Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order on Sunshine Home
An appellate court judge last week granted neighbors of the Sunshine Children’s Home and Rehab Center a Temporary Restraining Order that will for now prevent site work related to the facility’s approved expansion project from moving forward.
The Dec. 14 decision issued by Associate Justice Valerie Brathwaite Nelson of the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, Second Department, in Brooklyn, prohibits Sunshine Children’s Home on Spring Valley Road from beginning construction or undertaking pre-construction activity at the 33-acre Spring Valley Road site.
Attorneys for the defendants, which include the Sunshine Home, the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals and the state Department of Health, have until Jan. 4 to submit papers to the court in response. Petitioners Cynthia and Jeffrey Manocherian are hoping the court grants an injunction and eventually rules that Sunshine must complete a full review under the state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
“It’s very encouraging in the sense that if the court had looked at our papers and said you guys are out of your minds, all the approvals were good and the court below wrote a 40-page opinion, we don’t think this belongs in court, the court would not have issued this restraining order,” said attorney Adam Stolorow, who represents the Manocherians. “It’s not easy to get a restraining order, so we’re taking it as positive momentum for the case.”
They are also asking the court to require Sunshine to obtain a use variance because they contend that the zoning does not allow for a nursing home.
Sunshine received approvals earlier this year to more than double the number of beds at the facility from 54 to 118 and increase the building’s size from about 19,000 square feet to over 143,000 square feet.
Stolorow said that for a project the size of the Sunshine expansion it’s very unusual for a municipality to make a negative declaration as the ZBA did, particularly in an environmentally sensitive area. Under SEQRA, the negative declaration finds that the project would cause no significant adverse environmental impacts.
“So we’re asking the town to go back and include the full review they missed the first time around,” Stolorow said.
Representatives for Sunshine provided a statement last Thursday saying that while the court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, it did so knowing that it would have no impact on Sunshine’s construction schedule.
“The Preliminary Injunction sought by the Appellants-Objectors will be determined prior to January 19, which is the first day construction is permitted to commence pursuant to the Town Approvals. Sunshine is confident that it will be permitted to proceed, on schedule,” the statement read.
Eric Gordon, the attorney for the ZBA and Building Inspector Bill Maskiell, said that the court is generally careful when handling these types of requests, particularly if a delay does not immediately impact the property owner.
“I don’t believe that it was really that surprising, although certainly the town believes that it’s approvals and the decision of Judge (Paul) Marx in the court below was proper and supports the (town’s) decisions,” Gordon said.
Gordon added that the Temporary Restraining Order does not prevent the town from issuing permits.
Neighbors have reported that in recent weeks orange construction fencing has been installed along the perimeter of the property.
Cynthia Manocherian said the court granting a Temporary Restraining Order is nice news for the holidays but she and her neighbors have been frustrated by the town’s refusal to examine the volumes of data. One of the many concerns, she said, has been water and for about two months during the summer the facility was receiving supplemental shipments of water.
“The community is very concerned about water and sharing the aquifer,” Manocherian said. “Everybody’s got wells. There’s no municipal water so the town did ask Sunshine to do a well-monitoring program on six neighbors’ wells. The town has not shared which wells are part of the program.”
Stolorow said they expect to hear sometime in January whether there will be a permanent injunction granted while the appeal is heard. With Sunshine soon ready to start construction and tree removal prohibited by the town from Apr. 1 to Sept. 30, the court’s decision on the injunction is crucial.
“We’re asking the court to maintain the status quo so if at the end of the day the court determines that we’re right and more environmental review needs to be done or Sunshine needs to apply for a different kind of variance, that the environment and the children of Sunshine are protected in the meantime,” Stolorow said.
If a permanent injunction is not granted by the Appellate Division, his clients plan to appeal to the state Court of Appeals in Albany, he said.
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/
