East Hampton Town appeals judge's decision that blocked its attempt to close airport in Wainscott

East Hampton Town has appealed a state court judge's ruling that rejected its attempt to close the East Hampton Airport in Wainscott, town officials announced Tuesday. The town also is restarting the environmental review process for the airport.

The town filed a notice of appeal on Nov. 9 with the Second Judicial Department of New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division in Brooklyn after the Oct. 19 decision from State Supreme Court Justice Paul J. Baisley that temporarily blocked the town from closing the airport, according to a statement issued by the East Hampton Town Board after its Nov. 15 meeting.

Additionally, the town stated it will “immediately” restart New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process to produce an environmental-impact statement. That document would analyze possible impacts from airport use restrictions or other decisions that the town might make about the airport. 

“The town board is resolved to comply with all applicable laws and court rulings while continuing to act on behalf of the community that has expressed a desire for changes that will reduce the negative impacts of the airport on East Hampton residents,” the town's statement says.

Multiple groups have sued the town to prevent the airport's closure — including residents and Manhattan-based helicopter ride-sharing service Blade — arguing the town did not follow SEQRA guidelines and were attempting to circumvent the FAA's Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990.

Baisley’s Oct. 19 ruling said the town acted “beyond its legal abilities” by not conducting an environmental impact review before closing the airport.

East Hampton Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc told Newsday on Wednesday the town had intended to do SEQRA data collection and study while implementing the prior permission required (PPR) framework — which authorizes airport use and certain aeronautical activities based on specific guidelines — that is permitted by SEQRA law. However, the town believes an “easy remedy” would be for it to redo the SEQRA process while appealing the case.

“We still believe that SEQRA allows for us to do it that way, but rather than wait for the appeal to be heard, we will proceed with doing the SEQRA study based on data collected already, which is basically what the judge was saying we should have done,” Van Scoyoc said.

Regarding the town’s chances of winning its appeal, Van Scoyoc said, “I’m optimistic that ultimately we’ll prevail.”