Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli
| Decision Date | 20 February 1996 |
| Parties | In the Matter of TWIN COUNTY RECYCLING CORP., Respondent, v. Louis YEVOLI, etc., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John Venditto, Town Attorney, Oyster Bay, for appellants.
Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C., Uniondale (John F. Coffey and James A. Bradley, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BALLETTA, THOMPSON and HART, 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 August 3, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for renewal of a special use permit, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered October 17, 1994, which annulled the determination and directed the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay to grant the petitioner's application for renewal of the permit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
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 N.Y.2d 813, 439 N.Y.S.2d 921, 422 N.E.2d 581). Unlike a variance, which allows the use of property in a manner otherwise prohibited by a zoning ordinance, a special use permit authorizes the use of property in a manner expressly permitted by the zoning ordinance under stated conditions (see, Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 282 N.E.2d 606; Matter of Orange & Rockland Utils. v. Town Bd., 214 A.D.2d 573, 624 N.Y.S.2d 640; Matter of J.P.M. Props. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 204 A.D.2d 722, 612 N.Y.S.2d 634). The classification of a use as one that is permitted in a particular district subject to the granting of a permit is tantamount to a legislative finding that, if the conditions of the zoning ordinance are met, the proposed use is compatible with the standards and objectives of the zoning ordinance and will not adversely affect the neighborhood and the surrounding areas (see, Matter of Lee Realty Co. v. Village of Spring Val., 61 N.Y.2d 892, 474 N.Y.S.2d 475, 462 N.E.2d 1193; Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals, supra; Matter of Orange & Rockland Utils. v. Town Bd., supra ). Moreover, an applicant who applies for a special use permit has a much lighter burden of proof than an applicant who applies for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 02 CIV. 6291(WCC).
...on an owner seeking a variance. See N. Shore Steak House, 331 N.Y.S.2d at 649, 282 N.E.2d 606; Twin Cty. 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. "[T]he issuance of a special permit is a d......
-
Omnipoint Comm. v. Common Coun., Peekskill
...the zoning ordinance and will not adversely affect the neighborhood and the surrounding 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......
-
Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro
...(see Matter of Juda Constr., Ltd. v. Spencer, 21 A.D.3d 898, 900, 800 N.Y.S.2d 741 ; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 224 A.D.2d 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.2......
-
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of Lagrange
...amount to community pressure.'" Common Council of Peekskill, 202 F.Supp.2d at 222 (quoting Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 224 A.D.2d 628, 629, 639 N.Y.S.2d 392, 393 (App.Div., 2d Dep't 1996)). Because there record reveals no evidence to support denial of the variance, let alone subs......