J.P.M. Properties, Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay
| Citation | 204 A.D.2d 722,612 N.Y.S.2d 634 |
| Parties | In the Matter of J.P.M. PROPERTIES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1994 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charnin & Trabucchi, Garden City (Aldo A. Trabucchi, of counsel), for appellants.
John Venditto, Town Attorney, Oyster Bay (Anthony J. Sabino, of counsel), for respondents.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and COPERTINO, ALTMAN and FRIEDMANN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay, dated June 18, 1991, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners' application for a special use permit, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated January 24, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, and the determination is annulled to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay for the purpose of issuing the special use permit requested by the petitioners, subject to appropriate conditions.
The petitioners operate a warehouse and related business concerned with the acquisition, stocking, and selling of soil, sand, gravel, and other building materials at 292 Duffy Avenue, Hicksville. The petitioners' business is situated in an "H" Industrial Zone, across the street from an "E" Residential District. Although the petitioners' business qualifies as a permitted use in an "H" Industrial Zone, the Town of Oyster Bay Code provides that the municipality may prohibit, or require a special permit to continue, otherwise permitted industries that produce "dust, odor, gas, fumes, noise and vibration comparable in character or in [the] aggregate amount to that of any use listed as a special permit use or as a prohibited use" (Town of Oyster Bay Code § 507[a], [b]; § 508[r]. Following the filing of various complaints and the issuance of a summons and assorted violations against them, the petitioners applied for a special use permit. After a public hearing on the matter was held, the Town Board adopted a resolution denying the petitioners' application. The petitioners then brought the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, finding that the Board had "acted in a rational and reasonable manner after duly considering the facts before it and the evidence presented".
Normally, a reviewing board is required to grant a special use permit unless there are reasonable grounds for denying it (see, Matter of Carrol's Dev. Corp. v. Gibson, 53 NY2d 813, 439 N.Y.S.2d 921, 422 N.E.2d 581). The burden of proof on an applicant for a special permit is much lighter than that for a variance, for example, and requires only a showing that the use complies with the conditions imposed to minimize the impact of a legislatively-authorized use on the surrounding area (see, Matter of Carrol's Dev. Corp. v. Gibson, supra; see also Matter of North Shore Steak House, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243-244, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 N.E.2d 606).
We find that many...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro
...628, 628, 639 N.Y.S.2d 392, affd 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 688 N.E.2d 501 ; Matter of J.P.M. Props., Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 204 A.D.2d 722, 723, 612 N.Y.S.2d 634 ). "Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is ... sufficient basis upon which the zoni......
-
Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay
...628, 628-629, 639 N.Y.S.2d 392, affd. 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 688 N.E.2d 501; Matter of J.P.M. Props. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 204 A.D.2d 722, 723, 612 N.Y.S.2d 634). "Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is ... sufficient basis upon which the zoning ......
-
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola
...LLC v. Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 95 A.D.3d 1118, 1120, 944 N.Y.S.2d 277 ; Matter of J.P.M. Props. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 204 A.D.2d 722, 723–724, 612 N.Y.S.2d 634 ). Here, the Board's conclusion that the proposed convenience store would fail to comply with the applicable legislat......
-
Sunrise Plaza Associates, L.P. v. Town Bd. of Town of Babylon
...Holbrook, 188 A.D.2d 599, 591 N.Y.S.2d 493; Matter of Texaco Ref. & Mktg. v. Valente, supra; see also, Matter of J.P.M. Props. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 204 A.D.2d 722, 612 N.Y.S.2d 634). Furthermore, where, as here, "the discretion to issue special [use] permits has been reserved by the local......