today at the 4:30 meeting. Make it 6-22. There's
a map of Site 5 and it shows one house across the street from the airport on Route
48, and another house on the property itself of the airport, which they don't want
to sell to the airport, these people. And then it 'shows no houses on Bridge Lane.
No houses on Route 48. No houses on Oregon Road. It only shows the one house
that's directly across the street underneath of the 50 foot high LILCO power line.
There are 43 homes on Bridge Lane. None of them are shown. 1 forget how many.
Mr. Shalvey's home is up on the North Road. There's quite a few houses on the
North Road that is within the perimeters of that map and they're not on there. The
beacon. It calls on page 5-13 that there be a beacon at this airport. A rotating
beacon. Does anybody know if that's going to be on 24 hours a day? It will
illuminate all 43 houses. Now this is something that I'm going to need some help
on, because I'm not really familiar with cross -wind runways. Okay? But on page
5 -7 --it seems like there's some vacillation here on whether we need a cross -wind
runway or not. On 5 -7 --I'm sorry. Yes. Mr. Puckli talked about a runway length
first of all. Let's get the prime runway down. You can start at 3000 and ultimately
be 3600 foot. At nine separate places in this report there's talk of a 3600 foot run-
way. Only one place in the whole report does it talk about a 3000 foot runway, and
that says only initial plans. So to me it's a 3600 foot runway, but I'll go with either
one. Is there going to be a cross -wind runway or not? Or whether it's safe or not?
That's a long drawn out thing to talk about, but the FAA is pretty clear on cross-
wind runways. Clear to me anyway. Well, anyway, what they say is --around here
somewhere --that when you cannot achieve 95% wind coverage with one runway, that
you must build a second runway so that the airport can stay open more times of the
year and it's safe. As a matter of fact --what the heck did I do with it --I'll get to
that later on tonight I guess. We talk about noise. Page 6-26. Says on environmental
impacts --paragraph G.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: John, do you have an extra copy so I could follow you
through here. It seems like we're going on here all night. I don't understand
what you're talking about.
MR. SKABRY: Well, I'm talking about noise. Everybody knows what noise is.
Okay? (outburst from the audience) I'll read to you then. It says under environ-
mental impacts ---
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: All right, John, would you please make your comments.
We've tried to accommodate as many people as possible. Try to speed it up. We'd
like other people to talk. To give them the same courtesy that we're giving you.
MR. SKABRY: I'll let somebody else speak and I'll come back later, Frank. Thank you.
Page 14 - Airport presentation
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Mr. Carlin, do you have a comment to make?
FRANK CARLIN: From Laurel. Let's get down to some technical points here. This
is a very important point that we must keep in mind. Very important for the Board
to consider. And being that this is --this airport is going to be federal funded, will
it be controlled by the Town? Because we're going to have the same thing that
happened in MacArthur back last spring. Now I spoke to a gentleman from MacArthur
oh about two weeks ago. I believe his name is Brad Greghouse, and he told me that
MacArthur tried to restrict their airport to 17 jet flights a day and after a debate
back and forth a couple of months it was decided that the Town of Islip had no control
because it was funded by the FAA. Now can anybody --not anybody --can this Board
put this in writing that the Town Board will have control of this airport? Now let's
look at it in another way. I mentioned this question to the meeting Mr. Spohn had
in East Marion about two months ago and the answer they gave me --and they was
dancing around, you know. Sometimes you know a; politician when you ask them a
question they have to dance around the question and when he gets finished and you
walk away you're confused. That's what 1 was that night. Now I'm not talking about
adding additional building on this property. I'm not talking about moving a tree or
whatever you want. I'm talking about amount of operations a year --flights. That's
what you got to be able to control, because if you don't you're going to have another
MacArthur. There's nobody in this ' room says you not. Now let's go to the weight
of the airplanes. You see, I'm sorry to say I happen to be in aviation for thirty
years. I work for Grumman Aircraft. I'm a quality control inspector. I'm quite
aware of what aircraft is. How they fly. I've worked with the FAA people on a
Grumman Gulfstream Il. 1 find them very intelligent, knowledgable and reasonable
people. So I know a little bit about aircraft too. I know some of the FAA rules
and regulations. There's four different types of runways. Non -instrument, instrument,
utility and visual. We have chosen, I believe a utility, and that states that an air-
craft can operate at a maximum gross weight of 12,000 pounds. Now a 12,000 pound
aircraft is quite a size aircraft. That's almost five ton. I looked into what --about
a 10,000 aircraft would be when I visited Mattituck Airport in January. They had
a Chief in there--twin-engine being overhauled. That has two biggest prop engines
that they built with 540 cubic square inch engine and it holds 10 people. That's no
Cessna or Piper Cub. That's no small airplane. So if they're saying we're going to
have small aircraft here, it's not so. You can go to quite a large aircraft. Like I
say, 12,000 pounds is a lot of aircraft. Okay. Now, this operation puzzles me.
183,000 operations. When's that going to be? I don't know what they're talking
about. Take -offs and landings? Can anybody answer that? 182,000 operations.
Does that mean by the year of 2000? Did somebody say? Is that right or not what
I'm saying? Is it 183,000 operations? Take -offs and landings? What do you mean
by that.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Would you explain that, Paul?
MR. PUCKLI : 183,000 operations is the number of annual operations --landings and
take -offs that could be accommodated.
MR. CARLIN: Thank you for answering
for you right now. 183,000 operations is
down further it comes to 20 operations or
Down to 20 an hour. Down to one every
think MacArthur will ever have. I don't
saying here. You know? There's a lot t
that the Board considers what I said in t
that question. I want to forecast something
over 500 flights a year. Breaking that
flights an hour. ---500 a day, I'm sorry.
three minutes. Now that's more than I
think Kennedy has that. Watch what we're
o be considered here and it's very important
he beginning about who has control of this.
Page 15 - Airport presentation
It would be very nice if we can get --if somebody told us you have control, but to
see it in writing, but when the government funds something you usually don't have
control of it. Because nobody wants to build and buy a house and have somebody
else come in and tell them how to run their own house. That's for sure. So there's
things here --and I could go on like this all night about this Technical Advisory
Committee --I could go on, but there's other people want to speak so I'll cut mine
short to give somebody else the opportunity. I'm quite aware of what went on here.
It's a shame, though, that we couldn't have added this --and I'm going to finish now --
we couldn't have added this to our ballot election day. (applause from the audience)
Let all the people decide and then we wouldn't have this nonsense here tonight. Either
one way or the other.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Frank. We have now heard from five people
who are opposed to the airport. I would like to give the people who are for --five
of them --an opportunity to express to the Town Board their feelings. In the back,
sir.
FRED ROGERS: Good evening. I'm Fred Rogers. I am a resident of Riverhead
Town. I'm a member of the North Fork Aviation Association. I'm past president
of Riverhead Aviation Association. I strongly urge this Town Board to continue
with the study and I also hold a commercial instrument flight instructor's rating.
