41 N.Y.2d 1028 (1977)
A zoning board’s denial of a special use permit for a use specifically contemplated and permitted by the zoning ordinance is impermissible if the denial is based solely on generalized community opposition rather than on specific, supportable findings that the proposed development fails to meet the ordinance’s criteria.
Summary
Pleasant Valley Home Construction sought a special use permit to develop a mobile home complex in an area zoned for such use. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the permit, citing community opposition. The Court of Appeals held that the denial was impermissible. Because the zoning ordinance contemplated and permitted mobile home developments, the board could not deny the permit solely based on the undesirability of more mobile homes in the area. While the board retains discretion to evaluate permit applications against specific criteria, it cannot bow to generalized community pressure against a permitted use. The court affirmed that the board could impose reasonable conditions on the permit to mitigate any adverse effects of the development, but it could not deny the permit outright based on public opposition alone.
Facts
Pleasant Valley Home Construction, Ltd. applied for a special use permit to construct a mobile home complex within the Town of Pleasant Valley. The proposed site was located in an area where the town’s zoning ordinance permitted mobile home developments. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application.
Procedural History
The applicant appealed the Zoning Board’s denial. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, which had likely annulled the Zoning Board’s denial.
Issue(s)
Whether a zoning board may deny a special use permit for a use contemplated and permitted by the zoning ordinance solely on the basis of generalized community opposition to that use, rather than on specific findings related to the ordinance’s criteria.
Holding
No, because the zoning ordinance contemplates and permits mobile home development, the zoning board is estopped from denying a special permit solely because more mobile homes in the area would be undesirable. The denial of the application was impermissible as it was based primarily on community pressure rather than specific objections to the proposed development’s compliance with the zoning ordinance criteria.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the town’s zoning ordinance already designated mobile home developments as a permissible use within the specified zone, the zoning board’s discretion was limited. The board could not deny a special use permit simply because the community opposed further mobile home development in general. The court distinguished between denying a permit based on legitimate concerns about a specific project’s failure to meet the ordinance’s requirements and denying it solely because of generalized opposition to the permitted use itself. The Court cited North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals, noting that the ordinance itself reflects a legislative determination that the use is acceptable. However, the court emphasized that zoning boards retain the authority to impose “authentically reasonable conditions” on the permit to minimize any adverse effects on the surrounding community. The court explicitly stated, “On the entire record in this case, however, it is evident, despite the reasons assigned by the Board of Appeals, that petitioner’s application was denied not because of any objection peculiar to the proposed development, but because of community pressure directed against allowing any additional mobile home development in the area zoned for mobile homes.” This made the denial impermissible and subject to annulment.