Matter of Twin Cnty. Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 688 N.E.2d 501 (NY 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Twin Cnty. Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 688 N.E.2d 501 (NY 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
113 citation events (103 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: VA Rt. 6 LLC v. Town of Wawayanda Planning Bd. (nysupctorange, 2025-10-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) VA Rt. 6 LLC v. Town of Wawayanda Planning Bd.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
While the [Planning] 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 Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli , 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997] [internal quotation and citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Acker v. Village of Head of the Harbor
N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
The second guiding principle is that "[u]nder New York law, a special use permit, unlike a variance, authorizes the use of property in a manner expressly permitted by the zoning ordinance under stated conditions" (Matter of North Shore Steak House v Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vill. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238, 243 [1972]; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Barnes Rd. Area Neighborhood Assn. v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Sand Lake
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
In view of the foregoing, and taking into account that "[a] municipality 'retains some discretion to [*3]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'" ( Matter of Biggs v Eden Renewables LLC , 188 AD3d at 1546 , quoting Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli , 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]), the Board's determination was not arbitrary and capricious and should not have been annulled ( see Matter of Hart v Town of Guilderland , 196 A…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) KRR Investments, LLC v. County of Grundy
Ill. App. Ct. · 2021 · confidence medium
Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning § 21.13, at 126 (4th ed. 1999 Supp.) (quoting Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001 , 688 N.E. 2d 501, 502 (1997))). ¶ 54 “A zoning ordinance may be set aside only to the extent necessary to permit the specific use proposed by a property owner.” (Emphasis in original.) Texaco, Inc. v. Village of Schaumburg, 135 Ill.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Biggs v. Eden Renewables LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
A municipality "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" ( Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli , 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of M&V 99 Franklin Realty Corp. v. Weiss
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 98 NY2d at 196 ; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of White Castle Sys., Inc. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 93 AD3d 731, 732 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kinderhook Development, LLC v. City of Gloversville Planning Board (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Moreover, it is apparent that respondent relied upon those concerns in denying petitioner’s application, with one of respondent’s members flatly stating that “people living in a particular neighborhood know more about the physical conditions of where they live than any experts brought in by an applicant.” Inasmuch as respondent thus relied upon “generalized community objections” rather than the unchallenged empirical evidence in denying petitioner’s application, we agree with Supreme Court that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Twin County Rec…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brady v. Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Upon judicial review, the general rule is that, absent evidence of illegality, a court must sustain the determination if it has a rational basis in the record before the zoning board (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; Matter of Inlet Homes Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 769, 770 [2004]; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; see also Matter of Gebbie v Mammina, 13 NY3d 728 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moy v. Board of Town Trustees
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The record reflects that, instead of considering the petitioners’ expert’s analysis on the merits, the Board improperly succumbed to community pressure to deny the petitioners’ application (see Matter of Metro Enviro Transfer, LLC v Village of Croton-on-Hudson, 5 NY3d 236, 240 [2005]; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of Schumacher v Town of E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Millennium Custom Homes, Inc. v. Young
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
A zoning board may not base its decision on generalized community objections (see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of 450 Sunrise Highway v Town of Oyster Bay, 287 AD2d 714 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MLB, LLC v. Schmidt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Village Law § 7-730 (1) provides that in approving plats, a planning board shall require a showing that the land can be used safely for building purposes “without danger to health or peril from fire, flood, drainage or other menace to neighboring properties or the public health, safety and welfare.” While petitioner asserts that the concerns about the recurring drainage and flooding problems in the locale voiced by owners of adjacent and neighboring downgrade parcels at the public hearing constituted “ ‘generalized community objections’ ” which cannot, standing alone, justify deni…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 31 Commerce Street, LLC v. Darden
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 98 NY2d 190, 196 [2002]; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of Snake Hill Corp. v Town Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 304 AD2d 670 [2003]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck (7×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · confidence medium
Recycling, 665 N.Y.S.2d at 628, 688 N.E.2d 501 ; N. Shore Steak House, Inc. v. Bd. of Appeals of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243 , 282 N.E.2d 606, 609 , 331 N.Y.S.2d 645, 649 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Metro v. CROTON-ON-HUDSON
NY · 2005 · confidence medium
In Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli ( 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]), we recognized that a board is not without discretion in deciding whether to grant a special use permit. [2] Scientific or expert evidence is not necessary, but a board may not base its determination on "generalized community objections" ( id. ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Metro Enviro Transfer, LLC v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson
NY · 2005 · confidence medium
In Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli ( 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]), we recognized that a board is not without discretion iii deciding whether to grant a special use permit. 2 Scientific or expert evidence is not necessary, but a board may not base its determination on “generalized community objections” (id.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals
NY · 2004 · confidence medium
Courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d at 308 ; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 , 598 [1977]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Constantino v. Moline
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Trust, 98 NY2d at 196 ; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of PDH Props. v Planning Bd. of Town of Milton, 298 AD2d 684, 686-687 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boyer v. Davenport
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
