Calverton man's helicopter remains grounded
Court rules he still can't land chopper at home
0 comments below
An appeals court has upheld a ruling preventing a Calverton man from landing a helicopter on property he owns on Deep Hole Drive.
But the ruling doesn't permanently resolve the case, and even says the town's zoning on the topic of what constitutes an airport is "ambiguous."
"I'm working with my attorney to evaluate my legal options," said Walter Gezari, adding that he has not landed a helicopter in Calverton since an injunction was issued last year, and instead lands at Mattituck Airport. He said at a recent Suffolk County Legislature meeting that he uses the helicopter to transport clients to his Greenport business, STIDD Systems, a marine manufacturing company.
Riverhead Town went to court early last year to prevent Mr. Gezari from landing his private helicopter on a 10-acre parcel he owns next to his home, also on Deep Hole Drive, and in July 2008, state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti granted the town a preliminary injunction barring the use of the property for helicopter takeoffs and landings.
That ruling was appealed, and a four-judge state Appellate Division panel edict last week not only upheld the preliminary injunction, but denied Mr. Gezari's request for a judge to decide the case in his favor -- and dismiss the town's grievances -- without a trial.
The appeals court ruling, however, did not decide the ultimate fate of the issue.
He said the appeals court wasn't asked to rule on the overall case, only on the preliminary injunction and the request for a judgment to dismiss the case.
The town had argued that, according to zoning, Mr. Gezari could not use the two parcels as an "airport" without a special permit.
Town code defines "airport" as a "landing area used regularly by aircraft for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo or for the landing and takeoff of aircraft being used for personal or training purposes."
Mr. Gezari argued that the use of the property did not fall within the definition of "airport" since they used the helicopter for personal transportation purposes and because the landings and takeoffs did not occur on a "regular" basis.
"Therefore, the defendants' use of the properties for landings and takeoffs of the helicopter bears some indicia [sign] of regularity," the ruling states.
However, the ruling also says the town's definition of "airport" is "ambiguous," and quotes a previous case in stating that "any ambiguity in the language must be resolved in favor of the defendants as property owners. But it also states that the town demonstrated that the use of the property for helicopter takeoffs and landings "posed safety hazards and noise concerns," and that Mr. Gezari "did not show any hardship associated with the loss of the land" for use in helicopter landings.
tgannon@timesreview.com
The Riverhead News-Review is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Riverhead News-Review does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Riverhead News-Review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Service and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
0 comments found