I at one time owned partnership in an airplane. Should we get an airfield out here
I again own an airplane and probably base it out here. (outburst from the audience)
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Please give the man the courtesy to speak.
MR. ROGERS: 1 am also a former Grummanite and 1 am for the continuation of the
study. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there someone else would like to speak for this study?
RICHARD WILTON: From Mattituck. I think a lot of money has been put in to this
study so far and a lot of the questions asked tonight have to do with environment
and economics and I myself would like to know what the economics and what affect
the airport would have on the environment myself. So I would suggest to the Town
Board that you complete the study and then we'll all know what the environment and
economics have to do with the whole airport. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Dick. In the back. Someone else had their
hand up.
ALVAH GOLDSMITH, JR.: I am a businessman, taxpayer and concerned citizen.
And I would have to say that I think that there's more interference in businesses
from government and other agencies that it's handicapping the people that are
employing the young people in this town and we just can't seem to make ends meet.
I think that --I am very interested in the orderly and economic growth of Southold
Town. I think we are not doing enough to help the youth in this town or to see
that they have adequate jobs. I venture to say that I can't think --Mr. Wickham,
when he started his operation in Mattituck every could forsee the development that
his business had and the impact it's had on the town, and by the number of young
people that he has employed there. They've been able to work, live in Southold
Town and raise their families here. I would like to see that continue in other
businesses, but it's getting more and more difficult all the time. I think that the
airport in Mattituck has proved beneficial not only to the people that work there,
but to the town over the past number of years and I would say that a small airport,
the way it's being proposed, is certainly a bargain and something that Southold Town
Page 16 - Airport presentation
can ill afford to let go by the boards. I am very interested that we see this study
continue and I'm very interested that the members of the Board carry this out to
its fruition. Whether you're for it or against it I don't think that's the point here.
It's that the study get a chance to be completed so that we have the answers to all
the questions, not just a few of the pros and cons that we're hearing tonight. It
goes a lot deeper than that. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Skip. Is there anyone else would like to address
the Town Board in favor?
JOHN SPOHN: I'm from Greenport and I'd like to say first and foremost that I'm
glad we've had this meeting tonight. I've been surprised by some of the comments
of those who oppose the airport and find myself somewhat in agreement with them
to the extent that there are concerns that need to be looked at. There are --precisely,
madam, you've raised questions about environmental issues, about financial issues.
Indeed they are very important and cannot be ignored, but certainly you have to
admit that stopping the study now is not going any further to answer those questions.
They're important, and by killing the study is not going to make the questions go
away. You'll find yourself in another couple years asking the same questions about
a different project perhaps, but you don't --don't fool yourself into thinking that no
airport means no development. I would also like to say I was somewhat dismayed that
other than those, there doesn't seem to have been any substantial problems with the
report as is raised. We've seen parallels drawn with Shoreham. We've seen parallels
drawn with Islip. We've heard a critique of a report written 22 years ago. I do not
think that's germane to the question in front of the Board now, but this is 1986.
What are our needs now? How can we best address them? And is there even a
significant need? The only way to legally establish those questions --the answers to
those questions --is to have a study, and I'm dismayed by what I see that those in
opposition feel it necessary --they've accused us of stacking the deck. Well, I accuse
them of stacking the room. (outburst from the audience) I'm not saying that no one
has --everyone indeed has a right to come here, etcetera, but I would think --I would
hope that they would have some substantial problem with the thing as it has been
conducted so far and be able to make their arguments on a basis of real substantial
problems with the study as it's been conducted as opposed to doing everything they
can to draw attention to themselves and their cause without raising these substantial
questions. In closing I'd just like to say that I hope that all of you can be responsible
legislators in investigating fully before making any decision one way or the other.
Investigating this before you make the decision, and then making the decision. The
thrust of the effort from the NFAA and others to date has been: we think this is a
good idea. We were challanged. We said, you think it's a good idea, show us why.
Show us where the money's going to come from and the current administration at the
time decided that in order to answer these questions a study needs to be conducted.
At no time have we tried to assert our point of view that we hold that an airport
will be a good thing --pardon me --that it should be built. We do not try to come to
the Town Board and say, build that airport because we said so, because we're in
the majority. We're saying study the issue and make an informed decision. Finally,
I would like to address one thing about this survey that's been bantied about as
absolute proof that there the totality of Southold Town outside the membership of
North Fork Aviation is completely opposed to this project. I reject that. I think
that it's a load, frankly. I think that there was an opportunity for the voters of
this town to provide comment on this very issue in November. While it was not a
separate ballot issue, it was a major plank and I don't think I have to go into
great detail to tell you how that made out. 1 would not call the result of this
election (outburst from the audience)
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Please give the man the courtesy to make his statement.
(outburst) John, do you want to finish?
Page 17 - Airport presentation
MR. SPOHN: Yes, I'd like to. I'll put it this way. Of four major planks in th-
platform, one party this year had Stop the Airport as one of the planks. A majority
of their candidates did not get elected. Those that did were by relatively narrow
margins .and I would submit to you that that is not exactly a ringing endorsement
of Stop the Airport. Regardless of the way you feel about it, I implore you to
finish the study and make an informed decision. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone out in the hall that would like
to address the Board in speaking in favor? Anyone in the hall that hasn't had a
chance to speak in favor? Is there anyone else in the audience? Yes.
LINDA MADSEN: I live in Cutchogue. I would like to encourage the Board to please
finish the study. I'm not as pleased with some of the parts of the study and the way
the study has been conducted and I have been involved with similar studies in the
past working for an engineering firm. Be that as it may, I think the study needs
to be finished. 1 would like to say that the survey that's talked about of airport
users, pilots in Southold Town, was not well done. There are two airport users in
my household, one pilot in my household, that were not surveyed. So I think there's
people on both sides of the issue that were not included, but I would strongly support
the Board to please let --go all the way. Look at the issue completely. To do nothing
is also to act and if the Board choses to let this issue die now it will come up again.
It will come up again in the future. This is not going to stop growth out here. Growth
is going to happen. We have to control it. I think the airport proposed in the study
is more than we need, personally. It's a Cadillac, when what Southold Town needs
is a Volkswagen, but we need an airport in Southold Town. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. At this time we'll take four people who are
opposed to the airport. Sir.