In performing such functions, a zoning board is generally afforded some discretion (see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of Eddy v Niefer, 297 AD2d 410, 412 [2002]; cf. Appelbaum v Deutsch, 66 NY2d 975, 977 [1985]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Snake Hill Corp. v. Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 98 NY2d 190, 196 [2002]; Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eddy v. Niefer (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · confidence medium
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that petitioners made an overwhelming showing that the applicable statutory criteria had been satisfied and that the ZBA’s contrary determination was based on nothing more than several offhand comments made by a few of the citizens who attended the public hearings and, to an even greater extent, frequently expressed conclusions by the ZBA Chair concerning his opposition to the project and the noise and traffic that he believed it would generate, none of which constituted competent evidence supporting the ZBA’s determination (see, Matter of Twi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Retail Property Trust v. Board of Zoning Appeals
NY · 2002 · confidence medium
Failure to comply with any condition upon a special exception, however, is sufficient ground for denial of the exception. *196 While a zoning board of appeals retains discretion to deny a special exception for failure to comply with a legislative condition, such a determination must nonetheless be supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ifrah v. Utschig
NY · 2002 · confidence medium
Although scientific or other expert testimony is not required in every case to support a zoning board’s determination, the board may not base its decision on generalized community objections (see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hudson Resources, Inc. v. Venditto (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · confidence medium
“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 Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, supra, at 1002).
cited Cited as authority (rule) City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel Church & Ministries, Inc.
Ill. · 2001 · confidence medium
Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning §21.13, at 126 (4th ed. 1999 Supp.), quoting Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli , 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001 , 688 N.E.2d 501, 502 (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel Church & Ministries, Inc.
Ill. · 2001 · confidence medium
Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning § 21.13, at 126 (4th ed. 1999 Supp.), quoting Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001 , 688 N.E.2d 501, 502 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Retail Property Trust v. Board of Zoning Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · confidence medium
The generalized complaints of the residents as to, among other things, increased traffic, and the summary criticisms of the experts who testified on behalf of the Village of Garden City, were uncorroborated by any empirical data, and thus, insufficient to counter various expert opinions based upon traffic and air quality analyses (see, Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, supra, at 1003; Matter of Holbrook Assocs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arata v. Peterson
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · confidence medium
The Town Board’s determination denying the application for a special exception permit in this case, like the determination under review in the Twin County case, was improperly based solely on “generalized community objections” (Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, supra, at 1002, citing Matter of Pleasant Val.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Westchester Day School v. Vill. of Mamaroneck 1
unknown court · confidence medium
Twin County Recycling 14 Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 (1997) (mem.).
cited Cited "see" Preserve Pine Plains v. Town of Pine Plains Planning Bd.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., Putnam Cty. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
Hampton , 205 AD3d 719, 720 [2d Dept 2022] [emphasis added]; see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli , 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Bd.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
Still, the "[f]ailure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance is . . . sufficient basis upon which the zoning authority may deny the permit application" ( Matter of Marcus v Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Wesley Hills , 199 AD3d at 1008 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing , 72 NY2d 1000, 1001-1002 ). "[I]n deciding whether a particular [special use permit] application should be granted," a local planning board may "make commonsense judgments" ( Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli , 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 ) and utilize "the person…
discussed Cited "see" Matter of 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Incorporated Vil. of Mineola
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
“The significance of this distinction is that the inclusion of the permitted use in the ordinance 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” (id. [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of G & P Investing Co. v Foley, 61 AD3d 684, 684 [2009]; Matter of Chernick v McGowan, 238 AD2d 586, 587 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" White Castle System, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
A denial of a special exception permit must be supported by evidence in the record and may not be based solely upon community objection (id. at 196; see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000 [1997]; Matter of Jaharr, Inc. v Ronik, 272 AD2d 546 [2000]).
examined Cited "see" Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange (4×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See 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). “[T]he board may not base its decision on generalized community objections.” Id.
discussed Cited "see" G & P Investing Co. v. Foley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
The inclusion of a specified use in the list of uses allowed in a particular zoning district by special permit “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 Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d at 243 ; see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of Wegmans Enters. v Lansing, 72 NY2d 1000, 1001 [1988]; Matter of Gordon & Jack v Peterson, 230 AD2d 856 [1996]).
discussed Cited "see" Southside Academy Charter School v. City of Syracuse
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
Indeed, the inclusion of schools among the uses explicitly permitted within the zone 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” (North Shore Steak House, 30 NY2d at 243 ; see Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]; Matter of Nisco v Town of Perinton Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 281 AD2d 926, 926-927 [2001]; Matter of Heintz v Edwards, 198 AD2d 778, 779 [1993]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Burke v. Dickman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Once a petitioner shows compliance with the conditions imposed, the special use permit must be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for denying it that are supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Leon Petroleum v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Mineola, 309 AD2d 804, 805 [2003]; Matter of Feinberg v Board of Appeals of Town of Sanford, 306 AD2d 593, 594 [2003]; see also Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Quaker Hill Civic Ass'n v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
The petition was properly denied and the proceeding was properly dismissed (see, Matter of Sunrise Plaza Assocs. v Town Bd., 250 AD2d 690 ; see also, Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
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.
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 28, 1997.
688 N.E.2d 501
Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur.
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published

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.

[*1001] MEMORANDUM.

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.