close
close

Mondor Festival

News with a Local Lens

Town of Southampton sues Shinnecock Indian Nation over construction of Hampton Bays Travel Plaza
minsta

Town of Southampton sues Shinnecock Indian Nation over construction of Hampton Bays Travel Plaza

The town of Southampton filed suit Friday against trustees of the Shinnecock Indian Nation for building a 10-acre gas station and travel space in Hampton Bays, arguing it creates a public nuisance that violates zoning ordinances and state and local laws. .

Lance Gumbs, vice chairman of Shinnecock’s board, said Saturday he had not seen the complaint but vowed to fight the lawsuit.

“We’re back in this situation where the town has stood up to the Shinnecock Nation and basically declared war on us,” he said. “We will not stop construction. We will continue the work. The city has no jurisdiction over our tribal lands.

Tribal leaders said the development would create a crucial revenue source for the tribe.

“This is going to provide stability for our nation, for our organization, to operate,” Administrator Bianca Collins told Newsday in March.

The city says, however, that the Sunrise Highway transportation area, which is to include a 20-bay gas station and smokehouse, is the first phase of a proposed resort development that would radically change the character of the area, clearing large areas of woodland. adjoining private homes and crowding roadways with increased traffic, according to the suit.

Shinnecock trustees, acting on behalf of the Nation, never sought permission to clear the land or install underground tanks for the travel plaza, the suit claims. Adjacent Newtown Road was dug up and driveways and curbs installed for the development without seeking permission from the highway superintendent, city or state, according to city attorneys.

In August, according to court documents, a stop-work order issued by the city and posted on the site was removed. Administrators failed to obtain fire safety and building permits for the gas tanks and construction of the travel area, which the city says “presents a health and safety hazard of the city’s inhabitants and the environment. Additionally, according to the suit, “failure to obtain necessary approval and permits regarding building and fire codes, property access, parking, lighting, drainage, public services and noise impacts risk causing irreparable damage to the environment and the community.

Recently, the area was paved over, again without permission, the city claimed.

“The unauthorized construction (by Shinnecock trustees) of the Travel Plaza increased traffic congestion, noise, pollution and debris on local roadways, not designed to accommodate heavy equipment of increased load,” the suit states. .

Southampton says the travel area will also put a strain on the fire, police and ambulance services.

Shinnecock Nation leaders have said they do not need the city’s approval to carry out the project. They consider the land, part of an 80-acre parcel called Westwoods, to be sovereign land outside the jurisdiction of state and local laws, Brian Polite, former president of Shinnecock, told Newsday earlier this year.

In the lawsuit, however, Southampton attorneys referenced two land sales from the Westwoods property: one from the tribe’s Sachem Wyandanch to European settler John Ogden on May 12, 1659, and another in April 1662 by the chief of Weany Sunk Squaw tribe to settler Thomas Topping. . They said the tribe did not use the land from the 17th to 18th centuries.

“Because the Nation’s aboriginal title to the Westwoods parcel has been extinguished, the Nation cannot claim sovereignty over Westwoods to avoid complying with applicable state and local laws,” according to the suit.

Gumbs pointed to statements made by two Southampton City Council members who voted against the decision to sue the tribe. They noted that historical maps depict the Westwoods property as an “Indian reservation” that was never taxed.

“Whatever they come back with, we will respond to it in the way that best addresses what the nation needs to do,” Gumbs said. “We have to wait and see now. The vote was obviously taken by the city council, and a number of Shinnecock residents spoke against it.

In addition to stopping the project, the city is also seeking legal fees.

With Mark Harrington