JIM SLATER: I live in Cutchogue. I'm speaking in reference to about one-third the
population of the Town of Southold, the senior citizens. Many of the senior citizens
here in the town come out here as young people, establish summer homes, which they
later on made year -around homes. In reference to our opposition to it, several months
ago we h -ad a discussion on the airport at the Southold Senior Citizen's meeting. We
had 205 people in attendance. 197 of those in attendance said they were opposed to
any airport. Two basic reasons. One, the environment, and secondly the financial
burden it would be on them as taxpayers of this town. I take exception to some of
the comments that were made in reference to the monetary support, the amount that
may be picked up by the FAA in funding for this thing. They talk about 90 some
odd percent and the town being responsible for two and a half percent, or something
like that. Look at all of the things that would have to be done and the taxpayers
would have to be paid for before this airport becomes operational. Things over and
above those that, were addressed in the report. The facilitise that would have to be
made available for an airport operator to come in and take over the operation. That
would be taxpayer's money that would have to come in before an operator would come
and operate the thing. And I feel that as a senior citizen, and speaking for the
bulk of the senior citizens of the Town of Southold, that we oppose the thing both
from an economical standpoint and from the ecological standpoint. I'd recommend,
and I believe I speak for the bulk of the senior citizens of the town, that let's stop
this damn study right now and let's go with the majority of the people and let's save
and forget about the airport. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Someone else in opposition?
RUTH OLIVA: North Fork....
Page 18 - Airport presentation
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Ruth, are you sure you want to...
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: You're on the committee, Ruth.
MRS. OLIVA: Well, 1 have to speak for the Board of Directors of the NFEC.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Somebody else should have spoken for them.
COUNCILWOMAN COCHRAN: Yes.
MRS. OLIVA: The Board of Directors of the North Fork Environmental Council
opposes the establishment of a Southold Town owned and operated municipal airport.
We feel an airport for Southold Town is an idea whose time has definitely not come.
Among the many reasons for the NFEC's opposition to the airport are: number one:
the public has demonstrated it's opposition to the proposed town airport through an
NFEC phone survey. Every 25th person on the voter registration list was called
and asked, "Do you believe Southold Town should establish and own an airport?"
The result was that over 60% said no. About 20% said yes, and the rest were un-
decided. Clearly Southold Town residents have voted a no for an airport. Number
two: the airport consultant study has failed to prove the need for an airport. The
consultant group surveyed only 44 businesses to see if an airport was desirable,
without calling on any of the public at large to attain their views. Number three:
expenditures for the airport will cost Southold Town taxpayers about $100,000 --
maybe a little more --maybe a little less. The NFEC feels such funds would be better
applied to farmland preservation, affordable housing for the young and old, recreation
facilities for youth and senior citizens, preservation of fragile environmental areas.
This is especially true now that federal funding will be cut to all towns. Number
four: possible leaks from airport underground fuel oil tanks that could contaminate
groundwater. Number five: possible erosion of the bluff which could create a problem
not only for the airport site, but to adjacent areas. Number six: a general deterioration
in the quality of life on the North Fork regarding height and noise levels, increased
traffic, and the further erosion of Southold Town's rural character. Therefore, the
Board of Directors of the North Fork Environmental Council, ask that the Town Board
call an immediate halt to the feasibility study and put an end to any further consider-
ation for a new Southold Town airport. Thank you very much.
ARTHUR MALASH: I'm a retired businessman of 48 years. I'm a registered voter
from Mattituck. I'm also the president of the Saltaire Estates in Mattituck, represent-
ing 47 homeowners or lot owners, and as president at our Board of Directors meeting
I was empowered to ask --90% of our residents are against the airport. I'm also just
now taking in all this surveys and so forth and I cannot see how a survey, especially
pertaining to businessmen, as was brought out here several times, I think the results
here tonight speak for themselves, and personally I think any more money spent on
further surveys is ridiculous. Thank you.
LISA VISSER: I am also from Saltaire Estates in Mattituck. I spoke to Councilman
Trunzo in East Hampton who's very upset with their airport and he had some
important points for us to think about tonight. In his own words, and this is a
quote,"their airport isn't so much a can of worms as it is a barrel of snakes."
That's a quote. The members of the East Hampton Town Board were personally
sued by an airport businessman for anti-trust and civil rights laws. The lawsuit,
which cost the Town $50,000 to $60,000 to win, is just the beginning of a long list
of agonies. In 1984 the Town of East Hampton improved the airport there in such
areas as lighting and paving of runways. The federal government still owes the
town $30,000 to $40,000. This is money that the town had to allocate. Councilman
Page 19 - Airport presentation
Trunzo stated that it would be "considered a windfall" at this point if they ever
collect this money that the federal government owes them. Even if the Town of
Southold were to build this airport with moeny from only local, not federal, sources,
we would still be subject to FAA regulations. This means that anyone from anywhere
would legally be allowed to utilize our airport to the extent that we could safely
accommodate them. With or without federal money. One problem that the Town of
Est Hampton is facing in terms of public safety is that there are pilots who take
risks in marginal or low -visibility weather, instead of diverting their aircraft to a
safer airport, such as Suffolk County, that has better instrumentation and lighting.
Some pilots will risk flying into and landing at East Hampton to save time. Also, the
only noise abatement rules they have are those that are self-imposed by the pilots.
So they have a noise problem. United Aerial Avertisi'ng in New Jersey is at odds
with the East Hampton Town Board currently. The Board members feel that residents
should have the right to bask undisturbed on the beaches there without the nuisance
of airplanes dragging signs over them. These and other points indicate an ongoing
pattern of unplanned, unnecessary expenses and never-ending problems for the Town.
I sincerely hope that our Southold Town Board will take Councilman Trunzo up on
his offer to share information and read his file that he has built up on this issue.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Now that we have had four people speaking in opposition
to the airport, now 1'd like to entertain if there are four people that would like
to speak in favor.
MARY ANN DZENKOWSKI: I live in East Marion. I'm a senior citizen and Mr. Slater
did not speak for me, because I think you should continue with the study, complete
it and then make your decision.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Sir.
JOHN STEWART: I live in Southold. I recently returned to Southold two years
ago from Saudi Arabia where I flew for the airline there. For the past year and
a half I've been managing the fixed base operation at Suffolk County Airport in
Westhampton Beach. 1 can personally speak to a great many of the fears that you
have at the present time. Number one: finance, the budget. Everybody that buys
aviation fuel pays 12 cents a gallon on av-gas. .Fourteen cents a gallon jet -A to the
federal government, which establishes a fund which is going to pay for this airport.
That's what these funds are marked for. (outburst from the audience) So, every
time I get in an airplane and fly I pay into a fund that I'm not really getting my
money out of. A lot of people are worried about the environment with respect to
fuel storage. I can personally speak to the fact, based on my experience with
Suffolk County, that Suffolk County has some of the most rabid health regulations
with respect to fuel storage,in the country. Any fuel facility, minimal though it
may be, built in Southold, would have to be built to these specifications. I'm
personally in favor it and I think the Town should finish the study.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak in favor?
