Opinion
June 2, 1986
Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Although need should be considered by the Commissioner in determining the appropriateness of the establishment of a community residence facility, the party contesting its establishment must show that it would result in a concentration of the same or similar facilities so that the nature and character of the area would be altered (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [5]; Matter of Town of Hempstead v. Commissioner of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, 112 A.D.2d 1042; Town of Hempstead v. Commissioner, State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, 89 A.D.2d 850; Town of Pound Ridge v. Introne, 81 A.D.2d 890). Such challenges may be sustained only when the evidence offered in opposition is concrete and of a convincing nature (Grasmere Homeowners' Assn. v. Introne, 84 A.D.2d 778). The petitioner's allegations are conclusory and speculative. Moreover, when determining saturation, the Commissioner need only consider existing facilities (Roberts v. Selzak, 89 A.D.2d 559). On this record, there was no convincing testimony that such a detrimental alteration would occur. In sum, we find that the Commissioner's determination was based on substantial evidence. Additionally, the petitioner's other contentions are without merit as the matters raised in those contentions are not relevant to the issue of saturation and alteration of the character of the community (see, Matter of Town of Hempstead v. Commissioner of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, supra, p 1043; Town of Hempstead v. Commissioner, State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, supra, p 851). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.