Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli
| Decision Date | 28 October 1997 |
| Citation | 688 N.E.2d 501,665 N.Y.S.2d 627,90 N.Y.2d 1000 |
| Parties | , 688 N.E.2d 501, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 8872 In the Matter of TWIN COUNTY RECYCLING CORP., Respondent, v. Louis YEVOLI et al., Comprising the Town Board of Town of Oyster Bay, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner owns premises in an area zoned for industrial use by the Town of Oyster Bay from which petitioner has operated an asphalt recycling plant under a special use permit granted by the Town Board in 1982. The 10-year permit was issued after a negative environmental impact finding, and it provided for a five-year renewal after expiration. In support of its application for renewal, petitioner introduced the special use permit from 1982, along with testimony by experts in the fields of manufacture and recycling of asphalt, traffic and land use values, and a Supreme Court judgment dismissing a public nuisance claim against petitioner. Petitioner also submitted proof from the Environmental Protection Agency that the plant complies with all applicable governmental regulations.
Opposition to the application came mainly from residents of the bordering neighborhoods who objected to the operation of the plant. Despite complaints by these residents, there has been no finding by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation--the agency charged with oversight and enforcement responsibilities--that petitioner's facility is in violation of any governmental regulation.
On this record, we agree with the lower courts that respondents' denial of the special use permit is not supported by substantial evidence. 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 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 N.E.2d 606) as opposed to a variance which would allow an otherwise prohibited use. While the Town Board still retains some discretion to evaluate each application for a special use permit, to determine whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst, Ny
...pertinent to the legislative conditions and not merely upon generalized community objections. Turin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 688 N.E.2d 501 (1997); PDH Properties, LLC v. Planning Board of the Town of Milton, 298 A.D.2d 684, 748 N.Y.S.2d 193 ......
-
T–Mobile Ne. LLC v. Town of Islip
...Omnipoint Commc'ns v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F.Supp.2d 539, 558 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (citing Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 628, 688 N.E.2d 501 (1997)). Moreover, the Court notes that T–Mobile relies fairly heavily on the Staff Report's conclusion th......
-
Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 02 CIV. 6291(WCC).
...the legal standard that would be applied in an Article 78 proceeding. See, e.g., Twin Cty. Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002, 688 N.E.2d 501, 502, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 628 (1997); see also FED. R. Civ. P. Under either approach, the relevant facts, standard of review and result ar......
-
Omnipoint Comm. v. Common Coun., Peekskill
...area." Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 224 A.D.2d 628, 628, 639 N.Y.S.2d 392, 393 (2d Dep't 1996), aff'd, 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 688 N.E.2d 501 (1997). For this reason, "the issuance of a special permit is a duty which must be exercised whenever there is compliance with th......