Appellate Division Denies Sunshine Home Opponents’ Injunction
Neighbors of the Sunshine Children’s Home and Rehab Center looking to stop the facility’s expansion were dealt a damaging blow last week when the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division denied their motion for a preliminary injunction.
The Jan. 16 decision by the Second Judicial Department removed the temporary restraining order that had been in place for the past month since an associate justice issued a halt to activity until the matter could be heard.
As a result of the court’s decision, Sunshine can move forward with seeking a permit from the town to perform improvement work on the driveway at its 33-acre property on Spring Valley Road in western New Castle. Once driveway work is complete, tree removal may commence.
Glendale Road resident Cynthia Manocherian said while the court’s decision wasn’t completely unexpected it was a disappointment. If Sunshine completes its driveway work, it can then clear roughly 300 trees from the site as part of its pre-construction activity, Manocherian said.
All tree removal must be complete by Mar. 31 under town law.
“They’re really going to push now to get that work in and take those trees down and once that happens the game changes a lot because the environment has been irreparably damaged,” Manocherian said.
Last Friday, Manocherian’s attorney filed for an expedited appeal in the state Court of Appeals in Albany. Typically, a decision on an appeal can take a year to 18 months, she said.
Even if Manocherian and her neighbors have the decision reversed, without an expedited appeal and an injunction in place, Sunshine can legally build most or even all of the project, she said.
“By the time it gets heard, they’ll be well on their way,” Manocherian said.
Representatives from Sunshine declined to comment regarding the latest court activity. A message left for the attorney handling the matter for the town, Eric Gordon, was not returned.
One of two Article 78 proceedings were filed in state Supreme Court by Manocherian and her husband and the other by a group of neighbors, after the New Castle Zoning Board of Appeals issued a negative declaration in 2017 because it determined the project would not cause significant adverse environmental impacts under the state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
The two pieces of litigation, which were later combined, argued that the expansion from 54 to 122 beds and from about 19,000 square feet to 143,000 square feet merited more study and an Environmental Impact Statement was needed. Opponents have argued if the project is built it would threaten the area’s well water supply and jeopardize wetlands and steep slopes.
Despite the setback, Manocherian said that a third Article 78 has been submitted against the ZBA and the town’s Environmental Review Board related to Sunshine’s unauthorized activity removing a shed over one of three wells on its property and the clearing of trees in November 2017.
Although it did not have permits to perform that work, Sunshine retroactively obtained permission.
Manocherian said she and her neighbors will continue to press on in their legal fight until every option has been exhausted. While Sunshine representatives and supporters of the project have accused the opponents of caring only about their own property, Manocherian said it’s also their belief that in the event of loss of power during storms, which happens frequently in that section of town, or a fire, that the children receiving care at Sunshine would be in danger.
“We’re not giving up the fight,” she said. “These kids deserve better.”
Martin has more than 30 years experience covering local news in Westchester and Putnam counties, including a frequent focus on zoning and planning issues. He has been editor-in-chief of The Examiner since its inception in 2007. Read more from Martin’s editor-author bio here. Read Martin’s archived work here: https://www.theexaminernews.com/author/martin-wilbur2007/