LORI REEVES: I'm a taxpayer from Orient. I am a resident of Connecticut, so
for that reason I'd like to remind you that the eastern extremity of the Town of
Southold is about ten miles east of Orient Point. On Fishers Island is one of the
town's three airports. It is controlled, or it is under the supervision of the
ferry district. There is no experience in the Town Board for an aviation enterprise
and there are limitations for all of the airports in this town. Those limitations will
not be fully seen until the feasibility is completed. You won't know if you have a
viable airport financially based on your experience with Fishers Island airport,
Page 20 - Airport presentation
certainly, until the financial study is completed. As far as Mattituck Airport is
concerned, the limitations there would be addressed by Ray Edwards. I ask him,
are you going home tonight?
JUSTICE EDWARDS: Wish I could.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there one more person would like to speak in favor of
continuing the study? Sir, in the back.
LYLE MURRAY: I'm a resident of Cutchogue, taxpayer, voter, senior citizen, and
I strongly resist this implication by various groups and individuals that they speak
for all of the taxpayers, voters of the Town of Southold when they say they are
against the airport. I do have over a 40 year background in aviation, but I have
absolutely nothing to gain by a town -owned airport, except the things that each
one of you as individuals would gain. I understand many of the facts concerned.
think the study has progressed very logically and intelligently and factually. I
have never seen so many misconstrued facts by the opponents of any item that has
come up before the Board. I think that the Board acted very logically like any
business to hire a study accomplished to decide the facts that they don't know for
themselves, and aren't expected to know. Now, they get the study part way done
and you would certainly be foolish to stop it at this point until they see the facts
of the rest of the study, unless they were just to decide beforehand that they
didn't like to hear the real facts. Therefore I think the study should be completed
and I think this would be part of the very logical development of the Southold Town.
think most of us would hate to see a complete Florida established out here. We
would like to see a general community with young people as well as senior citizens
accommodated. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. We'll now take three people who are
opposed to the airport.
DIANE BERGMANN: I am not going to go on all night. That's why --you thought
maybe I would. I have a couple of questions since I was here this afternoon. 1
was going to read a prepared statement. One question: this afternoon it was
mentioned about a cross -strip runway. Why, when it was presented to the Board,
was that deleted? Also, why complete the study on an airport that is unwanted?
Regardless financial, ecological or any reason, if you don't want it why complete
it? Now I will read my prepared statement. I've gotten over the one Sunday
morning, November 84, when we picked up our Sunday morning paper only to find
that our home we've worked so hard for, is proposed to be taken for an airport.
The anger is gone but the determination to save our home and rural way of life is
not. Nor is the determination to save Southold Town from being a dumping ground
for any developer, who for only personal gain, will take this town into a hodge-podge
of errors and move on to do it again and again. After all, the FAA has billions of
dollars in airport development funds looking for a; place to dump on. Sure we could
sell our place to the proponents and move on to another part of town, but I feel
an unrestricted --mind you, unrestricted --use general aviation airport has no place
in the Town of Southold. I feel that it will ruin our quiet way of live that is our
real asset to tourism. That is why people love it here so much. It is why we and
many others have moved here to begin with, and not to be by an airport. Once
we give up our quiet rural way of life there is no way in the world we can ever get
it back. The proponents of the airport have been working on selling this airport
for so many years and have not slowed in their determination. Ove the years the
majority of the people have gotten the airport proposal moved from place to place
through their objections. By human nature, people only object when the proposal
is put in their back yards. I am no exception. I feel now the majority of the
Page 21 - Airport presentation
people are sick and tired of the airport being shoved in their faces and the people
don't want an airport anywhere in the Town of Southold. The people attending the
original master plan hamlet meetings got the airport taken off the map and on to a
separate issue. I feel the study that is now in progress for the master plan for
the Town of Southold is a fiasco. Would better be called a proponents handbook of
how wonderful airports are. It is written by proponents for proponents with only
the pros of having an airport and none of the negative aspects of having one. Or
should I call it an airpark as the proponents do? A park to me seems to be a quiet
place to picnic, play ball or whatever. Not a place to be buzzed by Charlie Buzzboy
and his flying aviators, whom are only supposed to be as loud as your neighbor's
lawn mower. Does your neighbor mow his law 24 hours a day 7 days a week? The
proposal was originally down played when it was first sold as a little grass strip'
where we can picnic on Sundays, to currently sold as a 3600 foot paved runway
stressed to 12,000 pounds. A mere 1400 foot longer than Mattituck Airport. How
can it be compared to Mattituck? I have many signatures on a petition against an
airport being built in the Town of Southold. Most of the signatures came to me.
did not chase them over hill and dale going to each and every public function in
Town. If I did the campaigning that was done by proponents, I'm sure I could
come up with five times more easily, or better if needed. I could go on to discuss
the things in Phase I and II of the Airport Study that I, as a housewife, have found
to be exaggerated, distorted or plain in error with the study. I'm'sure there are
many people in the audience that have things to say on the matter. If the Town Board
would give them time and credibility as to our documented facts and figures as they
have given to the proponents, I'm sure they would resolve here and now that Southold
Town does not need or want another public airport in town and end it once and for
all. I now ask our elected town officials to make a resolution to end this study and
now. Listen to the majority of the people before it grows into something uncontrollable.
We don't want another airport in Southold Town, and especially an unrestricted -use
airport. Please control our rights now before the FAA tells us just what control is
or isn't. Thank you for listening.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Some else in opposition?
JEAN LePRE: I live on Bridge Lane, approximately 1000 feet from the proposed
Site 5. If you have traveled around the Island and talked to the people who've
lived near small airports and they seem to be very unhappy with the airfield as
a neighbor. They can't sleep, enjoy their yard without the roar of the aircraft.
The area around Westhampton Airport has their water supply contaminated by
aviation fuel, at a great expense to the taxpayer, turn to city water that had to
be installed. (outburst from the audience) People of Southold Town have enough
fears of water problems. We don't have to introduce something like an airport that
will serve a few and take a chance on aviation fuel getting into the water supply.
Excessive noise levels, and in sort the desecration of the landscape to supply a few
with a rich man's playground. How will the airport help my neighbors in Cutchogue?
I have tried to listen with an open mind and no one has been able to give us one
good reason why we should give up good water, no noise pollution, the loss of farm-
land. That should be the concern of all of us. My handicapped daughter suffers
from a severe hearing problem. I would have to move if the airport ever came into
a reality, as Karen could never stand the noise level. She can't even go to an
airport without earplugs. As a member of your constituency I urge you to end
this airport. These airport plans, as of this evening. You all have a record of
listening to the wants of the Southold Town people. Please listen to the majority,
as our environment is our most natural greatest resource. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
Page 22 - Airport presentation
FRANK JORDAN: I live in Southold, Harbor Lights Estates. I'm far enough away
from the airport. I never gave it too much of a concern. However, I was here at
a meeting last January in connection with some other subject and I was amazed the
people who turned out who were against it. Now, we're talking about the democratic
process here and I just kind of wondered. Now, all of my life I've been engaged in
transportation. I've hired consultants, numerous ones over the years. When a
wanted study made it was pretty much what direction that we had in mind. Now,
when you're hiring an airport consultant I'm sure you're going to get positive views.
