Sketches of Local History: Shinnecock Canal Canoe Place
(above) Sketches of Local History Shinnecock Canal Canoe Place Home page 2015
William Merritt Chase’s Shinnecock Hill paintings; Southampton Town Comprehensive Plans and Codes, Sketches by Artists, Parrish Museum Art Education Students, Historical Research, Change.org petitions; maps, charts
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
This freely accessed web-based public artwork was created by Sandrow as a community platform for continuing discourse on preservation and conservation practices along the Shinnecock Canal (1892) near her open air studio, and plein-air painter William Merritt Chase’s home/studio (1891-1902). These are studies that explore the sociological and ecological effects of human domination, the anthropocene.
Ancestral lands of First Peoples Shinnecock Nation (Note 1) sited within the Peconic Estuary Critical Environmental Area mandate setbacks from wetlands (Note 2). However, exemptions were proposed on 4 waterfront acres through a special zoning change (Note 3) to allow a townhouse development (“Hampton Boathouses”) by (then) Town of Southampton Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst.
Despite a decade-long opposition by Sandrow, with her Shinnecock Neighbors and most others (ie Peconic Land Trust, Group for the East End): “The Town Council (Brad Bender, Stan Glinka, Bridgett Fleming, Christine Scalera ) led by the Supervisor approved the zone change to a CPICEMPDD unanimously, which, in effect, enables residential land use while exempting the development from complying with environmental codes and Town Comprehensive plans. (Note 2). The scenic view of the Canal blocked by this massive residential development along the southeastern shores would be the most densely built in the Town. And threaten the very natural resources that define the Town’s character. There are also deteriorating conditions in the two Bays the Canal links, Shinnecock and Peconic, that would impact the watershed of the South Shore Estuary Reserve (SSER) Watershed.”
At the same time Fleming voted in favor of the zone change she was advocating a Draft Water Protection Plan (p 118,q.) “to maintain and improve public access to and along the Shinnecock Canal” (Note 4) that was subsequently withdrawn.
This interactive work of art is informed by previous collaborative efforts by Sandrow in Shinnecock Hills: successfully (2003) preserved public access to the bay beach where Sandrow swims as did Chase with his family memorialized in his painting (1892), At the Seaside, Shinnecock Hills; (2007) Town of Southampton acquired ten wooded acres across the road from Sandrow’s open air studio as part of the Community Preservation Fund.
Sandrow and her Shinnecock Neighbors filed a lawsuit challenging the zone change (2015) led by Attorney Jennifer Juengst. Citing the Town Board’s support for this zoning change application on four acres along the Canal in stark contrast to disapproval (2007) of a Shinnecock Nation proposal on 98 acres less than a half mile away; and failure to stop new construction on sacred lands and burial sites despite designation as a critical environmental area (1988). While at least one proponent of the zone change left a handwritten note in Sandrow’s home mailbox.
While the case proceeds in the court system, the medium for pro-active engagement is sketching, inspired by the practice of Chase. “Redraw the gateway to our Community. envision the Shinnecock Canal as we like it. As We want it to be. How we would like to see it developed.” Ideas that might be realized by a decision in favor of the Neighbors. The Town of Southampton and Developer responded to the Neighbors lawsuit with a motion to the Courts to dismiss: (September 2, 2016) the Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Sandrow and Shinnecock Neighbors, for the case to move forward (excerpt from Judge’s ruling copied below)
“As to Hope Sandrow, the court is contained to employ a different analysis but reaches the same conclusion. As it is alleged that she resides approximately one mile from the canal, she cannot avail herself of the presumption of injury-in-fact; rather, it must appear that she will suffer a direct injury which is in some way different from that of the public at large (See Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, supra). Based on her supporting affidavit, and upon review of the combined petition and complaint, it appears that, as a professional artist and art activist, she is an advocate for the environment in general and, for the preservation of the Shinnecock Canal in particular, and uses and visits the canal as part of her life’s work; that protection of the environment is a predominant theme of her work; that the Shinnecock Canal has served as the subject of her work; that much of her work since the mid-1980s has referenced art history and reflected her concerns for preserving the environment on the East End; and that through her art and otherwise, she works to educate the public about why this area is so environmentally and aesthetically important and why the proposed development will destroy its natural and historic beauty. Since it appears from those allegations that her use and enjoyment of the area is more intense than that of the general public and, therefore, that she may be directly harmed in a way different in kind and degree from others, the court finds them sufficient to withstand dismissal (see Matters of Save the Pine Bush v Common Council of City of Albany, 13 NY3d297, 890 NYS2d405(2009). Like claims of specific environmental injury, injury to a petitioner’s aesthetic and environmental well-being, activities, pastimes or desire to use and observe natural resources may also be found to state cognizable interests for purposes of standing (id.)
The court finds the claims of Shinnecock Neighbors likewise sufficient, given its stated purpose and that each of the individual petitioners is a member. Accordingly, the motion is denied.”
September 12, 2016
JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF ARTIST HOPE SANDROW IN LAWSUIT AGAINST DEVELOPERS
Soon after, without notice to the plaintiffs, Judge Rebolini was replaced by Judge Cohen.
July 4, 2017
Judge Cohen rules in favor of the Town and Developers’ plans
Court Rejects Most Arguments Raised By Canoe Place Inn PDD Opponents; Neighbors To Appeal Decision
July 11, 2017
Southampton Town Board Repeals PDD Law On Tuesday that enabled their approval of a developer’s proposal by granting exemptions to codes for Townhouses along the shores of the Shinnecock Canal.
January 31 2019
Unlawful Clearing At CPI Townhouse Site Raises Concern Among Town Officials
September 24, 2019
(above) William Merritt Chase
Shinnecock Hills from Canoe Place, Long Island 1892 Oil 27.25 inch w x 17.5 inch
(above) William Merritt Chase
Morning at Breakwater, Shinnecock 1897 Oil 40” x 50”
At this narrowing point of land between the Shinnecock and Peconic Bays, the Pond was dredged: re-shaped into the Shinnecock Canal (1892) that links two great Bays.
(northeast shore) where Canal meets Peconic Bay:
(above) 1909 - 1910 Shinnecock Canal Canoe Place Postcard Rogers Memorial Library
Canoe Place derives from the Native American word “Niamuck” that describes the portage where Shinnecock Nation walked their canoes across “Canoe Place Pond”.
Designated a historic landmark by New York State; noted by a plaque from the William G. Pomeroy Foundation (2013). Locks were added (1919) to accommodate differences of tidal elevations between the bays.
Note 1: Shinnecock Nation bound (since 1859) to reservation/territory (map pin 5) while their challenge to reclaim ancestral Algonquian lands, since 14,000 years ago, from Town Southampton land grab (colonization beginning 1640) continue in courts (till 2016).
Note 2: zoned non-residential (at the time of private sale 2006) until zone change by Town of Southampton Board 2015) with the right to build 17,000 square feet for Public Recreation, Restaurant, and Hotel use in compliance with Conservation Laws including Peconic Estuary Critical Environmental Area mandates for setbacks of 50 - 100ft from the water’s edge, wetlands.
Note 3: The zone change allows 72,000 sq ft of Townhouses (“Hampton Boathouses”); 1800 sq ft private clubhouse; and a 17-slip private access marina (previously public).
Note 4: and (p 125) Policy 10: Protect water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations, especially the maritime centers at Shinnecock Canal...