Matter of Hub Recycling Corp. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 86 N.Y.2d 1000 (1995)

A town board’s denial of a special use permit must be supported by substantial evidence and cannot be based solely on generalized community objections when the applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable regulations.

Summary

Hub Recycling Corp. sought renewal of a special use permit to operate an asphalt recycling plant in an industrially zoned area. The Town Board denied the renewal based on community opposition, despite Hub’s evidence of compliance with regulations and expert testimony supporting the renewal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ annulment of the Town Board’s decision, holding that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence and was improperly based on generalized community objections rather than specific failures to meet permit criteria. The court emphasized that permitted uses in zoning districts are presumed to be in harmony with the general zoning plan.

Facts

Hub Recycling Corp. operated an asphalt recycling plant in an area zoned for industrial use in the Town of Oyster Bay under a special use permit granted in 1982. The initial permit, issued after a negative environmental impact finding, allowed for a five-year renewal. In applying for renewal, Hub presented the original permit, expert testimony on asphalt recycling, traffic, and land use values, a judgment dismissing a public nuisance claim, and EPA proof of regulatory compliance. Opposition to the renewal came primarily from local residents complaining about the plant’s operation. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had not found the facility in violation of any regulations.

Procedural History

Hub Recycling Corp. applied for renewal of its special use permit, which was denied by the Town Board. Hub challenged the denial in court. The lower courts annulled the Town Board’s determination. The Town of Oyster Bay appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the Town Board’s denial of Hub Recycling Corp.’s application for renewal of its special use permit 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 and not on substantial evidence that Hub Recycling Corp. failed to meet the applicable criteria for permit renewal.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the Town Board’s denial of the special use permit was not supported by substantial evidence. The court emphasized that the classification of a particular use as permitted in a zoning district is “tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood” (Matter of North Shore Steak House v Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238, 243). While the Town Board retains discretion to evaluate special use permit applications, its determination must be supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the denial was based on generalized community objections, which are insufficient to justify denying a permit when the applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable regulations. The court cited Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 NY2d 1028, 1029, noting that a board may not base its decision on generalized community objections. Because Hub Recycling Corp. had presented evidence of compliance and the denial was driven by community pressure, the Court affirmed the annulment of the Town Board’s decision. The absence of any findings of violations by the DEC further weakened the Town’s position.