You're going to have the study further examined. You're going to give positive views
again. Now, I don't know how much this is going to cost. So far it's cost $15,000.
But it appears to me that if you're going to go ahead how about getting a non -official
referendum from the town. It appears to me from the democratic process 90% of the
people are against it and from that standpoint, as I said, I had an open mind a year
ago, but seeing the way the majority of the people are against it, I ,take the same
position.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Someone else in opposition?
CYNTHIA HALSEY: I live three houses from the Town Hall, so I don't live near
the airport. I'm against it for two reasons. The first is simply this: when you talk
about dumping we all know the major New York airports are overcrowed with small
craft. They want to use us as a parking lot and not even a first rate parking lot.
I object to that. Secondly, this fancy talk about how much money the FAA has.
Well, if you read the New York Times lately, you'll probably find that they expect,
if you can believe what they say in their editorial department, to use a great deal
of that money to protect the current large commercial airports from terrorists.
Therefore, I don't think you can depend on a nickel of that. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, and I would like to ask is there anyone would
like to speak for continuing the study. For continuing the study. Sir, in the back.
JEFF GOUBEAUD: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, good evening. My name is
Jeff Goubeaud from Southold. I'd just like to say that I feel as elected officials
we have an obligation to all members of the community here to continue on with the
spirit of due process to its end, whether it be pro or con. Whether it be for an
airport or master plan, or for any study. It's imperative that for an intelligent
decision to be made by our elected officials they have to have all the facts in front
of them, otherwise it would not be an intelligent decision that's going to be for the
benefit of the community. I'd just like to say that, you know, I've been here in
town for 31 years and left several times, but I've always been coming back, because
it's a beautiful spot, it's my home. It's hard for me to work, though, to find work
to maintain my mortgage on my house and property and I've again been thinking
about leaving, but I decided not to, because I feel what we have out here is some-
thing that we should fight for, and I'm going to take a stand and fight, but I'm
going to decide it has to be for due process. And that's having hearings in town.
Continuing it on through referendum, a vote at the very end, but we're going to
need information and facts and if you stop the study right now, whether for an
airport, or for a master plan,or for any other study that we're ever going to be
confronted with, we have to stay with it to the very end. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jeff. Anyone else would like to speak for
continuing on with the study? (No response.) Anyone out in the back? Anyone
else over here? (No response.) Okay, is there anyone else would like to speak
in opposition to the study? Mr. Bergmann.
ERIC BERGMANN: I live approximately 1000 foot from the end of the runway,
surrounded by three sides of the proposed airport, which no noise will reach my
Page 23 - Airport presentation
house. Mr. Puckli said all approaches to the landing strip on Site 5 were clear
of obstructions. The Town Board passed a resolution that private properties would
not be condemned for a municipal airport. Is the clear zone at the end of the air-
port considered part of the airport? Is that part of the airport?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Paul?
MR. PUCKLI: Is the clear zone part of the airport?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes.
MR. PUCKLI: Yes. The clear zone is part of the approach to the airport. It
does necessarily have to be on airport property.
MR. BERGMANN: Then if the approach for the clear zone goes over somebody's
private property, does man have the right to do whatever he wants on that property?
Or is he restricted or condemned to what FAA says he can do on that property?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Private property nobody touches.
MR. BERGMANN: Well, if you look at your --I don't know what page it is --you
have runway 5, you can clearly see the clear zone goes over private property that
is not part of the parcel of the airport, so therefore, the Board ruled that you will
not condemn private properties --that whole study --throw it out the window, because
the airport is going on somebody's private property who already said he does not
want to sell to the airport. Plus it gooes over Route 48. Did anybody go to Suffolk
County and say, can we condemn Route 48 for an airport? Because you are condemn-
ing it. There are restrictions for the clear zone. The clear zone goes over Route
48 and you're condemning Route 48. The clear zone goes over property that is to the
east of the Site 5, which is private property, where that man who owns that property
could not do what he wants with that property, because it's part of the clear zone
which the FAA says you have to have certain heights and if that man wanted to put
up a wind screen to protect himself from the winds that nobody studied on that
particular piece of property. He cannot do it. So that Site 5 is not eligible for the
airport because it's taking in other people's property, which the Town Board said
they would not condemn, and it's right on the map and nobody on the Town Board
saw that.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Why don't we ---
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Wait a minute. He raised a point. I didn't get an
answer yet. Mr. Puckli, or anyone else --the fellow whose property is next door
and the clearance is on his property, is he limited as to what he could do with his
piece of property in the area that's shown.
MR. PUCKLI: He cannot put up a structure that penetrates that clear zone.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: What's the height, Paul?
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Is there a limit on how high a structure he can build?
Is that what it is?
MR. PUCKLI: Depending on where it would be, there would be some restriction.
I don't know how high it would be.
MR. BERGMANN: At the furthest most point of the clear zone, I was told by Mr.---
Page 24 - Airport presentation
I'm sorry I can't remember his name --from the FAA --there is a 50 foot height
requirement. This man's property is less than from the farthest point. It
encompasses quite a bit of his property. So he is --well, if you from a zero to
a 50 foot --he can't put a restriction any more than 20 foot high. Now 20 foot
high --if you've got a wind screen, you can go any place around on the North
Road and if you put up a wind screen more than 20 foot high --you put a Poplar
tree --they grow 30--40 feet. He cannot protect his property with the wind screen
because his property is being restricted by the airport.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Eric, this property is not part of the farm?
MR. BERGMANN:
No, it isn't.
I can show you on the
map here (indicated to the
Town Board on the
study map) . Site 5 goes right here
and this is Mr. Simon's
place. He says he
will not
sell to the airport. He's on
record for that. (Diiscussion
between Mr. Bergmann
and
Supervisor Murphy at the dais relative to location of the
clear zone and Mr.
Simon's
property, and the Bergmann
property.) ---Plus there is
a house --they do not give any dimensions --there is a house here. They do not have
it on the survey.
It might
be in the clear zone. 1 do
not know how far it is. You
would have to pull
out the
maps. Damn close, if not in
that clear zone.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We'll have to get an interpretation before any decision is
made. Ken, would you like to comment on those comments about this clear zone
and what rights does the property owner of the clear zone have? Are you prepared
now or would you rather send us an answer --a reply to it? (outburst from the
audience) Ken, the question seems to be the clear zone. (Mr. Bergmann pointed
out the location of the properties in question to Ken Kroll, FAA.) Ken, do you
want to give an answer now, or would you rather write to the Town Board.
MR. BERGMANN : Even if the house is not in there the Town Board says they will
not condemn private property. The clear zone is going on the man's property. No
matter if it's a house there or a tree there. That is his property. He cannot do
what he wants with it.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: And, Eric, 1 believe the owner of the property is here. Mr.
