MATTER OF TWIN COUNTY RECYCLING CORP. v. Yevoli
Cases that cite this one
43 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Preserve Pine Plains v. Town of Pine Plains Planning Bd. (New York Supreme Court, Putnam County 2024)
- Eddy v. Niefer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Hudson Resources, Inc. v. Venditto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Acker v. Village of Head of the Harbor (New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County 2025)
- VA Rt. 6 LLC v. Town of Wawayanda Planning Bd. (New York Supreme Court, Orange County 2025)
- Metro v. CROTON-ON-HUDSON (N.Y. 2005)
- Metro Enviro Transfer v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Retail Property Trust v. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Matter of Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Bd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Barnes Rd. Area Neighborhood Assn. v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Sand Lake (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Biggs v. Eden Renewables LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of M&V 99 Franklin Realty Corp. v. Weiss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Matter of 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Incorporated Vil. of Mineola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- White Castle System, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Millennium Custom Homes, Inc. v. Young (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- G & P Investing Co. v. Foley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Moy v. Board of Town Trustees (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Brady v. Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- 31 Commerce Street, LLC v. Darden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- MLB, LLC v. Schmidt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Southside Academy Charter School v. City of Syracuse (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Metro Enviro Transfer, LLC v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson (N.Y. 2005)
- Greenfield v. Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In the Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp., Respondent,
v.
Louis Yevoli et al., Comprising the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay, Appellants.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
John Venditto, Town Attorney of Town of Oyster Bay (Anthony J. Sabino of counsel), for appellants.
Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P. C., Uniondale (Andrew J. Simons and Anthony S. Guardino of counsel), for respondent.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY concur.
*1001MEMORANDUM.
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 *1002 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) 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 applicable criteria have been met and to make commonsense judgments in deciding whether a particular application should be granted, such determination must be supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Market Sq. Props. v Town of Guilderland Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 66 N.Y.2d 893, 895; Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 N.Y.2d 1028, 1029).
Although scientific or expert testimony is surely not in every case required to support a zoning board determination, the board may not base its decision on generalized community objections (Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, supra). Given the present record established by petitioner, it is evident that the application was denied not because it failed to meet the applicable criteria but because of generalized community pressure. The determination was, therefore, properly annulled.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.