Opinion
December 7, 1970
Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR to review determinations of the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo which granted a special permit and a zoning variance to respondent National Modular Systems, Inc. Determinations confirmed and petition dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly to all respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. At a plenary public hearing held on July 6, 1970, the Town Board of respondent Town of Ramapo (hereinafter called "Ramapo") approved applications by respondent National Modular Systems, Inc. (hereinafter called "National") for a special permit and a variance to allow construction of 120 units of low-income public housing, 90 units thereof to be for elderly persons and the remainder for the nonelderly, upon a site on Airmont Road in the Town of Ramapo. The record discloses that prior to that hearing (1) the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter called "HUD") recommended to Ramapo's Housing Authority that Ramapo needed this public housing for the benefit of low-income elderly persons residing in that town as well as other low income citizens thereof and that it (HUD) would reserve financing for the erection of 300 low rent units in Ramapo, 225 thereof for elderly persons and 75 for nonelderly persons, and (2) the Housing Authority recommended to the Town Board that it grant the special permit and variance to National. At the close of the above-mentioned hearing the Town Board rendered its determination finding, inter alia, (1) that the site in question complied with the requirements of the amended ordinance of the town and requirements of HUD; (2) that the site had been approved by the Ramapo Housing Authority and was a proper site for necessary housing; (3) that the site and the proposed housing complied with the needs and general welfare of Ramapo's citizens and more particularly its elderly and poor citizens; and (4) that the site complies with the general considerations and principles behind Ramapo's Master Zoning Plan. In our opinion, the determination of the Town Board is based on substantial evidence and is not an arbitrary, capricious, or illegal exercise by Town Board of its discretion. Thus, it should be confirmed and the petition dismissed (cf. Matter of Central Mgt. Co. v. Town Bd. of Town of Oyster Bay, 47 Misc.2d 385, affd. 24 A.D.2d 881; Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v. Larkin, 10 A.D.2d 1005, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 20, 24; 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, ch. 54, p. 43). Moreover, the Town Board's determination furthers the public policy of the State as expressed in article XVIII of the New York State Constitution and section 2 Pub. Hous. of the Public Housing Law. Munder, Acting P.J., Martuscello, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.