Simon, for the record would you like to address the Board?
ARTHUR SIMON: The owners of the property. Now in addition to what Mr. Bergmann
said, there already is a house there. Now it seems to me if your going to do a survey
you should take the trouble to plot all the houses in the vicinity. I don't think this
was done very well at all. Now I'd like to go on record, along with the majority of
people in this town, as being absolutely against this airport. Now a few years ago
we eliminated the lights along the highway as a matter of economy. Now it seems to
me that an airport would be a long ways down on the list of priorities. In this town
there are a lot of things that we need and sure as hell don't need an airport.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Would you answer, for the record, would you sell your
property for an airport?
MR. SIMON: Absolutely not. And that also brings up something else. I was looking
at those figures, and I work in a real estate and I know for a fact that the price on
the proposed number 5 site is not right. It's in error. Now that was done so long
ago and real estate is going up so rapidly that I think they had better do another
survey. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, I think we should start to wrap this up. Is there
anyone else would like to really say something that hasn't been said? Some new
facts? John.
Page 25 - Airport presentation
JOHN SKABRY, Henrys Lane, Peconic: I'm just talking about night noise now at
airports. I'd like to give you a brief history of Republic Airport, our neighbors
to the west. It was started as a commercial test facility for Fairchild -Republic
Aviation and closed by Fairchild due to financial circumstances in the mid 1960's.
22,000 taxpayers signed a petition opposing the change -over from commercial to
municipal operation. In spit of this local opposition the airport went public and
was taken over by the MTA. In March of 1969 and 1978 --I'm sorry, this was taken
over in 69. In 1978, due to heavy use of the airport and the loss of tax revenue
due to the municipal acquisition of private land, 34 separate civic associations appealed
for tax and noise relief to no avail. In 1982, due to mounting airport deficits, the
airport was transferred from the MTA to the New York State Department of Trans-
portation, which has representatives here on this committee to build the airport. In
Newsday, May the 27th, 1983: responding to plight from neighbors --neighboring
residents, the State Legislature imposed an 11 PM to 7 AM curfew, but a federal
judge in Albany lifted it with the preliminary injuction after the curfew was challanged
in lawsuits filed by the Federal Aviation Authorities,who employ Mr. Ken Kroll, and
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and the fixed base operator of the airport,
Beachcraft East. In Newsday, September the 14th, 1983: Beachcraft East Inc., joined
by the FAA and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, blocked the curfew in
the federal courts where the case is still pending. Now, as a result of this there's
an Airport Commission in Republic and I'm not quite sure, but the last time I spoke
to Fran Stall, who's on that ROAR --that's their committee --they're not very successful
in stopping the roar, but anyway, she's on the committee --on the Airport Commission --
there's ten members, she's the one from the citizenry that's not a pilot. That's part
of the out-of-court settlement that they had to control the noise. And by the way,
we're talking about environmental assessments and there's a big difference between
an environmental assessment and an environmental impact statement, as all of you good
gentlemen and lady on the Town Board are aware, and there has never been a Federal
Environmental Impact Statement ever filed for Republic Airport. While we're talking
about control over the airport, this study says that there's --let me go on to one more
airport. This was last Sunday's Times --I'm sorry, the 16th, Sunday before last.
Martha's Vineyard's getting jets again: Tacked on suit by New York Air allows
summer service. That's the headline of the article. Boston, February 15th, Associated
Press. I won't read the whole thing, I'll just go the ones that are pertinent. Resumption
of jet service was part of an out-of-court settlement of a lawsuit filed by New York
Air against the Martha's Vineyard Airport Commission --similar to the commission in
Farmingdale for Republic --they also have one up in Martha's Vineyard. They don't
seem very successful. The bottom paragraph down here: New York Air suited in
Federal District Court in Boston last June after the local commission had denied them
airport space for the 1985 season. The airline held that the denial violated anti-trust
laws and its constitutional right to equal use of airports that get federal funds. It
said the Martha's Vineyard commission was trying to protect EVA, the regional carrier,
from competition. It's my opinion they were just trying to protect their own use.
Under the accord New York Air is to add 960 square feet --this is the settlementthey
made --under the accord New York Air is to add 960 square feet to the 4,004 square
foot terminal, supply the airport with a new emergency truck capable of spraying
1500 gallons of foam, and install a walk-through metal detector and X -Ray machine
to screen passengers and baggage. There's your FAA for you. They're in our
corner all the while. There seems to be a question of jets, okay? I think everybody
on the Town Board has asked questions about jets. I'm sure if it was mentioned
today at the meeting, but our study here has, I think, one line on jets on the
restriction on jets. I would like to know from the FAA --on account of I quoted him
on it --would the Federal Aviation Authority restrict jet aircraft from landing at this
airport if they were qualified to land there? If they met the criteria --the landing
length, weather conditions, runway surface, height above sea level, if they met those
criteria, would the FAA institute a blockage of that jet aircraft, just on the face of
Pasge 26 - Airport presentation
it's a jet. Can Kenny Kroll answer that from the FAA?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Ken, would you want to answer?
MR. KROLL: Before I answer that, I didn't answer the other gentleman. I owe
you an answer on that one. I don't want to pass over it. It was about height
next to the airport --and show property lines that you might purchase --and this
property line and what happens to people that are just on the other side of these
lines. It doesn't matter whether it's in the clear zone or not, frankly, near an
airport things very high cannot be built. That's the nature of airports and it's
especially try in the approach and departure paths around an airport. And that
doesn't only apply to the clear zone, it applies to areas down the road from the
airport, depending on how far away from the airport ---(outboard from the audience)
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Do you own the land? Does the FAA own the land, or
does the private --the farmer own the land? In this case would Mr. Simon own that
land or would you own the land?
MR. KROLL: We don't own the land --
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: He wouldn't own the land, Frank.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I know, 1 know, 1 realize. Whoever the owner of the
airport is.
MR. KROLL: Whoever the owner --I'm sorry --
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Whoever the owner of the airport. If it's Southold Town.
Whatever. Would we own that land in the clear zone? Do we own the land or does
Mr. Simon own the land?
MR. KROLL: Well, that's up to you. If you buy the land --if you want to buy the
land --(outburst from the audience) --what I'm saying is whether or not you own the
land --the Town owns the land --if somebody wanted to build something very high next
to an airport then the study would show that that would be hazardous to the airport.
Frankly speaking that's what happens.
MR. BERGMANN: We were talking before --as of now --and as of the Town, I could
put a windmill if I got the variances and the permits, I could put a 100 foot windmill
on my property. Now. No airport. The airport comes I could not put the windmill
up. That is restricting me. That is condemning my property. That is condemning
private property.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We understand that.
