Pleasant Valley Home Const., Ltd. v. Van Wagner
| Decision Date | 28 April 1977 |
| Parties | , 363 N.E.2d 1376 In the Matter of PLEASANT VALLEY HOME CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Respondent, v. Alson VAN WAGNER et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Pleasant Valley, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Nathaniel Rubin, Poughkeepsie, for appellants.
James V. Brands, Pleasant Valley, for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner, would-be developer of a mobile home complex, who appeals by leave of the Appellate Division, seeks only a special use permit, not a variance. A showing of hardship is, therefore, unnecessary (see Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243-244, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 648-649, 282 N.E.2d 606, 608-609). Petitioner has established that under the town zoning ordinance, mobile home development is a contemplated and permitted use. This ordinance, of course, does not automatically entitle petitioner to a special permit, but it does estop the zoning board from denying the petition solely on the basis that more mobile homes in the area would be undesirable. The determination that a mobile home complex is an acceptable use for the land has already been made, legislatively, in the zoning ordinance (see id.; cf. Matter of Small v. Moss, 279 N.Y. 288, 299, 18 N.E.2d 281, 285).
It is true that the ordinance does not deprive the zoning board of discretion to evaluate each application for a special permit. The zoning board has discretion to find, with proper support, that a particular development does not meet the criteria of the special use provisions of the zoning ordinance. A different record, one showing that a particular mobile home project is not desirable under the legislated criteria, or that it is not desirable at a particular place, would require that the administrative determination be upheld (see Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v. Larkin, 11 N.Y.2d 20, 25, 226 N.Y.S.2d 374, 377, 181 N.E.2d 407, 409). 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. The denial was, therefore, impermissible, and must be annulled.
As noted in the detailed opinion by Mr. Justice W. Vincent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck
...to meet the applicable criteria but because of generalized community pressure"); Pleasant Valley Home Constr., Ltd. v. Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029, 363 N.E.2d 1376, 1377, 395 N.Y.S.2d 631, 632 (1977) (denial of special permit application arbitrary and capricious where it was based on "......
-
Town of Islip v. Caviglia
...use for the land has already been made, legislatively, in the zoning ordinance[s]" (Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. Ltd. v. Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029, 395 N.Y.S.2d 631, 363 N.E.2d 1376). However, this ordinance, requiring a special exception permit by the Board of Appeals after ......
-
Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay
...30 N.Y.2d 238, 243-244, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 N.E.2d 606; see 898 N.Y.S.2d 240Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v. Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029, 395 N.Y.S.2d 631, 363 N.E.2d 1376; Matter of Sunrise Plaza Assocs. v. Town Board of Town of Babylon, 250 A.D.2d 690, 693, 673 N.Y.S.2d 165)......
-
Roginski v. Rose
...against the allowance of additional manufacturing operations in this business zone (see Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v. Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029, 395 N.Y.S.2d 631, 363 N.E.2d 1376). Denial due solely to a general objection to a special use would be arbitrary and impermissibl......