90 N.Y.2d 1000 (1997)
A zoning board’s denial of a special use permit must be supported by substantial evidence and cannot be based solely on generalized community objections.
Summary
Twin County Recycling Corp. sought renewal of a special use permit to operate an asphalt recycling plant. The Town Board of Oyster Bay denied the renewal based on community opposition. Twin County challenged the denial, arguing it was not supported by substantial evidence. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Town Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as the denial was based on generalized community pressure rather than specific failures to meet applicable criteria. The Court emphasized that while a Town Board retains discretion in evaluating special use permit applications, its determination must be grounded in evidence, not merely community objections.
Facts
Twin County Recycling Corp. owned premises in an area zoned for industrial use in the Town of Oyster Bay.
Twin County operated an asphalt recycling plant under a special use permit granted by the Town Board in 1982.
The initial permit was for 10 years with a provision for a five-year renewal.
In applying for renewal, Twin County presented the original permit, expert testimony regarding the plant’s operations and impact, and proof of compliance with EPA regulations.
Opposition to the renewal came primarily from residents of nearby neighborhoods.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had not found the facility in violation of any regulations.
Procedural History
Twin County sought judicial review of the Town Board’s denial of the special use permit renewal.
The lower courts ruled in favor of Twin County, annulling the Town Board’s determination.
The Town Board appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Town Board’s denial of the special use permit renewal was supported by substantial evidence, or whether it was improperly based on generalized community objections.
Holding
No, because the Town Board’s decision was based on generalized community pressure rather than a failure by Twin County to meet the applicable criteria for renewal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decision to annul the denial of the special use permit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that classifying a use as permitted in a zoning district implies a legislative finding that the use aligns with the zoning plan and won’t adversely affect the neighborhood, citing Matter of North Shore Steak House v Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243.
While a Town Board has discretion to evaluate special use permit applications, its decisions must be supported by substantial evidence, referencing Matter of Market Sq. Props. v Town of Guilderland Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 66 N.Y.2d 893, 895, and Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029.
The Court noted that while expert testimony is not always required, a board cannot base its decision solely on generalized community objections, again citing Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner.
The Court found that Twin County had established a sufficient record to warrant renewal, including compliance with environmental regulations and expert testimony. The denial, therefore, appeared to be driven by community pressure rather than objective criteria.
The Court explicitly stated, “Given the present record established by petitioner, it is evident that the application was denied not because it failed to meet the applicable criteria but because of generalized community pressure. The determination was, therefore, properly annulled.”