Seven Springs’ next move unclear
New state village laws jeopardize proposal
MONROE — In the months since new state rules made it more difficult to form villages in New York, the town of Monroe has been pushing petitioners for the proposed village of Seven Springs to make a move in their years-long legal battle to form a new municipality: show that support for the new village meets the increased population requirements or give it up.
To that end, Monroe town attorney Brian Nugent sent a letter to state Supreme Court Justice Sandra B. Sciortino on Jan. 24 asking that the petitioners articulate their next step in light of the new laws. Nugent noted that the new regulations require a proposed village to have at least 2,000 residents, which is perhaps the biggest issue for the Seven Springs pitch since its incorporation petition said it would have just over 600 residents.
Nugent also argued that even if the petitioners claim the proposed village’s population has increased since the petition was filed in 2018, any outstanding motions they’ve filed are moot because they need to collect more signatures.
It’s been a battle from the get-go for the petitioners seeking to create Seven Springs, which would be a primarily Hasidic community on land that includes about 2 square miles of northern Monroe and near Kiryas Joel, another Hasidic community.
Last April, an appeals panel upheld the petition’s validity after Monroe and Kiryas Joel challenged it. That ruling sent the petition back to Monroe Supervisor Tony Cardone. In September, Cardone again rejected it, saying it did not provide an adequate description of the area it sought to incorporate. Then, in December, the state’s village formation laws changed.
After Gov. Kathy Hochul enacted the new regulations, Steven Barshov, the petitioners’ attorney, said he planned to challenge the rules in state and possibly federal court, claiming they violated the right to petition the government.
“That right (to petition) has been violated by this law,” Barshov told the Times Union in December. “Whether that is a violation of the federal constitution, the state constitution, or both, is something that I am looking into right now.”
It’s unclear if he still plans to go this route.
Nugent told Sciortino he had multiple conversations with Barshov about the ongoing state Supreme Court case, and that Barshov said he would have his client’s position in mid-january.
But he did not follow through on that, according to Nugent. So Nugent asked the court to compel an answer.
In an order from Sciortino on Jan. 29, the judge granted the petitioners leave to amend their incorporation petition. She scheduled a meeting for Feb. 2, where a date would be set for them to file the modified petition with new signatures.
They actually met a day earlier, on Feb. 1, according to a letter to the court from Nugent. During that conference, everyone agreed Barshov would file an order to show cause and a proposed temporary restraining order by Feb. 5, according to Nugent’s letter. That target date for filing would give the town time to respond and prepare for oral arguments in court on Feb. 8, he wrote.
But as of Feb. 6, Barshov had not fulfilled that commitment either, Nugent wrote, and “no further communication has been received.” The court canceled the Feb. 8 appearance. “A new date will appear in the Order to Show Cause, whenever it is filed,” a court notice reads.
Court records do not show any filings from Barshov since November.
The Times Union had a similar experience when it reached out to Barshov to learn about how his clients planned to proceed in light of the new laws. After not receiving a response to an email inquiry, a reporter reached Barshov by phone on Feb. 12. The attorney said he had to get his client’s approval before articulating their next move, but said he should be able to respond either way by later that day or Feb. 13 at the latest. Calls and emails over the next two days went unanswered.