MR. KROLL: I can't say about 100 feet, or where it is, but without getting into
details, what happens if somebody wants to build something near an airport is that
they have to say to the FAA, we'd like to build this thing near this airport. The
FAA would look at it and say, because you're close to an airport this may or may
not be a hazard to flight. The FAA would not be able to stop anybody from building
anything on private land. We don't have that authority and we never did that I know
of and are not likely to have it.
MR. BERGMANN : What about the clear zone itself? The clear zone itself. The FAA
does have strict regulations on height in the clear zone.
Page 27 - Airport presentation
MR. KROLL: The clear zone's very important because it's close to the airport.
MR. BERGMANN: You said close to the airport. You got areas that is close to the
airport and then you've got area that ----
MR. KROLL: So close that we think that it's important that things don't be built
on.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: But you don't buy it?
MR. KROLL: No. We might recommend that you acquire it so that because it's so
close you can control it.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We understand. Now, would you like to answer John's
question.
MR. SKABRY: Well, I asked you if the FAA --if 1 owned a jet aircraft, or anyone
owned a jet aircraft --would the FAA support --just on the basis on it being a jet --
preclude it from operating from this airport if it met the criteria of the airport?
MR. KROLL: What it means is can we tell you what to do with your airport? The
town has the prerogative --or any municipality that owns an airport has the prerogative
to control the use of the airport if there are environmental impacts, and as long as it's
done fairly and reasonably, municipalities have the authority, because they own the
airport, to --for example, say that we don't want to have planes that make so much
noise at this airport ---
MR. SKABRY: No, I just asked aboutthe jets.
MR. KROLL: Well, the jets make a lot of noise. So if you said we don't want any
planes that make so many decibles of noise to come in here at night because we can
show that it's going to wake everybody up or anything, that would be a prerogative
you had, as long as it was done fairly and across the board. You know. If a jet
didn't make any noise, well then nobody would care. (outburst from the audience)
No, really, you can't say planes can't come in if they're red because that's not
reasonable, but if they're noisy and they're going to wake everybody up and cause
an environmental problem, that's a reasonable basis. Just as safety is a reasonable
basis for limiting the operation at an airport. On a 3000 or so foot runway most jets
can't safely operate, so that's a basis alone.
MR. SKABRY: What length runway?
MR. KROLL: Well, we're talking 3000 to 3600. Most jets can't safely operate on
that length, so on that basis alone precludes the use by jets, but environmental
reasons are also. And as you know in Islip environmental reasons are now the basis
for this operating plan that Islip has to accommodate their carriers.
MR. SKABRY: If I owned a jet aircraft and I wanted to land it at the airport that's
designed --this is the question I asked you and I didn't get an answer yet --the airport
designed in this book --if I owned a jet aircraft and it could land in that airport, would
the FAA restrict me from landing that aircraft or taking it off there? As this
Consolidated Report is written now? Would the FAA allow the town to restrict me
from landing or taking off there? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
MR. KROLL: If it was done on a reasonable and fair basis then restrictions are
the prerogative of the town.
Page 28 - Airport presentation
MR. SKABRY: The way that this report is written I couldn't land a jet or take it
off? I couldn't land or take off on a 3600 foot runway if it met the criteria? The
point I'm getting at is, this is a Citation II, or Citation I. It's built by Cessna.
It's, according to Aviation Magazine, it's one of their most popular jets. Maximum
take off weight of 11,850 pounds. Take off distance 2,650 foot. The improved model
can do it in 2,463 feet. And that's sea level. And a --would you like to read these?
Maybe you can understand more of it.
MR. KROLL: I think I understand your point.
MR. SKABRY: You're not answering me yes or no. Could I take off and land with
a Citation I at the airport that's designed here. Could I physically do it? I want to
know if jets can operate from this airport. That's all I'm asking. ---This is a photo-
graphy --I'm sorry, I'm doing this 'for the Town Board's sake and not for my own and
not to make an annoyance out of myself, but it's something 1 want to know and I've
not been able to get a clear answer from anyone even though the room is packed with
pilots, proponents of aviation. This is the airplane I'm talking about, operating from
a dirt runway --not paved --that's the aircraft that I'm talking about. I don't have
the specifications here. They're missing. But I do have the FAR 25 regulations
and if you'd like to see them I have them in my folder. Will or will not this aircraft
operate from this runway the way it's designed. Never mind, I won't get an answer.
Will the Town Board get an answer?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Will you wait two minutes, John? Would you please wait
two minutes and try --all right. Ed Reeves, would you like to answer that? Ed is
a member of the Airport Advisory Committee.
EDWIN REEVES: There are two prerequisites --
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Would you please give the man the courtesy of an answer.
MR. REEVES:
There are
two prerequisites that you have to fly with on these jets.
Number one is accelerate
and stop distance on
the airplane. I don't know of a jet--
don't know
what the accelerate -stop distance
is on this airplane, but I'll tell you,
it's not going
to go in to
a 3600 foot strip. And
number two, the second reason is
insurance. There isn't an insurance company
in the United States that will' write a
policy that a
jet can land
and take off in that
distance.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: All right, John, would you want to finish up? Would you
please try to --are you finished?
MR. SKABRY: I haven't got an answer. The aircraft --the way this book reads,
the aircraft is designed --
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I thought Mr. Reeves just answered.
MR. SKABRY: No, what he said was the insurance companies wouldn't insure the
aircraft. But you know Marquies and turbo -props have landed on the 2200 foot
strip in Mattituck. People who live in Mattituck will tell you that.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, let's take one more comment from the man in the
back.
BOB GOULD: I'm a Cutchogue resident and I'm directly employed in corporate
aviation. The Citation can land at the proposed airport. It is true that most
insurance companies would forbid pilot operation of that aircraft in there, however,
Page 29 - Airport presentation
automobile drivers do crazy things too. I could never guarantee that a pilot
wouldn't try it. The Citation as a jet though is quieter than some of the aircraft -
piston aircraft --going into Mattituck today and that is a fact in any brochure that
you pick up technically. So, true the Citation could get in there. Other types of
corporate aircraft --corporate jets specifically would not be able to utilize the current
planned facility. There are piston aircrafts today that are using Mattituck that are
noisier than several of the jets used in corporate aviation today.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, we've been going at this now over two hours. I
would like to ask any members of the Technical Advisory Committee if they would
like to make any comments or the consultant further. Dave? Anyone? Please try
to limit.
DAVID SPOHN: I'll be very brief. To Mr. Skabry---
MR. SKABRY: Wait a minute. This is to address the Board
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: John. John, would you please. I'll take care of that.
Dave, would you please address the Board. I've asked any members of the Technical
Advisory Committee do you have any further comments to the Board concerning this
study.
MR. SPOHN: That's a very good point.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: That's what we're asking. Please do not ask John Skabry
something.
MR. SPOHN: Nope, I wasn't going to ask him anything.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Well, please don't bring his name up then.
MR. SPOHN: I'll address you with it.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
MR. SPOHN: Okay. The survey, which has been mentioned a number of times
this evening, I think it should be fully understood to the Board that the survey
was for aviation users and that was the scope of it. As you get further down this
study you get the environmental and economic impact. That's when you get into
the popularity contest of the rest of the town. But initially what you want to know,
with the original survey, is there enough users in the town to warrant doing the
study, and getting the basic facts. The Spellman Report is a 1960 report. There
are many other reports since then. You do have copies of them and if you don't
I'll make sure you get them.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We have them.
MR. SPOHN: 1967, 1978, 1979. The one in process and all the relating facts with
reference to the town --resolutions 1964, even back as far as 1960. I'll make sure
you have copies of those.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We have them we told you.
MR. SPOHN: Oh, okay. All right. Now, in some of the facts that go back to the
Spellman Report in the forecast --when they're talking about numbers of aircraft --
related in that Spellman Report to proposed facilities, they had 4000 foot runways.
Page 30 - Airport presentation
And, of course, none of the figures would relate at this point because that never
occurred, so therefore the figures, of course, would not match. And specifically
for instance Orient was proposed to have a 4200 foot runway, and of course the
figures that were for the future were based on a 4200 foot runway. Orient has
a 1200 foot runway. That's all it's ever had. Never changed. So therefore, the
figures of course would not match. In relation to a cross -wind runway, it is not
currently being proposed as far as I'm aware of it and in relation to the requirement
for one it does say in one page that if you cannot get 95% wind coverage, a cross-
wind runway is indicated. However, two pages later if you go into the report, it
says that if it is not possible to indeed build a cross -wind runway then you make
the runway wider to accommodate the corss-wind conditions. So instead of having
a 60 foot runway, you make it 75 feet, which will accommodate the cross -wind
conditions. And on a reference to the airport sketch. It is just that, and of course
the next phases in which you do a site selection --in other words, Site 5, Site 2, or
whatever, have not been selected yet. So until you actually select one you really
can't pinpoint the specific design of the runway and the approach zones and clear
zones and so forth, which you are effectively looking at in the sketch and I think
it should be kept in mind that it is a sketch. And now lastly I'll stop with the
town control of airports. The Town has had an airport since 1959. It's been on
Fishers Island. It was given to the Town by the federal government. I think you
can go back to the Town records and I don't think you'll find any problem with
Town control. Currently there has been Airport Improvement Program funds used
to resurface the runways, and again, I don't you'll find any indication of loss of
Town control in that airport. Mattituck Airport was leased as a Town airport between
1964 and 1979 and the same condition exists on that. I don't think you'll find any
problem with Town control over what happened at the airport. I would just like to
close by telling the Town Board that I do have a lot of documents. I'm more than
happy to share them. I would welcome opportunities to discuss some of these facts
with you or anyone that wishes to take the time. And I thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Dave. Is there any other members of the
Airport Advisory Committee would like to address the Town Board? (No response.)
Okay, I would like ---
MR. SKABRY : I have one more question, Frank. I've been waiting four years for
this.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: John, come on ---
MR. SKABRY: I have one more and I'd like it just to be brief. It's regarding the
cross -wind runways. AC 156 5300 413, page 7. Number a, with a small a, in
quotation marks --this is the book that the FAA uses as a criteria for the design
and building of general aviation airports. Quotation: cross -winds are often a
contributing factor in small plane accidents. In some cases construction of two
runways maybe necessary to give the desired wind coverage. Where a single
runway cannot be oriented to provide 95% coverage, one or more additional runways
will be required to raise the coverage to that value. The best coverage that we
can get at this airport, according to this report, is 86 -something percent. Okay?
Now, that's the best. But we can't get that alignment at the pieces of property
that we're talking about in this report, so they had to align it to this second best
alignment, which is what? Northwest -southeast? That's the second best. Now,
Dave says that they're not talking about a second runway except in this study on
page 5-7 it says that sufficient runways are planned for two runways. On page
5-8 it says that the second runway will be 700 foot longer --I'm sorry --the primary
runway will be 700 foot longer than the cross -wind runway. On page 5-8 it says
the second most feasible is northwest -southeast, which is the one that they chose.
Page 31 - Airport presentation
It also says that it is recommended --on page 5 -9 --it is recommended a cross -wind
runway be constructed of 2900 foot. It says on page 5-9 that parallel taxi -way
be installed on the cross -wind runway. It says on page 5-11 in this report --to meet
FAA criteria two intersecting runways are needed. It says --okay, on page 3-11 and
12 is a table of all of the airports within a 40 mile radius of our town for this
proposed airport. Of all the airports on there, there are seven publicly owned
airports. All of them have multiple runways. The FAA said something and they
meant it when they built those airports. That the cross winds are too great on
Long Island to have one runway, and so all of those, small or big, all seven on
that list --on the public ones --I'm not talking about the private ones --even some of
the private ones have two runways. But because of land constraints in this town,
this study is telling the town it's okay to build one runway. We'll be the only
airport, municipal or public airport on Long Island, with one runway.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. In the back. Sir.
CHARLES PETERSON: I live in Cutchogue and 1 don't have any files or stuff to
read to you, but I can tell you that I'm not very interested in having an airport
in my neighborhood. There seems to be an idea to bring an airport near this --
near the garbage dump. Something about keeping it out of the town and away
from the out back here. Well I happen to live out in the back here. And we're
talking about bring tourists in at this big airport. What kind of tourists are
going to want to come and land over that garbage pit of a dump we have?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Sanitary landfill.
MR. PETERSON: And It's possible there's likely to be
a Seagull
problem.
(outburst
from the
audience)... And I think that the government should be
a little more
responsive
to what the
people want. I think that if something like
this was
held when
Shoreham
was half
built maybe we could have been saved all this
stuff of doing it at the end
after it's
built, then going, oh, no, we don't want it.
And one
more point.
Mr.
Edwards,
before we had airplanes, how did the Justices
get back
to Fishers
Island?
By boat.
Thank you.
JUSTICE EDWARDS: What does that prove?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: All right. At this time we've been going here for about
two and a half hours. I don't think we're going to hear anything further. I would
like to thank the members of the Technical Advisory Committee for coming out tonight.
Listening and giving their advice to the Town Board. The Town Board will make a
decision. I think we have plenty of information. (from the audience: When?)
possibly at our next meeting I hope. That will be March 11th.
This public informational meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M.
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 11, 1986:
WHEREAS, the Consolidated Report, Phases I and II, Airport Site Selection/Master
Plan Study has been completed, reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration,
New York State Department of Transportation, Southold Town's Technical Advisory
Committee, the Southold Town Board, and the general public since June 1985, and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. a public information meeting was
held at the Southold Town Hall with respect to the Consolidated Report, at which
time all persons were given an opportunity to be heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold
hereby declares an end to the Airport Site Selection/Master Plan Study effective as
of this date, March 11, 1986.
Ajud*itT:-.-
Terry
Southold Town Clerk